Jump to content

Talk:Early social changes under Islam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.70.63.74 (talk) at 22:58, 22 March 2019 (→Confusion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV in status of women section

Currently it makes it seem like there is a consensus that the adoption of Islam improved women's status. According to http://books.google.com/books?id=zOAo9VvT4FEC&pg=PA77&sig=IiMFAyu6P3-rNii4QQmN_q3mXQQ, there is healthy scholarly debate about whether the changes were good for women. This is also now a problem in the Women and Islam article, which I believe was previously more balanced. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be bold and improve the article, but also please note that we are only discussing the impact of Islam on the women within the early years of Islam. That is, we are not dealing with the later "interpretation of jurists, local traditions, and social trends which brought about a decline in the status of Muslim women." Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

It's much better to change the title to "Early social changes under Islam". Alefbe (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First welfare state

This says that the early Islamic imperium was the first welfare state. Was not the Maurya Rajavamsa of Bharata under Asoka a welfare state? 96.255.208.108 (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Diffs for each edit made by Jagged 85 are listed at Cleanup3. It may be easier to view the full history of the article.

A script has been used to generate the following summary. Each item is a diff showing the result of several consecutive edits to the article by Jagged 85, in chronological order.

Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed these parts. Added a tag as the article lacks a nuanced approach, depicting changes mostly as improvements and generelly following an epistemological line of describing things becoming better, more advanced, more just, more generous under Islamic rule etc. etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an does require women to wear veils

I'm a little confused, I know that it's someone elses assertion but it's entirely false the Qur'an does order women to cover themselves with their jalabeeb (Jilbab). What proof is there otherwise? Muwwahid (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I on the other hand.... do not agree... only men who have a basic fear of women would decree such. I dont think Mohammed was anything that male with no fear of women. That think came later from the fears of immature men and their need to control everything within their meagre reach. Dont agree with me... *shrugs* ... I care less, but I would say .. examine your OWN motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.225.33 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohistory

This article is rubbish. John Esposito is notorious for his favorable opinions of Islam. The man owes his professorial tenure to Islamic endowments. Talk about conflict of interest!--74.190.107.228 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you suggest some persons who give opposite opinions with valid, verifiable, reliable sources for this article? Swingoswingo (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Swingoswingo says, if you want to address possible WP:NPOV violations in this article, you should consult reliable sources that reflect alternative points of view and summarize them here, or verify the already cited sources to make sure they're reflected correctly. As of now, your edits have no basis in WP policy. Not only does Esposito's book meet criteria for RS, the statement you've changed is sourced by five other mainstream academic citations, and the pseudohistory and revisionism labels are based on nothing more than your personal opinion, in violation of WP:NOR. Eperoton (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Early social changes under Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs serious revisions

Hey all,

I've tried to tidy up this page a bit, given the severe issues it had due to a now-banned user (among other issues). Unfortunately, it is still a mess. I've inserted more sources, and tried to include more female and non-Western sources (the article previously relied almost entirely on two American men and zero women from Muslim backgrounds) but it still needs a lot of work. In particular, the "Moral Changes", "Economic Changes", and "Civil Changes" sections (ending with "Arabia was rid of famine for all the times to come" which is certainly not correct...) need a lot of help. The section on the Arab conquests is also clearly written in a NPOV manner and I'll try to fix that a bit, but my knowledge here is limited. Anyone who knows of any good sources on those issues, please feel free to add as many as you want. Dragoon17 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragoon17: Thanks, this made a great overall improvement to the article. Leila Ahmed's views in particular have been influential and really needed to be included. Looking at the diff, I do see some material deleted for no apparent reason (as WP:ES states, it's considered good practice to use edit summaries), which I'm going to restore. If you have concerns about it, please discuss. I've read some good sources while working on Early Muslim conquests, so I'll take a look at that section. Eperoton (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so the three historians cited on the Arab conquests all lean toward the same sympathetic perspective and the counterbalancing material violates WP:PRIMARY. More generally, the question of whether Jews and Christians were better or worse off under the Arabs isn't really what this article is about, or at least not solely. I wrote some stuff on early social changes in Early_Muslim_conquests#Socio-political_developments. Eperoton (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I don't have any issues with the changes, beyond this one, which I do think should at least be rephrased as it is inaccurate (the second sentence, I mean): "John Esposito states that the reforms affected marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Women were not accorded with such legal status in other cultures, including the West, until centuries later". "Other cultures" is extremely broad imo, and while it's unclear what "legal status" is being referred to here (I assume the ability to divorce or inherit wealth/property/general status--or marry someone of their choosing?) it is not factually correct, even focusing on semi-contemporary figures like Jindeok of Silla or Theodora. I guess we could add a sentence or two after that saying "Others have argued that this is a simplistic view of history and various cultures predating this era afforded women the right to inherit. For example, Guy Halsall believes it is not possible to generalize marriage and divorce laws across western Europe in the early Middle Ages, as several Germanic peoples appear to have allowed women to permanently separate from their husbands [source]" etc etc, but that seems to be really, really far beyond the topic of the article, so I don't wanna add anything like that in. I'll leave it up to you to decide if it the sentence should be rephrased or not.
And yeah I had a lot of problems finding usable sources for that section, keeping it short and sweet and linking to Early Muslim conquests is probably the better option. Cheers Dragoon17 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dragoon17: Thanks for the explanation. I've looked up the cited source. It's from the entry on Muhammad by Karen Armstrong and it reads: "The Quran gave women rights of inheritance and divorce centuries before women in other cultures, including the West, were accorded such legal status." I generally don't cite Armstrong as her scholarly credentials aren't the strongest, but the encyclopedia is a RS. It's not the first RS where I come across a statement of this kind. Your concerns are reasonable, though in using one source to argue against another we should be wary of WP:SYNTH. In this case, I think it would be sufficient to act within limits of clarification. This statement doesn't have to be read as applying to all other cultures, in the West or elsewhere. I'll tweak the phrasing and add attribution.
I'll try to improve the section on Arab conquests later. Eperoton (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

about this: "John Esposito states that "women were given inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives,"[13] Similarly, Annemarie Schimmel wrote that "Compared to the pre-Islamic position of women, Islamic legislation meant an enormous progress; the woman has the right, at least according to the letter of the law, to administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work". Didnt Khadija (RA) own a business before/while married? She inherited from her previous husband when he died? this seems to be conflicting with the article of Khadija (RA). Either this is wrong or that is wrong because it does not make sense to say that women could not previously inherit or hold wealth & property on their own, while also saying that this woman inherited property and wealth on her own. Please fix

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Early_social_changes_under_Islam&oldid=889027312"