Talk:Wives of Muhammad/Archive 2

Format

Is it just me who finds parts of the text in an odd format? Anyone know how to clean up? --Arabist 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutley agree.Bless sins 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested format:

1 The perceptions of the concept of marriage [Keep + expand]

2 Family history

2.1 Khadijah bint Khuwaylid [keep because it lasted long]

2.2 Later marriages [merge all marriages into a continuous history]

2.3 Muhammad's widows [keep and describe consequences]

3 List of Muhammad's wives [don't keep, and break off into seperate article]

4Family life [describe Muhammad's relations with his wife, his behaviour towards them and how they shaped his life]

5 Views

5.1 Muslim

5.1.1 Sunni [keep and get scholarly views]

5.1.2 Shi'a [keep and get scholarly views]

5.2 Non-Muslim [keep and get scholarly views]

6 See also

7 Notes

I think this looks very good, although I might even leave a list of Mohammed's wives, but not in a table which looks horrible and only takes away space, but simply as a paragraph under a separate point. I like in particular the idea of looking at both Sunni an Shia views, although a few introductory words might be necessary in order to introduce the difference and contextualise these differences - basically by saying that these a small details (don't want to create an edit war as in the German wikipedia between Sunnis/Shia. Good luck! --Arabist 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag

Sorry my edit summary was incomplete. Kirby, the anon used honorophics, which are not allowed. Your editing behavior is not very cooperative or different from yesterday when you were blocked for disruptive editing. Please try to be more careful. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move to "Muhammad's family"

I think we should move this article to "Muhammad's family" so that we can more freely discuss his relationships not only between him and his wives, but also his children (including adopted ones).Bless sins 03:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is used as a pretext to removed the material I recently added about his marriage to his cousin, I will move it back. Arrow740 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this rename. Its an obvious attempt to subdue the fact that Muhammad married a lot of women. The fact is that the article is hugely about Mohammad's marriages. There's only a small section on Mohammad's children. Mohammed's marriages deserve their own page. The page should be moved back. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Arrow740 08:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying we create a seperate article about his children? What about his grandchildren, shoudl we create a seperate article about them too? If this article gets too long, we'll split it.Bless sins 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what the article is about: Muhammad's marriages and this was the correct title. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What of his children, and grand children? I'm moving it back.Bless sins 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Until they have their own article, this will be called "Muhammad's Families." Arrow740 05:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone only has one family. Most people are, just like Muhammad, involved in many relation ships. For example, they have their spouse and children, their siblings and parents, their in-laws, their maternal uncles and aunts, their paternal uncles and aunts ... .

But that doesn't mean that they have "families".Bless sins 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Muhammad's wives is a fine name for this article and that it be merged with Mother of the Believers which gives it a better raison d'etre and can make it a fuller article. Plus the template works well with the concept as well. The children can just be mentioned, they have separate peel off pages just like main articles of the wives. I see this more as a gathering point which brings a summary together. The problem with family of Muhammad is a different issue. You are now trying to force a present day "nuclear family" concept onto his era which does not work. That steps into the Ahl al-Bayt concept and a couple of other that were formed the concept of family for him.--Tigeroo 20:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Arrow740

Arrow740,

What is your problem? Why did you remove sourced content, introduce spelling errors, and insert unsourced content here?Bless sins 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea to get an Arbcomm decision on Nomani and settle the dispute.--Tigeroo 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, just admit that Nomani is hopelessly partisan. Arrow740 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to consider if Arrow740 can be classified as a WP:TROLL, who reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, and seems to be very uninterested in the improvement of the article. That Nomani is a historian was established here. Bless sins 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I couldn't remember where Proabivouac had completely obliterated Nomani's credibility as an objective historian. Arrow740 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean it was established that Nomani is a partisan religious source and thus unacceptable as a reliable secondary source? If so, you're right. Beit Or 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you read what I wrote? I wrote "That Nomani is[\was] a historian was established." Historian are reliable sources in the field of history.Bless sins 12:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That he hold a degree doesn't mean that he isn't hopelessly biased and not a RS. -- Karl Meier 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

When did I base my argument on solely "holding a degree"? He was a professor! On wikipedia, professors from universities, as well as historian are considered reliable sources. Nomani is both.Bless sins 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But let's not divert from Arrow740's edits. He/she is removing many relaible sources (only one of whom is Nomani). In addition he/she is introducing unsourced content, and spelling errors.Bless sins 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If we are to follow your logic, which seems to be that anyone that has held a degree from a University is a RS, then we would also have to consider for example Josef Mengele a RS on Anthropology. Fortunately though, your argument is flawed, and this is not the case. -- Karl Meier 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

...and I'm being falsely accused again. When will these false accusations stop? I never said "anyone that has held a degree from a University is a RS". I justified Nomani's reliability based on the fact that he was a professor at a university. There is a difference between earning a degree from a university and teaching there.Bless sins 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomani has already been debunked. You won't ever be able to use him. Arrow740 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740's edits

Arrow740, you are removing some sourced content, and adding some irrelevant content. (For example, even if the forced marriage stuff is true, the forced marriage would be to Zayd, not Muhammad. In case you haven't noticed this article is about Muhammad's wives, not Zayd's.)Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And she was Muhammad's wife so details of her life belong here. I will soon remove all content sourced to the sealed nonsense. Arrow740 (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Only details relevant to being Muhammad's wife. Again, this article is not about Zayd's marriage, but about Muhammad's marriage. Also Watt himself says the account is most likely a fabrication, and offers reasons against it. So do all other scholarly sources I've seen.Bless sins (talk) 04:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rodinson says that Watt was wrong. That's not the issue. The issue is that you decided to attribute to Watt the statement that it was a "rumor," when he doesn't make that statement. Further, this article is called "Muhammad's wives," so the details of their lives are significant. Arrow740 (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt says this account is not true. Whether it is rumor or later fabrication is besides the point (other sources call it a rumor).Bless sins (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The only source calling it a rumor here is you. Arrow740 (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not a reliable source. But Nomani certainly is, and he calls it a rumor. Watt indirectly agrees with him by rejecting the validity of the account.Bless sins (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Zaynab

Muhammad insisted on Zaynab marrying Zaid to break the class difference conception. Maybe we can include what Zaynab said re why she didn't want to marry Zaid and what Muhammad said and why? It seems to me that the current presentation seems vague.--Be happy!! (talk)

Sadly, this motive is not present in the primary sources. Arrow740 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I remember seeing it somewhere. I believe it was an exegesis (by Maududi). I'll try to locate it. But where shall we put this info? The article is arranged in a chronological order, and it should probably be put quite early on.Bless sins (talk) 07:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Spreading a rumor"

Give the quote from Watt (you won't find it because you made this up). Also don't add unsourced content like you did regarding Maria. Also we have to make it clear that the "captives" were people enslaved by Muhammad if you're going to use the unreliable source Nomani for apologetics. Arrow740 (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is Nomani. He is cited at the end of the paragraph. If you've read Watt, then you know Watt, like Nomani, considers the account to be false (although he doesn't say whether it was a rumor or a later fabrication).

The sources says "captives" not "slaves".

I'll source and re-add Mariya as soon as possible.Bless sins (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt considers it false. But the sources say it is true with no mention of a "rumor." Rodinson considers it true. The sources do not call it a rumor; this is Nomani's invention. This is another sign that Nomani is not the same as Watt et al. He is prominent in his own way, but he is highly partisan. You insisted on using Nomani regarding "because of Muhammad, they were released." This analysis could only come from Nomani. The problem is, because of Muhammad, they were captured in the first place, so the net result of all this on them was negative, not positive. This is an unacceptable use of a partisan source. Please confine yourself to Watt; he's a qualified apologist. Arrow740 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, you appear to have the Juwayriyya situation wrong. Her captor refused to ransom her; only then did she marry Muhammad. The inference currently seems to be that she chose to marry Muhammad instead of freedom. That is not the case. Provide the extract of Lings so that your reading can be verified, or we can replace it with material from another biography. Arrow740 (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"But the sources say it is true" Which sources?? Watt says it is false. Nomani says it is false. Which sources are you talking about. Please remember that medieval sources don't count as we are considering academic sources.

If Rodinson considers it true then he is in minority. Nevertheless his views should be presented on wikipedia, in a way that is proportionate.

"The problem is, because of Muhammad, they were captured in the first place" The problem is, you keep applying your own interpretation, thus violating WP:NOR.

"we can replace it with material from another biography" Lings is a pretty reliable source. Have you read him yet?Bless sins (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In the primary sources, the Muhammad falling in love story is presented as a fact. Watt considers it false. But the sources say it is true with no mention of a "rumor." Rodinson considers it true. The sources do not call it a rumor; this is Nomani's invention. This is another sign that Nomani is not the same as Watt et al. He is prominent in his own way, but he is highly partisan. You insisted on using Nomani regarding "because of Muhammad, they were released." This analysis could only come from Nomani. The problem is, because of Muhammad, they were captured in the first place, so the net result of all this on them was negative, not positive. This is an unacceptable use of a partisan source. Please confine yourself to Watt; he's a qualified apologist. Further, your removal of details of Muhammad's wife Safiyya is bizarre. Arrow740 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1. "In the primary sources, the Muhammad falling in love story is presented as a fact." In the primary sources it is stated that Muhammad is a prophet of God, who received divine message from Him.

2. "The sources do not call it a rumor;" Nomani call's it a rumor.

3. "The problem is, because of Muhammad, they were captured in the first place" The problem is, you keep applying your own interpretation, thus violating WP:NOR.

4. "This is an unacceptable use of a partisan source." Unacceptable to you only. Consensus is that Nomani is a reliable source.

5. "Please confine yourself to Watt" Why? There are more reliable source in the world than just Watt.Bless sins (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1)You're avoiding the point. 2)Nomani is unreliable; more later. 3)I'm not sure what you're getting at. 4)I proved to you at Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Standards_for_criticism_articles that Nomani is unreliable. You had no response so now you resort to "concensus," which means you and itaqallah, who appears to have changed his mind by not reinstating Nomani at Criticism of Muhammad. I won't repeat all of what I said there, or what Proabivouac said at Talk:Battle of Khaybar#Partisan religious sources. The fact is that Nomani in no way meets the standards of WP:RS. According to [[WP:V}], the burden is on you to prove that your sources are reliable. You have not done so. Nomani is a partisan religious source, without academic qualifications except his professorship at a university founded to promote Islamic culture in India. His work is not published by reputable presses. You cannot insert his spin on history in an encyclopedia masquerading as fact. Arrow740 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1) You are avoiding the point. Tell me should consider Muhammad as a true Messenger of Allah like the primary sources do?

4) You're violating WP:NOR. That's what I'm getting at.

2)Nomani is a reliable source. The onus is on me to prove that he is reliable, and I have: [1] There you can also find consensus. You, however, refuse to look at evidence and continue in your baseless talk about Nomani being a "partisan religious source". Is there a reliable source that calls Nomani "partisan religious source". Even if Nomani is a "partisan religious source", does wikipedia reject such a source as unreliable? Please quote wiki policy only.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You must not comprehend what's going on. The primary sources say it happened; we say in the article "the primary sources say it happened, Watt disagrees, Rodinson disagrees with him." That's the way it works; maybe you haven't learned that by now. Nomani with his shoddy scholarship says "it was spread as a rumor." He is wrong. There is no basis for this. Rodinson even says that would not have been grounds for criticism; it wouldn't have been spread as a rumor by Muhammad's critics. For the record, if anyone reads this page, BS's claims of "concensus" is one person agreeing with him. This is not concensus. According to WP:RS Nomani needs to satisfy: 1) The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. 2) Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred. Neither is the case for Nomani. So you haven't defended your material. Since the onus is on you, it's out. Qualified? No. Objective? No. Academic presses? No. He's out. About the captive, the reliable sources say that Muhammad and his men captured those people, it's not OR. Arrow740 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't interpret primary sources as you will. Scholars on the other can. "He is wrong." According to you only.

"judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals" Nomani's work has been judged acceptable by academic journals. Examples have been provided. You choose to ignore the evidence.

BTW, I no longer use WP:RS, but WP:SOURCES for determining whehter a source is reliable.Bless sins (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nomani's work has been judged acceptable by academic journals." No, it hasn't. He never published in a single one. You must not comprehend what's going on. The primary sources say it happened; we say in the article "the primary sources say it happened, Watt disagrees, Rodinson disagrees with him." That's the way it works; maybe you haven't learned that by now. Nomani with his shoddy scholarship says "it was spread as a rumor." He is wrong. There is no basis for this. Rodinson even says that would not have been grounds for criticism; it wouldn't have been spread as a rumor by Muhammad's critics. Thus, Rodinson contradicts the partisan Nomani. Arrow740 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomani's work has been deemed acceptable by academic journals and scholars. Please see this. He doesn't have to publish in a journal. Infact, there exist scholarly books (books aren't, can't be, published in journals). Academic journal have published positive reviews of his work. In other article, scholars have praised him and his work. Does Rodinson say that Nomani is wrong in saying there was a "rumor"? If yes, can you quote him?Bless sins (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A serious scholar says point-blank that his amorousness would not have provoked criticism. A revisionist unreliable source doesn't understand that, and fabricates this "rumor" idea. The reason the event provoked criticism was that it was incestuous, not that Muhammad coveted another man's wife, which was perfectly fine because sexual attraction was considered uncontrollable at that time (according to Rodinson, who says this in the context of the Aisha affair). Your arguments for RS status are that some RS's have said positive things about Nomani. They are not in the context of his work's reliability, so they don't imply that his work is reliable. Do you understand? See Aligarh Movement. Arrow740 (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the Rodinson passage here? At this point you appear to be completely confused on this subject. Professor Nomani was a professor at a university. At wikipedia professors are considered reliable sources. Also, on wikipedia, professors who have been excessively praised by academic journals, and are considered leading historians, are considered doubly reliable sources. I've already provided evidence to this, and there was consensus. Do you understand?Bless sins (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're going off on your own here. Aligarh Muslim University was not known for it's scholarship, but for it's partisanship. Your claims of "excessive praise" are ludicrous. Let's move on. Arrow740 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Let's indeed move one. I've had enough of thinly veiled attempts to declare Muslim universities as unscholarly. We have consensus, let's respect it.Bless sins (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing thinly veiled about it. A job at that university is not a qualification. And yes, you have a concensus with one other person who usually agrees with you. Arrow740 (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

University professors are considered reliable sources. Isn't that why Rodinson is considered a reliable source? And thank you for conceding that I have consensus.Bless sins (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maria

Maria does need to be mentioned here, whether she was a wife or not. I've reinstated the common knowledge about her, namely, that she was an Egyptian slave, is usually considered to have become on of Muhammad's wives, and that she bore him Ibrahim. The other details need to be sourced. One note to make would be that Tabari says Maria did become a Muslim, which as far as I know would be the only necessary condition for Muhammad to marry her.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the common details would need to be sourced. Also, in addition to her being Muslim, consent would also be required before marriage.Bless sins (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

4 witnesses

We missed the important part of the Aisha scandal, which is that after it allegations of adultery (which includes rape in Islamic thought) need to be justified by 4 male witnesses, or they are considered slander. Arrow740 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)