Talk:Zaynab bint Jahsh

Problems

• The sources are not properly indicated:
  • What book did Watts write in 1974?
  • How is Mrs Stowasser's book titled?
  • What's the page number in Nomani's case?
• What rumours did the Munafiqun spread?
• What is meant by "doubters?
• What did Watt actually say. The current quote is ungrammatical and there open to doubts.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the very first reference:

Rosalind Ward Gwynne, Logic, Rhetoric, and Legal Reasoning in the Qur'an: God's Arguments, 
Routledge 2004, p. 45.

does not reference anything in that passage except for the name of Zaynab. Therefore I move it here. Maybe it is useful for something else. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This material was recently forked from Muhammad's wives it seems. The full references seem to be available there. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow has moved over a literature section and I have struck the questions answered by that. But there are other issues remaining (see above). Str1977 ^(talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomani's full explanation spans pages 386-388.Bless sins (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can dispense with the unqualified Indo-Muslim revivalist, BS. Arrow740 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus that he is a reliable source. Infact, he a more reliable source than Marxist Rodinson (or atleast as equal a reliable source). If you disagree, please explain how.Bless sins (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'll repeat this again: neither Indian ("Indo-"), nor Muslims ("Muslim") nor revivalists are unreliable by definition. Wikipedia makes no such discriminations.Bless sins (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the burden is on you. Where was this "consensus" achieved? Arrow740 (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, please see this.

And the burden on showing that Rodinson is a reliable source is on you.Bless sins (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that having exactly one other person (itaqallah) agree with you on an constitutes a consensus on this, especially when I and one other editor have publicly (so, two and two) have publicly stated that he is not a reliable source [1]? Arrow740 (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if 100% of the editor(s) agree with me then I have consensus. Secondly, WP:CCC says that consensus can change. Therefore, if you wish to see it change, then you can take it to WP:RSN. As for me, I'm content with the current consensus.

Arrow you seem to be violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (You haven't responded about why Rodinson is a reliable source)Bless sins (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this, and then please drop the Rodinson issue. Arrow740 (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What specifically in the above article are referring to? It says many things. The only thing relevant that I found was that he was a "scholar" and "professor". But the same is true for Nomani. Bless sins (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What's interesting is that his book was so controversial that the American university withdrew it from its curriculum, symbolizing its rejection.Bless sins (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me this: for discussing events that occurred fourteen hundred years ago, how can you quote books written in the last few decades? At best, these writers can faithfully stitch together an account based on different original sources, and interpret them. Given this, it is acceptable to quote a contemporary writer's interpretation or opinion, but unscholarly to quote them on history. If you want to quote history from them, trace back their sources and quote those original sources. The regular revisions that include these alleged events are based on a flippant acceptance of the weakest authority, and therefore must be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.98.54 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-write

I'll be re-writing the article in my sandbox/workboard. Anyone is welcome to contribute. For now I have removed unsourced content.Bless sins (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have significantly reorganized the material. This has involved eliminating some of the modern sources in favour of early ones.Petra MacDonald 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I question the assertion that Zaynab was born in 593, although I note that the date was qualified with a "circa". Al-Tabari states that she died at the age of 53 in A.H. 20 (= 641 C.E.). Ibn Saad adds that it was a "hot summer day", i.e., in the middle of the year. So she should have been born in 34 B.H. (589-590).Petra MacDonald 01:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian, non Abyssinian

I read «Zayd was an Abyssinian». I think, instead, he was Syrian. Of B. Kalb. Please, see Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham's Sirat nabawiyya. --Cloj (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. Al-Tabari gives Zayd a very long pedigree in the Kalb tribe.

He is described as having a "flat nose" and "very dark skin". So he may have been an African whose family entered the Kalb tribe by adoption.

Of course, this is only speculation; and even if it is correct, not all Africans are Abyssinians. So we should stick to the facts - he was from the Kalb tribe.Petra MacDonald 00:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petra MacDonald (talk • contribs)

Misrepresentation of Source

The Passage is referenced to three different sources but there is a problem, Reference Books contains information related to subject but the content of this Passage represent an entire different story.

SpyButeo (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This paragraph accurately reflects the cited sources. This is exactly what they say, although the originals are more detailed.

However, if you have sources of equal or higher quality that tell the story differently, please include them. There is no problem with informing the public that sources disagree.

To clarify: there is not really a higher authority than Tabari. A simple contradiction can be safely ignored. However, you can cite a scholar who takes issue with Tabari's sources or interpretations and explains why his conclusions are questionable. Just make sure the critic is a real scholar!Petra MacDonald (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)