Talk:Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib

POV, clean up

This page needs to be cleaned up to adhere to NPOV and a general statement needs to be added about the source or sources for biographical information on Hamza. Ibn Ishaq? Dejo 03:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dejo, I don’t understand what you are trying to say. I wrote the article and after seeing your message I read it a few times and I didn’t find any mistakes. So can you please be more specific and tell us where you see a mistake in the article and if possible can u please correct the mistake instead of posting it on talk page. Thank You Salman

It reads like a Gospel, to mix up my religious metaphors - it's very clear who the good guys are and who their enemies are, just from the language that is used. For example, the article refers to Hind and her "other harpies" after the Battle of Uhud. That's a pretty severe judgment on Hind that does not adhere to the NPOV standard of Wikipedia. If you'd like, i can work through a draft copy that won't be POV and send it to you before it's posted here so you can see the differences. The chavi 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Added {{tone}}{{POV}}{{sources}}: Islamic hagiography, no comprehensive historical approach, uncritical aggregation of quotes, lack of sober synthesis, no reliable sources per WP:SOURCES. This article is an embarrassment to WP, as are most articles on Islam, written by acolytes. --tickle me 12:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think chavi has a point in arguing that no Wikipedia article should read like scripture in the sense that Wikipedia should express neutrality with respect to religion. However, I suspect that chavi and Tickle me do not realize the difficulty of describing Companions of Muhammad bin Abdullah in an objective way. The primary sources on these people were written, almost exclusively, by Muslim authors. I have studied this field for years and I have never seen a chronicle of these times written by a non-Muslim contemporary of people like Hamza.

Another issue is that many Muslims feel Wikipedia, in general, shows a lack of respect toward Islam. Some of this comes from the fact that Wikipedia displays pictures of Muhammad bin Abdullah on his page, despite a barrage of protests from the Muslim community. The upshot is that some Muslims are trying to compensate for that situation by making other pages on Islam conform with religious teachings. Muslims do not need to lie about or even be non-objective about Islamic history, yet they are doing so because of a complex mix of religion, politics, and emotion.

One aspect in which Wikipedia is succeeding is including Shia perspectives in many of its articles on Islam. This shows a respect for the diversity of Islam. It also shows that Wikipedia has knowledge about Islam that can educate Muslims too. Ibnsina786 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, several parts are also almost incomprehensible. Try to make sense of this sentence: Hamza, the son of Shaiba ibn Hashim, was the brother of Abd Allah ibn Abd al Muttalib, Muhammad's father, but he had also been weaned by the same woman, Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb, making him his foster brother as well. Grab a piece of paper, make a small sketch, and then realize it's logically coherent, but digestible it is not. Added som clarify tags. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As for this sentence, "Al-Aaswad ibn Abdalasad al-Makhzumi, who was a quarrelsome ill-natured man, stepped forth and said, ‘I swear to God that I will drink from their cistern or destroy it or die before reaching it." The description of al-Makhzumi as "a quarrelsome ill-natured man" is unnecessary. It's too subjective for Wikipedia. --Ibnsina786 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above, Ibnsina786. Of course the tone is unencyclopaedic. My personal opinion (i.e., O.R.) is that it is nothing but enemy propaganda written by someone who resented Al-Aaswad for not being a Muslim. (Note that his brother was the husband of a woman who later married Muhammad, while his daughter or granddaughter was the first Muslim ever to suffer the hudud punishment for theft.) But the inappropriate words, here represented in quotes and referenced to their source, are Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's own words. It is a historical fact that this is how his enemies thought of him. Anyway, I have blocked off the quotation to emphasise that it is a quote and not the official Wikipedia position. Petra MacDonald 00:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Conversion?

The historical facts that had been written here, which is that Hamza still acted like elite meccans is wrong because he was the son of AbdalMuttalib ibn Hashim. There was no conversion of Hamza into Islam as he already knew Muhammad as the seal of prophets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.13.170 (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You would need a very good source to justify that "there was no conversion of Hamza into Islam." Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Saad state otherwise.Petra MacDonald 03:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-Up

I have done significant work on this article, but I think some issues still remain.

1. I have rearranged the material so that his life-story is told in more or less chronological order, deleting repetitions where necessary.
2. I have added basic material that was missing, such as his activities at Badr and the names of his wives and children.
3. I have deleted most of the unsourced material, but kept in a few unsourced or poorly sourced assertions that I think may turn out to be correct. I am not happy with "Prophet Muhammad for All" as a reliable source and would be glad if someone would replace it with material from a reputable historian.
4. I have sourced nearly everything to Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Saad. I deleted a reference to Bukhari that did not say what the editor claimed it would say.
5. I have tried to tone down the language to something more neutral. Readers should be aware, however, that Ibn Ishaq's tone is far from neutral: he often describes events in a lively, non-encyclopaedic style, and he writes about supernatural occurrences on the assumption that they are objectively true.
6. I have corrected the grammar so that the article reads more like something that a native speaker would write and tidied up some of the links.

I agree with the complaints below and I hope the article is now not quite so "embarrassing" to Wikipedia. However, contributions from other editors would be highly desirable.Petra MacDonald 03:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

How Convenient

No mention of genocide, oppression, or other atrocities in Iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.254.111 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Which of these occurred in Hamza's lifetime?Petra MacDonald 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib

Per WP:BURDEN I had requested the Reliable source for this exceptional claim that this puppet belongs to Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib. But @Edward321:'s unexplained reverts shows that We are having a case of WP:Like and WP:GAMING. SpyButeo (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that the puppet belonged to Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib. Please read the actual caption posted by whoever added the picture in the first place. I also suggest you explain why you feel WP:GAMING has anything to do with anything posted in this article. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The picture appears to have been added about two years ago by an IP. The original caption in Dutch says it is an puppet of Hazma used in Indonesia.{https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Houten_wajangpop_Amir_Hamza_alias_Menak_alias_Jayengrana_voorstellend_TMnr_6148-5-4a.jpg] That matches the English language caption. Edward321 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Edward321: If you're not sure then why are you reverting my edits. SpyButeo (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That caption is not a Reliable Source per WP:HISTRS. SpyButeo (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No caption on any picture is a reliable source, should we therefore delete all picture on Wikipedia? There no indication that the caption is wrong. Edward321 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Edward321: I have removed the puppet image due to mixup. Kinda hilarious to be frank lol because I used to see these puppets all the time. I'll just explain it here. There are two people (I am not sure if people or men is the right word btw, perhaps figures?) in Islam who are named Hamza. One of them is the person who is described in this article, a real person, who lived in the real world and whose existence, achievements etc etc are all well documented in literature both eastern and western. this person was a normal human being, he lived like a normal man and died like one. Even hagiographic accounts of this person are quite "tame". However there is another figure in muslim literature who is "based" on Hazrat Hamza R.A. This person is fictional, his accounts are like romances of the middle ages, with almost nothing to do with the Real man except maybe taking his name and his relation to the Holy Prophet SAW. Basically he is a character in stories like Allahdin, or Superman. This "Superman of muslims" has exploits which are mentioned in a very large book called the Hamzanameh. It is an Iranian book with copious amounts of imagery, very beautiful to read I can assure you. When this book was read by people outside Iran it led to various other "spin off tales". one of these is the Malay epic Hikayat Amir Hamzah, loosely based on the hamzanameh, but with Malaysian elements. This epic was sometimes performed in the official court of the Malaysian emperor, not for spreading Islam, but for entertainment, like going to the movies and watching Superman. So we can see that this puppet has nothing to do with this real world figure to be frank, we do not put Superman's picture in the article about judaism even though he is based on the exodus of Jews from Europe and how they came to the USA. I am sure that you can use google search to look up all of this information and AGF, but if you require sources I can provide you with many supporting this. I wrote this reply without using sources because it is common knowledge in eastern cultures. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but based on the way you described it, it seems the original caption to the image is correct. Removing it because you personally feel it qualifies more as entertainment than promoting Islam (In actuality it could be both, in the same way the Ramayana is performed both for entertainment and for promoting Hinduism), is really a personal feeling, and not really grounds for deletion. Also, for your analogy about Superman to be correct, this picture would have to be appearing on the main page for Islam, which it does not. If you could find reliable sources saying Superman was based on a specific person from Jewish mythology and used to spread knowledge of the Jewish flight from the Holocaust, that probably would merit inclusion on that person's page. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Date of Birth

There is both legitimate and false controversy over Hamza's date of birth.

• The earliest sources assert that Hamza was four years older than Muhammad and was 59 years old at his death in 3 AH. This would place his birth c.567 CE.
• Slightly later sources claim he could only have been two years older than Muhammad because Thuwayba nursed both of them.

Since scholarly sources argue for both 567 and 569, it is only fair to cite both. However, the argument for the younger age is very weak. There is nothing to say that Thuwayba could not have nursed another child between Hamza and Muhammad, or that she didn't give birth to another child of her own.

• WP edits, without citing sources, have argued that they must have been the same age because "their two mothers were married on the same day"; or that they couldn't have been the same age "because one woman could not have nursed both at the same time".

These arguments are original research until they are sourced to a scholar. However, anyone who understands obstetrics knows that a wedding does not necessarily lead to immediate pregnancy; and anyone who understands lactation knows that a mother of twins is able to nurse both of them.Petra MacDonald (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hamzahibnabdulmutalib.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)