Template talk:WivesMuhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suggest that we change this template a little. I think it should be wider and then we should organize the names by the time of their marriage to the prophet and put the years there. It's easy for someone to figure out the alphabetical order but one would get more information from this if it showed when they were married and the order. Or so I think gren 17:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) Order of marriage?

  • Khadijah-tul-Kubrah
  • Sawda bint Zam'a
  • Aisha Siddiqa
  • Hafsah bint U'mar
  • Zaynab bint Khuzayma
  • Salama bint Umayya
  • Zanyab bint Jahsh
  • Juwayriya bint al-Harith
  • Habiba bint Sufyan
  • Safiyya bint Huyayy
  • Maymuna bint al-Harith
  • Maria al-Qibtiyya

Contents

[edit] Consorts

Will someone explain the change from wives to consorts? A consort is a broad term. Abu Bakr was a consort of Muhammad's. Is this vague for a reason? It's not only female consorts it's only consorts typically called wives as I can see... so we should likely clarify all of this. gren グレン 04:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Abu Bakr was a consort of Muhammad's" The word "consort" can be understood in the context of sexual relations. It is the context that determines the meaning of the word's usage. The context is clear in this case - Aby Bakr does not belong on the list of "Consorts of Muhammad." It's true that the word "consort" is vauge. The proper and appropriate word here is "harem." The explicit title is "Muhammad's harem." But since this has offended a number of editors (for whatever reason), the word euphamisticly non-explicit word "consort" is used. "Consort" is commonly used as a well-understood euphamism in the study of religions. --Zeno of Elea 03:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A consort is a 'broad' term indeed, wink wink :o) seriously, it means "wives and concubines" in this context. No, harem would not be the proper term at all, since "Muhammad's harem" could include his grandmother, his aunts, and his cousins, basically all the women he is responsible for (as opposed to those he has both responsible for, and has sexual relations with). dab (ᛏ) 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

I have changed the colors to match Template:Islam purple was for Christianity because it is Christian in nature (Easter colors) it should not be used here. As for consorts of wives there needs to be discussion on this... this template is called WivesMuhammad not ConsortsMuhammad. Please discuss why this should be consorts and not wives... I will be open to listening but it needs to be discussed here before you change it. gren グレン 21:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I change "wives" to "consorts" for the simple reason that they were not all wives. In addition to his countless wives, Muhammad also had at least one slave girl (please see Maria al-Qibtiyya). Thus "wives" is not accurate. "Consort" is a very generous phrasing. "Wives and concubines of Muhammad" would be more appropriate, but that was reverted by an anonymous user. "Consorts" does not generally mean what we mean in this case. Also, the marital status of some of other of Muhammad's wives is disputable. For example, one of Muhammad's "wives" was Safiyya bint Huyayy, a Jewess from the tribe of the Banu Nadir. The Banu Nadir were Jewish a tribe from Medina. One day Muhammad supposedly had a "revelation" telling him that the Banu Nadir were plotting to kill Muhammad. The Banu Nadir denied this, and there was admittedly no actual evidence (since Muhammad was relying on his "revelations"). Nevertheless, Muhammad expelled the Banu Nadir from their homes in Medina, and stole their property. The Banu Nadir then sought refuge in Khayber, a small Jewish town north of Medina. A few years later, Muhammad was expanding his empire and decided that he would take Khayber for himself. The Muslims besieged Khayber for days, until those Jews who survived the attack had to surrender to Muhammad. Khayber became the property of Muhammad, and its inhabitants became his indentured serfs. The most beautiful woman in Khayber was (allegedly) Safiyya bint Huyayy, whose husband the Muslims has killed during their attack on Khayber. Muhammad decided that wanted Safiyya bint Huyayy so he forced the weeping widow to become his "wife." Is that a legitimate marriage? Does this deserve the titles "husband" and "wife"? Apparently it does in Islamic culture, though it is clearly disputable. But I digress, we already have the case of Maria al-Qibtiyya who was a Christian Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt as a tribute to Muhammad when Muhammad threatened the Roman governor of Egypt with war and demanded that he convrt to Islam. Maria al-Qibtiyya was most certainly a slave, and the traditional Sunni belief is that Maria remained a slave and was not "married" to Muhammad. So "wives of Muhammad" is clearly inaccurate. --Zeno of Elea 10:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I was rushed when I wrote the above so now I have time to make another comment. Muhammad's marriages lists 12 wives. This list of "consorts" lists 13. Meaning that Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan was not put in the list on the marriages page yet is in the template. There should be consistency here and I don't know what exactly is the reason for this but it should be cleared up. gren グレン 02:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad had both wifes and concubines. A compromise wording may be "Women in Muhammads life" or something like that.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the title... I have done this because the ladies are linked on their pages and the template now implies that they are related but in which capacity it is not told. I also question why you went through such titles as Muhammads wives and sex slaves, Wives and Concubines of Muhammad, and Muhammads wives and right hand possessions -- I believe you might be more confused then any of us on this issue, except for the fact that you want it to have an appalling ring to it. In any case, we shall discuss this and I figure that hopefully this all can be dealt with. gren グレン 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the title should represent the facts as well as possible. Because Muhammads example inspired Muslims to accept and encourage sex slavery, it is historically relevant to include this information. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed Maria since she's the only one who's "wife" status is disputed, and I have restored the wives title.Heraclius 23:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
As long as some sources suggest that she might have been his wife, it's PoV to have list of wifes that exclude her. I restored the previous more accurate version. -- Karl Meier 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


What difference does it make. A consort is a spouse.. almost always to a Royal, wheras a Wife is a spouse almost always to a non-Royal.. thus.. considering Muhammad was not a royal, wife is the single logical option. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

dictionary.com says that the word has several meanings which include not only "wife" but also "a companion or partner", so I thought it was a nice way to get around the problem in a neutral way. Wives would in any case be PoV, so if you don't like "consorts", then what do you think about changing it to "harem"? -- Karl Meier 20:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED definition of "harem": "The occupants of a harem collectively; the female members of a Muslim family; esp. the wives and concubines collectively of a Turk, Persian, or Indian Muslim." -- Karl Meier 20:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Harem, from the Arabic for Forbidden.. yes.. what wonderful insight you have shown. Considering the wives of Muhammad lived seperately that idea is nonsensical. The only evidence to suggest that these were wives, at all, of Muhammad is the same for all, thus all should remain as wives. It makes no sense besides. If their is doubt, address it in the piece. --Irishpunktom\[[User_talk: |talk]] 21:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your pleasant and polite response, Irishpunktom. However, I don't think it matters what the word means in Arabic. This is the English Wikipedia and the only thing that should matter here is what the word means in English. Another thing is that I don't think, that the fact that his many wives/concubines lived in seperate houses matters, to what word should be used. "The wives and concubines collectively..." of Muhammad, can still be called a harem. Anyway, the "wives of" title is of course not acceptable. For instance: some sources suggest that Maria al-Qibtiyya was one of Muhammads wives while others suggest that she was only a concubine. So it would obviously be PoV if we choose a side in this debate, and call her a "wife" in the title of this template, or other hand choose the other side that argue that she was a concubine, by removing her from a "wives" template. If you and our anon friend don't like the word "harem", then maybe we could go back to "consorts"? Or maybe you could suggest a whole new NPoV title? -- Karl Meier 21:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

We're discussing the life and times of an Arab. This being an encyclopedia, historical accuracy trumps respecting the english definitions of words. The term Harem as used by the English is founded on orientalist fantasy regarding what went on in the houses of polygamous rich Arab men. The english word "Harem" does not refer to something that factually existed, but rather the mythical imageries and stereotypes derived from the minds of horny Western explorers, and is therefore inappropriate to be used in this article. There are other words that can be used. [[1]] Amibidhrohi 02:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


In english, and in Wikipedia, a harem is the place of a house where men are not supposed to go. It is an arabic word, so of course its meaning in Arabic is relevant.. what a ridiculous assertion!! The idea is absurd and seems to be motivated by your orientalist POV. Maria al-Qibtiyya is down as a wife because Muslim sources say she was a wife, and muslim sources are all we have to go on that the others were wives, it's that simple. --Irishpunktom\talk 23:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article that you linked to says: "In English, this term refers collectively to the wives in a polygynous household...", so that again makes it seems like a very appropiate title. It's true that word means something else in Arabic, but I still don't see why that should matter in the english version of Wikipedia. Regarding Maria al-Qibtiyya, some of the (Muslim) sources that are available suggest that she was his wife, while other suggest that she wasn't, so for us to choose a side in this debate would of course be PoV. Also, I don't know why you are making comments on what my PoVs might be. I don't think it matters to this discussion what PoVs that you or I might or might not hold, so let's stick to the topic and stop wasting time discussing each other. -- Karl Meier 08:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
How very strange.. it seems you and I read differently, for when I click on Harem I get : Harem may refer to the following things:
  • Harem, a part of the household forbidden to male strangers
  • Harem, a social organization of certain species
  • Harem, an anime or manga story wherein one male character is surrounded by — often living with — several female characters
  • Harem, a district in Istanbul, Turkey
It's also in a category called [Arabic words].. strange that. Muslim sources say that this woman was his wife. Can you give me a non-Muslim source that says A'isha was his wife? You can't have it both ways. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, we are (in this case) not interested in the district in Istanbul, the manga stories or the "social organization of certain species", so you should click on the first link, that point to this article: Harem (household). Also I don't know why you want me to give you non-Muslim sources that says that Aisha was the wife of Muhammad? My point here is that there is historical sources that indicate that Maria al-Qibtiyya was his wife, and there are other historical sources that indicate that she wasn't. It would be PoV if we choose one valid position above another valid position regarding this issue. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems like you consider my suggestions for a few seconds, before you reject and revert them Irishpunktom. Could you please explain what is wrong with the more vague term "consorts"? -- Karl Meier 11:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Wives seems much more straightforward to me than consorts, which as Tom says, has a royal ring to it. Do we know whether he went through any kind of ceremony with each of these women? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know they are considered by Muslims to wives, and since it would be a Muslims ceremony since it is (mostly) accepted by Muslims it would have to have fulfilled some typse of requirements. Surely another religion's marriage might not seem like a marraige to you... which seems to be what Karl, Zeno, et al. are arguing from. gren グレン 04:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd say that if the women were his wives in the eyes of Muslims, they were his wives for the purposes of this template. Marriage is only a custom, after all, and customs vary between cultures. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it back to wives. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
"I'd say that if the women were his wives in the eyes of Muslims, they were his wives for the purposes of this template." That is exactly the point, SlimVirgin. Historically, some of these women were not considered "WIVES" of Mohammad by MUSLIM scholars. One example is Maria al-Qibtiyya, who is not listed with Muhammad's wives by Ibn Hisham and other early Muslim scholars. There is at least one more such example. Therefore the use of the word "WIVES" in this tempalte is HIGHLY POV and hence UNACCEPTABLE. --Zeno of Elea 01:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Who are these other examples of women listed but are not wives? I can show you dozens, and If I chose to look probably hundreds of Muslim sources stating that Maria was a wife of Muhammad. Where does Ibn Hisham make such a statement.. Ibn Hisham was a reproducer of the work of Ibn ishaq, so this claim seems strange. Are you claiming such a Statement is made in the Surat Rasul Allah ?--Irishpunktom\talk 11:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
It does not matter who the other examples are. One example is sufficient. There is absolutely no doubt that at least some of the early Muslim sources portray Maria al-Qibtiyya as a Roman slave girl who was never freed or married in ceremony to Muhammad, as the Wikipedia article on Maria al-Qibtiyya fully documents. Therefore there is no universal argreement that each and every one of the women listed in this template were "WIVES" of Muhammad. The Qur'an explicitly allows men to have sex with wives and sex slaves. The Coptic slave girl Maria al-Qibtiyya is identified as Muhammad's sex slave, as opposed to his wife, by early Muslim sources and this is documented by modern academics cited in the article about Maria al-Qibtiyya. It is therefore indisputable that a dispute exists. By changing the more general word "consorts" to the specific word "wives" you are knowingly and openly pushing an extreme POV that is not universally accepted due to the aforementioned indisputable existance of a dispute on the matter. -- Zeno of Elea 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course it matters. you claim there are others, when i ask you to name them you can't. From this we can see that the dispute centres solely around Maria al-Qibtiyya. Maria al-Qibtiyya is referred to by most muslims, and every Islmic Text, both Modern and old, as his Wife. Now, you, tell me where exactly in any Muslim text where it says that Maria was not a wife? Ibn Hisham, you claim, made the statement, I don't think he did. Tell me exactly what he said, won't you? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
In "Sa’d, Ibn; Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" (Vol. I , II), Translated by S. Moinul Haq, M.A. Ph.D, Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Darayaganj, New Delhi 110002 (1972), on pages 564-565, the Muslim author writes, “Besides these, he [Muhammad] had two female slaves. The first was Mariyah the Coptic' (an Egyptian Christian), a gift from Al-Muqawqis, ruler of Egypt —she gave birth to his son Ibrahim, who died in Madinah while still child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 AH..i.e., January, 632 C.E. the second one was Rehana bint Zaid bin ‘Amir bin Khanafah bin Sham’un bin Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraizah. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu ‘Ubaidah spoke of two more slave girls, Jamilah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh .” This proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that several early and contemporary Muslim sources claim that Muhammad had sex slaves in addition to his wives (which is specifically allowed by Allah in the Qur'an). To change "consorts" of "wives" is therefore clearly unaccpetable POV pushing. -- Zeno of Elea 12:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Women said to be wives of Muhammad"

SlimVirgin has suggested changing "Consorts of Muhammad" to "Women said to be wives of Muhammad." This is also highly POV. AS I have proven above, beyond any doubt whatsoever, early and modern MUSLIM sources claim that some of the women listed here were Muhammad's concubines, not his wives. Consorts is a general word that can be understood to include both concubines and wives. If the word "wives" is explicitly mentioned, then in order to maintain NPOV the word "concubines" must ALSO be mentioned. Therefore SlimVirgin should have written, "Women said to be wives or concubines of Muhammad." But that title is too long, in my opinion. Of all the people removing the word "consorts," not a SINGLE one has bothered to explain WHY he or she is opposed to the word "consorts." -- 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, which of these women has no credible source whatsoever said was a wife of Muhammad? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not know of any credible source which asserts unequivocally that all of the women listed in this template, and others that may be missing from it, were all strictly wives of Muhammad could not possibly have been concubines, or Ma malakat aymanukum as the Qur'an calls them. My previous post above, quoting from a book in Arabic by a Muslim scholar, translated to English in India, documents the exact points of contention. It is up to you and your camp to prove that there IS such a credible source, it is not up to me to prove that no such credible source exists anywhere in the world. -- Zeno of Elea 00:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No, I think you misunderstood my query. I see lots of sources quoted on this page. My question was: are any of the women listed named by NO credible source as a wife? Because if each of the women is listed by at least one credible source, then "women said to be wives of Muhammad" is accurate. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No SlimVirgin, I did not minsunderstand your query. Perhaps you misunderstood my response. Once again you ar asking me if there are "NO credible sources..." Once again, I must say that I cannot prove the non-existance of a source, and that such a burden of proof does not fall on me anyway. Let us assume that there IS one credible source, as you have assumed (a highly questionable proposition). You claim that if there is one "credible" source claiming the "wives-only" POV, then "women said to be wives of Muhammad" is accurate. It is true that "women said to be wives of Muhammad" is accurate. However it is also accurate to say ""women said to be wives or concubines of Muhammad." Your version makes an important and obvious ommision of facts regarding a disputed topic. You are clearly pushing the "wives-only" POV with your title. The title "women said to be wives of Muhammad" means "women who are possibly wives of Muhammad or possibly not wives [and not related in any similar way]." Do you see the difference? I hope you do because it is quite trivial. This is not a simple matter of accuracy. The title "women said to be wives of Muhammad" is accurate because many fanatics and zealots insist that all of Muhammad's women were wives and none were slaves - this is understandable because sexual slavery is an international crime in modern society, creating a "difficulty" for Islam. However, just because it is accurate in a narrow sense does not mean that it is NPOV. This is similar to the statement "the truth and the WHOLE TRUTH." Why do you think they say "AND THE WHOLE TRUTH?" "Consorts of Muhammad" is NPOV and in fact is still bends towards the "wives-only" POV. Yet you are insisting on pushing a particular POV as far as possible. -- Zeno of Elea 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe the issue is with marriage being a social event and Islam creating a social system that marriage through a social system is arbitrary more or less. We have no rules for marriage as a whole. It doesn't need to mirror Christian marriage or Jewish or Hindu. All it needs is to be called marriage by the social group to be marriage. That is the issue. Also, hope you're having a better day than when you posted that. You seemed stressed. gren グレン 12:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"All it needs is to be called marriage by the social group to be marriage." The "social group" in question is Muslims (presumably). As it has been cited above, numerous times (over and over again), there are members of the Muslim "social group" who strongly believe that some of these women were not wives but, rather, they were slaves of Muhammad who were either captured in war or sent as tribute from another ruler, and forced into sexual slavery without any kind of ceremony. That this was the case is supported by the works of early Muslim historians, such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham. Several Western academic researchers also assert that Muhammad possesed sex slaves who were never married to Muhammad in any sort of ceremony (in the two cases of Rehana and Maria, the sources suggest that they were not married to Muhammad because they refused to do so). The concept of sexual slavery is found throughout the Qur'an and is widely accepted by Muslim scholars. You are entitled to your own POV, however you are not entitled to push your POV onto Wikipedia by unilaterly censoring such information. I must reiterate, once again, that it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that a long-standing dispute exists concerning the marital status of some of the women listed on this template, in relation to Muhammad. I hope your thoughts are clearer than they were when you posted that. You seemed confused. -- Zeno of Elea 03:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Your claims of censorship are really tiring. This is a template and, more specifically, a template title argument. I am not trying to delete well cited material but I am trying to come to a consensus on what is the proper title. The opinion does vary no doubt but I do feel that to an extent you are placing your view of marriage onto what it has been traditionally classified as in your decision. That is my opinion, but it is by no means censorship. A template is not a place for full fledged discussion and it should be portrayed in the most neutral way possible and should only be addressed when it can be addressed in full so as the bias of either side does not show. The issue, as I see it, is that none of the views definitively agree on what exactly they are and therefore pushing, "Ma malakat aymanukum" or "female slaves" into the title is a problem (also I think of those two it should be Ma malakat aymanukum since that deserves a full discussion as well). They do however agree on at least some of them being wives... no one really argues about Khadija... which is why I tend to think it's best to limit controversy in the title. I understand the neither is exactly ideal since a title cannot satisfy the need to portray the diversity of opinions. However, your chafing at the bit go get "slave" or "concubine" mentioned doesn't strike me as very encyclopedic. Of course, the problem is no other encyclopedia seems to have a section or heading from this. I should go to the library to check on the various Middle Eastern and Islamic encyclopedias to see what they use as a heading. It is a confusing subject, so yes, I am somewhat confused. Yet, I find this preferable to what I see as oversimplifying the subject in an attempt to further to one's personal views. gren グレン 18:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems very clear that things are being censored here. Now the names of Muhammads "right hand possessions"/"female slaves" is being deleted by revert warrior irishpunktom & his sockpuppet army, because "they" want to censor some historical facts, that "they" apparently find embarrasing. It looks like very heavy PoV pushing, what is currently going on here. Anyway, things shouldn't be that complicated. As Zeno pointed out, some Muslim sources says that atleast one of the females (Maria al-Qibtiyya) that Muhammad had sexual relations with was his wife, and other says that she was his slave. So to choose one source/position above another is clearly PoV, and we will need a more neutral title than "wifes". A varity of titles has been suggested, such as "consorts", "harem" and "wives and female slaves". The problem here is that irishpunktom think he can force his PoV version through by insisting and reverting, without discussing or presenting any arguments here on talk, but of course that won't work. I can promise him that. -- Karl Meier 19:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Who are IrishPunkTom's sock puppets? Apparently some people agree with him... but sockpuppets? You didn't really address what I was saying above. A diversity of opinion doesn't mean you choose either. Therefore wife isn't really correct and neither is wives and because adding only wives doesn't show the other view but showing both legitimizes the theory of both and debases the theory of them being wives... which is equally POV. I am not convinced that we need to find a way to get around that. Showing it as disputed is not really a way around that. I'd like to point out that both sides reverting would constitute being "revert warriors" and if you are going to make sock puppet accusations please also file an request for comment or some other type of administrative action. Else, it is pointless to mention. gren グレン 06:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
gren, you have just stated in no unclear terms that you prefer to push your POV than to give both POVs a place in the template, even with the "disputed" note. You admit that your "wives only" reverts are POV pushing but you say that you are "not convinced that we need to find a way to get around that." Well I AM convinced that we need to find a way to get around Muslim apologetic POV pushing in WIkipedia. -- Zeno of Elea 14:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
You will notice that I have not editted this template in some time. My original reverts were because of the arbitrary and controversial change without discussion and I stand by them. Had the established version been your way I would have reverted in your favor in the face of such changes. My contention is that adding "both POVs" as you say, is not adding both POVs. It is just adding yours. If you persist in misunderstanding what I say then this futile dialog will persist. But, thus is the nature of wikipedia. gren グレン 05:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"My contention is that adding "both POVs" as you say, is not adding both POVs. It is just adding yours." Well, gren, your contention is blatently absurd. You haven't even bothered to explain why you have this contention. It is just your ridiculous contention therefore it becomes Gospel? Or what? I say that including all points of view is NPOV. You claim that including all points of view is POV (!) and that including only one extreme point of view is actually NPOV (!). Who do you think you're going to convince with such illogical arguments? -- Zeno of Elea 23:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I will waste my breath by giving you an example of what I mean. You will surely dislike it but, it happens. Some people believe in science, some in God, and some in both. So, we could have a header saying "The truth of science", the "The truth of God" or "The truths of science and God". Now, none of them are exactly NPOV, and just because the third represents both points of view it is by no means neutral. I fail to see how what you want is any different. Shoot away. gren グレン 11:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
This is nothing but a straw-man argument. It doesn't make any sense and has no evident relevance to wikipedia whatsoever. If you are going to cite examples of other content disputes as precedents then you are better off citing actual content disputes and not absurdities concoted in your imagination. -- Zeno of Elea 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, it seems to me that you're the one pushing the POV here. So far as I can tell, these women are regarded as wives of Muhammad by Muslim scholars, though with some dissenting voices regarding some of them. Regardless, this is just a template, and people can go into more detail in the articles. You seem to want to highlight the view that at least one of the women had been a slave, and you think this needs to be highlighted because Muslims are uncomfortable with it. But so what that she had been a slave? How does that affect current views on Islam, one way or the other? Also, all these women would be regarded nowadays as his wives in, at the very least, a common-law sense in all English-speaking countries so far as I know, and this is the English WP. I think we should stick to "wives of ..." or "women known as wives of ..." and then you can provide sources for the points you want to make in the articles themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"So far as I can tell, these women are regarded as wives of Muhammad by Muslim scholars, though with some dissenting voices regarding some of them. Regardless, this is just a template, " First of all, SlimVirgin, these so-called "dissenting voices" are among the most reknowned ancient Muslim scholars and historians of Islam, as well as some of the world's most reknowned academics researching Islam, in addition to various modern Muslim scholars. Secondly, just because this is a template does not mean that it is not subject to NPOV and factual accuracy. I am clearly not the one pushing any sort of POV, I am merely trying to uphold NPOV and factual accuracy on this template. Your only argument seems to be that we don't need to bother with NPOV because this is just a template and because "some dissenting voices" don't matter to you, and that it doesn't matter if the title of "wives" might be factually incorrect in some of these cases. It appears to me that you are here to sacrifice the founding principals of Wikipedia because "Muslims are uncomfortable with it." -- Zeno of Elea 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
And it seems to me that you're here in an effort to make Muslims feel uncomfortable, and if anything sacrifices the principles of Wikipedia, that does. But let's not go down the road of hyperbole. Can you list the names here please of the contemporary scholars of Islam you're using as your sources? I will e-mail them if need be. This template should reflect the majority scholarly view. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, please note that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive while still being NPOV (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors). Just because something on Wikipedia happens to make Muslims feel uncomfortable does not mean that it can be removed solely on that basis. I have already cited a passage from a modern scholar on this subject, in my post to you in the previous section. Since you seem to be in some sort of state of denial, I'll post it again: In "Sa’d, Ibn; Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir" (Vol. I , II), Translated by S. Moinul Haq, M.A. Ph.D, Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Darayaganj, New Delhi 110002 (1972), on pages 564-565, the Muslim author writes, “Besides these, he [Muhammad] had two female slaves. The first was Mariyah the Coptic' (an Egyptian Christian), a gift from Al-Muqawqis, ruler of Egypt —she gave birth to his son Ibrahim, who died in Madinah while still child, on the 28th or 29th of Shawwal in the year 10 AH..i.e., January, 632 C.E. the second one was Rehana bint Zaid bin ‘Amir bin Khanafah bin Sham’un bin Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah, a captive from Bani Quraizah. Some people say she was one of his wives. However, Ibn Al-Qaiyim gives more weight to the first version. Abu ‘Ubaidah spoke of two more slave girls, Jamilah, a captive, and another one, a bondwoman granted to him by Zainab bint Jahsh .” This proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that several early and contemporary Muslim sources claim that Muhammad had sex slaves in addition to his wives (which is specifically allowed by Allah in the Qur'an). Let us not forget that it is not only the schoarly point of view of Muslims that must be represented on Wikipedia, nor is it only the majority Muslim scholarly opinion that must be represeted on Wikipedia. In his famous biography of Muhammad, the reknowned modern, Western academic Maxime Rodinson explicitly gave evidence that Maria the Copt was a slave and not a wife of Muhammad. Your assertion that "This template should reflect the majority scholarly view" is an open commitment to pushing a specific POV and trying to censor all others POVs. This template should reflect BOTH points of view on the matter, regardless of who is in the alleged "majority." -- Zeno of Elea 23:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sex slaves? That is intentionally inflammatory language. So far as I know, no one at the time used such at term at all. A slave was a slave was a slave. Nor is it clear that Muhammad slept with all of his slaves, so calling them all "sex slaves" is malicious. C'mon, we have to try to be FAIR. Zora 02:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Sex slaves? That is intentionally inflammatory language. " First of all, Zora, the template says "female slaves" and not "sex slaves." Did you even read the template? You are therefore contructing a straw-man argument, which is nothing but a logical fallacy. DO you see "sex slaves" written anywhere on the template?
"So far as I know, no one at the time used such at term at all. A slave was a slave was a slave." Once again it appears that you have jumped into a content dispute without bothering to even read the TEMPLATE, let alone the comments that have already been made. Had you actually read the template you would learn that the Qur'an refers to "sex slaves" as "Ma malakat aymanukum" which translated literally means "right hand possessions" which is a euphamism. Thus there IS indeed a specific terminology in Islam for referring to "sex slaves."
"Nor is it clear that Muhammad slept with all of his slaves, so calling them all "sex slaves" is malicious. " There is no doubt that Muhammad had sex with these women. Nobody makes such claims. They were either wives or sex slaves, there is no third option. If you wish to introduce such a radical point of view, then please support it with citations. It is quite absurd to pretend that Muhammad didn't have sex with, say, Maria al-Qibtiyya, when the Sira describes a sex scandal involving Muhammad and Maria. And similarly, after massacering the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribe, Muhammad chose the most beutiful women amongst them (Rehana bint Zaid) and tried to marry her but Rehana bint Zaid was hysterical from the massacre of her tribe and family so instead of marying her Muhammad just kept her as a female slave. He obviously didn't keep her as a labourer, he kept her as a sex slave. In any case, your straw-man arguments never seem to end - the template does not say "sex slaves" so even if your unheard of claims are believed by anybody, your argument is irrelevant.
"C'mon, we have to try to be FAIR." So, Zora, do you have some sort proposal? What would be "fair," in your opinion? -- Zeno of Elea 21:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've always found it amazing how anti-Islamic bigots procede to inform Muslims of what Muslims actually believe. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. If you want to discuss anything regarding the current dispute you are welcome, but we don't need your insults here. -- Karl Meier 18:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Karl, I hope you'll direct the same advice to Zeno, because I find this edit summary fairly offensive: "this POV pushing by users who are obviously Muslims trying to cover up Muhammad's misdeeds (POV pushing) has gone on for long enough." It's a bit of a leap for Zeno to assume that everyone opposing him/her is a Muslim, and that Muslims are trying to cover anyone's misdeeds. I think we're just trying to go with the majority scholarly opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template protection

I have temporarily protected this template from editing due to an ongoing revert war. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Sort out your squabbles here on the talk page (or perhaps on Template:WivesMuhammad/temp), and once you've reached consensus ask me or another admin to unprotect the page, or ask on Requests for page protection and unprotection. Revert warring gets Wikipedia nowhere. - Mark 14:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template unprotection

I have unprotected this template. If the revert war picks up again instead of collaboration and consensus-reaching, then I will re-protect it. Please reach a sensible consensus and then leave the template alone. I recommend linking to an article which discusses the dispute as to whether these women really were 'sex slaves', where you can cite references for both sides of the academic debate. Revert warring gets Wikipedia nowhere. - Mark 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Women in 600 CE

Zeno, your last edit summary "this POV pushing by users who are obviously Muslims trying to cover up Muhammad's misdeeds (POV pushing) has gone on for long enough" suggests again that it's you who is POV pushing. Just about all women were treated badly in our terms in 600 CE by all communities, not just Muslims; in fact, it might be true to say that all wives were sex slaves. And men were treated badly too: you seem to be applying our standards of morality and civil liberties, which is completely inappropriate.

Anyway the issue of who he was married to is unknowable. The majority scholarly opinion is that these women were his wives, and this is a template, so there's no need here to include every single POV. The details are discussed in the individual articles. Please stop reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's reasonable to say that woman was all treated badly "in 600 CE by all communities", but I guess that is not what we are discussing anyway. What I would like to know is what sources do you have that says that the majority scholarly opinion is that all these woman was his wives and not just slaves in cases such as Maria al-Qibtiyya? If it can be made clear that the vast majority of the sources that we have, says that they where all wives then it might be reasonable, to have the version that we have now. I haven't seen any evidence that show that until now though. All I've seen evidence that makes it clear that it's disputed. And if there is a genuine dispute then we have to find some kind af "middle way" and aviod to choose a side in the discussion, according to NPOV as I understand it. And regarding your edit summary: another thing is that I don't think there is a problem to have a template with red links. (We got plenty of them in the Danish wikipedia!). It encurage people to start writing these articles, and having an inaccurate template is worse in any case. -- Karl Meier 19:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
From what I can tell it's majority opinion among Muslim scholars that she's a wife. Islam Online concurs and they tend to be a rather typical ISNAish voice, but obviously not gospel. I would suggest that if Maria is deemed to not be a wife then she should be removed as this is the wives templates and talk of concubines whom would be less important not being mothers of the ummah and all could go somewhere else. I think how it is now makes a good point... it's surely the majority Muslim view of today and there could be a page linked to discuss the whole debate -- if we could produce a decent page on the issue that isn't just bible.ca. Zeno, stop doing that kind of thing. It does not make you easier to work with. Not only does an editor's faith not matter but you try to blanket one position as being a Muslim's position or not. Please show a modicum of courtesy in these matters. gren グレン 20:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it is not just the opinion of the majority of modern day, Muslim, "scholars" of Islam on the internet, that matters. The opinions of non-Muslims are also relevant. Secondly, just because a POV is SUPPOSEDLY supported by the majority of some specific modern-day religious group, DOES NOT mean that only that POV can be included in Wikipedia. To do so is nothing more or less than POV pushing. Thirdly, no one has provided any evidence that the "majority of Muslim scholars" support the apologetic POV that is being pushed here (a link to "IslamOnline.net" is NOT proof of about "majorities of scholars." The POV pushers on this Template refuse to compromise in any way and refuse to reason in a logical fashion, the only source they have cited is "IslamOnline.net." Due to this refusal, by certain editors, to cooperate and adhere to the NPOV policy, and due to the ceaseless revert war that has been going on for two months now, there is no choice but to escelate this content dispute to Request for Arbitration. -- Zeno of Elea 20:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ħ:::: Gren: To me it seems more and more obvious that there is two valid PoV's here. There is obviously sources that says that she was a wife (You just provided us with another one), and at the same time there is also respected Muslim sources that says the opposite. Another such source is Ibn Kathir: "(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them." To remove her from the template is not an option eighter, because that would be to choose the PoV that says she was only a slave. We can't choose one valid PoV at the expense of another, so we'll have to find some solution that is not biased the one way or the other. We have suggested many solutions such as "Harem", "Consorts", but the other side of the discussion here has just rejected every suggestion, and continued to revert to the biased "Wives" version, because they apparently hold some western PoV that sex with slavegirls is very bad. However, it's not all Muslims that agree to that, and the template should be written according to NPoV nomatter what. -- Karl Meier 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno: The ArbCom doesn't accept cases regarding individual articles and their PoV issues. It's all about individual users and their (questionable) behavior there. However, you can list the template on "request for comment" to attract a wider audience. -- Karl Meier 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Karl, yes I understand the complexity which is why I said above I wasn't really sure. I just talked about her removal as a kind of... what are the alternatives... and some aren't good. It seems that I agree with what you say in principle, although I'm sure there will probably be manifest differences. I'm just curious... is her being a wife a denial that she ever was a slave / prisoner of war? They aren't mutually exclusive, no? gren グレン 22:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, once again you don't listen to my full point. I was not giving us the answer sent down from heaven... I was giving a point and my thoughts. I am aware the Islamic community is not the only viewpoint but they are obviously important in this matter. Secondly I only cited the Islam Online thing to show that they cited concensus on her being a wife, of course that would have to be researched and all. The logic here on both sides is inductive and therefore the other side will see it as flawed, it's just how things go. gren グレン 00:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
gren, I have refuted your assertions and your response is not a rebuttal to my refutation - as a matter of fact, you have just contradicted the very claims that you are trying to defend. -- Zeno of Elea 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Gren: I thought that maybe you could suggest a title then? I and Zeno has suggested a lot of different titles to make it as NPoV as possible, and to avoid choosing a position between these PoVs. However, they have all just been reverted by Irishpunktom and his mysterious "friends", without much discussion. Maybe it would be better, and maybe it would make it possible to end this conflict, if you could come up with some sort of suggestion that is NPoV? At this point I would appriciate it. Regarding your above question, no I don't think that "her being a wife is a denial that she ever was a slave / prisoner of war". She could have been a slave and then he could have married her later. However, the question is if he ever did that, or if she remained only a slave? There are as it has already been pointed out, respected sources that contradict each other regarding this issue, so we can't choose a side between these positions, if we are to follow NPoV. That is the whole essence of this issue. -- Karl Meier 09:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl and Zeno, it isn't acceptable for you to be reverting here, because you're clearly in the minority. Continue the discussion on talk by all means, but please stop reverting against the majority, or I will request page protection. The template is very accurate: it lists those regarded as wives by most scholars, but makes clear which one is disputed. What could be clearer than that? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Should we have a poll here to determine who supports which version? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand I don't think it's acceptable for you to insist on a PoV version of this template, without addressing our concerns here on the talkpage, and it doesn't matter if you are the "majority" or not. Wikipedia is not a democracy, we are supposed to write things according to NPoV nomatter what. And again there is an unanswered question for you, that you haven't responded to: Where is your evidence that the Wives version is supported by the vast majority of sources that is available, so that we can ignore the other PoV and still be fairly neutral? We have provided several respected sources that says that she was only a slave. What sources and what evidence have you provided us with? I'd expect that the other side of this discussion would defend their position with arguments and sources, and not (as it is the case now) with unexplained reverts. -- Karl Meier 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, just because you and a number of Muslim editors happen to be a large group trying to push an extremist POV into a neglected template does not qualify your activties as legitimate. Your POV pushing revert were is a violation of Wikipedia policy. You and your supporters have refused to deal with this matter in a civil manner, refusing to reach a compromise or consensus despite several attempts on my part and on Karl Meier's part. In an article with only a total of 4 total editors who are engaging in discussion and not just revert warring, a syndicate of 2 extremist POV pushing editors does not constitute any sort of consensus or legitimacy. I am obliged to undo the POV pushing reverts that you are supporting and I will continue to do so. If you have a problem with this, then perhaps you should file a Request of Arbitration. And if you and others do not cease and desist from "wives-only" POV pushing facilitated by a revert war, then something will have to be done. You clearly are not willing to allow any other POV to be represented here, and you seem to be under the delusion that 2 people vs 2 people constitutes a conensus according to Wikipedia rules and that having rigged polls in a little known template will lend legitimacy to organized POV pushing. -- Zeno of Elea 07:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Zeno's above comment. We have made a reasonable case and provided sources that make it clear the wives-only version is indeed PoV, and ignore important information that is available from respected sources. I also believe we have been flexible and have suggested many alternatives and compromises. Yesterday I requested that the opposite side of the discussion, should suggest some sort of compromise that is NPoV. But there is no response yet to these reasonable requests and suggestions, and it seems evident that the editors on the other side of this discussion have made up their minds that they are the majority, and that they can force their PoV into the template by making endless reverts, without any discussion. -- Karl Meier 08:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering

Just to get away from the controversial issues for a while... what do you think about ordering this template by date of marriage? It seems to make more sense to me since alphabetizing wives serves no real purpose. This has dates to aid ordering... you will notice only 11 listed but I think it could be helpful, etc. Comments? recommendations? gren グレン 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, ordering by date makes sense. Zora 03:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I ordered it using this link which had all of the names we use which agreed with this and this partial list. As I said in my edit summary if this change is too much feel free to revert, or work on style. I just don't think this will be too controversial which is why I did it. I guess I'll find out if it was :)

Just to clarify this change is meant to have no affect on the above disputes. It is not trying to legitimize one side or the others -- it just seems to be more useful to have it by date if you're using this template for the study of Muhammad. gren グレン 05:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, Gren. Thanks for doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


This is a detraction. gren and SlimVirgin are actively engaging in and/or supporting the pushing of an extremist POV through a revert war. Now instead of trying to resolve the issue by attempting to reach a compromise or consensus, they are concealing their pushing of an extremist POV by trying to change the subject. gren, if you have not noticed, there there is a major content dispute going on here. Names from the list are being removed on the completely illogical and arbitrary "reasoning" that "all red links must be deleted." That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not resolve the problem of red links by removing from them from Wikis. Wikipedia resolves the problem of red links by allowing users to click on red links and start new articles. I think you should wait to re-order this list until AFTER the current content dispute is resolved. In the meantime, you can think about how you plan on dating "wives" or "slaves" that are not included in your admittedly partial list. The chronological data is incomplete and unreliable. Trying to chronologize this list would open a whole can of worms - the least you could do use Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This does not include completely POV, unreliable and unacademic dawa websites such as http://www.ispi-usa.org/muhammad/appendix2.html, www. muslim-canda.org, and www.answering-christianity.com. -- 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you thought of possibly ordering the red links? Academic and dawa sites don't typically differ on the order they were married or taken as slaves or whatever it is. You know it is possible to take the time to find out how your red links would fit in to the list and put them in order. Diplomacy fails -- time to enter the fray. gren グレン 08:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It would indeed be nice to have the names by date, but it's not a good idea if we have to remove names and make then make it much more inaccurate. Also, I suggest that we should find a compromise to the current dispute before we make more changes. I asked you for a suggestion regarding a compromise, but you didn't give me any answer. You only response to my request for a compromise has been to revert to the previous POV version of the template, and that doesn't really help the situation here. -- Karl Meier 08:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it is my hope that you will take the initiative to find the date and sources for those you wish to add. Your edits all certain around your POV and you do nothing else to help wikipedia. Even if I was involved in the number of controversies that you were at least I would have thousands of edits unambiguously NPOV helping out this encyclopedia. You cannot even take the effort to find the dates and order your additions. I am not trying to change the terms of your revert war. I found the dates for the version that was up and I ordered it. Take some initiative and find the dates for your additions and order them. Then we can have the same debate from above continue but at least it will be ordered and I can see that is some kind of step forward. My problem is that you can't see anything outside of this POV debate. My edits had nothing to do with the debate and as a user who presumably gives a damn about this encyclopedia you could find the dates and make your version ordered. From what I can tell you would just append Rehana bint Zaid followed by Jamilah to the list we already have. This really wasn't meant to be part of the dispute... and if, as you say, it would be nice to have names and dates then add them. Either version will presumably have them at the end so why not add them now. It's completely independent from your debates and your apparent laziness is what caused me to revert. Attempts at compromising have failed repeatedly so I am going to let you continue bickering -- but reverting the only constructive edit to the templates in quite some time borders on irksome. gren グレン 08:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about putting all this in another article?

Instead of insisting on listing all of Muhammad's slaves on the wives template, how about just going to Muhammad's marriages and adding a section on slaves? Instead of trying to squeeze your points into a template, you can have a whole section to expand on how Muhammad treated his slaves. You can describe them as sex slaves and then other editors can argue that this isn't a useful or accurate description. The family life article is already linked to the Muhammad article, and is indicated as the place for discussing controversies, so your arguments would fit in there perfectly. Zora 09:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a template, not an article. -- Zeno of Elea 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You're trying to use the template to make an argument about Muhammad's sex life. Better to do that in an article, where there's room for pro and con to spread out. Zora 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
We have made it clear, and provided many respectable sources that prove the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya as a wife is disputed. To choose one valid PoV above another valid PoV is clearly not neutral or acceptable, and that is what happends if we choose the "wifes of..." as the title. "Consorts" on the other hand is neutral, and not inflammatory in any way. I suggest that the editors that continue to make the unexplained reverts start to explain themself now, or suggest some sort of compromise. We have suggested many compromises, that have all been reverted without any discussion. -- Karl Meier 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The template as wives indicates that Maria al-Qibtiyya's position as wife is disputed. That is a NPOV way of proceeding with a template for the wives of Muhammad. This template is called "wivesMuhammad" because it is for the wives of Muhammad. It deals with the wives of Muhammad, and the status of one of the women regocnised as a Wife of Muhammad is disputed by some. This dispute is indicated. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I am not fully sure that I agree with the wives (which should be "Wives of Muhammad" and not use the possessive) version. However, I think it is better than consorts. It seems that 11 of the women are relatively undisputed. While I know consort is a blanket term when you use consort to describe a bunch of people who are unequivocally wives it takes on disparaging tones. So, for an outside that only see "Muhammad has 12 consorts" it is ambiguous and they would think he wasn't married. Consorts really doesn't work. Of course there is a dispute about Maria at least. This leads me to find that Wives with the disputed asterix is better than consorts since she is thought by some to be a wife and others to be a sex slave. I am not sure it's perfect... but I think of the two alternatives it's better sinec it doesn't gloss over accepted facts for many of them while the ambiguity of the terms comes off as pejorative. gren グレン

[edit] POV pushing

I simply dont have the time to deal with these Muslim fundamentalist Nazis and their idioticly allied non-Muslim editors (e.g. Zora, SlimVirgin). I have better things to do with my time. Let them push their POV on Wikipedia. There is no way to stop this hoard of POV pushers on Islam related articles. It is clear, in this case ,that the NPOV party is vastly outnumbered. So what sense does it make to try to fight all these Ramadan-crazed narcasistic fundamentalists who cannot accept a single blemish of their horrid religion? I've had it with this. You can call these women "wives of muhammad" all you want; the intelligent man will quickly realize that they were enslaved victims of a deranged rapist psychopath. You POV pushing degenerates want to call them wives and nothing but. Go right ahead. I give up in the face of your relentless POV pushing. Congradulations. -- Zeno of Elea 09:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, please don't just label and calls names like that. But, while I surely don't agree that you are NPOV and the others aren't I think there is a certain amount of ambiguity and you have done some good. The terms of this argument was originally you changing the title from "Wives of the Prophet Muhammad". Now the most "apologist" title this template will receive is "Wives of Muhammad" with Maria being disputed. While you may believe this is still POV you have helped in this regard I think, and I think it's important that the dispute on Maria be noted. I obviously don't agree with you on every issues but you do bring up good claims and have helped new material sceptical of the Islamic and apologetic versions of things onto wikipedia. I don't agree with a lot of what you said and almost find it insulting but I don't know if it's something you should just give up on. You have brought up good points and I appreciate that. gren グレン 10:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Zeno of Elea a Bigot? Surely not! Whining now like a spolied child, its pathetic. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl's revert

Karl, you don't just come back after a month and change it. The results of our last discussion was you leaving discussion and Zeno calling the Muslim editors fundamentalist Nazis and then leaving the project for a while — not exactly the actions of those with the upper hand in the discussion. So, I presumed we had a least a consensus to disagree, which does not mean you come back after a month. I don't know your reasoning but if you want to bring up debate bring up debate, don't just change it without even giving an edit summary. Really, you should know better. gren グレン 09:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

To think that you are your posse of Muslims apologists have the upper hand here is laughable. -- Zeno of Elea 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeno when the opposition leaves one side typically gains the upper hand. I have not been part of these discussions and have only reverted twice in a long time because the first time the editors ignored changes not related to the dispute to better this template, and now because Karl starts reverting after a month of no conversation. You just dont' do that. They aren't my posse so please, act like a respectable editor Zeno and join the process. gren グレン 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The only name in the list of wives who is perhaps a wife and perhaps a concubine is Maria -- and she's clearly labeled as disputed. Trying to hijack the template to indulge your fantasy of Muhammad and his harem of nubile slave girls is bigotry. Zora 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Trying to hijack the template to indulge your fantasy..." Trying to indugle your fantasy? What kind of speech is that? Is that a personal attack? It's certainly a false accusation. Do you call that professionalism? If someone points out that the Islamic literature describes Muhammad having female slaves captured during war, then that person is "trying to indulge in fantacies?" I don't have any fantacies about a camel "prophet" in the desert raping prisoners of war. However, in light of the fact that there are a billion Muslims who take this as the panultimate model of behaviour, the issue of Muhammad's "wives" is an important issue. It is you who is trying to hijack this template, with your apologetic lying and censorship and your vile and false accusations. You claim that only one name on the list is a slave, when in fact 3 of the names on the list are clearly indicated as slaves. Just because an article has not been started on every name does give you the right to delete names from the list. These names are listed in the Sira, and therefore they will be listed here - whether or not someone has yet started an article on them. And the fact that "wives" is an apologetic lie being spread by you and your Muslim apologetic posse does not mean that someone who opposes you is indulging in fantacies about raping prisoners of war, as Muhammad did. To exclusively use the word "wives" when it is perfectly clear that the original sources say that not all of them were wives, is just apologetic POV pushing. We have been over this many times, and have tried to compromise in many ways, but due the fanatic apologetics going on here, the apologists will not compromise. They should therefore be forcably removed from here. Do not accuse me of "bigotry" and "indulging in sexual fantacies" again, Zora. I've had enough of your personal attacks, and this is the last time that I'm going to ask you to behave in a civil manner. -- Zeno of Elea 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, there is no need to make this an accusation of a personal attack. Zora made no reference to youur indulging in sexual fantasies. What she said, in flowery language, was call you misguided and wrong (fantasy) the stated your opinion which is that he had slave girls who were ready to be married and then she said such opinions which she believes goes against scholarly aptitude were bigotry, which is the only thing remotely personal about it. So stop, calling everything a personal attack is useless. If you want to worry about personal attacks then first cleanup your own behavior before addressing issues such as this that don't clearly fit the policy. gren グレン 01:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
We have been over this a thousnd times. It is beyond any doubt that a dispute exists over Muhammad's "female slaves." You, as a "misguided and wrong (fantasy)" person, believe that these slaves "were ready to be married." This is your POV and nothing more. No one is trying to exclude your POV from the template, all that is being asked is that the opposing (non-apologetic) side of the dispute be fairly represented here. As for you "cleaing up behaviour," you can only point to one instance where I engaged in personal attacks, and I have throughly explained that situation. You should clean up your own behaviour by reviewing WP:NPOV. -- Zeno of Elea 08:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, referring to people as "Muslim fundamentalist Nazis" and "idiotically allied" "posse of Muslim apologists" is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If this template sees any more revert warring I will protect it, like I did last time. However, judging by the animosity on this talk page Wikipedia would probably be better off by my deleting the damn thing. - Mark 12:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from uninvolved admin

Zeno and Karl

if you are disputing the status of some of these women as wives, discuss it here, and if appropriate (eg: sourced) we can work to add an asterisk to their names. My reading of the talk page is that this was settled by massive consensus over a month ago. Reopening the issue by throwing a tantrum isn't going to improve the template.

To everyone: if I see more insults start to fly, I'm going to start banning the insulters for disruption. Consider this your only warning. Nandesuka 13:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mistress Selina Kyle

I have reverted her (?) edits and move since there was no discussion. She pretty much did what caused the problems above but worse since she moved the page. gren グレン 11:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it to Partners of Muhammad: Since one of them is obviously NOT a wife. It's a sick joke to say she was a "wife" when she was in fact a sex slave "given" to Muhammad like a piece of meat.
What exactly is the problem here? It's obvious one of them is not and was not a wife, so why is the template titled "wives"? It's a blatant falsehood, and the fact that only Muslims are reverting really does show something. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Neither Gren nor I are Muslims. As for the status of Maria -- it's a mystery, for which there will probably never be a solution. There's nothing but the Muslim sources; they're sketchy, they're late, and they contradict each other. As I said previously, if you want to indict Muhammad as a libertine, there is an article (Muhammad's marriages that is tailor-made for your allegations. Add a section for concubines and slaves and LIST the evidence, from reputable sources. Zora 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And as far as I know Nandesuka and SlimVirgin aren't either. Stop bringing this crap up on talk pages right now. If you want a move then request it... don't just come to a contentious article and move it without discussion. gren グレン 04:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Mistress Selina Kyle, apart from the completely separate issue that your claim that "only Muslims are reverting" is, as near as I can tell, completely fabricated, what exactly is it that you think it shows? Do you have a point here other than argument ad hominem? Nandesuka 05:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)