Jump to content

Talk:Al-Hakam II

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

Biography assessment rating comment

[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.--KGV (Talk) 06:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This king is most definitely not gay. This is yet another attempt at distorting history. Please remove all these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.111.113 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just take your opinion I'm afraid - use arguments to support your proposed edits. Nor does the article describe Hakam as "gay" - an anachronistic term. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In his youth his loves seem to have been entirely homosexual.[4] He was known to have openly kept a male harem.[5] This exclusivity was a problem, since it was essential to produce an heir. A resolution was reached[6] by his taking a concubine, Subh, who dressed in boys' clothes and was given the masculine name of Jafar.
And you pretend he was not gay ? What's the matter with you ? He was FOR SURE. Frimoussou (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80 Come here

[edit]

Why did you delete my Change?

You must respect the other point of view!!!

there are not such information in Arabic sources. Arab historians did not mention it. Readers should know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.238.165 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of the information is original research, which is not allowed. Continued edit warring will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Point well made. Thanks Kansas Bear. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my assessment of the information, this is additional information, If i told incorrect information then give us one Arab or Muslim historian that wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.238.165 (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is not my assessment of the information, this is additional information"
Additional unsourced information, ergo your opinion(ie. your assessment). --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument being made seems to be that as no arab-born historian has written about the homosexuality of Al-Hakam then it cannot be a fact. Firstly this assumes no arab-born writer or historian has not dealt with this material in this way (and I see nothing to suggest that is true), and secondly that non-arabs are not to be relied upon to provide accurate historical analysis. Such a statement strikes me as racist. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where racism?

We are talking about Muslim Arab governor. In the sense that old Arab and Muslim historians must be the first historians that talking about it. If we were talking about the Roman governor, for example, certainly it would be more reliable Roman historians to speak about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.238.165 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, readers have the right to know all the views.

And readers will decide where the truth. At least let the following statement (according to European sources) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.238.165 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP sounds like they just don't like what reliable sources state and are here to right great wrongs and show their version of the truth.

  • "At least let the following statement (according to European sources)"

Uh, no. That is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Hakam II. 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) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality?

[edit]

This seems to be a claim made by Évariste Lévi-Provençal in 1944. Recent sources do not treat it as fact, with the exception of "history of homosexuality" type of sources that cite Lévi-Provençal. Moreover, the most extensive study of Subh that I'm aware of, which includes a thorough examination of the primary sources, make no mention of it. See Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1997. So there is issue of due weight here and presenting disputed information as facts. Wiqi(55) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Recent sources do not treat it as fact.."
Circular Visions of Fertility and Punishment: Caliphal Ivory Caskets from al-Andalus, Francisco Prado-Vilar, Muqarnas, Vol. 14 (1997), page 19;"Al-Hakam's homosexuality could only have encouraged the ambitions of the factions gathered around his much younger brother, al-Mughira."
Women and Islam: Myths, Apologies, and the Limits of Feminist Critique, by Ibtissam Bouachrine, Lexington Press, 2014, page 5;"When al-Hakam II died, leaving his son Hisham II as minor, Subh and her minister al-Mansur Ibn Abi 'Amir held political power as Hisham II's regents. It is believe that Subh succeeded in attracting the homosexual caliph by adopting the physical appearance of a ghulam, or young man...".
Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilisation, Harvard, 2003. "Unviewable for me."
Spanish Writers on Gay and Lesbian Themes: A Bio-critical Sourcebook, ed. David William Foster, Greenwood Press, 1999, page 4;"..'Abd ar-Rahman III, al-Hakam II, Hisham II, and al-Mutamid openly chose boys as sexual partners and kept catamites".
This does not appear to be undue weight to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we should remove any mention of homosexuality, but we should avoid stating contested assertions as facts. There is another group of reliable sources where homosexuality is either omitted entirely (Mernissi - most extensive source) or treated as one explanation (Ruggles, Bouachrine). My preferred version already covers both views accordingly, without taking sides. That you insist on adding biased statements such as "He was known to have openly kept a male harem", using Wikipedia's voice no less, will obviously tip the balance away from a neutral pov. Wiqi(55) 06:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KansasBear has given a very thorough analysis. This gives me confidence that the original assertion of "un-due" weight is wrong. That Mernissi hasn't specifically mentioned homosexuality is no reason to suppose such a conclusion is wrong - she isn't a biographer of the king. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ASSERT. Mernissi wrote a thorough biography of Subh and al-Hakam and made no mention of homosexuality. Other reliable sources also question that claim by presenting other explanations to Subh's behavior (Ruggles, Bouachrine). On the other hand, the sources Kansas Bear cited do not refer directly to the primary sources (i.e., poor sources). Instead, they either cite Lévi-Provençal or do not bother at all with fact checking. It seems an attribution statement to Lévi-Provençal is more informative here, considering that this biographical info is not readily supported by the primary sources. Wiqi(55) 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

I re-ordered the section on personal life and took out the following "Because al-Hakam was, besides being a Caliph (successor to the Prophet), he was also a renowned scholar of Islamic laws and theology which supports the views that he was not a homosexual but rather a heterosexual". I found this laughable and intellectually insulting - and not supported by the sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should say I am surprised, but given how article are (re) written to satisfy the feelings of certain individuals, I can not. I have noticed a number of articles being changed, sources being manipulated, etc, to suit the feelings/beliefs of IPs/editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both the previous and current wording failed verification. Better to just get rid of it entirely. Wiqi(55) 23:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again someone has written "Because al-Hakam was, besides being a Caliph (successor to the Prophet), he was also a renowned scholar of Islamic laws and theology which supports the views that he was not a homosexual but rather a heterosexual." Utter rubbish. Can we stop inserting this stuff please. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's inline with the primary sources. For example,

Al-hakem was a just and enlightened ruler; he attended public worship every Friday, and distributed alms to the poor. Being himself very strict in the observance of religious duties, he caused all the precepts of the Sunnah to be enforced throughout his dominions.[1]

These same primary sources tend to have negative or more balanced views of other figures, but they seem to be unanimous on the good/pious character of al-Hakam II. Also, plenty of sources testify to his campaign to end wine drinking and obscene poetry. Compare "He was known to have openly kept a male harem" which is not supported by any primary source. Heck even secondary sources that directly refer to the primary sources do not support that assertion. We should consider replacing it with the actual argument made by Lévi-Provençal. Let me know if you have any objections. Wiqi(55) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lévi-Provençal's reading of al-Maqqari

[edit]

You keep adding this sentence "Among other virtues Al-hakem possessed that of paternal love in such a degree that it blinded his prudence and induced him to appoint a son of his, who was then a child, to be his successor, in preference to any of his brothers or nephews, all men of mature age, well versed in the management of affairs and in the command of the armies, capable of making their mandates obeyed, and of maintaining themselves in power." What does this have to do with suggestions of his homosexuality? Trying to make sense of the spanish sources you included look like he was thought to have been in love with a child or young man who may not have been his son and who he made his heir. You probably need to summarise this better if you want to restore some of the text that I took out - otherwise it doesn't make sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Lévi-Provençal who cited that sentence as proof of al-Hakam's homosexuality. It doesn't make any sense, I know. That's why I quoted an English translation and two recent academic sources who all agree that it's about paternal love when choosing a successor. Wiqi(55) 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Categories

[edit]

Not sure if they are appropriate as it is not certain. Synotia (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you totally. Soyouy553 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to lead and body

[edit]

92.0.65.92, don't bombard the article with major changes without establishing consensus here first. Again, list the changes you would like to be made so they can be added properly. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Hakam_II&oldid=1204647202"