Talk:Umayya ibn Abd Shams

Untitled

This is in support to Shias point of view that Umayya was a European. Most people in Bannu Umayya including Abu Sufian and Uthman had colored eyes not dark brown like other Arabs including Banu Hashim. You will find in history that Banu Umayya persons could easily be recognised by color of their hair which were not black and many of them had white complexion where as people from rest all the other tribes in quetion were wheatish. Some Umayyads did have Asian features because of their maternal heritage as Umayya was the only European his wife was an Arab and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.66.3 (talk)

hahaha not true Umayya decedend made DNA test and the result was J1 ..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.229.84 (talk)

Adoption

Per WP policy:

• Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public, as described in WP:NOT; generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing sourced content. However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources.

@Emir of Wikipedia: Your edition is based on unreliable secondary and primary sources that goes against the accepted knowledge of Umayya legitimacy. Therefore if you are incapable (I asked you many times and you simply ignored) to provide the necessary material to the said remark expect it to be removed. Refrain from disruptive edits. Nabataeus (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: How is my source unreliable? If you are incapable of explaining that then expect the content to be restored. Please refrain from disruptive edits such as when you restored the unreliable geni source with this edit. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave you a summary on ibn al-Kalbi, the source of the claim, and his acknowledged unreliability by medieval Islamic scholars(sources provided), everyone could see through his pile of propaganda. That's first. Second your source is more specialized on the legal and doctrine aspects of Islam, not historical authority. Therefore I will ask you once again to provide reliable materials. Nabataeus (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I am being extremely generous here, I gave you the needed time to provide reliable materials per the WP policy above instead of a source specialized in the doctrine and legal aspects of Islam that base his work on another unreliable primary source, as acknowledged by medieval Islamic scholars. If you don't and simply you ought to revert my edit, you leave me no choice but to inform an admin in the noticeboard. Again, provide reliable materials. I will not ask you one more time. Nabataeus (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: Calm down, there is WP:NORUSH. My secondary source is reliable. It is stating that primary source has made that claim, not that the claim is true. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, your "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims" is absolutely not reliable authority concerning historical individual, maybe on the legal aspect of Islam. And ibn al-Kalbi the source of the claim is deemed and acknowledged by medieval Islamic scholars as unreliable (even a liar as his father)

Surely such a screaming distortion and outright fallacy have no place here, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Nabataeus (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? You keep on saying that it is not but don't explain how. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I already explained, save me the trouble of re-doing it again. Your first source is reliable only for the doctrine and religious Islamic law, it's not an authority concerning historical individuals. You don't use nuclear physicist as a source for different field. And as for al-Kalbi, I provided sources that he was acknowledged by medieval Islamic scholars as unreliable. Nabataeus (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What do you mean my first source? It is is reliable for what the book says. I am not using a nuclear physicist for a different field. What do you mean as for al-Kalbi? If he was not acknowledged by medieval Islamic scholars as unreliable with regards to the claim he is making here then that is irrelevant. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The example was to illustrate my point. I am not convenienced that you didn't get it. Anyway "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims" is not historical authority. Maybe for Islamic doctrine it is. You have been here for a long period to be at least aware that such sources should not be used outside of their sphere. Therefore I will ask you once again to provide reliable materials.

@Kansas Bear: take a look at this. Nabataeus (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims, by Ahmad Kazemi Moussavi, Karim Douglas Crow.

• Prof. Ahmad Kazemi Moussavi graduated from Tehran University in the field of Law. He graduated from McGill University with a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies.[1]
• Karim Douglas Crow, is a Principal Research Fellow at Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia.[2]

It would appear this source checks out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your post. I saw their biography. As i said and check the talk, they are reliable sources for Islamic doctrine and law (Not disputed). Ahmad Kazemi is what could be described as a reformer of Islamic thought he is currently a professor in Islamic law and Persian language in Maryland university. They are not specialist on historical individuals that are out of the scope of the Islamic faith. Nabataeus (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Please sign your post."

Sue me. I have 12 windows open, concerning multiple issues.

Actually, Islamic studies does make them specialists concerning Islamic history. If you do not agree then there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

• "They are not specialist on historical individuals that are out of the scope of the Islamic faith."

That is debatable, but then who would be considered a reliable source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis, Jan resto, and Encyclopedia of Islam for a starter. Or at least any author who is acquainted with the early Arab history. The source above don't pass that criteria, it only specialized in the doctrine aspect of Islam, the scripture. The title makes it explicitly clear. See Religious studies Nabataeus (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:

Do you obtain reliable sources that are actually specialist in the pre-Islamic history of the Arabs, or any reliable historical source (Not religious studies of Islamic scripture)? Nabataeus (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As explained above the source I have presented is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide an actual historical authoritative source. Your source specialized in the doctrine aspect of Islam. Anyway I see no other way except for asking the intervention of an admin. Nabataeus (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean an actual historical authoritative source? A source has been given and other people have proven it is fine. Why does an admin need to intervene, do you even know what they do? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Two veteran users told you the source is reliable and you still keep saying it’s not and making some « admin threats » ? You have the same behavior than here.—>Farawahar (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Moved from User talk:GreenMeansGo § Reliable source?

Hi, is this source "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims"[3] reliable for pre-Islamic Arab history? The source assert on extremely controversial topic concerning historical figure, Umayya ibn Abd Shams. Ahmad Kazemi for instance is specialist on the field of Islamic law, and other authors are concentrated in the study of the religious scripture, not history. I asked the editor to provide reliable materials for the claim, he simply ignored and asserted on the reliability of his source. Best regards. Nabataeus (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Nabataeus. I really hate to give a worthless response, but the topic area is well outside my competence. Most of my work on Wikipedia has been on parks and US history 1865-1914. I'm really not qualified to give an opinion one way or the other. You might have better luck with Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. GMG^talk 01:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look into it. Nabataeus (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

GMG This user seems to be engaging in WP:Forumshoping. At Talk:Umayya ibn Abd Shams multiple editors have said that the source is reliable, and the same has been said at WP:RSN#Umayya ibn Abd Shams. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Well, there's nothing wrong with taking a dispute over a source to RSN. That's what it's there for.

Having said that Nabataeus, on an open collaborative project like this, everybody wins and loses some disagreements. It's just the way things work when you get enough people together in one place to work together on something. Being able to tell when you've found yourself on the losing side, and choosing to move on to something else more productive is often a virtue here. GMG^talk 11:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not about wining or losing, and no "multiple" editors said the source is reliable (Farawahar who we had our old dispute, intense actually, followed me to the noticeboard to say the source is reliable, I could swear he doesn't even know who's Umayya or what the source specialized in. He is not neutral. Even then he was the only one). And Kansas who advised me afterward to take it to the RSN said "it appears to check out" in Umayya talk page. The problem is, GMG, the source specialized in the doctrine aspect of Islam (including the authors), not history, and the content was derived from ibn al-Kalbi (The adoption claim). I stated that Ibn al-Kalbi was acknowledged as unreliable authority. So where does that leave us? No reply from the noticeboard was cited. I am for asking the opinion of acquainted individuals on the assessment of the source. Could it be used as historical authority?. Nabataeus (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Umm... ping @Jbhunley: who seems to know more about this than I do. GMG^talk 20:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Yes, his opinion is needed. Nabataeus (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arab history is outside my wheel-house but this looks to be more 'in the time of the Prophet' and legitimacy of succession stuff, which is still outside my wheelhouse but at least a bit more familiar. I did some work on the Abbasid Revolution for non-WP reasons but that was several years ago. In that case genealogies were used to justify spiritual claims to the Caliphate so they must be read in the political context of the time. The situation is probably the same here with multiple primary sources making claims to support their faction

I assume from brief reading that the adoption is related to claims of the legitimacy of the Umayyad Caliphate. Religion, politics, doctrine and genealogy were, from what I have read, all parts of the same whole in that time so I would not, out of hand, rule out a book on doctrine for information on this person. Particularly since who has the right to rule can be considered a doctrinal issue. At a minimum I would think it an attributable source and it is likely it would reflect the consensus of academic opinion unless there is some clear reason for the author to be expressing a bias.

Do you have a quote or page in the source which is being used to support the claim? I did not see it in the part that was linked. I would think that there are better sources out there. I'll look into my Abbasid material and see if any of those reach back to that time and maybe there is something in The Encyclopedia of Islam. Jbh ^Talk 21:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This link https://books.google.com/books?id=rkwGdStuXHUC&pg=PA248&dq=Facing+on+Qiblah&hl=ar&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=adopted&f=false on page 181. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: That link just shows as blank pages to me. Also, from the headers it looks to be in Arabic. I did find a good write-up on him in The Encyclopedia of Islam pp 837ff. though. Jbh ^Talk 22:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• In that case genealogies were used to justify spiritual claims to the Caliphate so they must be read in the political context of the time.

Yes, you are absolutely right! That's my main point that I explained to Emir.

• I assume from brief reading that the adoption is related to claims of the legitimacy of the Umayyad Caliphate. Religion, politics, doctrine and genealogy were, from what I have read, all parts of the same whole in that time so I would not, out of hand, rule out a book on doctrine for information on this person.

Quite the contrary, the adoption claim was made by Ibn al-Kalbi, which the source carelessly cite. He was a Shia author (It should be pointed out, considering how Shias hold historical grudges on the Umayyads), who stated that "Umayya" (the father of the Umayyad dynasty) was a son of Meccian whore (pardon my language, English translation makes it less harsher). His work is politically driven aimed at de-legitimizing the sole Quraish-ness of the Umayyads. Ibn al-Kalbi is regarded as an unreliable authority: Another narrator in this version is ibn al Kalbi who is acknowledgedly unreliable reporter[4] Ibn al-Kalbi is known to be a liar as his father, he forged genealogies and poems. When I made that point very clear and explicit to Emir, he said it is irrelevant. Nabataeus (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My point about some people calling Ibn al-Kalbi unreliable being irrelevant is that we not using that to source the claim of Umayya being adopted, but another source stating that someone had made that claim which didn't disclaim any unreliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the point, Wikipedia cite accepted knowledge. Not what certain unreliable individual claim. It is misleading, since Umayya was not adopted per every reliable and neutral primary and secondary source. Nabataeus (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia can cite claims of people that some claim unreliable if they have been covered by third parties like the source I used. No reliable, or "neutral" primary or secondary source says explicitly he is not adopted they just don't specify. Also nothing wrong with a WP:BIASEDSOURCE. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The article in The Encyclopedia of Islam does not mention adoption rather it shows direct decent:

UMAYYA B. £ABD SHAMS, a n c e s t o r of the Umayyads, the principal clan of the Kuraysh of Mecca. His genealogy (Umayya b. cAbd Shams b. cAbd Manaf b. Kusayy) and his descendants are given in Wiistenfeld, Geneal. Tabellen, U, V, and Ibn al-Kabbl, in Caskel-Strenziok, i, nos. 8 ff. Like all other eponyms of Arab tribes and clans, his actual existence and the details of his life have to be accepted with caution, but too great scepticism with regard to tradition would be as ill-advised as absolute faith in its statements. From:The Encyclopedia of Islam T-U p 837

and gives a caution about the historicity of his biography. The sources mentioned are

Bibliography. Ibn Durayd, K. al-Ishtikdk, ed. j Wiistenfeld, 45-50, 103-4; Muscab al-Zubayrl, K. Nasab Kuraysh, ed. Levi-Provenc.al, 97-192; Ibn j al-Kalbl, in Caskel and Strenziok, Gamharat an-nasab, \ i. Tafeln, nos. 8-16, ii. Register, 131 (cAbd Shams), | 569-70 (Umayya); Baladhurf, Ansdb al-ashrdf, iv/1, ed. I. cAbbas, Wiesbaden 1979,.containing the part earlier ed. M. Schloessinger and MJ. Kister, Jerusalem 1971; G. Rotter, Die Umayyaden und der zweite Burgerknege (680-692), Wiesbaden 1982, 108- 26, 253 ff. (detailed genealogical tables); and various references in the works of H. Lammens: Etudes sur le regne du calife omaiyade Mo'dwia Ier, Paris 1908; Le califat de Yazid Ier, Beirut 1921; and La Mecque j a la milk de I'Hegire, Beirut 1924, 53, 196-7. | (G. LEVI BELLA ViDA-[C.E. BOSWORTH]) From: The Encyclopedia of Islam T-U p 839

Jbh ^Talk 22:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Erm

?? Jbh ^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Erm it mentions the "anti-Umayyad polemic" regarding the etymology of the name later on does it not, or am I looking at a different edition? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It says, "The name Umayya is common in Arab nomenclature, and is found in both northern and southern tribes; the meaning which anti-Umayyad polemic gives to it (a diminutive of ama "slave-girl") would make it a sobriquet; we also have the positive form Banu Ama as the name of a tribe." There is also a bit more relating to his genealogy "Umayya was the cousin on the father's side of Hashim b. cAbd al-Muttalib …". Jbh ^Talk 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) • Later it makes a direct statement of his parentage — "We come down to historical ground with the statement (Azrakf, 71, etc.) that Umayya, like his father cAbd Shams, commanded the Meccan army in time of war (al-kiyada), a post which was later transmitted to his son Harb and his grandson Abu Sufyan. ibid p838" — Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Even though that does not mention that adoption claim it a reference to the the story mentioned in the source I gave. Try this link [5] it is the same book which is in English previously I just copied the link from Nabataeus which is why it was in Arabic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I read that as saying the adoption claim was essentially a slander used as anti-Umayyad propaganda. I think it valid to put the claim in the article but it should be clearly contextualized. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an actual reliable and authoritative source for historical individuals. Tightly referenced also. Nabataeus (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Break

• 'Note I would suggest that when finished this thread be copied over to the article talk page so there is a record of it for later reference. The cut paste can point back to this page for attribution. Jbh ^Talk 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

JBH. the claim was made by ibn al-Kalbi who is not reliable. See my previous post please:

• "the adoption claim was made by Ibn al-Kalbi, which the source carelessly cite. He was a Shia author (It should be pointed out, considering how Shias hold historical grudges on the Umayyads), who stated that "Umayya" (the father of the Umayyad dynasty) was a son of Meccian whore (pardon my language, English translation makes it less harsher). His work is politically driven aimed at de-legitimizing the sole Quraish-ness of the Umayyads. Ibn al-Kalbi is regarded as an unreliable authority: Another narrator in this version is ibn al Kalbi who is acknowledgedly unreliable reporter[6] Ibn al-Kalbi is known to be a liar as his father, he forged genealogies and poems."

It is clearly unreliable and misleading. Nabataeus (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We are not in a position to interpret the reliability and motive ancient sources. Doing so requires enough specialized knowledge that it would rightly be considered WP:OR. In addition I would consider al-Kalbi to be WP:PRIMARY. The modern sources say the claim was made by anti-Umayyad propagandists or was an anti-Umayyad slander. So the article should relate just that ex Anti-Umayyad propaganda claims that his name is derived from 'ama' a diminutive term for 'slave-girl' and that he was born to a Greek prostitute only later to be adopted by...^ref Considering this claim looks to be well attributed on academic sources there is no need to attribute it to a single author. There is no question the claim was made and there is no question that the claim is being related by modern reliable sources so I see no basis for excluding it from the article. However it is added to the article it needs to be made clear it is a claim by those who were against the Umayyads ie not ...son of... but some say he was adopted. From what I read in the sources there does not seem to be anyone who thinks it is true only that it was a claim used against the Umayyads. Jbh ^Talk 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 23:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

His unreliablity is not stated by me, the source provided above described ibn al-Kalbi as "acknowledgedly unreliable reporter". That's for one, second "Facing One Qiblah: Legal and Doctrinal Aspects of Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims" is not an authoritative source for historical issues, it specialize in the doctrine aspect of Islam. Ahmad Kazemi for instance is specialist on the field of Islamic law, why should we use a non-historian as a source?. The Encyclopedia of Islam referenced ibn al-Kalbi, but did not state what he stated, therefore not well attributed in academic sources. Since his claim carries no substantial weight. Thus Encyclopedia of Islam should be cited as a source since it was written by an actual specialists of history. Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public, and the adoption claim of ibn al-Kalbi was not accepted by Encyclopedia of Islam. Nabataeus (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. There is no way you will be able to convince me to discard a source or what it says simply because it cites al-Kalbi. If I were digging into the history for myself, sure it would be worthwhile to examine his reliability but that is not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. EofI does also mention the slander if not the adoption but they are part and parcel. Your assertion that the source " is not an authoritative source for historical issues" is complete unpersuasive. The study of Islamic doctrine requires the knowledge and study of Islamic history nor is this a claim which requires specialized training as a historian. From what I can see there is no scholarly debate over whether the claim was made. If someone was claiming that he was in truth the son of a whore that would be a different thing entirely but no one is making that claim. In Wikipedia terms failing to document the slander, a documented historical fact, is an WP:NPOV violation ie just because some people still think it is slanderous is not a reason to keep it out. Jbh ^Talk 00:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's a misunderstanding here. I didn't discredit the source merely because it cite ibn al-Kalbi. Instead, the source as I said specialized in the law and doctrine aspects of Islam and development of Islamic beliefs (I have a cousin who is in that filed, no historical studies were required aside from being acquainted with Ulama and the scripture). The scope of the authors is thus limited to particular religiously neat sphere, which Umayya or any historical figure for that matter who didn't have any theological influence on Islam is definitely removed from the aim and speciality of the authors.

EofI is a reliable and better source, since it was written by an actual specialists. You could reflect what it state on the issue. Nabataeus (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The only issue I see with going only with EofI is that it the entire slander seems to be historically significant. Simply mentioning the various possible name derivations misses the whole point. The slander, as I understand it, was used to undermine the legitimacy of the Umayyads and just mentioning that their enemies said his name was derived from 'slave-girl' misses the thrust of the issue. The whole son of a prostitute thing is a nasty thing but, as I understand the politics of the era, it is the being adopted that is the issue because if he was not blood of the Quraysh then his decedents could not claim to be Caliphs. Maybe I am wrong on that, it has been a while and I was not really paying much attention to the ins and outs of who can claim to be Caliph in that era. My guess that is why there was reference to 'blue eyes' and the prostitute being Greek. If I have time tomorrow I will look around in my references to see if I can find more and see of I can locate anything in wen and database searches. There should be better sources out there that address the matter.

As things stand I still do not think that the matter is of enough controversy in historical circles that there is a reason to discount something written by a non-historian writing in a related field. He is relating known information, not making a historical judgment ie it is contextual information which an academic in the field should know and no one really claims that it is not the case. I would want to see some indication that modern scholarship disputes the slander or, through finding several other sources which discuss his genealogy and do not refer to it show that mentioning it is WP:UNDUE.

At the very least you bring up very interesting topics! Ping me if you do not hear from me in a day or so. Jbh ^Talk 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you are right. Being non-Quraishi exclude you from being a Caliph in the early period. The Ottomans are different case, when the Arabs lost their monopoly on Islam. You could use additional reliable materials alongside EofI. My concern considering the reliability of Facing one Qiblah is quite legitimate and have merit. Not the title, neither the authors hint on them being specialized in the historical filed. Also, this is very important and crucial, in encyclopedia of Islam, authored by multiple reliable historians, Umayya was not called an adopted despite ibn al-Kalbi was used as a reference. Primary sources should be dealt with accordingly at least by historians who assess the presented second hand accounts. Nabataeus (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I can sort of see your point or more properly I can see the converse of my point - if the adoption claim is as clearly significant and accepted as I think it is it should be mentioned elsewhere. I have several books which discuss the beginnings of the Abbasid revolt which should mention claims delegitimizing the Umayyads. It will take a while. The ones I have on hand are; Black Banners from the East and Revolt; Reinterpreting Islamic Historiography; Abd Allah bin al-Muqaffa and the Abbasid Revolution; Abu Muslim al-Kurisani; The Emergance of a Secret Agent in Khurasan; Abu Muslim's Conquest of Khurasan Peliminarirs and Strategy plus a dozen or so more general references. Unfortunately I do not think I have much, if anything, on Umayyad history though. If you can think of any please let me know and I will see if I can track them down. Jbh ^Talk 15:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The adoption claim was not made by any reliable source, what specialize sources state; That he was the son of Abd-Shams. I searched the books of Bernard Lewis Jan Resto, and other books which deals with the Umayyads without any luck.

• The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750: The son of Abd Shams, Umayya, eponym of the Umayyad family was notably unable to match the generosity of his uncle Hashim.[7]

I think the burden of proof is on Emir to simply provide additional materials written by an actual historians, since they are the only ones who are qualified to deal with historical primary sources. Nabataeus (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I found another source which is on point but I can only see snippets of it and I can not assess it. I would say it clearly documents that the claims were made —Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn Sharīf al-Raḍī; Syed Ali Raza; ʻAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Caliph) (1999). Nahj Al-balāghah: Selection from Sermons, Letters and Sayings of Amir Al-Muʼminin, ʻAli Ibn Abi Talib. Ansariyan Publications. When he found him intelligent and sagacious he freed him and adopted him as his son, as a result of which he began to be called Umayyah son of 'Abd Shams // the first doubt that is entertained about Umayyah is whether he was the son of 'Abd Shams or only his slave who began to be known as…. There is not much that goes into his life and, so far, I have not seen mention of him at all in my 'Abbasid sources. The propaganda examples there are more about the Caliphs or the Umayyads in general. I did find some interesting information on the meanings/symbolism of 'blue-eyed' in Medieval Islam, nothing useful for the article but interesting none the less.

I made a try at re-writing things in a more NPOV way and I think there is enough to state the claim was made and that it was part of the anti-Umayyad propaganda. I think Facing One Qiblah can be used to illustrate the propaganda of the time since it puts all of the parts in one place. I particularly think it is worth preserving because it also ties in the 'blue-eyed' slander that was later used against the House of Umayya, but that kind of detail would be for later expansion. Jbh ^Talk 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: There's absolutely no room for doubt that the claim was made. I have the full quotes in Arabic from ibn al-Kalbi accounts (the source of the claim) additional to that I am well acquainted with the anti-Umayyad slanders. What I am stating is how accepted his claim (meaning ibn al-Kalbi) in the academic sphere? Encyclopedia of Islam don't call him adopted despite using ibn al-Kalbi as a reference, which should be taken in consideration as the status of the remark. Primary sources are extremely dangerous. It is not used blindly, or otherwise face the fallacy and grotesque of history. God forbid. That being said, I think Umayya being born to a slave girl (which Encyclopedia of Islam state as a slander) is not an usual, and maybe rightly so the claim is, although with a grain of salt. Many Arab caliphs were son of slaves, and famous Arab generals such as 'Amr ibn al-'As was the son of Meccian prostitute, the lowest paid actually. Nabataeus (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

On your addition of al-Kalbi being an 'unreliable narrator' - is al-Kalbi the only one to report the adoption claim or is there another chain of transmission? "Unreliable reporter" is awkward in English as a bare statement about an individual and calling something 'propaganda' already carries the very strong connotation that the claim is unreliable. The other issue is that the source you cited seems to be about the transmission of hadith. As I very imperfectly understand it, the term 'unreliable reporter' is a term of art which is specific to analysis of the isnad of a hadith and relates to the weight one should put on the wording, detail and context of what they relate but does not invalidate a hadith which has that person in its isnad. Basically I think that Wikipedia policy would consider it original research to use a source on theological/judicial unreliability in this context.

I do not, on initial consideration, think it is a big enough issue to say it should be removed but I can not think of a valid objection if someone else removed it. Like I said earlier, it is pretty much a null statement. Saying al-Kalbi's story is propaganda and calling al-Kalbi an unreliable reporter are pretty much the same, although, 'propaganda' carries a stronger implication of falsehood to the typical reader. I will keep looking for material on Umayya in general and see if I can, with help, expand the article some. Jbh ^Talk 15:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

He is the source of the claim, for instance Ibn Abi'l-Hadid cited the work of ibn al-Kalbi. Most of the accounts that I have are traced back to him. However I need to further check. Yes the source appears so, my mistake. Ibn al--Kalbi is considered unreliable in most of the field. He has a reputation of constant lying as his father. See here is a better soure: [8] I think this definitely should be pointed out. Interestingly I read yesterday when al-Isfahani deals with an incident and poem that ibn al-Kalbi reported, he said "this one the lies of ibn al-Kalbi". Sadly it is in Arabic, I could provide it to you if you want. Nabataeus (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-English sources are fine. Personally, I'd like to see a translation to get an idea of the context but that is not a requirement of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. I would not want to base too much on ancient sources (I would consider them WP:PRIMARY) because of the care required in using them. but I think they would be useful for context. As to the new source, I think it requires chaining too many things together. What might work is to quote al-Kalbi directly and then a statement of his reliability would be appropriate. That might be a way to consider until better modern sources can be located. Jbh ^Talk 22:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is primary, I will not use it since, again, it should be dealt with by certain specialist who assess these kind of accounts. However, merely for a perspective, this is from al-Isfahani concerning ibn al-Kalbi (I am not qualified to translate such accounts, but i'll give it a try):

• هذه الأخبار التي ذكرتها عن ابن الكلبي موضوعةٌ كلها، والتوليد بيّن فيها وفي أشعارها، وما رأيت شيئاً منها في ديوان دريد بن الصمة على سائر الروايات. وأعجب من ذلك هذا الخبر الأخير؛ فإنه ذكر فيه ما لحق دريداً من الهجنة والفضيحة في أصحابه وقتل من قتل معه وانصرافه منفرداً، وشعر دريد هذا يفخر فيه بأنه ظفر ببني الحارث وقتل أمائلهم؛ وهذا من أكاذيب ابن الكلبي

"These accounts from ibn al-Kalbi all are forged, it is obvious in it (incidents) and its poems, I didn't see anything similar to those accounts in the diwan of Dorayd bin Al Soma. More astonishing than that is the last account, it mention what happened to Dorayd from the Hujna (not sure what it means) and disgrace in his companions, killed who got killed (his friends), only to leave alone. And this poem of Dorayd he boast on his victory over bani al-Harth, this is from the lies of ibn al-Kalbi." - al-Isfahani

Ibn al-Kalbi have extremely bad reputation, to the point where he is simply unreliable. This is why Encyclopedia of Islam didn't give his accounts any substantial weight or mention the adoption claim, and frankly no reliable historian did so either. Nabataeus (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nabataeus: I am thinking of expanding this a bit and I am considering detailing what al-Kalbi says and directly attributing it to him. For instance a paragraph like [Some source, probably Facing One Qiblah says] 'Ibn al-Kalbi claims in [his book?] that [relate his claims]. These claims have have been picked up by [anti-Umayaad, whomever]. ^{some other source} [Something about how al-Kalbi is/was viewed]^{source discussing al-Kalbi}' I have not found any lines of transmission which do not have al-Kalbi as a root so I think direct attribution is possible. Could you please check through any Arabic sources you can find, even if not WP:RS, to see if there is any indication of another line for these claims with a different root to make sure?

I am not sure how the sourcing will work out. There are few works with extensive details but I think it will be possible to get a fair representation even with weaker sources.

I am not sure of how much time I will have to put into this but it is definitely on my to-do list. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jbhunley: I am grateful for your patience. I've been quite busy lately. Now I am free from any commitments. I really don't think I am qualified to translate classical Arabic text to standard English, my work with al-Isfahani was a linguistic disaster, but the substantial meaning of my argument concerning the reputation of ibn al-Kalbi was enough (I could try if you insist). Then or now, he is not dependable. I checked, all the claim chains end at al-Kalbi, he is the source of the claim.

Jbh, these kind of dubious fishy sources are numerous in the historical field, for instance, as mere example to illustrate my point, Abu is-haaq [9], claimed that the Persian king Khosrow was of Quraishi descent. That's absolutely nonsense and rubbish that you usually find in many primary sources. Not to imply or cloth Abu ishaasq with unreliability, he was rather a respected historian for the Buyid period. And his statement are included in reliable materials which state that the remark was made. However when dealing directly with the biography of Khosrow it hold no weight. Is it really justifiable to embed it in his article?

That's why when encyclopedia of Islam explicitly referenced ibn al-Kalbi, his claim was not included. The burden is on @Emir of Wikipedia: who restored the claim, to provide an academic history-related author that assess the statement by the means of the followed methodology. Nabataeus (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)