Talk:Rayhana bint Zayd

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Her life

They are very few, contradictory and even written with very bad Arabic grammar, there is doubt cast over every detail of her life. This is a very interesting subject, but confusing to say the least. FrummerThanThou 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But please let use good quality sources rather than personal opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is still under construction. It is hard to furnish sources for everything on the go, so please tag any statements with {fact} individually before reverting them entirely. I will be creating a death of Mohammad sometime soon, so will be able to merge loose details if needed. FrummerThanThou 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best would be if you first find the sources and then add the text. The current version is well sourced and it is OK to stay as a stub. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material added need to be supported by sources. The burden to provide such sources is on the editor adding material, not on the editor wanting to remove material. See WP:V. If you want, you can work on a sandbox in the username space such as User:FrummerThanThou/Rayhana Bint Zayd], rather than in here. Of course, if you have good material supported by sources that you want to add, that would be most welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: in attempting to source the fact that her identity is very confusing, do i need to find conflicting stories or a quote from a scholar that it is so? FrummerThanThou 05:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concubibe

I changed "concubine" to the more specific MMA. Concubinage includes situations that is punishable by Islamic Law, MMA is simply more accurate and informative. --Striver 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious other tradition

The Sirat-e-Halbiyyah does mention her as his wife but says nothing about her refusal to veil herself. This is either plagiarism from some other book or the author of Note 2 has written falsely in the name of the book. Since the argument here is about the credibility of the book itself that claims those things, it's also important to check the credibility of the user who posted note 2 and contents relating to it. I can post scanned pages relating to Rayhana from the book.FlexibleCogito 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC) FlexibeCogito[reply]

Nur al-Din al-Halabi is not a reliable source. If there is indeed a rival Muslim tradition that Rayhana became Muhammad's wife, it must be sourced to widely accepted Muslim biographies of Muhammad, hadith etc. Beit Or 12:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Halabi not a reliable source? His work is published by Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband, from the Deobandi school of thought. He is also a medieval scholar. The fact that he wrote a multi-volume biography, larger than ibn Hisham, and that his work has survived, been reproduced, and even translated into foreign languages is enough to warrant his scholarship. Bless sins 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being published by the Deobandis further undermines any possible claims to reliability. You must demonstrate that his claims were or are widely accepted among Muslims before you can write anything on "an alternative tradition". Beit Or 15:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does bieng published by a popular school of thought undermine the reliablity? The fact that his work has survived through centuries, and is translated into other languages, is evidence to his notability in the Muslim World.Bless sins 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being supported by the extremists is not a good argument in favor of reliability. Your other arguments are far-fetched. There hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslim works like this one. Show me it reflects a curent of thought significant enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Beit Or 17:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth did you get "extremist" from? Sorry, Beit Or, but there are very few works that have survived and have been published and moreover, translated into ohter languages. Also, what is "curent of thought" supposed to mean?Bless sins 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONCUBINE?

How was she Muhammad's concubine when islam very clearly condemns extra marital activities? I think concubine should be relaced by something more appropriate and nearer to the truth. Plus, some of the sources used here are biased - a more neutral approach should be taken. Personal view!

why not? Having more than four wifes is also not very Islamic even though Muhammad was allowed to have more. Why wouldn't he be allowed to have a concubine either? Things can get very flexible at times.