I've removed the views section because there is no sourcing provided to substantiate the following claims:

Sunni view him as upright, since they view all Sahaba as upright.

Shi'a have a very dim view of Abu Sufyan, seeing his conversion as nothing more than a act of necessity. Shi'a also note that Ali refused his helped during the succession of Muhammad, and also note how Abu Sufyan's son became a ardent enemy of Ali.^{[citation needed]}

The logic of Abu Sufyan's acceptance of Islam is believed to be more of a political one than a serious change of heart or sudden spiritual enlightenment. Upon his defeat, Abu Sufiyan found it politically right to accept Islam.^{[citation needed]}

Please find sourcing for this before adding the section back.--Isotope23 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the non-Muslim view, since i didnt put it there, but the Sunni view is easly confirmed by going to the highligheted link. The Shi'a view is actualy quite bening compared to the real Shi'a view. I dont remeber right now witch book i saw the "helping ali" part, but that is a undisputed Shi'a view. I know it must be better sourced, but please consired how ill sourced the rest of the article is, and also that it can be hard to find sources for detailed maters. Its not like i added anything controversial. --Striver 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Striver, The link you've referenced is an internal link to another Wikipedia article and Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself. Besides, the article linked to isn't exactly verified by a Reliable source as the views appear to be primarily based on [this link to a Geocities site. As for the Shi'a view, it has nothing to do with how benign the view is or whether it is controversial... it has to be verifiably referenced by Reliable sources. If you can remember the book name, then the text can be added back with an appropriate reference (and if you don't know how to add a cited reference from a book to an article, I'd be happy to show you), but it has to be cited first before it gets added back into the article. Yes, the whole rest of the article needs to be better sourced as well, but that isn't an excuse for adding in more unsourced material. Like I said above, I dumped the text here so it can be added back easily once sourcing is found, but sourcing has to be found before it is added back to the article.--Isotope23 18:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I dont get why you delete only my addition and only "facted" the rest, but whadever, im not going to fight this. --Striver 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Because the rest of the article is rather long... it will probably take me a few days to get through the whole thing, read the sources provided, find additional sources, and edit the article down to verifiability. Please don't take it personally... to be honest I had no idea that section was your only addition to the article until you stated that here.--Isotope23 02:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

As long as the article gets better, im satisfied :) --Striver 02:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article needs a major edit to either source quotes, etc... or elimiate unsourced text. I actually am going to work on this, but tagged until this effort is completed.--Isotope23 18:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I went way back for a revert because untangling the inexplicable merging of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb/Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith was just too complicated. Better to start over from scratch.--Isotope23 19:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Some things I removed that can be added back if verifiable sources are provided:

1. Geneology and family relations of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb
2. Abu Sufyan ibn Harb accepted Islam after the conquest of Mecca

I couldn't find anything to support either of those claims. Before adding to this article, please make sure the sourcing refers to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb... not Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith.--Isotope23 19:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bro, thanks for alerting me on the talk page. I did see that, and i made some leghty effort to compare it with on of my previous versions. Im quite confindent i did a good job, but ill take a second look. I am quite familiar with Abu sufyans life and geneology, so i if i decide to leave something unsourced, chanses are good im so sure its right that wikipedia wont risk anything by keeping it. But ill take another try at it. I appreciate our coopeteration! --Striver 20:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just read the family section, and its 100% safe, it just mentions his wife and daughter, and his geneology back, and that is comon knowledge for those in the field. --Striver 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added a template and are going to start moving the content as soon as i feel confident of what i am doing.--Striver 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Striver, I reverted your change because it looks like you took the article back to the version that attributes information and quotes about Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, which is what I'm trying to clean up here. Probably a better thing to do would be to take the version I have right now and add to it with WP:V information rather that revert back to earlier versions that contain factual inaccuracies.--Isotope23 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed everything that was controversial, regardless of if it was accurate or not. This version as is now is not inaccurate. --Striver 23:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've tagged 2 things that need cites. I'm not concerned with if the information is controversial... I'm interested if it is sourced. The family section needs to have sources provided for his lineage.--Isotope23 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I truly agree that they need to be sourced. It is probable that i added them in the article sometime, and added a references to it at that time to this or some other article, but i cant find it now :( However, i am sure that i have read that, so let it be taged till i stubmle on those lines again. I gave it a short search, and found something else to add. As for lineage, ill keep it mind and i will add it as stumble on the references while i research. --Striver 15:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, wait a minute! Muawiyas article says he was born 602, while Ramlah's article says she was born in "c. 595". This contradict the narrations that state that Muawiyah was their first child. i have sources for the narrations, what are the sources for the dates? --Striver 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ramlah's mother is not Hind bint Utbah, her mother is the paternal aunt of Uthman. --DelftUser 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

wow, great, that explain it all. What was her name and patronimyc? --Striver 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, that would put it on colision with another tradition... we need sources to get out of this confusion. --Striver 20:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You do know that both Abu Sufyan, Hind and Uthman where all Banu Ummayed, so there is no conflict in being the cousin of Uthman and the Daughter of hind... unless im wrong... --Striver 21:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do know her name:صفية بنت أبي العاص, Saffya bint aby al-A'as (aunt to this man Amr ibn al-A'as, she is daughter of aby (father of) al-A'as so sister to al-A'as and he is ibn (son of) al-A'as!). Don't worry, if I say they didn't have the same mother, I know what I am talking about! There is no way that Hind could be the prophets mother-in-law (although later she became a good mulsim woman, even complaining about her husbands frugality to the prophet). As to sources for the name: [1], [2], [3]. I am working on sources for the article (I am looking in a digital library for prime sources instead of just webpages) --DelftUser 19:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I asked my father, and he did'nt know, and you seem to be very confident, as well as you seem to have researched it, so ill trust you on this one. Ill make the changes to all relevant articles, but we still need english references. --Striver 00:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You need them! I doubt you'll find a source in English for something that happend 10 centuraies before the invention of the English language! I wish you luck in your search. --DelftUser 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, done, i created a article about her. --Striver 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know one was needed! I still don't know. --DelftUser 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

His Daughter didn’t divorce her husband! She only left him, because he first became a drunkard and then an apostate! She lived with her daughter all alone in a room with little contact with the outside world.

The source I am using, Al-Kammel phy al-Tarikh by Ali ibn al-Athir, is basically a revised edition of Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, without the sources (paragraphs consisting of: this man heard from that man, etc., etc.) and with some editing, like naming all those who died in a certain year at the end of that year’s chapter, plus what happened since the first book was written (mainly the start of the crusades!). --DelftUser 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed a couple of paragraphs which are just slander by the Shi'a! if you want to add them back, please add them under the Shi'a View section! I think the person who added is a Shi'a who only had access to Shi'a books and probably doesn't read Arabic, nor is he knowledgeable about Arabic culture, To even suggest that the most noble woman in Makkah was in anyway related to something as dishonorable as "Nikah Ijtimah" as either a result of extreme lack of knowledge or extreme malice! --DelftUser 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was me that added it. Since it is souced to a non-Shi'a source, i have to say that i have a hard time accepting your arguement. It is true that i found the reference in Answering-Ansar, but the original references goes to the Mu'tazili Ibn Abu al-Hadid. See Layla binte Harmalah for all the references. I can understand that you object to the statment, but you need to substantiate it. Give me a source that disputes this, and we will move it into a "view" section. As for "Removed another blatent slander, everyone who opposed Ali must be a basterd!!" [4], ill just quote a Sunni scholar:

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Qutubadeen Shirazi in his book "Nizhaath Quloob Munkool az Isthakhsa al Fahm" page 981 states:

"A child born out of fornication is better due to the fact that a man does so with complete effort and enjoyment, whilst a child conceived legitimately only pleases his wife. A child born from fornication is more clever, that is why Amr bin Aas and Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan were great politicians and are counted as amongst the people of deception, the greatest politician from this group was Ziyad bin Ubayya".

Is site where i found the material biased? Sure. Is it polecmic? Sure. But the sources are there, and they are hundreds of years old. I know that the Sunnis belive in the Uprightness of all Sahaba and rather not thing that they practiced fornication, but if they did not, then why do Sunnis insiste that Nikah Mut'ah was a shortly lived necesity solution since they could not control their urges?

I have given sources, i have quoted a Sunni scholar that agree and i have pointed out that Sunnis belive that somce of the Sahaba had such a great problem controling theyr chastity that they needed to do Mut'ah.

I ague that what i have presented suffices for including the sources in the main article as fact, as long as no other sources reject them. Dont forget that fornication is nothing special in un-Islamic societies, in the west, its does not even raise a eyebrow to be a out-of-wedlock child. What make you think the Mushrik enemies of Allah cared? --Striver 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was between you and Isotope, so it was you! do you fulfill the image I painted? Was I close? So instead of Shi'a sources it were heretics that you were quoting!! Should I cry or should I laugh? Anyway I don't care who they were, they are not a historical source, do you have a historical source (eg. Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk)?

If YOU claim something, you have to "substantiate it" and not with a LINK to some book, by someone unknown but to a real history, a real recording of events as told by one man to another!

"Sunni scholar" what does that mean?? This guy isn't an Islamic scholar, a Alam, this is some writer at the end of an era, at a time of decadence and decay writing blatant apostasy, probably to get in favor with some rich bastard, by praising all basterds! "Sunni scholar" he is not, you can quote his complete writings, won't do you any good.

So you admit that the material is "biased" and "polemic" and yet you want to add it to the middle of an encyclopedia article without any context! "Sources" are not just links to articles on some website, come on...be fair my friend, whether Sunni or Shi’a let us at least be fair!

You have given links to "biased" websites, quoted some degenerate decadent writer who happened to be descended from Sunni’s, come on, be fair...

What you presented does not suffice to slander people who lived 1400 years ago, no matter who they were! It does not matter what other people think of fornication (Name the country where fornication is normal? I hope you won't say the USA, because it is NOT) it was bad in their own culture (even before Islam), you can't present slander and then demand that I present sources that "reject" it, NO, you have to give a real historical source (not just a link to an English page! Who translated all these works?) that quotes real people who knew these people, then demand whatever you want!

I hope we can work together to improve this page, you shouldn't take what I say as anything personal and you should know that I consider all Muslims as Muslims (and all human beings as human beings) without further distinction. Apart from writers and would be historians, of course ;) --DelftUser 18:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, one more thing: regarding "To even suggest that the most noble woman in Makkah", we are talking about Hind binte Utbah, right? The "i chewed hamzas lives" Hind, right? Hind, the mother of Muwaiyah who declared Ibn Abihi to be his brother, right? --Striver 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh you poor fellow! Noble as in social status, Ashrif, yes she was!! --DelftUser 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well my friend and brother/sister, it looks like we have dispute to resolve. I put up a tag and ill get back with a answer. Peace! --Striver 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If someone should come to this page by chance he would think of the two major figures who opposed the Imam Ali: One was a bastard son of a whore and the other a bastard son of an adulteress! Can you with all fairness and honesty, and God as your witness, say it is not political slander; that was only thought of after the death of the Imam Ali?!

The funny thing is if the Imam Ali himself heard you say such things, he would give you eighty lashes for each claim, even if he knows that it’s the truth! Because you simply can’t produce four good Muslim men who saw the fornication for themselves, anything less is technically slander (Qathif)!

I, personally, don’t like to repeat such “political slander”, even when it concerns, for example, the last empress of Russia, I was very upset when a film about Rasputin enacted some of the slander told about her in her time, and she he had the blood of millions on her hand!

Are you so sure of your place in heaven that you so confidently claim this and that about those who prayed behind the Rasool? Abu Sufyan lost both his eyes to God, his son led the first of four armies sent to Syria by Abu Baker, his daughter was a mother of the believers, and his other son wrote the Quran down from the Rasool personally! And the Rasool himself pardoned Hind and accepted her Islam and even blessed her herd!

With all due respect, my friend, you can’t even read the Quran and understand it for yourself! Instead of repeating slander, go learn something useful for your life and afterlife. --DelftUser 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late answer. Bro, as for "Can you with all fairness and honesty, and God as your witness, say it is not political slander": I can say that i am not confident that it is political slader.

• Point one: This is about jahiliya customs.

To me, this kind of acts represent the infedility of the mushrik Meccan. You seem to imply that this kind of behavior is totaly unaccaptable. Bro, lets step back a few steps. First of all, they were not even Sahaba at the time of those events. And not even that, they were not even enemies of Islam, the event occured even before that, in the Jahiliya. You know, the period of time when Umar was a drunk and used to worship idols. That period.

Why do you think it was called jahiliya? You think they ignored everything, but were chaste in regards to sex? In sweden, they call themselves Christian, but they openly advocate homosexuality:

Under the amendment intended to take effect March 1, 2000, non-Swedish homosexual couples who have lived in Sweden for at least two years will be eligible for registration. [5]

They even sue anti-homosexual priests! Look at Åke Green, he was sued for condeming homosexuality. I assure you, in sweden, they do 'not regard zina as least objectionable, they show pornographic material to children as part of "sexual education" clases and they encourage them to have pre-maritial relations, they even hand out free condoms in schools.

There are plenty of societies that do not regard zina as objectionable, Prostitution in Germany is legal and widespread. And we are talking about so called Christian contries, what makes you so convinced that the Jahilya mushriks were so much better?

I want a answer to this, what makes you belive that it was a unthinkable crime for the jahiliya mushriks to comit zina?

• Point two: You regard even pree Khaybar Sahaba as having problem from keeping from Zina.

If the jahiliya mushriks really viewd zina as objectionable, then please answer why you regards the Sahaba so incapable of keeping from zina that you belive the Prophet had to give them permision to make Mut'ha`? According to your scholars, Mut'ah was forbiden in Khaybar or at the conquest of Mecca, and your scholars argue that the reason it was practiced two-three times is that the Sahaba were (astakhfurillah) unable' to withhold from zina! And we are not even talking about Abu Sufyan, he was not even among the Sahaba then, but we are talking about pree-conquest Sahaba!

I want a answer to my second question, if zina was considered so objectionable during the jahiliya, why do your scholars view the Ansar and Muhajireen as unable to withold from zina?

• Point three: It is not slander if they endorse it.
• Point Four: Why did he not consider it objectionable while being a caliph?

Regarding "anything less is technically slander". It is not "my slander", i am citing sources. And in any case, it is hardly slander when they do it in the open, did'nt Muawiyah declare Ziyad ibn Abihi as his brother, in direct violation to the shariah? If he was able to declare a open zina-born as his brother while being a caliph, what makes you think it is so unthinkable that he himself was ibn zina?

Please answer point three and four.

Regarding "I, personally, don’t like to repeat such “political slander”". Well, who does? But we are writing a biography, arent we?

• Point Five: are we supposed to ignore such reports?

As for: "Are you so sure of your place in heaven that you so confidently claim this and that about those who prayed behind the Rasool?"

First of all, he was not praying behind the rasool at that time, he was praying behind Hubal or some other ghayrallah. At that time, Umar was occupied strangliing her five year old daughter and buring her. It is that time we are talking about. I am not claiming Abu Sufyan did zina, i would never claim anything about people. What i am doing is presenting the reports of people. Now, please answer me, are we supposed to ignore such reports? Are we supposed to censure wikipedia of any reports of zina on the grounds of Sharia? please read again how i formulated it:

He was rumored to have a relation with Layla binte Harmalah, the mother of Amr ibn al-A'as

However, controversial Muslim sources state that the marriage to Muawiyah's mother was arranged since

Is that slander by me, or reporting controverial relevant facts on notable characters? Please do note that nowhere does it state that he did zina, just that there are (true or false) controverial reports and rumors to that effect. Bro, he might have done a thousand good things, but i do not belive in expunging biographical data. I try to build a comprehensice encyclopedia. If there are "objectionable" reports on say, Imam Ali, i would not oppose its inclusion in a NPOV manner.

As for "With all due respect, my friend, you can’t even read the Quran and understand it for yourself! Instead of repeating slander, go learn something useful for your life and afterlife."

Lets not use argumentum ad hominem.

Ok, now that it is said, lets instead focus on finding a solution that keeps us all happy. Here are my questions:

• Why is the article not accurate and disputed as it is now?
• How can we solve thos problems?

For example, if you find some source that disputes this claims, we should add those sources to the article.

Thanks, and peace. --Striver 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added a cleanup tag because (no offense) the grammar and spelling are subpar. I am working on fixing both of those things. I've also reformated it a bit so it is easier to read the headings etc... I've removed the legacy section again because it is still unsourced and should not be added back until sources or references are provided.--Isotope23 13:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bro, you messed up the sectionin, now "References" adn "External links" are under the "biography" section. --Striver 13:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Further, let us that have a expertise in the area determine what must be deleted if unsourced, saying that "Shi'a do not like Abu Sufyan" demands just as little sourcing as stating "the Sun is bright". --Striver 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry Striver, that is not how it works. In fact, it is just the opposite. If it requires "expertise" in an area to determine if something is factual or accurate than it most definitely must be sourced. Remember, you are not writing for an encyclopedia, not some arcane work. Things that are unsourced should be deleted and if you disagree you need to find sourcing for it, then add the text back along with the sourcing (like you did in this case). Remember, just because a statement appears obvious to you does not mean it is obvious to the average person viewing an article. The average reader of en.wikipedia can go outside and see that the sun is indeed bright, but without sourcing they have no way of verifying, quanifying, or finding out why the Shi'a have such a negative view of Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. That is why the sourcing is imperative... and sorry on the Refs and External links sections; looks like I missed them when I was reformatting it.--Isotope23 15:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. You are right in everyhitng you wrote, sorry for snapping. I get oversensitive sometimes. --Striver 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • Don't sweat it... I know you are just trying to do the same thing I am, improve the article.--Isotope23 14:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. Since disputed text seems to have been cleaned up and the article is well referenced, and there has been no discussion suggesting further disagreement in the last month, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the disputed section with {{NPOV-section}} (or the article with {{NPOV}}) and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 21:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is wirtten in the sunni view that Abu Sufyan was became a true muslim and a great companion of the prophet and an important person of Islam. However the shia have a very negative view of him and believe that he converted only to save his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.169.206 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

True. And considering Abu Sufyan spent years trying to protect his unarmed trade caravans from Muhammad and his men who wished to rob and kill those in the caravans...It is completely logical that Abu converted only to save his own neck. Infact, Umar wanted to personally behead Abu and was denied that chance by Muhammad. A day later, under duress of losing his head Abu "became" a Muslim. Please keep the Shia view up there...It atleast makes sense unlike the Sunni viewpoint [to most non-Muslims atleast]. The sunni viewpoint is akin to a Jew joyously becoming a Nazi after escaping a concentration camp in WW2 [ie: yea frickin right].107.222.205.242 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Calling all Wikipedia Nerds!

I am 100% sure there are lot of errors in the family tree section. Either that or the syntax/structure is simply confusing.

The reason I came to this conclusion is because:

1. Mu'awiyah is Abu Sufyan's son, yet he wasn't mentioned. 2. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) did not have any children from Ramlah, although they were married. 3. Abu Sufyan married Hind, and for some reason the tree indicates Hind married 'Utbah without any mention of her marriage to the main chararcter of this article, Aby Sufyan.

This section (Family Tree) needs major cleanup. Let's do the research and start cleaning.

(When I say "let's", I mean all you Wikipedia Nerds, not me. I'm lazy)

Thanks, Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.52.119.154 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC) I agree with this unsigned comment made on 9 January. Mu'awiyah was the son of Abu Sufyan Bin Harb and Hind Bint Utbah. He was NOT the son of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is a major error and some Muslims are likely to find it downright offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnsina786 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand exactly how to fix the family tree in Wikipedia, but here is what the family tree ought to say, and you can verify this using wikipedia itself. 1. Abu Sufyan ibn Harb married Hind Bint Utbah (the daughter of Utbah) 2. Abu Sufyan and Hind had a son, Mu'awiyah Bin Abi Sufyan and a daughter, Ramlah Bint Abi Sufyan. 3. Mu'awyiah Bin Abi Sufyan's son was Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah. 4. Ramlah married Muhammad Bin Abdullah (pbuh) 5. Yazid Bin Mu'Awyiah had a son, Mu'awyiah Bin Yazid, also known as, Mu'awiyah II. Ibnsina786 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually Hind bint Utbah was not the mother of Ramlah. Abu Sufyan had multiple (five??) wives, although I don't know where to go for a nice tidy list of all of them. In fact Wikipedia would be the right place for some knowledgeable person to write one. It seems to be informally accepted that Hind was the most important of them.Petra MacDonald 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

Here I read that Abu Sufyan had another daughter, called Huwayrah. She was wounded in the Battle_of_Yarmouk the same day when A. S. lost en eye. Can anybody check this fact? --93.32.57.103 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is Huwayrah ever known by any other name? According to Ibn Saad, the daughters of Abu Sufyan were Ramla, Umayna, Juwayriya, Umm Hakam, Hind, Sakhra and Maymuna. There is no mention of any of them fighting any battles - just lists of their mothers, husbands and children.Petra MacDonald 12:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the WP:PRIMARY sources in the article (e.g. Ibn Ishaq) are being used for non-contentious claims that require no interpretation whatsoever.

The section that AsceticRose and I have removed requires interpretation (and so a non-primary source). That section was originally added by a user with an Islamophobic POV. That user has tried to cite a secondary source, but the quote appears nowhere in that source -- Thus the citation is false. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ian.thomson, I hope you are well. The section does NOT require interpretation. You are being highly selective. Ok, have your cake and eat it too. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Ian.thomson for opening this discussion. Brother has been clearly Islamophobic and POV. So, it justifies his adding pov and original research materials. But what shocked me is George Custer's Sabre's advocacy for Brothr's pov and false material. His claim that The section does NOT require interpretation is highly unacceptable and against Wikipedia's policies. -AsceticRosé 16:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

No it's not. That's just your own view. You are interpreting a policy, just as I do. Look at my record. I'm a responsible, dedicated and NEUTRAL editor who has no sectarian, ideological or philosophical axe to grind. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have inserted the text again with two modern sources, non of which are the book which does not include the section. The forced conversion of Abu Sufyan is a fact and facts are not islamophobic.--Broter (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Broter: Did you learn nothing from the WP:ANI thread...? You said you learned your lesson. Were you just lying, or are you incapable of learning? You should know by now that Behind the Veil is not an acceptable source! As for Islamic Jihad (which was published by Felibri, and written by M.A. Khan, not written by Felibri as your failure of a citation would indicate): that's self-published (i.e. fails WP:RS) and obviously sectarian.

What part of MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC SOURCES are you incapable of understanding? Or, again, is it that you understand but don't care about anything that doesn't fit into your little POV crusade? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. 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 https://web.archive.org/20120204104932/http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=62 to http://www.sahaba.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=62

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

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).

• 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} 17:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. 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/20150626111847/http://one-evil.org/content/people_07c_abu_sufyan.html to http://www.one-evil.org/content/people_07c_abu_sufyan.html

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).

• 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) 16:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It could be very possible that Abu Sufyan was a "Crypto-Christian".

11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.87 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was "Abu Sufyan" an Orthodox Christian?

08:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)08:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)137.59.145.217 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\08:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)08:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Reply

Especially since it offers a lot of background to the contention between Sunnis and Shias. Shias argue that Abu Sufyan wasn't genuine in his conversion to Islam and that him and descendants(Muawiyah and Yazid) are munafiqs. The narration goes that after Abu Sufyan's defeat he was brought to the Muhammad's tent and the following narration is accepted:

"Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The 'Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim." (ibn Hisham, part 4, p. 11; Chronicle of the Tabari, part 2, p. 157; Ibn Kathir, "The Prophetic Biography", part 3, p. 549, Ibn Kathir, "The Beginning and the End"; Ibn Khaldun, the rest of part 2, p. 43 and on; Al-Sira al-Halabiyya, Vol. 3. p. 18; Al-Sohaily, Al Road Al Anf, part 4, p. 90; Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad'’s Biography",7th ed., p.277) Omar Jabarin (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply