User talk:Sauron: Difference between revisions

List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines (2021)

Hey Sauran, good catch regarding the lack of strong references for Muhammad's marriage to Mary etc. in the hereafter. There are, however, other hadiths of varying authenticity to this effect (compiled, for instance starting in volume 2 page 431 of Ibn Kathir's al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah). I think that the sections for the three women should be left in the article and that it should be indicated clearly that there are no references to these ideas in 'authentic Islamic sources' as well as the fact that the idea plainly did crop up in the tradition nonetheless (and especially, as with the source you discussed with Axius, in the Shia tradition). Perhaps you can incorporate this nuance into the relevant sections rather than trying to delete them altogether; how does that sound? There are varying shades of certainty as to what comprises Islam, and this issue is of a clearly a less certain shade than, for instance, the prophethood of Muhammad. We can and should still cover topics having lesser shades of certainty, especially where they are interesting (as here), but must also acknowledge their inferior position in the tradition, as you pointed out. IbnPinker (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree probably best to just delete the sources that do not support the argument and just leave the ones that do. (Sauron)

Yes, although some of those sources are still good for the claim that these women 'were perfect' - but these footnotes/references should just appear in the cell containing the body text, not in the right-most cell, which purports to contain the reference for their relationships to Muhammad. I'll make some basic edits to this effect which you can add to later, if you'd like. Thanks again for bringing this up - it is important that the wiki does not contain false/misleading claims. IbnPinker (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I updated the page with proper referencing and nuanced the claims. IbnPinker (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you IbnPinker.(Sauron)

List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines

Hayat Al-Qulub Vol. 2, (pg 415) the 4th mentioned reference which you did not read, says:

"“Who are they?” she inquired. He replied, “Maryam, daughter of Imran, Kulthum, sister of Musa, Asiya wife of Firon, all of whom, with yourself, will be my wives in Paradise.”

Please see our FAQ. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:39, 17 January 2016 (EST)

How could anyone based islamic facts on one work by a twelver shia cleric that 90% of muslims deemed heretic? Muhammad Baqir Majlisi lived from 1616–1698 AD. The year which he lived is also so far away than bukhari/muslim/ibn sa'ad/ibnu hisham/ibnu ishaq. I wanted to share this page but then people would just laugh at me because the article used a truly fringe group's work as facts. You could state there/separate shia and sunni cleric's work. On top of that, no one in the early muslims community ever made the claim that Mr. Majlisi made.

That is your claim that the certain text you want to remove belongs to a minority sect of Islam. Secondly even if the source is of a minority sect, the sources for all sects are used and accepted for criticism of Islam, because they are part of Islam. A sunni muslim will say they dont accept Shia sources and verse versa so if critics of Islam care about that, there will be no criticism in the end to talk about.

Third, about the author of the book:

He has been described as "one of the most powerful and influential Shi'a ulema of all time",

Shia are 10% of the Muslim population and an important part as I mentioned.

I bet there are other multiple sources for that information.

Lastly whether or not Muhammad said that Queen Asiya will be his wife in Islamic heaven is a very minor issue compared to the bigger issues in Islam which WikiIslam talks about. I suggest you start clicking around and browsing through the pages. You can start with the QHS series or any of the Core articles on the left.

If you want to debate about Islam there are many forums on the internet. Some are mentioned here [1] Here's just one: FFI forum. --Axius (talk | contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2016 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. My critic is purely academic. I am an ex-muslim and wikiislam is actually the best critical source i have found on islam. Still i would say adding a bracket(shia) information would probably be helpful. Also maybe could remove the sahih bukhari and muslim citation because it doesn't have anything to do with god marrying him to the girls.

I dont know if you're an ex-Muslim or not, but you removed sourced information from the page twice and that is vandalism.

Academically, all sources are all part of Islam and should be treated as such. As I said we cannot remove sourced text and we cannot start adding shia or Sunni or all the other sects of Islam to all the content.

Are you having difficult debating with people about the topic? Its easy. Tell them the same thing I told you. All sources of Islam can be used for criticism of Islam. It is valid information and cannot be rejected simply because its found in one sect of Islam.

The Quran doesnt say that all other sects of Islam are invalid, or anything like that. Does it? So what is your basis for asking to remove text from a Shite source?

Also Majlisi is a Shite source. Why did you call it Ahmadiya in your edit history? Please respond to that.

The other information/hadiths contain the other information that is mentioned in the piece of text. It all goes together.

Basically again, you are wanting to removed sourced information from the page. We have spent enough time on this issue. As I pointed out its all sourced the fact that Muhammad said Queen Asiya will be one of his wives in heaven is a minor issue in Islam, compared to other more important issues.

A valid criticism of this page is that the individual statements should have been sourced individually so its easy to cross-check. Thats something that you could have pointed out. If you agree, we can add it to the Tasks page. --Axius (talk | contribs) 06:36, 20 January 2016 (EST)

I made a mistake thinking it was ahmadiyya because of the website that hosted the work. http://www.al-islam.org/ I thought it was an ahmadiyya but it was a shia website. https://www.alislam.org is an ahmadiyya website. I thought users could edit the work and the edit would then be moderated by say 10 moderators before it is approved? I am a panentheist maybe a pantheist one day but for now a panentheist. No religion, because 'God'/Nature/Zeus/Tao/whatever you want to call it already gave me Reason which is a Divine Scripture itself.

I don't think I properly understand your last statement, maybe yes i should agree. Probably only if the statement doesn't have a common theme like the ones i pointed out. The hadith points out that the 4 girls were perfect while the majlisi said god married muhammad to the girls. So, yes it shouldn't be in the same column.

Ok.

It would have been nice if the statements would have been individually sourced e.g. statement 1 (source 1). statement 2 (source 2). Instead its statement 1, and 2 (source 1 and 2). So its not clear what text is coming from which source. I've added it to the task list. It will be a difficult task but it would be nice if that was there. The author who wrote it suddenly saved a lot of text or else we would have told them how to do it.

As for shia/sunni/other sects, I dont think it weakens criticism of Islam. It is up to the apologist to explain why a certain sect is invalid and they will be unable to do so as all sects think they're the most correct sect and cant offer any evidence for that claim. In reality they are equally valid (as parts of Islam and as sources for criticism) because again Quran never mentions which sect is the right one. If something is mentioned in minority sect 1, it doesnt mean it never happened. If the author is a known scholar, religious figure (like Majlisi), then it should be acceptable to use it as a source.

People (nonbelievers of Islam in particular because they have no obligation to any sect) cannot fall into the trap of "one sect #1 is valid and everything else is invalid". --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:09, 20 January 2016 (EST)

Yes i agree that we could use different sects but it would still be better state the affiliation of the author(sect) so that viewers wouldn't just dismiss this website as mumbo jumbo just because there are statements that goes directly with their source/what they/their sect consider as valid. Btw, thanks.

"viewers wouldn't just dismiss this website as mumbo jumbo" - Those viewers already reject the website due to one reason or another because its critical of Islam so what they think of the website is not important.

Tagging could be done due to other reasons but its not an easy task. People would have to decide, if its really important or not and worth doing, if its practical/beneficial, pros/cons, how to show the different sects (small super script notations e.g. how its done here [2], notice the different superscript letters), which sects to show, what content is affected, how it affects translations/other language domains and so on.

I think its a waste of time for now. There are a lot of other important things to do in our tasks page before something like this can be investigated. --Axius (talk | contribs) 20:26, 21 January 2016 (EST)

Hi there, just wanting to know your thoughts. What is the best way to make someone learn the truth about islam? I tried to convince my brother but it seems that he always have an answer to every issues. I know that his answer was wrong but he seems to be so sure about it. I tried to rectify but he won't accept it. It seems impossible to make someone realise that this is an evil religion.

Yes its very difficult to convince anyone about their religion of birth. You can try picking up one topic (for example evolution), become knowledgeable about it and be persistent. --Axius (talk | contribs) 19:07, 26 January 2016 (EST)

Thank you. I'll try that. Seems pointless sometimes but yes i think maybe the best way is to focus on one topic.

Hi

Are you active here? I needed some contacts from Exmna... Do you know any? Saggy (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2017 (EDT)

Not really active here. Sorry, yeah.