Talk:72 Virgins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Addition of dispute and citation tags

This story about "72 virgins" has the smell of a canard. I've only ever heard this "72 virgins" story from conservatives making claims about suicide bombers; I've never seen or heard of actual evidence that anyone believes it. For example, the article claims that "In exchange for martyrdom, Muslims are promised unlimited sex with 72 virgins in heaven." Who promises them this, and where and when? Insofar as claims like this one indicate that such a belief is actually widespread among Muslims, it is unsourced and factually dubious; insofar as it's based on someone's view of "theologically correct" Islam, it's absurdly NPOV. Can anyone help me figure out what's really going on with this story and write something accurate and balanced about it? I am open to the possibility that the "72 virgins" story is a correct one, provided that it can be evinced by reference to neutral sources. Elliotreed 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Correction: absurdly POV, I mean. Elliotreed 23:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You've only heard about the 72 virgins because you didnt search Google. I've added the actual hadith there now. This is true, its a part of Islam and this really is what Mohammed is reported to have said. Although not all Muslims will agree that this hadith is valid or true or was really reported, the fact is that this is as much as part of Islamic history as anything else. The neutral source you're looking for should be Al-Tirmidhi himself, the historian who recorded the hadith. There are many hadith collectors in Islam and the work of not all are available in the shape of an ideal source. Google mentions this hadith all over the internet and I'm supposing the Guardian is a reliable source so I put the reference there. ALSO, please note: Quran itself mentions big-breasted and dark eyed houris, so this hadith only makes the number specific. I dont see a big deal with the hadith therefore. Plus I mean, there are tonnes of other related stuff, like "A man will get the sexual power of a 100 men". All these related hadiths should infact be mentioned in this article because they all relate to sex in the Islamic heaven. --Matt57 13:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The actual hadith is nice to have, but the real issue I'm trying to get at is sociological not theological. Saying "this is in some holy text somewhere" doesn't tell you anything whatsoever about how actual believers interpret (or interpret away) that text. Since the major use of the "72 virgins" story in English-speaking countries is as a factual claim about the motivation of suicide bombers, the real question is how sociologically accurate it is. Elliotreed 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point- you want to know if there are real scholars and Muslims believing in this. You could read this. The main link to the Sheikh is not working. As i said, the suicide bombers are already motivated by the virgins. They know that Quran has promised them big breasted and dark eyed houris. The issue whether its 72 virgins, or 14 virgins, thats insignificant. You wont find Muslims openly ackowledging this hadith becuase this is an embarrassment factor for them obviously. I did some searches and I couldnt find Muslims or scholars talking about 72, but they did talk about virgins. I've added those links to the ext section. So I guess an answer to your question: Do we know of any scholars or Muslims talking about the 72 number? I dont know of any. Does the hadith exist? Yes. Also, there are tonnes and tonnes of hadith. Some muslims reject hadith outrightly. Some accept a few, so its very variable. Remember again, the issue is only of the number. Virgins have been mentioned as sexual rewards for men in the Quran. --Matt57 23:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have sourced some of the article now and removed the OR. --Matt57 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a book called "Jihad: From Qur'an to Bin Laden" by Richard Bonney. Primarily, he discusses the claim on page 41. I previously added a note about the questionable nature of this statement, but it was disagreed with. Anyways, Here are some excerpts from the book:

“ Operating on the other side, in resticting the claims made by warlike interpreters of jihad in modern times, is the dubious case resting on the Qur'anic commentary of Ibn Kathir and the Sunan of Imam al-Tirmidhi...that the martyr for the cause of Allah would be reward in Paradise with 72 'black eyed virgins' ”
“ Because it is contained in one of the six or seven canonical books, it does not follow that the tradition is correct. ”
“ ...in other respects this story contradicts the accepted teaching of the Prophet. Accordinging to this teaching, the martyr should not be seeking higher reward while fighting in the way of Allah, but be pure in motivation ”
“ The definitive answer answer to the false hadith of the 72 black eyed virgins...is to be found in the hadith qudsi...Proximity to God, not worldly physical pleasure, has to be the main reawrd forh te martyr. ”

However, this article should not be dismissed, as the author also notes that many imams still use the story to encite emotions and evoke responses from gullible Muslims. I definitely think article could be improved. Please respond with any questions/issues.Smooth0707 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I removed those lines is that I thought it was OR. You can insert them again but this time insert the refs so its sourced, e.g. say "R.B comments that .. blah blah". --Matt57(Talk•Contribs) 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have removed most of the article.

It was horribly POV, and citing the Qur'an (which is a primary source) is a major no-no.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I think this was a horrible edit. The article cited sources and explained the concept. Yes it sorted the Qur'an, just as in explaining a concept of Christianity you would cite verses in the Bible, no? Metzby 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No. This is per WP:RS.

  • A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, court records, or other documents produced by a participant in an event, or an observer of an event. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source because experts have the resources required for interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research.

The Qur'an is a primary source, and interpreting it, as it was portrayed in the article, is Original research.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a comment based on a question raised at WP:RS... Simply quoting a translation of the Qur'an is perfectly acceptable according to RS (use a standard, reliable translation) ... however, drawing or stating a conclusion based upon that quote would not be acceptable (it would be OR). If you wish to draw conculsions about what a given passage means, you need to cite (and probably quote) a reliable secondary source that interprets the passage and draws the same conclusions as you with to include in the article. Blueboar 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
So please explain to me how interpreting a passage of the Quran as saying "big breasts", when it does not explicitly say that, is ok in this article. And for others who are reading this, please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Quoting_religious_sources.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article says the Qur'an does say that. So either remove those specific references by showing that the references are inaccurate, or do not delete it. But deleting articles wholesale is very annoying. Metzby 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the whole of the article because it is a gross violation of WP:NOR. Some of the references were used to create a synthesis, so even though they may be legitimate, they were useless and thus I removed them.--Kirby♥time 05:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what reference was used to make a synthesis and in what way? And why did you delete the whole page instead of just dealing with those specific reference? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Simple: None of those quotes of the Quran refer to "martyrs", which according to WP:MOSISLAM is a word to avoid.--Kirby♥time 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I got rid of the problematic sentence. My replacement isn't perfect, but can we stop deleting the whole article please? It is better to fix then delete. I would also point out that both of you are getting close to violating the 3-revert rule. So, can we calm down a bit? SirBob42 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence from the Qur'an section:
In one of the passages of the Koran, it is said the martyrs and virgins shall "delight themselves, reclining on green cushions and beautiful carpets"
is original research at best and a fabrication at worst. That quote does not exist anywhere in the cited verse/chapter - martyr is not mentioned in the whole chapter. Please fix to ensure it meets WP:V and WP:OR if possible, else it should be removed.
→ Aktar (talk • contribs) — 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the passage does not mention martyrs, but it does mention virgins reclining on green cushions and rich carpets, so only the martyrs part is unsubstantiated. Deleting the rest of the quote is unnecessary . SirBob42 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The actual quote given within quotation marks:
"delight themselves, reclining on green cushions and beautiful carpets"
does not appear in the verse which is why I've removed it. There may be an interpretation that that is what is meant but that would be treading on WP:ORs toes. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Story

Several problems with this section. First of all, it is nearly identical to a passage in the USA today story, I don't think that is a problem, but I'm not a rules expert.

Secondly, the first sentence has no support that is not OR. The link goes to a USA today story. As far as I can tell the reporter is interpreting what the Qur’an means, as he provide no sources. I would hardly believe a reporter that has committed plagiary can be considered a Qur’anic expert. The passages of the Qur’an that are cited say nothing about 72 or 14 any other number of virgins. SirBob42 23:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Quran doesnt mention the number of virgins, it just describes them and says there will be more than one (plural). Its the hadith which specify the number. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The following sentence warrants a citation other than (or in addition to) the USAToday article:
"Since the time of Mohammed, martyrs have always been considered those willing to die defending Islam."
If the statement is true, there should be plenty of sources available. On the otherhand it could be a fabrication by Jack Kelley.
→ Aktar (talk • contribs) — 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The citation is already there. (ref). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a source other than the USAToday article which cannot be considered a reliable source since it was proven that the reporter had fabricated various articles including the one cited:
"a team of journalists found strong evidence that former USA TODAY reporter Jack Kelley fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories"
As the assertion is "Since the time of Mohammed", there has to be other sources which can be used to verify its authenticity. If not, then the sentence must be removed. Please add a different citation. Thanks. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is such a common belief in Islam, finding another citation shouldnt be hard. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Please re-phrase and add from a different source as this was a word for word copy from a copyrighted USAToday article. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Ibn Kathir should me more prominent, who is Aziz, and the intro is clearly in need of serious editing. Arrow740 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Nydell[1] criticizes the popularization of this "obscure passage in the Qur'an" by Westerners, saying that the interpretation placed upon the passage is "quaint", "lurid", and "provocative". She notes a brochure produced by the Institute of Islamic Education which states that "The promise of '70 or 72 virgins' is fiction written by some anti-Islam bigots.". She states that mainstream Muslims regard this belief about 72 virgins in the same way that mainstream Christians regard the belief that after death they will be issued with wings and a harp, and walk on clouds.

It's not clear why this straw-man argument belongs in the article. Similarly, no argument has been made regarding the author of this response to an argument that is never made, or the section itself:

Aziz[2] notes the widespread use of this saying on web sites and elsewhere for the purposes, in his view, of "ridicule and mockery", to which he makes several counterpoints. First, he notes that the term "virgin" is used symbolically, not literally, in the Qur'an, pointing out that such usage is also common in the texts of Judaism and Christianity. (He notes as examples Jeremiah 31 and Amos 3 in the Bible, which describe the nation of Israel as a "virgin".) He argues that virgin girls for the sexual pleasure of men is thus "obviously" not meant by the text. Second, he points out that later in the very same text from Tirmidhi there is a discussion of the "seventy and something gates" of faith, and argues that it is those that are represented in the next life as maidens. Third, he points out that whilst the web sites and others talk of "72 virgins", the text actually talks of 72 wives. He makes a further point that elsewhere in the same text from Tirmidhi an explanation of the meaning of "virgins" in paradise, verses 56:35–37 of the Qur'an talking of "virgins, loving, equals in age"1, is given by Muhammad, who explains that women enter paradise as "a new creation" and are thus restored to youth and virginity. He states that there is "no question of sexual relations in the next life as that life is not physical life which requires such relations", and that the resurrection of women as virgins is a spiritual representation of purity.

Arrow740 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Your edit was wholly unproductive and I've reverted it. If you had read this talk page, you would have seen that the dispute here is about original research, with editors performing their own analyses of primary sources, rather than summarizing existing published analyses. Removing sourced analysis, under the self-evidently (given the citations embedded in the very text that you copied and pasted) bogus heading of "sources", is not a step towards improving the encyclopaedia, nor is it a step towards replacing original research with sourced content. By removing sourced content you are working backwards, and actually hindering the improvement of the article, not helping it. To help improve the article, you can start by familiarizing yourself with the debate that surrounds this subject, by finding and reading sources on the subject. That you are not familiar with the debate is evident from the fact that you don't understand what Aziz is responding to. That is not, however, a fault in the article. The fault in the article is that we need more content, in addition to the above, not the removal of the sourced analyses that we have managed to find and summarize so far. Uncle G 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just reverted you again. Please stop these unproductive removals of sourced content, that are based upon solely your own lack of understanding of the debate surrounding the subject. You are not contributing positively to the writing of an encyclopaedia. Again: Go and read the sources. Uncle G 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It is your understanding of WP:RS that is at issue here. The burden is on you to prove that your sources are reliable. Further, without including the viewpoints your sources are responding to the article advances the POV of your sources. Until some semblance of balance can be reached the straw-man arguments should not be included. Arrow740 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The burden that is on me is to cite sources, as I have. There was nothing said above about reliability of sources, although it is patently obvious that books published by scholars are more reliable than Geocities web pages written by pseudonymous authors.

        Moreover, it is you, not others, who is advancing a single point of view. I added three distinct points of view and left the neutrality notice in, knowing from the sources that the article was not yet comprehensive and that there were more points of view to include and further work to be done. Whilst claiming to be making the article neutral, you actually removed all bar one of the points of view — Luxenberg's. To speak of balance when one is making edits like that is self-contradictory. You didn't make the article neutral. You did exactly the reverse and made it grossly unbalanced. I've pointed out above that you are working backwards, by removing sourced material. You are also working backwards by increasing an article's non-neutrality, in the face of editors who are working to decrease it, by finding, reading, citing, and using sources. I've asked you once already to contribute positively to the writing of an encyclopaedia by going and reading sources on this subject. You can add in the points of view that are missing. However, all of your edits so far have been entirely negative contributions, that are working away from sourced content and neutrality. If you are unprepared to do positive work, please stop damaging, by continually erasing, the progress made so far by editors who are prepared to do the work of finding, reading, and using sources to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the various points of view on a subject. Stop working backwards.

        If you don't understand how it is possible for an article to gradually evolve by adding coverage of the various points of view on a subject, then please read our Wikipedia:Editing policy. Uncle G 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

        • UncleG, I dont know if I can take this Nydell seriously, if she takes an Islamic brochure seriously that says "The promise of '70 or 72 virgins' is fiction written by some anti-Islam bigots", but anyway, I'd be interested to know what other viewpoints you bring for this article. Thanks for contributing to this article and bringing in more viewpoints. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not up to us, as encyclopaedists, to reject points of view in a debate such as this because we personally disagree with them. Nor is it up to us to construct never-before-published critiques of those points of view. Nydell is representative of one of what appear to be at least five significant factions in this debate, from the sources that I've managed to read so far. Her viewpoint, that "72 virgins" is in the same league as harps, wings, and clouds, is one. It can be found echoed in several other sources. Luxenberg's is another, and one that is mentioned by a significant number of people, despite scholars completely disagreeing with the argument about Aramaic precursors to the Qur'an that is its basis. (The irony of Arrow740's pushing of this one sole view, by editing out all of the others and leaving it alone, is that it is the one that is least supported.) Aziz's is the view of another faction, who argue from exegesis. The fourth, which is the most difficult to source because very few people have actually explicitly articulated it in depth, rather than simply assuming outright it as a basis for their arguments about Muslims, is the view held by some Western commentators, namely that Islam contains a literal promise of "sex with 72 virgins" in paradise. The fifth, and perhaps must unusual, view is the one put forward about how Muslim women regard this idea, which the one source that I've found thus far regards as a very male-centric view of paradise. As I said before, the article isn't yet neutral. Which is why I left the original neutrality tag on, and have just reverted Arrow740's second removal of it. Uncle G 23:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Luxenberg's work is a reliable source. I'm asking you to say why the other two are, and then add them if they can be balanced. Arrow740 00:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
              • The other two are just as reliable, and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Your talk page discussion speaks of reliable sources. Your actual edits, however, have been to remove all points of view except one, and to remove reliably sourced content. You are not making a positive contribution towards writing an encyclopaedia article. If you are truly interested in what the sources are, then use the citations provided. That's what they are there for. Uncle G 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Uncle G, thanks. I think what we're missing is the opinions of some scholars of Islam stressing that it really is a reference to the virgins. I've added a quotation from the 14 year old suicide bomber where he makes a mention of the virgins. Arrow, I agree with Uncle-G that we should leave in different viewpoints for the virgins as long as they're sourced. We'll find all the various viewpoints we want to include in the article.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Actually, we're missing the fourth and fifth in my list above. Uncle G 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Uncle G, your additions are in completely the wrong place. They do not belong in the introduction, but instead a section, maybe entitled alternative poitns of vivew. I don't see what is added by the presence of a source that is rejected by, as near as I can tel, everyone mentioned. Your viewpoints would be easier to acceptp if they were in the proper place in the article and the proper proportion of text in the article to the importance of alternative viewpoints.
That's true. Also, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include material. If the sources are reliable, prove it. Arrow740 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The lead section is a little long now. Its nice to have those viewpoints but they should be in their own sections e.g. "Interpretations" or something.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, I have found it useful to discuss changes first - especially before reverting the majority of the article again. This point has been discussed by yourself above and if you still need to be satisfied as to its viability within the article please continue the discussion. Your comment in the reversion states:

"Believe it or not, a linguist citing a brochure is not a reliable source for Islamic studies. Further, indicate on the talk why Aziz' book is a reliable source for Islamic studies. It's called WP:RS"

Have you looked up the 'brochure'? I would recommend reading up on the material from a NPOV perspective. Nydell is widely recognised in this field with publications dating back nearly 20 years. Here is what the Amazon reviews of her book have to say:

"For [more than] 15 years, Margaret Nydell’s Understanding Arabs has been used by countless Americans preparing to work or live in the Arab World. It is a unique source; there is nothing like it. Written with wit as well as seriousness, it provides a sound cultural appreciation as well as basic data on the region. Her personal message regarding the tragic events of September 11 should be required reading by all who make decisions or write commentary on the Arab world." —Max L. Gross, Joint Military Intelligence College

"Among other things the events of September 11 dramatized our ignorance as Americans about Arabs and Islam. This book helps to fill that void by exploring the enormous misconceptions we hold about each other. A must book for all!" —Alvino E. Fantini, Former President, SIETAR International Senior Faculty, School for International Training, Brattleboro, VT

If you still have reservations about Nydell being a reliable source please discuss here. Thanks. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

She has a PhD and teaches at Georgetown. This is an excellent source. Good job, Aktar. Elijahmeeks 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think, though, that you need to add "Highly esteemed" and I also feel this article is in desperate need of a well-written introduction. An unhelpful opening sentence followed by a quick quote of hadith is bad, bad, bad. Elijahmeeks 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree - it could do with a better opener but probably best done once all the objections to various content have been addressed. The "highly-esteemed" phrase could probably go - added to emphasise reliability of Nydell as a source. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AktarAhmed, I don't want to have to keep writing it. If Nydell and Aziz can be shown to be reliable sources as per WP:RS, do it. The burden is on the editor who wishes to add material. Arrow740 03:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Being popular doesn't make one a reliable source. Karen Armstrong comes to mind as an example of someone we should not rely on. Please indicate why Nydell is a reliable source for Islamic Studies, that is, the study of Islam. It's not clear she's qualified to discuss the status of this hadith relative to other medieval Islamic literature. The same goes for Aziz. Arrow740 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fristly, Nydell is giving her viewpoint directly on the 72 virgins issue (just as Hussam Abdo is - although she's more qualified than Hussam Abdo to do so).
If we then look at the criteria:
1. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy"
2. "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers".
3. The viewpoints are exact that - viewpoints (and labelled as such) and very relevant for the article since the whole issue is around the interpretation of the hadith. There has been no claim of her being a reliable source because she's "popular".
Finally, thanks for continuing the discussion - it is beneficial for the article to have these discussions first. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Abdo is being used as a source only for his own understanding of the concept, which is relevant because it was part of his motivation as an aspiring mass murderer. You're missing the point of my argument about Nydell and Aziz. They may have qualifications, but do not appear to have qualifications in the relevant area. I'm talking about people like Bernard Lewis, Montgomery Watt, Norman Stillman, F.E. Peters, Patricia Crone, John Wansborough, and others. These are scholars of Islam, not modern Arab culture. Arrow740 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
She's one of those people, Arrow, a scholar of Islam. She teaches Islamic studies, she writes about Islam, and her academic peers respect her enough that her work continues to be published and she's been given a job at a prestigious university. Reliable Sourcing on Wikipedia is nascent, and I think effort is better spent weeding out the obviously unreliable sources (Like the ten thousand Cottage Islamic Hadith sites) than arguing the particular cv of a particular scholar. Elijahmeeks 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no evidence of that. The page on her at Georgetown makes her out to have absolutely no training or even teaching experience in Islamic studies. We have someone whose area is a language telling us what parts of the Qur'an are "obscure" (a ludicrous statement that shows she knows little about the status of the Qur'an in Muslim thought) and quoting to use from dubious brochures. This is a joke. Further she is portrayed as responding to polemicists not fairly represented in the article itself. I'm taking this out, and I'm still waiting for something on Aziz. Arrow740 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, with respect, you're also missing the point. Firstly, what more did you expect from the bio link of Nydell at her University? It lists her position at Georgetown. Just because it does not refer to her expertise outside of her current teaching role does not mean she does not have any. For this, you have to look at her peers etc. as Elijameeks has mentioned. I have already cited two quotes and had hoped you'd at least go and read up on the rest instead of pushing you're personal POV. She is a scholar of Islam and I have gone out of my way to prove to you as such. Here is another quote which mentions the word scholar

"Middle East specialists have long relied on their worn copies of Understanding Arabs for insights about Arab social behavior. A whole generation of U.S. diplomats were introduced to the subject by Dr. Nydell. In this concise and practical guide, she shares her wealth of scholarly and real-world experience, and she does so without the psycho-babble that too often dominates other surveys of the subject." —Ambassador David L. Mack, Vice President, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.

If you wish to continue the argument, then you must now prove your POV from another reliable source which shows Nydell to be unreliable. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"She is a scholar of Islam and I have gone out of my way to prove to you as such." I guess you don't understand the difference between studying current "Arab social behavior" and studying medieval Islamic texts, because you have demonstrated no credentials in the ares of Islamic Studies. Just understand that they are in fact very different. What is my POV, anyway? That WP:RS and WP:NPOV are good things? Yes, that's right. Arrow740 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, much of this article is pertinent in regard to modern Arab social behavior. Her book, "Understanding Arabs, fourth edition" is not a textbook on Arabic. The best way for you to argue this point is to remove yourself from it. Right now, you are making an argument that she is incorrect and unqualified. You, however, are not qualified to make this judgment. Other scholars are. So cite other scholars that disagree with her assertions and your edits will be better received. I don't know if her argument is part of a mainstream scholarly movement or the lone theory of one scholar, and the best way for you, a lay observer, to convince me, another lay observer, is to cite other scholarly sources that state otherwise. I think your current edit, by the way, is a fine edit. You've also raised an important distinction--between modern Muslim belief and medieval and classical Muslim belief. It is likely that the view of this topic has changed over time following a historic continuum. By all means, research and demonstrate this. I would love to know about it. Also, keep in mind that linguists dealing with Arabic are often considered qualified to write articles on Islam, as their studies have provided them with exposure to modern and classical Islamic texts and commentary. Elijahmeeks 03:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that she is incorrect. However, the basis on which I have removed some of the material cited to her is that you and the others haven't proven that she has the credentials necessary to be cited here on the topic of Islam. The medieval texts I'm referring to are the hadith collections, though of course the sex partners are also mentioned in the Qur'an itself. Now, what are Aziz' qualifications to analyze the source Islamic texts? Arrow740 05:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A "booklet" published by a proselytization group and written by an author of unknown training is not a reliable source. Please indicate that he has a PhD in a relevant field or remove the material cited to him. Arrow740 05:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, you are the lone voice putting forward your personal POV. You are arguing that Nydell is not a realiable source but by your own actions you have proven that you are happy to accept Nydell as a source but have still gone on to make tendentious edits to skew the article towards your POV. I suggest you make your arguments here and not revert completely valid text. I am happy to agree with your assertion provided you can verify it from a reliable source. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not putting forth a POV. I'm saying that the POV you're quoting does not come from a reliable source. More importantly, I'm saying that you have not made any attempt to show that your source is a reliable source for the study of Islam. The burden of proof is on you to do that. Do you understand? Arrow740 06:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
you have not made any attempt to show that your source is a reliable source. Please read my many proofs above and also WP:RS. You can't just say "the burden of proof is you" when I have clearly demonstrated why she is qualified without making any attempts to show why she isn't. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's take this one step at a time. Tell me specifically what you think she is qualified to do. Arrow740 06:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, I see you've reverted the Nydell paragraph to your previous version but you've not removed it. As you've removed the disputed and NPOV tags do I take it that you are happy to include the paragraph as it is and accept the Nydell is a source that is valid in this context? → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 09:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hadith quote

I have added a clarification of the hadith which is based on fact. Please discuss here before reverting. Thanks. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was getting to the explanation SirBob42 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reference about the hadith having no isnad because, as far as I can tell, it does. The beginning of the text says : "It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham ‘Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad", which looks like an isnad (albeit a very short one) to me. Also, Bukhari and Muslim's collections are by no means definitive. SirBob42 12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Meant to say reliable isnad. Will research before updating. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys cannot say yourself that this hadith is duaf or what not. You have to provide references. See WP:OR. You cant put in your own opinions here.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't an opinion about accuracy, it is am isnad with only 3 steps from the Prophet! However, I paid attention and realized that the reference says that the hadith is from Sunan_al-Tirmidhi, which is not a da'if collection by a long shot. It is part of the sunni hadith canon. So, I'm just going to fix that reference. SirBob42 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever it is - you cannot put in your own opinions, assertions or conclusions or ideas. It has to be somoene notable from a book or article or something. You or me are no one to declare a certain hadith "weak". It has to be referenced. Know what I mean? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The skepdic reference clearly says it is hearsay four times removed.--Kirby♥time 11:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

kirby, first, Skepdic did not say that it IS heresay; it said "it sounds like". Second, is Skepdic an Islamic scholar? Third, I did no see you support the other quotes from Skepdic. We can include those if you want: "Many Muslims and non-Muslims alike believe that terrorists who commit murder and suicide in the name of Islam commit their sins in order to gain instant admission to heaven, where they will enjoy many houris. ". Sorry, the hadith is a valid source for learning about Islam and it will stay in this article. I have a lot more planned for article and I look forward to your cooperation. I understand you have great regard for your faith but that should not prevent you from improving this article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Sounds like hearsay"? It is hearsay per the definition of hearsay. Skepdic is not an Islamic scholar, and I never once made the claim that it is one. It is a primary source, since it is currently being used to quote the Hadith. Also, including a non-notable quote containing weasel words is hardly in good form. And finally, as an atheist, I don't have any faith. --Kirby♥time 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
kirby, I've removed the Skepdic source and put in real stronger sources. Thanks to your feedback, this article is improving. Let me know how else we can improve this article. During my research for finding a better source, I discovered a new author on Islam who seems to be popular. Can you now explain in the section below why you think the quote from Hussam is not notable? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote from Hussam Abdo

Kirbytime, you removed the quote, not the hadith. How is Hussam Abdo not notable? He has an article on his own. Remember you also have admins editing this article. Dont removed relevant sourced text repeatedly. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You're basicly saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You still haven't shown why it is notable enough to be included in this article. The burden of proof is on you.--Kirby♥time 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Other crap exists? When did I imply that? This is a notable person which is WHY he has his OWN article. This quote has been mentioned in the media multiple number of times. Here is the proof. More sources: [1], [2], [3], abstract from original news source and ofcourse BBC --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The Abdo quote is definitely notable and is relevant to this article. It mentions the 72 virgins belief directly. The quote serves to show how this "belief" is used to motivate/manipulate people. SirBob42 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that moving the quote to the refrence section is incorrect. It is long and complex enoulgh to merit it's own section. Is there any consensus?SirBob42 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the quote deserves its own prominent place in this article. There have been some recent attempts to "smooth over" the information which I dont agree with. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't deserve a prominent place in the article. It's one mentally-challenged boy. This is a concept that has spanned 1200 years. I'm the one who said that Abdo wasn't notable over on his page and I don't think he is--but that argument should be over on the Abdo talk page. Having a big blockquote from him here isn't encyclopedic, it's sensationalistic. Of course I paraphrased it and referenced it, that's what you're supposed to do with this information. This isn't a conspiracy, this isn't censorship, it's an attempt to present a source of information that is unbiased and educates the lay observer. You'll notice I do the same thing with hadith or quotes from these tiny Islamic websites with no provenance. Elijahmeeks 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Intro

It's rough and messy and possibly inflammatory, but I couldn't do anything better. Still, it should follow a format similar to this, wherein we summarize the major points and the outstanding issues. Elijahmeeks 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What is/was inflammatory? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

Why exactly does this article exist given that there's already an article on the same subject under the title Houri? "72 Virgins" may be recognizable to people in the West, but most Muslims would only recognize this concept as "Houris" or "Al-Hour el-Een". Slacker 05:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that a merge makes sense. Elijahmeeks 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Once it's stable. Arrow740 06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, heck, let's take the instability with us. Those poor folks over at talk:Houris won't know what hit 'em. Elijahmeeks 06:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, but only merge the parts of the article sourced to reliable sources. Arrow740 07:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A merge is not necessary. 72 virgins is a separate term that deserves its own mention. People talk about this term all the time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When two terms talk about the same thing, they're usually merged into one article. Otherwise, why don't we create a seperate article for "Mohammedanism"? The number "72" is but a minor footnote in this topic and only gained prominence as a Western short-hand and as a device for caricaturing Islamic militancy. This article is not talking about this term or its uses, but instead, it's talking about Houris in Islam, and therefore it should be merged into that article. Slacker 12:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Merge does seem to be in order. Just read the Houris article and if you take out everything here that's covered more or less verbatim in the Houris article, you're not left with much. A merge and redirect would be appropriate. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"72 Virgins" may be recognizable to people in the West, but most Muslims would only recognize this concept as "Houris" or "Al-Hour el-Een". Only 20% of the world is Muslim. The rest of the world knows the term "72 virgins", more than "Houri". Lets redirect Houri here. People search 72 virgins more than "houri". The redirect to Houri will confuse them. As I said this is a notable term that deserves its own article. Mohamaddisim and Islam are incompatible examples - people talk about Islam much more than Mohammedisim. People talk about 72 virgins more than Houri, and therefore, a merge of Houri to 72 virgins would be appropriate. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The redirect to Houri will not confuse them, it will educate them. If we redirected Houri to here, then we'd be preferencing a colloquial expression over a more accurate and encompassing intellectual term, which does not seem very encyclopedic. Elijahmeeks 15:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, it's rather bold of you to presume to speak for "the rest of the world". The truth is, for all we know, the "rest of the world" here means those Americans and Europeans who know a little bit about Islam or listen to the news more than average (far less than 20% of the world). Second, not only is it colloquial, but it's very recent as well. You may want to create an article on the term "72 Virgins" and its usages in the Western media if you want (since it's essentially Western termniology), but to title the page "72 Virgins" and then have it speak about the Islamic concept of Houris is without merit. Slacker 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the education benefits mentioned above, but I am hesitant to support a merge. This is because most of the Houri article is difficult to read and not accessible to people that are not familiar with Islam. On the other hand, 72 virgins is concise and easy to understand. For a merge to be a good idea, the Houri article would have to be improved quite a bit.
I think that Matt57 is correct that more people will search an English language wikipedia for “72 Virgins” then “Houri”. Perhaps the 72 virgins article can be changed into a article about the western view of the idea and the Houri article can be improved with the material that is in 72 virgins currently. SirBob42 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support merge, unless the subject of this article shifts to discuss the actual use of the term by polemicists.--Kirby♥time 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to support a merge, I agree with the education benefits mentioed above, the —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirBob42 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Straw poll

Poll initiated: 27 April 2007 17:47
Is it right to have a straw poll for a merge? Based on above discussions, I gather the following (please update if it is incorrect or you have since changed your view):

For

Against

Neutral

  • Sefringle

Do we have a consensus for the merge? The only sections needed to be carried over are the Interpretations and "Notable uses of the term". The rest are already covered in detail in the Houri article. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 16:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be an accurate list, and I think this has been an open discussion for long enough to cover due diligence. Elijahmeeks 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A merge has to be open for 5 or 10 days. Are you guys reading the policies? Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah OK - didn't know about that one. Cheers. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very much a case of WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. What purpose will keeping it open serve?--Kirby♥time 07:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The redirect for 72 virgins, a concept that people might want to find out about, now points to a page that does not mentioni the number 72. This is unacceptable, considering that the merge must wait for at least 5 days by any reading. This redirect shoudl be reverted until we can get the articles and consensus into a state that will benefit users as well as following guidelines. 69.203.21.93 08:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The number 72 is in fact mentioned twice in that article. It will be obvious from the redirect itself that the number 72 that they wish to learn about refers to "Houris". Slacker 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Straw polls results of such straw polls are not binding. Shyamsunder 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
All, I think there is consensus here for a merge but I think the proper way to do it would be to update the Houri article so there is a section titled "72 Virgins" where the relevant portions of this article are copyedited across and then we can do a redirect. Does anyone see a problem with this approach? → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 10:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have done a first pass at this. Hope this will be satisfactory to all. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for statement in lead that Jihadists use this concept

I have of course heard that Jihadists use this concept, but at present there is no source for the claim (and therefore little rationale for the article). Look at reference 1), please. The normally reliable BBC and Jerusalem Post are both name-checked (although if the Jerusalem Post article is available there is no need to reference the BBC). But the statement supposedly referenced was not made by a news journalist at all, but by a 14 year old boy under conditions of extreme stress. The BBC report refers to descriptions of him as "mentally challenged" and "a frightened child". Does this come anywhere close to a reliable source for the statement that Jihadists use the 72-virgin idea as a motivation? Anywhere remotely close? Itsmejudith 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, what's more the BBC doesn't say that its journalists heard him make the statement or that the Jerusalem Post journalists did, but that he made the statement "to his captors". The BBC has it at third hand, no less. Itsmejudith 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • 72 virgins is clearly a religious motivation. The hadith says that itself. Do what you want to do, e.g. if you think a specific line is OR or invalid, remove it. We'll find more sources that confirm this motivation. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking at the BBC page again, I notice it's from their monitoring department, so is basically a rehash from Israeli media. Furthermore, the attribution is "The Post quoted Husam as saying his handlers had told him." So, they weren't even Hussam's own words. The vision I get is that his "handlers" were taunting him that the only way to have sex with 72 virgins is to blow himself up. In any case, there is no reliable source to warrant inclusion of this quote. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok so the censoring begins. It WAS Husam saying it. The quote is a real quote. Its mentioned on the BBC website. Why should it not be included? So what if its what he had been told that by his handlers? The fact is that BBC reported this and it is true. Can you bring any sources to support your claim that he did not say it? If not, please dont support its exclusion. Also the website also says: "It quotes the boy as telling his interrogators: "My teacher told me what was waiting for me in heaven so I decided to commit suicide."". His handlers means that they had told him he'd get the 72 virgins. When asked why he would blow himself up, he said that its because of the 72 virgins. I dont see a problem with this quote. What we are seeing a systematic censoring of information. First people tried to delete the quote saying its not relevant. Then they tried to streamline it so people dont notice it as before, first by moving it to a sentence instead of a quote and then moving it to the Reference section. Now you're trying to say he really didnt say it. Whats next, perhaps saying that BBC was not authorized to interview the boy etc.? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing that Hussam said it. But rather the context of the quote needs to be made clear if it is to be kept. I am not advocating censorship but trying to ensure the article remains factual. Indeed, I have not argued before that this quote should be removed, but in light of the facts surrounding it, which Itsmejudith has brought up, I am suggesting either it be removed or clarified. I would actually advocate keeping it as long as the source can be proved to be reliable. What we need to understand is that if "Person A told person B XYZ" and then "Person B tells the world that Person A told me XYZ" it does not infer that "Person B said XYZ". As long as this is understood and clarified, that's fine by me. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The source is reliable: BBC. You wont have BBC and Encyclopedia Britanicca going back to interview the boy in front of a live audience to make sure he really said that. The fact is, the quote has been reported by BBC - that is it. If you want to clarify that "Handlers told BBC that he had said this", or whatever - go ahead. Also take it out of the Reference section where it has conveniently been hidden and put it back in a more prominent position if you can. This quote deserves attention. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)