Talk:Abu Bakr/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lineage and title

I added the word alone in this line, "there are many sources that emphasize sidiq is not Abubakr's title alone," and the word "Also" in the next phrase, i think this is a more accurate representation of the sources and history. The title sidiiq describes a quality that the person possess and this is why they have the title, sunni's certainly believe Ali was sidiq as well as Abu bakr and none of the sunni sources Quoted would deny Abu bakr had this Quality which is a separate issue from the historicity of how he was "Known" by it meaning they where not denying he was truthful or upright.

Ibn kathir (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the references and i think this one is dubious, "Sunan Ibn Majah of Ibn MajahSunan Ibn Majah of Ibn Majah, Vol 1, Page 44" pg 44 in the english translation is still in the introduction of the work [which starts on page 73] and that volume of the sunnan deals with Ablution and prayer not anything to do with this subject matter. I would suggest someone check the rest of the references as well.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the last sentence from the list of sources because this is an outright fabrication of there opinions as the current phrasing of the sentence goes.

• Allah swt Gave Abu bakr RA this title according to the Hadith of Ali Ibn Abi Talib RA:

أنه كان يحلف أن الله أنزل اسم أبي بكر من السماء الصديق الراوي: علي بن أبي طالب المحدث: ابن حجر العسقلاني - المصدر: فتح الباري لابن حجر - الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/11 خلاصة حكم المحدث: رجاله ثقات 

"Ali used to swear That Allah sent The Name of Abu bakr from sky as al Siddiq"

• Narrator: Ali bin abi Talib RA.
• source: Fath al Bari Fi Sharh Sahih al bukhari. [meaning the commentary on sahih al bukhari which All sunni scholars hold to be true]
• Hadith Rank: Ibn Hajar al Asqalani said: "The narrators are trustworthy". [sahih, which is the highest grade of authenticity given to a narration]

no Sunni scholar denies Abu bakrs title of Sidiq, especially if their are sahih narrations in sunni literature which they would have certainly believed in, i would say they where discussing specific narrations not the issue as a whole and this is an entirely different matter and not in the scope of that sentence.

Ibn kathir (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this issue is fringe among the various shia groups as many shia scholars call Abu Bakr al Sidiq in their works, so i don't think questioning it on this page is noteworthy and should be removed entirely, it was never an issue in his life time or any generations that came after him but something much more recent.

here are some examples of shia works with this Title clearly given to him,

• Rasa'el al Murtada by al Murtada 4/53: "but he meant by she who came on the camel which he described: Aisha bint Abu bakr al Siddiq because she came on the day of Jamal while riding a Camel with these descriptions"

• Al Sara'er for Ibn Idris al Helli #2678: "But if they also use as Hujja what they narrated that Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr al Siddiq had divorced his wife Tumadir three times"

• Kitab al Salat for al Khoe'i 1/100: "Al Ruku'u which is narrated by Abu Bakr al Siddiq and Umar and Uthman and Ali and Ibn Qulabah and Abu al Mutawakkil and Ayyub al Sajistani and he said: Al Shafi'i and Ahmad didn't see any Harm in Qunoot before Ruku'u"

here is a list of other works,

Wudhu al Nabi by Ali al Shahrastani 1/221, Al Iqna'a fi Hall Alfaz Abi Shuja'a 2/233, Hawashi al Shurwani 1/459, Subul al Islam by Muhammad bin Ismail al Kahlani 1/37, Nadad al Qawa'ed al Fiqhiyah by al Miqdad al Sayuri p261, Mustadrak al Wasael by mirza al noori 1/331, Al Idah for al fadl bin Shazan al Azdi p223, Al Gharat by Ibrahim bin Muhammad al thaqafi 1/220, 'Ayn al 'Ibrah fi Ghayn al 'UItrah by Ahmad Alu Tawoos p51...there are more but this list is long enough i think.

Ibn kathir (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

i have changed the beginning of the sentence from "Despite" to "Although most Muslims believe the title al-Siddiq" its less accusatory and much more neutral, i don't think any one would object to Ali being called al siddiq, until the rest of the sources are checked i think it should stay this way.Ibn kathir (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Some information on the sources found in this line, "Despite the fact that many Muslims believe the title al-Siddiq (meaning "the truthful," "the upright," or "the one who counts true" ) is the title of Abu Bakr,[13][14] there are many sources that emphasize sidiq is not Abubakr's title, but Ali's [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]" [original wording]

All these sources as far as i can see are referring to a single hadith in which Ali is supposed to have claimed he was "Al Siddiq al Akbar" literally the greater siddiq.

16.^ al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, Vol 3, Page 26 (Page 25 actually).... عن علي يقول أنا عبد الله وأخو رسوله وأنا الصديق الأكبر لا يقولها بعدي إلا كاذب مفتر صليت قبل الناس بسبع سنين الراوي: عباد بن عبدالله الأسدي المحدث: ابن كثير - المصدر: البداية والنهاية - الصفحة أو الرقم: 3/25 خلاصة حكم المحدث: منكر Narrated by Ubad Bin Abdullah al Asadi al kufi. Ibn katheer said: Hadith Munkar meaning denounced.

26.^ Kanz al-Ummal by Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Vol 11, Page 601 32990- إن هذا أول من آمن بي وأول من يصافحني يوم القيامة، وهذا الصديق الأكبر، وهذا فاروق هذه الأمة يفرق بين الحق والباطل وهذا يعسوب المؤمنين، والمال يعسوب الظالمين - قاله لعلي. (طب - عن سلمان وأبي ذر معا؛ هق – عد – عن حذيفة) (أورده الهيثمي في مجمع الزوائد (9/102) وقال: رواه الطبراني والبزار وفيه عمر بن سعيد المصري وهو ضعيف. ص). وجد بالحديث عمر بن سعيد وهو ضعيف Al Haythami also narrated it in Mujama'a al Zawa'ed 9/102 and he said: "Al tabarani and al Bazzar narrated it and it has Umar bin Sa'eed al Masri and he is Weak."

15.^ Sunan Ibn Majah of Ibn MajahSunan Ibn Majah of Ibn Majah, Vol 1, Page 44

عن علي قال : أنا عبد الله وأخو رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وأنا الصديق الأكبر ، لا يقولها بعدي إلا كذاب ، صليت قبل الناس بسبع سنين الراوي: - المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: ضعيف ابن ماجه - الصفحة أو الرقم: 24 خلاصة حكم المحدث: باطل Al Albani placed it in his book "Da'eef Ibn Majah" and said: Hadith batil. it is narrated through Ubad bin Abdullah al Asadi al kufi who is weak.

20.^ Fara'id al-Simtayn by Ibrahim b Muhammad b Himawayh -Al-Juwayni, Vol 1, Page 248 This is a Shia book not Sunni, 1st print was Printed by "Muassasat al Mahmoudi" in 1978, this is a Shia publishing house in Beirut Lebanon. The Muhaqqiq of the book is a Shia scholar called Sheikh Muhammad Baqir al Mahmoudi.

17.^ Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Sahihain of Hakim al-Nishaburi, Vol 3, Page 112

this is the Hadith in al Mustadrak: حدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا الحسن بن علي بن عفان العمري وحدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي دارم الحافظ ثنا إبراهيم بن عبد الله العبسي قالا ثنا عبيد الله بن موسى ثنا إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن المنهال بن عمرو عن عباد بن عبد الله الأسدي عن علي رضى الله تعالى عنه قال إني عبد الله وأخو رسوله وأنا الصديق الأكبر لا يقولها بعدي إلا كاذب صليت قبل الناس بسبع سنين قبل أن يعبده أحد من هذه الأمة it has Ibn Abdullah Al Asadi al kufi and he is weak as you know.

31.^ History of Damascus by Ibn Asakir, Vol. 42, Page 43&313

سمعت عليا قال أنا الصديق الأكبر الراوي: معاذة العدوية المحدث: ابن عساكر - المصدر: تاريخ دمشق - الصفحة أو الرقم: 42/33 خلاصة حكم المحدث: لا يتابع عليه ولا يعرف سماع سليمان من معاذة Ibn Asakir says Suleiman didn't hear [fabricated] from Mua'athah (this is also according to Imam Bukhari in his al tareekh al Kabir).

The scholars that are being quoted themselves did not trust this hadith as it is referenced above by the grading they each gave it. One issue besides the authenticity of this hadith is whether the claim that the title of al siddiq is exclusively Ali's, and that this is in fact what Ali was claiming by supposedly saying he was siddiq al akbar or the greater Siddiq. Akbar means great or greater than, as it is used in the Muslim chant Allahu Akbar or Allah is great so saying you are greater than someone does not mean no one else is great, the words of the hadith literally mean I am the best siddiq and NOT there are no other siddiq which is a statement taking you out of islam according to all who believe in the Quran since the Quran says "Whoso obeyeth Allah and the messenger, they are with those unto whom Allah hath shown favour, of the prophets and the Sidiqin and the martyrs and the righteous. The best of company are they! (4:69) clearly indicating that Muslims believe there are a category of people not just one individual [to the exclusion of others as the original sentence had asserted] known as sidiqun.

regarding the actual narration it self each one of the sources quoted itself says the authenticity of the narration is extremely weak or outright fabricated, further The Scholars of Hadith have books that are specifically made to collect very weak Hadiths and fabrications [in order to catalog them], This Hadith about Ali RA being "Al Siddiq al Akbar" is found in many of them:

العقيلي - المصدر: الضعفاء الكبير

-Al 'Aqili placed it in a Du'afaa al Kabir 2/47,131 - 3/137.

ابن عدي - المصدر: الكامل في الضعفاء

-Ibn 'Uday placed it in Al Kamil fil Du'afaa 5/379 - 4/268.

الجورقاني - المصدر: الأباطيل والمناكير

-Al Jawraqani in Al Abatil wal Manakir 1/293,294.

ابن الجوزي - المصدر: موضوعات ابن الجوزي

-Ibn al Jawzi in Mawdou'at ibn al Jawzi 2/98,99,102,103.

الذهبي - المصدر: تلخيص العلل المتناهية

-Al Dhahabi in Talkhis al Ilal al Mutanahiyah p396.

الذهبي - المصدر: ترتيب الموضوعات - الصفحة أو الرقم: 100 خلاصة حكم المحدث: [فيه] محمد بن عبيد الله واه , وعلي بن هاشم ثقة شيعي , وعباد رافضي

-Al Dhahabi in Tarteeb al Mawdou'at p100.

اللآلئ المصنوعة 1/295

-Jalal al-Din Suyuti in Al-La’alil Masnu’ah 1/295,377.

الفوائد المجموعة في الأحاديث الموضوعة للشوكاني 343- 344

-Muhammad al-Shawkani in Al-Fawaid al-Majmu’ah p344 &343.

ابن عراق الكناني - المصدر: تنزيه الشريعة

-‘Ali bin 'Arraq al-Dimishqi in Tanzih al-Shari’ah 1/353.

الألباني - المصدر: السلسلة الضعيفة - الصفحة أو الرقم: 4947

-Al Albani in AL Silsilah al Da'eefah #4947.

الألباني - المصدر: ضعيف ابن ماجه - الصفحة أو الرقم: 24

-Al Albani in Da'eef Ibn Majah #24 or 23.

the last point that should be noted is that none of the sources quoted where actually making the claim that Ali was al siddiq and not Abu bakr so this is also a misrepresentation of the sources, they simply contained the narration in the work and the indavidual quoting it here made that incorrect asertion regarding the works and the various scholars opinions. For these reasons i am removing the sentence entirely.

If this is all confusing reading the article on hadith terminology may help, basically Sunni scholars did not accept this narrationIbn kathir (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

i think this article is stub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.108.100 (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wager with Quraysh

How is this section relevant to the article? It is only one incident in the life of Abu Bakr. Shaad's space ^talk 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hadith transmitted by him

How is this section relevant to the article? We can give the number of Hadith transmitted by him, but is verbatim listing of the text of a few Hadith narrated by him, in any way helping in improving the article? If there is any famous Hadith, it should be included by all means, but the current section is just going against WP:IINFO. Shaad's space ^talk 07:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shia False Conspiracy

Shia beliefs that Abu Bakr wrongly captures the Position of Prophet of Islam instead Ali, While In the Life of Mohammed Prophet Has chosen him as his successor by himself. Before the Death of Mohammed In the Illness while prophet couldn't attempt to lead the pray to their companion once at the Dawn pray's time(Al-Namaz-ul-Fajr) So, The prophet sent to Abu Bakr to Lead the Congregational pray of his Companion(Sahaba)the Mosque of Medina. When Abu Bakr Went to Mosque, Prophet Mohammed Felt better and decided to offer pray with congregational. Abu Bakr who was about to start the Congregational pray he saw that Prophet Mohammed is coming in the mosque to offer pray he intended to left the place for Prophet Mohammed for sake of he lead the congregational pray! But, Prophet Mohammed refused and said to Abu Bakr that you continue to lead. And Prophet Mohammed offered the Dawn pray with his all Companion in the Leadership of Abu Bakr to show his companion that Abu Bakr will be his successor After him.

In the Holy Quran Allah is also decleared Abu Bakr is the righteous person after Prophet Mohammed, In the Verse OF Tauba (verse : 40)

   "" When From you (your Second) and You along-with in the Cave""

This term is never used to give resemble for any one but only for describing the relation of Abu Bakr With Prophet Mohammed.

And the Prophet Mohammed is also Said that,

   "" At the End I, Abu Bakr and Umer will be raised together Cause we are the Most righteou people""

 And Still Abu Bakr and Umer Is resting in the Shrine of Prophet Along-with Prophet Mohammed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umairjani786 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 

File:Abu-Bakr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abu-Bakr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Abu-Bakr.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

This may not be the best description of the problem, but this article has too much material directly copied from various Hadiths, eg [1] and [2]. Just as we do not use the Bible as a historical source, we should not be using hadiths in this way. Maybe we need a separate article for Abu Bakr in hadiths, but this article shouldn't be using them. Some sections seem very good, others have virtually no sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.abubakr.org/ ^^this site says that the hadiths are "supposedly 100% authentic"... suspicious anyone? so the hadiths are not 100% reliable, but good for main points and background info. Churst0514 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)churst0514Churst0514 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sunni View and Article Errors

This may not be the best description of the problem, but this article has too much material directly copied from various Hadiths, eg [1] and [2]. Just as we do not use the Bible as a historical source, we should not be using hadiths in this way. Maybe we need a separate article for Abu Bakr in hadiths, but this article shouldn't be using them. Some sections seem very good, others have virtually no sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are sections that are clearly sunni viewpoints and should be placed in a sunni subsection since Wikipedia articles are suppose to be neutral.
• You can't discriminate and have a shia subsection and not have a Sunni subjection.
• There are many quotes in this article that dont have reference. As you know you cant qoute something and represent it as a fact if its missing references.
• There are many dated material that are not sourced. In order for it to be a fact and accurate please add sources to them. Otherwise its just an opinion claiming to be a fact.
• Hadiths should be removed as soon as possible because Wikipedia Although it is a normal practice in much religious writings (from various religions), it's not standard for academic/reference writing. Therefore the hadith have to be removed. Wikipedia policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY, point 3. Primary sources have very little value to Wikipedia, because they are open to varying interpretations amongst scholars. Similarly, Qwyrxian states that, "religious primary texts (this case Hadiths) are of particularly little value, because their age and function is not to provide "facts" but rather to provide the foundation for a religion."
• I agree with Dougweller they should be removed as soon as possible.
• This article is not encyclopedic. Needs to be revised

Zabranos (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The "legacy" section of the article is probably bigger than it should be, there should be a separate page for his legacy if possible. Many of the points lacks the relevance as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Abu Bakr literally means Father of the Young Camel not Virgin

I have tried to make the change even trying to cite the paragraph that cites citation #24. Please make that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.19.27 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made the change. If you want to use same reference ate different places use

<ref name=referencename />

Ubaier 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone revise this?

"When the fever developed he directed Abu Bakr to go to the war following Usama who was 18"

Which war??? there was no war going on at that time.... Which Usama??? is that a joke???

I revised the sources and it says that the Prophet of God sent Abu Bakr to lead the prayer. I tried to edit it but I was threatened with a permanent block. — Hima78 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL, Same here. Most of this article is not properly cited and does not provide facts. I am also under threats of being block but I am not scared. Its so hypocritical that other religious articles are flagged for various issues but when it comes to this article people get upset when you go against their religious view points. And then threaten you with a request for being block. Pathetic, face me one on one rather than going to other for help for a petty complaint. -Zabranos

Indeed this article is a whole lot of rambling, a collection of non facts and reads like a believer's handbook. Shortening it would be a good start. --Connosocon (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is totally biased and it needs a neutrality header

Unfortunately, I don't know how to request one of these. Can somebody help me out? Obviously this article is not written in a neutral point of view. This page is an insult to what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.16.81 (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Please state why you think the article is biased with examples. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you read it, it is written with the Koran as a major source, which, if you can't use the Bible as a reference, how should you be able to use the Koran? It contains a lot of information about how God was involved in decisions made by Abu Bakr, and about how God told him to do various things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.16.81 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Can you list the references, by their numbers, which are using the Koran as a source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Early names of Abu Bakr – Abdullah, Abdul Kaabah, Atiq?

Could Abu Bakr have been named "servant of Allah" (abd-allah / abdullah), decades before Islam even existed?

There are a couple of web pages that say he was originally named abdul kaaba, servant of the kaaba, and that he later took the name Abdullah on his conversion. These are both very close copies of each other, even having the same spelling mistakes.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20060209074934/http://anwary-islam.com/companion/abu_bakr_siddiq.htm
• http://www.answering-christianity.com/abubaker.htm

Can anybody find more reliable (or at least unrelated) sources for this assertion?

It sounds plausible, but Abdul Kaaba could possibly be speculation based on his later name Abdullah.

The Wikipedia page about his father 'Uthman says he was named Atiq at birth, because his parents' earlier sons had not survived infancy. The statement is sourced from Lives of the Caliphs, yet that source is not used in this article, which treats atiq as a title rather than a birth name.

Pelagic (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Allah, father of three goddesses (Allat, Aluzza, Manat), was the main god (moon god?) at the time. Mohammed's father's name was also Abdullah. With Islam, Allah became the one and only god, not to have any children neither to be born. The name of the god of the monotheist Arabs is Allah, Al-ilah, the God (Deus-Zeus). Check also Aten. Bulgu (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bulgu. I had heard of the goddesses, but wasn't aware that pre-Islamic Meccans recognized "the God" as the father of them. (I had missed that section in the Allah article. But then compare the Hubal article, where it is claimed that Manat's husband Hubal was the greatest of the gods in the Kaabah.) Pelagic (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusing, isn't it? I think it would be a mistake to expect sources on the ancient Arabian religion to be consistent. There were doubtless conflicting beliefs in different tribes; hardly anyone was literate (nobody before 560); and most of the surviving information is from a hostile source.Petra MacDonald (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Shia view section - discussion of sourcing of the dispute over the lands of Fadak gift from Muhammad to Fatimah

The current version of the article has a paragraph in the Shia view section, that reads as follows (the underlining is mine - see discussion below):

The Twelver Shia criticize Abu Bakr for an alleged dispute between him and Muhammad's daughter, Fatimah. Furthermore, Abu Bakr had refused to grant her the lands of Fadak which Muhammad had given to her as a gift before his death. He refused to accept the testimony of her witnesses, so she claimed the land would still belong to her as inheritance from her deceased father. However, Abu Bakr replied by saying that Muhammad had told him that the Prophets of God do not leave as inheritance any worldly possessions and on this basis he refused to give her the lands of Fadak.

Until Saturday 3 January, this was followed by some quotations from Sahih al-Bukhari, which an editor deleted as being from a a primary source.[3]

Wikipedia policy on the use of primary sources is that "Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

If we accept that Muhammad al-Bukhari's writings are a primary source (he was not a historian like Tabari), then we can still use Sahih al-Bukhari for statements of fact - i.e. a description of the dispute, which is the part I underlined.

However, there is no source for the first sentence about the Twelver Shia criticising Abu Bakr's decision. Sahih al-Bukhari cannot possibly be a source for that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

By now this whole paragraph makes no sense. It starts with "The Twelver Shia and the Ismaili Shia believe that Ali should have been the first Caliph." And then for 1/2 a page it keeps going and going in circles, with one nonsense sentence after another. Does this sentence make any sense - "However, later a minority, took this concept one step further and also started thinking, what if history took a different course and these ideas were later adopted by some Twelver Shia and institutionalised by the Safavids in the 1500s. " What concept? What different course? What ideas? Could we get a bit of Ali's viewpoint injected into here without censorship please, because this article is completely one sided and useless. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abu Bakr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060219221438/http://www.islamonline.net:80/English/NewHijriYear/HijrahHeroes/1426/04.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/English/NewHijriYear/HijrahHeroes/1426/04.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Tabuk Sub-Section

The sub-section titled "Battle of Tabuk" seems to have excessive bias/POV (note the neutrality tag at the top of the page), and it only cites one source at the very end of the section. It seems to either need a rewrite and additional sources, or be removed entirely. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has offered any feedback, I removed the section. I'm still willing to discuss the section further if anyone is interested though! Snowsky Mountain (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Early life

Why does the mention of the fair, "Ukaz" link to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha%27ir ? It seems like a stretch to connect the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.63 (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Long name

Abu Bakr's full name is given in the section "Lineage and Title", and includes many uses of the word "ibn". I am not an Arabic speaker, but I understand this word to mean "son of", and that it means the same as the word "bin". But according to [this article], "ibn" is generally used at the beginning of a name or title, and "bin" is used in the middle.

I realise that Slate is not exactly what you'd call a reliable source, but I'm interested to know why "ibn" is used uniformly throughout this article, and "bin" is not used. Is this a question of dialect, or perhaps a distinction between classical and modern Arabic? Or a distinction between modern standard Arabic (which I believe is the form spoken in Egypt) and the Arabic spoken in the Arabian Peninsula? MrDemeanour (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's true for Arabic, but in English it's more conventional to use "ibn" in the middle of names as well. Eperoton (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The nickname "Abu Bakr"

It says that nickname translates as "the father of the camel's calf"; and that this man was a Bedouin from the Mecca area, who developed an inordinate fondness for camels. I believe that "Abu" means "father".

I can only think of one way to become the father of a camel's calf (it would probably involve using a ladder). This strikes me as an extraordinarily insulting way to refer to the first Caliph, a companion of the Prophet; can that translation possibly be correct? It sounds to me more like a rude joke, or a deliberate insult. I'm inclined to remove those remarks; but I don't speak a word of Arabic, I'm not a Muslim, and the translation is cited. Can it possibly be true that the first Caliph is commonly referred to in such disrespectful terms? Or is this in fact a nasty sectarian epithet? MrDemeanour (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

​Yeah...it's kind of a funny thing about Arabic epithets (kunyas). Sometimes they're used to show paternity, as with Abu Talib (i.e showing that he has a son named Talib). Other times, as is the case here, they are not supposed to be taken literally, but rather to show a personal affinity or attribute that a person has. The closest Western comparison that I can think of is this idiom[4] but taken to completely the next level and made literal. Other examples of this type are Abu Hurairah (Father of Kittens), which was probably gained under similar circumstances, and Abu Tarab (Father of Dust), another name for Ali, supposedly given to him by Muhammad after the latter found him covered in dirt from sleeping on the ground. These types of names later evolved to become official titles, with subsequent Islamic rulers often granting themselves the appellation "Abu'l Muzzaffar" (Father of the Conqueror) as a boast of their own military prowess.
Alivardi (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The Kunyas link explains it a bit, and confirms specifically that the translation is OK. Odd, though; it says there that these epithets are supposed to be "respectful". Like, the epithet "sheepshagger" has been used of Welshmen, and means almost the same thing; but it's extremely offensive, and if used in the presence of any Welshman, would likely provoke violence. Even if no Welshman was present, it would cause many people to turn their back on you, as an ill-mannered person. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The concept of "father" has connotations besides the narrow definition of "mother's impregnator"! "Father of camels" suggests either tenderness towards animals and skill at camel husbandry or else mastery of camels, in taming, riding, control, &c., either of which would be a complement in a Late Antique Arabian society which considered camels as useful, and nearly as noble as, the horse. "Lord of camels" might more closely approximate the intention and is used for the first caliph in some renderings, and was used self-referentially, according to Islamic history, by the 6th century Axumite king of Yemen Abraha. The Homeric epithet "tamer of horses" or the epithet of Poseidon as "father of horses" are perhaps comparable. (Though not the North and West Winds, Boreas and Zephyrus, who were called "father of horses" because the wind was believed to occasionally impregnate mares with foals who could run like ...) GPinkerton (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hijra

IN the hijra ABu Bakr and the prophet were in named Thawr a spider built a web and a bird laid an egg which proved to the disbelievers the prophet and Abu Bakr were not in the cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.3.113 (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  What is that in English please? Acorn897 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a widespread folktale of someone hiding in a cave and a spider spinning a web, convincing perusers not to investigate the cave as clearly no-one had passed that way recently. It is told of King David of Israel, in the Cave of Adullam, for example. A spider hides Jesus in his crib from Herod's soldiers according to a medieval legend in Cornwall and Yorkshire. Other variants of Jesus story include a bird laying an egg, if I remember correctly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020

the section death photo should be changed or removed as it is against islamic law to portray photos of khalifas Eruditus27 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

​Wikipedia has decided not to censor such portrayals. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

small typo in the "full name" section: other sources cite it as "...ibn Lu'ay[y] ibn Ghalib ibn..." while this article writes "...ibn Lu'ayy Ghalib ibn..." 72.66.80.61 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Good spot.
Alivardi (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs/Full Article NPOV

Because a good portion of the article's source are the Quranic/Primarily religious texts of a later date, or through their extension are commentary of these sources, it may be in the interest of neutrality and POV to mention when such is the case and when it comes from neutral contemporary sources, and when it comes from later, or religious sources. Such as in the title paragraph as of this post about Abu Bakr's activities prior to Muhammad, where there is no distinction between claims of Quran and not.

It seems that a good portion of the Rashidun Caliphs and other figures do not have strong non-Islamic histories and this discussion could be extended through the biographies. Anything to add? - AH (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ali performed the ghusl and Umar led the funeral prayer for him

I believe the above statement is incorrect. It was his wife who performed the ghusl 217.137.42.164 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing Problem.

A good chunk of sources are from hadith books and islamic history books which are nonacademic soruces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathylinch1997 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Abu Bakr, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

If you want to propose a different title for a page, please read Wikipedia:Article titles first and then follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move, so the proposal can be discussed. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma

Hey, thank you for your remarks, which I really appreciate. However, I just moved the title because I believe everyone is allowed to do so, and it is not against Wikipedia's guidelines. I changed the name to an appropriate name used everywhere, so I wonder why the English version of the article does not have it as the title.

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Riad! Two reasons:

1. We transliterate Arabic names here according to a certain fixed transliteration scheme, which is outlaid in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic (WP:MOSAR). According to this scheme, your proposed article title should read Abu Bakr al-Siddiq.
2. One of the main factors determining which article title we choose for Wikipedia articles is how the subject is most commonly called in reliable sources (see WP:COMMONNAME). Even though there are obviously many other people called Abu Bakr, still the first caliph of Islam is most commonly just called "Abu Bakr" in reliable sources.

Now with regard to the second reason, some discussion is certainly possible. Despite the fact that reliable sources very commonly refer to our caliph as just "Abu Bakr", we might want our article title to be less ambiguous and more precise (both of which are also important WP:CRITERIA when deciding an article title).

Actually I am personally in favor of this, though to conserve consistency (also one of the WP:CRITERIA) similar changes should then also be made to other article titles: e.g., Umar should become Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman should become Uthman ibn Affan, and Ali should become Ali ibn Abi Talib.

But the last point here, and perhaps the most important one, is that precisely because an article name change like Abu Bakr to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq would be up for discussion, such a change should never be made without prior discussion. Undiscussed moves are only appropriate if the current title contains a blatant error, or if it indisputably violates one of our article title guidelines. This is not the case with Abu Bakr (note that it also wouldn't be the case if the current title were Abu Bakr al-Siddiq). When the current title is in accordance with guidelines but an editor thinks that there is another title that would be better, the optimal procedure is for that editor to open a requested move. If you'd like, you could so for this page.

Thanks, and have a good weekend, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma Thank you for all your clarifications. I am truly grateful for this. Riad Salih (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)