Talk:Nikah mut'ah/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

“ Similarities to Zoroastrian practices”

See below. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

English Wikipedia became a paradise for anti Shias to spread their nonsense. Brother-sister marriages are not allowed in Islam, nobody believes that marrying in nikah mutah it brings him closer to Ali, there’s no such a thing as “Shianism”, it’s called Islam or Shia Islam, Zaorastrians are not pagans etc. The sources for that sanction is anti-Shia website, and connecting Zaorastranism with Shia Islam is a well known practice of Shiaphobes, namely Wahhabis. Wikipedia shouldn’t be a place for Shia-bashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.251.193 (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

the topic has been discussed and this is just history, the sources from from a scientific paper on the genetics in the history of this practice(which also existed in Egypt and Rome), and two Islamic sources, one of em being a shia source as well Qurtuva (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Qurtuva (talk · contribs), I couldn't care less about arcane religious disputes like Sunni vs. Shia, but this content is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. This and this are obviously not reliable sources. They are both anti-Shia (not 'one of them being Shia' as you claimed). This 1996 paper is about ancient Zoroastrian practices and innate evolved aversion to incest. No indication it mentions Shias at all, nor that it mentions nikah mutah. The statement This concurs with what many Muslim scholars say, that shiaism is merely syncretism between Islam and pre-Islamic paganism and zorostarian [sic] beliefs and practices. clearly shows some sort of POV is being pushed here.

I note that a look at Qurtuva's talk page and their contribs (e.g. [1]) adds further evidence in this regard. These additions of theirs may also need examination.

Schazjmd and Maedacho, do you still think this content should have been restored? Toddy1, I see you recently modified some of Qurtuva's claims - what do you think of this content? -Crossroads- (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I study Islamic history as well as pre-Islamic Arab history, not sure what my other edits on various Islamic topics would have to do with this. The TwelverShia source is also by Islamic scholars with credentials. Although I can just cite the direct Arabic sources if you want, although most English users cannot read Arabic hence why I used the TwelverShia source. There are indeed referances to shia sources where the more you do mutah the more rewards you gain, similar to Zoroastrian practices, after all Shiaism is predominant in the former Persia area of Zoroastrians Qurtuva (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I was removing unreliable sources from the section until I saw that much of the remaining text would be unsourced, especially its conclusion at the beginning; so I removed the section for now. Some Zoroastrianism influence would not surprise me as it also influenced Christianity, but there's also the fringe idea of Islam roots being pagan (that is not a mainstream view), so suboptimal sources and hasty conclusions should be avoided. —Paleo Neonate – 10:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

which sources do you think are unreliable? are you proficient in this period of history? I noticed several sources, with the exception of 3, were all valid primary sources, and the others were redundant secondary sources which sourced to the same primary sources as the former OyVey1944 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Qurtuva: You may want to consider self-reverting and discussing alteratives here, I had to leave a warning on your talk page considering the number of times you have reinstated the content against consensus. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 15:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice this yet at that time, I was adding more academic sources. However what do you mean by "unusable" many of those books are peer reviewed history books by renown historians about Islam and pre-Islamic history in that region. And there are also direct sources to Shia religious books, although I'm not sure if you have direct access to Islamic sources like this, but it's freely available on many history book storefronts Qurtuva (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

how exactly are we suppose to come to a consensus, these talk pages are virtually empty and dead, with the latest posts being from over a year ago in most of sections, i don't agree with blanking entire sections, if someone has problems with the sources, they can post it in the talk, instead of blanking the entire section which i see contains many proper sources, with only a few websites that are iffy (which i recommend sourcing directly to those sources, instead of some of these websites, as well as that one youtube video as a source, preferably it would be the book they are citing in the video), anyways aside from that, if nobody has any objections, i will edit it back in 24 hours, and remove the youtube/blog sources, and just leave the actual history books, expecting a response from any of you active editors in the next 6 hours, or else i'll just assume you aren't interested in this topic OyVey1944 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@OyVey1944: It doesn't work like that, it takes as long as it takes to reach consensus. Leaving a message that gives other editors 6 hours to respond is totally unreasonable. You posted at 01.36 European time, no doubt the editors in that zone will be asleep for the following six hours. --John B123 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the first step would be to evaluate each source, i wrote that entire section and I checked each source myself, and honestly don't know what he's talking about, they were a variety of scholars from both Islamic websites and Western academics who concurred on the same thing. This is usually why I prefer people have a background in Islamic history and fiqh Qurtuva (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I will begin collecting the sources on there and verifying if they are legitimate or not, this will require putting the section back with a tag ~ OyVey1944 (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That needs to be carried out in your sandbox not in the article. --John B123 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed many similarities between Zorostarian xwedodah, and Shi'ite mutah. One such being both have temporary marriage contracts, and of course similar cultural Persian heritage. It looks like there was a section on this. Although one thing PaleoNeonate got wrong, was that the fringe idea of Islamic(aka the mainstream Sunni) roots being pagan, if different from the Shi'ite roots which indeed do have huge Zoroastrian influences, from cultural festivals, religious practices, and of course mutah. One can just search up "temporary marriage + persia + zorostarianism, and find a large consensus among the scholars that this goes all the way back to the first Persian states in antiquity. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So here is my evaluation of all the sources in that section:

Tessmann, Anna. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism. John Wiley & Sons, 2015. p. 293 This source is good, on page 293 it states

By the late Sasanian period, however, both real and “fictive” incestuous marriages had been firmly established as an important ingredient of family law (Macuch 2010b). Three main types of matrimony were distinguished: the marriage with ‘full matrimonial rights’ (pādixšāy), the ‘auxiliary marriage’ (čagar), and the ‘consensus marriage’ (xwasrāyēn / gādār), based on the agreement of the spouses. Both endogamy (including incest) and exogamy were practiced and all three marriage types could also be concluded on a temporary basis (Macuch 2006).

https://i.imgur.com/ZoOF9QD.png

Macuch, Maria, “The Function of Temporary Marriage in the Context of Sasanian Family Law” in Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the Societas Iranologica Europaea (Ravenna, October 6–11, 2003), vol. II: Ancient and Middle Iranian Studies, eds. Antonio Panaino and Andrea Piras (Milan: Edizioni Mimesis, 2006), 585–597 It looks like this source is what Tessman source to on that exact same page; 293

"Whoever performs Mut’ah once will attain the status of Hussain. Whoever performs it twice will attain the status of Hassan. Whoever performs it thrice will attain the status of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and whoever will perform it four times will attain my status" Fath Allah al Kashani. Tafsir Minhaj al Sadiqin, p. 356

This is a tasfir, it should be directly citing what it's a tasfir one. After a bit of research and asking around, the original one is from Al-Kafi, and is as follows.

"”One who engages in Mut’ah once in his lifetime reaches the status of Imam Al-Hussain. One who engages in it twice becomes equal in status to Imam Al-Hasan. The one who performs it three times reaches the position of Imam Ali. And he who practices it four times acquires the level and position of the Prophet Muhammad.” (Furoo al-Kafi)" Other similar tasfir, like Tafsir Minhajus Sadiqeen say “A believer who performs Mutah once, gets the rank of martyrdom. The leader of martyrs is Imam Husain (as). A person, who performs the Nikah of Mutah twice, gets a place among the rank of virtuous. The leader of virtuous is Imam Hasan (as). A person who performs Mutah thrice will get the rank of ‘truthfuls’. The leader of truthfuls is Amirul Momineen (as). A person who performs Mutah four times will be included among the rank of prophets. The leader of prophets is Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S).”

Islamic religious text of course is not very widely available on the internet or in libraries, so someone who specializes in Islamic religious text will need to verify this from the direct source. However it over all is true from what every Islamic forums/website, both Sunni/Shi'tte says on the internet.

"Virtues of Mut`ah – Mahajjah". Retrieved 25 January 2020. This is an online website, it says similar things to those hadith, but it's a redundancy. The direct citations can be cited instead. This one can be removed (REMOVED)

Scheidel, Walter (1 September 1996). "Brother-sister and parent-child marriage outside royal families in ancient egypt and iran: A challenge to the sociobiological view of incest avoidance?". Ethology and Sociobiology. 17 (5): 319–340. doi:10.1016/S0162-3095(96)00074-X. ISSN 0162-3095.

On page 326 it talks specifically about a similar belief as the hadith above

"Rivayat Accompanying the Dadestan I Denig: "For it is revealed that the first time a man has intercourse, 1,000 demons and 2,000 sorcerers and witches die; the second time 2,000 demons and 4,000 sorcerers and witches die; the third time 3,000 demons and 6,000 sorcerers and witches die; the fourth time both man and woman become manifestly blessed" (Williams 1990, p. 14). 2"

https://i.imgur.com/3xKzjwe.png

ANTI-MAJOS (5 October 2019). "Pagan Shi'ism: If you want to visit Allah, visit Hussain!". anti-majos.com. Retrieved 5 December 2019. "Response to: Was Aboo Lu'lu'ah A Zoroastrian?". TwelverShia.net. 15 May 2013. Retrieved 5 December 2019.

Same as the Mahajjah website, it does cite their direct sources, but doesn't say who wrote these articles. But if the direct sources can be verified then those can be cited directly. (REMOVED)

"On the Great Scholar Patricia Crone and the Origins of Persian Islam". Tablet Magazine. 12 September 2016. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

Crone is a fringe revisionist, I don't doubt the persian version of Islam had influences from zoroastrianism, but a better more reputable historian should be cited on this.(REMOVED)

The paradox that is Persia: Abbas Milani at TEDxStanford, retrieved 25 January 2020 "How Zoroastrianism Influences the Worldview of Iran's Leadership | History News Network". historynewsnetwork.org. Retrieved 25 January 2020.

Just gonna remove these cause it's youtube videos, and there are better sources saying the same thing. (REMOVED)

Nasr, Vali. The Shia revival: How conflicts within Islam will shape the future. WW norton & Company, 2007.

This one requires the specific page citations, gonna remove this one as well, and verify it in the mean time. (REMOVED)

Margalit, Yehezkel (2018/04). "TEMPORARY MARRIAGE: A COMPARISON OF THE JEWISH AND ISLAMIC CONCEPTIONS". Journal of Law and Religion. 33 (1): 89–107. doi:10.1017/jlr.2018.12. ISSN 0748-0814 This one is good, it actually talks about the origins of temporary marriage

There are scholars who claim that this Persian practice is the basis for the Shi’ite muta, which slowly became an accepted social practice in the Persian-Shi’ite period prior to the emergence of Zoroastrianism.81 Indeed, in a later period, the Persian book of rulings (the Sasanian law book) Madayan i Hazar Dadestan,82 contains a number of records of temporary marriages

https://i.imgur.com/qMV3fG1.png

I will be removing the bad sources that did not fit academic standards.

Anyone have any objections seeing that a few people are right now currently active? Crossroads John_B123 Qurtuva

- OyVey1944 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

My evaluation is here. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, it looks like you are hysterical and schizophrenic over this. I for one agree with his analysis of all the sources. So you agree or disagree cause it looks like you are just vandalizing this article for no reason, at the very least you could have attempted to verify some of those sources, which it looks like you had over a few weeks to do, but never attempted to do any such thing —t. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed all the bad sources, two of the sources you complained about in your original post have been removed. The other source by Schneidel, you did not read properly as it contains a source to Zoroastrian religious text that is extremely similar to one of those shiat hadith that was provided, i double checked that paper on page 326, and it indeed does have that section in the 2nd to last paragraph

t. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads you're gonna have to stop vandalizing that section, the system already automatically marked you as spam and potential vandalism, which should tell you something about what your doing, other than that you did not provide any proper disagreement to the evaluation of the sources, all of them now are all proper university sources. refrain from vandalizing this page, unless you have credentials in Islamic history or direct access to those sources, which from I assume your misunderstanding of the Schneidel paper, that you do not have full access to these papers? Or you just aren't reading the whole papers/chapters of those books -t. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22_Frozen I noticed you reverted the edit, however we've already come to a conclusion, User @Crossroads claimed 3 sources were invalid, and 2 of those were removed, and the last one was a misunderstand he had from not fully reading the paper, as it did state on p.326 (bottom paragraph) what it was cited to say. There was previously an edit war over this a month ago, which another administrator resolved and kept the section. Another user @OyVey1944 evaluated many of the sources, to which then asked user @Crossroads who then proceeded to respond with ad-hominems and vandalize the page claiming he disagreed but did not state what exactly he disagreed with. Although he was online to keep edit warring, he refused to respond what his disagreements where, which is when I saw this edit-warring and decided to step in and solve the issue. -t. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

Requesting to get this page protected as there are non-Shia inputs which are describing shia beliefs that exist either out of a 3rd person incorrect perspective, or from a 3rd person biase against it JasonMoore (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Much of shia history is known from non-shia sources, as shia sources themselves are unreliable and do not have eyewitnesses, or are often fabricated, so they can only be used to say what shias believed, not what actually happened. Not sure why there is a problem with "non-Shia inputs" much of these are sourced to actual academic PhD historians of Islamic/Persian history Qurtuva (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Verified source about Al-Hidayah

I verified this source, I have this book. If anyone wants I can upload a screenshot of the page of the English translation AntiRacistSwede (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations to ancient Islamic religious text

In this article many references to Islamic religious text, are from ancient primary sources, and are not available on the internet. Some of them are also improperly cited (i.e not in MLA format, or traditional Islamic citation formats) and a few are citing to the wrong pages (I fixed one of em, but speculate others could also be improperly cited) -t. AntiRacistSwede (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry, POV pushing, and aftermath

Noting for posterity that AntiRacistSwede, OyVey1944, and Qurtuva are all the same person and have been blocked for sockpuppetry. That is of course why I did not waste time debating them.

I've also cut out much of the article for poor sourcing and having been added in what appears to be a back and forth POV war over time citing various Islamic "Great Men" rather than giving us what academic secondary sources say, as well as a bloated and agenda-ridden criticism section that misrepresented at least some sources. John B123 and PaleoNeonate, you are welcome to look over my edits and restore anything you think is good, or make any other edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to evaluate all sources, but some obviously polemic and potentially unreliable like hands_sissy have been removed, I also agree with the new subtitles, even though a "criticism" section is generally discouraged, if the criticism can be put inline with its own subtopic. The previous subtitles were already criticism ones, overly long and tabloid-like... Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 22:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sunnah.com

Shadowwarrior8 regarding this, why do you think that Sunnah.com passes as a WP:Reliable source? It's clear to me that you need to study our WP:Reliable source guideline. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The site is hosting hadith, a type of Islamic scripture. That this is an improper use of WP:PRIMARY sources can be seen if we imagine an article on "marriage in Christianity" citing various New Testament verses to say this or that is the Christian view of marriage. The problem is that various sects emphasize different phrases and verses, and thus interpret the body of scripture differently, and there is no single Christian view or even Protestant view. Same with Islam - there's the Sunni/Shia divide, and various schools of thought and sects within those two camps. We need to base our material on academic sources that have devoted themselves to straightening out what various interpretations there are, rather than allowing possible religious sectarian preaching here. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation error

The lede starts:

Nikah mut'ah[1][2] (Arabic: نکاح المتعة‎, translit. nikāḥ al-mutʿah, literally "pleasure marriage";[3](p1045)or Sigheh[4] (Persian: صیغه‎) is a private and verbal temporary marriage contract that is practiced in Twelver Shia Islam[dubious – discuss] in which the duration of the marriage and the mahr must be specified and agreed upon in advance.[1][5][6](p242)[7](p47–53)

Citation 5 is the following:

Berg H. "Method and theory in the study of Islamic origins." Brill 2003 ISBN 9004126023, 9789004126022. Accessed at Google Books 15 March 2014.

The URL leads to page 165. I could not find anything on page 165 of citation 5 that supports the above. So I am plan to delete that citation.

There is place where the same citation is used:

Mut'ah is a sensitive area of disagreement between those who follow Sunni Islam (for whom nikah mut'ah is forbidden) and those who follow Shia Islam (for whom nikah mut'ah is allowed).[5] Shias and Sunnis do agree that, initially, or near the beginning of Islam, nikah mut'ah was a legal contract.[7][16] Beyond that time, the legality of the practice is debated.

Citation 5 page 165 says that mut'ah was allowed when the Prophet was alive, and was banned by Umar when he was caliph. It has no clear statement about Shia views. Subsequent pages say that in the years after Umar's death, what exactly Umar had banned was unclear to those who knew Umar (such as his son).

I think the article ought to mention that the practice was first forbidden by Umar, and citation [5] is a good source for that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) modified 12:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This 14:11, 4 April 2013 version of the article has the same citation but for a different statement and has some page numbers in the citation.

Nikāḥ al-Mutʿah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة‎) or Mutʿah of marriage grants a muslim the concession to marry a woman for a limited time in return of recompense, both agreed upon in advance.[1][2][3]

The citations were:

Berg, Herbert. "Method and theory in the study of Islamic origins". Brill. pp. 154, 163, 164, 165, 172 176. Retrieved April 3, 2013.
Hughes, Thomas Patrick (December 1, 1995). "A Dictionary of Islam". Asian Educational Services. p. 424. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
Pohl, Florian (September 1, 2010). "Muslim World: Modern Muslim Societies". Marshall Cavendish. pp. 47–53. Retrieved April 4, 2013.

The citation was added as part of an improvement to the text by Faizhaider on 3-4 April 2013.[2]-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect what could have happened is some edited the content to something not matching the source, but the rest of what you said sounds reasonable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It is wrong to state that Sahih Bukhari forbade mut'ah

"By contrast, in the Sahih al-Bukhari, Mut'ah marriage is classed as forbidden because Ali bin Abu Talib said that he heard Muhammad say that it is forbidden. As narrated by 'Ali bin Abu Talib: "On the day of Khaibar, Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a (i.e. temporary marriage) and the eating of donkey-meat."[18] as mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 9, Book 86, Number 91)."

there are many other hadiths where Mut'ah is permitted in Sahih Bukhari. Why is the OP being very very biased here? I am a Sunni Muslim and I am not here to malign my religion or sect. Many hadiths which were narrated after the expedition of Tabuk (circa. 10 A.H) indicates that Mut'ah was finally permitted by the Prophet. As Narrated by`Abdullah: "We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet (ﷺ) and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ). "Shall we castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you." Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 6, Book 60, Hadith 138) The Qur'an verse was revealed during the very last time period of the Prophet's life in Medina and this indicates that hadith was narrated after the expedition of Tabuk ( AH 10).

Infact; there are 5 authentic hadiths like this in Sahih Muslim & Bukhari. It's not even an Ahad tradition. It's a very established tradition.

OP conveniently portrays Sahih Bukhari as banning Mut'ah use Sahih Bukhari incorrectly to prove his point. And when I quote from Sahih Muslim & Bukhari; the OP says: "DOES NOT MEET THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARD!"

This is Borderline Hypocrisy and Censorship. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that you can cite primary sources for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts (and then only sparingly), but must use secondary sources for points of interpretation. Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure who "OP" is supposed to refer to. I cut the section you are complaining about here. You were trying to add poor sources, but now that you have pointed out existing poor sources, I have cut those too. I should have cut those earlier when I purged the other preaching material. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)