Talk:Yaʽfūr

"Do you desire females"

To modern eyes, one of the more mysterious parts of the story involves the question about whether Ya'fur desires females. The modern comic response, of course, is to see him as a gay donkey, but I doubt this is period authentic - I even doubt that people in ancient times even perceived homo- and heterosexuals as mutually exclusive castes. I also find it hard to believe that it was a reference to a celibate lifestyle, because if Muhammad himself had wives and concubines why would a donkey be monkish? And he did come from 60 generations, after all. I don't know if they had stud farms at that time, whether it was an offered boon that the donkey could go off and live in one in pleasant conditions but not serve the prophet... or maybe the donkey's lack of interest in reproduction reflects Muhammad's status as "Seal of the Prophets"? ... bottom line, I have no idea ... does anyone? Wnt (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit silly to doubt that "people in ancient times" (which I take it must run at least up to the 7th century CE when Muhammad was still alive but possibly much later when the story was being written down) would have perceived homosexuals and heterosexuals in any particular way? I would think that people across that range of history and cultures must have had lots of different outlooks. 87.254.72.244 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not accepted by 99% of Muslims as a true nor relevant story

This claim first appears in a work by Ibn Kathir, over 500 years after Mohamed's death. So it is a fable concocted at that point. Zero Sunnis (the majority of Muslims) believe this. It is possible that this is believed among some Shia. But I have never read a scholarly treatment of Islam (english only) that takes this seriously. This is a parade of incompetence and bigotry. Nice job wikipedia.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I cited a few sources - looks like Prioryman did a far better job on that though. I don't see what would be bigoted about my presentation of the story though, as I specifically cited a source comparing it to one of Aesop's Fables - i.e. not a true religious teaching, and yet, a tradition with some moral significance.

The deletion of any mention of Innocence of Muslims seems quite unreasonable, considering that most readers nowadays (myself included) heard of this only in connection with that film, and want to know what the story is. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I felt that IoM was simply undue weight; it's the fringiest of fringe sources. The maker obviously knew about the story of Ya`fūr's powers of speech, but this hardly makes his (very crude) depiction notable. There's a respectable story to be told here without delving into fever swamps. Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes it notable to me is the dramatic effect that the interpretations of the story had on the world, in protests and rhetoric. This is where we hear of it. In the same way, our article Kefitzat Haderech prominently describes Kwisatz Haderach, even though the latter is just a term from some sci-fi story. And in the great chopping spree even the reference to the Arabic Wikisource original for the story was taken out, so it's not like there was any great care being taken there. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)