Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Maria al-Qibtiyya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arabic name tag

[edit]

Regarding the Arabic name tag above, Maria was probably not an Arab. Nor is Maria really an Arabic name. "al-Qibtiyya" just means "the Copt" in Arabic, and was not part of her actual name (it was just something that later Muslim chroniclers would refer to her by). --Zeno of Elea 03:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shia having a third view

[edit]

Removed part about shia having a third view, its not true, if Abu Lahab can have chapter, why shouldent those two? Look att the end of 66.

--Striver 12:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, Im just reporting the facts about Shiah Islam as I know them. I'm not claiming that religious beliefs are logical or rational. As I understand it, Shiahs do not accept the Sunni exegesis of Surah 66. I'll try to find a source on this issue. Meanwhile, maybe you should call the Ayatolah on his BatPhone and try to establish a source yourself instead of trying to logically reason about religion on your own (which is just original research). --Zeno of Elea 10:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for you BatPhone comment, it was a very constructive and sensible proposal. As for the insinuating that i have a responsibility, i do not. I am not the one making any claims, it is you. Here are your claims, followed by my falsification of them.
  • All Shia and Westerners belive that the honey version is questionable.
My answer: As far as i have seen, none, except for one shia, have supported the Maria version. im not implying that Shia reject the Maria version, rather i have not found grounds for claiming that all Shia reject the Honey version. Since it is your claim, ie, it wasn't there before, you need to source it.
  • Shia do not accept Bukhari as authoritarian.
My answer: Correct. What does it prove? That every thing in Bukhari is false by default? It is not so, for example does Bukhari mention the hadith of the cloak, a hadith regarded as authentic by Shia and Sunnis.
  • I'm not claiming that religious beliefs are logical or rational.
My answer: Yeah, how could they be rational, right?
  • Shiahs do not accept the Sunni exegesis of Surah 66. I'll try to find a source on this issue.
My answer: Yes, please do. And in the mean time, try to refrain from comments like:
  • maybe you should call the Ayatolah on his BatPhone and try to establish a source yourself instead of trying to logically reason about religion on your own (which is just original research).
I did not present any claims, i only falsified yours. As far as this issue goes, i have no idea of the facts. I just demand that anything presented as facts on this issue to be adequately sourced. Since its not me wanting to have the ideas presented as facts, i do not see how i have any responsibilities on the issue.
--Striver 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


TotallyDisputed

[edit]

There are both pov and factual problems with the article as it stands, ill address it later, right now im logging of . Any impatial editor should be able to detect them.

--Striver 04:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you can actually explain where the POV or factual problems are, then we might consider including an NPOV tag. In the meanwhile, all you are doing is reacting to reverted vandalism by carrying out a drive-by NPOV tagging. I suspect that you yourself are the anonymous user who carried out the vanadalism. There are no POV or factual problems with the article, in reality. --Zeno of Elea 04:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno, Striver has added the tag because he feels that there are factual and POV problems with the article. I'm more concerned with you calling edits "vandalism" and your constant breaking of the 3RR.Heraclius 05:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strive has not specified what the alleged factual or POV problems are. The TotallyDisputed tag specifically states that the issues are discussed in the talk page, when in fact they are not. You and Striver are just doing drive-by POV taggings, this is bad faith editing and only serves to harm the online content of Wikipedia. Clearly this article contains damaging information about "the prophet" Muhammad, and clearly you and your coreligionists are motivated to suppress this information by hook or by crook. BUt that will not happen. I am growing very tired of your false accusations regarding 3RR. I did not violate 3RR, and I am not going to debate this issue again with you. Go file a 3RR report. --Zeno of Elea 05:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accusing me of making a "drive by" and implying that i hade no real reson for putting that tag.

First of all, the article fails to explain why it is that there are two diffrent version and how usual/unsual that is. further:

  • 1)"slave girl" - Was she a girl?
It does not look like anyone knew her age. However, "slave girl" does not refer to her age, it is only a commonly used euphamism for concubine. If you want, it can be changed to concubine.
"Maids" is the prefered word, since that is what the first source, the letter states. Further, if you dont like "maids", settle with "slave". However, "Slave girl" implies she was a "girl", which is of coarse what you hope some might belive.
"Slave" will do.
Please see harem. The word is completely NPOV and appropriate.
If you read that same article, youll see that it gives "exotic sex palace" associations. Change it to "household". Accutaly, for all i see there, was no single harem, each wife had their own house.
"Household" will do
  • 3)"Muqawqis, demanding that Muqawqis either convert to Islam or face war" - The letter says nothing of the sort. The simple fact there was neither war nor conversion puts that conclusion in question.
I quote from Muhammad's letter to Muwawqis: " I invite you to accept Islam. Therefore, if you want security, accept Islam." Muhamamd sent this letter about 3 years before he died. When he died, Umar ibn al-Khattab (one of the Four Righteously Guided Caliphs) invaded and conquered Egypt.
That is your pov and original research. For all you know he mean security from Gods wrath. As if he would settle with some gold, camels and stuff if he meant to go to war... As for Umar, i couldent care less for the guy that caused mortal injuries to Muhammads daughter.
Very well, I have changed the description of the threat from "war" to Muhammad's exact words. The letter is is clearly a thinly veiled threat of war, but since you apparently disagree, we will allow the reader to decide by merely quoting the exact words of Muhammad's threat. As for your disdain for Umar, I agree that he was a psychopathically violent person, but it is also true that Ali fought against Mu'awiyah for control of Egypt (and lost). Clearly Ali did not intend to undo the conquest of Egypt, he was just as much a part of the imperial drive as the rest of the Caliphs.
  • 4)"but with his letter, Muqawqis sent a tribute of a thousand measures of gold, twenty robes of fine cloth, a mule, a she-ass, and two Coptic Christian slave girls along with a eunuch escorting them." - The article completly fails to point out that th erespons aknowledged that Muqawqis did expect a prophet to come, but that he sought he would come from Syria.
The article states the Muqawqis answered the letter evasively. Whether or not he actually believed that a prophet was about to come from Syria is irrelevant - if anyone is interested in such details, I have linked to the actual letters.
It is very much relevant, it goes to the heart of his perceived credibilty! If you bothered to read the rest of the link, you should see that he eventualy dropped his expectation that the prophet would come from syria when he learned that he was an Arab (as in isaiah 42), and the acknowledged that Muhammad (as) was a true prophet. Your stance to add "or war" from a part of the letter, but refuse to add explicit stated material about the prophet from cyria and later accepting he would come from Arabia is nothing less than blatant spinn. Of course you oppose it, it would ruin you "satanic war-sexual-prophet from hell" thingy...
This is not an article about Muqawqis. Maybe you should start an article about him.
  • 5)The article fails to mention that sending concubines is done on Muqawqis own initiative, and fails to show that Muqawqis own book, the bible, portrays Salomon (as) as having mutliple concubines.
The concubines were sent by Muqawqis after Muhammad wrote a letter to Muqawqis. This is what the sources say happened, and this is what I have reported. As for Solomon, I really dont see the point of mentionig him. This is not an article about Biblical myths.
No, but it is a article about Maria that was sent by a christian viceregent, and why he sent her and in wich spirit he did so is most relevant
The article already states the know sequence of events that led Maria to be sent from Egypt to Muhammad.
  • 6)Yes concubines, not slave girls. It totaly omits this line "These maids belong to a very respectable family amongst us."
Yes, Muqawqis claimed that the slave girls were were "a very respectable family amongst us." I don't see the relevance of this, neither Lings nor Rodinson mention this in their books (see References section). This is really a very minor detail that has nothing to with your allegations of factual innacuracy or NPOV.
Maria comming from "a very respectable family amongst us." is not relevant in the Maria article? Is that a joke?
  • 7)"It is not at all clear that Muhammad later freed and married Maria (some traditions claim that Muhammmad offered to do this but Maria prefered to remain as a slave), though some contend that this was the case." - pov, pejorative, whadever, its horrible grammar
???? Striver, your English language skills are very poor. Also, you have not explained what is "pov" or "pejoative" about this sentence. I have merely stated the three different views on Maria's marital status, and accurately reported that it is not at all clear.
The whole senence is hard to understand since its interuppted by the parenthises. Further, the sentence implies more credibility to one of the versions, "It is not at all clear". And you know that.
  • 8)"Maria in Muhammad's harem" - Pejorative. Harem is associted with diffrent things in arabic and English, the later to inspired by exotic non-sense
  • 9)"this was the only son that Muhammad had ever had, though he had had many daughters." - So what does "Abul Qasim" mean?
What are you trying to say, Striver? Please be clear and coherent.
Try this: Family_tree_of_Muhammad_ibn_Abdallah. I really get annoyed when you remove the "totaly disputed" tag without leting me reply, when you yourself admit in the answer that you did not understand my objection. Do you now see the factual inacuracy?
  • 10)Why is the version that is belived to be less authentic deal with first?
The two versions are extremely similar, and both are supposedly the reasons that surah 66 was revealed. One version is older and can be seen to dishonor Muhammad, the other version was written by Bukhari and is an illogical story about a sack of honey. Secular historians invariably believe that Ibn Ishaq's version is the correct one, and that Bukhari's version is clearly a whitewashing of the original story. I have merely stated the opinions of various scholars - there are many POVs on this issue, and I have reported all of them to the best of my ability.
Wahdever, im not going to make a big issue of the order, however i do vote that the version belived to be authentic by most Muslims to be given first.
  • 11)I dont have the sources to read the story, but i would suspect that its equaly NPOV and factualy reprented as the article so far.
I have listed all of my references. The original story about Maria comes from Ibn Ishaq, and is repeated in by Martin Lings and Maxime Rodinson (my two main sources). Unlike you, Striver, I have an extensive private library of Islamic books - I get my information from respectable BOOKS, not the Internet. If you want to check the sources, please go to your local library and check out the relevant references.
What about "real" BOOKS? Spell it out. In either case, i dropp this issue since i dont have nothing more than suspicions.
  • 12) "and would visit her by day and by night" - I dont know if that is accurate... or NPOV... i have not read the story, but i have my doubts
The phrase "by night and by day" comes directly from the book written by Martin Lings. Please read over the article about Martin Lings. I have specifed which book and which page I have taken this information from (it's from "Muhammad" by Martin Lings, page 277 - complete information is in the References section).
  • 13)"Muhammad's wives became openly jeleous, as Muhammad was spending less time with them and had copulated with Maria without any ceremony" I higly doubt the lack of ceremony was the reason for the claimed "open jealosy".
Again, this is directly from the world famous book by Martin Lings, a convert to Islam. After Martin LIngs wrote this book, the government of Pakistan awarded Martin Lings the highest civilian honor in Pakistan. Lings was also given an award by Egypt.
In wich page can i find that bit about they being jealose due to lack of ceremony?
  • 14)" Maria being sent as a concubine (though all recognized that Muhammad had this right, just as Abraham had kept Hagar as a concubine) (Lings 277).", yeah, why not through a implied punch at Ishamel while we are going for it? Why not bring upp Salomon?
Martin Lings mentions Abraham and Hagar, so I have mentioned them. The reasont hat Lings mentioned the concubine Hagar is because Muslim Arabs (including Muhammad's wives) believe that they descended from her. I do not know of any Muslim sources that speak about Soloman's concubines, so I see no evidence that Muhammad's wives believed that Soloman had concubines. Soloman's concubines are mentioned in the Bible, which is not a Muslim source.
This artcile is about Maria, a christian, and therefore are christian sources and belives relevant.
  • 15)" It happened that Muhammad was feeling amourous so he made advances to Maria," factual? I cant tell. Anyone have a source?
Once again, Striver, I have listed all of the references. Everything is referenced. If you have doubts, then please go look at the sources. You have to read BOOKS in order to become educated.
Yeah, i like that. "Striver, you are an idiot since you havent read REAL books." I higly doubt that the book uses that formula. In wich page, i just might go to the library...
  • 16)"If he [Muhammad] divorses you [addressing all of Muhammad's wives now]," Is it so? That part addreses ALL other wifes? I higly doubt it.
Yes, Striver, that is what Lings and Rodinson say.
No way. No way ever. You must have missread it, all the wives where not in a group, they where in two groups holding opposite views, Aisha and Hafsa in the one opposing Muhammad [1].
  • 17)"In this version of the story, Muhammad was spending too much time" i know that version, and it says nothin of the kind. Things like this makes me wonder how factual the other version is reported.
??? Please see Aisha. The story is repeated there in exactly the same way.
Well, then that article is wrong as well. Read this: [2]. Did you find "too much time"? Can you find it anywhere?
  • 18)"So Aisha and Hafsa decided to conspire against Muhammad by telling him that his breath smelled bad after he had eaten the honey." - Fails to tell how important it was for Muhammad (as) to have a good breat, for example, he refused to eat garlic and always brushed his teth.
Yes, well Muhammad's oral hygene habits are not the focus of this article. It is important for most people to have good breath. This minute details are found in the article Aisha anyway, and this article is not about Aisha.
Sure, i wont make a big issue of it.


  • 19)"and this the oath is allegedly the one referred to in the sixty-sixth chapter." oh, how NPOV, this vesion is "allegedly", while the other version is "as the story goes".
?? The both mean the same thing, Striver. I think you have difficulty understanding the English language.
No they dont. One is throwing more uncertanty than the other. If you insist that they mean the same thing, then change both to the same word.


  • 20)"One feels inclined to treat this tradition with some caution, however, as it may well have been invented, or more probably adjusted, to fit the permission given to Muhammad in Surah 66 to absolve himself from an oath taken to please his wives ..." How NPOV to end with a spin, and only doing so with one of the versions. As if the one qouted is an authority on the subject. Does it get mor POV than that?
This it the opinion of secular historians, and it shall be mentioned. You cannot suppress the opinion of secular historians simply because you disagree with it. There are two stories, some Muslims believe one, others believe the other one, others believe neither, and secular historians believe in the first story (note that both Martin Lings and Maxime Rodinson refer to the first story, and do not even mention the "story of the honey")
So why did you not add the oppinion of someone citicizing the Maria version? That is so obvious... You cant have two versions, then add a "beware" comment over just one of them, and then divert my objection with "its a secular historian"... well doh, as if i asked who the guy is, i dont care who the guy is, delet it or ad a similar note to the other version.
  • 21)"... the verse has generally been taken to refer to a far more serious matter relating to another wife [Maria] where the same consorts Aiyshah and Hafsa again teamed up against him." Generaly? By who?
THis is part of a quote from a non-Muslim perspective on the differences between the two stories. I have now clarified the role of this quote by editing the article. Ibn Ishaq and Martin Lings (two Muslim historians) accepted the version relating to Maria, so we can see that generally expert historians accept that version
Well, then why doesnt it say so? Since generally, sunnis do NOT reffer to that version.


  • 22)" It is not uncommon to find traditions in Bukhari's Sahih which are very similar in style to others in earlier Sirat literature but which neatly remove any details considered to be dishonouring to Muhammad." How NPOV :)
Again, this is the opinion of secular historians and it has been identified as such.
So why dont you add a Sunni telling how it is common to find Banu Ummayad lies in older version? Not that im a Sunni...

Basicly, the whole article is a great POV and factual catastrophy, worthy only of Zeno's not very much hiden agenda. --Striver 07:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diffrent articles

[edit]

Further, i fail to see why both versions are dealt in the biography of Maria. I sugest that each version gets its own article, then both Aisha, Hafsa, Maria and anyone else involved can gets links to it. --Striver 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions are dealt with here for a very logical reason, specifically because the first story is all about Maria, and the second story is an alternative one that contends with the content of this article. This article is short enough to address both stories, and a more detailed version of the second story can be found in Aisha (where it belongs). There is no need to break the articles into a bunch of tiny stubs. --Zeno of Elea 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only son?

[edit]

Striver is contesting documented facts that I have thoroughly sourced. He is not bothering to check the published sources, instead he is just expressing his "doubt" that I have accurately reported what the published sources say. My sources are verifiable, you can go to the library, check out the books, and read them yourself. Striver's main argument for putting this "TotallyDisputed" tag is that he has never read the published sources but still "doubts" that this is what they say - clearly this is not a legitimate reason for disputing the factual accuracy of the article. --Zeno of Elea 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i guess its your "thoroughly sourced" "published sources" that say Muhamad (as) had only one son and that he threatened with war... --Striver 07:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALRIGHT striver, we get the point, he had 2 sons not 1. --Zeno of Elea 12:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War threat?

[edit]
Actually, Muhammad's letter to Muqawqis in which he threatens Egypt with war is available online and I have linked to it in the article. I have also pointed the historical military context above and highlighted the exact sentence in Muhammad's letter in which he gives the ultimatum of conversion to Islam or war. As for the "one son" issue, you are correct - Khadija bore Muhammad a son named Qasim who died in infancy. --Zeno of Elea 08:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your information, you have violated the 3RR by reverting 5 (!) times the same morning. But i wont report it, it can lie there and used as evidence against you in the future, if necesary.
As for the son issue: Thank you, one less issue to go through.
As for the "war" issue: The letter does not say "or i will go to war with you", it simply says "for your safety", which can be interpreted as "or war", but can be interpreted in manny other ways as well, as i have stated above. As for Umar attacking, same goes there, i dont care for the guy that injured Muhammads (as) daughter, he hurt people to the left and right, he hurting somebody can in no way be claimed as fullfilment of Muhammads (as) will.
Regarding "I have also pointed the historical military context above and highlighted the exact sentence in Muhammad's letter in which he gives the ultimatum of conversion to Islam or war.", you have done nothing of of the sort, you explained on the talk page what part fo the leter your pov came to that connclution, and not even hint that it might be a pov in the article text. Further, even if it where correctly pointed out that it is a pov, your pov whould still not be relevant on the article.
--Striver 09:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been resolved. Yes yes, not war threat but security threat (LOL). Anyway, I've just quoted Muhammads exact words in order to describe the threat, so I dont think that this is an issue anymore. --Zeno of Elea 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the POV notice back

[edit]

Zeno, Striver and Heraclius have told you that the article is offensive. I'm repeating that and I've put up the POV notice again.

I don't think I'll have time to work on this article for the next few days, as I have to pick up some visiting online friends (whom I've never met <g>) and show them around Honolulu tomorrow. But as soon as I can, I want to purge the article of the language (slave girl, frex) with which it has been "adorned". As a woman, I don't approve of any arrangement by which women are married against their will, or bought and sold like so many domestic animals. However, this arrangement isn't unique to Islam. Rulers of just about every religion except Christian have had "harems". Quite a few of the Christian rulers had their unofficial "harems" as well. Now you might argue that Muhammad, as a religious figure, should be held to higher standards than mere secular rulers. However, that argument should be made straightforwardly rather than just implied with one's choice of words. Zora 02:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Striver and Heraclius have told you that the article is offensive. I'm repeating that and I've put up the POV notice again." Heraclius has not said anything, except that Striver doesnt like the article. Striver's objections are mostly quite ridiculous, and have been addressed above. I would like to know why you feel that the article is "offensive" (as you put it).
  • "I want to purge the article of the language (slave girl, frex) with which it has been "adorned"." I don't know what exactly is wrong with the phrase "slave girl" as this accurately describes Maria and is commonly used by both Muslim and non-Muslim writers. "Concubine" is an equivalent word, but I don't see why they are not interchangable, especially since we can logically infer that Maria was almost surely in her teens when she was sent from Egypt.
  • "As a woman, I don't approve of any arrangement by which women are married against their will, or bought and sold like so many domestic animals. However, this arrangement isn't unique to Islam." We all have our opinions on the subject of concubines, and there is a world-wide prohibition on slavery. However, I have not expressed any opinions regarding this in the article. We should be NEUTRAL, it is not our job in this article to make value judgements regarding Muhammad's treatment of women. Of course I believe that the way in which Maria was treated, both by her Coptic Roman captors and by Muhammad, is the very pinnacle of unethical behaviour, but this is not the appropriate place to express such sentiments. Nor is this the place to point out which other people were involve in such unethical practices (either in the past or today). Many Muslims believe that all this is actually quite ethical and is halal - that is their opinion, to which they are entitled. But again, this is not the appropriate place for justifying the enslavement and rape of women. No argument is being made in this article about whether it was right or wrong, all that is being reported is what the earliest Musilms sources had to say about the life of Maria the Copt, and nothing of the sort is being implied in the article by word choice (at least as far as I can see). This article is not the place to present a debate on the ethics of slavery and rape. Readers can see the known historical facts about Maria on their own and can come to their own conclusions about Muhamamd's behaviour. --Zeno of Elea 03:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zeno, your choice of wording shows your not-so hidden agenda, again and again. "justifying the enslavement and rape of women"? Are you kidding me? Where in the story does it say that anyone was

enslaved or raped? --Striver 07:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, first of all my choice of wording in the talk pages is decidedly different from my choice of wording in the article. In the talk pages, I explain my POV, and in the article I try to only express NPOV. So we should all be very clear here that you are not arguing against the wording of the article, you are now arguing against my personal POV that I have kept in the talk page and out of the article. Now that we have cleared that up, you ask "Where in the story does it say that anyone was enslaved or raped?" Well, Striver, Maria and her sister Sirin were slaves. Slaves are, of course, enslaved people. Maria and Sirin were sent by the government as tribute to become sex slaves of a foreign ruler. Sexual slavery is a form of rape, according to the Law. --Zeno of Elea 08:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your pov as much as i am, correct. As for "enslaved", for all you know she could have given her self up to slavery, something not that unusual in old times, for example Rom. As for rape, for all you know they could have voluntered for the task. But anyhow, you are entitled to your oppinion that rhymes whith her being snactched while playing whith dolls in the park, just to be sold to the satanic sexual war criminal in a effort from her evil master to dodge being anihilated. A view that ignores her being from "a respecatble familiy of us", being honoured with the title "mother of all belivers", having a son that was loved greatly by Muhammad (as) and given the chooice of keeping her old faith, even though she was the mother of Muhammads (as) only living son. Although some malicious tounges could interpreted that as a evidence of lack of credibility to his message, she was not force to become Muslim.--Striver 10:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I again remind you that we are no longer discussing the content of the article, but are merely now engaged in a related debate about a subject that is being discussed solely in the talk pages. Having said that, I don't mind addressing your rebuttal statement.
  • "As for "enslaved", for all you know she could have given her self up to slavery, something not that unusual in old times" The only person that is likely to give himself up to slavery is an impoverished male adult. It is very rare of teenage girls to give themselves up to be enslaved and traded away to a foreign land. Only extreme poverty would drive someone to chose a life of slavery over a life of starvation. However, we know that Maria was not poor because (a) the ruler of Egypt would not try to calm down a war mongering delusional by sending an unrefined peasant girl and (b) in his letter, the ruler of Egypt said himself that Maria came "from a respected family amongst us." If she did come from a respected family amongst the Roman rulers of Egypt, then she must not have been extremely poor and thus would not have any reason to give herself up to slavery. In all likelihood, she probably became a slave by being taken away from her family. This may have occured because her family had debts, or her family may have been persauded by the state to give her up in exchange for some favor or money). But in all probability, Muwqawqis was probably lying when he said that the sisters came from a "respected family amongst us" - more likely is that they were captured by force, were traded on the international slave market, and wound up as property of Muwqawqis. Apart from conjecture, all we really know is that she and her sister was sent as slaves and were distributed like slaves, along with the mule, she-ass, gold, robes and eunuch that were sent with them. There is no doubt that Maria and her sister were slaves, and it is an improbable conjecture that they voluntarily signed up to become slaves.
  • "As for rape, for all you know they could have voluntered for the task." Right. I'm sure that they volunteered to become slaves and have sex with whoever end up being their slave masters. That sounds very probable. The fact is, Striver, that no where in Islam will you find a law which says that a Muslim man must have the consent of his wife or slave in order to have sex with her. The concept of rape does not exist in Islam, but a man can only rape his wife or his slave.
  • "that rhymes whith her being snactched while playing whith dolls in the park, just to be sold to the satanic sexual war criminal in a effort from her evil master to dodge being anihilated. A view that ignores her being from "a respecatble familiy of us", being honoured with the title "mother of all belivers", having a son that was loved greatly by Muhammad (as) and given the chooice of keeping her old faith, even though she was the mother of Muhammads (as) only living son." I've already addressed the "respectable family" issue. AS for the title of "mother of the believers," this is a title that was given to all the women in Muhammad's harem. And as for Muhammad impregnating her, that really does not mean anything. As for your claim that she was given a choice to convert - this is not relevant, one would expect all people to be given the choice to convert or not to convert (though demanding that people convert or face war is behaviour that does not live up to such expectation). --11:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Major revision

[edit]

OK, I revised extensively, but tried to stay factual. I've removed what I thought "emotive" language, but left the facts, as we know them, there. I had a VERY hard time finding anything about Maria from the earliest sources. I couldn't find her in Ibn Ishaq, found two mentions in the one volume of al-Tabari I have, and found nothing in my recent acquisition, Ibn Sa'ad. However, the Ibn Sa'ad is a cheap version from India and I'm not at all sure that it's a complete version. Or an accurate one. Dang, guess I'll just have to learn Arabic. If only I could live to be 200, I'd have time for it all ... Zora 06:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- I left the POV notice up because I figure that it's up to the other editors to decide if it can be taken down. Zora 06:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, I have some objections to your edits. You have deleted a lot of information. If you cannot find it in the earliest sources, it does not meant that it's not there. I have cited sources for the information, so I dont know why you deleted it (e.g. the info about the gold, the mule, etc.) I'm going to list my objections below.
* "Muhammad sent letters to the rulers of the neighboring lands, warning them of wrathful divine judgement to come and inviting them to submit to Islam." The idea that Muhammad was only warning of divine judgement is not supported by the text of the letter. Whether the threat referred to wars of conquest again Byzantium, which Muhammad was busy waging, or "divine judgement," is open to interpretation. If someone sent a letter to a leader of a country saying "If you want security, convert to Islam" it would most definitely be considered a physical threat (especially if that someone were known to be a conqueror). Whether or not Muqawqis took it as a physical threat is also open to interpretation. THerefore the NPOV approach is to simply quote the threat itself instead of inserting your own interpretation about the threat being physical or metaphysical.
"Muqawqis, replied evasively [1] and sent gifts: two Coptic Christian slaves, with a eunuch to escort them (Al-Tabari, vol. 8, State University of New York Press, 1997, p. 131)." I am at a loss as to why you have removed the information about the the other gifts that were sent along with the slaves. The information is sourced. I will put it back in.
Sourced to what? I can't find it in Ibn Ishaq or Al-Tabari. It sounds like Arabian Nights material. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, I'm assuming that you are aware of what paranthetical notation is. At the end of the paragraph, I have written "(Lings 277)." This means that the source is "Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources" by Martin Lings, page 277. Details of the publication are found in the Works Cited section. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- Zeno
Heretofore, Muhammad had tried to treat his wives with scrupulous fairness. They each had their own separate rooms and Muhammad is said to have slept at each wife's room in a regular rotation. After the arrival of Maria and the birth of his son, Muhammad is said to have neglected his other wives. He visited Maria every day. Not only that -- he deeply offended his wife Hafsa bint Umar by sleeping with Maria in Hafsa's own room, one day when Hafsa was out visiting. Hafsa found them together when she returned and berated Muhammad soundly. According to some accounts, she cried, "In my hut, on my own day and in my own bed!"
One story has it that Muhammad promised Hafsa he would see Maria no more, but begged her to be silent about the matter. Hafsa, however, told Aisha, who told everyone. Muhammad became furious at all his wives. He separated from them for a month, sleeping alone, and at the end of which time they were humbled and begged him to return to them on any terms."
I completely disagree with the way that you have described the two stories. First of all, there are no sources anymore. Second, I dont see where you got this information about Muhammad spending more time with Maria only after she bore him a son (indeed, it takes a lot of prior effort in order to impregnate a woman).
That is absolutely silly. Women get pregnant from one act of intercourse and men do not usually regard this as an "effort". I know whereof I speak -- I'm a MOM. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually studies show that something like 60% to 80% of impregnations prematurely abort during the menstration cycle, without beingn noticed, as the egg fails to attach to the uterine wall. In any case, the point remains that you haven't sourced the chronological information about when Muhammad started to spend too much time with Maria. --Zeno
Third, you have disconnected the stories of Muhammad sleeping with Maria in Hafsa's hut, and the consequences of Hafsa finding them there (i.e. Muhammad asking her to not tell anyone about what happened). There is one continuious narrative, there is no reason to disconnect every part of the story by saying "one story has it that ...[begining of story] .. one account has it that, [middle of story] ... according to some sources, [end of story]." This is certainly not how any of the professional biographers do it (e.g. Martin Lings). I think you should concentrate on getting information from professional biographers who have immersed themselved into the original sources, instead of trying to investigate the original sources yourself, when possible. It is always preferable to have a reliable source explain the primary sources, indeed if you ever take an introductory course on life of Muhammad at university, the required reading is always the works of professional biographers, such as Martin Lings, who explain the primary sources for us. Of course in such a course, Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq is a recommended reference to buy, but the course is not about directly reading Ibn Ishaq cover to cover because that is a task better left to esteemed academians.
I've got three degrees, I've done a lot of archival work, and I know how to use primary sources. Don't tell me to rely on secondary sources. Caution is especially important in dealing with the life of Muhammad, which has been embellished with centuries of bazaar tales. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recently SlimVirgin unlocked the Islam article and wrote: "Okay, I'm going to unlock it because I don't like leaving pages locked for ages, but there can't be any more personal attacks and reverting. Everyone has to source their edits to respectable, secondary sources, academics employed by universities wherever possible, and preferably non-partisan (or not too partisan). No dodgy websites, no personal opinions, and stick to a dry, disinterested style of writing. Happy editing! ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)" Zora, It does not matter what is written on your resume. You are not a noted historian of Islam. I am not saying that you are not capable of accurately conveying the primary sources in an NPOV manner. What I am saying is that not only are reliable secondary sources legitimate (despite your claims) they are in fact superior and preferable. -- Zeno

You have shortened the story about Maria significantly while dwelling a great deal of the "story of the honey." Please note that Maria does not feature in the "story of the honey," that story is NOT about Maria. So why did I mention the story of the honey? Because in the story in which Maria features, Muhammad recieves a revelation (specifically, surah 66) in relation to the events that had transpired between Maria, Muhammad, Hafsa, Aisha, and later the rest of the wives. But we are obliged to also mention that there is a remarkably similar but contradictory explanation of why surah 66 was "revealed" to muhammad (i.e. the "story of the honey").

"He separated from them for a month, sleeping alone, "
Zora, is changing potentially embaressing facts into whitewashed lies what you call "removing emotive language"? My source say that he seperated from the wives and slept with Maria for a month, and I have cited the exact source. Why then are you changing this information, without even giving a source?
Just what is your source for Muhammad's abandoning his other wives and sleeping with Maria? In Bukhari (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 435) there is a story, sourced to Ibn Abbas and thence to Umar, saying that Muhammad exiled himself to an upper room in his house, where he slept on a mat underneath water-skins. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My source is cited in plain English, using the MLA paranthetical notation conventions. It says "(Rodinson 279-282)," I'm sure you can guess what that means. -- Zeno
"Now this is exactly the sequel to what is called "the story of the honey"."
It is exactly the SEQUEL? What? The story involving Maria is not a SEQUEL to the "story of the honey." I don't think that the word sequel is appropriate here.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. I've done a fair bit of work on mythology and folktales, and I'm familiar with the process whereby motifs and stories migrate and clump together in new ways.
The problem that sparks all these narrations is explaining the surah Al-Tahrim. It is one of the surahs that are completely opaque, meaningless, if you don't know something of the occasion of revelation. Quranic commentators often differed as to occasions. In this case, the commentators agree that Muhammad separated from his wives and that the wives who had intrigued and tattled were Aisha and Hafsa. However, it's not clear if the cause precipitating the intriguing and tattling was the honey, or was Maria. It is entirely possible that both domestic conflicts occurred, and that both were advanced as possible "occasions of revelation".
Zora, it is evident that the two stories are mutually exclusive and contradictory. I have not read anything which tries to propose that both stories are somehow correct. When we are dealing with an issue like this, such statements should be sourced. Is this the opinion of a historian? A religious scholar? What is the source? Or is it simply original research? --Zeno
I object to the way that you have dealt with the part of the story in which Allah intervenes in the dispute between Muhammad and his wives and reveals surah 66 to Muhammad. You have not explained exactly how each verse relates to the story, i.e. what it refers to. This is especially distressing since there are two contradictory stories about surah 66, giving rise to alternate meanings for each verse.
"It is also possible that both altercations happened, but that oral tradition has confused them."
And here we have the article ending with an unsourced, illogical and extremely apologetic statement. Zora, I dont understand why someone as educated and intelligent as you, and a Budhist, would go to such lengths to try to apologize for abudant contradictions that can be found in the hadith literature. Why is your statement illogical? Because both stories claim that Allah intervened in Muhammad's domestic household problems, by revealing Surah 66 - the stories only differ in the details of what exactly the domestic household problems were that led to this. Only one of these stories can be true.
No, they could both be true, and have been muddled together in the process of oral transmission. That's the problem in dealing with early Islamic historiography -- nothing was written down for more than a hundred years, during which time stories were told, re-told, embroidered, melded, whatever. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above, this has been addressed multiple times. THere is no source for this claim, it looks like original research. Unless a published historian has seriously considered such a possibility, or unless it is the opinion of some religious authority, it is a far-fetched conjecture based on original research. --Zeno

Allah could not have possibly revealed Surah 66 twice and for two remarkably similar but crucially different circumstances, unless you want to engage in original research (which is not allowed of course). Clearly either one story about Surah 66 is true, or the other story is true. This final statement you have made is plain wrong, and I note again that it is unsourced.

Now, I want to say something that is very closely related to how the article ends after explaining the two stories, but I am not suggesting that what I'm about to say should be part of the article. I am taking the point-of-view of emperical rationalism and science, to look at the two stories:

In the story of the honey, Muhammad is spending to much time with Zaynab because Zaynab has a sack of honey and Aisha and Hafsa are getting jealous. Note that Muhammad was actually spending too much time with the honey, not with Zaynab. It baffles the mind that a man could spend so much time, on a daily basis, eating honey, that his daily pattern of life would be so noticably altered that his wives would become jealous of the honey and feel that their husband was not spending enough time having sex with them - how long does it take to eat honey? He must have been eating it very slowly. The alternate story is that Muhammad was spending too much time having sex with his fair-skinned, curly haired, Roman sex slave, Maria (clearly a novelty in 7th century Arabia). It makes alot more sense that a foreign sex slave would significantly alter the pattern of Muhammad's daily life, as opposed to a mere sack of honey doing so.

In the alternate story, Muhammad's wives were jeleous of Maria, but they did not do anything about it, but one day Muhammad is caught by Hafsa having sex with Maria in Hafsa's hut. Hafsa is understandably upset by all this. But in the story of the honey it goes that Hafsa and Aisha were so jeleous of Zaynab's sack of honey that they then both conspired and told Muhammad that his breath smells bad, after he came back from eating the honey. Now, one has to wonder, if these women were convinced that Muhammad is the Prophet of God, why would lie to him and conspire against him? If they were really under the impression that Muhammad is being informed by an omniscient being, why would they think that they can get away with trickery? The story goes that when Muhammad got two comments on his bad breath after eating the honey, he figured that it was related to the honey just as Aisha and Hafsa had planned. What luck for Aisha and Hafsa that Muhammad was foolish enough to think that a sweet smelling food actually smells bad! This is an improbable conspiracy, and it is painfully obvious that this improbable conspiracy was contrived by the pious to blot out, from the history books, Muhammad's misdeeds with Maria in Hafsa's hut.

The story of the honey then goes that Muhammad decided to stop eating Zaynab's honey. But he told Hafsa and Aisha to keep this a secret. Why did he tell them to keep it a secret? What kind of sense does that make? What kind of secret is that? Was he trying to hid the fact from Zaynab? Clearly, Zaynab would notice if Muhammad stopped eating her honey. And if Muhammad's daily pattern of behaviour within his household was indeed noticably altered by a sack of honey, then everyone in his household would have noticed, and if he stopped eating the honey, everyone would again notice a change in his daily pattern. So what kind of secret is this? Did he not want to hide the fact that he had stopped eating Zaynab's honey, but only wanted to hide the reason for his doing so? Why would he do that? There are hadiths where Muhammad tells people not to pray with their breath smelling like garlic and onions; it is from these hadith that the information about Muhammad's dislike for bad breath is derived. So why did Muhammad want to keep such a thing secret from Zaynab? It is certainly a strange thing for a man to want to keep such a thing secret. In the alternate story, we read that in fact the secret was not an oath to stop eating honey, rather the secret was something far more grave: the secret was a story, a story about Hafsa finding Muhammad having sex with Maria in Hafsa's hut, causing Hafsa to become quite upset. Muhammad tries to calm down Hafsa by vowing to prohibit Maria from his life. Now THIS makes sense to the rational, emperical, scientific point of view - Muhammad would understandably want to keep such mistreatment of his wives a secret. Indeed, if word about such a thing were to spread amongst Muhammad's harem, it would cause a great domestic crisis.

The story of the honey says that Hafsa and Aisha could not contain themselves about Muhammad's secret oath to not eat the honey - they betrayed Muhammad and told secret to all their co-wives. What is so remarkable about this secret that Hafsa and Aisha could not contain themselves? Were they so eager to defame themselves as betrayers and conspirators against the prophet? This is strangely remarkable behaviour amongst Muhammad's wives concerning a strangely unremarkable "secret" involving the rather unremarkable topics of sweet smelling honey that Muhammad erroneously thinks is giving him foul smelling breath. On the other hand, the alternate story is that Hafsa was so upset about what had happened to her that she told Aisha about it. Aisha could not contain herself and told all the wives. Now this is an explosive secret. Hafsa, being upset, wanted to talk to her friend Aisha about it. And Aisha, being herself jeleous of Maria and knowing that all the other wives were jeleous as well, told the explosive secret to everyone. THat makes a lot more sense than Hafsa and Aisha not being able to contain themselves over a trivial "secret" oath to not eat a sack of honey, made by Muhammad.

Then, in the story of the honey, Hafsa and Aisha have gossiped and told all of the wives about Muhammad's vow to not eat the honey and Muhammad is furious at all of his wives. He is so furious that he vows not to have sex with them for a whole month. Why is so furious? What about this whole story of the honey is so remarkable as to cause Muhammad to take such a severe vow? And why is he angry with ALL of his wives? Was it not only Hafsa and Aisha who betrayed him by spreading the "secret"? Have not all of his wives noticed that the stopped eating the honey, anyway? They gossiped about Muhammad not eating Zaynab's honey because he thinks it gives him bad breath, and he exploded into fury and banned all of his umpteen wives from his life for an entire month? The cause of the domestic conflict described in the story of the honey does not rationally make sense, given the severity of the domestic conflict that was caused. In the alternate story, the same sever domestic conflict is described, but an equally severe cause for the conflict is describe: Muhammad is furious at Hafsa and Aisha because they have betrayed him and told an explosive secret about his misdeed with Maria. All of his wives are now clamoring for justice, and his relation with the entire harem has deteriorated to the point that he has decided to punish his wives by not having sex with them. But he does not intend to punish himself by abstaining from sex, and since Maria was not part of the betrayal and gossiping, Muhammad is not angry with her and can easily abstain from all of his wives and spend a month with Maria. BUT Muhammad had already vowed to Hafsa to prohibit Maria from his life, when Hafsa had found the two of them sleeping in her bed on her day. Only a revelation from God, absolving Muhammad from his oath, could make this work ...

Indeed, God intervenes in the domestic crisis, in both of the stories. He sends a revelation (surah 66) to Muhammad: "O Prophet, why do you make prohibited [referring either to Muhammad's oath to not eat Zaynab's sack of honey, or referring to Muhamamd's oath to prohibit Maria from his life] that which Allah has made lawful for you [either refering to honey being lawful in Islam, or refering to sex slaves being lawful in Islam], just to please your wives?" (66:1) Wait a minute. Did not Muhammad prohibit himself from eating Zaynab's honey because he wanted his breath to smell good? He vowed to not eat the honey just to please his breath. Clearly if a man has good breath, he will thereby please not just his wives but also everyone he talks to. Good breath is like good manners - it is an etiquette of social behaviour to avoid embarrassment and discomfort and to avoid displeasing others. Muhammad also portrayed having good breath as part of pleasing God, who in His Infinite Wisdom can smell everything. On the other hand, the alternate story fits well with the verse - Muhammad had indeed prohibited his sex slave (Maria) from his life just to please his wives, and it was understandbly a contentious legal issue that needed God to reiterate the lawfulness of having sex with slaves. It would be quite strange if Allah had to reiterate the lawfulness of honey that is believed to give bad breath. It is evident that the first verse of Surah 66 does not match the story of the honey.

Continuing with Surah 66, God also reveals to Muhammad: "Allah is forgiving and merciful. Allah has given absolution from such oaths [either referring to Muhamamd's oath to stop eating Zaynab's honey, or Muhammad's oath to not have sex with Maria anymore]" (66:2). So, according to the story of the honey, in this second verse God absolved Muhammad of his oath to stop eating Zaynab's honey. Muhammad is now going to back to eating Zaynab's honey that he thinks gives him bad breath. Why would Muhammad want to have bad breath again? Why is God absolving Muhammad of his oath to not eat honey that gives bad breath? Does not God want Muhammad to come to the mosque with breath that does not smell like garlic or onions, or some other strong scented food? What kind of oath is this for God to absovle his prophet of? In the alternate story, God is absolving Muhammad of his oath to prohibit Maria from his life. Now that this oath is absolved, Muhamamd can easily punish his wives by refusing to have sex with them for a whole month, while at the same time he can spend the whole month having sex with Maria. That is clearly a more believable story.

The Surah continues, "The Prophet made a story secret to ONE of his wives and she repeated it, but Allah revealed it to him ..." (66:3) The third verse says that Muhammad made a story secret to one of his wives. But in the "story of the honey," Muhammad does not make a story secret, he makes his oath not to eat Zaynab's honey a secret. And did he make this oath about the honey a secret only to Aisha and not Hafsa, or to Hafsa and not Aisha, or to both? The Surah then goes, "If he divorces you, perhaps his Lord will give him instead better wives than yourselves..." (66:5) The fifth verse is now talking about Muhammad considering to divorce his wives! Why would any sane person consider divorcing his wives over something as trivial as a sack of honey? In the alternate story, Muhammad is considering to divorce his wives because the explosive secret about his sleeping with his sex slave in his wifeHafsa's hut on Hafsa's day has been percieved by his wives as a climax in his injustice towards them (i.e. his neglecting his wives and spending time with Maria instead), causing a great deterioration in his relations with his wives. This is clearly something that could lead to a divorce. Indeed, for a woman to find her husband sleeping with a slave in her own bed can easily lead to a significant domestic conflict, especially in a polygamous household.

So why have I spent so much time pointing this out? Because I want to emphasize that the story of the honey is widely doubted by historians and for good reason. Any person who is thinking rationally can see how the alternate story is more believable that the story of the honey, and as an encylopediac principal of NPOV it is neccessery to include all points of view, including the skeptical point of view (which editors such as User:Striver are prone to wanting to suppress). --Zeno of Elea 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only "historian" you've adduced who doubts the story of the honey is Gilchrist, who is an anti-Islamic Christian apologist, not an academic. I'll agree that Gilchrist has read widely in the original sources and he has a keen eye for confusions and contradictions.
The Gilchrist source is suffucient because it is cited as an example of a particular POV, thus it need not be impartial. Furthermore, it is not true that Gilchrist is the historian to discount the story of the honey. All of the biographies of Muhammad, written by modern academic historians, which mention Maria (such as Lings and Rodinson) do not even bother with mentioning the story of the honey, even though this encylopedia article does bother mentioning it. These esteemed historians discounted the story of the honey because their purpose was to write biographies based on the earliest stories (the theory being that the earlier sources are more reliable as less time had passed to allow for historical revisionism). So all of my sources implicitly or explicitly discount the story of the honey. -- Zeno
I don't have a collection of ALL the late biographies of Muhammad you've mentioned -- all I have is Armstrong, Zakaria (a credulous hagiography), and Ibn Warraq on The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. I've tended to invest in primary sources as much as possible. (Working on Islamic articles has cost me hundreds of dollars!) I'd prefer to rely on primary sources too. Quoting Lings at me doesn't move me -- quoting Ibn Hisham, Al-Tabari, or Ibn Sa'ad does. If we're going to argue, let's get down to brass tacks. Zora 04:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have repeat this. Recently SlimVirgin unlocked the Islam article and wrote: "Okay, I'm going to unlock it because I don't like leaving pages locked for ages, but there can't be any more personal attacks and reverting. Everyone has to source their edits to respectable, secondary sources, academics employed by universities wherever possible, and preferably non-partisan (or not too partisan). No dodgy websites, no personal opinions, and stick to a dry, disinterested style of writing. Happy editing! ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)" Zora, It does not matter what is written on your resume. You are not a noted historian of Islam. I am not saying that you are not capable of accurately conveying the primary sources in an NPOV manner. What I am saying is that not only are reliable secondary sources legitimate (despite your claims) they are in fact superior and preferable. If quoting Martin Lings does not "move" you then this is your own shortcomming, to be blunt (have you read Lings? I think you should. Even though it is a Muslim source, it is one of the best books of its kind ever written). I have sourced everything that I wrote with very reputable secondary sources. My approach to history is clearly different from yours - I reference academics and historians who have immersed themselves in the original sources. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and clearly many editors feel that it is the preferable approach. You cannot delete sourced information just because you would rather deleve into the primary sources yourself. -- Zeno

Muqawqis

[edit]

Starting the "Muqawqis" article to elaborate on issues not directly relevant to Maria. --Striver 08:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The superiority of secondary sources?

[edit]

Zeno has taken his arguments from various secondary sources. When I ask him to validate the arguments of the secondary sources from primary sources, he says he doesn't have to do so -- in fact, he claims, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources to primary sources. He insists that as I am not an accredited academic with publications in Islamic studies, I should not be allowed to cite primary sources, since I'm not "qualified" to do so.

I am so flabberghasted by his arguments that I hardly know how to reply.

I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to prefer secondary to primary sources -- the quote from Slimvirgin is taken out of context. She seemed to me to have been warning editors not to use websites and chat forums. I have NEVER seen any Wikipedia policy cautioning against primary sources.

As for the "primary sources are incendiary, don't try this at home, kids ..." -- Zeno himself has been quoting Ibn Ishaq with abandon, claiming that Ibn Ishaq tells ugly truths about Muhammad that have been suppressed by later hagiographers. It's not at all clear to me why Zeno believes himself to be uniquely qualified to handle the dangerous primary sources, while I'm to be barred from doing so.

I leafed through a number of the Islamic studies bibliographies and syllabi that I've collected online. A number of them cite Rodinson, so I just spent more money (alas!) and ordered a used copy. However, Lings seems not to be held in high scholarly favor. I didn't find Lings on a single list.

A good secondary source cites the primary sources, so that if you want to see HOW the author drew his/her conclusions, you can check out the footnotes and bibliography. If Zeno wants to use secondary sources, I should think that he could at least use sources with good references, so that any questions COULD ultimately be referred to the earliest Islamic texts. If Lings thinks that the Byzantine governor of Egypt sent a train of slaves bearing gold, or whatever the cite was, then Lings should provide references for the details that aren't in Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'ad, etc. Zora 09:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Zeno has taken his arguments from various secondary sources. When I ask him to validate the arguments of the secondary sources from primary sources, he says he doesn't have to do so" That is correct, Zora. My sources are authoratative. They are well known. It is unfortunate that you are so unfamaliar with Muhammad's hagiographies that you are explaining that you have Armstrong but are trying to discount Lings. Lings is authoratitive, and as a Muslim he is authorative even where secular hagiographers are not. It is foolish of you to contest authoritative sources by insisting that only primary sources be referenced and not hagiographies written by academics holding PhDs in the subject. The quality of Martin Lings' work, in particular, is an unrivaled in its literary quality and it earned Lings the highest civilian awards of the governments of Pakistan and Egypt. -- Zeno
"-- in fact, he claims, Wikipedia policy is to prefer secondary sources to primary sources. He insists that as I am not an accredited academic with publications in Islamic studies, I should not be allowed to cite primary sources, since I'm not "qualified" to do so." Please try to conform to some standard of honesty, Zora. I did not say that you are not allowed to cite primary sources, I said that in my opinion it is preferable to rely on secondary sources when possible, an opinion also clearly by expressed User:SlimVirgin and other Wikipedia editors. -- Zeno
"As for the "primary sources are incendiary, don't try this at home, kids ..." -- Zeno himself has been quoting Ibn Ishaq with abandon ..." Again, I have only said that quoting from primary sources such as Ibn Ishaq is not preferable, I have not said that it is not allowed. Whenever I can find the same information in a secondary source, I rely on the secondary source and not the primary source, so as to avoid accusations of original research (for example, we are not here to write our own tafsir of the Qur'an by merely citing the primary Qur'anic source).
"I leafed through a number of the Islamic studies bibliographies and syllabi that I've collected online. A number of them cite Rodinson, so I just spent more money (alas!) and ordered a used copy. However, Lings seems not to be held in high scholarly favor. I didn't find Lings on a single list." Again, Zora, some level of honesty would be appreciated. Perhaps you did not look very far for a syllabus with Lings on it, because google easily produces nearly a dozen such links. I'm glad that you have purchased Rodinson, though you can go to a place called the LIBRARY and check out all of the cited sources.
Oooh, sarcasm. I've generally given up on libraries. They usually don't have what I need, and all the walking is extremely painful -- I'm crippled. Zora 13:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, returning to your contention that Lings' hagiography of Muhammad cannot be found in any academic bibliographies or syllabi, here is the evidence to the contrary:
I could go on listing more syllabi if you like. I am sure that you will have recognized above the names of some of the leading universities of the world, so I think that this will suffice and hope that you (Zora) agree. --Zeno
Thanks for the links. I'll have to look those up and if the syllabi are extensive, add them to my collection. It does look as if some academics like to use Lings. Zora 13:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"If Lings thinks that the Byzantine governor of Egypt sent a train of slaves bearing gold, or whatever the cite was, then Lings should provide references for the details that aren't in Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'ad, etc." Lings usually references everything, but in this case a reference does not appear to be given. However, the account given by Lings can easily be verified by other independent sources on the Internet. If you actually read the letter that Muqawqis wrote to Muhammad [3] you would see that it reads, " ... I am sending two maids for you as presents. These maids belong to a very respectable family amongst us. In addition I send for you clothes and a Duldul (steed) for riding. May Allah bestow security on you ... " An online Islamic source says that "Muqawqis answered to the Prophet (pbuh) evasively. However, he sent a rich present of a thousand measures of gold, twenty robes of fine cloth, a mule, and two Coptic Christian ladies who were held in great respect in Egypt. The young ladies were sisters, Mariyah and Sirin. The prophet gave Sirin to Hassan ibn Thabit, the poet, and he took Mariyah as his wife. The mule was named Duldul and the Prophet rode it in the Battle of Hunain." [4] Furthermore, Tabari VIII:100 claims that the delegation sent by Muqawqis consisted of not two but four slave girls (Tabari VIII:100 “The Messenger sent Hatib to Muqawqis, the ruler of Alexandria. Hatib delivered the letter of the Prophet, and Muqawqis gave Allah’s Apostle four slave girls.”) It is evident that the delegation consisted of more than two slave girls and a eunuch. In any case, Lings is authoritative and I've cited the source properly. Zora is clearly wrong in her contention that a world reknown academic of Islam, convert to Islam, whose hagiography of Muhammad is found the syllabi of the world's leading univeristies and that earned him the highest civilian awards of two Muslim governments, can be so easily dismissed. Lings worked for the British Library, overseeing eastern manuscripts and other textual works, he clearly had knowledge of and access to far more primary sources, in their original Arabic, than Zora has access to. Zora wishes to compile her own hagiography of Muhammad by entirely using primary sources and dismissing any existing hagiographic secondary sources - this is clearly not a reasonable and encylopediac approach. -- Zeno

No, I don't want to use just primary sources. But in judging the quality of secondary sources, I want to see how those authors use primary sources. I am keenly aware of the tendency of medieval Islamic historians to embroider. The earlier the source, the scantier the info; the later the source, the fuller the info. Information doesn't just materialize out of nowhere; it's most likely fabricated. Something that sounds like an Arabian Nights caravan could well be a bazaar tale, unless confirmed by the earliest sources -- which, as far as I can tell, it isn't. That's why I'm suspicious. If it can be sourced, fine. Since I don't HAVE all the earliest sources -- since some of them haven't even been translated -- I have to rely on secondary sources, but I want to see the citations. That's why I like using academicians like Crone, Berkey, Donner, Madelung -- it's footnoted, in exquisite detail. I can't check the footnotes -- yet -- but I know that the generalized hostility in academia <g> is such that if those historians were inventing anything, they would have been outed by now. Of course, they could still be misinterpreting the primary sources, or being too credulous, or too skeptical, whatever ...

I don't accept Lings as authoritative just on your say-so, Zeno. I'll have to order the dang book and see for myself. Frankly, I don't accept anyone as absolutely authoritative. I accept authors as more or less trustworthy, which means that any one thing could be an error. Lings may be 95% trustworthy and yet wrong on this one thing. Zora 12:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you would enjoy Lings, much more than Rodinson. I think I've demonstrated that Lings is a Wikipedia:Reliable Source. If you disagree, then I'm not sure what to say, as my understand was that Lings is as authoratative as Crone, Rodinson, etc. Lings does meticulously footnote most of his pages, but for some reason this is not footnoted. However, as I have demonstrated. his description of the convey from Egypt to Medina does more or less corroborate with not only the letter from the ruler of Alexandria to Muhammad, but also several online Muslim-run resources. It should also be noted that Martin Lings is a Muslim, so we are really talking about mainstream Muslim hagiography. Did this event ever actuall take place? Can we really rely on Lings or Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Tabari, to know the real truth about what happened? Crone's theory is that the Qur'an is a work of mutliple hands, compiled sometime in the 8th or 9th century, and that all of the earliest Muslim sources (including the Qur'an) are completely unreliable because they were written well over a century after Muhammad's death. So when you start this dangerous game of doubting the earliest sources, and the modern hagiographers who have immersed themselves in those sources, then you are going down a very slipperly slope. Some academics completely reject the entire Muslim tradition and a fringe belief even brings the very existance of Muhammad into question. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that we will never know what really happened, due to the poor, extremely belated, and extremely biased historical methods of the early Muslims. The earliest cannonical hadith were not compiled until after the great schism between Shiahs and Sunnis. According to the Muslim tradition, the third Caliph (Uthman) set fire to all differing copies of the Qur'an except for his own cannon of which he supposedly sent four copies around the empire (none of these early Uthmanian Qur'ans actually exist as far as archeological evidnece goes). The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock differ significantly from those in the modern Qur'an. What is even more surprising is that the Dome of the Rock is not even actually a conventional mosque because it does not have a qibla (direction pointing towards Mecca). Even more disturbingly, archeologists have found a number of mosques that were built well after Muhammad died and all have their qiblas pointing towards the Dome of the Rock and not Mecca. Even the Qur'an itself admits that the qibla (direction of prayer) was at some point changed from Jerusalem to Mecca, and historians such as Crone bring the actual origins of the Qur'an into serious doubt - Crone claims that the modern Qur'an codex was actually cannonized much later than the Muslims traditions admit. The point I am trying to make is that it is a mistake to bring the actual historicitiy of the Muslims traditions into question in an encylopediac sources scuh as this. We are not trying to determine What Really Happened, we are just presenting STORIES from the Muslim traditions, as they have been handed down over the centuries through oral transmissions, classical Muslim scholars, and modern academic authorities working in the English langauge. --Zeno of Elea 09:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeno, I know all that. Even the earliest sources are already contaminated by a century of oral transmission and myth-making. I think it's possible to pick your way through the minefield -- Madelung did so fairly successfully I think -- but it requires a great deal of expertise.

In this one case, however, if Lings and the other Muslim hagiographers don't give sources for the Arabian Nights caravan of presents to Muhammad, we have to say that it's unsupported and possibly folkloric. That's all.

As to which of the stories re the occasion for revelation of surah al-Tahrim is TRUE, there's no way of judging that either. You follow Gilchrist in believing that the story of the honey was invented to mask the uglier story of sexual jealousy. Well, that's a matter of judgement. Muslim biographers don't deny the stories of jealousy against Maria, I believe, they just don't accept that this was the occasion of revelation. Or, one can believe that both family squabbles happened, but award the palm for occasion of revelation to the Maria story. You scoff, Zeno, but that's not just me ... that's one online Islamic site, [5], expressing that theory. So we've got three theories and we can present them ALL -- possibly under the article for surah al-Tahrim and then link to that discussion from the various articles re Muhammad's marriages and wives. That's the usual solution to Wikipedia squabbles -- instead of picking one theory and saying that it's TRUE, present all of them, with the evidence pro and con.

By the way, I should add that starting with Ibn Ishaq, the early Muslim scholars were at least NPOV enough to present several traditions, and theories, side by side. It's only recently, with commentators like Maududi and Qutb, that you get a strident insistence on the one right POV. Probably as a reaction to the Shi'a and Kharjite insistence on being RIGHT, and rejecting all other Muslims who don't share one's exact views, the Sunni method has usually been to accomodate. Let's have four madhabs. Let's recognize both Sufis and Salafis as Muslims. Let's all worship together and ignore the doctrinal details. Let's have multiple explanations of al-Tahrim. So, let us imitate that even-handedness. Zora 10:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the earliest sources are already contaminated by a century of oral transmission and myth-making. I think it's possible to pick your way through the minefield " That's debatabe, Zora. Some historians believe that even if there IS a kernel of truth in the Muslim traditions, it is impossible to identify.
"if Lings and the other Muslim hagiographers don't give sources for the Arabian Nights caravan of presents to Muhammad, we have to say that it's unsupported and possibly folkloric. That's all. " That's false, Zora. Lings is a respected historian, a Muslim scholar, and a PhD graduate of the world-famous SOAS, and Lings based his work on the earliest sources. Such academics don't just go around making things up. In addition, his description of the convey from Egypt to Medina closely fits the description in the letter sent by Muqawqis to Muhammad (Muqawqis refers to certain gifts that he sending, including "slave girls," cloathes, and riding steed). It is very possibly that Muqawqis sent the gifts described by Lings. It would be good if we could find out what exactly Lings based his account on, and I am sure that a suffucient amount of research would reveal that. However, it is also good enough to reference Lings. A PhD graduate of SOAS, with speciazation in Islamic hagiography, and with the stature that Lings had, is a Wikipedia:reliable source.
"As to which of the stories re the occasion for revelation of surah al-Tahrim is TRUE, there's no way of judging that either. You follow Gilchrist in believing that the story of the honey was invented to mask the uglier story of sexual jealousy. Well, that's a matter of judgement" As I have said, I am not trying to make deceleration of absolute truth here. It may be that neither of the stories are true. However, it should be noted that historians often doubt the story of the honey for obvious reasons that I have explained in detail and referenced as well. You have mentioned the source [6] but I don't understand why - this source is an agenda-driven and unscholarly work that has been rejected from publication numerous times, and has found its way onto the Internet. The account of both stories presented in this book is full of made-up fairytale quotes, and if there were ever an unscholarly hagiography of Muhammad that makes absolutely no reference to the primary sources, the this source is it.
"By the way, I should add that starting with Ibn Ishaq, the early Muslim scholars were at least NPOV enough to present several traditions, and theories, side by side. " That is arguable. And in any case, we don't even have anything written by Ibn Ishaq, all we have is his works as collected by Ibn Hisham, and by Ibn Hisham's own admission, he discarded any information that he personally thought was "unreliable or unsuitable" for inclusion in the Sira. Furthermore, Ibn Ishaq himself wrote nearly two centuries after Muhammad's death, and was actually reporting the perception of history from his point in time, and not a primary perception of the events AS THEY HAPPENED. Curiously enough, the Muslims suppressed and burned any sort of documented records of Islam until some two hundred years after Muhammad died. But in any case, I don't want to get into an argument over the relibality of the original sources of the Muslim traditions, as I have already said, because that is a slippery slope that leads to conclusions such as those expounded by Patricia Crone. And while I admire Crone's theory, I don't think that it should serve as a framework for editing these encylopedia articles, since such skepticism of the original sources really does not help us in these situations (e.g. saying that neither the story about Maria nor the story of the honey is true does not lead to anywhere). --Zeno of Elea 23:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to comment on the Primary vs. Secondary source issue and have no idea about the content dispute that gave rise to it. There is no real difference between "Primary" and "Secondary" sources since every academic or news article relies on some other experts and sources to some extent. Thus all sources are on some sliding scale of reliability, historicity and POVness. On Wiki, however, the term "Secondary" could be used to refer to blog journals written by POVers who are not academics and do not perform notable and reliable research and analysis. This Wiki version is clearly not to be used as a source. All other sources are sources, and can be used to the extent the assessment fits the article and to the extent that the sources and analysis is put in context. For instance, the distinction between more recent analysis relying on on original sources versus sources promoted by some religionist or King some 1000 years ago. Or, the contrary, new sources promoting a POV versus the historical interpretation. --Noitall 13:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, just curious, why do you show up at random articles, particularly ones that I am editing?Heraclius 14:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noitall, the distinction between primary source and secondary source is defined by academic historians. It doesn't mean academic versus non-academic. Zora 19:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Heraclius, it is because of that scary picture on your User page. Just kidding. I monitor all the religious articles and jump in when there is an issue that interets me. To Zora, the distinction is meaningless as even acknowledged in the statement, "What distinguishes a primary source from a secondary source is how it is used more than what it actually contains as content." In law, there is a more meaningful distinction known as direct or circumstantial evidence, but these do not directly line up with your assertion of "Primary" and "Secondary". --Noitall 20:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I neglected to mention a possibly more relevant distinction in law based on authority. If a case has authority in a certain jurisdiciton, it is considered a Primary source. All others are considered Secondary sources, including cases and citations in other jurisdictions, articles and scholarly sources. --Noitall 20:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
We're not talking about law, we're talking about history. Primary/secondary source is terminology that is widely used by historians. It's nothing I invented. In your attempt to be "right", you're starting to sound like Lewis Carol's version of Humpty Dumpty: "words mean what I want them to mean". That isn't helpful, and it's not particularily germane to the matter under discussion. Zora 20:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Zora, if you think about it, there are no primary sources in this subject. The so-called primary sources (e.g. Ibn Hisham) are "secondary sources" (to be generous). IN fact, most of these stories are, by their own admission, removed from the primary sources by a n degrees of seperation (n is usually 8 or 9, here). --Zeno of Elea 23:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. There are earlier and later secondary sources. The only contemporary stuff we have is from outside Islam (scattered, superficial, often obviously wrong) and from archaeology, of which there has been little. The possibility that digs might undermine the ulema's version of history is ... enough to prevent any real archaeology in the obvious places. Alas.
Still, historians are going to value earlier sources over later, in most cases. Zora 23:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zora, if you are so clear as to distinguish and identify what is a Primary source and what is a secondary source, give me three examples of each. --Noitall 04:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could possibly read the linked Wikipedia articles. They make the point that the frame of reference matters. If I write a diary, that's primary source for 2005. If I'm writing the diary and speculate about stuff that happened two hundred years ago, my speculations are secondary. So, generally, primary source for historians is newspapers, magazines, books, govt documents, diaries, letters, produced AT the time in question. Secondary source can be a textbook, journal article, academic publication, etc. discussing events in the past, of which the author knows only through primary and other secondary sources. Zora 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The caravan

[edit]

Zeno, I don't know why you're holding onto the Lings quote like grim death, other than to be obstructive. We have from the letter, and from al-Tabari, either two to four slaves, a eununch, riding animals, and some clothing. It's the "measures of gold" that's unsupported. I don't know when it entered the tradition, but all you've given for it is contemporary citations. I don't know how much a "measure" is, but if it's a lot, it seems unlikely as a placatory gift. You're insisting that I trust Lings, and I'm not sure why I should, if that particular bit isn't supported by cites.

I'll try a rewrite later -- I've got RL stuff to do that's been languishing for days. Zora 23:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a "thousand measures" means anything more than 2 or 3 ounces of gold, which can easily be carried. The gold would be easier to carry than the cloathes, actually. We're not talking about transporting Fort Knox here. I think that we should just put the description of the convoy in quotes and attribute it to Lings. Why should we keep this description? Because it is the most detailed account that we have yet to come across. I don't see why we should NOT trust Lings. Look at any modern hagiography of Muhammad. Do you think that every little fact that the author states is going to be footnoted? Not in my experience. Are you famaliar with SOAS at the University of London, Zora? --Zeno of Elea 23:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary sources

[edit]

Zora asked me to clarify a comment I made on Talk:Islam about secondary sources.

Generally, good secondary sources are preferable to using primary sources, especially if the latter requires interpretation, but it depends on the situation.

If you're writing about a criminal case, the the judge's summing up would be a primary source, and would be a better source than a newspaper report about the trial, which would be a secondary source. But if you're writing about Euripides' Medea, a scholarly secondary source would be better than a Wikipedia editor trying themselves to interpret Euripides, which would count as original research.

We can use primary sources so long as we don't come up with our own interpretation, argument, analysis, or synthesis of facts, in order to advance a particular position. If we're only quoting, that's fine; but as soon as we start to say what is meant, then we're into original research. To present an analysis, argument or interpretation, we have to find a good secondary source.

Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Major revision by Zora

[edit]

Having bought and read Lings, I can unhesitatingly reject it as a historical source. It is a mishmash of pious myths. The Rodinson, however, is a solid book. I've rewritten the article based mainly on Tabari. We should probably also have links to various hadith related to this matter -- I'm just a little too tired to look them up right now.

The older version of the article was highly salacious, of the "unbounded sexual licence in the harem" Orientalist variety. I'm usually against dismissing Western academics as "Orientalist", but I must admit that there's a a whole strain of "harem literature" that says more about Western imaginations than Eastern facts. Skewered by Fadwa El Guindi in Veil: Modesty, Privacy, and Resistance, Berg, 1999. Book is often PC and PoMo, but usually interesting. Zora 23:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

move from Maria article

[edit]

The following text was added to the Maria article 06:44, 2 June 2006 by User:212.138.64.172:

Maria the Copt was one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) of Islam. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) married 12 wives in his life. When he died he had 9 wives. They have a very special status in the hearts of Muslims as the “Mothers of the Believers,” as the Qur’an instructs, and they are the source of a great amount of wisdom which they learned while living close to such a great man. Perhaps you’d like to research a bit to find their beautiful stories, so here are their names: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, Sawdah bint Zam’ah, `A’ishah bint Abi Bakr, Hafsah bint `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, Juwayriah bint Al-Harith, Umm Habibah, Safiyah bint Huyay ibn Akhtab, Maymunah bint Al-Harith, Maria the Copt.
Slavery already existed long before Islam. It was a system whereby a human captured in wars or kidnapped could be sold as a “possession.” That term applied to both sexes, not to women only. In some cultures slaves were considered subhuman and treated brutally. In Europe, for example, Romans threw Christian slaves to the lions while the public cheered; female slaves were thought to have no souls and were tortured mercilessly; slaves lived in degrading conditions; both sexes were forced to offer sexual favors to their masters; and as “possessions” they had no choice, no will, and no rights.
Islam recognized the human rights of slaves and encouraged Muslims to set slaves free. Islam prohibited adultery and homosexuality, and prevented forcing female slaves into sexual acts against their will. Islam encouraged educating them, setting them free, then legally marrying them and giving them their moral and financial rights. The reward for this—as mentioned in Prophetic Hadith—is eternal residence in Paradise.
Maria (may Allah be pleased with her) was not a concubine; she was a slave owned by Egypt’s Christian governor, who offered her and her sister Serine—among other presents—as a “gift of good will” to the Prophet in reply to his envoys inviting him to Islam. On her way from Egypt to Madinah, she was curious to learn about “her new master” and listened to his Companions talk about him. As a result, she became Muslim before meeting Muhammad.

I have moved it here in case there is anything useful in it that can be added here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maria's age and message to Muqawqis

[edit]

Let me start with the comment on her age; it does not belong b/c its simply original research not to mention the statement itself sounds more POV than the text already in the article. Unless Tabari or some other source(s) suggests it, you can't just say we/you/whoever thinks she was young at presentation. As for the wording on the letter to Muqawqis; saying it was a warning to submit also sounds more POV than the original b/c now it sounds like anti-Muslim sentiment. Besides, most reputable historians will suggest the letter was an invitation, not a threat of invasion or something, people like Robert Spence and Ibn Warraq suggest that. Besides, if it was really a threat, he wouldn't have sent gifts to Muhammad. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right about the wording. The original wording here implied it was more threatening, but perhaps that's not the best way to say it. The current wording, however, smacks of pro-Muslim apologetical POV - it implies Muhammad was just going around sending out friendly letters to gain converts. For the second part, however, it clear Mariah would have been young at the time, or else she would not have been sent as a concubine. I'll try and dig up a source saying this. Remember that "young" does not imply she was as young as, say, Aisha. She may have been in her teens or early 20s.--Cúchullain t/c 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording, however, smacks of pro-Muslim apologetical POV - it implies Muhammad was just going around sending out friendly letters to gain converts. - Tabari describes it as invitation to various rulers to join Islam. A number of rulers who received his letter also responded positively. Nevertheless, if you want I'll see if I can dig up another source for words on the subject.
it clear Mariah would have been young at the time, or else she would not have been sent as a concubine. - In that case there would be no need to state it b/c its clear ;-). Seriously though, I don't know if you have access to Tabari (I do but of only certain volumes) but if you do, can you double check whether there is any mention of how young she might have been then?
Jedi Master MIK (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria the Copt, (died 637) was a Coptic Christian sex slave

[edit]

What? Can someone do something about the language used? Faro0485 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concubine Status

[edit]

In Concubine Status section, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr was quoted:
"Mariyah died during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab, in Muharram of 16 AH. ‘Umar gathered the people himself to attend her funeral, and he led the funeral prayer for her. She was buried in al-Baqee’."
I don't see how does this text relate to the title of the sub-section? Modi mode (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lings(1909-2005 CE)’s view and At-Tabari(839-923 CE)view

[edit]

There are two accounts of Maria on this page one of Martin Ling and other of At-Tabari. I tried to write years of accounts which can improve article but one fellow has reverted. Assuming good faith please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following historical reports tell us that Prophet Muhammed (p) married Mariyah: “It is reported from ‘Abdullah al-Zubairi who said: that after this the Noble Prophet married (tazawwaju) Mariah daughter of Sham’un. This is the same Mariyah who was sent by Maqauqis, the ruler of Alexandria to the Prophet as a gift” (Sahih al-Mustadarak Hakim [Published Hyderabad, Deccan], volume 4, page 36).

[edit]

add it. Ghjiygffdd (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabari (838 – 923 AD): “God granted Rayhanah bt. Zayd of the Banu Qurayzah to his Messenger. Mariyah the Copt was presented to the Messenger of God, given to him by al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Alexandria, and she gave birth to the Messenger of God’s son Ibrahim. THESE WERE THE MESSENGER OF GOD’S WIVES, six of them were from the Quraysh.” (Tabari volume 9, page 137)

[edit]

Add Ghjiygffdd (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_al-Qibtiyya&oldid=1220090915"