Talk:Zaynab bint Jahsh

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zaynab bint Jahsh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Islam: Salaf / Shi'a Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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.

The 9th-century historian al-Tabari gives two independent accounts of a visit that Muhammad paid to Zayd's house. The hairskin curtain that served as Zayd’s front door was blown aside, accidentally revealing Zaynab dressed only in her shift. Zaynab arose to dress herself, advising Muhammad that Zayd was not at home but he was welcome to visit. However, he did not enter. He exclaimed to himself, “Praise be to Allah, who turns hearts around!” and then departed.^[1]^[2]

^ Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Tarikh al-Rasul wa’l-Muluk. Translated by Fishbein, M. (1997). Volume 8: The Victory of Islam, pp. 1-4. Albany: State University of New York Press.
^ Landau-Tasseron/Tabari, vol. 39 p. 181.

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

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)[reply]

[1] Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Tarikh al-Rasul wa’l-Muluk. Translated by Fishbein, M. (1997). Volume 8: The Victory of Islam, pp. 1-4. Albany: State University of New York Press.

[2] Landau-Tasseron/Tabari, vol. 39 p. 181.

[1]

[2]