Content deleted Content added
Vice regent (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 763:
*Rodinson is a highly polemical source whose works have [[orientalism]] themes and academia has now moved on from such views. What exactly is the proposed text we want to include? If we are to include him, we should also include counter-perspectives from Muslims.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
**Rodinson is most certainly not a reliable source for this text: "{{tq|Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad took her to bed that night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse.}}" As far as I can tell, Rodinson has little training in [[Islamic law]], so how can he decree that Muhammad violated Islamic law? For example, [[Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah]], which is indeed an expert in Islamic law, [https://www.dar-alifta.org/en/article/details/460/did-prophet-muhammad-go-against-the-established-waiting-period-for-a-widow-by-mar contradicts] this view.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 04:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
**:Our [[WP:SOURCE]] policy states, "{{tq|Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.}}" That "independent" word is linked to [[WP:IS]], which says: "{{tq|An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.}}" I do not think that [[Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah]] meets this description. Additionally, you might want to read these explanations from @[[User:Apaugasma|Apaugasma]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Karbala&diff=prev&oldid=1168272927] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aisha&diff=prev&oldid=1200956704] and @[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FIslam-related_articles&diff=1176512504&oldid=1176503939]. Regarding Rodinson's statement, this publication<ref>{{Cite book |last=El-Azhari |first=Taef Kamal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_LaSvwEACAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions |title=Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661-1257 |date=2019 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=978-1-4744-2318-2 |pages=27 |language=en}}</ref> from [[Edinburgh University Press]], written by a Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern History, seems to align with Rodinson, that Muhammad's act of consummating his marriage with Safiyya shortly after she became a widow (following the killing of her husband on Muhammad's orders) contradicts Islamic law itself.
**:{{talkquote|p. 27<br />Following the same pattern, in 628 Muhammad invaded a Jewish tribe in Khaybar, north of Medina. After defeating them, he surveyed the women captives. A Jewish woman, named Safiyya, charmed the Prophet with her beauty. He threw his gown at her, as a mark that she had become his captive. Safiyya had witnessed her husband being killed by Muhammad; despite that, the Prophet sent her immediately to be beautified for him, and the marriage was consummated in or near Khaybar a few days later. Muhammad was not concerned with Safiyya’s feelings or her grief over the deaths of her husband and father. In this instance, the Prophet was acting against the clear commands of the Qur’an, in that when a woman is divorced or becomes a widow, she cannot remarry unless four months and ten days have passed (in order to ensure there is no pregnancy from the previous relationship) (Q. 2:234). }} — [[User:Kaalakaa|<span style="color: #154360;">'''Kaalakaa'''</span>]] [[User talk:Kaalakaa|<sup style="color: #003366;">(talk)</sup>]] 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024 ==
| |||