Autochecked users, Bureaucrats, Editors, oversight, recentchangescleanup, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators
19,746
edits
User talk:1234567: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Questions about the Wives articles
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
I'm just doing some random checks and I may do more later. | I'm just doing some random checks and I may do more later. | ||
When you say [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_and_his_Wives | 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. | ||
How about: | How about: | ||
*[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_and_his_Wives | *[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. | 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. | 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. | ||
[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muhammad_and_his_Wives | [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]"'' | ||
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? | 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? | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
:::::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. | :::::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. | :::::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? | |||
The text for that reference is: | |||
* ''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. | |||
*(2) Making references: | |||
**[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}} [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. | |||
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. | |||
*(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]"'' | |||
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. | |||
*(4) You have statements like these which are fine: | |||
** ''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". | |||
But you also have things like this: | |||
* ''"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] | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
Another example. This is an example of original research (assumptions, deductions, opinions, things that are not present directly in a text): | |||
* ''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. | |||
Even if we accept this as an essay/op-ed, things like this would still not be suitable for our site. | |||
*(5) Embellishing text: | |||
** ''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. | |||
*(6) Style of sourcing | |||
For example: | |||
* ''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: | |||
* 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. | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
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) | |||
== Considered submitting an essay/op-ed? == | == 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) | 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) | ||