Talk:Al-Mumtahanah

The name of this sura
There are articles in several other languages for this sura (namely Azerbaijani, Bengali, Bosnian, French, Hindi, Kazakh, Kurmanji, Portuguese, Albanian, Swedish, Turkish, and Uzbek) that all approximate the pronunciation "Mumtahina" for the name of this sura. Even the Arabic has "المُمتَحِنة" (note the damma) in the first line. How certain are you that the name of this sura should in fact be rendered "Al-Mumtahanah" in English? mahir256 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the external (non-Wikipedia) sources I find in English. As far as I can tell, nearly all standard editions seem to render the chapter name as al-Mumtahanah. For example:

The only exception I found was Saheeh International version which had "Al-Mumtahinah", but I went with the overwhelming majority. Practices of other Wikipedias, as far as I know is not considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR. They might as well pick up from the previous title of this article. HaEr48 (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Study Quran
 * Maulana Muhammad Ali
 * Quran.com
 * Yusuf Ali (alternative link)
 * A title from a 1730 publication solves this problem JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not really. I does not addess the vocalization of the ta which was the question above. Plus, as I wrote in my edit summary, please do not insist on adding one comment from the 1730s to the introduction of the article. See MOS:LEADNO and WP:UNDUE. HaEr48 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My edits cover more than your objection. Amend that which you disagree with and leave the rest alone. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, it does not, you're stilll adding a random 1730 comment to the intro (lead) section of the article. HaEr48 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It isnt random. It explains why this chapter bears this title. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , But it's only one opinion. There are many opinions on the topic, some more well-cited than others. Picking only one, and from a Westerner in an era when Western studies of Islam have not developed as much as today, is the random part. HaEr48 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary

 * 1-3 Muslims forbidden to make friends with the enemies of God
 * 4-6 This precept enforced by the example of Abraham
 * 7 Enemies of God may become friends of Muslims by conversion
 * 8-9 Distinction between enemies and mere unbelievers
 * 10 Female refugees, being true believers, are to be regarded as divorced from their heathen husbands
 * 11 How to recover dowers of Muslim women who apostatise
 * 12 The confession of faith required of converts from Arab idolatry
 * 13 True believers not to make friends with infidels

I note the Study Quran is heavily dependent on Wherry's summaries as it stands. However I still believe The addition of the above summary improves the article. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what makes you think that the Study Quran is dependent on Wherry's summaries? HaEr48 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1–3 There should be no affection for or alliances with an enemy party.
 * 4–6 The case of Abraham and his followers an example to be followed
 * 7–9 Better relations can be established with enemy parties & good relations with those who do not oppose the Muslims.
 * 10–12 The complex situation brought about by the emigration of women from Makkah to Madinah and the rules to be observed when women who are married to idolaters choose to embrace Islam.
 * If I added the above summary from SQ that would be Copyright plagerism. SQ is pretty poor at providing references/acknowledging sources. The quranic text is arcane, tangential and far from succinct, such that any two peops trying to summarize a verse in one sentence would certainly come up with wildly different versions. But that is not the case.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SQ provides its sources/references inline (including p.1360 and 1361 that are cited here). Not sure how you infer that it "is pretty poor at providing references/acknowledging sources." The main commentators it use is listed in the "Commentator key" section, and it does not include Sale/Wherry. You have not provide any reference to support your very unusual claim that SQ is somehow plagiarising/dependent on Wherry's summary - we shouldn't take your hunch alone as reference in Wikipedia for something that unusual. HaEr48 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My SQ numbering does not match yours. Hardback/paperback/electronic dunno. OK the inline citations references the COMMENTATOR KEY - these are references to dead religious commentators on the Quran, who I have listed in the main article. Where are the references to any Western Academic? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In anycase I believe the Study Quran provides an adequate references to support 1-3 & 4-6. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Q50:16 In another example where it is possible to meld Wherry & modern traditional interpretations. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Melding is indeed possible, but based on what you've done so far my suggestion is that: 1) contribute to the existing prose rather than creating a rival list 2) don't give undue weight 3) write it in Wikipedia's tone (e.g. what an encyclopedia or a third party observer would say) rather than what a theologian or a religious text would say. Your recent edit still has the same problem. HaEr48 (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)