This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maria al-Qibtiyya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
ALRIGHT striver, we get the point, he had 2 sons not 1. -- Zeno of Elea 12:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
enslaved or raped? -- Striver 07:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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").
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.
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)
Starting the "Muqawqis" article to elaborate on issues not directly relevant to Maria. -- Striver 08:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Noitall, just curious, why do you show up at random articles, particularly ones that I am editing? Heraclius 14:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following text was added to the Maria article 06:44, 2 June 2006 by User:212.138.64.172:
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)
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)
What? Can someone do something about the language used? Faro0485 ( talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
add it. Ghjiygffdd ( talk) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Maria al-Qibtiyya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
ALRIGHT striver, we get the point, he had 2 sons not 1. -- Zeno of Elea 12:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
enslaved or raped? -- Striver 07:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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").
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.
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)
Starting the "Muqawqis" article to elaborate on issues not directly relevant to Maria. -- Striver 08:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Noitall, just curious, why do you show up at random articles, particularly ones that I am editing? Heraclius 14:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following text was added to the Maria article 06:44, 2 June 2006 by User:212.138.64.172:
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)
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)
What? Can someone do something about the language used? Faro0485 ( talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
add it. Ghjiygffdd ( talk) 11:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)