A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malik_ibn_Nuwayra below:

Talk:Malik ibn Nuwayra - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This really needs more summary at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timan123 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced claim removed *Khalid had a brief meeting with Malik, and the latter knew that he was going to be killed. Some historians say that Khalid was in love with Malik's wife, and he ordered his execution. Malik turned to his wife, and said: "You are the one to bring death upon me." But Khalid denied this and said: "No. You have become an apostate, and your apostasy is responsible for your death." Though Malik protested that he was a Muslim, Khalid did not listen, and the former was executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.251.244 (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article is not according the starting. According Enciclopaedia of Islam his name is Malik ibn Nuwayra (neither Nuwaira or Nuwayrah and less Nuwara).--88.7.188.52 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malik ibn Nuwayrah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biography section is poorly sourced and grammatically bankrupt. 47.230.49.22 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the page, improved its content and removed poorly written, unsourced contents. Selenne (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Yujoong, let's continue the discussion here. At your talk page, you wrote:

"Some modern muslim scholars interpret this remark as Umar’s reflection and regret over his earlier request to Abu Bakr, during the Ridda Wars, to dismiss Khalid. "Malik incident" is often seen as a key factor behind that request. I cited Glubb instead because it is an English language source suitable for academic use"

This is a clear example of synthesis and original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. The conclusion must be stated explicitly by the source itself, and Glubb does not connect the remark in question to the Malik incident. I explained this to you the first time that you reverted my edits. Please check WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH before adding further original research. Here is a quote from Wikipedia policy:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.

Secondly, the source you've chosen is titled "The Scorching Thunderbolts Against the People of Rejection, Deviation, and Heresy". You should be able to understand from the title why it is not appropriate on Wikipedia as a source to support your claims. I can see from the title alone that it is some kind of polemic work directed at a sect. Per Wikipedia policy, articles must be neutral, and not argue for any particular side. This source might be helpful for illustrating what this author's particular sect believes, but not as evidence to support contentious claims. I will make it clear in the article that there is sectarian controversy over this event, and will specify this about the sources you've added, so that the article remains neutral WP:BIASEDSOURCES.

Furthermore, you are using these sources to argue your own viewpoint. Wikipedia articles are supposed to have neutral language, not argue in favour of one sect or another. Here is one example of your advocacy style writing:

Therefore, Khalid should not be condemned, as the incident allowed for ijtihad, and criticizing him without knowledge is forbidden.

Criticizing this historical figure might be forbidden for you, but it is not forbidden on wikipedia. It says on your user page that you are an admirer of the historical figure who killed Malik ibn Nuwayra, and that's great, but Wikipedia isn't the place for you to come and defend him. You're also just clogging up the article. A third of the entire section is just a list of scholars arguing that Khalid was innocent. You have to remember that the section is about Malik's death, not whether scholars of a certain sect consider the killer innocent or not. Trulypromised (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the source about Glubb because, as you mentioned, it doesn't directly address the issue. Glubb "left out" the full context of the narration. I looked for a better source since "you" said I could. Now that I’ve found one specifically from Ibn Hajar’s work, which clearly discusses Umar’s reflection during his caliphate and you’re saying it’s "biased".
I even removed any content that came from blogs or self-published sources and replaced them with more reliable ones, yet you still called them biased. I also added scholarly views defending Khalid, since the section is about Malik’s death, and that defense is directly relevant. As you yourself said, Wikipedia should remain neutral.
Just to remind you, I was the one who added Madelung’s view to help balance the page and make it neutral. You even removed some content on the basis that it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the sources, and I didn’t complain or revert your edits. But now, when I’ve added content that is explicitly stated in the source, you complain. So who's really being biased here?
You also pointed out the line: “Therefore, Khalid should not be condemned, as the incident allowed for ijtihad, and criticizing him without knowledge is forbidden.” That’s Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, and I included it because it’s part of the scholarly defense of Khalid. You shouldn’t criticize me for including a properly sourced viewpoint. And how dare you call Ibn Hajar and Ibn Taymiyyah “polemicists” in the article? They are well-known and respected scholars. You previously mentioned that using promotional language violates MOS:PEACOCK, yet now you're inserting biased terms like this? Isn't that hypocritical? Selenne (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of polemic is a strong critical attack or opinion. The work you added to the article is titled: The Scorching Thunderbolts Against the People of Rejection, Deviation, and Heresy. Does "Scorching Thunderbolts" sound like a neutral work to you, or a critical attack? Ibn Hajar is responding to people he refers to as "deviants and heretics", it cannot be considered a neutral point of view. We have to specify that in the article. It's also not an insult to say that something is a polemic or that a writer is a polemicist, and it is necessary on wikipedia where neutrality has to be preserved. So you have no need to be offended.
Same for Ibn Taymiyya, he's arguing for the position of his sect, not a neutral academic view. It doesn't mean his info needs to be removed, but the article's neutral point of view has to be maintained. You need to stop flooding the article with religious scholars arguing for their sect. Or, be neutral and also discuss what other sects say. Trulypromised (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Ibn Taymiyya's opinion that it's forbidden to criticize Khalid for killing Malik does not have relevance to a Wikipedia article discussing Malik's death. As I said already, it might be forbidden for you, but it's not forbidden on wikipedia, and religious scholars' rulings are not binding here or relevant to Malik's death. Trulypromised (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my point. I’m sharing the opinions of scholars who defended Khalid, and these views are important for this topic. These scholars looked into the incident with Malik carefully and gave evidence to support their views. This isn’t about sect differences. It’s not fair to criticize other users just because the source we used doesn’t match your opinion.
Also, it’s not right to say that these scholars are biased. Ibn Taymiyyah wasn’t just speaking from a sectarian view. He was neutral in this incident. He wrote:
"It is said, at most, regarding the story of Mālik ibn Nuwayrah, that he was someone whose blood was inviolable, and that Khālid killed him based on an interpretation (taʾwīl). And this does not make it permissible to kill Khālid… It is known that Khālid killed Mālik ibn Nuwayrah because he saw him as an apostate… In summary: we do not know that the incident occurred in a way that would make ijtihād (independent legal judgment) impermissible, and criticizing based on such a matter is the speech of someone who speaks without knowledge—and this is among what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden."
We can see here that, Ibn Taymiyyah is being neutral in the scholarly sense. He acknowledges different perspectives, explains Khalid’s reasoning, and emphasizes caution and fairness in passing judgment. He neither glorifies Khalid blindly nor condemns him. He encourages readers to understand the complexity of the event and the limits of our knowledge. See what i edited recently on Malik's page.
As for Ibn Hajar, he gave "clear reasons" and proof for his view. So please don’t call people biased just because their sources disagree with yours. Selenne (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source you keep defending is titled "The Scorching Thunderbolts Against the People of Rejection, Deviation, and Heresy". Every time you say that this source is unbiased, I will repeat this title, so you understand that this is a polemic. You are not going to convince anyone that this is a neutral source.
And as I already said, you've flooded the article with the views of religious scholars who are religiously defending this historical figure. A defence is not a neutral point of view. Religious scholars are also not the same as academic scholars, but you seem to be equating them. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your religious views. If your intention is simply to describe the views of your religion or sect, do it in a neutral tone and refrain from adding your religious prohibitions against criticism to the article. As I already said, your religion might prohibit criticism of Khalid for killing Malik, but that is completely irrelevant to this article about Malik and his death. Trulypromised (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're overlooking my main points and the actual content of the sources focusing instead on the book's title. I've been trying to improve the article constructively, while you brought in religious and sectarian issues that aren't relevant here. Your response are biased simply because the content doesn't match your views. I've added two neutral views on the article to keep things balanced. If you still disagree, it's not fair to attack users/remove content just because you don't like it. Selenne (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't stated my opinion anywhere, in fact you've stated your opinion that you admire this figure and it's evident you're trying to defend him - but this is not the place for that. You're accusing me of bringing sectarian issues into this topic, but I am not the one who filled this article with arguments from one particular sect. I am actually trying to reduce that and reestablish a neutral point of view. A quarter of this article is still one sect's view of this controversy - I kept most of the information except your religious prohibitions and duplicate information, and I simply specified at the beginning of the paragraph that this is the view of one particular sect, and that the ibn Hajar citation is a polemic. You reverted this change. Why are you against specifying this for readers? Why are you trying to make these religious scholars seem neutral, when they openly are not? I will repeat that your ibn Hajar citation is a book attacking "deviants" and "heretics".
I have not attacked you, to the contrary you have accused me of being biased, hypocritical, and sectarian in your responses so far. You've used a lot of scare quotes and even said "how dare you". You seem to be taking my revisions quite personally, and you need to tone things down. Trulypromised (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I mentioned in my User's page info that I admire Khalid doesn’t mean I’m being unfair toward Malik. You keep saying the sources I added are biased, even though they are credible. Did you actually read what Ibn Hajar wrote? As I said, he presented "clear evidence", which continues from the first paragraph of the section.
As for my tone, I’m just being direct because you didn’t seem to understand my point. I said “how dare you” because you were being disrespectful by calling these historians "polemicists." It’s fine to question certain narrations, but it’s not right to insult people who are presenting well-supported content. I also said "hypocritical" because you’re contradicting yourself in the arguments you’ve made. To end this, Ibn Hajar wasn’t being unfair. He backed up his views with "clear" evidence against false claims. Selenne (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, polemicist is not a disrespectful term. If his book is attacking "heretics" and "deviants", it is a polemic, based on the definition of the word. Thus the source is not neutral. The article needs to specify this. It might be "clear evidence" to you, but it is contained within a polemic against "heretics and deviants". You have to understand that a scholarly source that is accepted in your religion might not be considered a neutral source on Wikipedia. This website does not belong to any particular religion, so if you're quoting numerous scholars from your religion, the article should make their viewpoint clear, and you should not revert my attempts to do that. I never deleted ibn Hajar's text - I simply stated that the work is a polemic. You seem very reluctant to disclose that for some reason. But NPOV requires that this be disclosed. I hope this is clear, this is like the 5th time I'm explaining to you that a source attacking "deviant" views is not neutral. Trulypromised (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4