Talk:Abu 'Afak

Shocking PC and Islamist Apologism. The First and only few sentences of the article can't even relate the BASIC point of the story: That Mohammed had abu afak Killed. - Is this Frigging Yemen or Riyadh? - -The most Voluminous Western info site can't even write a one sentence summary of why abu afak is famous/the entry even exists. He WAS killed at Mohammed's behest. - -Can't you even write that he was "allegedly" killed at Mohammed's request so that people even know the point OF the entry?

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.60.244 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Shocking PC and Islamist Apologism. The First and only few sentences of the article can't even relate the BASIC point of the story: That Mohammed had abu afak Killed.

- Is this Frigging Yemen or Riyadh? -

-The most Voluminous Western info site can't even write a one sentence summary of why abu afak is famous/the entry even exists. He WAS killed at Mohammed's behest. -

-Can't you even write that he was "allegedly" killed at Mohammed's request so that people even know the point OF the entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.60.244 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

THE STORY OF THE KILLING OF ABU AFAK IS A FORGERY HERE'S A GREAT ARTICLE THAT EXPOSES IT AS THE LIE IT IS:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/forgeries_about_killing.htm

You know what irritates me about Wikipedia discussion pages? Here's an example: below, someone is refuting something previously written by a "Canderson7." But I can't find anything on this page written by "Canderson7." Maybe it was removed a while ago. So what good is this page if the general viewer can't follow the discussion?

Dear Canderson7,

Why is your version of abu afak superior to Mine?

and I have 2 questions for your so-called rebuttal

1. Who WAS abu afak?

2. What happened to him?

Please respond in kind or to abuafak@Yahoo.ie and/or post Your email to discuss it.

Thanks Wikipedia for democratically OPENING this disputed subject to 'Talk', I'm encouraged.

The "rebuttal" to Silas' Correct http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/abu-afak.htm is an attempt to discredit on technical grounds the references in [solely] Islamic literature. But being Just a smear, cannot deal with, or even make up another Narrative for who afak was and what his fate was. "You can run but you can't hide"

Thank you, abu afak/ abu_afak@yahoo.com

The story is fraudulent, full explication is available here. These reports are passed around in Islamophobic circles to poison peoples' minds against Islam. Wikipedia should not become another soapbox for bigots to spread their hate. This article needs significant NPOV work to bring it in line with standards. --Alberuni 00:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. you have biased source (abu_afak@yahoo.com note/Answer; THE SOURCES ARE ALL ISLAMIC!)

2. it is up to you to make a coherent argument. posting another URL means nothing. URLs are for citing sources, they are not argument in and of themselves. The excerpts from the Sirat describe clearly what occured, and everything is referenced. Everything in this article is concrete historical fact. --Pename 02:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily make it true story just because it's found in Ibn Ishaq. Even Guillaume in the introduction of his English translation says that Ibn Ishaq collected all sorts of stories. Doesn't mean the stories are true, or that Ibn Ishaq believed them. Muslims don't accept many stories in Ibn Ishaq, such as Satanic Verses story which is clearly logically inconsistent. You obviously found this on anti-Islamic site, answering Islam, and being an anti-Islamic bigot that you are, posted it to wiki OneGuy 09:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this hadith is recognized as sahih, than it is true from scholastic Muslim viewpoint. If it is not, a source has to be brought showing it (and I do not mean the pathetic bismikaallahuma site with death threats to Ali Sina, but a scholar source)

Crticism of the Story

The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnâd?

According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.

X5Dragon Aug 2006

As for the algorithm of verification, it is not completely relevant. There may be other algorithms for determining authenticity. The relevant fact is whether the Islamic scholars accept this hadith as sahih or not. If they do, that it's true as far as Muslim belief is concerned, if it is not, the source for it has to be brought in the article. --Aleverde 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, seeing how Hadith Scholars has deemed it "of no basis", then it can't be Sahih. Check the article about the isnad, and check out the degrees of criticism, from Sahih to the lowest. At any rate, we should not immedieatly assume that it is correct, rather, we should open the intro saying that he was dot dot dot, according to so and so, and is disputed by Muslims, followed by two sections, one that quotes the story and the other which discuss's its authenticy based on the same sources and others. Agreed?

X5Dragon Sep 1 2006

Waqidi's version does in fact provide two sources for the story (see Faizer, p. 86). He writes: "Sa'id ibn Muhammad related to us from Umara ibn Ghaziyya ..." Then he gives a second isnad: "Abu Musab related to us from Ismail ibn Musab ibn Ismail ibn Zayd ibn Thabit from his elders." Zayd ibn Thabit would have been a teenager at the time of the event and he had a trained memory, so there is no reason to doubt his authority. Waqidi then cites a third source, Ma'an ibn Umar from Ibn Ruqaysh, who provided only the date (Shawwal 2 AH).

Three independent sources would usually be considered sufficient evidence against fabrication.

There are, however, some problems with this story. Waqidi and Ibn Saad say that Abu Afak was killed "after Badr", which fits with "Shawwal 2 AH" (April 624). Waqidi also mentions that it was "summer", which I suppose could be a comment on the weather rather than the official time of year. Yet Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume, p. 675) says that it was "when the apostle killed Al-Harith ibn Suwayd ibn Samit," and he also says that Al-Harith was still alive for some time after the Battle of Uhud (March 625) (p. 384).

The dating is further confused by Ibn Ishaq's report that Asma bint Marwan protested the killing of Abu Afak and was therefore killed in her turn (p. 674). Yet Waqidi and Ibn Saad say that Asma was killed on 25 Ramadan (24 March 624), about a week before Abu Afak.

There is also dispute about the identity of the assassin. Ibn Ishaq says he was from Amr ibn Awf, the same clan as Abu Afak (Aws). Waqidi says he was from the Najjar, the (Khazraj) clan of Muhammad's relatives. It is possible that he was in some way associated with both clans, but exactly how this might be reconciled is not explained.

It seems that the basic report - Muhammad ordered the death of Abu Afak, and Salim ibn Umayr committed the deed - was in general circulation from multiple sources; we would need a much better reason than "Ibn Ishaq forgot to cite his source" to discredit it. However, the details are by no means set in concrete. Someone in that array of narrators was unsure of his facts and cited an incorrect name or date. We'd need more research to establish who it was and which part of the narrative is unreliable.Petra MacDonald 05:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Further note: I have found a second account from Ibn Sa'd. This one indicates that the same string of names given in Waqidi is in fact only one isnad, while Waqidi makes them look like two different sources. This looks to me like a problem with the English translators rather than a conflict in the original texts.Petra MacDonald 07:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

I have taken out the words "and primary" it is not a primary history and is in fact denounced for its many fabricated narrations by two of Islams primary figures Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad as well as Islam's primary expert on narrations Imam al dhahabi.Ibn kathir (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt from Aloys Sprenger

I have changed the term murder for killing and killed, murder is not a neutral term and is passing judgment. I also question the validity of this translation as it is a private translation. the referenced work is in German and would have sourced its information from ibn ishaq and not a separate work as no other sources exist for this story. I am also removing him from the list of murdered writers since the entire case for murder does not exist in any source.Iβи Ķᾱŧhiɍ (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing the quote again i have decided to remove it outright because it is a completely incorrect translation or Quote. the Quote said "Few weeks after the killing of Asma bint Marwan (26 March, 624) the old Abu' Afak أبو عفك was killed - by request of Mohammed." if you go to the Asma bint Marwan page it says the complete opposite "According to Ibn Ishaq, in a poem after the elderly Medinan Jew Abu Afak was killed for inciting rebellion against Muhhamad, she said she despised the tribes allied with Muhammad and called for the Islamic Prophet's death." so who was killed first, Ibn ishaq is the only source, the Asma bint Marwan page is in line with his work. Iβи Ķᾱτhiɍ (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

lead

i have removed the sentence "According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu 'Afak was assassinated." its guessing at ibn Ishaq's opinion while it was held that historians simply report without passing judgment, for example he may have very well known the weakness in the authenticity of the narrators but reported it for sake of cataloging what was out their which was the case with many other historians and hadith experts. Iβи Ķᾱŧhiɍ (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Al Waqidi unreliable

Al Waqidi is not considered a reliable source by any of the Hadith scholars, and therefore this section about Waqidi's account should be removed completely. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)