Talk:Maimonides

Addition

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."

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.

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)

References

Changes to article

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)

Tomb inscription

The sentence "On his tomb is inscribed "From Moses to Moses there was none like Moses"." can easily be verified by googling pictures from his grave. It is also mentioned here: https://he.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1187235. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Googling is straight up WP:ORthat's irrelevant. Nor is this inscription easily verified to those who don't read Hebrew. I've no objection to the inscription being included, but per WP:ONUS information needs to be sourced. Pipsally (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Reading text on a picture in the public domain is not WP:OR. In any case, there is the other source as well. I meantioned the picture more as a way to check the WP:TRUTH than as a WP:RS. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this from the lead to the section on death, where it was absent. The lead is a summary and should summarize material present in the body, and certainly not contain material that is unreliable supported. More generally, this material was undue in the lead. Quotes are only rarely due in the lead, and this quote is not even about Maimonides, but Moses. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

On poisons and death section

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.

On poisons and death

In a separate work recently translated from Arabic, Maimonides warns against lethal drugs which he calls poisons. According to this work these poisons will cause the most severe apathies, and the decay of the human being's vigor right up to death. Nahum Neharkaspi (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Musa not moshe

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

Proper translation of Maimonides' Arabic name.

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)

"Maimonides is sometimes said to be a descendant of King David, although he never made such a claim."

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)

Influences

(1) There is no mention of Asaph in the cited source [[1]]. 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)

Abu Imran

@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)

Rambams Birthday

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

In this phrase:

on Passover eve 1138 (or 1135)[d], until

Please remove the parentheses; the phrase makes perfect sense without them. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024 (2)

In this sentence:

Aside from being revered by Jewish historians, Maimonides also figures very prominently in the history of Islamic and Arab sciences and he is mentioned extensively in studies.

please remove "and he is mentioned extensively in studies". It's such a vague statement (what kind of "study" is meant?) that I can't see any part of the article that it summarises (MOS:INTRO), and it sounds interpolated. It breaks up the discussion of Islamic scholars, who (except for Aristotle) compose the rest of the paragraph. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Flowery writing in lead

Second paragraph in lead is written a little flowery imo; while not explicitly MOS:EDITORIAL, it can be worded plainer and more encyclopedic. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

125.209.140.237 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU CLAIM THAT HIS FAMILY WAS EXPELLED FIR REFUSING TO CONVERT TO ISLAM, YET HE TRAVELLED TO LIVE IN MOROCCO AND EGYPT!!!

 Not done It is unclear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if needed. Wiiformii (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The article specifically notes that the Berber Almohad dynasty abolished dhimmi status on Cordoba. It does not claim that this was done in other Islamic communities. So there is no inconsistency. 2601:644:600:5F30:5C2B:3DC9:A386:9134 (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

edit request on 13 July 2024

He was expelled from Spain by the Catholic Church for not converting to Christianity. Text sites for not converting to Islam.

Source: any rabbi or historian

2601:249:D02:9DF0:A041:A5DC:88B0:A19B (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: For edits like this, you have to find a reliable source yourself, not just give a vague place or source to find it. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 July 2024

In the introduction appear these words:

1138 or 1135[d], until his family

Please move note [d] after the comma. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Refusing to convert to Islam

This part of the beginning paragraph of this article claims Maimonides and his family were exiled for not converting to Islam. While they were exiled for not apostatizing, the oppressive rulers (al-Mohad Empire) were not of a traditional Islamic background. Almohad Empire adhered to a radical heterodox deviation of traditional Sunni Islam called Almohadism. They claimed to be a revivalist movement and although they did oppress non-Muslims such as Maimonides, they also oppressed Muslims who did not adhere to their reformed doctrine. Amongst the Muslims who faced these oppressions were the Kharijites, Maliki Sunnis, Athari Sunnis, and Shias.

While the fact Maimonides was exiled is true, it is misleading to categorize his exile as having been uniquely directed towards only non-Muslims. Most Muslims were affected by the Almohad's policies which were considered heterodox during its time. Their reign was oppressive and, according to most religious scholars of Islam, was against the teachings of Islam.

So the more context-appropriate and historically accurate phrasing should be: “…for not converting to Almohadism, a heterodox strain of Sunni Islam that had expelled most of its Muslim and non-Muslim opponents.” This revised sentence offers more details to a time in which religious dogmas were volatile and politics were more exclusive, as well as offering a brief understanding of why the Almohadis were so aggressive.

2605:8D80:564:9B25:4E3:5B1E:6F19:4B11 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Andre🚐 23:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Visit to "Palestine"

References say he visited Acre, Israel and Jerusalem. There was no nation called "Palestine" in those years. This would have been Jund_al-Urdunn, which was part of Syria in 1165 or possible the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This usage here is just parroting that one reference. See https://www.sup.org/books/extra/?id=23515&i=Chapter%202.html, https://timeline.cityofdavid.org.il/event/maimonides-arrives-in-jerusalem/ 75.57.12.240 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2024

Please remove this phrase:

He died in Fustat, Egypt and, according to Jewish tradition, was buried in Tiberias. The Tomb of Maimonides in Tiberias is...

and add this one to replace it:

He died at Fustat in Egypt and, according to Jewish tradition, was buried in Tiberias. His tomb in Tiberias is...

"Fustat, Egypt" sounds like a place in America (like "Detroit, Michigan"), and I think the tomb link could be piped to sound better. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done City then country is a common format (like "Paris, France"), and it's acceptable as is. I changed the link as requested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2024 (2)

Please change this:

codification of Halacha

to:

codification of halakha

The article uses this spelling, typically italicises it, and typically doesn't capitalise the word in the middle of sentences. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

until his family was expelled for refusing to convert to Christianity.[9][10][11] Later, he lived in Morocco and Egypt and worked as a rabbi, physician and philosopher. Lexsense (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about what change you want made? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)