Talk:Battle of Siffin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Does This article contain Shi'a or Sunni POV or not?

This article does not consider the Shi'a POV, and i actually question whether it even is the Sunni POV. Striver 19:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Shia commanders are all described as "brave" and all of Ali's actions are portrayed as upright and saintly (not that they weren't!!!) while no positive adjectives are used to describe the Sunni; given that the references are both Shia; given that all attempts at negotiation are attributed to Ali, it is fairly obvious that this is on the Shia side of the fence. It's close enough to neutral not to be a problem though. I hope this article doesn't become burdened with with massive bias like the other sunni/shia contested ones. Maronz 03:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is up to Wikipedia's standards. Firstly, the language is unprofessional. For example, Malik Ashtar should not be described as "The brave commander." If the author thinks Ashtar's bravery (or cowardice) is worth mentioning, he should write "Malik Ashtar, famous for his bravery at such-and-such a battle" and then give a citation. Simply describing him as "The brave commander" with nothing to back it up looks incredibly biased. Secondly, the article contains what can at best be seen as errors and inaccuracies. At worst, they could be seen as deliberate distortions. For example, the traditional Shia complaint is not that Muawiyah made the caliphate absolute, but that he made it dynastic. 86.135.207.143 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Salim.

Hello my brothers, Salim and Maronz, How are you? Firstly, I would like to tackle the issue of neutrality of this article. Well I believe that this article is neutral and because I don’t see a sentence that contains the SAW, AS, or P.B.U.H after the names of highly respected individuals in the history of Islam, even Shi’as’ Mola Imam Ali (AS) isn’t stated as Imam Ali (AS). Secondly, Malik Ashtar is described by the historians as a brave, loyal, honest, and religious man. Saying that, Malik Ashtar was a famous for his bravery and he was a brave commander would not be a POV since it is published in some of the books that contain information about him. Unfortunately I don’t have a book that contains information about Malik Ashtar or I would give you guys the title of that book so you can read it as well. Because of these reasons I don’t think that this article is being said from a Shi’a POV or a Sunni POV. This article is just telling what happened in the battle of Siffin in a neutral way. Thank You Salman

This article is strongly biased against Ali(AS). Definitely Shi'a POV rejects this article. Even sunnis see Ali(AS) as the fourth Rightly Guided Caliphate and a strong faithfull muslim . --194.80.32.8 01:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Maronz: Give us a break. The Shia-Sunni split is not so linear and black and white that you people imagine. Most of the Sunnis side with Ali about his right to Caliphate, and about him being the last righteous one, and about the opposite side being in error, for the least. There has never been a serious Sunni Scholar who would side with the Muawiah in this story. There was no Sunni side and Shia side that day. And yes, it is history: The cream of the crop of those soldiers who fought with the Prophet, and then after his demise broke the back of one empire, and then brought down the other empire to its knees fought at the side of Ali on the days of Siffin, and there is no lack of neutrality to call them the braver part, and objectively they won the battle militarily. The only thing which is remained to be explained is why people imagine that Sunnis side with Muawiah. Well, the reason is they in general Sunnis do not stigmatize the opponents of Ali to the degree the Shiites do. To tell the truth, there were three sides to the story after the rise and fall of the Ummayades: Those who came to power after Ali, Sunnis and Shia, and Sunnis of today are often wrongly associated with the first group, naturally so because the Sunni Islam, which did not put the emphasize on the Alids, spread out among the population more easily. History, specially of the religious kind, is more complex than your binary oppositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.163.30 (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was changed without discussing the issue on the talk page first

Islami my brother, please try your best to discuss the matter on the talk page before you actually make the changes in the article. It is very important to discuss the issue (why you want to change the article or a paragraph) on the talk page first because by doing that you will inform other editors of why the article is being changed. If a sentence sounds like a Shi’a or a Sunni POV to you might not sound like a POV at all. I am reverting the article because you didn’t tell anyone (didn’t discuss on the talk page) because changing the article. Thank You Salman

I did not "completely change the article". See the edit history before you accuse me with that. I am only changing the numbers of troops based on primary sources. You on the other side is not only removing my changes, but also trying to completely change the article to a more POV version. --Islamic 03:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How is the article POV, I wasn’t there when the Battle was being fought. I am just saying what I absorb from my sources. My sources are in the external link, you can also check them out. I am sorry because I may have miss read the history of the article. But someone was changing the article after my edition without discussing the changes n the talk page before actually making the changes. Thank You Salman

My changes to the article

I've substantially rewritten the article, because it badly needed it. My priorities were to present the subject in more neutral terms, correct some factual errors, flag up divergent views ("Sunni belive... Shia believe"), eliminate speculative material, introduce more specificity, and provide basic analysis. I'm also aware, though, that there's a lot more work to be done. This is a very important battle in the history of Islam and it deserves a good article - and my attempt is not good enough. So what else needs to be done?--User:Salim555 talk 02:11, 5 July 2006

NPOV issues

The references for this article are the anti-Islamic website "answering islam." These references are definitely POV, and the article should be modified to account for this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.17.122 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not right. The references you are referring to come from the book "THE CALIPHATE ITS RISE, DECLINE, AND FALL" by William Muir. It just so happens that the book is hosted on that website. I believe it is also now on google books so if you are unhappy with the website "answering islam" you can change the link to the google books pages for that book, not that it makes a difference. Salim555 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

GET RID OF THE 'CROSS' SYMBOL!

I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross besides of Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.

I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)

At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol beside Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!

Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

These people were fighting against their fellow moslems, so cannot have been martyrs.

In any case, this is English-language Wikipedia, and the sword symbol "†" is the normal character used in English-language publications to indicate that the person died during the battle. Using some other symbol is unhelpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Section of Hasan

The treaty with Hasan ibn Ali is not of immediate relevance to the actual Battle of Siffin. Furthermore, this entire section was inserted without any cited sources. Consequently, it warranted removal. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Change the Page Title it is Misspelled

The title is misspelled! The proper spelling is Siffeen not Siffin.

Sources: http://www.al-islam.org/gallery/kids/Books/companion9/, http://www.al-islam.org/gallery/kids/Books/companion9/7.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=rgvLEIWEeAYC&pg=PA241&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=g7btNNUXFmQC&pg=PA32&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=W04-TCFNYQsC&pg=PA223&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false, http://books.google.com/books?id=JRDJ489Pd2MC&pg=PA471&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ziTSUdaHEOTAyAGQk4C4Cw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false, and http://books.google.com/books?id=MPwAa3KjNoIC&pg=PA330&dq=Battle+of+Siffeen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RibSUfiGK-SdyQHt3IGACA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Siffeen&f=false

Please change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No it is not mis-spelled. Here are some Google books search counts. In each case I went to the last page, because you get a falsely high figure if you do not:

• Battle of Siffeen - 53 [1]
• Battle of Siffin - 173 [2]

--Toddy1 (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This Article Reads Like Quran Studdies

I came here for an account of a battle, battle articles contain an introduction, a background section, a main battle section, an aftermath section and then perhaps one or 2 unique aspects of the battle, like technology or unique tactics, if necessary. Reading this there is a Quran quote every 2 sentences, tons of NPOV stuff like "The brave commander so-and-so", there are entire sections which go on for several paragraphs about Islamic history that has no relevance to the battle itself, most of this stuff should be in an article about the rise of Islam or the history of the Caliphate or something, not a battle article. In fact I'm deleting everything after section 7, there's no need for several pages worth of material about events that happened years after the battle, though someone should still go through and delete several paragraphs from each preceding section as well, it should be edit protected as well, this article has clearly been edited by people with a religious POV. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article is an utter mess. I'm sorry that your edits were undone as well. Perhaps the editor thought the content should have been forked? Ithinkicahn (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a quotation from a book by William Muir called The Caliphate, its Rise and Fall. Ithinkicahn keeps altering it. Is this because Ithinkicahn has checked the book, and is restoring it to the original? Or is it because Ithinkicahn has not understood that it is a quotation? For now I have reverted--Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of books, there's a notation on the Qu'ran talk page [3] ("Koran Forbids Muslims From Traveling Beyond the Mediterranean")about the Battle of Siffin and the use of the Koran for mediation between the hostiles. The text material cited on that page differs entirely from this article's history. Perhaps this battle has a special place in the hearts of Muslims, that may account for the flowery recitation in this article, but you'll see how grievous the discrepancy is between this Wikipedia coverage and the textbook, a text still used (as far as I know)in American colleges.--76.212.152.129 (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

wiki has become a sad joke

reading this "article" full of historical "facts" makes me sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.195.80 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up

this article was clearly need heavy clean up. Primary and Second Hand sources was not arranged in simplified in encyclopedic tone althought the information was filtered enough.

my complaint is just its writing style. especially in the aftermath sections. its too overarching

the main engagement section was already solid enough and only need few corrections and updates

Your comment is in need of heavy clean up. The entire end of the article is in need of clean up. The section on Kharijites is by far too sensationalist and is not neutral by any means. I'll quote a phrase used, which - let me remind everyone - does not even have a citation. "The Kharijites then started killing other people." What is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.17 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Siffin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012011525/http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html to http://www.kalamullah.com/conquest-of-syria.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Siffin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212719/http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php to http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/sermons.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329020223/http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm to http://www.balagh.net/english/shia/shia/10.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In need of a major revision

Large parts of this article are poorly written or rely too much on primary sources which can be avoided. An example is the Background section which is currently almost irrelevant to the topic at hand. In the coming weeks, I hope to try and improve the text a bit. Albertatiran (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's remarkable how irrelevant the Background section is to the topic. I'd like to rewrite it. Albertatiran (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)