Talk:Wives of Muhammad/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Muhammad's wives

...is the title of the article. Tortured and beheaded ex-husbands are relevant to their lives. Do you disagree? Arrow740 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We can mention them (i.e. before marriage she was married to _____). I don't see the point of putting the entire life story of the husband in the article. Another thing: let's keep this article to limited people who were alive, and thus could have interacted with Muhammad.

Thus, unless beheaded husbands (or any type of husband which died before the lady became the prophet's wife) came back to life, they aren't really relevant.Bless sins (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your responses are becoming increasingly desperate. The fact that husband number two tortured and beheaded husband one is relevant in an article about a woman's life. Arrow740 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is where you are mistaken. This isn't an article about Lady Safiyyah's life, nor about Lady Aisha's life etc. No, no, no. Their lives before marriage to the prophet are irrelevant to this article. This article is about Lady Safiyya as a wife of the prophet.The former husband wasn't even alive at the time of marriage.Bless sins (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read many biographies. Your argument is absurd. You may wish next to exclude all events of her life that did not occur within some set distance of Muhammad, arbitrarily determined by you. Arrow740 (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"You may wish next to exclude all events of her life that did not occur within some set distance of Muhammad, arbitrarily determined by you." You are not making any sense. The life of prophet Muhammad's wife is relevant to this article. The life of an ordinary woman (not married to prophet Muhammad) is not relevant. Lady Safiyyah was an ordinary woman (so far as the topic of this article is concerned) when her husband died. She was not married to prophet Muhammad at the time of those events.Bless sins (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Was Muhammad a knight? You recently added material sourced to a questionable pdf stating that Muhammad was a physician; perhaps you will find another pdf stating that Muhammad was a knight and add that to this article. I hope not. Arrow740 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clear you have nothing useful to say on the topic, so you start bringing in my edits from other articles in this.Bless sins (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "Tortured and beheaded ex-husbands" is ofcourse relevant. The story has to be mentioned of how they became their wives for example. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I really can't see where you're coming from here, Bless sins. You don't think any information about these women before the moment they married Muhammad is relevant? How they came to be married is important information, especially in the case of Safiyya, where Muhammad had her husband killed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How is the torture of Kinana and the treasure in any way related to Muhammad's life with Safiyyah? Granted that we can mention who Safiyya's husband was, and that he was put to death by Muhammad, must we mention the entire life of Kinana (as we know it)? Much of the details being added have nothing to do with Safiyya. Why don't you find me a reliable source that considers the entire life of Kinana as related to Muhammad's life with Safiyya?Bless sins (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pure disruption; please take statements about your behavior seriously. Arrow740 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can we stay on topic here?Bless sins (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly some summary of how Safiyya became Muhammad's wife is relevant. Perhaps we can summarize it even further, but the basics of the story, are, well, the basics. How about something like "Safiyya was a member of a Jewish tribe Banu Nadir, and was married to a man named Kinana when Muhammad defeated her people in battle at Khaybar. Taking them captive, Muhammad had Kinana tortured and killed over a dispute about hidden treasure. He then convinced Safiyya to convert to Islam and marry him. Here's some scholars' opinions on why he did that."--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See that tells half the story. If you look beyond that, you'll find that many scholars believe Kinana was executed for murder, not for treasure. His torture is attributed to the treaty - which he repeatedly agreed to - that called for him to not conceal the treasure. Thus scholars point out by concealing the treasure he broke the terms of the treaty. Finally, the entire narrative is disputed, because of the sources. Anyways, I understand this is a delicate issue and needs a carefully balanced summary. I have left the current version intact. When I have time, I'll write a more balanced summary.Bless sins (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, every biography by a reliable source that I have read does not use this Muslim apologetic theory. Arrow740 (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reliable sources say should be what we use here, obviously. The statement is already qualified with "according to Ibn Ishaq..." If there are alternative accounts perhaps they warrant inclusion, though the Safiyya article doesn't mention any.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

We could include the criticisms in this article instead of linking to another, any thoughts? Arrow740 (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be Wikipedia policies somewhere on this. There used to be criticism section in "Christianity" article and "Islam" article but it is not in any of the articles now. But in any case, the criticism should be made by enough people to be notable enough to be added here. i.e. if a certain criticism has been made historically or by many people we should include it. For that we need a secondary source. Just saying that a certain Mr.X criticizes Y is not enough in this article. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a criticism section, nor do I think this article requires a lot of critical material. Notable criticism can be dealt with at the more specific articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, I am curious as to why you inserted partisan material, while removing other material on the pretext of it being partisan. This contradicts your approach on Talk:Criticism of Muhammad and your edits on that respective article. ITAQALLAH 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Juwayriyya again

Aminz, you edited this section badly. Muhammad did not free her before offering to marry her; Rodinson is clear on this. Further, you invented this "according to one report" out of thin air. Do you think that's acceptable? Should I go through articles and put that before every sentence I don't like? No, and you should know better. You also removed Rodinson's direct response to Watt's comment about the authenticity of the Zaynab story without any mention. You need to shape up, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I did keep some of your changes Aminz; don't revert without looking like you did at Islam recently. Arrow740 (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You yourself need to shape up. Please provide the diff of what you are talk about.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have ignored this. Arrow740 (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, I found your comment there not meaningful. What is your point in repeating it. I asked a simple question, what is the diff you are talking about? --Be happy!! (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[1]. There was extensive discussion, so you proved this to be a blind revert with your edit summary. Arrow740 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Muhammad's wives article. Please provide the diff you are talking about here. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[2]. Arrow740 (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your wholesale revert. If you choose to blindly mass revert others, you should not expect your revert to stay. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not blind. I looked at all the changes, and they were almost all for the worse, while a couple were unimportant, so reverted back to the better version. Arrow740 (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Zaynab

Arrow, we have already said that Muhammad insisted on the marriage after Zaynab rejected it. That's the story as happened. Saying she was "forced against her will" can mean a lot more. You search through all sources and pick a source whose wording can be read most critical(that general approach of you can be seen in other places too). Gullen says that she consented out of deference to her love for Muhammad and his authority. But this is not the place for speculations; one can probably also find an author who speculates that Zaynab finally voluntary decided to obey Muhammad because she noticed God would be happy with it and it will show the equality of Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's Gullen? What's the quote? I can change it if another reliable source disagrees. Arrow740 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is your general approach of searching through all sources and pick a source whose wording can be read most critical. It is easy for me to find sources that call many of Muhammad's actions remarkable, ingenious, etc etc. Watt commends Muhammad's marriage with Zaynab since because he thinks adoption was a low moral level and undesirable practice. But should we add Watt's view that adoption was morally low and undesirable? I say no. You can find many examples of praises of Muhammad in his biographies at different instances, but they only reflect the authors impression or speculation. By Gulen, I meant Fethullah Gülen. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very willing to work congenially with everyone here. A first step would be to convince BS to stop presenting Nomani's spin on the situation as fact, especially when he contradicts a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Congenially? OK then Arrow, why don't you explain this behaviour of inserting more tendentious material each time a previous one is reverted. You did this on Islam, are doing it on Muhammad's wives, and have started doing it on Safiyya bint Huyayy. That's not congenial, that's WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll note that Tigeroo is to blame for the policy violations on that page. Arrow740 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as are you. Unless you think WP:NPOV and WP:POINT aren't policies. ITAQALLAH 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been requested multiple times to tell me how any of the additions at Islam violated either policy. Arrow740 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, did you miss the numerous editors over at Talk:Islam#New additions? ITAQALLAH 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you're just edit warring. You barely use talk pages anymore. What do you mean "that's WP:POINT?" Arrow740 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-sequitur (and dubious) claims aside, editing to bait reverts and then follow them with more incendiary edits is precisely WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't presume to read my mind. Explain how my actions have violated WP:POINT. Arrow740 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind reading isn't necessary to identify clear cut baiting. I have already explained, and, it seems, I'm not the only one to think that this is the case. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to see WP:CANVASS. Arrow740 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Forced against the will is correct, in Watt's view, but its an oversimplification. I'll add the facts.Bless sins (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Few points

I've come across many sources, and I will soon be rewriting the part on Zaynab. Ofcourse anyone else is free to modify what I've done, but please consider the following:

• Known facts should be stated before disputed events. For example, prophet Muhammad's alleged visit to Zaynab in the absence of Zayd is disputed by two reliable sources (Nomani and Watt). The third source, Rodinson, says it was not the cause of any uproar by the prophet's critics.
• We should try to maintain, as much as possible, the chronological order.
• Views should generally be placed immediately after the event they pertain to.
• Try to summarize the content in concise forms. Often one word can replace many others, while still conveying the same meaning.
• The allegedly incestuous character of the marriage, was, according to the sources, why Muhammad married Zaynab. He wanted to break taboos - this was no unforeseen reaction. This is evident both from Watt, and from Maududi's interpretation of the Qur'an.
• Do not remove Maududi. He is reliable source on the Qur'an. Because we are citing the Qur'an we can cite Maududi here as well.Bless sins (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is not a reliable source. He is at best a primary source for interpretation. Arrow740 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of primary sources is quite contentious, as you know. Arrow740 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use Maududi, he's not a historian. I'm also iffy about Nomani. Aminz, wasn't it you who said 19th century scholarship of Islam is widely rejected as biased?--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them is 19th century, both are 20th century. (Nomani was born in the 19th century, but he wrote his book in the 20th century).Bless sins (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking. Nomani's work is almost as old as Muir's, which Aminz wanted removed from the Safiyya page on those grounds. And I didn't say Maududi was too old to use, but rather that he's not a historian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maududi is only being used for the purposes of interpreting and putting into context the verses of the Qur'an - that is his expertise. His writings - on the Qur'an - are mainstream.Bless sins (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Nomani and Muir. Let's compare them. Who is Muir, and why is he reliable? Nomani is reliable as a professor at a university and widely acclaimed historian.Bless sins (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just any university, Aligarh Muslim University, a product of the Aligarh Movement. Arrow740 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse, Watt wasn't a professor at just any university, he was a professor at Oxford university. What does the name of the university have to do with this?Bless sins (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:SOURCES indicating that a professorship at the Aligarh Muslim University confers reliable status. Arrow740 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:SOURCES that says Rodinson is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Stop this disruption. Arrow740 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless has asked me to respond to these points. To the first one, I think it hurts the flow of the section not to tell the whole story. Experts' comments on its veracity can go after it. The way I have it arranged preserves most of Bless' wording; first is the story as we have it, then comes expert commentary on the story and on Muhammad's real reasons for marrying Zaynab. This is only a matter of presentation, not of pushing some viewpoint. To the second point, I don't believe we need to put commentary directly after the line it pertains to, again this butchers the flow. As with any article, the summary should come first, followed by opinions. Third, it is quite alright to include Watt's (and Maududi's) view that Muhammad was attempting to break the incest taboo with his marriage. I've left that in, with attribution. To the final point, I don't believe we should use Maududi, but it seems he is not being used to cite something that isn't cited to another reliable source, so it's not an issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cúchullain, I never said we shouldn't tell the whole story. But currently most scholars reject the historicity of the 'amorousness' story. The most scholarly source in the article, Watt, is one of these scholars. I think we should state facts before we state, what scholars consider as, myths.
• Maybe not after the line, but it should be after the paragraph. I don't think this is causing any dispute.
• Glad we are in agreement.
• Maududi is being used only for interpretation of the Qur'an (which is being referred to). His interpretation is actually quite mainstream. Please see this for evidence. I think Maududi is more than qualified to reflect the Muslims' belief of what the Qur'an verses mean.Bless sins (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Watt's opinion is still in the article, right after the narrative. In any article I it's preferable to discuss the entire story before going into the commentary. We are making no judgement on the veracity of it by simply recording it, especially when we make it clear a top scholar doesn't think it's true right after. Chopping the summary up into "likely" and "unlikely" segments is not preferable. I'm certain Arrow will agree with the current arrangement, though he may not entirely agree with some of the contents.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the existence or nonexistence of Watt's opinion, but the disruption of the facts by insertion of what scholars consider as myths. I think we can find precedence in other articles, where facts are separated from fiction. What about using Maududi for interpretation of the Qur'an only? Oh, I'm sure Arrow will agree with your version as well.Bless sins (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is, we shouldn't break up a story that was originally unified. Some of it might be a myth, or all of it, or none of it. But that's not our call to make, rather we should faithfully summarize it here and then give the expert's opinions on it. As for Maududi, I'm still skeptical, but you'll get no further objection for me as long as he's being used as he is here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that facts shouldn't be broken by inserting myths in between. "Some of it might be a myth, or all of it, or none of it." No, it is clear which parts are fiction and which are fact. "But that's not our call to make," I'll repeat myself: scholars are saying the story is a myth. This is the scholarly opinion, not mine.

"we should faithfully summarize it" Certainly - but after we summarize the undisputed facts.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) No longer relevant. Give your thoughts on the proposal below.Bless sins (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point: the story has little or no historical significance. According to some scholars the story is questionable. Those that accept it (like Rodinson) say, that even if true, the story would not have provoked criticism. Infact, according to Watt, the story is part of the later Muslim view that imaginatively magnified Muhammad's romantic character (Watt (1974), p. 158). Thus, it appears this tale more appropriately belongs in the "Muslim view" section of the article, rather than the "History" section.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) No longer relevant. Give your thoughts on the proposal below.Bless sins (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: The Zaynab tale should perhaps be included in the "Muslim view" section. there are reasons for this:

• According to most scholars, the historicity of the story is questionable, and it probably never happened.
• According to Watt(Watt (1974), p. 158) and Nomani, the story represents the later Muslim view of Muhammad's romantic character and has been imaginatively magnified.
• According to Rodinson, the story did not provoke any criticism. Thus it appears it has little historical significance. Rodinson also lays emphasis on the story's language, depiction of Zaynab's beauty, and Muhammad's state of mind. Thus it appears to have more literary significance.

Thoughts?Bless sins (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What's "the Zaynab tale?" Arrow740 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the primary sources, Muhammad fell in love with her while she was married to his son. There's nothing there saying that he wanted to marry her to abolish the backwards practice of adoption. This is only Watt's interpretation. Rodinson notes that there's nothing in the primary sources about this, only about him falling in love with her. -Arrow740 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arrow. I reiterate, we should put the summary of the whole story first (that Muhammad pushed the marriage, that it was unhappy, that he fell in love with Zaynab, and then married her). Then we can include the scholar's views on the story (Muhammad's political reasons for both marriages, and that Watt et al finds the part about Muhammad falling in love with Zaynab unlikely). The contentious part is already qualified with "according to the narrative" - it's the same narrative that says Zaynab's first marriage was unhappy (it comes from Tabari, no?) Perhaps the whole thing ought to be qualified by naming exactly which source it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The undisputed narrative comes from various, earlier, sources: like Ibn Ishaq (as preserved by Ibn Hisham) etc. This is the reason the tale is disputed: because it is not present in the earliest sources, but was mentioned in the later ones.Bless sins (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

BS double standards

I would like to point out for the record that BS removed the material on the torture and beheading of Kinana on the grounds that details of a previous marriage of one of Muhammad's wives were irrelevant, while he added an extensive discussion of the details of Zaynab's previous marriage primarily from partisan religious sources. Arrow740 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look again those details are still in the article. And I added an extensive discussion of why prophet Muhammad married Zaynab, after all this article is about his marriages and wives.Bless sins (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The "discussion" is pure invention of partisan sources. It is not in the Muslim histories. Arrow740 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here should start point the finger about double standards, Arrow.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Blind"

BS, my reverts are never blind. In your last block of edits I only removed the POV pushing and kept the improvements. You knew this, yet you called it "blind." This is uncivil. No one is going to buy your POV-pushing here. Try to get consensus on the talk page for your edits against consensus. Arrow740 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your revert removed quite a bit of reasonable material alongside that which might have been justified. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Arrow740 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the material from Watt and Stowasser does not appear to be in the version you reverted to.[3] ITAQALLAH 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The framing of the Zaynab affair is quite extreme. Maybe you can add back in what you think should be there, or paste it here for consideration and I might add it in myself if you prefer. The verse BS is quoting does not mention class, only obedience. Note that the "critics began to attack him" comes from Mubarakpuri, not Watt. Arrow740 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maburakpuri

Aminz and Bless want to include a source by Mubarakpuri. Bless feels he is a reliable source, but the work itself seems to be the epitome of an unreliable source (http://www.al-sunnah.com/nektar/ here] it is). It begins, "Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism." Bless, I'm sure you can find a better source to cite those sentences to, but this one is not acceptable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we not use it for now. Until the discussion about how we should use —if at all— non-Western/classical/other scholarship is conducted, then it would probably be better to use alternative sourcing just to save needless dispute. ITAQALLAH 22:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It was used to cite pretty minor points anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the point is that there are two types of biographical works done on early Islam. One stream of works are done by Muslim (based on their own understanding) and the other by western historians (originally a Christian view but has recently became a secular view to a good extent). If I were to write any article, I usually divide it into 3 sections: 1. The narrative according to the original sources 2. The story according to the Muslim sources 3. The Academic view. You can see this kind of division in articles I've written such as Isaac and others. I think this would be the most fair. After all, there are scholars like Edward Said who have criticized generally "the works done by any people living outside a land and study those inside it." and if we are going to be systematically NPOV, we should take this into account as well. From my own experience, the academic sources are lacking, if not for anything, because the majority of the predictions that western scholars make about the Islamic world happen to be incorrect (In order to test if somebody has learned something well, one should see if his predictions based on his model comes true or not). The other reason is that if we historically look at the western scholarship of Islam, we can identify several periods. In each period, certain elements in the general approach of previous period is criticized. How can one be sure that in 100 years, the scholars would not challenge elements in our today's general academic approach?

What Mubarakpuri starts with "Beyond a shadow of doubt..." does not discredit him as a source coming from the line of Muslim biographies; to the contrary it is a confirmation of it. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First, contrary to your notion, historians do not make predictions, they write about history. Some are more reliable than others, and are judged by their peers on that. Second, we can't know what will happen in the future. This is why we must be fastidious with our sources and only use the very best ones available. I never did buy into the Western vs. Everybody Else dichotomy. There is no need for a separate, patronizing section presenting views by Muslim writers as if they spoke for all Muslims. Either a work is reliable and useable, or unreliable and discarded.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain elements of our general approach may well be criticized in the future (and I hope that is so). This is not license to use just any source we can dig up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"historians do not make predictions" - This is incorrect. Where does their salary come from? Historians are part of the academic institution, which itself is an important part in the current capitalistic economic system. Why does this system spends its money to produce historians? Is it coincidental that Lewis, Esposito and others giving advice to the governments? Do you think the politics has no relation with writing history?;;; My point there was that if you know a system well, a sign of that would be the soundness of your predictions.

Cuchullain, your notion of reliability needs to be self-consistent. Of course Mubarakpuri's peer commend his work if it is a matter of acceptance from his own peers.--Be happy!! (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those select historians predicting things is irrelevant, because we aren't concerned with their predictions. We are only concerned with their works of history, in which you will find no predictions. Second, by peers, I meant all historians, not just the ones certain subsets suround themselves with. I doubt you will find that Mubarakpuri's book is considered good history by non-Islamic reviewers.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But prediction is a sign of how good you know a system.

Cuchullain, see. If by "historians" you mean anybody who writes about history, how do you know that the number of people who approve say Mubarakpuri are less than those who disapprove it. I need to run now. Will get back later... --Be happy!! (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain's reading of WP:SOURCES is completely right. I'm disturbed to learn what you've been doing in other articles. Arrow740 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Cachullain, Mubarakpuri advocates a completely biased perspective. What about scholars who say that Muhammad was not a prophet? What about those who criticize Muhammad, and Islam? Is it not biased to that? Should we reject those sources as unreliable as well? I don't mind that. I do mind if we reject Muslim bias, but we accept non-Muslim bias.Bless sins (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you are an academic and you want to become famous or publish a paper, then what you need to do is to tell people: "so far you all thought that a matter was like this, now I tell you that you were all wrong"; Not that it is always bad but.... And there are way more serious criticisms of the current secular scholarship of religions ..... In the end, I would say that Muslims themselves have a long tradition of reading and interpreting their sources, much older than the western one... --Be happy!! (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure nothing I've ever said can be construed as a desire to introduce an anti-Muslim bias into any Wikipedia article. All bias is shunned per NPOV.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed that you have a desire to introduce an anti-Muslim bias. I don't feel good about mixing traditional Muslim approach and secular approach either(i.e. creating a secular-muslim narrative by quoting a sentence from one followed by another sentence from the other). I feel they should be separated and discussed in different sections. This I think should be applied to other religion related articles as well. Wouldn't it look awkward if we want to combine the academic view and biblical narrative in say Ezra? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "bias" bit was in response to Bless sin's comment. Aminz, in the case you describe, we don't have a lengthy section devoted to Christian, Jewish, or Muslim "scholarly views". We describe the biblical narrative, then have sections briefly describing the various religions' teachings and beliefs about Ezra. The only scholarly views presented are those of real scholars.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Academic works don't really resolve to determine whether or not Muhammad or a true prophet, or other questions of a judgemental nature. They mainly strive to collate the evidence and gain an authentic and in-depth understanding of the issues at hand, whether it is exegesis, history, theology, or anything else. So I don't really see it as a "Muslim bias" vs. "Non-Muslim bias" thing.

IMO, it's not necessarily about bias as it is the wider question of other traditions of scholarship. Do we, on Wikipedia, recognise the traditional Islamic system of education (i.e. Ijaza, certification) which dates back to the early centuries of Islam? Coming to a modern example, what if someone graduates with a BA or an MA in Islamic or Qur'anic studies from the Islamic University of Medina or al-Azhar? Do we recognise these qualifications, as well as the standards of such universities which, at least in the Muslim or Arab world, are of repute? I haven't thought about this in depth nor do I necessarily have the answers, but these are questions we need to address on a centralised forum. Until we do, I think we can avoid needless dispute and put these sources to one side for now. In my mind (at least), there is mostly enough in academic sources to justify a fair, detailed and neutral exposition. ITAQALLAH 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah, in my view, your comment presents a rather simplified view of scholarship; you don't have to openly express what you think of Muhammad; it goes implicitly into your writings and evaluations. Suppose you are living in a society where "sex" is a goal rather than a "mean" of achieving something even higher and more beautiful. It unconsciously goes into your understanding of sex and when you read history it shows up in your understanding of the past events. In other words, you read the past history in your own image. If you or a society is obsessed with something, it imposes its understanding to its scholarship of the past. It is indeed a very biased statement to claim that whatever published by a couple of universities all located in US or England or a few other countries is enough.

Or do you think scholarship is unrelated to politics? Let me quote you something from the very sources you consider "authoritative" (Journal of Semetic Studies, Oxford University Press):

The relationships between the Jews and the Arabs throughout history have been the subject of numerous studies over many centuries. However, as long as the continuous Arab-Israeli conflict has not found a solution, historians will search through the past in order to find new evidence to prove the antiquity of the tension between the two communities and to illuminate its causes. The vicissitudes which have marked the lives of the Jews who lived under Arab rule or side-by-side with Muslims add to the complexity of the issue, and a great many of the assertions about Arab-Jewish relations made by scholars and amateurs alike are sheer speculation. This is particularly true of writers who strongly identify with either camp and have become emotionally involved in the subject. Consequently, the views they usually hold are often unbalanced, if not biased.

I hope I have made my position clear. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The traditional institution of education (Islamic or otherwise) has no authority here. In fact, many of the problems arises when something becomes institutionalized. Whether in east or west, it doesn't matter. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have to appreciate that topics relating to politics, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict, are far different to topics relating to religious studies proper. I don't deny that academics have their own opinions (ill-conceived or otherwise). Sometimes they express them overtly in their works as well, but that is always secondary to the -central discussion-, which is what we as editors aim to represent first and foremost. I don't wan't to be pulled into the debate about politics and scholarship though, you probably know more than me on this issue anyway ;). Regards, ITAQALLAH 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not just topics relating to politics. When one wants to write a biography of Muhammad, he has to first create a rough overall image of him. It is then under the light of this overall image that the scholar proceeds to evaluate which reports are sound, and how the sound ones should be interpreted. The formation of that rough overall image does not, and can not, be merely based on the early written reports of Muhammad. Much of it consciously or unconsciously comes from the underlying biases of the established intellectual tradition of the time, the scholar's own values and his cultural values, plus his own past experiences putting aside the politics. The same model of course applies to the Muslim biographies on Muhammad, including the earliest ones.... It is under this context that Bless sins's comment above makes sense. I think the creation of the correct overall image requires one to purify himself as the Qur'an itself says that "None shall touch it except the purified" (56:79) - something apparently missing in western scholarship (not just scholarship of Islam, but in their general historical approach to scholarship and philosophy). --Be happy!! (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Need verification

• "During this skirmish, Medinan dissidents, begrudging Muhammad's influence, attempted to attack him in the more sensitive areas of his life, including his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh," What is the Watt quote?

• "Muhammad, however, was determined to eliminate class distinctions under pre-Islamic Arab custom." What is the Watt quote?

• "Initially, however, he was reluctant to marry Zaynab, fearing public opinion. The Qur'an, however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God. Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos." What is the Watt quote? Note that Watt's spin will not be stated as fact. Arrow740 (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, can you first try and verify it? If you find discrepancies, then I'll be happy to give you quotes. But please read it yourself first.Bless sins (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The burden is on you, as per WP:V. Please fulfill this obligation. Arrow740 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not say that I have to type up paragraphs and pages of text to satisfy another user's curiosity. Can you please atleast take a look at the book? Then we will both know what the other is talking about. It's unfair to make judgements wihtout even reading a book.Bless sins (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have previously attributed statements to Watt that he did not make; see the "rumor" discussion above. You must now provide the extract as you have been requested. This is very important, BS. You cannot falsely attribute statements on wikipedia. Arrow740 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This question needs to be answered before discussion proceeds. Have you read the books that I've used as sources? Have you or not? This depends on how we conduct our discussion.Bless sins (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain that? Why are you refusing to provide the statements you are citing above? Arrow740 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the question: have you read the relevant pages of the book specified or not? Why are you refusing to answer the question? Just say 'yes' or 'no' (you may give a more detailed answer if you wish).Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very serious, BS. If it turns out you have lied regarding Watt, that would be serious grounds for an RfC. Combined with your highly tendentious editing at almost every article you edit, there could be some serious repercussions. Please take advantage of this opportunity to prove that you have represented Watt accurately. Arrow740 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you will not say whether you have actually even read the book or not. Unless, you tell me that you've read the book, I see no point in entertaining you guesses, because how you can you know about a book that you haven't even read?Bless sins (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how what you're posting here in any way gets you out of backing up your edits. I actually have read the relevant sections of Watt's biographies, and I don't remember these strange ideas being present there. Prove that they are as you have been requested. Arrow740 (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you read the page numbers specified above in the book? And you are saying that whatever I stated above is not written by Watt? Ok, so if I prove to you that Watt indeed says this, it will be clear that you were lying about Watt not saying this? Do you agree to this? Bless sins (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You added material I do not recall from my reading of the texts, which I do not have at hand presently. You falsely attributed statements to Watt recently, so I asked you to verify these. Do so now. WP:V states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Arrow740 (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When did I falsely attribute anything to Watt? And from now on I will respond to you, once go and read the text for yourself. The reason I insist is that I don't have the book on me. I'll have to make a long trip and put myself to much trouble before I get the book. In any case, even if I provide to you the quote, how will you beleive me, if you haven't read the book for yourself?Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In this version of the page from 04:35, 31 December 2007, you added this statement: "Another rumor spread that, prior to marriage, Muhammad met Zaynab in Zayd's absence and was "swept off of his feet" by her beauty" sourced to Watt (1961), page 158 and Nomani (1970). Sirat al-Nabi. You then admitted that Watt does not call it a rumor. This was after you had edit-warred [4], [5], [6] to attribute this statement to Watt. This looks pretty bad. You found a silly POV in a partisan source, and attributed it to a reliable one to try to get it to stick, and then tried to make sure that your plan would work through edit-warring. You even went so far as to accuse me of misquoting Watt, when it was you who were doing so and you knew it. Arrow740 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Again, a baseless allegation. In this version I never claim that Watt calls it a rumor. I claim that "Watt considers doubts the accuracy of this report", which is correct. Oh, btw, when you are looking for someone to do you a favor, the above post of yours is not the best way to win them over.Bless sins (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up that version? The fact that you didn't falsely attribute information in one version doesn't change the fact that you did in the versions I linked. I wasn't asking you to do me a favor, but to prove that you are not editing in a disruptive, dishonest manner. As soon as someone does examine these pages, if it turns out that you were falsely attributing this material to Watt, I will likely have to take some kind of action to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Arrow740 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out that I made false claims, then by all means attack me. BUt as long as you have no evidence against me (infact you are going around to Aminz's and Itaqallah's pages to find some), you shouldn't question the validity. How can you, when you haven't even read the passages?Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point violation for the list, BS. See [7]. Arrow740 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already read the comments you made above. Why are you removing sourced content. That you don't have access to a book is not my fault.Bless sins (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You said "How can you, when you haven't even read the passages?" Then you admitted, "I've already read the comments you made above." In those comments, I stated that I had read them. You have again violated WP:POINT, specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Arrow740 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've read the sources, why are you asking Aminz and Itaqallah to whether they have the book? (for example here).

To clear up any misunderstanding please answer the following questions:

• Have you read pages 330-1 of the 1956 version of Watt's Muhammad at Medina?
• If yes, did you find content that would substantiate the following:

Initially, however, he was reluctant to marry Zaynab, fearing public opinion. The Qur'an, however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God. Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos.

• Are you sure that you've looked at the pages carefully?

Bless sins (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read this post, but it warrants no response. Arrow740 (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here, BS claims that I said I haven't read the relevant sections of Watt, when I have indicated here repeatedly that I have. This is disruptive and dishonest. Arrow740 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please respond to the questions I posed on 16:47, 20 January 2008? If not, I'll take that as an indication that you don't want to discuss the issue.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here he again asks a question that has already been answered. Arrow740 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand: you will go and make many comments, but won't answer my simple questions. Please answer them in yes/no.Bless sins (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, BS, would you please honour Arrow's request. He has already answered you question. He has read the books but doesn't have them at hand and doesn't recall these things being present. This is why he asked Aminz and Itaq, this is why he is asking you. Show some cooperation here. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"He has read the books but doesn't have them at hand and doesn't recall these things being present." I don't know of anyone who has memorized Watt. Simply "not recalling" is not enough reason to delete. If, however, Arrow claims that he is sure that "these things" are not present, then he certainly has right to remove this.

Secondly, if Aminz doesn't have the book, Itaqallah doesn't have the book and (according to you) Arrow doesn't "have them [the books] at hand", how do you expect me to have the book? It is evident that the book is not widely available, and Arrow and anyone else will just have to wait.

Finally, what is producing the passages going to do? Arrow has already accused me of "falsely attributing". He will simply say that I fabricated the passages too. What is needed is for a third party to verify the quotes.Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins has already said he does not have the book on him and cannot access it easily. However, the material has been challenged, so it is on him to verify it further. It does not matter if Arrow has read the passages or not, but he's said repeatedly that he's read the passages but doesn't remember them as Bless does. Of course, Arrow does not have the final say over whether or not Bless' material will be kept, we'll all be looking at it. And the edit warring from both sides and the unkind language really needs to stop. I'll protect the page myself if there's any more reverting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have obtained the books, and indeed my memory was correct and BS has falsely attributed this material to Watt. I can quote the entire pages if he continues the deception. Arrow740 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could just quote the relevant sections. And please stop with the needlessly accusatory language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify a few things. Arrow740 has misquoted the passages. Passages should be corrected as follows:

• The first quote, that I added, was "Muhammad's attempt to break pre-Islamic taboos through marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh,[23] and allegations against his wife Aisha were the two key events." The reference [23] is to Watt. (Check this version).
• According to my version its "Muhammad, however, was determined to eliminate class distinctions under pre-Islamic Arab custom. Qur'an 33:36 was revealed, thus Zaynab acquiesced and married Zayd."

• As we can see this is source to multiple sources. I have Nomani on me right now, so I will provide the quote from him.

But because he [Zayd] had once been a slave, Zaynab did not like this union [marriage]...Zaynab was the cousin of the prophet, and had been brought up by him, and it was at his insistence that she had accepted this relationship, though she considered it below her status. But the equality of Islam, which the prophet wanted to establish, knew no distinction between a freeman and a slave.

• This is also evident from the Haykal quote:

For the daughters of aristocracy to marry slaves, even though the slaves had become free, was plainly unthinkable. But Muhammad sought to wipe out these racial and class distinctions between men.

• That Arrow has quoted correctly.

The first and third quotes are actually in the same book on the same page. Once I get my hands on the book, I'll provide the quote for that as well. Bless sins (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In this series of diffs (07:25, 26 January 2008), BS claims that in my diffs here (01:45, 13 January 2008), I have "misquoted the passages. Passages should be corrected as follows." However, his version of the article directly prior to my talk page post (this one, (00:00, 13 January 2008)) shows him to be disrupting wikipedia by raising false allegations against me. Arrow740 (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your previous post supposed to mean? In anycase, you clearly misquoted me (esp. the 2nd quote), and you have now been corrected.Bless sins (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, you then completely ignored my previous post with your two subsequent posts: [8], [9].. Arrow740 (talk) 08:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, I never questioned that these laudatory statements were made by your partisan sources. After your initial misrepresentations of Watt, you had ample opportunities to admit that you were misquoting Watt. You refused to do so on the talk page repeatedly: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] (here he provides the excuse that he can't be expected to have the book to verify the material ... that he added). Arrow740 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not misquote Watt. That is your allegation. You have been making such allegations against me without evidence. On the contrary, you have even misquoted me, attributing to me that which I didn't write. Please stop.Bless sins (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have the books right in front of me. Watt does not convey the information you have repeatedly claimed he does. The time to make a retraction was two weeks, ago, BS. It would have been even better if you'd been honest about your sourcing from the beginning. Arrow740 (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making any "retraction", and I've been completely honest. On the contrary, there is ample evidence on wikipedia, that you've misquoted me. Perhaps you should admit your mistake.Bless sins (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BS, in the diff where you provided this supposed "evidence," [24], you linked to two different diffs of yours with different wordings of the passages. The version I linked to above was to your most recent version of your material before my talk page post. Your attempts at distraction here are quite transparent, as the versions you quote (from different diffs) do not substantially differ from the ones you were defending for two weeks in any case. It's quite odd that you say "check this version" for the first quote above, and that exact version agrees exactly with what my second quote from you. However in your "rebuttal" you pick a different version and call that "my version" for the sake of proving that I misquoted you on the second quote! Arrow740 (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow you seem to have a deep misunderstanding of the issue. The first quote that you attribute to me was not written by me, but by Cúchullain. (Cúchullain's quotes, was, however, based on an earlier quote by me. This quote can be found in a much earlier version). It is present in both my version and your version as well. Is that clear?

The second quote is outright misquoted.Bless sins (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The second quote is from the diff you linked above. Check this version, remember? I think you're just confusing yourself here, BS. It's clear what you did, and you defended it for two weeks. Arrow740 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. For the record, I've read all of the comments made by Arrow740 and others above.Bless sins (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question: What is the dispute about? Is it the issues mentioned in the comment made by Arrow at 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)? I can see this diff [25] representing the dispute. Both versions seem factually correct, it is only the matter of wording. Maybe we can start out with one dispute at a time...--Be happy!! (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the attribution of certain statements to Watt by Bless sins, Aminz. Have you read this section of the talk page at all? Arrow740 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Watt but these are the stuff that could be easily sourced(your comment at at 01:44, 13 January 2008). Nothing controversial seems to be there. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your appraisal is wrong. Also, please read the above section, including this diff [26]. Arrow740 (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually what the dispute is about is under dispute. I now feel that reasoning with Arrow is going nowhere. He claims I wrote 3 quotes. But I only wrote one of them. The first was written by Cúchullain (based on a version written by me), and second quote Arrow changed before he presented to the talk page. Please also note that I have provided quotes to substantiate one of the quotes. I have yet to prove the other one that I wrote, which I'll do as soon as I get the book.Bless sins (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is quite transparent, BS. Arrow740 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, you added this sentence "Muhammad's attempt to break pre-Islamic taboos through marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh," sourced to Watt, 330-1 in a series of edits ending 04:23, 9 January 2008: [27]. This is a completely false attribution. You also added "The Qur'an, however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God. Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos." sourced to Watt(1956), p.330-1. Also falsely atttributed. You also stated what is clearly an opinion as a fact: [28] (this is quite brazen, 12:13, 10 January 2008). Here you attibute the following statement to Watt: "During this skirmish, Medinan dissidents, begrudging Muhammad's influence, attempted to attack him in the more sensitive areas of his life. Muhammad's attempt to break pre-Islamic taboos through marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh," Watt (1956), 330-1 [29], 11:38, 10 January 2008. Arrow740 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The first two quotations are correct. I attributed those statements to Watt, 3301, and Watt indeed says this. The third one isn't. I only attributed "Muhammad's attempt to break pre-Islamic taboos through marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh" to Watt, not the rest of it. Infact, I had previously attributed it to another source, which was later removed. But I think Nomani says this also, so I'll find a reference soon.Bless sins (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You were wrong when you defended this material for two weeks, and you are wrong now. An examination of those pages shows that Watt says it was for political reasons. Arrow740 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote the pages, since you have the book right in front of you? Bless sins (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I obviously can't quote something that's not here. I've made it clear that I think that's wrong. The burden is on you to defend your material; it is not on me to prove that you are lying. I am willing to do so in the future if that becomes appropriate, but I see little sense in expending the effort needed to quote the entire treatment of the Zaynab marriage here. Arrow740 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Even Cúchullain has asked you to present the material. The fact that you won't quote from a book that, in your own words, is "right in front of me[you]", is suspicious, to say the least. I'm only ask you to quote the pages 330-1. If you can spend hours on this talk page, accusing me, then surely the quotation is no "effort" for you.Bless sins (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What you were quoting as fact is what Watt prefaces with "The Qur'an implies." It's not stated as fact at all. It's what Muhammad told his followers God had told him. "The Qur'an implies that Muhammad had originally been unwilling to marry Zaynab and afraid of public opinion, but had come to acknowledge the marriage as a duty imposed on him by God; his marriage demonstrated to the believers that there was no blame in marrying the divorced wife of an adoptive son." Here's what Watt says was the actual reason: "There is therefore a strong presumption that in the case of Zaynab bint Jahsh Muhamamd was not carried away by passion but was looking at the political implications of the match. There are two points of importance: Zaynab was a close relative of Muhammad's, and her family were, or had been, confederates of Abu Sufyan's father. As Zaynab's marriage took place long before that with Abut Sufyan's daughter and at a time when Abu Sufyan was directing the Meccan campaign against Muhammad, this aspect of the match cannot have escaped Muhammad." Arrow740 (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you admit that, though my wording is different from Watt's, I didn't falsely attribute this to Watt. Once I get the book I'll show how I did not, at all, attribute anything falsely.Bless sins (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading this extract provided, I think Bless sins' representations have been quite adequate. His text makes clear that the Qur'an "indicated" the issue of Zaynab and public opinion. Watt concludes "his marriage demonstrated to the believers that there was no blame in marrying the divorced wife of an adoptive son" - this is separated from the previous clause of "Qur'an implies" by virtue of the semicolon. The second part Watt mentions as another reason for the marriage, not the sole one. To split up his narrative with a "real reason" (thus implying the others aren't) is a very superificial way to read the text. ITAQALLAH 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that the real argument is with Bless' wording, not with his attribution of the material. Arrow, you really need to tone it down, such ill considered accusations do not help your case. However, Bless, if you want to defend your material, it looks like you'll need to get a copy of the book you're quoting.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, yes I understand I need to get a copy of Watt p. 330 and 331. I will get that ASAP. Because I don't have the book on me, I've been courteous engouh not to revert Arrow. Secondly, I already have provided quotations (for one of the quotes) above. Arrow has so far not responded to that.Bless sins (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly stated, there are long-standing issues with your uses of partisan sources (Maududi, Haykal, Nomani, no doubt you will use Mubarakpuri again soon) to push POV's. You are further guilty of presenting Watt's controversial opinions as fact, as I showed above. The version you've been reverting to has these characteristic flaws. The current version incorporates all the reliably sourced material and is properly neutral in tone. Arrow740 (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the above points are controversial opinions. :o --Be happy!! (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can not honestly get the point of this dispute. That "During this skirmish, Medinan dissidents, begrudging Muhammad's influence, attempted to attack him in the more sensitive areas of his life, including his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh" is NOT something controversial (it is mentioned in the passage I quoted on Cuchullain's talk page). That "Muhammad, however, was determined to eliminate class distinctions under pre-Islamic Arab custom" is again NOT AT ALL controversial. So is "Initially, however, he was reluctant to marry Zaynab, fearing public opinion. The Qur'an, however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God. Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos."

Nothing overt is mentioned there and I can not understand how it can provoke such fierce dispute. One might argue that the wording needs to be changed but the quotes are in essence non-controversial. Is there anything I am missing here? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be a matter of wording. The simplest solution I can think of is for Bless to get a copy of the works cited in order to defend his version. There's really little to talk about until that happens. But Arrow, again I ask you to stop with the accusations against other editors and the perfectly reliable material they're using, and don't try to dismiss Watt's opinions as "controversial". Spencer and Maburakpuri are controversial. Watt is one of the preeminent scholars in the field. --Cúchullain ^t/c 09:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain, Rodinson disagrees with Watt. That's why I call it controversial, and why it shouldn't be stated as fact. Rodinson states: "In the matter of Zaynab he clearly felt himself to be in the wrong." on page 205. Rodinson continues: "Present day Muslim authors, with whom on this point W. Mongomery Watt is curiously in agreement, have endeavoured to maintain the axsexual nature of this episode. At thirty-five, they say, Zaynab could not be desirable as a woman. What Muhammad was really doing, therefore, was to contract the marriage for political reasons (to ally himself with the kin of Abu Sufyan) and also as a legal test-case directed against the accepted valuation of adoption. It is western Christians (they continue) or Voltairians who have emphasized, with such heavy irony, the Prophet's highly inflammable passions. However, it is enough to read the sources, the Arabic histories and traditional texts, to realize that this interpretation was not a western invention. It is these texts which lay such stress on Muhammad's disturbed state of mind after his glimpse of Zaynab in a state of undress; it is they that describe her remarkable beauty. The verdict of public opinion, which as we have seen is mentioned in the text of the Koran itself, could not have been so severe unless it suspected motives other than legal ones for the proposed marriage. Tradition confirms this. The intervention of Allah, which should have been above suspicion, out to have cut short these rumours, at least among the Faithful..." The first quote I asked about was falsely attributed to Watt. The third is an overstatement of Watt's POV, stated as a fact, and this issue of whether or not Watt believes the Qur'an here we can consider settled as that is clearly Rodinson's reading of Watt. The second is false. I also have Watt (1974), and page 158 makes no mention of Muhammad's "determination to eliminate class distinctions." On the contrary, he states on the preceding page: "Unfortunately we do not know why Zaynab was unwilling to marry Zayd in the first place." Class distinctions do not factor into Watt's discussion of the marriage. Arrow740 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rodinson's disagreement with Watt on that point is already mentioned in the article and does not have anything to do with the above quotes. That Muhammad was attracted to Zaynab has no bearing on Muhammad's being reluctant to marry Zaynab, fearing public opinion. Again, none of the above statements are controversial. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Rodinson disagrees with Watt means that Watt's statement is controversial, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If Rodinson disagrees with Watt on X, it does not mean that Watt's statement on some other Y is controversial. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, quibbling about word choice is not useful here. Pretend I wrote "disputed" instead if you wish. Arrow740 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not word choice. The disagreement you mention is already there in the article. The above three points are talking about a different thing. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Watt but I did a quick search and found another quote "Both she and her family, the noble of Hashim and Quraysh, frowned upon a marriage to a freed slave. Muhammad however, was determined to establish the legitimacy and right to equal treatment of the adopted in Islam." (Islam: Beliefs and Observances, Caesar E. Farah, p.69)

Aminz, please remember WP:NPOV. Your recent efforts have damaged the neutral point of view that some of us have been trying to present. It is a quite ironic addition though, considering that when Muhammad saw her naked he disowned Zayd. So much for the equal treatment of the adopted. Not even Watt make this claim, possibly considering Zayd's marriage in the light of Muhammad's later attack on adoption. Do you see why this POV should not be placed in the article at all, let alone so prominently? Arrow740 (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, my addition was about Muhammad's insistence of the marriage between Zayd and Zaynab, the beginning of the story, please stay focused on the topic. Do you have any sources that explain Muhammad's insistence in another way? I just did a quick search to find a source. This is what I have read in other places and doesn't seem controversial at all to me. If you can find another source saying different reasons for Muhammad's insistence of the marriage, we can include that as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The first point was already sourced in the quote I posted on Cuchullain's talk page. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is BS's misrepresentation of Watt, Aminz. If we all agree that he did do this, then we can move on to other issues. We can move on to his dishonesty regarding Rodinson. See my quote from Rodinson above and this diff of BS: "He doesn't explicitly say he rejects Watt, it is OR for us to conclude that". Arrow740 (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Verification provided

Here is the verification for the quotes Arrow insisted upon. Note, I didn't fabricate or attribute incorrectly anything as Arrow claimed. This whole affair, infact sheds light on Arrow's incvility and lack of credibility.

• My quote:

Muhammad, however, was determined to eliminate class distinctions under pre-Islamic Arab custom.

• Nomani's quote (I already provided this above, but Arrow ignored it, so I'm providing it again):

But because he [Zayd] had once been a slave, Zaynab did not like this union [marriage]...Zaynab was the cousin of the prophet, and had been brought up by him, and it was at his insistence that she had accepted this relationship, though she considered it below her status. But the equality of Islam, which the prophet wanted to establish, knew no distinction between a freeman and a slave. (emphasis added)

• Haykal's quote (I already provided this above, but Arrow ignored it, so I'm providing it again):

For the daughters of aristocracy to marry slaves, even though the slaves had become free, was plainly unthinkable. But Muhammad sought to wipe out these racial and class distinctions between men. (emphasis added)

• Farah's quote (provided generously by Aminz)

Both she and her family, the noble of Hashim and Quraysh, frowned upon a marriage to a freed slave. Muhammad however, was determined to establish the legitimacy and right to equal treatment of the adopted in Islam. (emphasis added)"

• My quote:

"Initially, however, he was reluctant to marry Zaynab, fearing public opinion. The Qur'an, however, indicated that this marriage was a duty imposed upon him by God.

• Watt's quote:

"The Qur'an implies that Muhammad had originally been unwilling to marry Zaynab and afraid of public opinion, but had come to acknowledge the marriage as a duty imposed on him by God;"

• My quote:

Thus Muhammad, confident that he was strong enough to face public opinion, proceeded to reject these taboos."

• Watt's quote:

"What of Muhammad's reasons for marrying her at this particular time?...Perhaps he felt that the time had come when he was strong enough to go against public opinion and contract this marriage that was politically and socially desirable."

As can be seen I neither fabricated, nor mis attributed anything.Bless sins (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I went through the article and changed some of the wordings. Everyone, please be careful about the proper sourcings. That Zaynab disapproved of the marriage because she was of aristocratic lineage and Zayd was a former slave was originally attributed to Ibn Sa'd and to Freyer Stowasser. I noticed that Freyer Stowasser's reference was pushed to the end and it was now sourced to Watt. I fixed that. When you add a new source to something, please add the sources to the end of the sentence and please mind where the original sources are being pushed to. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)