User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(170 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Sorry about the auto block, I removed it now. --[[User:Whale|Whale]] ([[User talk:Whale|talk]]) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (PDT)
==Links==
[[User talk:1234567/Archive]]


:Thanks. I fully understand why you have to do it on a site like this. It was only my own work that I deleted!
[[User:1234567|Sandbox]]
::Yea that system helps prevent a lot of vandalism (e.g. [http://wikiislam.net/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=250&type=autoblock&user=&page= logs]) and saves us time. I added you in a list where it wont monitor any of your edits so it wont happen again. --[[User:Whale|Whale]] ([[User talk:Whale|talk]]) 21:00, 30 July 2012 (PDT)


==Muhammad and his Wives==
==Simon Ockley again==


Hi 1234567! First off, thanks for creating the new article on Muhammad's wives! The level of detail you went into looks incredible.
My Arab friends have given me some help about Simon Ockley's translation of the paedophilia text.
Simon Ockley was translating this text. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xLJEAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en. You can scroll forward to page 23, where you will recognise the words Mohamet, Abu Bakr, Aisha. There is no serious doubt that Ockley has made an accurate translation of Maracci's Latin.
You will see that the Arab scholar was called Abdulrahman al-Hamdani.
My friends say that the title of his book is ''Al-Shabayat''.
They cannot read Latin and I did not tell them what it was about. I just asked them about the sentence of Arabic. They said it means: "He reached out his blessed arm and grabbed her by the clothes."
They were very surprised by this odd sentence. I had to explain to them that it was probably a quote from the book, and the story was about Muhammad and Aisha.
So I think we can fairly say that Maracci did have access to a real book and that he made a fair translation of the story.
Now we must try to find out who the scholar was and when he lived. Perhaps then we can establish the reliability of his narrative.
But there is something about it that rings horribly true. I don't think a Muslim hagiographer would have invented this story.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 05:01, 13 April 2013 (PDT)
:Interesting! Thanks for keeping us posted. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (PDT)


That being said, I have added our "under construction" template to it because it's style currently doesn't adhere to the site's guidelines. Articles should be free from sensationalist, emotional, humorous or sarcastic commentary. See [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins this] article, for an idea of what we're aiming for.
==Aisha==


It would be great if you could edit it to conform with these guidelines. As a rough example, I have edited the conclusion of the article below:
hi 1234567, I'm resetting the indent for my convenience.


Before:
I had given you the wrong links for your Sandboxes. I made the right links on your user page now: [[User:1234567]]. What you were working on is Sandbox 1: [[User:1234567/Sandbox 1]]


{{Quote||Muhammad died in June 632 at age 61 with his head in Ayesha’s lap and he was buried in her house. His concubine Tukana was passed on to his uncle Abbas, but the official widows were all forbidden to remarry. Sawda was probably in her fifties; Zaynab was about 42; Maymuna was 39; Ramla was 38; Hind was 35; Hafsa was 25; Juwayriya was 24; Mariya was probably in her twenties; Safiya was 20; and Ayesha was only 18. They were all sealed behind their veils, forbidden ever again to do anything interesting.  
I feel you enjoy researching and writing about these topics and that's what we want in our editors. Your recent writeup is full of facts as is usually the case and but we have two concerns again with your writing which must be addressed before you do any additional work. The first is serious and needs to be discussed.  


Occasionally they defied the veil. Ayesha even started a war against her old enemy Ali, causing ten thousand Muslims to kill each other in one day. This disaster simply confirmed to the Muslim men that when women did anything important, misery followed. So the men banished their women to behind the curtains and then carried on killing each other anyway. Whenever Ayesha recited the verse, “Women, remain in your houses,” she wept until her veil was soaked.
Wikipedia has this as a core policy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]. I'm going to repeat the "nutshell" of their policy page:
:'''''Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and <u>any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed</u> to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'''''


It is easy to laugh at Muhammad, the champion adulterer who lusted after women and took as many as he could. Attempts to demonstrate that his marriages were motivated by politics or charity, or that his wives were old and ugly, collapse quickly. Nor is there much evidence that he treated his wives fairly or kindly, or that they were happy women. Of course this damages Muhammad’s credibility as the world’s greatest Prophet who was supposed to perceive realities beyond the boundaries of his own culture and whose life was the perfect example for humankind.
For example in your [[User:1234567/Sandbox 1| recent writeup]]:


But there is a serious lesson to draw from this tragic story. One fifth of the world’s population nevertheless believes that Muhammad was a Prophet and the perfect example to the human race. Muhammad’s example as a husband sets the example for Muslim husbands throughout history. Muhammad set a bad example. That is why Muslim women still suffer to this day.}}
:''Muhammad told the household of Abu Bakr, without mentioning his reason, “Take good care of Aisha and watch over her for me.” The family therefore gave Aisha a “special position.” A few days later, Aisha became upset with her mother and complained to her father. Abu Bakr was angry with both of them, and Umm Ruman '''vented''' her annoyance on Aisha. Aisha hid behind the front door to '''sob''' and was in this state of distress when Muhammad, arriving for his daily visit, asked what was wrong. She '''blurted''' out everything''


After:
I bolded three words here (''vented, sob, blurted''). The tone of these words is dramatic/emotional and not suitable for this site. We like writing articles in a style which would be found in a research paper. I want you to understand why we want to write things in a serious/journalistic style. Even though it may read boring it looks better and is more reliable/factual.


{{Quote||Muhammad died in June 632 at age 61 with his head in Aisha’s lap and he was buried in her house. His concubine Tukana was passed on to his uncle Abbas, but the official widows were all forbidden to remarry. Sawda was probably in her fifties; Zainab was about 42; Maimuna was 39; Ramla was 38; Hind was 35; Hafsa was 25; Juwairiyah was 24; Mariyah was probably in her twenties; Safiyah was 20; and Aisha was only 18. Due to being the widows of Muhammad in addition to being women, their personal freedoms were severely restricted.  
Here's the problem. A visitor comes on this site and reads ''"Abu Bakr was angry and Umm Ruman vented"''. He's going to ask "Who is the author who made this claim? '''How do I know this is true?'''". Unless an editor is Bukhari himself, they cannot make such a claim. So we only ''report'' what we find in a verifiable manner. We cannot give the impression of any original research (our own conclusions). We are all anonymous people on the internet so we cannot attempt to tell the reader what we ''think'' (no one cares about that and no wants to know). We can only tell people what we know for sure. This is like you reading a news article about the history of Aisha. You would want to know the facts and the facts only.


Occasionally they defied expectations. Aisha started a war against Ali, causing ten thousand Muslims to kill each other in one day. This confirmed to the Muslim men that when women did anything important, misery followed. Whenever Aisha recited the verse, “Women, remain in your houses,” she wept until her veil was soaked.
This is crucial to understand. Here's another example from the new writeup:
:She was slim and light-framed[31] with a fair, rosy complexion and perhaps also red hair[32] that she wore plaited.[33] '''Time would show that she was confident, spirited, strong-willed and highly intelligent''' – she had indeed “some of the qualities of Khadijah”.


Attempts by apologists to demonstrate that Muhammad's marriages were motivated by politics or charity, or that his wives were old and ugly, do not hold up to scrutiny. Nor is there much evidence that he treated his wives fairly or kindly, or that they were happy women.  
The bolded line would not be acceptable. Its giving the impression of assumptions again. I remember I had brought something like this up before as well ([[User_talk:1234567/Archive#Questions_about_the_Wives_articles|link]]) and I'm a little sad that I'm having to address this again. You have access to great sources and you have a strong interest in these topics and I want your work to be produced in the best way possible. If people see statements like these, this will severely negate all the positives (the references and facts). Mixing facts with opinions also makes it hard for the reader to distinguish between the two. (1) What actually happened. (2) What the author thinks may have happened. Even if what you wrote may be true, we cannot give the impression that the author is making the claim.


One fifth of the world’s population nevertheless believes that Muhammad was a Prophet and the perfect example to the human race. Muhammad’s example as a husband has set the example for Muslim husbands throughout history.}}
Leave out anything that you cannot directly attribute to a source. Make everything easily verifiable. That does mean leaving out speculations. If you have any speculation that is about something very important (Khadija living 15 more years), you can say it like "One may conclude that ...". Here its clear that this is an opinion of the author.


Again, thanks for such a great article. --[[User:Admin3|Admin3]] ([[User talk:Admin3|talk]]) 22:50, 10 September 2012 (PDT)
The second concern is making multiple references. Please do not combine references into a single reference. It makes it harder for anyone to verify the information.


:Okay, I can convert it from "story" to "history" mode. But I'm on a time-budget so it won't happen immediately.
To make things easy for you for both these issues, you can just mention the most important parts of a story so you'll have to use less references and do less work. I know you want people to know as much as possible so thats your choice, but in any case we need all opinions to left out, everything to be easily verifiable and no combined references should be used. If there is something that you think might be challenged by Muslims, it is also good to write the relevant part of that quote in the references with italics/quotation marks or provide the entire quote (whatever you think is appropriate). For example <nowiki><ref>''"... Abu Bakar was very upset with Muhammad ..."'' (Bukhari 123:123)</ref></nowiki> Even in essays these two issues must not be present.
:In fact I may be adding more information as I go. I have found several more interesting facts on Muslim sites. However, most of these do not cite sources, and it will take me a while to work out exactly how we know what we think we know.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (PDT)
::Sounds great. Thanks. --[[User:Admin3|Admin3]] ([[User talk:Admin3|talk]]) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (PDT)


== Page splitting and pseudonym ==
One problem is that we don't have time to continuously review and fix the content, so this must change going forward and we need you to understand our approach so any additional work is done according to the guidelines. If these things are not fixed/changed at this time when the material is being compiled, it will be almost impossible to fix it later when there's limited access to the sources.


I think you will understand if you imagine that you are writing a research paper with a serious tone where everything must be referenced. This is actually very simple to do: As you go along, ''only report'' what you see (in a chronological order when possible), reference everything and don't create any opinions or give the impression that an opinion has been created. This is all you need to do.


Hi 1234567. Since the article is very large, I think once you're done, it's best to split it into several pages (a page for each wife etc.). You can see examples of this (we call them "in-depth studies") [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Concerns_with_Islam:_Thoughts_from_an_American_Convert here] and [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Parallelism_Between_the_Qur'an_and_Judeo-Christian_Scriptures here]. We would also need a pseudonym (or real name if you're comfortable with that) for attribution on the "front page" and navigational TOC. Do you have anything in mind? --[[User:Admin3|Admin3]] ([[User talk:Admin3|talk]]) 05:27, 11 October 2012 (PDT)
As for whether you should do the controversial articles first or go in chrono-order, that's up to you how you want to do that. If we had a preference, of course we would like the controversial content first.


:I think this is a great idea! Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to use the software, so someone else may have to take responsibility for that. That's the advantage of a wiki - no one person is the author.
Sahabah may have additional thoughts. Let me know if you see any problems or difficulties with what I'm suggesting. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (PDT)
:Several of the wives already have pages, so we should think how we are going to amalgamate these old articles with some of the new information.
:We could perhaps amalgamate this article with the "list of wives" article (on which I've done some work). Make the list the hub article, then link it to separate pages on each wife, plus a page for "Broken Engagements," etc.
:You can use the pseudonym '''Petra MacDonald''' for the author. This is the English translation of '''Asma bint Marwan''' (with the elements reversed).[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 15:25, 11 October 2012 (PDT)


== Questions about the Wives articles ==
:I don't have much to add except maybe clarify a few of Axius' points, or at least what I think he meant (Axius will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong).


Hi 1234567, its me Whale (changed my username). I'm now Axius. Thanks again for the work you've done on the Women articles. I'm starting to look at them and trying to understand the approach you took and check if there are any issues with following our policies and guidelines. My first questions are about references.
: About Axius' point concerning assumptions; in essence we're an encyclopedic counter-apologetics site, so things like this are ''great'' (minus the use of the word "absurd"):


Could you tell me a little about your sources for example:
{{Quote||It is also suggested that Muhammad “married Aisha for the benefit of Islam and Humanity … From her, 2210 Hadith have come... Many of her transmissions pertain to some of the most intimate aspects of personal behaviour which only someone in Aisha's position could have learnt.”[24] This is absurd. If Muhammad had wanted the traditions about his life to be securely transmitted to posterity, he would not have relied on the hope that his young widow might later think of it; he would have arranged to have them committed to writing during his lifetime. He never did. Further, if he had believed that a wife was the best kind of chronicler, he would have chosen an adult spouse who knew how to write. Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]}}
# What were the main/most important sources you used?
# How did you have access to them? For example physical books, ebooks, electronic PDF or a website or all of them? Please tell me the type of format for the main sources in #1.
I'm asking this because I'd really like to have access to these sources if possible. I have Gulliume/Ishaq (book) and Tabari (40 volumes).


I'm just doing some random checks and I may do more later.
: However, this is not:


When you say [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-7 "Tabari 6:19-26"], do you mean the 6th volume and page 19-26? I have the 40 volume set of Tabari and I cant find mention of Khadija in vol 6, page 15.
{{Quote||Time would show that she was confident, spirited, strong-willed and highly intelligent – she had indeed “some of the qualities of Khadijah”.}}


How about:
: And, yes, the use of dramatic/emotional language detracts a lot of the page's impact and makes it harder for an anonymous reader to take seriously. So basically, it shouldn't read like a novel. I know 1234567 is concerned about holding peoples interest, but the 'dry' or 'boring' articles really are what readers are looking for and is certainly what we want. Of course, when I say 'dry' or 'boring', I mean a to-the-point article written in a scholarly, professional tone. I know we must seem like crazy control freaks, and I apologize for that. But people will use any little excuse they can find to dismiss work critical of Islam. Your articles really are great and it would be a shame for them to be dismissed over such easily rectified points. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 19:40, 29 April 2013 (PDT)
*[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-30 Bukhari 73:151. See also Bukhari 8:150.] (ref #26)
The way we format Bukhari on our site is: <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Bukhari|8|76|537}}. But even if your reference was in our format (e.g. {{Bukhari|8|73|151}}), sometimes that website may not have the hadith we're looking for. The way we do this is, if the linked reference doesn't show anything, we try to quote the actual hadith in the reference so its preserved on our site and the user can see it if they want to. This is important.


For the reference you used, that one is available on the USC site. I type <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Bukhari|8|73|151}} and it comes out as {{Bukhari|8|73|151}}. Notice the complete reference for the hadith there "Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151" and note "volume 8". So the format we've used for Bukhari is based on how this website has the reference. So Bukhari references would have to be fixed and for hadiths which are not present on that site, we would need to quote that hadith verbatim in the Reference section.
::Okay, what you need to understand is that the article is currently in a very rough state, based on old work that was intended for a more narrative style. I have had to break off my research to earn money for a few days. So I have a skeleton article (information in roughly the right order) but also a lot of references not properly tied to the article and a lot of statements not properly tied to references. You can see this from the number of empty reference boxes. Many of the statements reflect the sort of information that, based on my preliminary reading of the sources, I expect to find, but there just hasn't been time for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of how I know what I know. Isn't that what sandboxes are for?
::And, yes, I do sometimes find that when I do the breakdown, I have drawn an unwarranted conclusion. It turns out to be based on something I read in a secondary source that wasn't properly linked to a real primary source; or when events are laid out in strict chronological order, it turns out that there is a confusion (mine or someone else's) of cause and effect; or the same minor character has been running through several narratives and reveals himself as a much more major player than anyone realised.


[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-42 Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq 155.] (ref #38), which says ''"When they mocked his beliefs, she railed against them with counter-mockery and continued to declare to the world that Muhammad was Allah’s messenger.[38]"''
::In the case of the story of Muhammad interfering with Abu Bakr's family, what will be needed will be to tie it more closely to the language of the original hadith, which (in my translation) is: "He found Aisha '''hiding''' behind the door of the house of Abu Bakr, '''weeping''' with great '''distress'''. He questioned her and she '''complained''' about her mother and said that '''she was after her'''." So perhaps she didn't "blurt" but only "told" her complaint; but it was definitely not in neutral tone. The annoying lack of specific detail (what actually ''happened'' in this situation?) is a feature of the original, which may be why this story is often omitted from the standard biographies of Aisha. I think it is interesting, however, to examine her relationship with the parents who soon afterwards handed her over to the paedophile.
::Regarding the description of Aisha as intelligent, high-spirited, etc., this is rather similar to the description of Khadija as "loyal and sympathetic", which I wrote in the middle of my Khadija article. The evidence for these qualities not apparent at this point in the narrative, but it becomes obvious by the end of the story. Now you might want all such descriptors removed or left to a final conclusion, which is fine if that is your policy. But that does leave the reader wondering: What did Jibreel/Muhammad/Khawla mean by claiming that Aisha had "some of the qualities of Khadija"? Intelligence is the one obvious thing that the two had in common, but there were no IQ tests in those days. This seems to be the wrong point to reference every single hadith suggesting that Aisha had a high IQ.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]])


I have Ishaq/Guill and I cant see anything about Khadija there (I'm looking at the book 'the life of Muhammad', translation of Ishaq by Guill, Oxford Univ Press, ISBN 0 19 636033 1). Or did you mean 155 to be the numbering on the sides? There I see some relevant matching information. Is there a reason you went by the side-numbering for Ishaq and not the page numbering?
:::Yes, of course that is what sandboxes are for. I'm sure Axius is aware that its content may not reflect what the finished page will look like, but was hoping his early intervention would help you avoid any unnecessary extra work later on. If one editor notices the work of another editor and thinks they're going in the wrong direction, it's only natural to point it out. If their input is not necessary because you already plan on doing what they suggested, then there is no harm.


After this I may do some more random checks and sometime later I'll be talking about policies and guidelines, for example:
:::About that family incident. I agree it's interesting. But the point about dramatic/emotional language would still stand. For example, replacing the word "weeping" with "crying" (if the source is quoted in the reference, readers will easily be able to read the original wording by hovering their cursor over the ref number). Or you could simply quote the source by saying, "she was "weeping with great distress"". I understand that Aisha telling Muhammad was not done in a neutral tone, and that your description of events should be accurate. But I think this should be done using the least dramatic language possible, and where there is such language used, it should be within quotation marks and never from the actual author/article.
* Sources: We must only talk about what the sources say. We cannot make assumptions, guesses, create facts or any kinds of derivations and embellishments (negative or positive).
* Anything not related to criticism of Islam does not belong on our site. Neutral information is fine.


thanks, --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:21, 12 November 2012 (PST)
:::Regarding the description of Aisha. I haven't read the entire article, but just considering that section on its own, I don't think it's necessary to even have that line there. One way that could have been handled without losing any information is by adding a footnote, e.g., "He said the angel Jibril had appeared to him in a dream, holding a veiled child and saying, “Messenger of Allah, this one will remove some of your sorrow. This one has some of the qualities of Khadijah.”<nowiki><ref>Note that Islamic sources generally convey that Khadijah was a confident, enthusiastic, determined and intelligent women.</ref></nowiki> Then he lifted the veil, revealing that the child was Aisha." [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (PDT)
:hi 1234567, you probably haven't logged in in a while. There are additional problems with the text which need to be discussed (I can talk about those after you've responded to the above). All the text has been moved out of the main article space into [[WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad and his Wives]] until the concerns are addressed. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 03:28, 20 November 2012 (PST)
::::hi 1234567, right, we didnt know the writeup was based on content written earlier. No problem, we'll wait for you to be done.
::Examples of problematic statements are ''"Muhammad liked to play with children and '''he must have been a good stepfather to Hala and Hind, for they remained unswervingly loyal to him.'''"'' - (article on Khadija near [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#Khadija_and_Muhammad ref 25], bold emphasis mine). The bolded statement is original research. The kids may have been loyal to him out of fear or cultural reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean he was a good stepfather. There are other statements and more may exist because we haven't looked at all the material, but these kinds of assumptions are not right for our site. We focus on simply "quoting" sources and not [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorialize editorializing] content. Still I believe an effort can be made to save this work and I hope you come back and talk to us about it. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 20:57, 23 November 2012 (PST)
::::Sahabah is right about the intelligence issue. I'll assume temporarily I'm a critical reader. I would ask questions like: ''"What is the evidence for her being confident, strong-willed and intelligent? How do these qualities compare to those found in other women of that time? Was she exceptional in any way? Did anyone attest to these qualities explicitly? Were there any additional qualities? Maybe it was something else that was being referred to, such as praying habits, seeking the approval of Muhammad and so on"''. etc. You'll realize you're better off leaving these conclusions out.
:::Hi Axius, sorry I haven't been in touch. I am currently travelling with limited internet access and no access at all to my books (I was using hard-copy English translations of Tabari and Ibn Saad). For this reason it will be difficult for me to do much before January.
::::You want to write a complete story but I'm saying having an accurate and reliable story is of primary importance while a secondary issue is of the story being/appearing incomplete. Islamic sources mention only bits and pieces and if we report just those, we've done our job. Its not even necessary to write in conclusions/deductions and fill in any gaps. The facts are powerful enough on their own. So we're looking for statements like these: ''Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]''. They are directly referenced facts and have their own references (not combined). Here's a useful policy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Wikipedia:No original research]), another of their core policies and I'll only mention the 'nutshell':
:::I do intend to respond to everything you have written but I would rather not do it on the fly. Some friends who are native speakers of Arabic (non-Muslims now living in a safe country) have offered to help me and I would like their opinion on some of the English translations I have been using. To give quick answers to some of your questions...
:::::''Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles '''may not contain any new analysis or synthesis''' of published material that serves to advance a position '''not clearly advanced by the sources themselves'''.''
:::I used Poonawalla's translations of Tabari. I have volumes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 39.
::::He's also right about the 'weeping' issue. For example when newspapers report what people are saying, they use exact quotes. Usage of the actual words is better than using your own words even if you think the new words describe it better.  
:::I used Bewley's translation of the eighth volume of Ibn Saad, which I'm well aware is a dodgy interpretation of the original, but no other English translation is readily available.
::::I feel I've not done a complete job of explaining but hopefully this should help. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 09:39, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
:::I used an electronic copy of Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq, converted to a word document, because a format that allows the use of CTRL F is the easiest way to track the careers of the minor characters, which throws a great deal of light on facts that can otherwise be overlooked. E.g., the career of Muhammad's divorced wife, Fatima bint Al-Dahhak, suddenly became clear when I searched for her father, whose later adventures are also mentioned in the hadiths. The use of this format is the reason for the page-numbering I cited.
hi 1234567, welcome back. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (PDT)
:::I used this site http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php for Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Muwatta because, once again, a search function is the best way to ensure that significant minor information is not overlooked.
:::I will be logging in again but probably not before January.
::::No problem, let us know when you're back in/after January. Safe travels. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 07:55, 24 November 2012 (PST)


:::::I am back. Actually I have been back for a while, but I delayed contacting you because I have lent out my copy of Ibn Saad, which impedes my ability to do serious work.
== Article comments ==
:::::However, it would be foolish to delay indefinitely. I can still fix some of the other referencing - which, I promise you, is all real.
:::::While I was away I accessed a copy of Ali Dashti's ''Twenty-Three Years''. One thing that jumped out at me was that he anticipated several of my conclusions. Although I reached my own conclusions independently, in scholarship the race is to the swift, so of course I shall be adding his work to my references. The other thing that I noticed was that a "mistake" that I had attributed to Dashti was not his mistake at all, but one made in transition by someone (anonymous) who had misinterpreted his list. Unfortunately, the wrong version is now all over the internet and falsely attributed to Dashti. It does pay to read the sources in their original form.
:::::I've also been going over William Muir again. I don't have access to many of the early sources he cites, but he makes some excellent points that, if we can find a way to verify them, are well worth revisiting.
hi 1234567, welcome back (out denting for my convenience). I have some Islamic texts in addition to the volumes/books you mentioned and I can arrange for you to have access to them (let me know if you'd like that). I'd also be interesting in getting some of the texts you have if possible but this sharing can be done later. You don't have to read the text that I posted before and I'll just repeat it here. I'll number the issues for convenience (#4, 5 and 6 are important). You can respond and refer to the issue #:


*(1) When you say [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-7 "Tabari 6:19-26"], do you mean the 6th volume and page 19-26?
hi 1234567, I have some comments for [[User:1234567/Sandbox 1]] and [[User:1234567/Sandbox 2]]. I'm assuming they're more or less complete. I didnt want you to be doing any more work on them but I thought I should ask first to see if you're done. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (PDT)


:Yes.
:Sandbox 1 I still want to check some references.
:Sandbox 2 is more or less complete but doesn't stand on its own.
:There are so many references that the software will not support them as a single article.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 19:26, 20 June 2013 (PDT)
::Ok. Let me know when you're done and I'll compile my thoughts about the things I had noticed. Its ok to have them divided right now. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (PDT)
:::The biggest problem is still Ockley/Maracci. We're going to look really, really stupid if we include it and it turns out to be some sixteenth-century fantasy. On the other hand, if it's genuine, I'd still like to include it in the article. I can't find any trace online of an Abdulrahman al-Hamdani or an Abdulrahman ibn Hamdan who wrote the appropriate book. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist; it more likely means that he's out of favour with modern scholars and was never cited by anyone who wrote in English.
:::My Arab friends are searching for him in Arabic. They have come on board with helping me and are saying that it's "really important to tell everyone the truth about Muhammad." But I don't want to harass them. They have busy lives and they don't have a background in history; I have to give them clues about where to look.
:::Meanwhile, a few other things need tidying, but I can afford to cut them out if I can't find the information easily.
::::Ok. I think if you cant find the sources right now easily, it will be fine if you can leave those things out and put them in a "to do" list to deal with when you do find the sources. I'll wait for you to be done and then talk about the things that are of concern (in Sandbox 1 and 2)  --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 06:16, 22 June 2013 (PDT)
:::::I think I have now referenced everything that I can reference and cut out everything (minus Maracci) that I cannot; and I have toned down the writing style to something more encyclopaedic. Perhaps it's now at the stage where it's easier for you to look at it before I do any more.
:::::I will keep Maracci on my "to do" list, because I do have confidence that we will solve the puzzle one way or another eventually.
:::::If there is something that you just want to cut out, it's probably easiest if you simply cut it. I have kept a copy of the article the way I want it for my own writing, so it doesn't bother me to lose anything from the Wikiislam version.
:::::If the facts are in dispute, you can ask about it. If I've made an unwarranted assumption, I'll cut it. If you need a fuller version of the reference I used to prove my point, I can provide it. But I'm actually worried about cut-and-pasting great slabs of translated material: we'll soon be verging on breach of copyright.
:::::If you just want to change a word here or there, it's probably easier for you to do it yourself than enter a great debate about it. This is a wiki, so nobody can claim sole authorship. But if you want me to rewrite a whole paragraph, it's probably easier if you explain what you want so that I can do it myself.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 04:50, 23 June 2013 (PDT)
::::::Ok. I'll compile the comments and let you know here and we'll see what to do next. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 07:10, 23 June 2013 (PDT)


The text for that reference is:
(outdent) hi 1234567, here are some comments. I'll just mention a few first so we can sort those first before moving to other issues.
* ''Khadija was born around 568 in Mecca. She was Muhammad’s third cousin, their common great-great-grandfather having been Qusayy ibn Kilab, keeper of the Kaaba.[3]''  


If it means pages 19-26, thats a lot of pages for the short amount of text that is quoted (which means this makes it hard for anyone to cross-check this certain reference). Or let me know if I have it wrong somehow.
1. I know you're dealing with a challenge of creating a story from old/archaic english or incomplete stories (missing information) but we cannot change things in quotes. Here's an example. If a source quoted John saying "The apple is red and falling". I cannot re-write that and change that quote in any way. People expect quotes to be accurate and exact (this is why they're called quotations). So I could not re-write that and quote John saying "The apple is red as blood and its falling while succumbing to gravity".


:I agree this particular reference is clunky. It is the whole history of Qusayy, i.e. everything that establishes him as a historical person. Probably only the first page of the reference was necessary to make my point. In fact I think Muhammad's genealogy is easier to read in Guillaume/Ishaq, but I don't have good access to the first volume of Guillaume. (I have photographs of the pages but nothing like a pdf, let alone a Word file like the one I have of volumes II and III.) Even from Guillaume, however, it is necessary to put together two references to make one fact, i.e. Muhammad's genealogy is on page 1 and Khadija's on page 82, but it is nowhere directly stated that they are cousins.
Quoting the following from the start of [[User:1234567/Sandbox_2]]:
:It would be boring for the reader if I explained how I derived every single conclusion by putting together disparate references (What was Safiya bint Huyayy's connection with the poisoner of Khaybar? How old were the single women sojourning in Abyssinia?) but I can certainly supply more details if you want them.
:Co-Wives
:Aisha was jealous of the deceased Khadijah. She complained to Muhammad: “Khadijah is always on your mind, and you speak as if she were the only woman in the world! Why do you still think of that toothless old woman who is long dead, when Allah has given you someone better to replace her?” Muhammad retorted, “No, I have never had a better wife than Khadijah!”[1] Perhaps Aisha would not have minded about Khadijah if she had not also had to compete with living co-wives.
The sources mentioned are:
: Sahih Bukhari 5:58:164; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:165; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:166; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:168; Sahih Bukhari 7:62:156; Sahih Bukhari 8:73:33; Sahih Bukhari 9:93:576; Sahih Muslim 31:5971; Sahih Muslim 31:5972; Sahih Muslim 31:5974; Sahih Muslim 31:5976.
The two sources that may be talking about this are:
:Narrated 'Aisha: Once Hala bint Khuwailid, Khadija's sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that upset him. He said, "O Allah! Hala!" So I became jealous and said, '''"What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?"''' ([http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.168])


*(2) Making references:
and:
**[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-30 Bukhari 73:151. See also Bukhari 8:150.] (ref #26)
:A'isha reported that Hala b. Khuwailid (sister of Khadija) sought permission from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to see him and he was reminded of Khadija's (manner of) asking leave to enter and (was overwhelmed) with emotions thereby and said: O Allah, it is Hala, daughter of Khuwailid, and I felt jealous and said: '''Why do you remember one of those old women of the Quraish with gums red and who is long dead-while Allah has given you a better one in her stead?''' ([http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/031-smt.php#031.5976])
The way we format Bukhari on our site is: <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Bukhari|8|76|537}}. But even if your reference was in our format (e.g. {{Bukhari|8|73|151}} [notice this is a USC.edu website]), sometimes that website may not have the hadith we're looking for. The way we do this is, if the linked reference doesn't show anything, we try to quote the actual hadith in the reference so its preserved on our site and the user can see it if they want to. This is important.


For the reference you used, that one is available on the USC site. I type <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Bukhari|8|73|151}} and it comes out as {{Bukhari|8|73|151}}. This is our system for making hadith references for those hadiths which are available on that site. Notice the complete reference for the hadith there "Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151" and note "volume 8". So the format we've used for Bukhari is based on how this website has the reference. The reason why we use this 3 parameter referencing for Bukhari is that the Hadith can be verified with a simple mouse click (as you can see). So Bukhari references would have to be fixed and for hadiths which are not present on that site, we would need to quote that hadith verbatim in the Reference section.
The quote you that had does not match with the sources. So Aisha did not say anything like this to Muhammad: "Why do you still think of that toothless old woman who is long dead". No source has Aisha saying exactly that sentence. We cant change quotes. Brackets are sometimes used in Islamic sources but they are actually often insertions by translators (e.g. how some translators add the word 'lightly' while translating {{Quran|4|34}}). This is why the other source did not have those brackets.


Other references would also have to be fixed for Muslim, Abu Dawud and Muwatta. We would use templates for the hadiths which can be found online on the USC.edu website. Others that are not on the website can be quoted verbatim if possible.
The better way to do this would be to quote the source as it is:
: "Why do you remember one of those old women of the Quraish with gums red and who is long dead-while Allah has given you a better one in her stead?" (this sentence is used in the source)


:I can fix the references. Everyone knows it's an arduous job but I've had to do plenty of it.
As I said I understand your challenge of using these sources to create something readable but quotes cant be changed.  


*(3) [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-42 Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq 155.] (ref #38), which says ''"When they mocked his beliefs, she railed against them with counter-mockery and continued to declare to the world that Muhammad was Allah’s messenger.[38]"''
So that whole quote of Aisha is a synthesis. It is not what she said. Its a re-write and since its in quotes, the reader thinks this is exactly what she said in Arabic but thats not the case.


I have Ishaq/Guillaume and I cant see anything about Khadija there (I'm looking at the book 'the life of Muhammad', translation of Ishaq by Guill, Oxford Univ Press, ISBN 0 19 636033 1). Or did you mean 155 to be the numbering on the sides? There I see some relevant matching information. Is there a reason you went by the side-numbering for Ishaq and not the page numbering? After your response I could possibly post a screenshot of the page.
Continuing: According to Islamic sources, Muhammad's response to that quote was:
:I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and when ever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija," he would say, "Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children." ([http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/058-sbt.php#005.058.166])


:I didn't realise there was more than one way of numbering the pages. How curious! I just went by the page-numbers in my version. But if there is an alternative numbering system, this is going to cause endless confusion. Maybe you could explain it to me?
But according to you, his response was:
:Muhammad retorted, “No, I have never had a better wife than Khadijah!”[1] Perhaps Aisha would not have minded about Khadijah if she had not also had to compete with living co-wives.  


*(4) You have statements like these which are fine:
That quote ("I have never had a better wife than Khadijah") is not present in any of the sources.
** ''Unlike the informed consent issue, which simply reveals that Muhammad was a product of his culture, this act of paederasty reveals that Muhammad was morally inferior to his own culture. He rejected the moral norms of his wisest contemporaries in order to indulge himself at Aisha’s expense. He demonstrated for once and for all that he had no timeless, universal moral insight to offer the world – in short, that he was not a prophet.'' - [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#Paedophilia]


These are facts because you have referenced that even Jews at the time understood that "a girl should not be touched before puberty".
I have not heard of anyone saying its ok to re-write quotes this is why me and Sahabah were surprised when we saw this. For a website like ours where everything is scrutinized with a microscope, we cannot do anything like that. So as it is, this changing of quotes is not acceptable for our site. I know you havent done this intentionally. You really wanted to write something that the reader finds interesting, but to maintain integrity, accuracy and quality we have to be careful in how or what we write. If it was a short story we were writing or a script for a movie about Islam, it would be another issue.


But you also have things like this:
This is just one issue and its very worrying because of the quantity of work you have done. Here's another example. You wrote:
* ''"It is unfair to claim that he “only married her for her money"'' - [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#Why_Muhammad_Married_Khadija Why Muhammad Married Khadija]
:At one stage he announced a revelation from Allah that he must not marry any more women “no matter how beautiful.”[3]
This exact quote is not found in the Quran and the link you used was [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php#033.052]. The Quran cannot be paraphrased.


This shows a problem: There's a significant percentage of content that is actually pro-Islamic or ''apologetic'' and it brushes off valid (sometimes obvious and well-known) criticism of Islam. Although I havent looked at your work in detail but this tells me there may be other occurrences.
So its this re-writing, re-arranging, paraphrasing original quotes that is worrying.


I hadnt heard of this Fakhita women and even if Muhammad was willing to marry her, it doesnt mean he wouldnt have wanted to marry Khadikha because she came from a powerful woman from a wealthy noble family. (from Wikipedia, I havent confirmed the sources but this is common knowledge that should be mentioned in a section titled "why he married her": ''"Khadija was from a noble family and at the time of Muhammad, she was a widow. Khadija was a very wealthy woman from inheriting the business her father created"''). Yes you have mentioned it in the section but the "why" section refutes the 'wealthy' theory and it portrays Muhammad in a positive light and fully rejects the obvious that Muhammad must have been feeling great to be having marrying Khadija, a powerful wealthy woman. Obviously he gained a lot from that marriage. It was very useful for him.
Another example:
:But the revelation is of no great importance, for “Allah lifted the restriction stated in this ayah and permitted him to marry more women … Aisha said, ‘Allah’s Messenger did not die until all women were permitted to him.’”[4]


Even if this certain issue is fixed, it makes me think about what other problems may exist. Its worrying that this kind of approach was used partly in writing it. The way we would approach it is that we would mention she was a wealthy widow from a powerful family. We would not even say "he married her because she was wealthy" (unless we could quote a reputed critic of Islam or a primary source like a hadith). We would only mention the facts and nothing else and we would let the reader judge for themselves (as to why Muhammad married her). This is an important point I want to tell you because thats how we approach things on WikiIslam.
The reference given actually says:
:Then Allah lifted the restriction stated in this Ayah and permitted him to marry more women, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.''


:Don't worry about asking me to take things out. I have already decided that I am going to save separately any material that you don't want and write my own e-book. (The counter-jihad is too important to be left in the hands of people who only want to make money out of it, but I still have to pay my bills! It will do me no harm at all to have a little extra material in reserve that you didn't want so I can keep it as a surprise for my commercial work.)
So you have changed the quote. "All women" is not the same as "other women".


:I am not surprised that you haven't heard of Fakhita as she is a minor player in the grand scheme of things. However, her story is as well established as any other fact from Muahmmad's life. Tabari mentions her several times, including volume 39 pp. 196-197. She was the daughter of Abu Talib, who was a poor man. Muhammad wanted to marry her, but Abu Talib gave her to a wealthy man. When Muhammad upbraided his uncle, he was essentially told that the family needed to marry for money. So when Muhammad afterwards told Khadija's servant Nafisa that he wanted to marry but couldn't afford to support a family, this was not just a conventional answer to her question but a reference to a personal disappointment that he had actually experienced.
I want to try our best to save your content. As I've said before many times there's a lot of good information you have gathered from these sources and this kind of work has possibly not been done by anyone. You have showed a lot of passion and interest in this topic and we love that. But these issues need to be addressed before content like this is acceptable for the site.
:I am quite certain that Muhammad liked Khadija's money. I suspect a selfish young man like Muhammad would have jumped at the chance to marry a millionaire even if he hadn't liked the woman, although we cannot prove this. But the proposal from Khadija was a piece of luck beyond his wildest dreams that he couldn't possibly have expected. In Fakhita we have clear evidence that he would have willingly married a poor woman if he couldn't find himself a rich one. So the assumption that Muhammad married Khadija ''only'' for the money just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts. At the very least, there was the additional motive that he simply wanted to marry, which is probably a polite way of saying that he was looking for a sexual partner.


:BTW, the Wikipedia statement that "Khadija inherited her business from her father" is one of those overworked statements that we all think we know about Islam but in fact is highly doubtful. How could she have ''inherited'' the business at a date when her father was still alive? And if he personally "created" the business, why did Khadija's five siblings not take over equal shares? Unless the source material clearly states otherwise, we should consider the possibilities that the business was inherited from her first husband (who came from a clan of prosperous merchants), was set up by her second husband (who was an immigrant but nevertheless prince among his own people) or was the result of Khadija's own personal efforts.
2. Minor issue (#1 above is the real problem): Image of stoning is not appropriate here: [[User:1234567/Sandbox_2]] and will need to be removed. This was something we'd talked about before. (for one, caption doesn't mention Aisha and its relation to the page. It does make the page appealing and I understand your attempt but we use images only if directly relevant)


Another example. This is an example of original research (assumptions, deductions, opinions, things that are not present directly in a text):
For #1, I feel its a serious problem. There are many other instances where we saw this happening and some of them we cant even check because we don't have the sources and we haven't looked at everything because of the quantity of the content. I'm honestly not sure what can be done other than going back to the sources and making sure its all OK. What is also sad that we had talked about this before ([http://wikiislam.net/wiki/User_talk:1234567/Archive] where I said how we must only quote the sources e.g. "assumptions, deductions, opinions, things that are not present directly in a text", "we make sure the reader knows that this was an actual quote") and now the same problems exist and we have new content that is not right.
* ''he must have been a good stepfather to Hala and Hind, for they remained unswervingly loyal to him.'' [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-30] (see statement after ref # 26)


The kids may have been loyal to him out of fear or cultural reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean he was a good stepfather. There are other statements and more may exist because I haven't looked at all the material, but these kinds of assumptions are not right for our site. We focus on simply "quoting" sources and not [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorialize editorializing] content.
The only solution is go through the content and make sure quotes are exact and if they are not, they have to be carefully/neutrally worded. For example we would write "Muhammad replied" instead of "Muhammad retorted" (another issue that we had talked about before on the old talk page: [[User_talk:1234567/Archive]]). But again I feel this solution is difficult because of the amount of content and the common occurrence of the problem. Sahabah saw these problems and I agreed with him (that we cannot change quotes in any way. Again see my example of John in the beginning). Let me know what you think. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (PDT)
:Let us also know if you have any feedback or suggestions for the site, if anything can be improved and so on. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (PDT)
::Okay, if that is the main issue, that is what I will do.
::Thanks for explaining site policy. The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation. Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English. An Arab would not understand our equivalent expression, "She's over the hill." In fact there are many English translations of the hadiths, not all of which are literal and hardly any of which are expressed in elegant English; but some are definitely more comprehensible than others. (This is quite aside from whether the translation attempt was an honest one, e.g., Yusuf Ali on Q4:34). To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available.
::But if you would rather keep it literal, I can copy out the exact translation word for word in each case.
::"I never had a better wife than Khadijah" is definitely in one of the sources; I did not invent it, and I'm fairly sure it was not invented by a secondary historian either. I'm sorry if I missed it in the versions I quoted; I'll hunt it out.
::I have cleared the decks from other commitments, so I can now spend a couple of days tidying up the citations in the Aisha article. The article about Zaynab bint Jahsh is also nearly finished.
::And I have stumbled across a few new hadiths that I can use to correct my previous articles. Amazing what you find when you're looking for something else.
::I don't have a specific suggestion for improving the site overall, but whenever I find anything that might interest you, I'll post it on the appropriate Talk page.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (PDT)


Even if we accept this as an essay/op-ed, things like this would still not be suitable for our site.  
:::'''"The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation."'''
:::Surely you're aware that paraphrasing sources and presenting them as direct quotes from translations (by the use of inverted commas) is wrong? It's simply not the done thing.


:There are in fact a couple of hadiths that indicate a warm relationship between Muhammad and his stepsons. Would it be more suitable if I simply quoted them and left the conclusion alone?
:::Sites critical of Islam mainly have 3 accusations hurled at them: 1) they're biased. 2) they're run by bigoted right-wingers with an axe to grind. 3) their criticism is built on fabricated sources and taking things out of context.
:Having said that, I actually believe (though it would be difficult to prove this objectively) that the "good relationship" between them was superficial. The stepchildren (including Sawda's son) were never prominent in the Muslim community; we just don't find their names on the lists. As Muhammad was often quite nepotistic, this suggests he was not close to his stepchidren after they grew up.  


*(5) Embellishing text:
:::The first two don't bother us because they're ad hominem (plus, we don't do politics, so the second incorrect accusation isn't even worth entertaining). However, the third accusation is something we take very seriously. We've managed to avoid such accusations by being very stringent with what we allow onto the site.  
** ''Juwayriya was sweet-natured, charming and '''as alluringly beautiful as a fairy'''; men became infatuated with her at first sight.'' - [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#Why_Muhammad_Married_Juwayriya]


Things like that (bold above) are not suitable for our site. This should be a fact-based serious article, not a script for a movie or a novel which can be good on its own but thats not the approach we use. So things like these would have to be changed. Content should be like what you would see in a reputed newspaper known for rigorous fact-checking, not a novel. If the sources says "beautiful like fairy", only then we can use it as it is and then we make sure the reader knows that this was an actual quote (we would use quotation marks for things like that). Yes content that is suited for a novel may appear exciting/engaging and story-like and newspaper content that is only based on facts and has no opinions may be dry/boring, but we go for facts only and not opinions. This style of writing requires restraint and prevents us from stating opinions and deductions that we have to let the reader see for themselves.
:::Speak to anyone with experience in debating Muslims or writing articles critiquing Islam and they will tell you that paraphrasing sources will lead to the accusation of fabricating sources. And to be honest, there wouldn't be a defense for it. More worryingly, you seem to go further than simply paraphrasing the text.


:I realise you cited this as possibly typical of other passages - but in this case, it's simply unclear referencing. The words you have bolded are directly from Aisha! I agree that "fairy" (Ghadanfar's translation) is not a particularly good rendering of ''jinnya'', but I'm stumped as to what other English word to substitute. (Elf? Siren? Angel? Veela?) Anyway, I'll go through the whole and make it clear that when I use expressions like that, it's some person's subjective opinion.
:::You appear to be merging several hadith into one, and the conclusions you reach from your reinterpretation of sources are at times not supported by the sources. You did agree to quote the relevant text for all sources in reference tags, but have failed to do so. We do this to make it easier for readers to check sources onsite (rather than have to go offsite via an external link or have to buy hard copies of sources). This would also help us and future editors to verify the accuracy of articles.


*(6) Style of sourcing
:::I really think it is very important for an editor who wants to improve, to fully understand what the problems are. If you would like me to go more in-depth with the problems I see, please say so, and I will. Anyhow, I'm glad you are willing to make corrections.


For example:
:::'''"Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English."'''
* ''Juwayriya was sweet-natured, charming and as alluringly beautiful as a fairy; men became infatuated with her at first sight. When she stood at the doorway of Muhammad’s tent, Aisha’s heart sank, for she knew Muhammad would react just like all other men. Sure enough, he did. Juwayriya asked Muhammad to arrange her redemption. Muhammad asked: “Would you like something better than that? I will ransom you myself and marry you.” He did not offer to send her back to her father: the choice was to marry Muhammad or to risk his anger by remaining Thabit’s slave. So Juwayriya agreed to marry Muhammad, and he declared her manumitted.[5]'' - [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#Why_Muhammad_Married_Juwayriya]


This is the same location as in #5. Statements that are shown as fact are unreferenced but you have a reference at the end which is:
:::True. But this could have been explained without paraphrasing quotations. To anyone who reads your quotations, then checks the actual sources, it would appear that you are exaggerating what the sources say in order to help support your claims and for added dramatic effect. That's not good.
* Guillaume/Ishaq 629; Ibn Hisham note 918; Tabari 39:182-183; Abu Dawud 29:3920; Ibn Saad, Tabaqat 117; Ibn Hajar, Al-Isaba 4:265


Why this is wrong: Think of writing 3 pages and giving one combined reference at the end. This makes it really hard to cross-check anything. We dont know which of those statements was found in which source.
:::'''"To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available."'''


:Again, I can alter the referencing. But many of the stories are clunky to reference no matter how they are approached. The six references tell the same story almost identically. I could certainly add a reference after each sentence, but each footnote would include four or five of the six total references. Or I could include only one of the references, but I would then have to sacrifice any information not specifically included in that reference.  
:::There may be exceptions, but we usually do. All of of our Qur'an and several of the major hadith collections have this information available. If you click on the left side of each reference, it will take you to it: {{Quran|4|1}} or {{Bukhari|4|55|548}}. We also have the same for Tabari (you have to click on the right side for that): {{Tabari|1|p. 273}}. The important thing is that they're from ''published'' translations. Not ones that we made up. They have to be translations that Muslims would use without a problem. [[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (PDT)
::::hi 1234567, to confirm what Sahabah said: regardless of the reasons you gave (as I said I understand your challenge of using these old sources. Its a difficult task), quotes cannot be shown as quotes when they were in fact modified or paraphrased. I don't remember seeing this happen anywhere else. It could be a script for a movie or play but it wouldn't be suitable for us. I've not written much on the site but when I have, my one and only concern is that it should be something that is irrefutable. It must be linked to a good source and it must say what the source says. Of secondary importance are things like: is it readable, does it look good, does it flow well, etc. So the paraphrasing of quotes is a critical issue. No new content should be added without dealing with these existing issues. One solution that makes it easier is for you to keep the story short and only mention important details. Another is not to use quotes and only use them when you have to. Even if you don't use quotes, writing should still be "irrefutable" and accurately reflect the source.
::::You haven't responded to the fact that you paraphrased the Quran and you showed a Quranic verse in quotes when that is not what it said. I have never even seen Muslims do something like that, because they will use another author's translation rather than creating their own. If we create things in quotes and give the impression that thats whats the Quran said, we are creating our own translation. Its not just for the Quran but everything else as well.
::::I don't think its possible to write anything for our site without first understanding the approach we take which is accuracy and reliability first, and everything else comes later. Again, you are doing a difficult task which is to use all of these sources but the first test our pages have to pass is the "defense" stage and that has to be kept in mind constantly for a site like ours. So paraphrasing quotes creates a big problem. I know this can be dealt with. I think the first step is to make a list of possible articles that may need to fixed and then tackle them one by one. You could tell us how you would deal with this. For example you have to use the sources, you cant modify quotes, you can write things without quotes but they still have to reflect what the source says. Sources referenced must be distinct so everything can be verified easily. The more you do these things the higher the reliability is and presenting things in quotes that are not in the original source cannot be done no matter what.
::::We're like a newspaper. Suppose there was this line in the newspaper: 'Jennifer said her husband was ''"buying a lot of things"'' '
::::Readers will assume that that is exactly what she said. If the newspaper had in fact paraphrased Jennifer she actually said ''"shopping at the speed of $1000 dollars an hour"'', this would be a problem and Jennifer wouldnt be happy and the readers would stop trusting the newspaper. Its a problem and to me its a very obvious problem (like I said I've never seen it happen anywhere else). I've taken a quote, modified it, and presented it in quotes -- giving the impression that whats there in the quotes is what was actually said when thats not the case. If I have to paraphrase, I have to stop using quotes and even then it has to accurately reflect what was said.
::::Once again, if quotes can be modified, we cannot tell the difference between what was actually said and what was not. I know these are big problems because its not just a few paragraphs. Its a lot of content. We're already busy in a lot of things and I dont know if we have enough time to help you extensively with this so its all up to you basically. But again, we cannot have content on the site where quotes have been paraphrased and presented as quotes when they are not quotes. I did some searching ([https://www.google.com/search?q=paraphrasing+quotation+marks&spell=1&sa=X&ei=X7niUdmqCfiq4AOxi4GgAg&ved=0CCsQvwUoAA&biw=1920&bih=852 Google]). Here's a good link about the use of quotation marks: [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/]. It says "Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, ''it is not necessary to use quotation marks''." (section heading: Indirect Quotations). It also says "Many writers struggle with when to use direct quotations versus indirect quotations. Use the following tips to guide you in your choice."
::::Here's someone responding to a similar issue on Yahoo answers ([http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100325064701AA8iaJ7 Do you use quotations when paraphrasing?]):
:::::''you don't use quotation marks. in text citations will do (an example of which is parenthetical citation). just make sure to give credit to your sources. '''you only use quotation marks when using DIRECT quotations, meaning everything is copied from the source in verbatim'''.''
::::Additional links: [http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase2.html How to paraphrase a source]. This has a section on ''"Paraphrasing difficult texts"''. This following source [http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/qpp.html] has a section on "Too many direct quotations". Here's another [http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/anderson/quotation.htm] which says: ''"When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, '''without using quotation marks'''".'' Another Q/A: [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_paraphrase_have_quotation_marks Does a paraphrase have quotation marks?].
::::So the steps here are to first settle this paraphrasing quotes issue and you can look other sources to see what they say and how to deal with the problem of writing content while using multiple sources, how and when to paraphrase and when/how to use direct quotations and so on. You will see they're saying the same thing we have been saying: You cant paraphrase things and present them in quotation marks.
:::: It may also be helpful to visit [https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=writing+forum&oq=writing+forum&gs_l=hp.3..0l10.396.1786.0.2119.13.10.0.3.3.0.115.910.6j4.10.0....0...1c.1.19.hp.FqpVvPciBYg writing forums] and ask them about the challenge of writing things from old texts like these, and how to deal with the issue of paraphrasing and direct quotations while making sure everything remains accurate and matches the source and does not misrepresent or misquote. Also how to write in a journalistic style with no embellishment or decoration and so on. It would be helpful to look at these external links and talk to people who can give advice so you'll get opinions from other people as well. The steps are understanding what the problem is, and what caused things to be in this state, eliminating those approaches and changing course. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 06:57, 14 July 2013 (PDT)
::::: Okay, I have now given exact cut-and-paste wording for everything I quoted. In my professional opinion, we are dealing with low-quality translation a lot of the time (I can tell by comparing different translations and noting the poor English expression). Sticking to only one person's translation causes some sacrifice of accuracy in meaning, but if you are willing to live with that, it's your call.
::::: A couple of the quotes are not readily available in English. You noticed the one about "I never had a better wife than Khadijah," which was in fact on my list of references to check, so I must have noted earlier that I still didn't have a source for that. The source is Ibn Hanbal. On the positive side, that means it can't possibly be Shi'a propaganda but is an acceptable Sunni citation. Ibn Hanbal's quote continues in the same way as the versions found in Bukhari and Muslim. On the negative side, I'm having to take an educated guess as to which of the English translations of the sentence scattered over the web is likely to be closest (most likely the one that offers least clarity in English!). I've asked my Arab friends to check what the original says so that we can make a good translation together.
::::: The most recent version is now in Sandbox 1. I've cleared my other sandboxes.[[User:1234567|1234567]] ([[User talk:1234567|talk]]) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (PDT)
::::::Thanks. I agree sometimes the translations may not be correct/done right but if the quotes are not usable that means we cant use quotes at all (because according to rules quotes have to be verbatim or they shouldn't be used if they are not). I can't think of a case where quotes were created/modified which were not present in the source. We'll take a look. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 04:27, 18 July 2013 (PDT)


Again, not all of the content is like that. You have some great stuff which forms a significant portion of the content and these are things that will remain hidden from the public (they will be interesting for Muslims and non-Muslims alike), unless they read your work (or if they buy all those references you have used, which is unlikely). But thats why I really want to attempt to save this work if possible and so I'm discussing it with you to see what can be done.
:::::::Hi 1234567. I'm sorry to say your work is no longer suitable for the site. Unfortunately, most of our previous objections remain. We will leave your article about Aisha in the sandbox indefinitely (it may be blanked, but you will still have access to it if needed). I wish you luck on future projects and thank you for your time and effort at WikiIslam. It was much appreciated.[[User:Sahabah|--Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (PDT)
 
So I think these are issues that have to be discussed/resolved. In summary:
 
Minor:
* I want to make sure we are looking at the same copies of Ibn Ishaq
* References have to be converted to our template format where possible. For example <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Bukhari|3|4|67}}
Major:
* Style of references: Any 'Facts' must be referenced individually and combined references should not be used, so cross-checking can be done.
* Opinions/deductions/assumptions have to deleted from all the content, so we are left with only the facts found explicitly in the sources.
* No apologetic material must be found (especially if unreferenced). Continuing that thought, neutral content is interesting, valuable and should be retained but also remember that we focus on criticism of Islam.
 
:Now perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, but this is the nearest thing to a content-policy you have ever given me.
 
This is all I have for now. Sorry its really long so take your time. I've probably made some mistakes/typos in writing this but here I go. I really want to know what you think about 4, 5 and 6.
 
:As regards sharing texts, I am glad of anything I can get. I have only what is generally available to the public; my copies of Tabari and Ibn Saad were bought from Amazon. I have realised from reading tertiary sources (often very bad ones) that access to Bayhaqi would probably fill in some important gaps, but if a complete English translation exists, I have missed it.
 
:I strongly recommend you add http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/ to your favourites. Professor Kister was a serious scholar who had access to vast resources and had some important insights into Muhammad's relationship with the Jews. You can read his works for free without needing to join anything.
 
:I came across an interesting one the other day that absolutely nails the Muhammad/Aisha relationship. The reason it is not better known is that the Arabic source is so badly cited. Ockley (writing in English in 1708) cites Maracci, and Maracci (writing in Latin in 1698) cites "the book by Abdulrahman Hamdanius". This isn't quite enough information to verify the reference. But if we can track it down and if it turns out to be at all reliable (I know it isn't necessarily, just because it's written in Arabic!) it will be a must-include. You can read Ockley's twice-translated version at the bottom of http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Saracens/Life_of_Mohammed/Part_I.
 
:I know I haven't answered everything yet, but that is enough for today. I am going to work through the text one wife at a time, so I will begin with Khadija and ignore remarks that do not relate directly to her.
:Muir has a very interesting take on Muhammad's "fidelity" to Khadija. He claims that all the ''suras'' in the Qur'an that concern the ''houris'' of Paradise were written in the period 614-619. I have no way of checking whether this is correct. But if it is correct, it is very significant. It means that in the final years of Khadija's life (when her health was failing and her money was running out) Muhammad was speaking openly about his visions of other women. Yet if Muir is correct, he stopped doing this as soon as he married Sawda, i.e. when he once again had a younger woman and didn't need to fantasise. It might not be a ''big'' deal, but it suggests that the marriage of Muhammad and Khadija was less idyllic than is often claimed.
 
Sahabah, feel free to add any additional input. I could have missed some additional important issues. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (PST)
 
:It's hard for me to add much, since the talk pages have been deleted and I've lost all my saved data on the PC. In fact, I wrote a lengthy reply here, only to have my device crash, so I'll have to be brief.
 
:Yeah, material that can be construed as apologetic towards Islam is not suitable, even as an essay. And we obviously want essays to be credible.
 
:What you have to understand is, material that is hosted on WikiIslam will remain here indefinitely (the site isn't going anywhere). It will be read or used as a resource by hundreds of thousands, even millions of readers. It will likely be reposted, quoted or cited by many of websites, blogs and forums. Whilst articles remain, most editors do not. They usually submit their work then disappear. This is fine with us because we only accept referenced and easily verifiable  material. If in two years its accuracy is questioned, the editors who are active at that time can easily defend it.
 
:On the other hand, your work could be considered "original research". Tracking down the exact reference for stated facts seems difficult and you seem to infer things and make a lot of assumptions based on your own reading of the text (where you say things like, "most probably, or "likely", etc.). Since we have no idea of what led you to those conclusions, there is no way our editors can defend it. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (PST)
 
 
 
hi '''1234567''', I out-dented your quotes and am reproducing them for replies:
: ''I didn't realise there was more than one way of numbering the pages. How curious! I just went by the page-numbers in my version. But if there is an alternative numbering system, this is going to cause endless confusion. Maybe you could explain it to me? ''
We go by page numbers too. Here's my page 155 [http://postimage.org/image/igs42i0vj/full/]. Is this what you have too on your side? I dont see anything about Khadija on both pg 154 and 155. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong book or location. Here's the title page of the book [http://postimage.org/image/xzy3rg55n/]. The line that you wrote is here: [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Sandbox/Muhammad_and_his_Wives#cite_ref-42] (ref 38 in that section)
 
:''So the assumption that Muhammad married Khadija only for the money just doesn't seem to be borne out by the facts.''
Say he had a choice to marry two women who wanted to marry him. One was K, and the other was also K, but she was as poor as Fakhita. A man who goes after war booty and organizes caravan raids to rob non-Muslims definitely would go after the rich woman. Why did he really marry Khadija? We don't know. We only know the facts: She was from a rich family, he was from a poor one and when he found out K is single, maybe his thinking was ''"I couldnt get with Fakhita. I'll get a job with Khadija. If I get real lucky, she might just marry me".''
 
So we dont know these things. For our site, we keep these kinds of opinions out because these conclusions can be questioned by anyone. Just stating the facts is enough and the reader should be left to decide the rest for themselves.
 
:''At the very least, there was the additional motive that he simply wanted to marry, which is probably a polite way of saying that he was looking for a sexual partner.''
 
Of course. No one says 100% of the motive was money. It could be: 60% money and improving his future prospects and influence, 30% sexual partnership and 10% companionship and so on. Again if another K (who had no money) also proposed to him, he would married the rich K. Even today anyone would do that and would pay importance to money, if other factors were kept equal.
 
:''Khadija inherited her business from her father" is one of those overworked statements that we all think we know about Islam but in fact is highly doubtful. How could she have inherited the business at a date when her father was still alive?''
Maybe the father said ''"I'm tired, you can take the reigns, you're pretty good at it."''. We dont know what happened. The important thing is: She was a successful business woman and very rich.
 
:''Unless the source material clearly states otherwise, we should consider the possibilities that the business was inherited from her first husband (who came from a clan of prosperous merchants), was set up by her second husband (who was an immigrant but nevertheless prince among his own people) or was the result of Khadija's own personal efforts.''
 
Yes those are possibilities. I dont know what the Wikipedia source exactly says but we would go by whatever the source says. Again the important issue is that she was rich. Whether she got rich through a lottery, father or husband, those are interesting details but secondary when studying why Muhammad married her. Muhammad wouldn't really care exactly how she inherited the wealth.
 
:''There are in fact a couple of hadiths that indicate a warm relationship between Muhammad and his stepsons. '''Would it be more suitable if I simply quoted them and left the conclusion alone'''?''
:''Having said that, I actually believe (though it would be difficult to prove this objectively) that the "good relationship" between them was superficial. The stepchildren (including Sawda's son) were never prominent in the Muslim community; we just don't find their names on the lists. As Muhammad was often quite nepotistic, this suggests he was not close to his stepchidren after they grew up.''
 
Yes, most definitely. We love quotes. In my opinion, any thing that says "this happened" needs a direct reference. So we cannot say "he must have been a good stepfather", unless there's a direct source for it. But as you said, you can refer to those hadiths as they are and not make any conclusions. This way we are being historically accurate without making inferences that may or may not be true (or can be debated). In other words, if something can be debated about and there's no source for it, it should be left out.
 
:''The words you have bolded are directly from Aisha!''
 
Then it should be made clear, because to me the words were stated by you.
 
:''"it's simply unclear referencing"''
It doesn't need to be said that no reference should be unclear. The reader wants to know whether something was an invention by the author, or by the primary source (Aisha). In fact it would have been a lot more interesting and credible, if the reader was told that Aisha described Juwayriya like that.
 
:''I agree that "fairy" (Ghadanfar's translation) is not a particularly good rendering of jinnya, but I'm stumped as to what other English word to substitute. (Elf? Siren? Angel? Veela?)''
 
The more accurate and credible way to do this would be to say something like this: ''Aisha once described Juwayriya as 'jinnya', a word which some arabic dictionaries describe as 'beautiful, fairy like, elf and angel.'''
 
Would you agree that its much better to tell the reader that Aisha described her as jinnya and not you? This isnt just about this certain issue but about others as well. The reader doesnt care for your personal opinions and conclusions. They want to know the facts. When you read a news article, you want to know ''what really happened''. You dont care about the writer's own inventions and original research. Stories that only contain 'facts' are much more valued by the reader than those containing original research. You as a writer may feel good about seeing the article as 'your own' but the reality again is: the reader just wants to know the facts.
 
:Anyway, I'll go through the whole and make it clear that when I use expressions like that, it's some person's subjective opinion.
There should ideally be no subjective opinion in any of the text unless they are opinions of important people in the story (Muhammad's wife, Muhammad, his enemies and so on).
 
:Again, I can alter the referencing. But many of the stories are clunky to reference no matter how they are approached. The six references tell the same story almost identically. I could certainly add a reference after each sentence, but each footnote would include four or five of the six total references. Or I could include only one of the references, but I would then have to sacrifice any information not specifically included in that reference.
 
Just keep this in mind: If you think something may be and can be questioned by someone, it definitely needs very clear references that can be cross-checked. Wikipedia's principle is similar: "if it can be questioned, it needs a source".
 
:Now perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, but this is the nearest thing to a content-policy you have ever given me.
We have this [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Policies_and_Guidelines] on our Guidelines page which says ''"content on WikiIslam should be based on facts, references and Islamic sources and not support any kind of fringe theories unsupported by the majority of evidence found in recognized translations of the Qur'an, hadith and quotations from Islamic"''. So we clearly state that content should be based on facts and references and that implies there shouldn't be any original research.
 
Thanks for your other information. You're definitely more well-read than I am and you're passionate about this subject and you've decided to come to this site. All these things are hard to find in an editor. If you did decide to take out all opinions and anything that is not directly stated in the references and keep it it part of the main content, that would be awesome and ideal for our site and it would make me really happy. But if you want to convert the whole thing to an essay as Sahabah mentioned, that's up to you. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)
 
== Considered submitting an essay/op-ed? ==
 
Hi there. It's a fairly recent development, but have you considered submitting an essay/op-ed? I know you mentioned how your research proves that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives were young, rather than the Muslim claim that most were old and widowed. So you could trim your work and make it more focused (with the obvious option of submitting further essays to include more of your research). Of course, there are still guidelines to adhere to, but this could be the ideal solution for all sides concerned. At WikiIslam we like to stick to the traditional interpretation of Islam and its history in our critique (for example, the order of revelations, authoritive tafsirs, and certainly the age of Kadijah and other fundamental issues). An essay would allow you to state your findings without them clashing with the site's more orthodox conclusions, and it will even give you space to explain how you came to your own conclusions (e.g. why you think the scholar's take on Kadijah's age is more likely than the commonly accepted one). Take a look at some of our essays [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Featured_Essays/Op-Eds here] and you can find the submission form [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Special:Form/Essay-oped-submission here]. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 18:02, 1 February 2013 (PST)
 
:An essay is probably the best format for some of what I have to say. For example, it is not really controversial to state that "We don't know Khadija's age." The early traditions offer so many alternatives (everywhere between 25 and 45 when she married Muhammad) that we have to ask some pretty big questions about, "Well, who did know? Were they ''all'' inventing this?" But if you don't want this minor point argued in a "fact page" (who cares how old she was really?) I can certainly write an opinion piece about the ages of all Muhammad's wives.
:Similarly, if I can follow up some other research I have started, I would like to produce a short piece on the gender balance in the Meccan Muslim community before 627. Long story short, there were ''far'' more men than women. The suggestion that the "war casualties" created a surplus of women is modern and not found in the early sources, and it doesn't seem to have any evidence in its favour. My impression is that there was still a majority of men, even after Uhud. But I can see how an opinion like this might rock the boat, and I'm having some trouble tracking references, so it's definitely a future project.
 
:However, I think "biography" pages for Muhammad's wives are needed in addition to opinion pieces. In fact, I would also like to see biography pages for some of the other major players, e.g. Abu Sufyan, Abullah ibn Ubayy, Al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. It is very easy for the casual reader's eyes to glaze over at the sight of all those Arabic names and not recognise them when they reappear. When you track their stories longitudinally, some quite startling portraits emerge.
::Yes, essays about the ages of Muhammad's wives and the gender balance in the Meccan Muslim community before 627 would both be most welcome additions to the site. Both are interesting and important topics.
 
::I agree more biographical pages are needed. If they're approached from a traditional angle, it would be great (e.g. our approach to criticism is to use commonly accepted narratives, but to also point out the less savoury details that accompany them).
 
::Good luck with you e-book! If you need any help with it, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'd probably not be very useful, but if you need someone to check for typos or maybe just give you their honest opinion, know that I'm more than happy to give you a hand. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 21:24, 4 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::Here's my opinion. Sahabah knows that I prefer our main content to essays because essays have personal opinions. Thats why we have this linked disclaimer [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Essays/Op-Eds_Disclaimer] at the top of every essay says ''"Views contained in essays/op-eds are not necessarily endorsed by WikiIslam. ... Thus, they may contain original research/theories at odds with the rest of our content. "''. Because of the fact that a piece of content only contains facts, WikiIslam stands behind everything that is in that content and essays don't get that support (and respect and success in my opinion). I actually dislike essays for that reason but I do see that they attract readership too. For example this certain essay series [http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Factual_Persuasion_-_Changing_the_Minds_of_Islams_Supporters] imported by Sahabah was picked up by some quickly and linked online on forum(s). Sometimes a reader may relate to something in an essay. But again to me an essay has secondary importance. In the Wives case, the issue is all about history and when history is written about, the reader again wants to know ''what really happened''. For this Factual persuasion series, its pretty clear its an essay series.
:::So I would really like if the work was improved upon so it can be part of the main content rather than being an essay. The first step in that would be to take out original research (conclusions, assumptions) which is not present in the source. Essays are attributed to a single author. We really want something where everything is fact based and there are no opinions and everything in it is what the site endorses. No one takes (unsourced) opinions seriously unless they are by Ibn Warraq or Tabari and so on. By that I mean, statements like that cant be quoted in a debate because they'll be questioned: Who wrote it? How do they know that? How can we trust this author and believe what they've written? When a piece in a newspaper says "In 1937, 110 people were killed in a landslide", that is a fact and no one doubts that and its more likely to be quoted. If someone says "There were many landslides in that area so many people must have been killed", that is weak as compared to the first. To clarify, Sahabah also likes fact-only articles just like I do too but he also likes essays.
:::But again -- if you guys want to work on keeping it as an essay that's up to you. If you decide to work on it as being part of the main content, of course essays can be written later too. I really wish I had time to work on this myself and if I did, I would have made it to be part of the main content and not be an essay. There's some really great stuff in what 1234567 has done, many interesting facts and details. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 19:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)
 
::::No, I agree 100% with you. I prefer the no-nonsense, facts only, encyclopedic/counter-apologetic pages over essays. My editing history shows that I'm ruthless when it comes to removing opinions or non-referenced statements from our pages. My concern is that it will end up becoming too much of a hassle for both the author and the site. I'd rather have several new a-grade essays over eventually having nothing at all. Plus, in this instance, the author can argue a point we'd never make, I.e. that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives (including Kadijah) were young women. This would make it an important counter-apologetic piece, and I don't think it being attributed to a single author is an issue there. Ideally we'd have both, essays and encyclopedic pages. --[[User:Sahabah|Sahabah]] ([[User talk:Sahabah|talk]]) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (PST)
 
:::::Ok. ''"that all of Prophet Muhammad's wives (including Kadijah) were young women."'' - this would also be fine if its not an essay because if we've given the sources for their ages we can make that direct conclusion that they were young and its not original research. I guess its up to 1234567 to decide if she wants to keep it as essays which will have disclaimers at the top, or part of the main content, in which case it needs revisions. --[[User:Axius|Axius]] ([[User talk:Axius|talk]]) 18:27, 6 February 2013 (PST)
 
I have noted your server-change. However, I doubt I shall have anything to post before you revert to your old server because I don't currently have access to my copy of Ibn Saad, which is an essential reference. My friend knows I want the book back, but I imagine it will take a while to organise the transfer. Meanwhile, I am tidying up the article on Khadija but I am not paying attention to any of the other wives. I have found a couple of new references not available in English (I don't count Google Translate!) so I will need to ask my Arabic-speaking friends whether they really mean what they seem to.

Latest revision as of 04:37, 24 July 2013

Links

User talk:1234567/Archive

Sandbox

Simon Ockley again

My Arab friends have given me some help about Simon Ockley's translation of the paedophilia text. Simon Ockley was translating this text. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xLJEAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en. You can scroll forward to page 23, where you will recognise the words Mohamet, Abu Bakr, Aisha. There is no serious doubt that Ockley has made an accurate translation of Maracci's Latin. You will see that the Arab scholar was called Abdulrahman al-Hamdani. My friends say that the title of his book is Al-Shabayat. They cannot read Latin and I did not tell them what it was about. I just asked them about the sentence of Arabic. They said it means: "He reached out his blessed arm and grabbed her by the clothes." They were very surprised by this odd sentence. I had to explain to them that it was probably a quote from the book, and the story was about Muhammad and Aisha. So I think we can fairly say that Maracci did have access to a real book and that he made a fair translation of the story. Now we must try to find out who the scholar was and when he lived. Perhaps then we can establish the reliability of his narrative. But there is something about it that rings horribly true. I don't think a Muslim hagiographer would have invented this story.1234567 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Interesting! Thanks for keeping us posted. --Sahabah (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Aisha

hi 1234567, I'm resetting the indent for my convenience.

I had given you the wrong links for your Sandboxes. I made the right links on your user page now: User:1234567. What you were working on is Sandbox 1: User:1234567/Sandbox 1

I feel you enjoy researching and writing about these topics and that's what we want in our editors. Your recent writeup is full of facts as is usually the case and but we have two concerns again with your writing which must be addressed before you do any additional work. The first is serious and needs to be discussed.

Wikipedia has this as a core policy: Verifiability. I'm going to repeat the "nutshell" of their policy page:

Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

For example in your recent writeup:

Muhammad told the household of Abu Bakr, without mentioning his reason, “Take good care of Aisha and watch over her for me.” The family therefore gave Aisha a “special position.” A few days later, Aisha became upset with her mother and complained to her father. Abu Bakr was angry with both of them, and Umm Ruman vented her annoyance on Aisha. Aisha hid behind the front door to sob and was in this state of distress when Muhammad, arriving for his daily visit, asked what was wrong. She blurted out everything

I bolded three words here (vented, sob, blurted). The tone of these words is dramatic/emotional and not suitable for this site. We like writing articles in a style which would be found in a research paper. I want you to understand why we want to write things in a serious/journalistic style. Even though it may read boring it looks better and is more reliable/factual.

Here's the problem. A visitor comes on this site and reads "Abu Bakr was angry and Umm Ruman vented". He's going to ask "Who is the author who made this claim? How do I know this is true?". Unless an editor is Bukhari himself, they cannot make such a claim. So we only report what we find in a verifiable manner. We cannot give the impression of any original research (our own conclusions). We are all anonymous people on the internet so we cannot attempt to tell the reader what we think (no one cares about that and no wants to know). We can only tell people what we know for sure. This is like you reading a news article about the history of Aisha. You would want to know the facts and the facts only.

This is crucial to understand. Here's another example from the new writeup:

She was slim and light-framed[31] with a fair, rosy complexion and perhaps also red hair[32] that she wore plaited.[33] Time would show that she was confident, spirited, strong-willed and highly intelligent – she had indeed “some of the qualities of Khadijah”.

The bolded line would not be acceptable. Its giving the impression of assumptions again. I remember I had brought something like this up before as well (link) and I'm a little sad that I'm having to address this again. You have access to great sources and you have a strong interest in these topics and I want your work to be produced in the best way possible. If people see statements like these, this will severely negate all the positives (the references and facts). Mixing facts with opinions also makes it hard for the reader to distinguish between the two. (1) What actually happened. (2) What the author thinks may have happened. Even if what you wrote may be true, we cannot give the impression that the author is making the claim.

Leave out anything that you cannot directly attribute to a source. Make everything easily verifiable. That does mean leaving out speculations. If you have any speculation that is about something very important (Khadija living 15 more years), you can say it like "One may conclude that ...". Here its clear that this is an opinion of the author.

The second concern is making multiple references. Please do not combine references into a single reference. It makes it harder for anyone to verify the information.

To make things easy for you for both these issues, you can just mention the most important parts of a story so you'll have to use less references and do less work. I know you want people to know as much as possible so thats your choice, but in any case we need all opinions to left out, everything to be easily verifiable and no combined references should be used. If there is something that you think might be challenged by Muslims, it is also good to write the relevant part of that quote in the references with italics/quotation marks or provide the entire quote (whatever you think is appropriate). For example <ref>''"... Abu Bakar was very upset with Muhammad ..."'' (Bukhari 123:123)</ref> Even in essays these two issues must not be present.

One problem is that we don't have time to continuously review and fix the content, so this must change going forward and we need you to understand our approach so any additional work is done according to the guidelines. If these things are not fixed/changed at this time when the material is being compiled, it will be almost impossible to fix it later when there's limited access to the sources.

I think you will understand if you imagine that you are writing a research paper with a serious tone where everything must be referenced. This is actually very simple to do: As you go along, only report what you see (in a chronological order when possible), reference everything and don't create any opinions or give the impression that an opinion has been created. This is all you need to do.

As for whether you should do the controversial articles first or go in chrono-order, that's up to you how you want to do that. If we had a preference, of course we would like the controversial content first.

Sahabah may have additional thoughts. Let me know if you see any problems or difficulties with what I'm suggesting. --Axius (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (PDT)

I don't have much to add except maybe clarify a few of Axius' points, or at least what I think he meant (Axius will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong).
About Axius' point concerning assumptions; in essence we're an encyclopedic counter-apologetics site, so things like this are great (minus the use of the word "absurd"):
It is also suggested that Muhammad “married Aisha for the benefit of Islam and Humanity … From her, 2210 Hadith have come... Many of her transmissions pertain to some of the most intimate aspects of personal behaviour which only someone in Aisha's position could have learnt.”[24] This is absurd. If Muhammad had wanted the traditions about his life to be securely transmitted to posterity, he would not have relied on the hope that his young widow might later think of it; he would have arranged to have them committed to writing during his lifetime. He never did. Further, if he had believed that a wife was the best kind of chronicler, he would have chosen an adult spouse who knew how to write. Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]
However, this is not:
Time would show that she was confident, spirited, strong-willed and highly intelligent – she had indeed “some of the qualities of Khadijah”.
And, yes, the use of dramatic/emotional language detracts a lot of the page's impact and makes it harder for an anonymous reader to take seriously. So basically, it shouldn't read like a novel. I know 1234567 is concerned about holding peoples interest, but the 'dry' or 'boring' articles really are what readers are looking for and is certainly what we want. Of course, when I say 'dry' or 'boring', I mean a to-the-point article written in a scholarly, professional tone. I know we must seem like crazy control freaks, and I apologize for that. But people will use any little excuse they can find to dismiss work critical of Islam. Your articles really are great and it would be a shame for them to be dismissed over such easily rectified points. --Sahabah (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2013 (PDT)
Okay, what you need to understand is that the article is currently in a very rough state, based on old work that was intended for a more narrative style. I have had to break off my research to earn money for a few days. So I have a skeleton article (information in roughly the right order) but also a lot of references not properly tied to the article and a lot of statements not properly tied to references. You can see this from the number of empty reference boxes. Many of the statements reflect the sort of information that, based on my preliminary reading of the sources, I expect to find, but there just hasn't been time for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown of how I know what I know. Isn't that what sandboxes are for?
And, yes, I do sometimes find that when I do the breakdown, I have drawn an unwarranted conclusion. It turns out to be based on something I read in a secondary source that wasn't properly linked to a real primary source; or when events are laid out in strict chronological order, it turns out that there is a confusion (mine or someone else's) of cause and effect; or the same minor character has been running through several narratives and reveals himself as a much more major player than anyone realised.
In the case of the story of Muhammad interfering with Abu Bakr's family, what will be needed will be to tie it more closely to the language of the original hadith, which (in my translation) is: "He found Aisha hiding behind the door of the house of Abu Bakr, weeping with great distress. He questioned her and she complained about her mother and said that she was after her." So perhaps she didn't "blurt" but only "told" her complaint; but it was definitely not in neutral tone. The annoying lack of specific detail (what actually happened in this situation?) is a feature of the original, which may be why this story is often omitted from the standard biographies of Aisha. I think it is interesting, however, to examine her relationship with the parents who soon afterwards handed her over to the paedophile.
Regarding the description of Aisha as intelligent, high-spirited, etc., this is rather similar to the description of Khadija as "loyal and sympathetic", which I wrote in the middle of my Khadija article. The evidence for these qualities not apparent at this point in the narrative, but it becomes obvious by the end of the story. Now you might want all such descriptors removed or left to a final conclusion, which is fine if that is your policy. But that does leave the reader wondering: What did Jibreel/Muhammad/Khawla mean by claiming that Aisha had "some of the qualities of Khadija"? Intelligence is the one obvious thing that the two had in common, but there were no IQ tests in those days. This seems to be the wrong point to reference every single hadith suggesting that Aisha had a high IQ.1234567 (talk)
Yes, of course that is what sandboxes are for. I'm sure Axius is aware that its content may not reflect what the finished page will look like, but was hoping his early intervention would help you avoid any unnecessary extra work later on. If one editor notices the work of another editor and thinks they're going in the wrong direction, it's only natural to point it out. If their input is not necessary because you already plan on doing what they suggested, then there is no harm.
About that family incident. I agree it's interesting. But the point about dramatic/emotional language would still stand. For example, replacing the word "weeping" with "crying" (if the source is quoted in the reference, readers will easily be able to read the original wording by hovering their cursor over the ref number). Or you could simply quote the source by saying, "she was "weeping with great distress"". I understand that Aisha telling Muhammad was not done in a neutral tone, and that your description of events should be accurate. But I think this should be done using the least dramatic language possible, and where there is such language used, it should be within quotation marks and never from the actual author/article.
Regarding the description of Aisha. I haven't read the entire article, but just considering that section on its own, I don't think it's necessary to even have that line there. One way that could have been handled without losing any information is by adding a footnote, e.g., "He said the angel Jibril had appeared to him in a dream, holding a veiled child and saying, “Messenger of Allah, this one will remove some of your sorrow. This one has some of the qualities of Khadijah.”<ref>Note that Islamic sources generally convey that Khadijah was a confident, enthusiastic, determined and intelligent women.</ref> Then he lifted the veil, revealing that the child was Aisha." --Sahabah (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (PDT)
hi 1234567, right, we didnt know the writeup was based on content written earlier. No problem, we'll wait for you to be done.
Sahabah is right about the intelligence issue. I'll assume temporarily I'm a critical reader. I would ask questions like: "What is the evidence for her being confident, strong-willed and intelligent? How do these qualities compare to those found in other women of that time? Was she exceptional in any way? Did anyone attest to these qualities explicitly? Were there any additional qualities? Maybe it was something else that was being referred to, such as praying habits, seeking the approval of Muhammad and so on". etc. You'll realize you're better off leaving these conclusions out.
You want to write a complete story but I'm saying having an accurate and reliable story is of primary importance while a secondary issue is of the story being/appearing incomplete. Islamic sources mention only bits and pieces and if we report just those, we've done our job. Its not even necessary to write in conclusions/deductions and fill in any gaps. The facts are powerful enough on their own. So we're looking for statements like these: Aisha could in fact read[25] but she never learned to write.[26]. They are directly referenced facts and have their own references (not combined). Here's a useful policy (Wikipedia:No original research), another of their core policies and I'll only mention the 'nutshell':
Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.
He's also right about the 'weeping' issue. For example when newspapers report what people are saying, they use exact quotes. Usage of the actual words is better than using your own words even if you think the new words describe it better.
I feel I've not done a complete job of explaining but hopefully this should help. --Axius (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

hi 1234567, welcome back. --Axius (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (PDT)

Article comments

hi 1234567, I have some comments for User:1234567/Sandbox 1 and User:1234567/Sandbox 2. I'm assuming they're more or less complete. I didnt want you to be doing any more work on them but I thought I should ask first to see if you're done. --Axius (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2013 (PDT)

Sandbox 1 I still want to check some references.
Sandbox 2 is more or less complete but doesn't stand on its own.
There are so many references that the software will not support them as a single article.1234567 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2013 (PDT)
Ok. Let me know when you're done and I'll compile my thoughts about the things I had noticed. Its ok to have them divided right now. --Axius (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2013 (PDT)
The biggest problem is still Ockley/Maracci. We're going to look really, really stupid if we include it and it turns out to be some sixteenth-century fantasy. On the other hand, if it's genuine, I'd still like to include it in the article. I can't find any trace online of an Abdulrahman al-Hamdani or an Abdulrahman ibn Hamdan who wrote the appropriate book. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist; it more likely means that he's out of favour with modern scholars and was never cited by anyone who wrote in English.
My Arab friends are searching for him in Arabic. They have come on board with helping me and are saying that it's "really important to tell everyone the truth about Muhammad." But I don't want to harass them. They have busy lives and they don't have a background in history; I have to give them clues about where to look.
Meanwhile, a few other things need tidying, but I can afford to cut them out if I can't find the information easily.
Ok. I think if you cant find the sources right now easily, it will be fine if you can leave those things out and put them in a "to do" list to deal with when you do find the sources. I'll wait for you to be done and then talk about the things that are of concern (in Sandbox 1 and 2) --Axius (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2013 (PDT)
I think I have now referenced everything that I can reference and cut out everything (minus Maracci) that I cannot; and I have toned down the writing style to something more encyclopaedic. Perhaps it's now at the stage where it's easier for you to look at it before I do any more.
I will keep Maracci on my "to do" list, because I do have confidence that we will solve the puzzle one way or another eventually.
If there is something that you just want to cut out, it's probably easiest if you simply cut it. I have kept a copy of the article the way I want it for my own writing, so it doesn't bother me to lose anything from the Wikiislam version.
If the facts are in dispute, you can ask about it. If I've made an unwarranted assumption, I'll cut it. If you need a fuller version of the reference I used to prove my point, I can provide it. But I'm actually worried about cut-and-pasting great slabs of translated material: we'll soon be verging on breach of copyright.
If you just want to change a word here or there, it's probably easier for you to do it yourself than enter a great debate about it. This is a wiki, so nobody can claim sole authorship. But if you want me to rewrite a whole paragraph, it's probably easier if you explain what you want so that I can do it myself.1234567 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2013 (PDT)
Ok. I'll compile the comments and let you know here and we'll see what to do next. --Axius (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2013 (PDT)

(outdent) hi 1234567, here are some comments. I'll just mention a few first so we can sort those first before moving to other issues.

1. I know you're dealing with a challenge of creating a story from old/archaic english or incomplete stories (missing information) but we cannot change things in quotes. Here's an example. If a source quoted John saying "The apple is red and falling". I cannot re-write that and change that quote in any way. People expect quotes to be accurate and exact (this is why they're called quotations). So I could not re-write that and quote John saying "The apple is red as blood and its falling while succumbing to gravity".

Quoting the following from the start of User:1234567/Sandbox_2:

Co-Wives
Aisha was jealous of the deceased Khadijah. She complained to Muhammad: “Khadijah is always on your mind, and you speak as if she were the only woman in the world! Why do you still think of that toothless old woman who is long dead, when Allah has given you someone better to replace her?” Muhammad retorted, “No, I have never had a better wife than Khadijah!”[1] Perhaps Aisha would not have minded about Khadijah if she had not also had to compete with living co-wives.

The sources mentioned are:

Sahih Bukhari 5:58:164; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:165; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:166; Sahih Bukhari 5:58:168; Sahih Bukhari 7:62:156; Sahih Bukhari 8:73:33; Sahih Bukhari 9:93:576; Sahih Muslim 31:5971; Sahih Muslim 31:5972; Sahih Muslim 31:5974; Sahih Muslim 31:5976.

The two sources that may be talking about this are:

Narrated 'Aisha: Once Hala bint Khuwailid, Khadija's sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that upset him. He said, "O Allah! Hala!" So I became jealous and said, "What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?" ([1])

and:

A'isha reported that Hala b. Khuwailid (sister of Khadija) sought permission from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to see him and he was reminded of Khadija's (manner of) asking leave to enter and (was overwhelmed) with emotions thereby and said: O Allah, it is Hala, daughter of Khuwailid, and I felt jealous and said: Why do you remember one of those old women of the Quraish with gums red and who is long dead-while Allah has given you a better one in her stead? ([2])

The quote you that had does not match with the sources. So Aisha did not say anything like this to Muhammad: "Why do you still think of that toothless old woman who is long dead". No source has Aisha saying exactly that sentence. We cant change quotes. Brackets are sometimes used in Islamic sources but they are actually often insertions by translators (e.g. how some translators add the word 'lightly' while translating Quran 4:34). This is why the other source did not have those brackets.

The better way to do this would be to quote the source as it is:

"Why do you remember one of those old women of the Quraish with gums red and who is long dead-while Allah has given you a better one in her stead?" (this sentence is used in the source)

As I said I understand your challenge of using these sources to create something readable but quotes cant be changed.

So that whole quote of Aisha is a synthesis. It is not what she said. Its a re-write and since its in quotes, the reader thinks this is exactly what she said in Arabic but thats not the case.

Continuing: According to Islamic sources, Muhammad's response to that quote was:

I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija though I did not see her, but the Prophet used to mention her very often, and when ever he slaughtered a sheep, he would cut its parts and send them to the women friends of Khadija. When I sometimes said to him, "(You treat Khadija in such a way) as if there is no woman on earth except Khadija," he would say, "Khadija was such-and-such, and from her I had children." ([3])

But according to you, his response was:

Muhammad retorted, “No, I have never had a better wife than Khadijah!”[1] Perhaps Aisha would not have minded about Khadijah if she had not also had to compete with living co-wives.

That quote ("I have never had a better wife than Khadijah") is not present in any of the sources.

I have not heard of anyone saying its ok to re-write quotes this is why me and Sahabah were surprised when we saw this. For a website like ours where everything is scrutinized with a microscope, we cannot do anything like that. So as it is, this changing of quotes is not acceptable for our site. I know you havent done this intentionally. You really wanted to write something that the reader finds interesting, but to maintain integrity, accuracy and quality we have to be careful in how or what we write. If it was a short story we were writing or a script for a movie about Islam, it would be another issue.

This is just one issue and its very worrying because of the quantity of work you have done. Here's another example. You wrote:

At one stage he announced a revelation from Allah that he must not marry any more women “no matter how beautiful.”[3]

This exact quote is not found in the Quran and the link you used was [4]. The Quran cannot be paraphrased.

So its this re-writing, re-arranging, paraphrasing original quotes that is worrying.

Another example:

But the revelation is of no great importance, for “Allah lifted the restriction stated in this ayah and permitted him to marry more women … Aisha said, ‘Allah’s Messenger did not die until all women were permitted to him.’”[4]

The reference given actually says:

Then Allah lifted the restriction stated in this Ayah and permitted him to marry more women, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.

So you have changed the quote. "All women" is not the same as "other women".

I want to try our best to save your content. As I've said before many times there's a lot of good information you have gathered from these sources and this kind of work has possibly not been done by anyone. You have showed a lot of passion and interest in this topic and we love that. But these issues need to be addressed before content like this is acceptable for the site.

2. Minor issue (#1 above is the real problem): Image of stoning is not appropriate here: User:1234567/Sandbox_2 and will need to be removed. This was something we'd talked about before. (for one, caption doesn't mention Aisha and its relation to the page. It does make the page appealing and I understand your attempt but we use images only if directly relevant)

For #1, I feel its a serious problem. There are many other instances where we saw this happening and some of them we cant even check because we don't have the sources and we haven't looked at everything because of the quantity of the content. I'm honestly not sure what can be done other than going back to the sources and making sure its all OK. What is also sad that we had talked about this before ([5] where I said how we must only quote the sources e.g. "assumptions, deductions, opinions, things that are not present directly in a text", "we make sure the reader knows that this was an actual quote") and now the same problems exist and we have new content that is not right.

The only solution is go through the content and make sure quotes are exact and if they are not, they have to be carefully/neutrally worded. For example we would write "Muhammad replied" instead of "Muhammad retorted" (another issue that we had talked about before on the old talk page: User_talk:1234567/Archive). But again I feel this solution is difficult because of the amount of content and the common occurrence of the problem. Sahabah saw these problems and I agreed with him (that we cannot change quotes in any way. Again see my example of John in the beginning). Let me know what you think. --Axius (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (PDT)

Let us also know if you have any feedback or suggestions for the site, if anything can be improved and so on. --Axius (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2013 (PDT)
Okay, if that is the main issue, that is what I will do.
Thanks for explaining site policy. The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation. Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English. An Arab would not understand our equivalent expression, "She's over the hill." In fact there are many English translations of the hadiths, not all of which are literal and hardly any of which are expressed in elegant English; but some are definitely more comprehensible than others. (This is quite aside from whether the translation attempt was an honest one, e.g., Yusuf Ali on Q4:34). To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available.
But if you would rather keep it literal, I can copy out the exact translation word for word in each case.
"I never had a better wife than Khadijah" is definitely in one of the sources; I did not invent it, and I'm fairly sure it was not invented by a secondary historian either. I'm sorry if I missed it in the versions I quoted; I'll hunt it out.
I have cleared the decks from other commitments, so I can now spend a couple of days tidying up the citations in the Aisha article. The article about Zaynab bint Jahsh is also nearly finished.
And I have stumbled across a few new hadiths that I can use to correct my previous articles. Amazing what you find when you're looking for something else.
I don't have a specific suggestion for improving the site overall, but whenever I find anything that might interest you, I'll post it on the appropriate Talk page.1234567 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (PDT)
"The truth is, we are dealing with translated material. I know quite a lot about translation (because I speak three languages, though not Arabic) and I find that for most purposes, a dynamic equivalent is better than a literal translation."
Surely you're aware that paraphrasing sources and presenting them as direct quotes from translations (by the use of inverted commas) is wrong? It's simply not the done thing.
Sites critical of Islam mainly have 3 accusations hurled at them: 1) they're biased. 2) they're run by bigoted right-wingers with an axe to grind. 3) their criticism is built on fabricated sources and taking things out of context.
The first two don't bother us because they're ad hominem (plus, we don't do politics, so the second incorrect accusation isn't even worth entertaining). However, the third accusation is something we take very seriously. We've managed to avoid such accusations by being very stringent with what we allow onto the site.
Speak to anyone with experience in debating Muslims or writing articles critiquing Islam and they will tell you that paraphrasing sources will lead to the accusation of fabricating sources. And to be honest, there wouldn't be a defense for it. More worryingly, you seem to go further than simply paraphrasing the text.
You appear to be merging several hadith into one, and the conclusions you reach from your reinterpretation of sources are at times not supported by the sources. You did agree to quote the relevant text for all sources in reference tags, but have failed to do so. We do this to make it easier for readers to check sources onsite (rather than have to go offsite via an external link or have to buy hard copies of sources). This would also help us and future editors to verify the accuracy of articles.
I really think it is very important for an editor who wants to improve, to fully understand what the problems are. If you would like me to go more in-depth with the problems I see, please say so, and I will. Anyhow, I'm glad you are willing to make corrections.
"Literal translation, especially of idioms, often obscures the real meaning. For example, the "woman of red gums" is a "toothless woman", i.e., an old one. We just don't express the idea that way in natural English."
True. But this could have been explained without paraphrasing quotations. To anyone who reads your quotations, then checks the actual sources, it would appear that you are exaggerating what the sources say in order to help support your claims and for added dramatic effect. That's not good.
"To be scrupulously honest, we should in fact name the translation as well as the source, and this information is not always available."
There may be exceptions, but we usually do. All of of our Qur'an and several of the major hadith collections have this information available. If you click on the left side of each reference, it will take you to it: Quran 4:1 or Sahih Bukhari 4:55:548. We also have the same for Tabari (you have to click on the right side for that): Al-Tabari, Vol. 1, p. 273. The important thing is that they're from published translations. Not ones that we made up. They have to be translations that Muslims would use without a problem. --Sahabah (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2013 (PDT)
hi 1234567, to confirm what Sahabah said: regardless of the reasons you gave (as I said I understand your challenge of using these old sources. Its a difficult task), quotes cannot be shown as quotes when they were in fact modified or paraphrased. I don't remember seeing this happen anywhere else. It could be a script for a movie or play but it wouldn't be suitable for us. I've not written much on the site but when I have, my one and only concern is that it should be something that is irrefutable. It must be linked to a good source and it must say what the source says. Of secondary importance are things like: is it readable, does it look good, does it flow well, etc. So the paraphrasing of quotes is a critical issue. No new content should be added without dealing with these existing issues. One solution that makes it easier is for you to keep the story short and only mention important details. Another is not to use quotes and only use them when you have to. Even if you don't use quotes, writing should still be "irrefutable" and accurately reflect the source.
You haven't responded to the fact that you paraphrased the Quran and you showed a Quranic verse in quotes when that is not what it said. I have never even seen Muslims do something like that, because they will use another author's translation rather than creating their own. If we create things in quotes and give the impression that thats whats the Quran said, we are creating our own translation. Its not just for the Quran but everything else as well.
I don't think its possible to write anything for our site without first understanding the approach we take which is accuracy and reliability first, and everything else comes later. Again, you are doing a difficult task which is to use all of these sources but the first test our pages have to pass is the "defense" stage and that has to be kept in mind constantly for a site like ours. So paraphrasing quotes creates a big problem. I know this can be dealt with. I think the first step is to make a list of possible articles that may need to fixed and then tackle them one by one. You could tell us how you would deal with this. For example you have to use the sources, you cant modify quotes, you can write things without quotes but they still have to reflect what the source says. Sources referenced must be distinct so everything can be verified easily. The more you do these things the higher the reliability is and presenting things in quotes that are not in the original source cannot be done no matter what.
We're like a newspaper. Suppose there was this line in the newspaper: 'Jennifer said her husband was "buying a lot of things" '
Readers will assume that that is exactly what she said. If the newspaper had in fact paraphrased Jennifer she actually said "shopping at the speed of $1000 dollars an hour", this would be a problem and Jennifer wouldnt be happy and the readers would stop trusting the newspaper. Its a problem and to me its a very obvious problem (like I said I've never seen it happen anywhere else). I've taken a quote, modified it, and presented it in quotes -- giving the impression that whats there in the quotes is what was actually said when thats not the case. If I have to paraphrase, I have to stop using quotes and even then it has to accurately reflect what was said.
Once again, if quotes can be modified, we cannot tell the difference between what was actually said and what was not. I know these are big problems because its not just a few paragraphs. Its a lot of content. We're already busy in a lot of things and I dont know if we have enough time to help you extensively with this so its all up to you basically. But again, we cannot have content on the site where quotes have been paraphrased and presented as quotes when they are not quotes. I did some searching (Google). Here's a good link about the use of quotation marks: [6]. It says "Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person's words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks." (section heading: Indirect Quotations). It also says "Many writers struggle with when to use direct quotations versus indirect quotations. Use the following tips to guide you in your choice."
Here's someone responding to a similar issue on Yahoo answers (Do you use quotations when paraphrasing?):
you don't use quotation marks. in text citations will do (an example of which is parenthetical citation). just make sure to give credit to your sources. you only use quotation marks when using DIRECT quotations, meaning everything is copied from the source in verbatim.
Additional links: How to paraphrase a source. This has a section on "Paraphrasing difficult texts". This following source [7] has a section on "Too many direct quotations". Here's another [8] which says: "When you paraphrase, you must entirely reword material taken from a source, without using quotation marks". Another Q/A: Does a paraphrase have quotation marks?.
So the steps here are to first settle this paraphrasing quotes issue and you can look other sources to see what they say and how to deal with the problem of writing content while using multiple sources, how and when to paraphrase and when/how to use direct quotations and so on. You will see they're saying the same thing we have been saying: You cant paraphrase things and present them in quotation marks.
It may also be helpful to visit writing forums and ask them about the challenge of writing things from old texts like these, and how to deal with the issue of paraphrasing and direct quotations while making sure everything remains accurate and matches the source and does not misrepresent or misquote. Also how to write in a journalistic style with no embellishment or decoration and so on. It would be helpful to look at these external links and talk to people who can give advice so you'll get opinions from other people as well. The steps are understanding what the problem is, and what caused things to be in this state, eliminating those approaches and changing course. --Axius (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2013 (PDT)
Okay, I have now given exact cut-and-paste wording for everything I quoted. In my professional opinion, we are dealing with low-quality translation a lot of the time (I can tell by comparing different translations and noting the poor English expression). Sticking to only one person's translation causes some sacrifice of accuracy in meaning, but if you are willing to live with that, it's your call.
A couple of the quotes are not readily available in English. You noticed the one about "I never had a better wife than Khadijah," which was in fact on my list of references to check, so I must have noted earlier that I still didn't have a source for that. The source is Ibn Hanbal. On the positive side, that means it can't possibly be Shi'a propaganda but is an acceptable Sunni citation. Ibn Hanbal's quote continues in the same way as the versions found in Bukhari and Muslim. On the negative side, I'm having to take an educated guess as to which of the English translations of the sentence scattered over the web is likely to be closest (most likely the one that offers least clarity in English!). I've asked my Arab friends to check what the original says so that we can make a good translation together.
The most recent version is now in Sandbox 1. I've cleared my other sandboxes.1234567 (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (PDT)
Thanks. I agree sometimes the translations may not be correct/done right but if the quotes are not usable that means we cant use quotes at all (because according to rules quotes have to be verbatim or they shouldn't be used if they are not). I can't think of a case where quotes were created/modified which were not present in the source. We'll take a look. --Axius (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2013 (PDT)
Hi 1234567. I'm sorry to say your work is no longer suitable for the site. Unfortunately, most of our previous objections remain. We will leave your article about Aisha in the sandbox indefinitely (it may be blanked, but you will still have access to it if needed). I wish you luck on future projects and thank you for your time and effort at WikiIslam. It was much appreciated.--Sahabah (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (PDT)
Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/index.php?title=User_talk:1234567&oldid=94251"