Talk:Early social changes under Islam/Archive 1

Not neutral article

Look like everything in this article positive for one point of view.Opiner 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a friendly start! :-) (→Netscott) 00:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, you can not just add POV tag to an article without explicitly providing sources contradiciting this article. --Aminz 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Youre thinking the source template. Do you know what POV standing for? Youre making up the rule again and right away reverting.Opiner 00:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have any source contradicting a sentence written in this article, then please show me. --Aminz 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator comment

A little for both sides here: editors don't have to provide sources when they add a POV tag. They should, however, post more of an explanation on the talk page - preferably analysis of specific sections and passages. Durova^Charge! 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz creating this article because on Muhammad he keep trying to make sections with only positive things like Kindness to Animals. Im not kidding he really make that section. When editor try to make it neutral he revert until he break 3RR three times this week. SO he have this article to own and be not neutral.

Title. Whats a reform is a good change. So only good changes listed here just like what hes doing on Muhammad. Should retitle it Changes under Islam and have both good and bad things to be neutral.Opiner 00:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, the word reformation doesn't mean inherently good.. there can be reforms that are bad as well (particularly for certain groups). (→Netscott) 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Another administrator comment: [1]. --Aminz 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its only been a couple minutes. You didnt give much time did you? Why cant you let the template stay for discussing instead of always revert.Opiner 00:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But please be specific. --Aminz 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, please outline your neutrality concerns here on the talk page and then proceed to restore the POV tag. You'll surely not have any problems with reverting if you do that being that if your concerns were well founded even I would revert the tag removal. (→Netscott) 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Theres a lot here and gotta do some stuff to do so wait to later.Opiner 01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems we have reached a consensus. I would be more than interested to hear what Muhammad did which, in his day and time, was backward. This will contradict Watt since Watt says that from the perspective of Muhammad's contemporaries, he was very upright and they didn't find any lack of morality in him. --Aminz 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a quote to that effect. By the standards of our day he was a bad man (I guess god's morals were different back then too), but even by his standards, assassination can't have been acceptable. Arrow740 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Title?

Maybe Historical reforms under Islam since this is covering primarily reforms during Muhammad's time. It's not a big issue but it might be good to narrow down the title to discourage folks from coming in and editing in modern reforms (unless that's what this article should be about as well). (→Netscott) 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is supposed to cover the reforms at the time of Muhammad. Maybe Reforms under early Islam would be better? Any suggestion? --Aminz 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually maybe specify the dates like Reforms under early Islam (610-632) or just Reforms under Islam (610-632)... there might be a Wikipedia manual of style for such questions. (→Netscott) 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we would like to include early Khalifas (four immediate successors of Muhammad) under which Islamic territory became an empire. Since in the Islam and Slavrey section, we have something about the practice of slavery in Islamic empire and Byzantium. --Aminz 01:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good.... just figure out the dates and specify them. (→Netscott) 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So, I will move the page to Reforms under Islam (610-661) --Aminz 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A question: If we can include his immediate successors, then can we include that they "lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare" (ref. both Esposito; Lewis mention this)

Quoting from Lewis:

Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance."

My question is if these are reforms of Islam. --Aminz 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, just be bold and do some editing. Others will be sure to join in! :-) (→Netscott) 02:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Need to do some research. Cheers, --Aminz 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article be broken up into 2 primary sections. The first obviously would cover reforms under Muhammad and the second for afterwards. (→Netscott) 02:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.We can do that after we gathered more information. --Aminz 06:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Geckos

Truthspreader you make article say Arab practices were 'terrible' again. If that not POV what is?

Then you reduce hadith citation making it sound like only one hadith when actually seven. Whats the reason for that can you explain? You put command about geckos in footnote. Why? Also change gecko pic caption to remove FACT that Muhammad say to kill them and also to make no sense. Theyre AMBIVALENT? That make no sense.

If something sound good then trumpeted from the rooftop. If bad then hidden under the rug. Thats not neutral.Opiner 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrible is very different from traditional, which gives very wrong information. Secondly, information has to come from secondary sources. Please stop making Original research and putting your claims as Professor Opiner. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No original research there. If traditional is wrong then say nothing. Just practices of the Arabs. Were not supposed to take a position.

Information must come from seconddary sources? QUOTE THE POLICY.

Now what about the geckos? Why change number of hadiths from seven to one? Why changing the caption? You give reasons why geckos are bad while hiding Muhammad command to kill them. Like a court case where only the defense can speak! Explain why please.Opiner 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

M. didn't come to eradicate all practices of Arabs, hence putting nothing would be wrong as well. Secondly, I am not hiding the command. There is no command, it is an advice. The secondary source even takes killing of these animals in haram as advice and not command (which is a much more severe case), then who are we to comment on that? TruthSpreader^Talk 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then write practices of Arabs that HE THOUGHT were 'terrible' NOT make the article say that.

Hadith say 'advice' not 'command'?

Book 026, Number 5560: Umm Sharik reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) COMMANDED her to kill geckos. This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ibn Abi Shaiba with a slight variation of wording.

Book 026, Number 5561: Umm Sharik reported that she consulted Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) in regard to killing of geckos, and he COMMANDED to kill them and Umm Sharik is one of the women of Bani 'Amir b. Luwayy. This hadith has been reported through another chain of transmitters with the same meaning.

Book 026, Number 5562:'Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) COMMANDED the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.

Hmm look like command to me.04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR says: Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That say NOTHING about primary or secondary sources. There are parts that talk about the primary sources why arent you quoting them?Opiner 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mate! if you are so sure, why don't you backup your case with a good secondary source. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Youre evading the questions! Why you not quote the parts that DO talk about primary sources? If YOURE so sure how come you cant find anything in the policy to backup your case?Opiner 04:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming to infer from hadith literature, as a hadith expert. The problem is that you dont' even know how hadith literature works. There are examples in which some Muslims think that context is essential in interpreting the source. Secondly, not all hadith are accepted by all historians, so saying that Muhammad ordered killing geckos is a grave POV that is your Original Research. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No theres no 'interpreting' here at all anymore than you 'interpret' secondary source. Read what it say and write it not 'interpreting.' The rules here EXACTLY the same with secondary and primary source. So QUOTE THE POLICY you think backs you up.

And why you change citation of seven hadith to citation of only one? Still havent answered that.Opiner 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They say that everything bad in the hadith is a corruption, but keep the good stuff. What a joke. Is this the way all Muslims reason? Context. What a load of nonsense. You don't need context to interpret the words "Muhammad commanded the killing of geckos." Arrow740 10:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No body is disagreeing with the fact that geckos are not liked animals and M. advised to kill these animals (some thing a secondary source says very clearly). By adding that it is a command for all Muslims, this purly is Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said ALL muslims? 'Muhammad commanded Muslims' by standard English doesnt decide this question.Opiner 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreaders Double Standard on Hadith

Truthspreader looking at what youve been saying that we cant use primary sources such as hadith, can you explain this edit? Where you add Bukhari hadith to secondary source which doesnt mention the hadith.[2]You write that hadith 'suggest' something which is 'interpretation' isnt it? Explain.Opiner 05:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look like a whole lot of primary sources used in that article both hadith and sira. Wondering how much of that you add Truthspreader? Why you not agressively remove it I wonder?Opiner 05:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If he has used primary sources, then he has done something he shouldn't have done. That doesn't justify using primary sources here. --Aminz 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason Truthspreader edit was bad is because he include the original research conclusion that Hadith 'suggests' something. If Hadith saying 'Prophet told me journey physical not a dream' then his edit would be fine. Aminz maybe you can go over to that article where reverters are bringing back the original reasearch of Truthspreader.

Main point is that Truthspreader using dishonest attorney arguments to promote his NOT neutral POV. He make that edit with the hadith AT THE SAME TIME check the date that he argue the exact opposite on Muhammad! Not spreading the truth at all!Opiner 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We should not use primary sources, not here and not anywhere else. So, yes, he wasn't right on that point. I myself have screwed up many times, but these are all irrelevant. I am concerned with this article. We can not use primary sources here. That's all I say. --Aminz 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay youre not going to say more. I wanna hear Truthspreader explanation.Opiner 06:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look like Truthspreader using Hadith all the time! Especially for the original research. Look at this diff with whole Hadith section.[3].Opiner 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I don't know why that picture was added. It is about a slave market in Yaman, taken from slave trade section in the slavery article. But this article is not about slavery nor the caption is relevant to the section. All religions accept slavery, there is no one, even one that condemns, Lewis says. Aside from that: The oriental slave trade is sometimes called Islamic slave trade, but religion was hardly the point of the slavery, Patrick Manning, a professor of World History, states. What's the point of that figure? --Aminz 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Again you try to justify the wickedness in Islam by pointing the finger at other religions. Stop wasting time with this nonsense. Arrow740 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WHy you add defensive things to caption? Words were neutral before. Seem like everything need a big defense explanation.Opiner 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing the picture as it is irrelevant. What does have oriental slave trade to do with this article. The picture is a 13 century one. This article is about 610-661. Also, oriental slave trade is not an Islamic one. --Aminz 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its Islam allowing slavery. The article talk about reforming form 610-661 but are you saying it cant include any of the EFFECTS after 661? Islam command kindness to animals until 661? And no pics of anything made after 661?Opiner 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, what's the point? why should we be so hostile to each other? Arab slave trade was not Islamic slave trade. Islam wasn't the point of the slavery. We can have the picture together with explanation. --Aminz 07:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We shouldnt be hostile to each other. I agree with that. You need to take a step back though and ask why so many editor on Muhammad thinking your edits not neutral. You are very FOR Muhammad and ISlam and edit that way too BUT Wikipedia cant be FOR anything like that. So someone need to keep an eye on you which Im doing. You should listen to what were saying instead of the reverting. They are letting put your materials BUT with editting to be neutral. Should admit to yourself youre not neutral and agree its okay for us doing that. Its gotta be collaborating not edit warring. If you do that life will become less stress for everyone especially you.

The long explanation already in the article. In the caption it look really defensive. Tell what about original caption you didnt like or thought wasnt neutral.Opiner 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, your comment saddens me, but neverminds. As I said above, religon was hardly the point of slave trade. That picture is about slave trade. --Aminz 08:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The article talk about the slavery trading under the Islamic law. So there is the picture of the slavery trading under the ISlamic law. its from Islam and slavery which about Islam and slavery just like the part of this article.Opiner 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an says that female slaves whose husbands have been killed in war are reward from Allah [4]. None of the "other religions" you're always going on about have lines like this. Hinduism doesn't say, "If you join this religion, you get to kill unbelievers and take their wives as sex slaves! And when you go to heaven you get multiple women to have sex with! So come on, join!" Arrow740 10:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Gecko

We have one secondary source here [5]. But I don't know Mr.Abdullah Rahim the writer. If one can show that Rahim has some relevant degree, we can use this source to write about Geckos. Any objection? --Aminz 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The secondary source (if reliable) says it was "salamanders" not lizards. So, we should probably replace the figure. The figure should probably be that of a desert slamander. --Aminz 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Salamander from Bukhari hadith not Sahih Muslim. These are two different commandings.

But the salamanders also should be mention. I think it only two hadith though unles maybe its somewhere else too.

Also Muhammad command the Muslims kill all the dogs before changing his mind. Not my conclusion Hadith actually say he said it they started doing it then he change it to only some dogs. We should include this too.Opiner 06:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, please google them. Whatever you want. Just please show me a reliable secondary source and add it with all the pictures you would like. Please note that websites like answering-Christianity; answering-Islam; faithfreedom, Islamophobia, anti-Islamophobia, etc etc are NOT reliable. --Aminz 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course theyre not! BUT you should read policy on primary sources. The policy is there it does talk about primary sources and we should follow what it say. Thats being we should be very careful not to add our own concludings. Just repeating what it say though is okay. Policy even encourage using by giving advice on where to find them.Opiner 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, for the sake of whoever you believe in, please find secondary sources. Is that so hard to do? I have suffered myself by finding reliable sources(which you easily remove without realizing the time and energy I have spent). Yes, when I do that, I expect others to do it as well. --Aminz 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No one arguing about Watt and Esposito EVEN though theyre obviously having their point of view. I think the Martin Forward one might be okay as long as he write it instead of the wildlife professor. But engineer not okay in the Islam article. Hadith is Islam source not the engineer.Opiner 07:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Opiner, the book is taught in university. It is published by a reliable press. Let me explain a little bit. When someone wants to publish a paper or a book, he submits the draft to the press. Then the press gives the draft to several reviewers to check. The better the press, the better the reviewers. The reviewers make sure that every sentence in the paper, book is factual, otherwise it will be bad for the reputation of the press. The University Text Book are the most reliable ones. Yes, there might even then be mistakes. Everybody can publish write about Islam even non-specialists. But the press may not publish it. If the writer is famous, that would of course increase credentiality. At the end of the day, we can say Prof. X in his book published by Y says Z. --Aminz 07:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain a little bit. When someone wants to publish a paper or a book, he submits the draft to the press. Then the press gives the draft to several reviewers to check. If you are an engineer these reviewers are OTHER ENGINEERS. Thats why it called 'peer' review.Opiner 07:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The books is written on "ethics" of technology. Who do you think reviews it? --Aminz 07:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the scholars of Islam.Opiner 08:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, do you agree if we ask 5 outsider admins about this and go for majority? --Aminz 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We dont need to because theres the reliable source policy which say

'Prefer sources with relevant doctoral degrees or published expertise in the field they are discussing.'

'Prefer authors with an established reputation in the field where Wikipedia uses them for reference.'

What about the things youre saying on the primary sources do you have the quotes for them too?Opiner 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, the question is not one of preference. Can we use that source or not, this is the question. --Aminz 08:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think no he may know nothing about Islam. The policy doesnt say no definitely not youre right about that. HOWEVER you should either find the QUOTE of the policy to supporting your 'no primary source' idea or admit that its not existing. Then we ask whats more relevant to Muhammad and Islam the SAHIH hadith or the ethicists of technology?Opiner 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I am sure that if we ask several admins, they tell us that the source could be used. BUT I am willing to compromise in this way: I remove "Taking the life of even an insect, in some cases, can equate to taking life of a human." but the rest remains. How is that? --Aminz 08:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Before addressing what you say I want the acknowledge admitting THAT the idea youre giving on the policy for primary sources not really there OR show me the quote.Opiner 08:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is there. We can not use original sources unless its meaning is entirely clear. This is not the case here. I am a devote Muslim and hadn't heard about those hadiths before. This means that they are not religous duties at all. --Aminz 09:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AGain the straw man! Who said the religious duty? Only you! Listen Muhammad commanded to kill geckos. What do the hadith say? Muhammad command to kill the geckos! Where is the uncertainty?Opiner 09:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop personal attacks and I wont respond you anymore. --Aminz 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? I dont personal attack.Opiner 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary source puts it as an advice and gives a reason as well. Who are we to say that it is a command??TruthSpreader^Talk 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Secondary source you give talk about something else. Hadith say Muhammad command. Who are we to say that it not a command?Opiner 09:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is hadith. You should read about the basic definition of hadith. You should also read that how western scholars think about it. You should also read that how Muslims sruitinize it. You should also read about how sometimes Muslim differ in their hadith collection. If you are Prof. Opiner in Yale University as hadith expert, I am ready to accept your opinion. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Everything negative (though sahih) in the hadith about Muhammad is wrong, and everything positive is right! I forgot to check my brain in at the door when I entered a discussion of Islam. Sorry, it won't happen again. Arrow740 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Comparison to Christianity

Quite apart from the issue of whether Budinger is a scholar in this field, his contrasting of Islam to Christianity is unacceptable. First of all, it is POV pushing serving merely the aim of glorifying Islam by comparing it with a supposedly dark Christianity. Secondly, it is off topic, as this article is about "reforms under Islam" - Christianity was hardly a relevant force in 7th century Arabia and Saint Thomas wasn't even born in the day. Thirdly, the passage is non-sensical, as it compares the Christian idea that man is the "steward of nature" (the one accurate bit in that assessment) with the Islamic idea (I assume that this is accurate) that man is the "protector of nature. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Saint Thomas wasn't born but the source quotes him to explain the views in Christian circle. Comparison between Christianity and Islam is relevant since the source says Islam was developed to according to some fix the loopwholes in Christianity. --Aminz 09:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Like the enslavement of the wives of unbelievers you kill [6]. A most important loophole to fix. If you want to compare Christian (or Jewish) ethics to Islamic ethics you will realize that Islam was a huge step backward from those. Maybe not from Arab paganism, but from Christianity and Judaism certainly. Arrow740 10:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz what you mean by 'loopholes' in Chrisitianity? Not pretending to be a set of rules so how can there be loopholes.Opiner 10:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The "loopholes" sentence is the worst, as it really takes an Islamic stance that somehow Islam was needed to fix the errors of Christianity. And that is POV pushing. The following sentence show the weak basis on which that assessment stands, quite apart from the wrong expectations highlighted by Opiner. Christianity is essentially not a rule book, though rules exist and are important, but a way of dealing (and Christian's believe this is God's way) with the constant falling short of perfection. Islam on the other hand is essentially praising God and following the rules, hence Muslims' misunderstanding is comprehensible. Comprehensible but not tenable.

Finally, Aminz, that the "source" quotes him is irrelevant. Stop hiding behind your sources. This is no article on Budinger's book. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Why doesn't this article start with a neutral exposition of the topic? At least one sentence in the beginning should be neutral before the (unfortunately familiar) quotefest begins. And it should be related to the article's name. If the article is called "Reforms under Islam (610-661)", why does the article start with Muhammad? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Definite lack of Neutrality.

As MOOTOOGS lawyer (he is in bed) I would like to say that many sections of this article need to be.. how to say it.. Neutralised. They show a large bias towards Muhammad and Islam. INstead, they should show some negatives and more neutral points in addition to the current content.

Thankyou for your time. Mootoog 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it is? --Aminz 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aw come on its obvious.Opiner 11:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Opiner, it is very obvious, from the choice of inclusions/omissions, and the language used by editors of this page. I am sorry Aminz, but while much, if not all, of the article is factual, it is still not neutral, the two terms are not the same.

Regards to all, Mootoog 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the very slow response, I don't get much time on here)

Dispute points / Brief review / For invited arbitrator

1. Can the book "Thomas Budinger,Miriam D. Budinger, Ethics of Emerging Technologies: Scientific Facts and Moral Challenges, John Wiley & Sons, INC. 2006, p.166-167 , ISBN: 0471692123 " be used in this article.

Those who say yes, argue:

This book is written on The "ethics" of technology and nevertheless touches religion since it has to do with ethics. A section of the book is dedicated to this. The book is written by Prof. Budinger and is an scholarly book (see http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/content/view/297/156/ ). This book is used by Prof. Budinger as the text book for the course Bio-ethics taught at University of California Berkeley (BioE 100 - Ethics in Science and Engineering) see http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/content/view/204/156/ Being a text book in a famous university shows its reliability. Furthermore it is published by a renowned press. It has all the qualifications. Professor Budinger, the author, is Professor & Chair Department of Bioengineering at UCB, Professor of Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at UCB and Professor in Residence University of California, San Francisco. Also, Head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine & Functional Imaging, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Those who say no, argue:

He is not an scholar of Islam but an engineer.

2. This dispute is about usage of primary source. Please have a look at [7] (whether the user pages could be used in that way is also objected by user:Aminz). User: Opiner wants to write: "According to the hadith of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud, Muhammad commanded Muslims to kill all dogs and sent men to kill them." Oponents argue that 1. These are just primary sources and any interpretation of which should be taken from secondary sources. This is particularly important when the specialist have differing views on matters which might not seem in the first point. An striking example is different interpretations of the verse on the number of wives a man can take. So, everything must be left to secondary sources. 2. There is no disagreement that that geckos are not liked animals and Muhammad advised to kill these animals (some thing a secondary source(if reliable) says). But adding that it is a command for all Muslims is original research. The reason for Muhammad's advice might have been the what Arabs commonly believed.

--Aminz 11:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proponents note that no one wants to put "all Muslims" there, all of the many primary sources have "ordered" or "commanded," and no conclusions are drawn or personal interpretations made. Arrow740 08:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

HAminz keeps attacking the straw man he made. No ones saying its a command for all Muslims or saying why he said it. That would be original research like the kind that Truthspreader does.Opiner 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I am not arguing here, I am questioning: What is Prof Budinger's field of scholarship? What are his degrees? Is he a historian - qualified to speak about the history of Christianity and/or Islam? Is he a philosopher - qualified to debate the position of the Aquinate? Is he ethicist (if that is the correct word) - qualified to discuss ethics on a scholarly level? My point is that we must (if we must) use his book based on the merit of his expertise. We don't quote Einstein on theology, we don't quote Bonhoeffer on molecular biology. If Budinger really is only an engineer the case for including him at all falls apart. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If Budinger writes on Ethics and religion as part of a text book which is published by a renowned press, then that could be attributed to him. We can say, Budinger professor of X, says Y. --Aminz 11:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The publisher is completely irrelevant. The status as a text book might be interesting and relevant to us but cannot simply dictate our usage here. Also relevant would be a peer-review on the book, done by an actual expert in this field. As for "professor of X" that is another issue: this overloading with titles throughout the article. I say let's quote Budinger on issues he is competent for or on which his view has found support among experts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the smearing efforts!

To the editors who are on a smear campaign to render this article overly negative relative to Muhammad, please cease such editing that strains one's ability to assume good faith. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please make efforts with fellow editors to write in an encyclopedic and balanced style! (→Netscott) 13:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This same advice goes to editors wanting to glorify Muhammad. There are both very positive aspects of Muhammad's influence just as there are also negative aspects. Please make efforts on both sides of this to strike an encyclopedic balance.... no glorifying but no smearing either, remember neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 13:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How should you suppose one might reason with this?

Watt says that from the perspective of Muhammad's contemporaries, he was very upright and they didn't find any lack of morality in him.[8]

It's a big old "screw you" to any possibility of reason and moderation, straight out of the gate.JustAnIdea 13:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot look into the heads of other editors, but I for my part have absolutely no intention to smear Muhammad. I only want an article that is both balanced and readable and that does not glorify Islam or Muhammad by smearing Christianity.

As for the other editors, I cannot vouch for their intentions but above postings seems to be against WP:AGF. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? AGF? In this version the lead image is of a black dog and the caption, "Muhammad commanded Muslims to kill all black dogs.".... the lead image and lead caption of that section? Riiiiight.... we may need to assume good faith but not to the point of stupidity. (→Netscott) 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that Muhammad did say to slay black dogs. Do you deny that?JustAnIdea 14:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the section title isn't Muhammad's commandments to kill animals. Such a lead image and caption would make sense in a section so entitled... but such is not the case. Please don't play ignorant. Besides who are you really? A new user who magically appears on this new article and instantly starts edit warring, all of the classic signs of a violating sockpuppet. (→Netscott) 14:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, did you have a look into Aminz' and TS' record? And what about the camel image? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: if you have a problem with a specific edit or a specific editor then address them directly instead of making general proclamations. May I ask whether some editor has been blocked recently? Otherwise I cannot explain how "rv sockpuppet" is valid edit summary. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that sockpuppet's edit merely because that editor is a sockpuppet... for no other reason. This particular sockpuppet is being employed to gain an editing advantage relative to WP:3RR (meaning there's no need for the sock's editor to have been blocked). (→Netscott) 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I see fault on both sides... people just need to step back a bit and seriously chill out some.... try to be balanced in your editing and strive to work with editors and not edit war with them over these issues. What I see is that everyone is somewhat right in the accusations with regards to others. All that I ask is that folks recognize this and decide to work constructively (as much as possible) and stop battling. (→Netscott) 14:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about constructiveness. I for my part have been constructive over at the Muhammad article while my suggestions were shouted down on spurious grounds. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I am not a new user, but one who's learned the hard way that it's a foolish mistake to associate one's regular username with this kind of article. I've not violated Wikipedia's rules and that's all that's relevant.

The section title is, in fact, "animals." As you rightly denounce "smear campaigns" and "glorification" alike, by what princely calculus do you derive that laudatory material ought be presented first?JustAnIdea 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. Using a sockpuppet to edit war is extremely against wikipedia policies and as an experienced user you are no doubt aware of that. If you continue to edit war you can be sure that I'll be one of those reverting your edits almost for the sole reason so that your lack of obedience relative to sock policy can be thwarted. (→Netscott) 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been confronted with many a puppet here on WP, but AFAIK the policy is that it is not illegal to have a sock puppet as long as it is not used to cirumvent 3RR, blocks etc. or to garner extra votes. If JAI is edit warring please treat this on its own merit. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If a sockpuppet is assisting other editors in a POV campaign to prosecute an edit war, you can be sure the sock will eventullay be blocked permanently. (→Netscott) 14:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked...do you mean like this? Let us talk about the article, shall we? Beginning with my substantive question above about the order in which material should appear.JustAnIdea 15:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott. This is not WP policy. Unless you suspect that one of these editors is the same as JAI and the two combine to evade 3RR or blocks. If you think so, file a check user. We have been much more patient with multiple repeat offenders in the past. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, an editor who creates a sockpuppet as JAI has done to help prosecute an edit war (interesting how JAI's timing was so perfect here no?) will have the sock indef. blocked. (→Netscott) 15:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest ending this discussion: we both have different experiences and different readings of the sock policy. As long as you apply yours equally it will not hurt me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article scope/definition

Following up on the Title discussion and my message to Aminz, I think we need to define what this page exactly is. If we get that done then we can argue about content. The page is title "Reforms under Islam (610-661)" so, what exactly does that mean? The period from 610-661 is a relative black box in the history of Arabia. Much of this article seems to be making the assumption that the changes that the text supposedly talked about happened and then uses historical examples to back this up.

If we are to keep this title: What makes a reform from 610 until 661? If this simply means any reform that "Muhammad wanted" that then means we can add anything that happens in history. Which, I would argue we shouldn't have "(610-661)" since pretty much all Islamic reform harks back to that period for legitimacy. The Qur'an and hadith seem to call for many areas of reform but they are obviously up for interpretation. So, what do you mean? What should this article be? Let's get through that before we argue about camels and geckos and dogs, oh my. gren グレン 16:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Heres a question about the kindness to animals section not having to do with camels and geckos and dogs. But it is about the scope of the article. It doesnt say what anyone was doing before these teachings so how are they reforms? Maybe this should go in an article Muhammads attitude towards Animals. It wont be neutral but it makes no sense to have it here.Opiner 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Opiner that every thing in this world is relative. But if it can be identified to the editors of this article that which portions require comparison, that'd be great. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 12:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I DID just identify one of which portions require comparison. The section on Muhammad teaching about animals. What's he reforming?Opiner 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing thats not on topic is the Literary Reforms. Its only a quote about the Qur'an being influential. Not a reform at all!Opiner 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Canis familiaris

Nielswik’s edit summary read "rv POV-pushing. this is about reforms not about animal killing."

Ah, but the article is about animal killing: "He asked his followers to sharpen the blade when slaughtering animals."

It is also about dogs in particular: "Regarding Muhammad's kindness to Animals, for example Watt states "As his men marched towards Mecca just before the conquest they passed a bitch with puppies; and Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be disturbed, but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out." Muhammad also informed a prostitute who saw a thirsty dog hanging around a well one day, and gave it water to drink, that all her sins are forgiven, Forward Professor of Religious Studies at Aurora University and M. Alam state."

Muhammad’s well-documented extreme enmity towards dogs, an attitude which continues in much of the Muslim world to this day, is reduced to: "Muhammad however didn't like dogs (and most Muslims do not have dogs as pets)."

It is evident, then, that the treatment of dogs is topical. It is undeniable that the three sentences the current version of the article devotes to the treatment of dogs offer a very biased treatment of our knowledge in this regard.

We should now ask, first, is this a problem? That is, is the very nature of this article such that only what seem to us moral improvements are to merit inclusion? One would get that impression, as the only denominator common to the material is that they are things Muhammad did or advocated that are being framed as advances. If so, the very existence of the article would seem to violate Wikipedia's neutrality requirements, and we might ask what reasons there are to waive it in this instance.

If we answer the first question in the affirmative, and agree that this bias is a problem, then let's discuss how to solve it.JustAnIdea 00:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asked not to edit the article; I hope it doesn't include the talk pages. :) JustAnIdea, This *Idea* of yours is relevant if you can back it up using reliable secondary sources. Please read this section [9], before commenting. Thanks very much. --Aminz 00:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read [10] about pictures. (the one in the slavery section) --Aminz 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith does not need to be quoted from a secondary source if it's inclusion doesn't constitute an implicit inclusion of a user's interpretation. Common sense should be used to decide when this is the case and when it isn't. Arrow740 06:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename it back!

I strongly object to the rename, let this article be about Muhammad, and make another article wider in scope if necessary. The impact of Muhammad can not be compared to the impact of all the other people together. Make a second article! --Striver 23:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this article was never named Muhammad as a reformer, was it? Hmm... could we then split it under one for Muhammad, and another one for the rest? --Striver 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith, pictures

As noted above, including a primary source with no hint of interpretation does not constitute original research. I have to say that both animals we have pictures of are really cute. Arrow740 07:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with hadith as a reliable source even when it is saying something clearly is that it lacks context, which only a reliable secondary source can give. It is just like quoting a verse from Qur'an for killing, even though, that verse might be referring to a battle field. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at the verses in the hadith in their original "context." You will see that there is little context. The hadith is basically a list of unconnected verses. Also, I encourage you to find out for yourself the original historical context of the "Verse of the Sword" in the Quran. Arrow740 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not my job to tell that how to find the historical context of "Verse of the sword" in Qur'an. Secondly, this is what you see, an unconnected verbal talks, but historians try to connect these to different events, and again, this is not my job to interpret them. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you care to learn about the Verse of the Sword, I can inform you. In any case, humans are able to communicate with one another using language. It is a wonderful thing. Language is a way of conveying information. When you read a straightforward sentence like the ones in the hadith that have caused problems for you, if you have good command of the language, you don't need someone else to translate it. That's the beauty of language. Arrow740 10:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is straw man's argument. Mate! are you trying to undermine scholars who spend their lives to interpret historical documents. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I write. What other languages do you speak? I can try one of those, maybe. Arrow740 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article needs an RfC... badly

Every section of this article is either a) undying praise for Mohammed (it all but says "Mohammed was the Prophet; become Muslim now), or b) people reacting to the undying praise by inserting pictures with the caption "Mohammed wanted you to burn your cute pet doggie at the stake". I beg of you guys, come to an agreement to at least go to rfc to work on the NPOV, and file a request here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the pictures, there was a caption that said "Muhammad really loved animals!" and one which said "Muhammad wanted to kill your pet!" I removed both, so I think it's OK now. Arrow740 07:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I requested an RfC. Arrow740 07:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation of any sources whatsoever. Please have a look at http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN041534106X&id=YEhkImyhmoIC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&vq=muhammad&dq=reforms+muhammad+inpublisher:routledge&sig=EuxXl7xa1CwOkK3Lprn0dNnDErc

and

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN041534106X&id=YEhkImyhmoIC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA37&vq=muhammad&dq=reforms+muhammad+inpublisher:routledge&sig=CEJNYoJTospTmuMcQDz8T7n9cdU

The book is written by Dr Colin Turner at Durham university and published by 2005. The Basics: Islam. Oxford: Routledge. --Aminz 07:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't think we're looking for "misrepresentation of sources", but for an NPOV tilt to the article. And, according to Arrow740, whether the Hadith is a valid source. That is all. At least I don't think anyone's accusing you of misusing sources. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I share other's doubts about the relevance of that engineer's opinion. No one is accusing Aminz of misrepresenting the engineer, though. Arrow740 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may comment, I have often encountered in Aminz' editing a preoccupation with the issue of "source" and "misrepresentation of source", as if that were the chief and only possible concern. Other issues must be fixed as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this [11]? --Aminz 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposing you are addressing me, Aminz (the indent is ambiguous), I was giving my impression from the whole string of our altercations. As Aiden writes below "V" and "RS" are important, but so is NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is not a substitute for WP:NPOV, Aminz. The article as a whole must be neutral. You cannot have 100% positive statements, even if sourced, and be neutral. Think about it. —Aiden 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If a large chunk of scholarly literature supports one opinion, there should be some good reason behind it. And I believe that we, all as humans, should have some benefit from the innovation of modern research methodology in 20th century. A compromise on WP:V and WP:RS can lead us to a very slippery slope. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And so will a compromise on NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is only possible if you believe WP:NPOV is in contradiction to WP:V and WP:RS. And if yes, then we better take this case to WP:ArbCom to change the rules. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The two absolutely can conflict. If I quoted a well-known right-wing scholar who said that Islam was traditionally a violent and suppressive religion (as many scholars maintain), then added to the article that Islam was "violent and suppresive", I doubt you guys would care if my source was "verifiable." It's POV. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Such POV definitely has a place on wikipedia, if it is notable. To the best of my knowledge, it has already been discussed in Criticism of Muhammad. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It has a place there, and it has a place in the respective topic as well. IMHO the inclusion in topical articles is much better and much more important than the one in an criticism of X article, as theses articles are questionable anyway IMHO and also often of a bad quality (because they are often dominated by anti-Xists). And I don't think, most reader would search for criticism of X, but rather for X and then X and y. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But then we come up with the same problem, and we are going in circles. Even though POV has place on wikipedia, it essentially has to come from sources which are WP:V and WP:RS compatible. Otherwise, wikipedia will be no different from other wikis on the internet. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no going round in circles. We simply have to adhere to all WP policies: V, RS, NOR, NPOV. None of these is optional. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When Aminz gets involved in an article, it quickly becomes a list of quotes from writers he likes. That's not a good thing. Arrow740 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Look like a lot more Truthspreader original research at Women in Islam. Now look at this![12] He comes here and say one thing BUT everywhere else he does the opposite! Always the original research!Opiner 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

According to which standard, it is WP:OR. The author which I quoted is a famous Islamic scholar, who is also member of Council of Islamic Ideology. And the facts are accepted by all Muslims as part of Sharia. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your citation is fine BUT youre saying we cant use Hadith and Qur'an BUT thats exactly what youre doing all the time!Opiner 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You just need to backup your primary sources with secondary sources. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting a (primary) source is not OR if it is simply the statement that the source X says Y. If the editor added some kind of interpretation of his own, that would be OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And a nice to try to divert the discussion. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to TruthSpreader about "POV has a place" - I might point out that the article you're referring to, is titled "Criticism of Muhammed". The very point of it is to mention people's point of views. If this article were titled "Praise of Muhammed", then these things should be mentioned as people's POV's - though certainly not as facts here. As the article stands, much of it is sourced, yet presenting it as fact (e.g., "Muhammed was remarkably kind to animals for his time" - mentioned as someone's opinion somewhere else, but presented as fact under the caption of a camel). BTW, are you really saying that if I put a big chunk into this article about how Muhammed was a muderous, misogynist, animal-hating, gang leader (that was well-sourced by scholarship!), you would be OK with it? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article, though not called Praise of Muhammad, but still has the focus on the reforms, which were done by him. The amount of literature that is supporting these reforms, suggests itself that it deserves a place on wikipedia. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All true, but issues must be covered in its entirety, not picking out the (supposedly) positive or the (supposedly) negative bits. Reforms are, basically, simply changes, not necessarily positive ones. (Etymologically, the term implies a bringing something existing back into (original) form but in common usage that is largely lost). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The references used in this article. Isn't 18 scholarly work enough to show that Muhammad was a reformer. To this you can add the book is written by Dr Colin Turner at Durham university and published by 2005. The Basics: Islam. Oxford: Routledge.

1. Encyclopedia of world history , Oxford University Press
2. Bernard Lewis
3. John Esposito
4. Watt
5. Annemarie Schimmel
6. Majid Khadduri
7. Encyclopedia of religion, second edition, Lindsay Jones
8. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam
9. Bloom and Blair (2002)
10. Michael J. Perry, The Idea of Human Rights: Four Inquiries, p.78, Oxford University Press US
11. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, John L. Esposito, Islam, Gender, and Social Change, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.163
12. Gerhard Endress, Islam: An Introduction to Islam, Columbia University Press, 1988, p.31
13. “Social Sciences and the Qur’an,” in Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, vol. 5, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Leiden: Brill, pp. 66-76.
14. “Community and Soceity in the Qur'an,” in Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, vol. 1, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Leiden: Brill, pp. 385.
15. Michael Bonner
16. The Cambridge history of Islam (1970
17. Minou Reeves, Muhammad in Europe, New York University Press,
18. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity,

If these many sources say something, then there should be at least some truth in it. --Aminz 07:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If these sources say something, we should state that. However, we should be careful in affirming truth. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mild reforms of a very backward society. Big deal. Why do you bring this up? Arrow740 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mild reforms!! Islam brought changes to a very backward society which represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam gave such status to women of a very backward society, that no other culture accorded their Women with until centuries later. Sure. Mild reforms of a backward society! Not a big deal! --Aminz 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is hard not to become sarcastic after this surrreal utterance, Aminz. Advance to the Greco-Roman world? Give me a break! Islamic civilisation conquered the most civilised regions to that date, the Hellenistic and Persian Orient. It landed on top of the mountain, for which it often takes the credit, and hasn't developed much since. The backward society can only reasonably refer to Arabian, even there matters are not that easy. Watt (I think it was he) uses a somewhat tricky and complicated theory to turn M's treatment of women into a progress. He says, women traditionally had many rights but where on their way down, so Islam helped them not sink any further. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

NO other culture? Thats a lot of cultures you must have a LOT of sources to say that. ONly source you have is about Arabs NOT any other cultures. Are you SURE status of women was lower in Rome?Opiner 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Women were not accorded with such legal status in other cultures, including the West, until centuries later" Encyclopedia of religion states. --Aminz 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What legal status?Opiner 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The right to inherit; limitations on Man's right to divorce; the right for woman to herself administer the wealth she has brought into the family or has earned by her own work, right of property ownership and the right of education. --Aminz 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Did these rights originate with M. His wife Chadidja seems to contradict this claim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Muslim societies are backward because of Islam. As regards inheritance (which in the west is split evenly between boys and girls, but not in Muslim societies because of Muhammad), the Quran gives inconsistent commands regarding it, but it is clear that girls get the short end of the stick, because of their gender. Arrow740 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

True Arrow740 but Aminz is talking about its effect back then.

Aminz inheritance I dont know what rules were for the inheritance in Roman empire or the divorce. Maybe. Wait though right to EDUCATION? Like from the 20th century. who had 'right to education' before then? Muslim girls in Arabia? Sounding like they had the right to health care! From the opposite view are you sure it was banned to have the educating of the girls in the Roman Empire? I never heard anything like that did you?Opiner 05:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Justification by comparison

Can we please keep the referrences to Judaism and Christianity to a minumum, at least in this article? They were not very important forces in Arabia during this period. So it is not appropriate to discuss "improvements" Islam made upon them here. If we are going to open that whole can of worms then we will have to have a more general discussion of the differences between Islam and the other two religions as regards the status of women, polygamy, warfare, etc, and I don't think that's what you guys want. Arrow740 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We would like to show what Muhammad did at that time. As you said, Arabs had the one of the most backward societies of the time. So, reforms in that society by itself wasn't a big deal. But bringing changes that advanced them several centuries ahead of other societies is on focus and relevant. --Aminz 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahead of WHAT other societes?

Ahead of Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. --Aminz 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm...no. I won't address the Iran issue, but the Greco-Roman period was long over when Muhammad came onto the scene. If you want to compare the caliphate with anything compare it with its contemporaries. If you want to compare Islam's (un)enlightened everlasting stands on things like polygamy, apostasy, punishments, revenge, killing dogs, etc, then compare it to Christianity and Judaism as they existed when M came on the scene. Arrow740 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what is meant by "Greco-Roman world" - M's sucessors conquered large chunks of the Roman Empire. However, it is hilarious to claim that the Islamic world was ahead of this Roman-Greek civilisation. It was ahead of Western Europe because it conquered the Orient. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact if it is what many scholars say, that Islam was largely a repackaging of Judaism mixed in with Arabian customs, the good parts of Islam probably come from Judaism. Arrow740 02:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring one of those many scholars(not spencer, ali sina,... these are not scholars), and add it to the article. --Aminz 06:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They are scholars. Look up "scholar." Arrow740 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, don't you understand: Bring up one of those many scholars that agree with Aminz and hold to a philo-Islamic approach. The others are not scholars because scholars don't disagree with Aminz. It is IMHO pathetic that we need to include every burb of Esposito and Watt (and at best, quote all three versions of the same thought) while we cannot use those that disagree. And I am not saying that we should not include Watt etc. but we should include different scholarly views. Funny, that Budinger is admitted while Spencer is not. And all this started with a blank dismissal of Bat Yeor. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of making strawman's arguments and moking WP:RS and WP:V in the name of WP:NPOV, I think you people should find some scholarly sources to support your arguments. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawman? Who was that uttered eulogies on Islam surpassing any other civilisation ever, a POV statement even if it could be referenced. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't neutralize by removing a scholarly POV, but neutralize by giving another scholarly opinion. WP:RS and WP:V has to be followed in all cases. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing scholarly about Aminz' hyperclaim. And you are sadly mistaken: views have to be present in a NPOV fashion. We don't write: "Esposito says Islamic civilisation is heaven on earth and Watt says ist rocks, but Bat Yeor says it sucks.", even if those people where to speak in these terms. We give a restrained coverage of the points' substance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold

Mind if i get bold and separate this article into one about the Prophet and another one about the Caliphs? --Striver 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver, the main focus of the article is on Muhammad. I've just included the Caliphas since some of the ideas of Muhammad might have been implemented later. --Aminz 07:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver and Aminz, I think we may as well include ideas by M. later implemented by the caliphs even if the article is titled "by Muhammad". But there's no need to rush for a renaming. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I could agree with Str1977, as long as the main focus in on the Prophet. So, what should the name be, to reflect that the focus is on Muhammad (as), and to standardize it with the other articles with on the template?--Striver 13:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Tiring Quotes

Aminz everyone telling you PLEASE stop making the quote farm![13]. Also what does it mean the 'spiritual poverty'? Sounding different than what you probably wanna say.

'Muhammad's mission as a prophet included preaching against the social evils of his day.'

NOBODY has the doctorate to qualify these judgements of what is evil. If you dont accept rephrasing to what he SAW as the evil then shouldnt be here. WHO is the author of this? its just the name of the book.

Manning though is the good source here so thank you.Opiner 00:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads like a teenage girl talking about her crush. Arrow740 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what the source says and it is attributed to the source. The source views them as social evil, not only Muhammad. --Aminz 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

They have the degree in good vs. evil studies?Opiner 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to both your writing and your quotes. Keep a neutral point of view. It is not a fact that he had a "mission as a prophet:" that is an interpretation. I would say, he had a mission as a egomaniacal anti-Semite with an unhealthy lust for booty. Report the facts, not excessive interpretation and biased wording of pro-Islam scholars. Arrow740 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Ideas of Aminz

I have a suggestion: We can bring the (feeling) of neutrality back to this article by comparing the legislation from a modern point of view. As for example Watt says historically Muhammad was someone who stood for women's right but of course Islam doesn't give strict equal rights to men and women. There were definitely reforms on regulations on "divorce" but for example in Islam while woman can initiate the divorce, but then she has to return all the gifts she has recieved from the husband at marriage, and that some consent of the husband is still required (if the husband starts divorce, then he has to pay something to the woman i believe, so it is economically good for woman). But if we want to add these, we should also add the justifications scholars put forward for such laws, which at the end of the day imply that the laws were good for that time but now the society has changed. I am also in the process of including a POV from another scholar who agrees with Annemarie Schimmel that "In the earliest centuries of Islam, the position of women was not bad at all. Only over the course of centuries was she increasingly confined to the house and was forced to veil herself" but believes that the later conservative interpretation of Islam was what Islam intended at the beginning but couldn't do at that time because the pre-Islamic influences. --Aminz 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point worthy to mention is that our knowledge of pre-islamic arabia is limited and that influences our understanding of the reforms. That is, the reader should have a feeling of the certainty behind some of the statements. The other point worthy of mentioning is that there were some reforms going on in Arabia at that time; or that the opportunity for doing such reforms was given to Muhammad. Although Watt states that without such personal qualifications that Muhammad had together with his firm belief in his mission such changes wouldn't have occured, but Watt says Muhammad was so lucky to be at that time in that place of the world. --Aminz 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point is that although the Qur'an gave the framework for the regulations, but nevertheless some were put in practice later so that those people also have some share in it, though Watt says that the sucess in doing so shows Muhammad's insight. --Aminz 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't spend time reading Watt for a very good reason. Please don't quote excessively on the talk page. If you want to prove something to yourself about Muhammad, use another medium. Arrow740 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Lewis? --Aminz 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: We as wikipedians have no right to judge that how much a source is credible or not. It is the publisher and to some extent, the author, that shows the credibility of the source. Our job as wikipedians is no more than putting the opinions from WP:V and WP:RS compatible sources, even to achieve WP:NPOV. Other ways will just deteriote the quality of information availabe on this encyclopedia. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this? It's relevance, not credibility that is the question. I'm not saying you can't include Watt's material in this article. I'm saying I find his writing and opinions to be largely a waste of my time. Arrow740 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mate! nobody is talking about you. My comment was generally regarding the article, in which we find everyday someone plucking out scholarly opinions. It is the censoring of information of scholarly sources in the name of "NPOV" happening on this article, that is really annoying. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If it violates NPOV we have every right to remove it. Arrow740 06:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing took out was the engineer and the art historians. Everything else was only reworded to stop being the quote farm. 'If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.'Opiner 07:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrow et all: I asked you specifically to help me out and to keep your bickering in the other sections. I have consistently tried to help out with dispute in these articles but in all earnestness, sometimes it doesn't quite appear that you guys want help. I'm done with this article, and with any opinion I would have given to help out the NPOV. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some discussion

Did I not specifically ask that this section not have bickering in it, but only a statement for the RfC? Please remove your dispute and put it elsewhere, and put your concise statement for rfc in this section. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it considered rude to move other peoples' statements on article talk pages? Arrow740 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added a new section. You have done the same thing which is okay since you were addressing particular comments of mine. --Aminz 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arrow, I didn't move your comment, Aminz did, but I support him. I specifically made a request when I started this section which you bluntly ignored. I might remind you that I happen to think you're right. Now are you going to continue to argue incessantly or can I create a section for rfc comments that won't be disrupted by more arguing? If you have a point, state it in your own words under the section, like I asked. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the discussion page you will get the full story. I wrote my quote in response to the last two paragraphs of Aminz in the above section. Aminz moved it here. I then moved the two paragraphs down here. He left them here, but put them back above also. So I moved mine back up there and deleted everything from down here. Do whatever you want, but please keep my response to Aminz in the same section as the paragraphs I was responding to. Arrow740 04:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Professor"

It is unencyclopedic to write "professor" in front of everyone's name. Also, keep the tone neutral and state everything from a neutral point of view (just the facts). If you need help doing this read WP:NPOV. Arrow740 06:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree that it is unencyclopedic. It's best to let the source speak for itself, and only include the name of it in the text if we are sure its only opinion. --Robdurbar 09:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements for RfC

I'm going to create this header so that everyone has a chance to make a statement as to what they think the problem is, or a response, and any RfC commentator can much more easily come in and evaluate the situation. Honestly, it's a little messy right now. If you must respond to someone else's comment, please keep it brief in this section. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements from User:Aminz

I have explained the dispute in this section: [14].

I have a suggestion: We can bring the (feeling) of neutrality back to this article by comparing the legislation from a modern point of view. Though Watt says historically Muhammad was someone who stood for women's right, but of course Islam doesn't give strict equal rights to men and women. There were definitely reforms on regulations regarding "divorce" but nevertheless in Islam while woman can initiate the divorce, she has to return all the gifts she has recieved from the husband at marriage, and that some consent of the husband is still required (if the husband starts divorce, then he has to pay something to the woman i believe, so it is economically good for woman). But if we want to add these, we should also add the justifications scholars put forward for such laws, which at the end of the day imply that the laws were good for that time but now the society has changed. I am also in the process of including a POV from another scholar who agrees with Annemarie Schimmel that "In the earliest centuries of Islam, the position of women was not bad at all. Only over the course of centuries was she increasingly confined to the house and was forced to veil herself" but believes that the later conservative interpretation of Islam was what Islam intended at the beginning but couldn't do at that time because the pre-Islamic influences. --Aminz 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point worthy to mention is that our knowledge of pre-islamic arabia is limited and that influences our understanding of the reforms. That is, the reader should have a feeling of the certainty behind some of the statements. The other point worthy of mentioning is that there were some reforms going on in Arabia at that time; or that the opportunity for doing such reforms was given to Muhammad. Although Watt states that without such personal qualifications that Muhammad had together with his firm belief in his mission such changes wouldn't have occured, but Watt says Muhammad was so lucky to be at that time in that place of the world. --Aminz 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point is that although the Qur'an gave the framework for the regulations, but nevertheless some were put in practice later so that those people also have some share in it, though Watt says that the sucess in doing so shows Muhammad's insight. --Aminz 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement from User:TruthSpreader

Comment: We as wikipedians have no right to judge that how much a source is credible or not. It is the publisher and to some extent, the author, that shows the credibility of the source. Our job as wikipedians is no more than putting the opinions from WP:V and WP:RS compatible sources, even to achieve WP:NPOV. Other ways will just deteriote the quality of information availabe on this encyclopedia. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is regarding this article, in which we find everyday someone plucking out scholarly opinions. It is the censoring of information of scholarly sources in the name of "NPOV" happening on this article, that is really annoying.TruthSpreader^Talk 09:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement from User:Robdurbar

Comment The amazing thing here is I'm still not entirely sure what all this is about? I mean what are people acutally disagreeing over? It seems to me that it is very little. I mean the diffrence between "Muhamad preached against the social evils of the day" and "Muhamad preached agianst what he saw as the social evils of the day" is so subtle as to be almost unoticeable. I mean no-one is actually claiming that we can define good and evil, are they? Even with the first wording, we need to presume that our readers have a certain level of intelligence.

The bickering over not using certain sources seems petty too. To go claiming that people with PhD's need to be biased towards Islam is ludicrous; but the comments above from TruthSpreader also show a lack of realisation that we need to read sources critically. It is the very nature of a topic like Islam that some of us will be so used to hearing certain viewpoints that we will often see well reasoned and decent argument against it as wildely biased.

But look - let's just try find sensible solutions here. For example, if you're unhappy with sourced the satement "Islamic law transformed the nature of society and family", then don't revert it; simply say that "some sources claim that Islamic law transformed the nature of society and famine". These are not weasel words if we have a source to show this. Or alternatively, re word it "Although it is claimed by Bloom and Blair that Islamic law transformed the nature of society and family, person x has noted that the changes could also be attributed to y and z. Equally, if someone removes your statement that "Muhamad preached agianst the social evils of the day" and rewords it slightly, then don't just revert back to your version - pretty much the same thing is being said in the phrase.

Basically, assume good faith and work colaboratively. The issues and sentences that your arguing over are all very minor. Whilst at the moment I cannot offer a 'golden solution' to anyone, the fastest way to make things worse would be to continue reverting and to continue assuming that others are out to create a non-neutral article. Robdurbar 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection request

I've been approached for help to protect the article. I'll not do that for now and explain myself:

• I'll not do that because you are edit warring the same things discussed in other Islam related articles. You are arguing about the credibility of the sources again and again. You've been debating this at Dhimmi and Muhammad, to name just a few. You even got two similar talk sections. Compare Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661)#Truthspreaders Double Standard on Hadith and Talk:Muhammad#Truthspreader Double Standard on Hadith if you think i am just crazy. We can't argue for months in every article the same thing. You got Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) where you can sort this out for once.
• I'll suggest something for everybody: please AGF and work as a team. I am sorry but it looks like you both are into a vicious circle. You could create a joint wikiproject where you can work on defining credible sources to be used on those articles. By doing this you'd be saving the amount of time spent arguing on every article's talk page and letting others edit w/o protecting anything. I'll be happy to help if such a project exists.
• Please note that if it were another issue re to edit warring, i'd have protected it. If you feel that you don't agree w/ what i say you can approach another admin. -- Szvest → ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page is POV

If this title "Reforms under Islam (610-661)" is allowed, then a new article "Deterioration under Islam" should also be allowed. See my point? This is why this title is POV and is creating problems. The solution is to have a better title "Effects of Islam (610-661)".--Matt57 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in effect arguing for a merger of "Reforms under Islam" with a hypothetical "Deterioration under Islam" article. What would the "Deterioration under Islam" contain? --Striver 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For example some people are arguing that it wasnt exactly a reform because Muhammed didnt completely take out slavery and infact had slaves himself. The current title makes editors of that point of view uncomfortable to contribute to this article. It also puts a positive slant on the whole article. I dont know what the new title should be but it should be something else other than "Reforms under Islam". The same would be the case for an article titled "Good deeds done by Muhammed", which also puts a positive slant. If Good Deeds is allowed, Bad deeds should also be allowed, but would it? People would oppose it. Editors of another POV would bring in hadiths that suggested Muhammed had ordered assasinations and so that article too would be a battleground. The better title in that case would be "Deeds by Muhammad" and here "Influence of Islam (610-661)". I dont know though if that will help stop the editing conflicts. Clearly, the editors have a different point of view and they're not able to settle for anything. I guess this is the case for any Islam-controversy related article. I'm not the only one who raised an eyebrow at the title though. Look at the first twp sections of the talk page and they're saying the same thing.--Matt57 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing POV with "reforms" per say, if they were factually "good". Now, sure, one could argue how "good" it was, or if it was "good" enough, but the dispute regarding how "good" it was does not equate a objection to the reforms being good per say. You did not address my question, so ill ask it again: What would the "Deterioration under Islam" article contain? --Striver 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. At this point I cant think of anything (or I dont know enough) that would suggest deterioration. However I could question the reforms on how good they were. Maybe having a criticism section would be good for this page. This way people wont edit war or will doso less.--Matt57 22:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Definetly. If you can get scholarly criticism, (pls. don't quote extremists who call Muhammad a "monster"), then it would be welcome in this article. Bless sins 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Don't quote extremists who call Muhammad a "monster" 1. Why would you assume that these would be whom editors choose to quote? 2. Why would there be any limitation on the views represented in the article? 3. All real views must be represented - certainly anyone who has been conquered does not have a fond view of their conqueror.

How about Changes under Islam as a neutral title? Ste|vertigo 00:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Hi Stevertigo. Consider the article Religious significance of Jerusalem. The version here, had a statement sourced (link #20) to this page. The page sourced makes the following comments:

• "But Islam is imperialistic and is bent on world domination."
• "So besides following Muhammad’s warpath..."
• "aggression from Muhammad himself"

Other than that link # 21 points to jihadwatch, a page run by Robert Spencer, an extremist. On 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) a user considered Robert Spencer a scholar on Islamic theology. I pointed out that Spencer has written "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion", and was an extremist, thus not a scholar. But on 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) the user repeated that Spencer was a scholar.

As you know, Wp:rs#Extremist_sources says that we shouldn't rely on extremists for information, thus it'd be inappropriate for us to reference such sources. I was just making a pre-emptive comment, and did not mean to target any particular user.Bless sins 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example.

In the last 24 hours a user inserted a statement attributed to Anwar Hekmat's book Women and the Koran The Status of Women in Islam.

The summary of the book on amazon makes the follwoing statements[15]

• "Anwar Hekmat tells us of the brutality inflicted on women in the Islam religion".
• "Mohammed is also depicted with insatiable sexual appetites that knew little boundaries"
• "Much of the Islamic religion, claims Hekmat, is clever propaganda simply created to allow Mohammed to do as he pleased."

My point is, Stevertigo, that some editors reference sources that depict Muhammad and Islam in a very negative context.Bless sins 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. A user made some edits with given edit summaries.

"And the Muslim definition of chastity probably includes raping slaves".[16]

"Raiding parties under Muhammad raped married women all the time"[17]

This user, although does not reference sources, but clearly makes statements that depict Muahmamd in an exceptionally negative light.Bless sins 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Those things are facts. Aren't you required to think that any statement of the facts is presenting Muhammad in a positive light? Arrow740 20:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Those things are facts." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! --Aminz 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You think killing men then enslaving women and then having sex with them is funny? This is just what some Muslim clerics are still calling for, and they're doing it for historical reasons. Arrow740 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I make two distinctions: I distinguish editors who strive for NPOV and those who push a point of view. I distinguish between how sources characterise a subject, and how a user characterises a subject. In this case "Arrow740" is clearly acting out of POINT and his comments reflect that. On the other hand, its not proper to exclude a source just because they depict someone's religious leader in "a very negative context," even if the user is violating WP:POINT and makes statements which depict the subject "in an exceptionally negative light." Clearly where people violate WP:CIVIL in their comments there may be a case for Arbitration, simply because their behaviour is improper. -Ste|vertigo 06:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think of Mr. Robert Spencer? Please take a look at [18]. It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. --Aminz 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And what do you think of self-declared critics of Islam [19], [20]? --Aminz 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what I think of them. It doesnt matter what you think of them. It does matter what people in general think of them, where "them" is a misnomer for "their views." There are critics of every religion and their views must be represented in accordance with NPOV - not excluded in accordance with the views of adherents. NPOV does not support those who assert a negative view, nor those who assert a positive one. It supports both. -Ste|vertigo 06:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the dates in the title?

Wouldnt "Early reforms under Islam" be a better one? -Stevertigo 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Bless sins 05:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I will take mediation for this article, as all agreed to it earlier. I understand that the main issues have been summarised already, so I will read these shortly. Any additional summarization or updates on the current state of dispute would be helpful. -Ste|vertigo 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)