Talk:Maimonides/Archive 2

@Alexbrn: You've reverted my good faith edit saying it's an "original source" (how is that a problem??) and OR. How is quoting the author portrayed by the article OR?? And you say the citation is false, that Guide for the Perplexed wasn't published by Chicago University Press. What do you mean?? Here it is on CUP's own website! You don't seem to be acting in good faith. — Guarapiranga (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

it's a primary source, to which you have added your own intepretation, which is prohibited by policy. A translation may well have been published by Chicago UP, but the quotation and reference you used point to an archived copy of some apparently self-published web site of unknown provenance. If you want to establish weight for Maimonides's views, find secondary sources. Your continued attempts to personalize matters is noted. Alexbrn (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What "interpretation"?? It is literally what he wrote! And the wording I used is literally transcluded from the Brit milah page!!

You want a secondary source? Here it is:^[1] — Guarapiranga (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your addition of stuff like "... explains that the main purpose of circumcision ..." is your original interpretation. We need secondary sources to lend weight, and then relay their views (not those of Wikipedia editors). Alexbrn (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Again I ask: WHAT "interpretation"?? Of the English language? Maimonides literally says in that passage that:

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.

And again, since you're so adamant about a secondary source on this very explicit quote, I refer you to Glick (2005): Maimonides not only acknowledges the painfulness of the operation but even calls it the "real purpose." Whether or not he was correct about impaired sexual capacity as the principal reason for circumcision, he recognized this as the principal result.^[1] — Guarapiranga (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We can relay the view is RS, but unverified views by Wikipedia editors are a no-no. Alexbrn (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean bogus?? — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Was it the link you didn't like (which is plentifully used on this page)?? Ok, fixed (you could've done that, if you really thought it was a necessary improvement). — Guarapiranga (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention in the 'Influence' section the importance of the works of Averroes on Maimonides works.. specifically in the reconciliation between the works of Greek philosophy and that of biblical theology. A similar influence can be traced from Averroes to the works of Thomas Aquinas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.130.235.195 (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they're not going to mention it. Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about his intellectual environment. They act as if this guy owed nothing to Islamic civilization when in fact he owes EVERYTHING to it. This guy would never have existed if not for Muslim knowledge at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.65.173.131 (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "they". This article has many issues which even a non-expert can see, but there is a shortage of experts capable and willing to improve it. There is no conspiracy to suppress discussion of Averroes. Just a very short list of people who can talk intelligently about Averroes. Ar2332 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pipsally, so what's your point? This is a classic depiction of what Maimonides might have looked like, a depiction very famous accross the Jewish world. It wasn't made in Medieval times, just like all the paintings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were made thousands of years after they lived, and yet those images are included in many articles in Wikipedia. The same goes for fictional depictions of Judean kings, such as the Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum. There is no policy forbiding imaginative depictions of historical figures, specially if they lived hundreds of years ago when there was no photography available (duh). Leave the image alone or replace it for a better one.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

This sort of image adds absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia. It’s completely speculative. If it was a description written in the text of what he ‘might have looked like’ it would be cut as unsourced OR. There’s no reason that an image should be given a free pass. Duh.Pipsally (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

::Well, I beg to differ. It does add something to an encyclopedia to have an infobox image, even if it's an artistic one. Better than not having any image at all. That particular image of the Rambam is very iconic among Jews. It appears on every book about him. Also all the articles on Judean kings (for example) have infobox images based on the Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, which are also completely speculative. There's no Wikipedia policy against this kind of images, assuming we are talking about people who lived before photography was invented. So you have no legs to stand on. If you want, ask an administrator in the meantime about this.--SoaringLL (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Any image is not automatically better than none. There's no evidence that it's "iconic amongst Jews" and that's not relevant anyway. As to Judean kings please read WP:OTHER. IMO they shouldn't be there either. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not administrators.Pipsally (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The evidence required would be scholarly articles like this. William Avery (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That's barely more than an opinion piece, but summaries nearly why it's completely imaginary.Pipsally (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

::::::There is no Wikipedia policy against showing imaginary or artistic depictions of famous people from the past. SoaringLL (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

The tenth principle of faith is summarized as "God's foreknowledge of human actions." The tenth doesn't seem to include foreknowledge to me at all. "I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions (Psalms 33:15)." That, to me, says God reads minds, and implies that God knows people well enough to know what they're going to do. I'm not arguing whether or not God knows the future, just that this principle does not say anything that could be construed as asserting such. Comments?--Mrcolj (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. MikeR613 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

According to this reliable source, https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/211609, the consensus of historians is that Maimonides did not convert to Islam. That dubious report came from an unverified claim by his muslim opponents. Even his Jewish opponents did not propagate such a claim155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? Did the article claim he did? Debresser (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is what article said: "Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping. This forced conversion was ruled legally invalid under Islamic law when brought up by a rival in Egypt."155.246.151.38 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

there look’s to be decent coverage of at the claim by his opponents. That in itself is notable. We could do better with the “some say” phrasing, but the rest looks fine.Pipsally (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a useful discussion of the various perspectives here p. 54 forward - https://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/091911113_Bou%C5%A1ek.pdf. It's abundantly clear that there is significant scholarly debate about this conversion (alleged or otherwise) - certainly enough to merit mentioning it explicitly in the article.

I certainly don't think that Arutz Sheva is sufficiently neutral on this to use as a justification for removing all discussion. Moreover , reading the passage it's a certain case of WP:CITOGENESIS - the writer has been using this very article as a source - consequently we can't use it as a source for changes.

Compare:

Wikipedia 27 April 2016

The loss of this protected status threatened the Jewish and Christian communities with conversion to Islam, death, or exile.[20] The historical records of abuses against Jews in the immediate post-1148 period are subject to different interpretations.[21] Many Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them subject to public scrutiny.[22][23]

Maimonides's family, along with most other Jews, chose exile. Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.[24] This forced conversion was ruled legally invalid under Islamic law when brought up by a rival in Egypt.[21] For the next ten years, Maimonides moved about in southern Spain, eventually settling in Fes in Morocco. During this time, he composed his acclaimed commentary on the Mishnah in the years 1166–1168.[25]

Arutz Sheva 2 May 2016

The known facts are these: Under the Almohad Islamic conquest of Cordoba, Spain, in 1148, the Jewish community was faced with a stark choice: Conversion to Islam, exile, or death. Most Jews of the time, including Maimonides' family, chose exile, and in fact he spent the next ten years on the run in southern Spain, eventually settling in the city of Fes in Morocco. One report, however – which is now impossible to refute or confirm – has it that the Rambam feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.

Even according to this story, it must be noted, an Islamic court ruled in his case that a forced conversion of this type was religiously invalid.

Pipsally (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The article by Daniel BOUŠEK is very interesting. Based on it I agree that we mention something. Instead of "Some say, though, that it is likely that Maimonides feigned a conversion to Islam before escaping.", which is not bad in itself, perhaps we could provide more details and more accuracy and say: "The question whether Maimonides himself was among those who had to convert to Islam in order to save his life prior to fleeing the area, has been the subject of scholarly debate." Debresser (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds fine.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m happy with that, seems like an improvement.Pipsally (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

On further thought does this sound better: "The question whether Maimonides himself was among those who feigned conversion to Islam in order to save his life prior to fleeing the area, has been the subject of scholarly debate."155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is "feigned" something that can be sourced? Does it matter? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe it can be sourced if pressed to look for it. I vaguely remember something along those lines being discussed in those sources. I don't believe it matters, because wp:Skyisblue.155.246.151.38 (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it needs a source. I’ve edited to Debressers version for now. Also restored a presumably accidental deletion of source and the following sentence.Pipsally (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What is Maimonides' "famous" commentary on the Mishnah? Not named in the article. Name it. Otherwise it looks as if the phrase is simply copied from some source. 71.163.114.49 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have a name. Unless you count 'Commentary on the Mishnah' as a name rather than a description. And yes, it is very famous; it's probably the second most famous commentary on the Mishnah of all time, after that of R Ovadiah of Bertinoro. -- 64.131.244.143 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Mishnah/Rishonim%20on%20Mishnah/Rambam Indeed, פירוש על המשנה ("Commentary on the Mishnah") is its standard name. That alone tells you something about its importance. MikeR613 (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The statement in the article that the 13 Principles of Faith are missing ("The omission of these principles listed within his later works, the Mishneh Torah and The Guide for the Perplexed, is controversial; though more for the Orthodox sect than many other sects including Reform and Conservative Judaism. This famous omission") I find pretty confusing. They seem to be referred to pretty clearly in his Hilchot Teshuva Chapter 3 Halachot 6-8: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Repentance.3.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en. Just go down the list, basically in order, there they are. I see there are some "reliable sources" talking about this "omission", but maybe someone should note that actually they are right there in plain sight? I do note that the wikipedia article on just the Thirteen Principles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_principles_of_faith#Maimonides'_13_principles_of_faith) is much more equivocal in its wording. I think this article should be fixed to do the same. MikeR613 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess they are not mentioned in Guide for the Perplexed at least - though this isn't very "perplexing", as the Guide doesn't purport to be a complete summary of laws like the Mishneh Torah. - As I said, I don't know what to do with this phrase, because it's hard to know what to replace it with. I'd remove it, but it needs some reference to the scholarly discussion. I guess whatever it says in the other article. There is certainly no reason for what amounts to a value judgment: "though more for the Orthodox sect than many other sects..." I'm Orthodox but I don't find it controversial because I don't think it's missing! MikeR613 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I also corrected a mistake in the beginning of the section, which said that "Jewish tradition states that in his commentary on the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides formulates his "13 principles of faith" [italics mine]. Anyone can read his commentary on the Mishnah there (https://www.sefaria.org/Rambam_on_Mishnah_Sanhedrin.10.1.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en and onward) and see his words, so "Jewish tradition" is not needed here. MikeR613 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This was reverted, and I un-reverted it. I don't understand the reasoning for including this phrase; please explain. It seems like just a mistake. MikeR613 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems you know a bit about this subject, do what you feel to be necessary.155.246.151.38 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied over from there. Also corrected some wording nearby. I don't want to add my own comment from above, that would be "original research" and anyhow I expect it's discussed in the links. MikeR613 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that change has been reverted as well. That should be explained, or un-reverted. MikeR613 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the Mishneh Torah is a work of Halakha. If the Rambam does not clearly say in the Mishneh Torah that "one must believe such and such", that means he does not hold that this is something that one must believe. All he says in those three halakhot is that by not believing these things one forfeits ones portion in the World to Come. That is not the same thing. So I would agree with the opinion that the principles are not listed as such in the Mishneh Torah. Perhaps adding the words "as such" will clarify this issue better, and I will now boldly add them. Debresser (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly the same thing: you are mistaken. It is absurd that there should be a punishment for something that is not forbidden! "Shall the Judge of the whole world not do justice?" That is a rationale - but indeed it is quite normal for the Rambam to prescribe a punishment in Mishnah Torah, and it is then taken for granted that the thing described is forbidden. For instance, instead of saying that something is forbidden, if it also carries malkut the Rambam frequently just says that thing is לוקה and nothing more. Same with s'kilah or any one of the punishments. There are literally hundreds of examples; just search for the word לוקה or חייב סקילה etc. to find more than you need. MikeR613 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I should have added, even according to your assumption, you will be hard-pressed to find what you claim in his Peirush on the Mishnah either! He is commenting on the lines in the Mishnah, All Israel has a share in the world to come... And these are those who do not have a share in the world to come... Exactly the same topic as in the Mishnah Torah. I am not sure if in his Peirush there he says anything about "what you are required to believe" either. He simply describes what a person will need to believe to have a share in the world to come. MikeR613 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Not having a part in the World to Come is not a punishment for a transgression. It is withholding something good that all Jews will receive, from those who did not share with the Jewish people certain basic tenets of the Jewish belief. In any case, I already agreed that he is alluding to the same principles, but you have to agree that they are not listed clearly as such. Ergo, the claim in the article is correct as it stands. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems at first glance that Debresser is correct. Section should remain for now.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Not having a part in the World to Come is not a punishment for a transgression." This is just a mistake; כרת is a punishment among a list of other punishments in the Torah, prescribed for some sins and not others. Here are the words of the Rambam in that same section:

'The reward of the just is, that they will acquire the sweetness thereof, to be in such goodness; and the punishment of the wicked is, that they will not share in such life, but will suffer excision and eternal death. ... This is the meaning of excision described in the Torah, saying: "That soul shall utterly be cut off" (Num. 15.31), which was traditionally deducted to mean, "utterly cut of," both in this world and in the World to Come.' [bolded mine] https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Repentance.8.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

And as I already pointed out, anything you say here applies equally to the Peirush Hamishnah that we are discussing. You are assuming something about over there, without actually quoting it, and contrasting that with a misreading here. But he says the exact same thing in both places: These are the ones who lose the world to come. MikeR613 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The main point that Debresser is bringing is that although the Rambam believes those 13 principles are obligatory, he nevertheless did not explicitly list them out as "The 13 principles" in the Mishneh Torah.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Just read over Hilchos Teshuva, did not find Rambam say "here are 13 principles of faith" or something similar to that matter. That is the crux of the issue. In fact, I remember hearing something about the Rambam getting flak from his contemporaries for listing 13 principles of faith.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Remember that the quote we are trying to justify is, "The omission of a list of these principles as such within his later works, the Mishneh Torah and The Guide for the Perplexed, has lead some to suggest that either he retracted his earlier position, or that these principles are descriptive rather than prescriptive." How is either of those claims supported by the fact that he didn't give them a special name? He retracted nothing about them and there is nothing "descriptive" about his later words. The only change was that he included them in a larger list which includes other sins which do not involve belief. But those thirteen are all in there. It seems to me that you're getting distracted by the name, which is a side point, not the crux. His contemporaries who disagreed, disagreed because they felt that some of the list didn't belong, neither in the Peirush Hamishnah nor in the Mishnah Torah. MikeR613 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Westmoreland20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This section is not informative and it's missing sources. I removed it and copied the contents below for discussion: It was always known that some plants or substances kill. Citing that from Maimonides adds nothing particular about his contribution to the knowledge of poisons and death.

An editor created a section called "Views" with the only subsection "Circumcision". This is the content, moved here for comments:

Moses Maimonides states that the purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male organ, without preventing the functions necessary to reproduction, but reducing pleasure and desire. Sages at the time had recognized that the foreskin heightened sexual pleasure. Maimonides reasoned that the bleeding and loss of protective covering rendered the penis weakened and in so doing had the effect of reducing a man's lustful thoughts and making sex less pleasurable. He also warned that it is "hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him."^[1]

As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the fore-skin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment: the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, c. 80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.^[2]

Maimonides had many views on many things, and we can't use this article to enumerate every single opinion. His opinion on the reason for circumcision sounds old-fashioned to modern ears, but I actually doubt that he was alone in holding of this view. I've therefore moved it here for now. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously everyone has many views on many things, but their important views should be mentioned in their wikipedia articles; like in this article and this one and this one and this one and this one and many other articles in wikipedia. circumcision is an important topic, especially when it comes from a Jewish philosopher and it's definitely interesting for the readers to know about a Jewish philosopher's views on circumcision. his view on circumcision must be mentioned in this article, maybe it would be better if we change the section name to "Views on circumcision". Armin1718 (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I also don't see why this should have a special section, or any mention at all. Maimonides published several large books of his views on every Jewish subject under the sun. This one is no different and should be removed. MikeR613 (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Restored as there is no consensus for removal. We can add other views as suggested.Pngeditor (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Musa ben maimon historical name is musa not moshe as stated by the attached source and all historical sources, His full historical name is Abū ʿImran Mūsā ibn Maymūn ibn ʿUbayd Allāh Ikhnatoun (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Another fact about maimonides

“Arabic was the native language of Maimonides”

Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England

By G. J. Toomer, Professor Emeritus of the History of Mathematics Brown University Associate in the History of Science Department G J Toomer Published by Oxford university press Ikhnatoun (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

He signed his own name Moshe (as you can see in the signature box) and WP:COMMONNAME. While he spoke Arabic natively, when he wrote in Arabic he wrote it in Hebrew characters and he was a prominent advocate of the Hebrew language. We have more than a dozen autographs and he wrote his own name in the Hebrew style. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

What about his signature tells you that it’s Moshe and not Mose? ש without diacritics can be either. WP:Commonname is a policy for article titles, and it supports Maimonides not “Moshe.” إيان (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The patronymic ברבי מימון (sometimes he uses בירבי) is clearly Hebrew and a direct descendent of the Talmudic spellings; he never uses "ibn". Aside from that, there's nothing about the spelling that's absolutely definitive but it's certainly a warranted assumption. The title of the article is "Maimonides", as it should be; we're talking about the first reference/article style. The Arabic gets 8k Google results (mostly as an alternative or inside quotations from Arabic works) while Moshe/Moses gets 150k. Ngram also clearly demonstrates which is the norm. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Also note how he disdains to include the superlinear diacritics that otherwise characterize his Arabic. In manuscripts of his writings, the autograph is written entirely in Hebrew, without diacritics, even if the rest of the text is in Judeo-Arabic with diacritics. See here for example. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

::“while Moshe/Moses gets 150k.”

I don’t know why did you add the english name moses with the hebrew moshe to compare results, for example i can say that musa/moses shows more results on google than “moshe”, what is the point here ?, “he never uses "ibn"”, “ibn” in arabic literally means “ben” in hebrew and it just means “son of”, he just translated the word “son of” to hebrew, like translating “ibn tashfin” to “son of tashfin” when writing in English, “He signed his own name Moshe”,his native name is the arabic name musa, when wrote in hebrew he wrote it with it’s hebrew form and hebrew characters, you also didn’t respond to إيان point, writing his name in hebrew doesn’t change the fact that his native name that his mother called him and the name people called him and he used to refer to himself in day to day life was the arabic name musa not moshe, you can either make it “moses” because it’s the english popular wide known name just as “saladin” for “salah aldin”, or “musa ibn maimon” because it’s his native name, pick a one, Writing his name in the introduction as “moshe” have no point at all Ikhnatoun (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

This was maybe poorly phrased, but I meant that "Moses ben Maimon" + "Moshe ben Maimon" = 150k. "Moses ibn Maymun" gets eight total results, so you can add it if you want but it doesn't matter. How could you know what his mother called him? Please, introduce your source. His father Maimon also wrote in Hebrew, and Maimon is the only member of Maimonides' family, from his great-great-great-grandchildren to his great-great-great-great-great grandparents, to have an Arabic name. Crucial context is that Maimonides' family fled involuntarily to Egypt and that Maimonides is to be largely credited with the reintroduction of Hebrew as a Jewish legal vernacular. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

i think you don’t get my point, I don’t have any problem with the name “moses ben maimon”, whether “ben” or “ibn” both are actually used in arabic, but he is usually referred to as “ibn maimon” by historical arabic sources, anyway again, i don’t have a problem with either “ibn” or “ben” and “maimon” and “maymon”, the problem is with “moshe”,” from his great-great-great-grandchildren to his great-great-great-great-great grandparents, to have an Arabic name.”, his grandfather “ubayd allah” is a pure arabic name from which the english “obediah” was derived just as how “averroes” was derived from “ibn rushd”, you assertion is wrong,, jews, christians and even persians were having arabic names, he was called by the people and society whom he had been living with “musa” not “moshe” User:Ikhnatoun

The Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World from Brill uses “Moses ben Maimon.” This is fine for English. Let’s just use this and avoid WP:OR إيان (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond again probably because you've completely stopped making valid wiki arguments. His grandfather, according to him, was named Joseph. His ancestor was, according to him, named Ovadyahu, in Hebrew. There's no reason why someone can't prefer their religious culture's pronunciation of a name while living in a country where that's unusual. Almost all religious Jews in America today spell their names in English in the traditional English way but pronounce them according to their Hebrew spelling. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

* agree. Moses ben maimon User:Ikhnatoun <--- blocked sock of User:Amr.elmowaled

per these sources: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Repentance.8.6?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en. https://www.nysun.com/arts/there-was-none-like-him/21221/.

Previous changes to article should be made.

The first of those is a primary source, and cannot be used to support the edits as the they stand. The second is better, but you need to actually use it in the article. You've made a number of changes ad it's not easy to match them to the source if you don't cite inline.

None of that is relevant to your other blanking of sourced content which is much more problematic.Pipsally (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Allowed to summarize primary sources, which is what I have been doing. When you read previous sections, it fits much better than previous section on world to come.

2. Second source is source for blanking of unreliable content. Thanks for your comments!155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That is not how it works. You are removing sourced content and you were reverted. You need to get consensus on the talkpage before restoring your edits. You are also introducing numerous bit of POV in among your edits. Please revert to the established version until there is consensus.Pipsally (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you referencing when saying "That is not how it works"?155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What portions are apparently POV? As far as I know, this is opinion of Maimonides as accepted by Reliable sources.

Do you agree with these edits? If not please explain. Feel free to temporarily restore previous version, it will make it easier to revert when finished. Appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself!155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Maimonides' Arabic name is أَبُو عَمْرَان مُوسَى بْن مَيْمُون بْن عُبَيْد ٱللّٰه ٱلْقُرْطُبِيّ, Abū ʿImrān Mūsā bin Maimūn bin ʿUbaidallāh al-Qurṭabī.

The debate unfolded in the form of back-and-forth edits between GordonGlottal and me. I posited that his name should be translated "'Father of Amram', Moses son of Maimon son of Obadiah, the Cordoban". GordonGlottal posited that it should be translated "Moses 'son of Amram' son of Maimon of the Obadians, the Cordoban".

The dispute is under the section on his name which is meant, among other things, to provide a translation of his Arabic name. In Arabic, the word abu always means "father of" and never "son of" or "whose father is". GordonGlottal claimed in an edit on 01:41, 27 December 2022 that Abu Imran‎ means "whose father is Amram" (quote: "correction in the translation of "Abu Imran" which means "whose father is Amram and is a traditional way of saying "Moses" (Biblical Moses' father was named Amram), not "Father of Amram"). It seems GordonGlottal is confusing abu with ibn/bin, the former of which means 'the father of' and is used in Maimonides' Arabic name in reference to Amram and the latter of which means "the son of" and is not used in reference to Amram. The burden of proof is on GordonGlottal to demonstrate that his translation of Abu Imran as 'son of Amram'—instead of 'father of Amram'—is a "traditional way (in Arabic) of saying "Moses" as he claims. I am not challenging whether the name means Maimonides is a descendant of Amram but whether GordonGlottal's translation is accurate. There is Musa ibn Imran (Moses son of Amram) and there is Abu Imran, Musa (Father of Amram, Moses). Maimonides is named the latter.

The following are my 6 arguments for why it should be “Father* of Amram”:

• note: "Father" is capitalized in this instance because Maimondes' name starts with it.

1) A simple reading of the Arabic text supports my position. “Abu Imran” word for word means "father of Amram". There is no reason beyond the text to assume that Maimonides, or anyone else called Musa (Moses) for that matter, is an exception to the rule. To argue otherwise shifts the burden of proof to GordonGlottal since he would be going beyond the apparent meaning of the text.

2) My translation is consistent with the rules of kunyas (Arabic teknonyms) which can be used either figuratively or literally. For example, Abu Ashahāma, a common Arabic epithet, means “Father of Magnanimity” and not one who is a father to a son/daughter named “magnanimity”. Likewise, "father of Amram" does not necessarily mean he had a biological son called Amram, which is what GordonGlottal is trying to avoid altogether here since Maimonides never had a son by that name—something I'm aware of. However, that does not give GordonGlottal the right to mistranslate the Arabic. According to the rules of kunyas, one can both translate his name as "father of Amram" and not denote he had a son by that name, thus satisfying both positions. In addition to mistranslating, GordonGlottal is also special pleading by using "son of Imran" not in the literal sense (since he and I know Maimonides' biological father was not called Amram but that it's a reference to his distant Biblical ancestor) and then denying me using "father of Amram" figuratively since Maimonides only son was called Avraham. As stated, "son of Amram" can be used in the sense GordonGlottal is using it. However, that's not what the original Arabic says, and again, does not give GordonGlottal the right to mistranslate the Arabic.

3) If Maimonides's name was supposed to mean “son of Imran” like GordonGlottal claims, he would have been called “Ibn Imran” instead, even if his father is not called Imran—and he isn't—because Arabic patronymics (nasab), like Arabic teknonyms, can also be used figuratively. For example, Ibn Aṣṣahrā’ means “son of the desert”, as in one born out of the desert, i.e., a desert nomad.

4) GordonGlottal has not provided a single example where “Abu X” in Arabic can ever mean the “son of X” whether literally or figuratively.

5) A kunya always precedes one’s name and follows a specific formula: Abu X + Y. X being the name of the literal/figurative child and Y being one's personal name. For example, "Abu John, Peter" means "the father of John, Peter". This is the pattern that Maimonides’ name follows. GordonGlottal has not provided a single example that violates this pattern in Arabic. Claiming Maimonides is an exception is not a proof since his name is the point of contention here. GordonGlottal needs to back up his claim by using other occurrences in Arabic.

6) GordonGlottal's translation violates Arabic syntax. A transliteration of Maimonides Arabic name is Abū ʿImrān Mūsā which is also in keeping with the rules of Arabic nomenclature. Patronyms (denoted by "ben/ibn" in Arabic) always succeed personal names, while teknonyms (denoted by "abu" in Arabic) always precede personal names. In order to justify his translation, GordonGlottal tampers with the sequence by shifting "Abu Imran" from before "Musa" to after it.

The second point of contention has to do with my rendition of bin Ubayd Allah as 'son of Obadiah'. Doing so does not necessarily mean that Maimonides' grandfather is called Obadiah even if Obadiah appears as the third name in Maimonides nasab. It could also mean that he has a distant ancestor named Obadiah—which he does—in the same sense GordonGlottal wants to argue that Abu Imran means he has a distant ancestor named Imran, except, as demonstrated, GordonGlottal's argument is only valid when the case in question is a patronymic and not a teknonym. However, unlike GordonGlottal's case, this case is a patronymic as evidenced by the use of "bin"; therefore, the patronymic could be used to refer to a distant ancestor. The Arabic does not say “of the Obadians” like GordonGlottal claims. Rather, it literally says he is the “son of Obadiah”, regardless of interpretation. Kafei the Silent (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please revert. You are not familiar with the actual rules which govern medieval Arabic kunyas, and attempting to translate with only a knowledge of modern Arabic and its idioms has led you astray. For the specific example of Abu Imran Musa, please see Steinschneider's An Introduction to the Arabic Literature of the Jews (1901) pg. 622 (cont. pg. 487 of the next article) where he says clearly "Musa is called abu (instead of ibn) Imran" and gives several examples of this in practice. See also Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 2 "Abu" which informs that "imaginary kunyas developed, and these predominated among Jews. Thus, persons called Abraham were often addressed as Abu Isḥāq . . . As the father of Moses was Amram (Arabic ʿImrān), as Abu ʿImrān". The same information is available in a cited work on this page, Moses Maimonides: An Intellectual Portrait (2005) pg. 484 "If the name was biblical, the byname followed the biblical genealogy . . . A man named Moses was given the byname 'abu Imran', as was Maimonides". Re bin Ubaydallah, your translation is misleading and improperly limited to the prime sense of a word with a wide semantic range. I think "of the Obadians" is elegant but "a descendent of Obadiah" would be fine too. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am very familiar with all forms of Arabic from classical to modern. It is important to make a distinction between translation and semantics. I agree with you that 'descendant of Amram' is a valid interpretation of 'Abu Imran' but not your translation thereof. Steinschneider is confirming what I had stated before that Maimonides is called "Abu Imran" instead of "Ibn Imran" and I posit that a direct translation of that is "Father of Amram", regardless of interpretation. You are stating that "Abu Imran" could be translated as "son of Amram" and I am asking you for proof from Arabic sources where that translation—not the meaninig—is valid. A modus vivendi is to keep the direct translation and to add a clarification that Maimonides did not have a son named Imran/Amram but that such a kunya indicated he was a distant descendant of the Biblical Amram.

That rationale also extends to the translation of "bin Ubayd Allah". I agree with you that his grandfather was not called that—like you stated, these honourifics have a wide semantic field and nasabs (like kunyas) should not always be taken literally as I stated before. However, that section of Maimonides' article is concerned with translating his name and should, therefore, be faithful to the original Arabic. The article already clarifies that "Bin ʿUbaidallāh" in this instance means that he is a descendant of Obadiah, and not that his grandfather is called such.

My suggestion is to render the text as follows:

In Arabic, he is sometimes called "'Father of Amram', Moses son of Maimon son of Obadiah, the Cordoban" (أَبُو عَمْرَان مُوسَى بْن مَيْمُون بْن عُبَيْد ٱللّٰه ٱلْقُرْطُبِيّ, Abū ʿImrān Mūsā bin Maimūn bin ʿUbaidallāh al-Qurṭubī), or more often Mūsā bin Maymūn (موسى بن ميمون). The Arabic teknonym (kunya) "Abu Imran" in this instance does not mean that Maimonides had a son named Imran/Amram, as his only son was named Avraham, but that he is a descendant of the Biblical Amram. Bin ʿUbaidallāh is to be treated as Maimonides' surname, as Obadiah was the name of his earliest direct ancestor, not his grandfather, who was named Joseph.

• Note: I noticed a small but important mistake in the transliteration of ٱلْقُرْطُبِيّ which was rendered al-Qurṭabī instead of al-Qurṭubī. The ط is mathmooma so it should be rendered ṭu.

Kafei the Silent (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@MuhannadDarwish When you say "that such a kunya indicated he was a distant descendant of the Biblical Amram" what is your source??? It certainly does not indicate that. The name "Abu Imran Musa" indicates, quite simply, that the person in question is named Moses, and that he has received the traditional nickname for a person named Moses, "son of Amram," which reflects the fact that the biblical Moses' father was named Amram. The fact that "abu" is used instead of the more obvious "ibn" is curious, but it doesn't in any way affect the meaning, which no one aware of the genealogical relationship between biblical Moses and biblical Amram could misconstrue. The same form is found in "abu Ibrahim", which is a kunya applied to people named Isaac (for this example, see Steinschneider op cit. pg. 619, "Isaac is commonly called abu Ibrahim instead of ibn Ibrahim" and The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia "Abu" which recommends translating the phrase "he who was of Abraham". The Jewish Encyclopedia "Abu" notes that "Ishak is called abu Ibrahim; in which Abu has entirely lost its original signification of father").

You have misunderstood my citation of Steinschneider (and not read the others?). When he says "Musa is called abu Imran" he isn't referring to Maimonides, but to biblical Moses, and every other Moses following. Steinschneider also gives several other examples, including Moses ibn Ezra. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is because Judah HaNasi was a descendent of King David. Drsruli (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that King David never really existed as a flesh and bone person like perhaps you and me. It is all just myth. But never mind. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That's really not the point. Drsruli (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ideophagous Please read all of the sources that I put on the Kunya page. It is crucial to understand that words can shift in meaning and also that you should expect, when reading a Medieval text in a foreign dialect, to encounter familiar words used in surprising ways. It will be impossible to accurately read anything composed more than a few decades in the past or a few miles away if you insist that your personal experience dictates the complete semantic range of every word you encounter. In this case the common word "Abu" was abstracted into a marker indicating the kunya form. "Abu" went from meaning "father of" to meaning "this phrase is of the type which commonly expresses a paternal relationship". Similarly, in English, many modern surnames take the form [profession]+son or [quality]+son. This is because the patronymic suffix lost its initial meaning ("son of") and became instead a suffix which indicated a surname ("this phrase is of the type which commonly expresses a filial relationship"). Because all the word "abu" indicates is that the phrase is a kunya, we need to rely on context to translate it in every case. Context says that Abu Yusuf Yaqub is "Jacob father of Joseph", Abu Imran Musa is "Moses son of Amram", Abu Harun Musa is "Moses brother of Aaron", and Abu Al-Afiya Musa is "Moses the Healthy". Medieval Jewish Arabic speakers themselves indicate the meaning quite clearly when the they translate it to בן עמרם in Hebrew (if you don't read Hebrew, the cognate of "ibn Imran") with regard to Maimonides, Abu Imran al-Fasi, etc. But really you should just read the sources, which are quite clear that the word abu does not mean "father" in these cases. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @GordonGlottal. Thank you for the detailed clarification. I still think the phrasing of that sentence was terrible, and should have been clarified better, just as you did above, because any reader who knows Arabic and is not aware of your explanation, will immediately think the translation is incorrect, and want to change it (or think Wikipedia editors don't know what they're doing). Perhaps "abu" in that context is more like "of" or "related to" rather than "father of". The example of "Abu Al-Afiya Musa" you put in the edit comment is a good one, since it clearly shows the actual usage of "abu" in this context ("Abu Al-Afiya" = "(possessor) of health", certainly not "father of health"). Maybe in the text you can put "son" between parentheses, to highlight that it's not a literal translation of "abu", i.e. "Moses (son) of Amram". Have a good morning/day/evening! Ideophagous (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add the rambams birthday in the hebrew calendar equivalent of "Nissan 14, 4895" 24.117.115.148 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) There is no mention of Asaph in the cited source []. This should be deleted. (2) Why single out al-Ghazali here, when - if he had any positive influence at all (debatable) - it was much less than al-Farabi and Avicenna. 81.5.59.36 (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If there is no mention of Asaph in the source, then the text should not mention him, unless other sources attest to that. Al-Ghazali, the contemporary consensus is, was an influence on Maimonides (less so than al-Farabi and Avicenna certainly,) though he is never explicitly named. So he should be retained, and if the passage worries you, note the other, major influences. We shouldn't be citing compendia, but the scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford reference speculates on Al-Ghazali's influence without explaining the extent and significance. Since Al-Ghazali's "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" is an attack on Hellenic philosophy while Maimonides defends Aristotle (as does Averroes who attacks Al-Ghazali in his "Tahafut al-Tahafut (Incoherence of the Incoherence). Maimonides & Averroes are rationalistic while Al-Ghazali is Islam's defender of mysticism. Without some explanation of the manner and scope of Al-Ghazali's influence this is confusing. In addition other articles on Maimonides have no mention of Al-Ghazali's influence suggesting it may be minor or with respect to particular issues. Most writers look for al-Farabi's influence. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)