Talk:Mawla

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 14, 2007	Articles for deletion	No consensus
December 12, 2015	Articles for deletion	Deleted

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Nice stub, we should try to add further contents. --Bhadani 15:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should try to add more material this year. --Cinayakoshka 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the spelling is correct -- it should be موال in indefinite nominative, and the letter ya appears when the article is prefixed الموالي.

Also, it's the plural of مولى, the same word which gives maulana... AnonMoos (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Listed for almost a month and no explicit objections to moving the article. Some rewriting may be necessary due to the points Eperoton brought up, but I'll leave that to the participants here. Jenks24 (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawali → Mawla – WP:PLURAL per section "d" of this source. – HyperGaruda (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda:: Perhaps with a form which is clearly a plural, but "Mawla" here as plural of "mawali" is an Arabic broken plural, a form unknown to most English-speakers; do we apply WP:PLURAL here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: IMO a plural is a plural, whether it's regular or irregular. Mawla does not seem to be so much more unknown to English-speakers than mawali, considering the amount of what-links-here. Of course there would still be a redirect from mawali to mawla. Admittedly, although I know the basics of Arabic, I'm not that proficient. Perhaps other users of Arabic can chime in (MezzoMezzo)? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda and Anthony Appleyard: I speak Arabic, but given the point Anthony brought up, I don't consider myself more qualified to speak than the two of you. Mawla is singular; mawali is plural. But does Arabic broken plural have a separate rule, or is a plural a plural? I'm inclined toward the latter simply because exceptions to the rules make me uneasy, so take my cautious opinion for what it is. Although...is it possible to run a search to see which term appears more often in English-language academic publications? And if it is possible, would that be relevant? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on the scope of the article. The word mawla has different meanings (Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed has a long article about them) and the predominant association for the singular seems to be the Quranic usage in the sense of "lord" (best known outside of Arabic in the form mawlana, "our lord"). The technical usage of tribal client relationship in Arabia and its later adaptation in the Islamic era is usually used in the plural in English texts. For example, in Hourani's "History of the Arab peoples" and Berkey's "Formation of Islam" one finds mawali but not mawla. So, if we want to have an article about the uses of the word mawla and its plural, we should rename the article. If we want to keep it about the client relationship, it should probably stay where it is. Eperoton (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all the versions of this article I've checked in other languages, including Arabic and Persian, use the plural as title. Eperoton (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting Comment as a contested technical move, we should have more input on this discussion before closing. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be stated that the term "Mawali" is also the common name of a large Bedouib tribe of mixed ethnic ancestry that dominated parts of central Syria during the Ottoman era and who were still active during French rule. I'll start an article on the tribe soon. I support moving this article to "Mawla" per HyperGaruda's reasoning above. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mawali tribe article

@Al Ameer son: Skimming search results in Google books shows that the term mawali is much more commonly used in the sense covered by this article, so I think an article about the Mawali tribe should be called "Mawali (tribe)", and "mawali" should continue to redirect here with a "for" message at the top. Eperoton (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperoton: That's fine. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of an unsourced and biased sentence

The sentence "Ultimately, Umayyad attitudes, being antithetical to Quranic principles, held no religious value, and became a major source of the collapse of Umayyad rule." was added in August 2014 and stayed since then. I removed it because it is purely POV, unsourced and biased. --Minorities observer (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metweli??

Does this phrase have any relation with "Metweli", the term for Lebanese Shias? If so, that would give an interesting perspective into the history of Lebanese Shias... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.100.34 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lammens (1929), it could come from tawâlâ / walâya -> mota'awwila. --Minorities observer (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]