Talk:Muhammad/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

The edit warring over the reference to Mahound

I created an article Mahound using the material that is the subject of a revert war in Muhammad. If a pejorative term is notable, then it perhaps deserves to be in its own article, rather than in the biographical article of the person for whom it is a pejorative. However, immediately after creating the article, it was speedy deleted. I discussed the matter briefly with editor ➨ ЯEDVERS, who stated regarding Mahound as a pejorative:

"it doesn't appear to be true (I've worked with a guy called Mahound - and yes, that was the spelling, and yes, he was muslim in his heritage"

So, I would very much like to know what facts people may bring to bear on the subject beside the existing references in Hamlet, Dante, and Watt, Montgomery,Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. fromm pg. 229 [Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford University Press, 1961. from pg. 229.] --BostonMA ^talk 20:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It should have been Mahmoud not Mahound. Is User:Redvers sure about that? --Aminz 09:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

User Embarkedaxis (talk · contribs) added these comments to my talk page; I think they might have some pertience here; whether or not his logic is good, (I don't know yet myself), he seems to at least have a point:

Mahound term was used by one or two peoples so it doesnt mean that it is his name's variant. And it is already there in Non-Muslim veiw of Muhammad. So there is no point to keep this word in variant. People are villify by many people but that doesnt mean it is his name variant. Everyone know the defination of variant. And 2ndly some people add this just because they hate him and wikipedia policy is neutral. So i want to keep this article away from skepticism, So that both muslims and non muslims would not be offended. I hope you will understand

-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with both the factual assertion and the assertion made regarding the motivations of Wikipedia editors. The citations are William Shakespeare and Dante Alighieri, two of the most influential authors of all time. Their views and citations from their works hold immense value and are not to be lightly disregarded or removed. To downplay the citations, taken from works written hundreds of years apart from one another, is disingenous. --ElKevbo 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo, --Aminz 09:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with citing them; I'm just not sure it's relevant to this article. Do we really need this aside talking about alternate names for Mohammed? I'm thinking we should have another article named Alternate names for Mohammed; we're already experimenting on creating an article Mahound, which may turn into this. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as there are appropriate links to any new articles from this one then I think that sounds like a good idea. This is clearly a very long article and continuing to break it up into smaller, more detailed subarticles is probably the only viable option if we are to retain a significant level of detail. --ElKevbo 02:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As the quote stands, it's fairly short, is a reference, and doesn't say anything harmful about Mohammed. I don't think it's a problem at the moment. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The footnote was a *footnote* and short. People can refer to the article Mahound as well, but it would be good to have a summary of it here. I did the research and created the footnote. it was only a brief summary leaving aside other details. --Aminz 09:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It should have been Mahmoud not Mahound. - Well that's a Muslim name too (e.g., Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah). So our conundrum remains. But that information is important; we make have to change the article name. Do you have any online sources to back up the claim that the term wa used to villify? Because we do have some doubt on the issue.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching google for the name Mahound, not referring to the prophet Muhammad, I came up with a company with the name Mahound in it, a prisoner with the name Mahound, Mahound Manzaloui, an author. Not very many. However perhaps enough to believe that Mahound is used as a perjorative name for the prophet. Also, google hits may not reflect the true frequency of the name. With regard to the question of derogatory use during the middle ages, there are plenty of google links to that. The Song of Roland refers to Muslims as worshipping an idol named Mahound, (as well as others). I'm just reporting in. --BostonMA ^talk 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources makes it clear that Mahound was used by medieval Christians to vilify Muhammad. No doubt about that. Now, if it is also a name, then we should have a disambiguation link, saying:” For other uses of the term Mahound, see Mahound (disambiguation)." at the top of the Mahound article (as it is in the top of many articles)--Aminz 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. --Islamic 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Funnt how people stop arguing once Arrow starts displays sources. He is the only party providing FACTS on the topic. Photoguy77 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are there so many pictures of people this article has absolutely nothing to do with (such as the modern 'scholars')? It looks very unprofessional. —Aiden 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. Please have also a look at the New Anti-Semtism article. --Aminz 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur that it looks quite unprofessional. --Nehwyn 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs pictures of muhammad. I have no idea what the man looked like. How am I supposed to make a comic with him in it if I don't know what he looked like. --TimeCruiserMike 2:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, even if there were more pictures of Muhammad, you would still not know what he looks like. --BostonMA ^talk 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be no official/islamic pictures of the prophet Mohammed because muslims do not create images/pictures of any of the prophets (Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, Noah etc...) or God. If anyone claims they have found pictures (made by muslims) on the web, you can bet your bottom dollar that the picture is false.

See Depiction of Muhammad and give me a dollar please. I think there are black sheep in every nation. Hence few Muslims have done that but in general main-stream Muslims do not do that. --- ALM 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

this article is a disgrace, and extremely revisionist

There is hardly any mention of the long history of rape, murder, robbery and warmongering on Muhammads account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs)

If you supply reliable sources to this information, it would help your cause more than simply disparaging the current article. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

However, please remember that this is an article about Muhammad and not an article about world history after Muhammad's death. --BostonMA ^talk 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was a warmonger (conquering of Mecca and rest of Arabian peninsula), and a rapist, and sentencing innocent people to death and bondage. This is fact ... I tried putting in referenced stuff, but people removed it. For shame (for those who claim he is a saint and wish to suppress all else). Nonprof. Frinkus 07:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Please list, describe and cite sources for said description regarding Mohammud's career as a rapist, murderer, robber and warmongerer (if such is the case). Please remember to write the material in an encyclopedic manner and to use formal writing style, including properly grammar, punc;tuat-ion, and spallung.DocEss 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget ethnic cleansing. Arrow740 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrow740, without some sort of citation, your comments are without context and not very usefull. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume everyone working on this article already knows about the Jewish tribes whose men he beheaded and whose women and children he sold into slavery. If you really want a citation I can get you one. But shouldn't people working on this article have some familiarity with the hadith? Arrow740 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All Hadith, or just the specific ones you choose to portray the man in the light you rather? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in Ibn Ishaq and al-Tibari, the most reliable biographies of Muhammad. Both contain hadith generally considered genuine. Why are you acting ignorant? Arrow740 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW who exactly told you Ishaq & Tabari were "most reliable sources". Generally genuine...dude wake up . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wake up and read the hadith and the early biographies of Muhammad. You might learn something about the methods that he used; he only started to become powerful after he started having people assassinated, starting with Asma bint Marwan. She was just a poet. Ibn Ishaq was the earliest biographer of Muhammad. His Sirat rasul Allah is the earliest extant biography of Muhammad. Also, according to the Islamic journal Renaissance, al-Tabari is "the father of Islamic History and one of the greatest historians that the world has produced." Arrow740 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq is taken from Tabari, and Tabari's is a collection of the hadees and traditions of his era. He is not autorative as his collection gives equal weight to the absurd as the obvioulsy true. His is not Sahih, but as a historian he is brilliant for the era, using sources of every side of a conflict or divide. How much of Tabari have you actually read? Do you know how many witnes statements he collected? Do you treat all equally? --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Ibn Ishaq is primarily taken from Ibn Hisham. Ibn Hisham said that he censored some stories which he deemed to be too offensive to Muslims. This is why Tabari and other authors, who also recorded extracts of Ibn Ishaq's work, must be consulted for a complete biography. Ibn Hisham probably left out the story of the Satanic Verses, for one thing, but this is found in Tabari and in other places. Ibn Ishaq's work must be considered the most reliable because it was done closest to the time of Muhammad, and it was probably relatively complete; he did not censor to the extent he could have. Bukhari died over a hundred years later, when the concern over isnad had already developed in response to debates between Muslims. Arrow740 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

al-Tabari is "the father of Islamic History and one of the greatest historians that the world has produced.....Ibn Ishaq was the earliest biographer of Muhammad. ...agreed . But being old doesent mean most authentic . Deen is different from Vedic mythology . Unless an event is backed with unbroken chain of asnad , in which all links are authentic, it gets categorised as a myth . This is what differentiates Sirah from homer's odyssey. The aim of both these people was to gather everything that was available , & not to differentiate authentic from myth . Their works served & still serve as a library of events from which later scholars picked events that were Sahih according to their standards . Tabari recorded dozens of volumes of history in his life , out of which not even half is considered authentic by scholars , which they compiled as Sahih. While Ibn Ishaq, besides being devoid of authentic asnad is heavily based on "Israeliaat" (records originating from jewish sources) . You cant rewrite history according to your own whims. BTW asnad are not developed, as I said before, its not mythology . People base their lives on these events , & they like it to be very authentic . Just to let you know, the first part of your thesis is badly wrong. Learn to learn from learned people , & not from trolls on the net, otherwise you will keep on creating things like the new version of history, as above . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting silly. Ibn Ishaq wasn't writing a myth like Homer, or recording ones like the early Vedic people. He was writing a biography. The Sahih Bukhari was compiled decades after Ibn Ishaq's work, and the Sahih Muslim even later. Sunnis choose to give precedence to these works for religious reasons. The concern over isnad did not exist in the early period after Muhammad. So in general, claims that hadith existing during Bukhari's time have good isnad are even more suspect than they otherwise would be. This is probably why so many of the hadith compiled at his time and later contradict each other. If you choose to trust your religion over logic, that's your choice. I'll trust the early biographers. Either way, there's not much more to be said about this. Arrow740 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ibn ishaq was collecting records that included both fact & fiction . Sunnis give precedence to authentic works because their writers spent all their life in differentiating fact from fiction . You can trust whatever you want to , but you arnt scholarly enough to rewrite history according to your personal standards . Cheers F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if they managed to separate fact from fiction, Muhammad said some pretty funny things: Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:188, Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68, Sahih Muslim, 2:462, Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:71:614, Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:21:245, Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:245. And also Aisha was both six years old Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:234 and nine years old Sahih Muslim, 8:3311 when Muhammad married her, though both Bukhari and Muslim say she was nine when he first had sex with her. Arrow740 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

i don't think ibn hisham ever says he "censored" material which was "too offensive". all we have of ibn ishaq's sira today is guillaume's attempted reconstruction through alternative (and yes, later) sources. so no, we don't have the original. within the work itself, the poetry section especially is deemed as containing multiple forgeries. if you have read tareekh at-tabari you will see tabari stating that he did not seek to authenticate any report: he included them whether he considered them fabricated, weak or sound, so that people later would be able to analyse more closely upon more detailed investigation. even if we look at the methodology of ibn ishaq, in a number of instances he was non-committal, preferring to state the narration and its chain without deriving from it, or using cautious language such as "it is claimed" or "it is alleged". ITAQALLAH 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Ibn Ishaq states that Ibn Hisham admitted that he did not include all of Ibn Ishaq's work in his presentation of it. I have read elsewhere that he left out material which he deemed to be to offenive to Muslims. I was under the impression that some of Ibn Ishaq's material was also included in Tabari's work, though that might be wrong. The fact that Ibn Ishaq was noncommittal in parts of his biography would make the rest of it more reliable, in my mind. Anyway I have some sources on Ibn Ishaq avaiable to me and I'll read them to see if modern Muslims are right to distance themselves from the Sirat Rasul Allah. Arrow740 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a citation is not ignorant, it is required here. Please be civil, it is not optional here, for more information read the WP:CIVILITY policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

He was acting as if he did not know which sources I was referring to. Thus, he was acting ignorant. Asking for a citation is not ignorant; acting as if you do not know what someone is referring to is acting ignorant. Arrow740 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack the arguement, not the arguer, please. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is in the article Muhammad#Muhammad_and_the_Jewish_tribes_of_Medina. Now whatever you want to add come with the sources and I might also help you to add that. --- ابراهيم 09:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed there, albeit in a very onesided way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny how when Arrow740, displayed his sources, everyone got quiet....only proving his was right all along.Photoguy77 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Depictions

All that needs to be in these Muhammad articles are true, cited facts. No opinions or beliefs, simply facts. I'm doing a paper for school on Muhammad's life and am finding it very hard to use Wikipedia for this paper, even though Wikipedia is a great resource and I use it often. So, if you want to discuss beliefs and religion, please add your corrections to a different page, not a page intended to display facts and labels, not opinions or beliefs. Thanks.

This is ridiculous, there has been no consensus on if the depictions stay. If this goes on anymore, I'm going to request the page be full-protected, so we have to work out something. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No need for pictures showing Muhammad. -- ابراهيم 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, we've had quite a discussion about this above. I would suggest you read it in full, as other people have disagreed with you on this one. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

While there is no consensus either way, keeping the pictures is in line with wikipedia policy, standard practices, and manual of style, while removing the images is an exception to normal practices. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about Muhammad's picture, but about a fake cartoon image. That does not belong to an Encyclopedia. --Truthpedia 22:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

agreed. this horse has been long dead. Sparing use of historical artwork: yes. In-your-face, WP:POINT provocative insertion of images: no. Muslims have removed bona fide artwork, Islamophobes have added cartoons and "Mahomet" woodcuts, we try to keep the middle ground here. It is a good sign if people on both extremes of a debate disagree with you, it might mean you are close to NPOV. dab (ᛏ) 20:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the position express just above, it seems a reasonable middle ground. --Nehwyn 11:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I thought we were talking about regular pictures again. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, we are talking about regular pictures. --Nehwyn 14:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by regular pictures? There is not problem with pictures in general but only with picture showing Muhammad. --- ابراهيم 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I daresay he intended "regular pictures" as historical artistic depictions of Mohammad not specifically made with the intention to offend, as opposed to the recent cartoons and some woodcuts, which are intentional puns. --Nehwyn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I continue to marvel that this sickly stew of a discussion continues to boil on and stink up the house. Face facts: we will never solve this issue through discusion alone: Islammis will not ever accept pictures of Mowhamudd (they'll use an argument, however senseless) and non-Islammis will always want pictures (they'll talk 'til they're blue in the face and convince no one). What we need is to have the issue arbitrated.DocEss 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

DocEss, regardless of the current state of affairs, referring to Muslims as "Islammis" and Muhammad as "Mowhamudd" is uncivil. Please do refrain from such terminology and endeavor to maintain a scholarly approach when editing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh Ok - I've seen it spelled so many ways I just go random now. An Islammis is a legit word - I've heard it all my life is is not meant as an insult.DocEss 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no dispute previously and was peace for a long period. The article even have a picture of Muhammad but without face. Then came some people with picture and it started. --- ابراهيم 16:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a dispute now! What is your solution? Remember, most people don't like being censored and will react strongly to attempts at censorship.DocEss 17:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog and not a soapbox. A good many edits are not suitable for an encyclopedia and are deleted. If you feel that this is censorship, and that it infringes upon your free speech, you might consider another venue as being more a suitable forum in which to express your opinions. --BostonMA ^talk 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, BostonMA, you might consider another venue as being a more suitable forum in which pictures of Muhammad do not appear, as encyclopedias do contain depictions of their subjects.Proabivouac 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, what encyclopedias do you read? I have a batch of Brittanicas from 1990 and what is notable is that the overwhelming vast majority of the articles do not have images. Also, an accoutable free online encyclopedia has no pictures either. Further, articles such Abortion, Coprophilia, Urolagnia, Vomiting, and others have no image, as it would cause offense. Wikipedia is not here to cause offense, its here as a method of spreading information. The fact is no-one knows anything about the image, except that that the guy preaching is the Prophet Muhammad. Is he actually preaching? It looks like a minbar, but can you be sure? Who, and this is so important, is he preaching to? And Why? Why is this occasion so important that Al-Biruni decided that he needed to illistrate the point in what was, and I seem to be the only one who knows the work it came from, a history book. This is obviously an important point in the sirah, the Shia pointy caps indicate to me that the image indicates a Shia POV on an event.. what event? Where did it take place? Will the people so insistant on the image being added, please, find out what it is that they are adding? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Proabivouac, most 'Pedias have few images." If WP has too many images generally, you've only made the problem worse by uploading a fair number of images yourself[1]; why not start by deleting those?Proabivouac 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If any of my images caused the offense that this image does, I would. When did i say that Wikipedia had too many images? You said "encyclopedias do contain depictions of their subjects". This statement is false, as most 'pedias have few images of their subjects, and Wikipedia is rare in its excessive, by comparrison, use of them. Further, there are many articles void of images as inclusion of such images would, understandably, cause offense. At present this article has two images of Muhammad. One of which I know exactly what is happening, where it is happening, and roughly when it happened, the other no-one seems to know much about, and everyone agrees causes offense, and yet continue to bully others so as to ensure remains in place. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, did I say that depictions of Muhammad should not appear in Wikipedia? --BostonMA ^talk 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in his defence I must say that Boston has never said that. [I do notice that he tends to side with the sensitive folk in any issue, though.] Irish: book-form 'pedias have few images because the costs would be astonomical, not to mention the weight of the books themselves. Be pragmatic: Wiki is a perfect forum for images in pedia format. Actually, I can't think of a better place for a pedia than the Web for that very reason: IMAGERY. What a resource we can create! And Wiki does have tons of images both lovely and grotesque, so that pillar of your argument crumbles too. Regrettably, I see we go round and round again with the any-argument-will-do-to-stop-the-Mohammd-images format of discourse.DocEss 16:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument remains the same as it has always been. The image is offensive, is known to be offensive and serves no purpose. Wikipedia does not gratuitiously offend, and images that offend should only be included if they add to the information in the article. This image simply does not. It is an image of what? Muhammad is presumeably the man on what appears to be the Minbar, but that cannot be certain. No-one seems to know who anyone else is. All this image tells is is that there were depictions of Muhammad, several hundred years after his death, in Iran (Persia as English speakers called it). The fact is the image does nothing to improve the article. it illistrates nothing concerning the biography of Muhammad, because we know nothing of the context in which it was drawn. All it does is offend, and thats not why wikipedia is here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not offend me. And that argument (i.e,, "it serves no purpose") is invalid - pictures/depictions/images of people always serve a purpose: they satisfy the human need to put a face to a name.DocEss 18:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Images that cause offense tend not to offend ewveryone, that it does not offend you is of little relevence, the fact is that it demonstaratively offends people, that you are aware it causes offence, and in spite of that you continue to add it, without knowing very much else about it. There is absolutely no way of saying that is Muhammads face, futher there is no way of telling that that is Muhammad preaching, can you tell me with any form of source that Muhammad is not one in audience? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Round and round we go again. And agian this argument proferred above is fallacious. We don't know what Moses looked like either. Nor St. Peter, Constantinople, Buddha, etc. That doesn't stop us from depicting them. And why do we do that? Because humans have an uncontrollable, instinctual urge & need to put a face to a name. We are going to put Mohammed's face to a name and not feel bad about it.DocEss 21:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If we include a picture here, we annoy some of our readers and contributors, and do not add anything particularly informative. We have a page devoted to depictions of Muhammad, and we link to it. I think including a picture here costs us more than it gains us. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps; but WP:Profanity says that people getting offended is not a criterion. I've argued that this page offends more people than it helps; but again, the profanity guidelines say something else. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the Profanity guideline states that Wikipedia does not avoid content merely because it is offensive. However, it doesn't say that offensiveness should not be a consideration. Rather it says the opposite. The guideline says that if an image is offensive, it should be included only if the absense of the image would make the article less informative, or if no suitable alternative exists.

The page to which you refer has images which do offend people. However, please read this comment for an argument addressing the point of such images being informative, and thus appropriate for Wikipedia. --BostonMA ^talk 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Being offended is a personal choice. I find myself recoiling in horror at some images in Wiki (like pictures of surgery or vulva disorders or communists or feminists or 70's fashion or the Bay City rollers). I also find myself irresistably drawn to some images in Wiki (like pictures of sexy blonds or nice cars or Filet Mignon or a vineyard). I also see some imgaes in a completely detached manner with a clinical mindset. But not one single image offends me. I just turn off that switch and move along. I suggest other editors take on the same attitude with Mohammed images and we can arrive at a modus operendi.DocEss 17:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Muslims don't regard being offended by depictions of Muhammad as a personal choice, but a religious one. Since we do have a Muslim communtity here, we can't upload depictions of Muhammad, whether they are paintings or comic strips. I don't see the point in debating this; it's not as if any depictions of Muhammad will lend any important information to WP viewers anyway. If it's absolutely necessary, just provide a link to the image, right? L mixo 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks L mixo. This is being currently mediated at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Also, to understand the pro-image side, please see WP:PROFANITY and [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not censored]. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

please use p.b.u.h after using the name "muhammed" (p.b.u.h)

i am surprised why not one single person noted this but the name Muhammed (p.b.u.h) should be followed by the words p.b.u.h or peace be upon him, or SAW, meaning sallahu allaihi wasallam. people wil be ill fated who do not do so at the time of resurrection. so if you could change the artilce accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabraiz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC}

no. but I assure you other people have made the suggestion before. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Not everyone on this blue earth is Muslim, and not all of them believe in Muhammad's teachings. You cannot ask a non-Muslim to follow Islamic customs. 2)Where in the Quran does it mention 'pbuh' or "SAW"? ImKidding 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

removed the ensuing round of indulging in pointless provocation. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, one could always say it verbally instead of writing it. Secondly, when there are other important things you could contribute then why to give more priority to this. Still most of the article has no references (except only few sections). Many facts are not presented rightly or even not at all. I do not have time but if you have time then try to work on them. -- ابراهيم 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

POV masking as fact

The section on the Jewish tribes has some serious problems, the worst being its adoption of a pro-Muhammad POV in basically everything.

• When Muhammad came to Jathrib he was in no position of "allowing" or disallowing the Jews religious autonomy. Such a wording is a projecting later conditions back into an earlier time.
• The sentence "however, the Jewish tribes tended to resist both religious and political cooperation with the Muslims, and also cooperated with Muslim's enemies" is completely POV, blaming the victims for their own sufferings. And claiming that is referenced does not help, as just because Esposito explains and justifies it that way doesn't make it a fact, as which it is stated. Also, it belongs into its proper place which is the next paragraph which deals with the three Jewish tribes being attacked by Muhammad one after the other.

Therefore I restore the neutral version again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You could use other references to deny what this reference say. But you cannot change meaning of present reference. By doing that you are writing your own POV. --- ابراهيم 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Faisal, I would suggest that you take some time and reflect about the nature of a encyclopedic article and about WP policies, especially WP:V but also WP:NPOV.

An encyclopedic article is not simply a collection of referenced soundbites. If "Esp" has nothing more to say than "the Jews had it coming" he is out of place in this paragraph and can only be included in the article at all via "Esposito says the Jews had it coming". This view, BTW, is already included in the next paragraph. We certainly cannot write that Jews were "fatihless anyway" as if that were a matter of fact. We have here three Jewish tribes and three occasions of their being punished by Muhammad. The way you want to treat it is insufficent.

And no, I have absolutely no reason to dig up other references. Even if the whole article were based solely on Mr Esp, it would still have to be in NPOV language. That was the problem I fixed. The issue here is not that I put in my POV (you have no idea what my view on these issues is) but that you want to have your POV stated as fact, using Esposito as a vehicle. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since my dear fellow editors dodge the issue, hiding behind "misrepresention of source" (as far as I can remember there were no quotation marks before) I have tagged the section as POV. Even if Mr Esposito says so, you cannot simply state the Jews to be traitors, especially not in general. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC) ... and especially not twice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not a direct quote before. I added this:

Esposito writes, "However, the Jewish tribes, which had long lived in Medina and had political ties with the Quraysh, tended to resist both religious and political cooperation with the Muslims. They denied Muhammad's prophethood and message and cooperated with his Meccan enemies."

quoting directly from Esposito's book, since there seemed to be a dispute on which paraphrase was accurate. I do not mean the passage to say, "This is true", but "This is what Esposito says." Maybe if some other scholar has written otherwise, we can include that as well. Or, we could shorten the section and cover it in more detail on another page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The view of any other academics I have seen so far are the same. In the case of Qurayza: Marco Scholler thinks they were openly, probably actively, were supporting Meccans and their allies; John Esposito thinks Banu Qurayza had negotiated with the enemy; and Welch states that Muslims "discovered, or perhaps became suspected" that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy. Watt is also saying something along these lines. --Aminz 22:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Some time back, I summarized the range of opinions given as, "Scholars differ as to precise nature of the Banu Qurayza's relationship with the Meccans, with some believing they were in open alliance, others that they had only negotiated with them, or that a relationship was merely suspected." I'm not sure why this was reverted. Negotiation is rather different than open alliance, and suspicion of subversion different from subversion, but Aminz' text presents these as continuation of a single idea. Moreover, calling Meccans "the enemy" is unnecessarily POV; they were only the enemy from one party's perspective. In any event, we must summarize wherever possible to prevent the article from becoming a quote farm; all the reader needs to know here is the range of scholarly opinion.Proabivouac 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As your summary was giving the impression that scholars who believe that they didn't have the alliance with Mecca and those who believe that they had the alliance, were equal in number. Although, the later one is more widely accepted. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We only have three cited scholars here. Of these three, only Scholler is saying they were allied.Proabivouac 05:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

With current content, atleast it is giving some extra information for the reader and summarizing would only save a few bytes. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As you advance a new argument, do you now acknowledge that my edit was a fair and representative restatement of the cited passages?Proabivouac 06:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

as far as I remember (could be mistaken), you removed the academic POV that the massacre didn't happen. if not, sorry for irrelevant comment. --Aminz 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I did so because the article as reproduced (?) by JewsforAllah didn't cite its author, which I'm confident you'll agree was the right thing to do. Now that it's attributed, I'll take another look. It would appear to be a marginal view.Proabivouac 06:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained before (and the article says), Watt quotes this article and gives his opinion about it. Were it unscholarly, Watt wouldn't have mentioned it. Aside from these, the journal(JSAI) in which the article is published is famous.--Aminz 06:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Esposito's view being included and in fact it is already included in the following paragraph. There, it is also properly attributed, as the sentence starts "Esposito thinks that ..."

In the upper paragaph it is implied that Esposito's view is factual.

Also note that my objection to the former sentence has nothing directly to do with the Banu Qurazai. It doesn't talk about them but about all the Jews. If I am not mistaken the scholarly assessement is that the Qurazai either conspired with the Meccans or at least moved in that direction. But that says nothing about the two other tribes.

Finally, the sentence "They denied Muhammad's prophethood and message" shows how pathetic Esposito's view is: does he really think this a complaint? Were the Jews in any way compelled to accept Muhammad as a prophet? What about the pact mentioned only a few words earlier?

Good point, ST1977. If Esposito frames it in such a slanted way, we're not obliged to perpetuate his error. We must distinguish between an expert finding of fact and vacuous bias for which we've no reason to believe Esposito's more worthy than anyone else's. As for the pact, there was no "pact" - at least not one the Jews were invited to sign - only imposition by fiat. Nor were Muhammad and the emigrants welcome in all quarters. I will add this shortly, cited to Lewis.Proabivouac 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is, all in all, unacceptable, and removing the POV tag without this issue being cleared up (whoever did it) is unacceptable as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I have seen who did it: it was Aminz [2] with the edit summary "Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Medina - now it is all attributed". This removal stems either from dishonest or lack of knowledge. I did tag the section for "POV" and not for "lack of references", hence simply putting references to the bits doesn't help. Goddday, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a strange concept that a section written with many references still is a POV. Yes it could be a POV of the authors but not in general sense. If you could find other authors then write what they say too. --- ابراهيم 17:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously still don't get it. This is not about WP:V but about WP:NPOV. You could add a thousand references and the problem would remain. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone thinks a passage is POV, please prove it. That is, find an academic scholar who disagrees with Esposito. Proabivouac pointed out that there were no agreement between the Jews and Muhammad. That would contradict both Esposito and Watt. Watt asserts that there was "certainly" such an agreement in general between the Jews and Muslims. Won't believe that Lewis contradicts both Watt and Esposito on such a matter until I see it. I would like to thank Proabivouac for the approach he has taken. --Aminz 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, please specify exactly a sentence that you think is now presented as a fact but is a POV, or I will remove the tag --Aminz 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are actually two sentence that need attention:

• The first is the one about the "pact". IMHO it is onesided to portray it as an act of Muhammad's graciousness as per "allowing". I always thought that the Quran taught that there was "no coercion in religion". If that is true, how can it now become a mere allowance. But in this case, what references say is paramount, according to your last post, Aminz.
• The second is different: "However, the Jewish tribes, which had long lived in Medina and had political ties with the Quraysh, tended to resist both religious and political cooperation with the Muslims. They denied Muhammad's prophethood and message and cooperated with his Meccan enemies" - this is POV pushing (and even if attributed to Esposito, it is still his POV) that contrasts Muhammad's graciousness with "Jewish treachery" - claiming that the Jews resisted Muhammad politically from the get go. Given the previous sentence the fact that the Jews "denied Muhammad's prophethood and message" is completely irrelevant, as this was exactly what Muhammad allowed them to do. Finally, it is problematic that Esposito merely talks about the Jews in general. I guess that the Quraiza in fact did conspire with the Quraish (though I can hardly blame them after what had happened to their fellow Jews) but this sentence also implies the guilt of the other two tribes.

'denied Muhammad's prophethood and message' is NOT neutral because it speaks of 'prophethood' as a real object. We should say instead they didnt believe Muhammad's claim of prophethood. Not taking a position on whether it real which calling his claim his 'prophethood' does. all we know is that he said he was prophet and Jews didnt believe him.Opiner 06:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't it occur to anyone how strange it is that the same bit, probably the same setence from Esposito was used twice as a reference for exactly the same issue. Why not repeat Watt all over the place.

So, my proposal is that we first present the undisputed, unproblematic bits about the pact, then the also undisputed fact that Muhammed drove out two tribes and killed a third (with apologizing) and then cover the various scholar's views on these issues. Much of the problematic Esposito can be put there.

Thanks Aminz for your cooperation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Will get back to your comment soon, but it is not merely Esposito who is saying that. Encyclopedia of Religion also repeats that. I should check with other sources as well. --Aminz 21:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

Remember, I object to such a general statement on the Jews and to place it in this passage, not to an dePOVed statement later. Since the passage where Esposito is referenced the second time also contains other views on this, his view can hardly be undisputed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The recent additions by Aminz are interesting and valuable but increase the problem. We cannot simply state as facts the movements within Muhammad's psyche, especially not his shock on supposedly "a few theological arguments". Such a wording is extremely onesided as it (willfully?) omits the cause for the disagreement. The "theological argument" was Muhammad's claim of being a prophet. The content can clearly be salvaged and integrated into the text, further up (where we treat his coming to Jathrib and his not being accepted as prophet by the Jews, leading up to the pact). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. If you don't mind I will draw up the version of the section I have in mind:

"When Muhammad was preaching in Mecca, he viewed Christians and Jews, whom he referred to as People of the Book, as natural allies sharing the core principles of his teachings, and anticipated their acceptance and support. Muslims like Jews were praying towards Jerusalem. He was very excited of going to Medina where the Jewish community had long worshiped the one God

"Many Medinans converted to the faith of the Meccan immigrants, but the Jewish tribes did not, as they rejected Muhammad's status as a prophet.It was a disappointment to Muhammad that he was not universally accepted. Still, some Jews engaged in conversation with him about their religion and their religious history. They talked about the serious theological disagreements among Jews and Christians.

"Professor John L. Esposito presents one common view, writing that when a delegation from Medina invited Muhammad to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community, Muhammad wrote the Constitution of Medina which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the Muslim community to other communities. The pact made between Muhammad and the Jews demanded the latter's political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.

"After each major battle with the Meccans, Muhammad accused one of the Jewish tribes of treachery. After Badr, the Banu Qainuqa tribe and after the Battle of Uhud, the Banu Nadir were expelled from Medina with their families and what possessions they could carry with them. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Jews of Banu Qurayza were accused of conspiring with the Meccans; Qurayza men were beheaded, women and children enslaved and their properties were confiscated.

"On the fate of Banu Qurayza, another academic point of view is that Ibn Ishaq, the first biographer of Muhammad, supposedly gathered many details of the incident from descendants of the Qurayza Jews themselves. These descendants allegedly embellished or manufactured details of the incident by borrowing from histories of Jewish persecutions during Roman times. Watt, a scholar of Islamic studies, however thinks that this argument "is not entirely convincing." The majority of academic scholars think that the incident happened. Watt writes that "during the siege of Medina , Muhammad became anxious about their conduct and sent some of the leading Muslims to talk to them; the result was disquieting. Though Qurayza does not appear to have committed any overt hostile act, they had probably been involved in negotiations with the enemy." Marco Scholler thinks they were openly, probably actively, were supporting Meccans and their allies ; John Esposito thinks that "the Jewish tribes, which had long lived in Medina and had political ties with the Quraysh, ... and cooperated with (Muhammad's) Meccan enemies."; and Welch states that Muslims "discovered, or perhaps became suspected" that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy. "

Any thoughts? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, the source says Muhammad was shocked. My conjecture is that it might be related to the following verse:

42:13. The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him).

And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). And remember We took your covenant (to this effect): Shed no blood amongst you, nor turn out your own people from your homes: and this ye solemnly ratified, and to this ye can bear witness.

Regarding your suggestion, please let me find more information about the constitution of medina, and Jews and will get back to you soon. --Aminz 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to the recent version of the section? --Aminz 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the recent version you are talking about?

We can certainly include Muhammad's shock but in a non-endorsing wording - we cannot adopt Muhammad's stance of the oneness of religion (in the end, meaning Islam). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Had a quick look into your additions: they bloat the section with off-topic information (mainly on the Jews of Medina) and with linguistic errors (e.g. the Medina). Neither does a treatment of disputes withing Jathrib belong here at all - it should be covered concisely in the Hijra section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since others don't hesitate to edit this section, I think I might post my proposal as well.

Some additions by Aminz on the issues between Jews and Muhammad can be included right after the setence that talks about their discussions. However, refrain from statements that reasons were "on hand". Since there exists no communique by the Jewish tribes on why they rejected Muhammad, we cannot make such a statement unless ALL scholars agree that this is "on hand". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will restore these "Jewish reasonings" minus those that are definitely problematic:

• the one about Abdallah b. Ubbay. (who BTW has an article called Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy - courtesy would have required to provide a link to that, most notably since it does not support what you wrote)
• contradictions between Quran and the Bible - there was no Quran at that time.
• The passage starting "The Qur'an, met these criticisms ..." is, apart from the wrong comma, completely arguing the Islamic POV and goes way beyond the topic. The statement that "undeniably" Abraham was not a Jews is problematic as it is misleading (even when not supplemented by the Islamic statement that he was a Muslim, playing on the ambiguity of that word.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote, contradictions between Quran and the Bible - there was no Quran at that time, well! Quran was revealed in 23 years, hence whatever portion of it had been revealed at that time, is under discussion.

Then you wrote, Abraham was not a Jew, is problematic as it is misleading. This statement is asserted by a verse of Qur'an (^{[Quran 3:67]}) and secondly even Jews would agree that he wasn't a Jew, as Israelites were identified by Israel (Jacob) and not Abraham (although Israel was also from children of Abraham, just like Muhammad claimed to be Ishmaelite, also from progeny of Abraham). TruthSpreader^Talk 15:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To address these points:

• If we say The Quran we immediately associate the book of that name or the Islamic revelation in its entirety. If individual revelations are referred to, then use a different wording, to avoid confusion to the reader.
• If you read carefully I did not say that "Abraham was not a Jew" was wrong but problematic as it is misleading. What the Quran says is completely irrelevant in this matter. Abraham is not a Jew, since that means either a descendant of his great-grandson Judah, or an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judah, or descendant of his grandson Israel, or a adherent to the religion of Judaism. But nonetheless, Abaraham is the patriarch of all Jews. He was not an Arab and he was not a Muslim in the sense that he adhered to the religion historically founded by Muhammad. We should not use this as cheap trick insinuations. That was all my remark was about.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, whould you please explain your reason for this edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=84693361&oldid=84687303

It is attributed to The Cambridge History of Islam. --Aminz 05:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your comments above. All I wrote, "Quran met these criticisms", "Contradictions", "undeniably"... are mentioned in the source. I didn't made them up. The source starts: 1. many Jews had close relationship with Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy ; continues that 2. Jews were normally unwilling to accept a Gentile prophet 3. They could also point out to contradictions. That's what the source says and we should not change it. We can say that the sources says so. If you have other sources, feel free to mention them as well. --Aminz 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my objections above and am increasinly fed up with your constantly dodging issues and hiding behind "it is attributed to XYZ" ... I can reference a lot of things not relevant to this section and also relevant stuff and word them in a POV way. It is true that:

• The Quran (and note, it is the' Quran) as a book did not exist at that time. If Muhammad used an argument, attribute it to him.
• The "undeniable statement" is problematic, even more so if it is taken directly out of the Quran.
• Controversial statements are still controversial, even if a source claims it to be on hand. And judging from what the WP article and what I could google says about Abdallah ibn Ubbay, this passage involving him here is highly inaccurate. It is also clearly speculation what would have happend "if" Muhammad had not come to Jathrib.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also fed up with your *proofs* of why the sources are wrong and you are right.

1. For the record, the word Qur'an appears in the Qur'an itself. In fact, the word was invented by the Qur'an itself. BUT this was irrelevant. The source says so amd there is no reason for not writing it in that way.

2. "The "undeniable statement" is problematic." As I said before. The source says so. I am quoting what the source says.

3. Again, I am saying what the source says.

X SAYS Y. Whether you agree with Y or not doesn't matter. The way to go for is to find other sources and add their view as well.

I will restore it. --Aminz 09:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You obviously are not able to write an encyclopedia. WP has several policies quite apart from WP:V. One of these keeps me from following your example and adding random stuff just to prove my point. Your posting is so empty that it doesn't warrant any further reply. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC) And therefore I am also rejecting your creating a new section, far removed from the actual issues. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we should meet each other on the ANI next time. --Aminz 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"The enemy"

Can we all agree, at least, that to refer to Mecca as "the enemy" is unacceptably POV?Proabivouac 06:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Could you please explain? That Quraysh were enemies of Muhammad is the Point of View of all scholars, isn't it? --Aminz 06:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is likewise the view of all scholars that Muhammad was the enemy of the Quraysh. We cannot pick one or the other to designate as "the enemy" even if our sources do so.Proabivouac 07:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. we can then say "his enemies"? how is that? --Aminz 07:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with 'the Meccans?'Proabivouac 07:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad declaired himself as a religious leader and fought against enemies of God (at least he proclaimed), and this stance is normally taken seriously by scholars. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad didn't just declare himself a religious leader. He proclaimed himself the Messiah. Think about how this combined with his penchant for pillage would have impressed the Jewish Meccans. Frotz661 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is in a quote or put in quotes (together with conspiring or whatever the accusation is) I don't see a problem with using "the enemy". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Using quotes like that is decidedly informal whereas Wikipedia strives to use more formal language. Therefore, it should instead be something like "...conspired with (Mohammad's) enemy...". Those should be square brackets. I don't know how to keep the Wiki engine from rendering them. Frotz661 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, a quote must not be altered, but we should paraphrase and summarize where possible, instead of dumping long quotes. In this case, what can be wrong with, 'The Meccans?' Using 'the enemy' invites us to adopt the emigrants' perspective as a component of apology: the Jews were conspiring with the enemy, so naturally they had to take action.Proabivouac 16:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I merely opined that I don't see a problem in using it once, but of course there are equally correct alternatives that might even be clearer.

The point above talking about "fought against enemies of God" is clearly not tenable as "the enemy" in question here is clearly the tribe of the Quraish controlling Mecca and no other "enemies of God". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think saying "Muhammad's enemies" is perfectly fine. Of course, they were Quraysh plus their nomad allies. But there is a reason why the source says enemies: because according to the pact, Jews shouldn't have supported Muhammad's enemies, not specifically Quraysh per say. So, saying "Muhammad's enemies" is not only better, but it is more accurate. --Aminz 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no "pact;" it was the unilateral imposition of Muhammad and the emigrants (Lewis "The Arabs in History" (reprint) 1993: 39.), which may accordingly be summarized as, the Jews were warned, not that they agreed to anything at all. Nor do your cites show any scholarly consensus that the Jews were supporting anyone; of three, one suggests that they were negotiating with them and the third that the relationship may have been only suspected.Proabivouac 07:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The cambridge history of Islam says that a delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community, to solve their disputes. They promised accepting him as judge among them, The cambridge history of Islam. Muhammad drew the pact in order to solve the disputes. What do you think about that?

Also, please point me to a particular sentence that you dispute. What additions do you suggest? --Aminz 09:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From Lewis' "The Arabs in History", page 39:

An Arab historian has preserved for us a series of documents, giving the embryo constitution of the early Medinese community. In the words of the chronicler, 'Muhammad wrote and issued a writing among the Muhajurun and the Ansar, in which he made an agreement with the Jews and concluded with them a treaty confirming them in the free exercise of their religion and the possession of their goods, imposing on them and conceding to them certain conditions.' The document is not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation. Its purpose was purely practical and administrative and reveals the cautious, careful character of the Prophet's diplomacy. It regulated the relations between the Meccan immigrants and the Medinese tribes, and between both of these and the Jews.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Harrison, that is exactly the passage I had in mind: not a treaty, but rather a unilateral proclamation. From page 38:

There were from the first differences of opinion among the Medinese as to whether this 'foreign' arbitrator should be called in or not. Those whose supported Muhammad are known to the Tradition as the Ansar, helpers, those who opposed him are given the uncomplimentary title of Munafiqun, hypocrites.

From pages 38-39:

Muhammad's rule at Medina began with serious difficulties. His really devoted supporters were few in number, consisting of the Muhajirun, those Meccans who had accompanied him, and the Medinese Ansar. These had ti face the active opposition of the Medinese 'hypocrites' which, though mainly political, wsa nevertheless redoubtable, until they were reconciled to the new faith by the tangible advantages which it later brought them. Muhammad had, it would seem, hoped to find a friendly welcome among the Jews, whose faith and scriptures would, so he thought, cause them to receive his claims with greater sympathy and understanding. In order to attract them, he adopted a number of Jewish practices, including the fast of Kippur and the prayer towards Jerusalem. The Jews, however, rejected the pretenses of the gentile Prophet and opposed him on precisely the religious level where he was most sensitive. They failed in their opposition because of their inner disunity and their unpopularity among the Medinese generally.

The Jews, then, never agreed to anything, nor did Madina as a whole. Muhammad entered Madina as the ally of one particular faction. Later, he won the favor of the 'hypocrites' by what Lewis calls "tangible advantages," while turning the population against the Jews, whose women, children and properties, if I'm not mistaken, were divied up amongst the Muslims. I wonder if these and the proceeds of other raids aren't the "tangible advantages" to which Lewis refers? That aside, at the least we can appreciate that the picture of Muhammad arriving as an agreed-upon peacemaker, with the Jews later breaking their deal and stabbing him and the emigrants in the back, is an egregious distortion.Proabivouac 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The way The Cambridge History of Islam explained these were different but still Lewis is just saying the document Muhammad drafted was prepared unilaterally by him. He doesn't say "The Jews never agreed to anything" In fact, the representatives of the important tribes in Medina invited him and professed their submission to his judge. Cambridge History of Islam doesn't say there were representatives of one particular faction, nor Lewis says. I believe it would be good to mention the content of the draft related to the Jews in the article:

• The Jews will profess their religion, and the Muslims theirs.
• The Jews shall be responsible for their expenditure, and the Muslims for theirs.
• If attacked by a third party, each shall come to the assistance of the other.
• Each party shall hold counsel with the other. Mutual relation shall be founded on righteousness; sin is totally excluded.
• Neither shall commit sins to the prejudice of the other.
• The wronged party shall be aided.
• The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
• Medina shall remain sacred and inviolable for all that join this treaty. Should any disagreement arise between the signatories to this treaty, then Muhammad shall settle the dispute.
• The signatories to this treaty shall boycott Quraish commercially; they shall also abstain from extending any support to them.
• Each shall contribute to defending Medina, in case of a foreign attack, in its respective area.
• This treaty shall not hinder either party from seeking their lawful retaliation.

--Aminz 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lewis explicitly states that the document was issued "among the Muhajurun and the Ansar," who even when combined with the emigrants were "few in number." While I have more to share, for now please quote from your sources to adress this point.Proabivouac 20:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Islam, until the page that I have read, doesn't say such a thing. It says that Muhammad's position as the chief arbitrator was granted to him by representatives of the twelve important tribes in Medina. --Aminz 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I heard, Muhammad was called to Jathrib on behalf of members of the tribes of Aws and Khazraj, who hoped that a single mediator could unite the two and end the strife. After his arrival, he was made chief arbitrator of the city (that not all agreed should be clear at least from what we know about Abdallah ibn Ubayh) - as such he drew up the Constitution. So yes, it was a unilateral dicate by Muhammad, but since he did it in his new position it was also done on behalf (and thus in a way by) the whole community of Jathrib. What remains unclear to me is whether the Jews were involved in calling him in, in making him arbitrator. If they agreed at any point they certainly did not have in mind what happened afterwards. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's two tribes of five, the other three being the Bany Qunayqa, the Banu Qurayza and the Banu Nadir . Among the Arabs, Lewis states that the Ansar were the minority compared to the so-called "hypocrites." My impression is that Muhamamad was indeed invited by someone, but that no one is quite sure what standing they had; "representatives" is fairly vague. It's clear that, besides being an "arbitrer," Muhammad brought with him (really before him) a sizable and dedicated force: it would be naïve to suppose that it was primarily his renowned wisdom which recommended him.

I am curious to learn what, if any, interest the Jews, who were adept at crafts and trade rather than caravan raids and other modes of appropriation, might have had in eschewing trade with Mecca, which is easily the most substantial point of this "constitution."

The results of the conflict suggest that the overriding interest of the emigrants and the Medinan Arabs was not to seek profit through toil and trade (a dirty profession, says the thief!), but to seize the properties of the Meccans and the Jews.

In light of the trouble Mr. Harrison and I have taken to rekey the Lewis passages in full, it would be very helpful if Aminz would quote his source.Proabivouac 06:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will. Just one point. Watt argues that the document preserved does not refer to the pact made between Muhammad and the three major tribes of Medina. He says that there was certainly such a pact but we don't have its text. I will come back with more specific quotes. --Aminz 07:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Literary reforms

We know that Qur'an is widely considered the most perfect example of the Arabic Language, largely agreed that the Qur'an represents the standards by which other literary productions in Arabic are measured [3]. Is something like "literary reforms" defined? Does reforms means influence? If yes, then Qur'an has been very influential (e.g. Arabic grammers were written based upon the qur'anic language). --Aminz 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghamidi and Islahi normally use extensively Pre-Islamic Arabian language in their exegesis and put a lot of emphasis on The Importance of Classical Arabic. Similarly there are two interesting articles written by Al-Tabari, which might be helpful:The Qur’an and Pre-Islamic Arabic 1:5-6 and Does the Qur’an Contain Non-Arabic Vocabulary? But I think the most relevant article would be from Prof. Mustansir Mir on The Qur’an as Literature. (Mustansir Mir's "The Qur'an as Literature," Religion and Literature 20 (1988): 49-64) TruthSpreader^Talk 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many other articles, which are available at:[4] written by Mustansir Mir. That might also be helpful. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Muhammad, --Aminz 08:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Depictions

A discussion that was pending while awaiting the assistance of a mediator was archived. I have moved the discussion to Talk:Muhammad/Depictions in case we want to continue the discussion there. Alternatively, feel free to move it back onto this page (i.e. Talk:Muhammad). --BostonMA ^talk 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Book not scholarly enough?

Would someone please explain why a book such as this one: The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, by Robert Spencer, does not deserve to be listed as a book critical of Mohammad and Islam. Not scholarly? The only other work listed as non-muslim/critical is a dry history text from some 140 years ago. Removing mention of the book, calling it "unscholarly", sounds rather POV to me. Frotz661 09:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

See Regnery Publishing for the reason. As it says for itself:Regnery Publishing, located in Washington, D.C., is a publisher that specializes in conservative books that they characterize on their website as “contrary to those of 'mainstream' publishers in New York. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Carl Ernst, an academic scholar of Islamic studies, states that the Regnery Publishing, a subsidiary of Eagle Publishing and considered by many a leading conservative publishing company, is 'promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice.' --Aminz 09:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So what? The book is non-Muslim AND critical, so that makes it eligible, right? --Vladko 15:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no! The criticism should be from scholarly literature, otherwise Muslim wikipedians would bring their own proselytizing literature and we will finish up with nothing. And this is according to WP:RS. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Using that book as a reference might be problematic but listing it under books "critical" of Islam is not. The distinguished professor didn't impress me very much with his arguments. If REgnery is 'promoted and supported by right-wing organizations' we might keep that in mind but to exclude them is not the right thing as long as articles like "Criticism of Christianity" consist out of material from sources that would have to strive for a long time until reaching up to the level of Spencer. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Spencer falls short of the standards we should be applying here, but how much more so does The Sealed Nectar, which several editors have absurdly defended as a reliable source.Proabivouac 17:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Spencer has few academic credentials, and none at all in relation to islam. judging a book exclusively by the POV of an author is not something you're in a position to do as an editor determining its reliability. this point has, of course, been made to you several times i believe. you seem satisfied with echoing the same content dispute anywhere and everywhere, but unfortunately seem averse to resolving it amicably on the relevant talk page as was requested from you a month ago (and repeatedly on occasions since). don't you think it's reasonable to just resolve the dispute instead of prolonging it? ITAQALLAH 13:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to resolve it when I removed references to the junk source The Sealed Nectar, only to be reverted. I'm not sure what resolution there can be, besides removing it. Spencer at least pretends to be grounded in the real world, and as I've written, I'm not clear he should be here, either, only that an attack on Spencer (to say nothing of Bat Ye'or) is hardly credible coming from any editor who's supported the inclusion of the madness that is The Sealed Nectar.

The more general points about "Muhammad as a diplomat" are being addressed here. It is the characterization (or, in that article, plain censorship) of events in Madina which are most in dispute.Proabivouac 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

response on talk page. concerning events of Medina, i don't think there is anything that implies that the Jews did not agree to the constitution. that Muhammad's side wrote it, according to some, unilaterally, does not imply at all that the Jews were signed up against their will or without knowing. in fact, Forward suggests that "probably this so-called Constitution of Madina ensrhines a series of agreements between Muhammad and other groups in the early months and years after his emigration." (p. 18, Muhammad: A Short Biography). the fact that Forward, Watt and others suggest that Muhammad had not become leader of Medina at this time enforces the view that the constitution was more of a conciliation between the various tribes, the Muslims being one of them. ITAQALLAH 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have asserted nothing which should lead us to believe that the Jews were "signed up," to anything, at all.Proabivouac 07:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in the title "the World's Most Intolerant Religion" tells it is a mere POV itself and there can be nothing scholarly about it. Links to such books can be provided in a seperate section marked "Links critical of ...". But then again, knowing the state of affairs these days, there would be thousands, if not millions, of such links. Would you put them all in? If no, how would you chose?Hassanfarooqi 14:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly what we are talking about. Listing among others books critical of Islam - yes, the book is POV by wiki-standards, but so what? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This book has no merit in an encyclopedia in any way. Please close this obvious discussion. Just waste of time. --Aminz 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? Please don't let us fall back into former, unproductive, uncooperative, arrogant behaviour. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no place in wikipedia for Islamophobes (according to Prof.Carl Ernst) like Spencer--Aminz 09:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Says who? There is a place (though it might be a "special place"), even for Islamophobes in WP, just like there is a place for Christianophobes like Richard Dawkins and others. And the "distinguished professor" is not in the position to define with authority who is Islamophobic. You are basically saying that one POV needs to be totally excluded because proponents of the other POV say so. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Spencer has no degree in Islamic studies whatsoever. his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity'. It is not only Ernst who says that Spencer's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks genuine understanding. His books are not academic. We are supposed to mention academic POVs not Islamophobe's POVs. --Aminz 10:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again this notion that only academic books might be mentioned. I don't dispute that this books might be highly problematic and don't suppose to use it as a source for controversial stuff (though I see that The Great Esposito is just as bad in a different way, degrees or not) but your notion has no support in WP policies. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it is true. The academic books are not necessarily NPOV. But I think we should ask about this issue (or my notion). An RfC? i dunno what is the way to go. --Aminz 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am no Spencerite but he might have a place, even if it be a small one, in WP. I will however not accept that false arguments are used here to avoid the mentioning of displeasent authors while other books are used to flood sections with irrelevant information. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Link for Criticism of Muhammad has been added

I see its going to be hard for some people to leave the link Criticism of Muhammad on this page. Well guess what? It will stay here. If you have an issue, discuss it here and explain why this link should not be here. ALSO keep in mind that the Criticism of Islam link exists in Islam. Good luck in trying to take this link out but sorry, it will stay in. --JohnsAr 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat that it's a good idea to be choosy about what gets listed as a book critical of Mohammad for reasons listed. However, it is unacceptable to remove the link to Criticism of Muhammad. That article is probably the best place for books such as "The Truth About Mohammad" that don't quite make the cut for "scholarly work" whatever that's supposed to mean. Frotz661 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a link in the body of the article to Criticism of Muhammad, removed the link from See also, which I think is consistent with the style guide, and moved non-Islamic view to just after Islamic view in the See also section. I hope that addreses everyone's concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please vote

Please give your vote there Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Third_holiest_site_in_Islam. Be careful about your vote and before voting read the article (other than introduction) and see the disucssion too. Also see the Al-aqsa article too (that already exist). --- ابراهيم 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Edit in dispute: [5]

I don't get User:Str1977's logic. He is removing sourced material because he thinks that he understand Islam better the Cambridge History of Islam. His arguments are as follows:

• He says: "The Quran (and note, it is the' Quran) as a book did not exist at that time. If Muhammad used an argument, attribute it to him.", "If we say The Quran we immediately associate the book of that name or the Islamic revelation in its entirety. If individual revelations are referred to, then use a different wording, to avoid confusion to the reader."

My answer as posted on the talk page of Muhammad: 1. The source puts it exactly in this way 2. For the record, his understanding of the Qur'an is inaccurate. The Qur'an refers to itself as Qur'an. In fact, the word has no precedant in Arabic language before Islam.

• He says: "If you read carefully I did not say that "Abraham was not a Jew" was wrong but problematic as it is misleading. What the Quran says is completely irrelevant in this matter. Abraham is not a Jew, since that means either a descendant of his great-grandson Judah, or an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judah, or descendant of his grandson Israel, or a adherent to the religion of Judaism. But nonetheless, Abaraham is the patriarch of all Jews. He was not an Arab and he was not a Muslim in the sense that he adhered to the religion historically founded by Muhammad. We should not use this as cheap trick insinuations. That was all my remark was about."

My answer: I am saying what the source says. He doesn't agree with the source. That doesn't mean he has the right to censor the source. All I am saying is that he should back up his thought based on academic sources. But of no avail. I am fed up.

• He says: "And judging from what the WP article and what I could google says about Abdallah ibn Ubbay, this passage involving him here is highly inaccurate. It is also clearly speculation what would have happend "if" Muhammad had not come to Jathrib."

My answer: He is more than welcome to contact the Cambridge university and explain their errors to them.

All in all, I believe he is using these pretexts to censor information. --Aminz 10:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

there can be no question that "The Cambridge History of Islam states" is better than "it has been argued". If Str1977 wants to argue that the Cambridge History of Islam is in error, he needs to cite another source of similar notability stating that, alongside the paragraph referring to the Cambridge History of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it: is WP simply there to parrot other works in all details, without consideration for its own organisation of content, for NPOV (which the Cambridge doesn't adhere to).

I included most of the information Aminz included from the Cambridge, albeit in a dePOVed form. But he insists on relating the Cambridge's text in an almost verbatim fashion. So much for "censor(ing) information" (and that from a man that on other pages, and also here, postulates new and original standards for literature in order to disinclude iformation and whitewash history).

The point is not "what the sources say" but how to organise content.

It is not surprising that Aminz included a whole paragraph totally irrelevant to the "and the Jews" section on the origins on civic strife in Jathrib. The information was interesting and relevant to another section, but Aminz didn't care about integrating the information into that section but rather put it somewhere else, all in one spot, because "the source is saying this". I don't see any effort on his part to properly write an encyclopedia. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dbachmann for comment. Str1977, your comment is not related to [6] at all. --Aminz 11:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither is yours. You just present words with no relation to the issue. So what if the Quran terms it itself the Quran. It is still nonsense to say that the Jews in Jathrib had to argue with the Quran as such (and in English, that word is associated with the book) ... they argued with Muhammad. You also sneek in sneering remarks about "some friendly Jews" in contrast to the "majority".

Most of your content, which you claim I want to censor, is integrated into the text in my version. I repeat: The point is not "what the sources say" but how to organise content, a concept you fail to grasp. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see how people evaluate your supposedly fair summary of the source [7] --Aminz 11:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Aminz are clearly saying that these claims are from Qur'an (which Qur'an actually makes, and no one can disagree with that). Secondly, all academic scholars agree that Islam, as a religion, was and is a challenge to previous monotheistic religions i.e. Christians and Jews, because it addresses many issues within their religion. It will not only be a POV but also wrong to assume that Qur'an didn't address the issues which were raised by the adversaries of Muhammad, whether intellectual or military wise. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the Cambridge History of Islam is a very reliable secondary source and In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources. Now, the quaestion is what to write/include/exclude from the secondary source. Normally, a secondary source is to be totally included unless there's a way to summarize it. Formulations such as It has been argued (especially when having a reputable source) should be avoided otherwise every sourced material would include the it has been argued. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..., it has been argued..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion (i.e. in our case the Cambridge one). Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. -- Szvest 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

I certainly don't need lecturing about weasel words and OR. I know full well that "it has been argued" is less than perfect, to say the least. But Aminz' version is unacceptale.

If you don't need lecturing than at least assume good faith and be polite! --Szvest 15:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Where have I been impolite? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, this section is not about theological debates between Islam and Judaism but about the historical events involving Islam's prophet and the Jewish tribes of Jathrib. Neither should we go to great length in repeating debates that did happen at that time, nor should we use language anachronistic to that period. There was no "The Quran" involved in these debates, as the book was assembled only later. I think, the Cambridge talks about Jewish objection and how the Quran answered them but that is already covering the overall debate and not the actual events happening at the time. I don't understand why a wording like "Muhammad answered this" (possibly with the addition, as included in the Quran) is controversial.

Aminz has said nothing to justify his inclusion of this strange passage about Abdallah.

Certainly, proclamations about things "on hand" are POV pushing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly literature uses "The Quran", which normally means Muhammad's claimed revelations. It has no other meaning whatsoever, and saying that using Qur'an would mean the complete book would be Original Research on your behalf. (Quran is used by scholars to tell that these ideas or revelations are now recorded in Muslims holy book) Secondly, Abd Allah b. Ubayy is very much discussed in Islamic literature and if scholarly sources talk about it, how is it POV pushing? TruthSpreader^Talk 13:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Expert might use The Quran in the way you stated and I don't object to that or dispute this. My point here is to make the language clearer. If I wrote about a debate between Jesus and the Saducees I wouldn't use wordings like "the Bible replied to this ..."

Not a treatment of Abdallah is POV pushing but the way it is presented here. Aminz' text states that the reason for the Jews' rejection of M. is "on hand" and first mentions Abdallah, which is not in line with what I found when searching WP and Google. Granted, these might be wrong but this text now definitely overstates matters.

To restate my overall objection to Aminz' technique (not only here): he quotes or narrates long passages from a sources, and then from the next source, instead of giving concise summaries of the sources and only mention individual authors when there is disagreement. Particularly annoying I find a long quote, filled with questionable and POV statements, only introduced by "The Cambridge History states: ..." This sounds way too factual too me. I think the Cambridge History is respectable too but it is not infallible. You will not find the sentence: "The Cambridge Ancient History states: Alexander the Great was not interested in women" in the article on Alexander, though that is exactly what the respective chapter's authors boldly proclaims (without nuance or doubt or discussion). To cut a long story short, the Cambridge History is not written NPOV. Wikipedia is. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The versions are not so different that you guys cannot assume good faith and come to an agreement.

What str1977 may be arguing is that the Qur'an did not then exist as something people could pick up and read. By analogy, this might be like saying, "Saint Peter preached that Christians could eat pork because the New Testament said so." Saint Peter had a vision that he told people about. People wrote down what he said, and that became part of the New Testament. Might we say something like "Muhammad's revelation as recorded in the Qur'an?" Or instead of "The Qur'an met these criticisms..." say "Muhammad argued that..." Something like "Muhammad answered this..." with a link to the Qur'an might be useful.

As far as content, Aminz' version includes the idea that the some of Muhammad's opponents supported another candidate. We should probably mention this in passing. Aminz' version also includes "Abraham was the ancestor of the Arabs through Ishmael..." I think this is too detailed: less about Muhammad and more about Abraham, Islam, or Abrahamic religion. I think Str1977's "argued that he was restoring..." is better.

I had never heard of Abdallah ibn Ubbay before today, but I know both of you are conscientious scholars who are careful with sources. At the worst, someone might have misread a line, or interpolated something he knew from somewhere else. The Cambridge History of Islam is searchable on Amazon, so if we have quotes and pages, people can look them up. Initially, I found no results searching for "Abdallah ibn Ubbay;" Is there another spelling? Of course, if other good sources say other things, we have to present a balanced account of both. If a balanced account would be too long, it needs to be summarized here and presented on another page. Remember, this is a biography of Muhammad.

In reply to Szvest above, I think sources are to be summarized unless it is necessary to quote them. We should not be choosing and stringing together quotes, with a footnote after each one.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ Tom as i already stated that Normally, a secondary source is to be totally included unless there's a way to summarize it. In fact, the source in question can be summarized and what i mentionned is that apart from that we have to avoid weasel words. -- Szvest 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

The language in Aminz's version is hard to read, and unencyclopedic - constantly stating "the Cambridge History of Islam" is bad style, and indicates an over-reliance on one source. The claim made in it regarding Judaism is also quite odd: Abraham was the ancestor of Arabs through Ishmael and "undeniably" (According to The Cambridge History of Islam) neither Jew nor Christian. The quotation following this doesn't back up the claim; moreover, this contradicts the actual beliefs of Judaism, which is that Abraham was the first Jew and founder of Judaism.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, how is it that you can aruge that Moses was not a Jew, as he was a hebrew who existed prior to the splitup of the Kingdom of Israel, yet readily argue that Abraham was? Double standards appear to be at play here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the versions I believe are really different. About the usage of the Qur'an: Tom, Str1977 is apparently non-familiar with the academic literature on Islam. They use "The Qur'an" to refer to what Muhammad claimed was being revealed to him( and also the case of the Qur'an was different from New Testament; the name Qur'an was never used specifically for the complete compiled Qur'an). Of course, I don't care if we replace it with what Muhamamd claimed was being revealed to him. But as you can see the main point isn't really subsituting "The Qur'an" with the answer God supposedly gave to Muhammad. The issues are really something else.

Tom, I have fairly reported what the Cambridge H. of I. says on the reasons of the Jews for opposing Muhammad and believe already mentioned it in passing (just one sentence). Would you please let me know what mentioning it in passing means more specifically?

Tom, you wrote: "I think Str1977's "argued that he was restoring..." is better. "; now I'd like to ask you honestly: We know that the most important Jewish criticism of Muhammad was that a non-Jew can not be a prophet. The idea of "religion of Abraham" is the Qur'an's response to this. How is that it is extra when it comes to Qur'an? Why the Qur'ans idea that Abraham was a non-Jew prophet now too much detail?

And if you would like to search in Amazon in the Cambridge History of Islam (197x), a search for "prince" might be good. The information is on page 43-45 I believe. --Aminz 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, the only reason that my version is hard to read is because of Str1977's accusion of masking the POVs as facts. It wasn't my intention. If I recall correctly, the Camb. H. of I. states something like: "It is an undeniable fact that ..." it is the POV of Camb. H. of I. and the article doesn't claim more. --Aminz 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am writing this before I have read all the posts since my last posting, to avoid getting sidetracked. I am currently digesting the chapter from the Cambridge History of Islam titled Muhammad, written by a W. Montgomery Watt. All I can say right now is that although it is the typical Cambridge History narrative style (with few references and apparatus) it is serious scholarship. It can and should be used, however it needs to be attributed to Mr Watt (in parallel to the Alexander problem I mentioned above). Finally however, it should be clear that WP is not the Cambridge's parrot, if for no other reason then for issues of copyright, and it should truthfully reflect what the Cambridge writes. However, more than once I have encountered small but telling discrepancies between the Cambridge's text and what has been made out of it on WP. I will post more when I am finished. Thanks for your patience. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Waiting to hear what you think of your arguments above after reading the book. --Aminz 23:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be attributed to Watt. In addition, what is included and what is excluded in Aminz's presentation is interesting. For example, Watt states:

• Since they were able to say, for example, that some passages in the Qur'an contradicted their own ancient scriptures;

Aminz changes that to:

• They could also say that their ancient scriptures contradicted the Qur'an;

a much weaker statement, and one which has the Jewish scriptures being the ones "contradicting", and not the Qur'an, as Watt states.

Aminz also leaves out the end of the sentence, they were in a position to make some men doubt whether Muhammad was a prophet receiving messages from God; and such doubts threatened Muhammad's whole religious movement - anything regarding doubts about Muhammad or threats to him disappears.

Aminz also leaves out the words "intellectual" and "developing" from the first sentence of the next paragraph; Watt states

• The Qur'an met these intellectual criticisms by developing the conception of the religion of Abraham,

Aminz changes that to:

• The Qur'an, met these criticisms by the concept of "the religion of Abraham."

Aminz additionally leaves out the last sentence of the paragraph, which states:

• The Qur'an therefore claimed that it was restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, not clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians.

In other words, anything showing the Qur'an developing or changing in any way, or being a reaction to anything, or being "unclear", is left out, thus distorting Watt's position. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether Abraham was Jewish, but to report the various opinions of reputable sources. One opinion of a reputable source has been provided, i.e. Cambridge History of Islam. There is no doubt that this view should be presesnted in the article. If an alternative view is also presented, it should be supported by another reputable source. --BostonMA ^talk 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of the comments, which were about much more than that. Watt is presenting the arguments developed by Muhammad in the Qur'an, in reaction to intellectual opposition from Jews; Aminz didn't present the material that way. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If all of the scholarly sources are unanimous, then we state the opinion of these sources as the opinion of Wikipedia. The only reason we would need to use caveats when stating such an opinion if there are alternative sources with a different view. --BostonMA ^talk 18:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason that I can't quite grasp, you don't seem to be responding to the points I'm making. The issue was about accurate representation of the sources, not about "caveats" etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for comment, and I am commenting. "It has been argued", and "Muhammad is reported to have" are caveats. They don't belong unless the facts are controverted by reputable sources. --BostonMA ^talk 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Boston, those aren't caveats at all; they are, however, used improperly here. What matters is who is doing the arguing and who is doing the reporting. Just to say "It has been argued" is not at all acceptable in an Article, unless, of course, the sentence goes like: "It has been argued by Imam Yurmommy, an eminant Islam scholar and repsected authority..." or something like that. And the other one: "Muhammad is reported to have" is not acceptable as a standalone comment; it should read "Muhammad is reported by CNN and All Jizzera to have..."(but of course CN had no corespondants back then I'm sure). The rest of this above discussion I've been asked to critique is so convoluted and disjointed I can't make head nor tail out of it --- sounds like people are just making things up as they go along regarding Islam. And on another note, Boston, you said "It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether Abraham was Jewish, but to report the various opinions of reputable sources." Let us do so: it is for Wikipedia to state facts. Is it not a matter of record that Abraham was/wasn't a Jew? I always thought he was. I know Jesus was a Jew. So was St. Peter. Lots of people were Jews --- probably Mohammed even had some Jewish ancestors, for many in that region were part of Semitic stock. But I digress.....DocEss 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the views about Abraham should be presented somewhere in Wikipedia. I maintain that the question of whether or not Abraham was Jewish, who said he was or was not, and why, should not be presented in Muhammad's biography.

• I think we all agree that "It has been argued" can only be a place holder until a better expression citing the source is provided. I think that is what str1977 intended.

• Aminz, I understand you are okay with replacing 'The Qur'an says...' with 'Muhamamd said it was revealed to him...' or something like that. I think that's a step forward.

• Thanks, Aminz for the search term. I found the part about Abd Allah b. Ubayy. I'll read through some of that and say more later. I still think your and str1977's versions are close enough to be brought together. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Abraham *really* was a Jew or not isn't relevant to Muhammad biography but the fact that Qur'an's reply to Jewish criticisms is quite relevant. We have an academic source saying it is an undeniable fact that Abraham wasn't a Jew. Should you have an academic source of the same reputation, saying he was a Jew, we can mention both view together, or we can redirect further discussion to somewhere else. --Aminz 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I can not quote the Cambridge History of Islam word by word. I have to rephrase it. It is annoying that you accuse me of distorting the text. Here are your points:

• Since they were able to say, for example, that some passages in the Qur'an contradicted their own ancient scriptures; --> They could also say that their ancient scriptures contradicted the Qur'an;

Feel free to improve it.

• they were in a position to make some men doubt whether Muhammad was a prophet receiving messages from God; and such doubts threatened Muhammad's whole religious movement

I removed it because I was summerizing the text. You can rephrase it and add it.

• The Qur'an met these intellectual criticisms by developing the conception of the religion of Abraham, --> The Qur'an, met these criticisms by the concept of "the religion of Abraham."

I don't believe this is an unfair representation. Of course both Muslims and non-Muslims believe that Qur'an was gradually formed to the state that we have it now. The criticism is of course intellectual.

• The Qur'an therefore claimed that it was restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, not clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians. --> The Qur'an, met these criticisms by the concept of "the religion of Abraham."

Again, where is the "distortion" you are talking about? --Aminz 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. I will be judging you from now on by the same standards that you are judging others. Leaving out any part or any word of the source such as "intellectual" is distortion according to you. Waiting to see your proposal. --Aminz 22:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We can say "Watt in the Cambridge History of Islam states...". I don't agree with simply saying "Watt says" since having published in Cambridge History of Islam implies that this text has passed the peer-reviews of this publication. --Aminz 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Jayjg has covered some of the things I wanted to post. However, the discrepancy I was most intrigued by is the repeated removal of downtoners (probably, might, may) in the quotes and in one instance the addition of "on hand" - the CHI does not say that the reason was on hand.
• Aminz, I don't think Jayjg accuses you of conciously manipulating the quotes/references (and neither do I) but still there were some changes in emphasis. Also, it contrasts badly with your mantras of "this is what the source says" and "you are changing the source" (these are your arguments, not mine) that you used to reject any discussion on the actual issues.
• Your reaction to Jayjg's pointing out these is uncivil IMHO. Just as your shifting the blame for your version being "hard to read". It is like this not because what I have done - I have called for a wording that does not implicitely or explicetly endorse a certain POV - but because you have chosen to ignore these calls and instead have added more and more material. Unfortunately you are sill doing it, now adding this horrid statement, empty of any scholarship and pure apologetics, by Mr Esposito justifying the slaughter of the Jews by referral to long past history.
• Furthermore, I don't think that references have to be verbatim - we should summarize the important information.
• As for Abdallah ibn Ubbay: The CIH doesn't say that he was a reason for the Jews not becoming Muslims but that "Many of the Jews, however, had close links with 'Abd Allah b. Ubbay, the potential prince of Medina, and may have helped to nclrease their influence if he became ruler." That is clearly directed on M's political position of arbitrator of the community. Abdallah's link to Jewish tribes is clearly visible - in regards to the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, not to the Quraiza (the latter were linked to their ultimate betrayer). However, since Abdallah never came out into the open with his opposition, this reasoning must be conjecture.
• Information taken from that chapter must indeed, if an author is given in the text, be attributed to Watts, as he has written that text. The CIH would be mentioned in footnotes but to mention it in the text is not only tedious (now we have it five times in the text and but also creating the false impression of authority. (Especially since we have another reference to Watt, this time to an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam - strangely here Aminz does not insist that the Encyclopedia does make that point.) Aminz is mistaken in what he wrote about being published in CHI means the text has "passed the peer-reviews of this publication" - indeed there is peer review but that doesn't mean that this is the ultimate consensus of historians. Scholars are allocated a certain field to write a chapter about (here: Watts was allocated Muhammad's lifetime) and being published means that this is sober, serious scholarship (that is what peer review is about) - not that all agree with the content (that is NOT what peer review is about). My experience with the Cambridge Ancient History (see what Taft wrote about Alexander) confirms this.
• Any discussions of "it has been argued" should cease since I have already conceeded that this doesn't work.
• Also, the issue of Abraham has two sides: Abraham's status is a simple fact - the difficulty are the different meanings of the term "Jew": depending on how you define that, he is or is not a Jew. However, the WP cannot state endorsingly the Muslim view in that discussion. Watts is narrating Islams or the THE Quran's position in that discussion - this must be clear in the text (the current verbatim quotation is reall overkill).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

*Jayjg has covered some of the things I wanted to post. However, the discrepancy I was most intrigued by is the repeated removal of downtoners (probably, might, may) in the quotes and in one instance the addition of "on hand" - the CHI does not say that the reason was on hand.

• I changed "on one hand" a while ago (see the edit in dispute link above) but you still reverted my edits. This shows that you even don't read what I write. The CHI, anyways, says: "X.. Also Y".

You wrote:

*Aminz, I don't think Jayjg accuses you of conciously manipulating the quotes/references (and neither do I) but still there were some changes in emphasis. Also, it contrasts badly with your mantras of "this is what the source says" and "you are changing the source" (these are your arguments, not mine) that you used to reject any discussion on the actual issues.

• That was my interpretation of his comments. And I understood that he claims I have distorted the text systematically. In your case, of course you accused me of manipulating the quotes/references. You removed the Abd Allah Ubbayd quote because you thought it is incorrect meaning that I have manipulated the quotes/references. Jayjg was far more rational and civil. He first read the sources, and then commented on it. I accepted all his comments by not his conclusion that I have been doing that systematically. I changed "X contradicts Y" with "Y contradicts X", etc etc. These are all minor changes.

You wrote:

*Your reaction to Jayjg's pointing out these is uncivil IMHO. Just as your shifting the blame for your version being "hard to read". It is like this not because what I have done - I have called for a wording that does not implicitely or explicetly endorse a certain POV - but because you have chosen to ignore these calls and instead have added more and more material. Unfortunately you are sill doing it, now adding this horrid statement, empty of any scholarship and pure apologetics, by Mr Esposito justifying the slaughter of the Jews by referral to long past history.

• Of course, there is no reason to change the wording of the source. We can instead properly attribute the same wordings to that source. I don't agree with you on that point. I also wonder if you know Mr. Esposito. He is one of the most renowned scholars of Islam today. Like Watt and Lewis. He is the editor in cheif of Oxford History of Islam, Oxford Dictionary of Islam, etc. If he justifies the slaughter, there is no reason for its removal.

--Aminz 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not accused you of manipulating anything. I have complained about your refusing to discuss issues. I am certain that the discrepancies in your references were oversights. And I did keep on reverting because there were other things objectionable as well, not just "on hand". I don't dispute Mr Esposito's credentials, though most of what I read from his pen raises my eyebrow, but when he goes too far he goes too far. It is editors writing Wikipedia, not robots that have to include every soundbite falling off somewhere. If he justifies slaughter, WP should not endorse it like that. This bit might be relevant to his own article but not if we want a serious article on Muhammad. Finally, interesting what bits you left unanswered. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I had to go, that's why I left them unanswered. Will answer them soon. --Aminz 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Allright, no offense. I was just wondering. The Esposito issue is settled as per beneath. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My reply to one more comment. Will get back again later:

You wrote:

*Furthermore, I don't think that references have to be verbatim - we should summarize the important information.

• Yes, but I have seen many times people come and change the prose of the sentence and make it to something the writer never said. An example of which is Aiden who said Qur'an contradicts Bible in numerious areas. The source only said on some passages. A better example was Aiden's change of what Marco Scholler thinks: "were openly, probably actively" --> "were openly, if not actively". But in general I agree with your point.

--Aminz 02:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing in general. We should be careful to be truthful to what the source says (which is not only the words) but without ruining the whole text by turning it into a collection of verbatim quotes. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

As for Abdallah ibn Ubbay: The CIH doesn't say that he was a reason for the Jews not becoming Muslims but that "Many of the Jews, however, had close links with 'Abd Allah b. Ubbay, the potential prince of Medina, and may have helped to nclrease their influence if he became ruler." That is clearly directed on M's political position of arbitrator of the community. Abdallah's link to Jewish tribes is clearly visible - in regards to the Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir, not to the Quraiza (the latter were linked to their ultimate betrayer). However, since Abdallah never came out into the open with his opposition, this reasoning must be conjecture.

• Will reply later after I read the context of the sentence you quoted. Please wait

*Information taken from that chapter must indeed, if an author is given in the text, be attributed to Watts, as he has written that text. The CIH would be mentioned in footnotes but to mention it in the text is not only tedious (now we have it five times in the text and but also creating the false impression of authority. (Especially since we have another reference to Watt, this time to an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam - strangely here Aminz does not insist that the Encyclopedia does make that point.) Aminz is mistaken in what he wrote about being published in CHI means the text has "passed the peer-reviews of this publication" - indeed there is peer review but that doesn't mean that this is the ultimate consensus of historians. Scholars are allocated a certain field to write a chapter about (here: Watts was allocated Muhammad's lifetime) and being published means that this is sober, serious scholarship (that is what peer review is about) - not that all agree with the content (that is NOT what peer review is about). My experience with the Cambridge Ancient History (see what Taft wrote about Alexander) confirms this.

• That's not a very serious issue compared to other points in dispute. We can attribute it to Watt.

--Aminz 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Also, the issue of Abraham has two sides: Abraham's status is a simple fact - the difficulty are the different meanings of the term "Jew": depending on how you define that, he is or is not a Jew. However, the WP cannot state endorsingly the Muslim view in that discussion. Watts is narrating Islams or the THE Quran's position in that discussion - this must be clear in the text (the current verbatim quotation is reall overkill).

• In order not to get into analyzing what Watt meant and whether he took a position, I suggest keeping the verbatim quotation. Not only here but whenever there is a dispute over how things needs to be re-written. --Aminz 09:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I would advise to either take out a few bits while retaining the general ideas. Is there really doubt about what Watt meant in this paragraph? I think quite clearly, he narrates the Quranic reply that Abraham, friend of God, was ancestor not only of the Israelite/Jews but also of the Ishmaelites/Arabs, hence that Muhammad was qualified to be a prophet (along the lines of the Jewish argument), and that he proclaimed to restore the religion of Abraham (of course, that is a claim disputed by Jews and Christians). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad the reformer – still POV

The summary for this section is very positive for Muhammad, and some of the subsections are not completely balanced (though some people have tried recently to add in balance), there seems to be much more reservation when adding something negative as opposed to something positive … leaving the lack of balance as a whole.

Women's rights section shows that balancing act where positive is emphasized, and negatives explained away. Another example, according to data I have found in research, in terms of raw numbers, Muslim slavery out numbered the Atlantic slave trade to the Americas.

I have seen entries in Wikipedia with "Criticism" sections right inside and clearly visible, but nothing here? Why?

The "Views on Muhammad", where are Jewish and Christian views on Muhammad? Even the current Pope has quoted historical views on Muhammad (leading to innocent deaths). How about the secular views … where are those? If there is a separate page for that … should the amount of data showing one side of Muhammad be equal to the other side of Muhammad?

Is the negationism I see here a part of a conscious effort, or just purely a mistake? Nonprof. Frinkus 07:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of women, I remember a source was saying that Women before Islam could become warriors but after Islam couldn't, something along that lines. I'll try to find that source and add it. --Aminz 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, of all the missing possibilities there, this is only something small about restricting a woman's freedom to be a warrior (I severely doubt women were ever forced to be warriors). It appears to be only the beginning of fate of women alone there. How about Islam entrenching theoretical dictatorship, causing Islamic governments to forever be frozen in Muhammad’s era when lots of other governments many centuries later eventually went secular. Is that much of a reformer? And Islam was not restricted to just Arabs, so what could be positive reforms for a small community in the world as a whole, turns out being backwards in other places; albeit before Muhammad's death, not a lot of non-Arabic people came under Muslim control at that point.

Regligiously biased individuals

I am not a religious person at all. But, how can we prevent religiously biased people from suppressing further discussion related to criticism?

Gee, no one comments here? Interesting.

No one comments because everyone has better things to do than to reply to a anonymous dropping that is not bound to lead to anything constructive. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not constructive in terms of the point being entirely invalid? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A question from Tom

Tom, would you please explain this edit [15].

If you could refer to the original source, you can see that these two sentences were a short summary of a big paragraph. And Prof. Esposito is one of the most renowned scholars of Islam today. Like Watt and Lewis. He is the editor in cheif of Oxford History of Islam, Oxford Dictionary of Islam, etc. --Aminz 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can reply to parts of this edit, since I did the same before. A referal to Hebrew prophets, apart from being factually inaccurate (which Hebrew prophets did massacre whole tribes - only one or two comes to mind), is clearly an apologetical tool (why Esposito stoops that low is beyond me). As a historian, I am familiar with the need to see someone in the context of their own time, but why should we see Muhammad in the context of Hebrew prophets, the last of which died almost a millenium before him? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Aminz, no need to reply, as I know what you are about to say: This is what the source says. Well, not every blurb of an academic is relevant to a certain topic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this dispute is settled now but you guessed correctly. My answer was that "This is what the source says." and in general each of us can have our own point of view as to which paragraph is relevant to a certain topic. Some of us may disagree with the author. But that's a POV. The author's POV should be only reflected. --Aminz 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And I say that it is not WP's obligation to include any view by any author. We have to judge whether it is relevant to what the article/section/passage is trying to cover. If it is scholarship on that event, this quote by Esposito fails the test. Certainly, the inclusion must be concise, which the former wording wasn't. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, yes, both yours and mine are summaries of the source. I think mine is better, and here is why. Rather than say, "And finally Esposito writes that it is important to note that.." we can just note it: "The motivation for Muhammad's actions were political rather than racial or theological." Putting it first in the paragraph is better writing, because then the reader does not need to hold in mind the qualifications, but is immediately given the context for the rest of the paragraph. "Those who were percieved as..." is not needed. He killed them because he knew they were traitors, not because they were percieved as traitors. Our readers will understand this as Muhammad's viewpoint, not as an endorsement by Wikipedia. ""Both believed that God has sanctioned battle with the enemies of the Lord."Esposito continues with similar accounts from the Bible." This is drifting away from the main point of the paragraph, and is also "protesting too much". Saying in effect "Well, Josuha and King Saul did worse, and Elisha called for bears to eat up those children who made fun of him" dilutes the force of the argument: It was war, it was the seventh century, and it was a tough old world. Explaining and justifying too much makes people think we should judge his actions by today's standards, which is of course wrong, as Str1977 says above. By spending so much time on justifying the massacre, we give the impression it needs to be justified. So, my edit was mostly for style and readability. I'm open to improvements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite my misgivings about Esposito's whole point I can live with this more concise version of it being included. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Thanks. I am convinced. --Aminz 00:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Str's recent edits

1. Esposito's quote: "Esposito writes that "the Jewish tribes, which had long lived in Medina and had political ties with the Quraysh ... cooperated with (Muhammad's) Meccan enemies." talks generally about Jews. Not specifically Banu Qurayza. We should first state the general views and then write specifically about Qurayza.

2. "Among the Jewish tribes the Banu Qurayza suffered the harshest fate:" Having suffered has the sense of being wrongly persecuted and is judgmental. It is not even referenced.

Banu Qurayza were persecuted … just because the possibility of a leaders of a non-democratic tribe agrees to something, does not mean all the men deserve whatever fate they agree or not agree too. The women and children were guaranteed to be innocent and persecuted. You are asking for more negationism!

I don't see what democracy has anything to do with that. This is 7th century Arabia and a tribe sticks together for good or ill (and your individualism is questionable even today). That doesn't change the fact that the Qurayza suffered the harshest fate. Even if you think them guilty, that holds true. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, they suffered the harshest fate, that should be stated without hesitation in the article (and yes, individualism is very questionable today). Someone mentioned it "the sense of being wrongly persecuted and is judgmental", which I think is technically wrong. Well, Hitler lived in a different time (official rules came about after his crimes against humanity) … so what can and cannot be justified in terms of high crimes against nature is timeless. The fate they suffered is could seem almost pretty much a scientific fact of being unjustified regardless of era. Just because everyone during a time jumps off a bridge, does not make it right or justifiable … my comments were alluding to that. Nonprof. Frinkus [previously not signed accidently, and on top of that I accidently put signature in wrong place, I am very sorry about my missteps.]

See Itmam al-hujjah, if that answers your question. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this in response to my statement? I was saying there can be no justification for murder (modern secular definition of "murder"), regardless of era or custom, and scientific research is pointing toward that (evolutionary ethics). Others (probably many others) see it differently than I; religious doctrine could be one source of that I suppose. So, if murder is customary, does it make it justifiable? Nonprof. Frinkus 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3. This edit[16]; I see the political reasons for Jewish opposition has been put at the end while Watt mentions it first. Furthermore, it is said :" Watt also states that in some cases the rejection of Muhammad might have political motives as well, as many of the Jews had close links with Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, a Muslim but als Muhammad's potential rival for the position of chief arbitrator." Where is Jayjg? Watt says "for many" not "in some cases .. might". There is no reason to supress this political reason and put it in a separate paragraph.

4.I'll put the exact description of Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy so that it remains fixed. --Aminz 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I need to read the exact quotation from Ubayy. At worst, we can extend the existing quotation from Watt and include the previous sentences about Jews. That should settle down all the disputes. The description of Ubayy could be also added verbitum from somewhere in page 43 I believe to make everything undisputable. --Aminz 09:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, 1. I oppos granting Esposito any special prominence, especially by singeling him out as the only voice talking about the Jews in general. If this quote is not merely a bigotted statement, it refers to the Qurayza. There is no evidence for treason in any other case.

2. Do we really need to reference that the Qurayza were worse off then the Qunayqa and the Nadir (at least until Muhammad's haunted them in Khaybar)? I see no implication of that kind in "worst fate", but I am open to other alternatives that neither affirm neither the Qurayza's guilt nor innocence. The former version did speak of "punishment" and by saying "worst punishment" it implied, in connection with Esposito's bigotted statement, that the other tribes were punished for some crime as well (when the Qunayqa's sole crime was to reject conversion to Islam and an overestimation of their power.)

3. I put the political reasoning at the end because our text speaks about Muhammad's hope for acceptance as a prophet and his rejection. It is only natural that the religious disputes are of primary importance, and the political issue secondary. We are not, contrary to what you imply, bound up by Watt's sequence. The issue about "some" and "many" is based on the fact that Watt doesn't actually say much about the connection between links to Abdallah and opposition to Muhammad: he only says that "many had a link" not that many rejected Muhammad because of that.

All in all, please get off the hook that we are somehow bound to follow the structure of literature or even quote them verbatim. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, Esposito in your POV might be bigotted but that's your POV. Esposito is a Catholic and a Renowned scholar of Islam. But I agree with your first point. We should include the POV of other scholars as well. Let me get back to you later on other points. --Aminz 10:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, my estimation of "bigotry" was conditional - if Esposito intended to talk about the Qurayza alone this estimation would be different. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your estimation is correct. He was writing about Jews in general --Aminz 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then his inclusion in this way is unacceptable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to copy write reasons, people should stop requiring everything being quoted verbatim, as long as any POV the reference originally speaks of is entirely unchanged based on the wording entered into the article, which should be always valid. I have had edits deleted, even though they were referenced properly, because words were not entirely exact from reference, and then deleted again due to copy write when wording was entirely exact; so as a result a valid point was censored. Nonprof. Frinkus 18:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The subject of depictions of Muhammad appearing in this article is now under mediation, per this case. Please see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation to participate. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Any objection

If the "Muhammad and the Jews of Medina" section is still disputed, Please specifically explain why and support your argument by reliable sources not just conjectures. --Aminz 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, remaining issues are:

• The Abdallah passage (more a matter of accuracy, "the Jews and all)
• The Quranic response passage is too prominent
• The following is completely unacceptable: Such was the story of Jews and Muhammad; "Jews had opposed Muhammad to the utmost of their abilities and they were utterly crushed." Watt speculates that had Jews come to terms with Muhammad instead of opposing him, they had become partners in the Arab Empire and Islam a sect of Jewry. They could have secured very favourable terms with him, including religous autonomy. A great opportunity that was lost. - This is Watt's opinion and can be included but it must be clear that is his view and speculation (quite an absurd one, as Islam would not have been a sect of Jewry but the Jews simply part of Islam).

So, there is much to improve still (because of certain ways additions are worded it does decrease). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a problem with this quote:

"discovered, or perhaps became suspected"

...which looks very much like a typo. Whoever put it in, could you doublecheck it, please?

I also have a problem with the fact that the article appears to imply that the sentence of execution against Banu Qurayza was passed by Muhammad; in fact, it was passed by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a Jew. acting under the authority of the Torah. BYT 19:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He converted to Islam himself (thought started out as a Jew). And who carried out the executions? I have seen in the past people label other individuals as Jewish, because that was the religion of the family they were born into, even though they might be practicing something entirely different. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some references at Banu_Qurayza#The_judgment, interestingly, Jews now don't think that the particular directive could be used against them because it was against Canaanites. But I find a very weak excuse, as the original book (Torah) was from God, and Messenger (here in this case was Muhammad) has the authority to invoke such law from previous books and punish people according to the laws with which they are liable to punish others, as Qur'an doesn't mention any punishment more than Jizya or exile for People of the Book. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, your post is not only disgusting but self-serving and circular: who can affirm that Muhammad was a prophet, and even if he were, where is it written that a prophet is allowed "invoke such law" (whatever that means?).

But to a more factual issue: Sa'd ibn Muadh was not a Jew, nor did he "start out as a Jew". He was a leading member of the tribe of Banu Aus (hence Arabian) . Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not waste our time on our religious concepts. I was just trying to say that the judgement of Banu Qurayza according to Torah is not mentioned in the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it is a detail that is better covered elswhere. Anywhere it is covered, NPOV and factually accuracy must be maintained. The passage from Dtn (linked at the Qurayza article) does not deal with traitors of any time. Additionally, it does not deal with Canaanites (these are specifically excluded. Sa'd's case, if he did make it like that, simply doesn't hold but in the end he was bent on killing the Jews before finding any justification to do so.

To end on a positive note, I am glad that Truthspreader did not take my harsh comments on this take (which he apparently only narrated) as a personal attack. It never meant as such. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad and Bible Prophesy

Embarkedaxis has made edits adding content derived from [17]. Could someone more knowledgable than myself comment on whether the views expressed there by Dr. Zekir Naik represent mainstream views among Muslim scholars? --BostonMA ^talk 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well! Muslims in generally do believe that bible have certain clues which can tell that Muhammad was foretold. For a more reliable source than this one would be: Abdus Sattar Ghauri (2006). "Muhammad foretold in the Bible: An Introduction" (html). Renaissance. 16 (9). ISSN 1606-9382. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |quotes= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) TruthSpreader^Talk 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a notable position taken by Islamic scholars. Perhaps it deserves an article similar to Virgin Birth, which can deal with the arguments raised on all sides in an objective fashion. Then a short mention of this view could be mentioned in the Muhammad article and linked to the separate article. --BostonMA ^talk 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles written on this issue by Abdus Sattar Ghauri, who is a Fellow at Al-Mawrid: [18]. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if having such a section is good for this article. --Aminz 07:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith literature also mentions this concept e.g. after Badr when Banu Qaynuqa was asked by the prophet that they knew with their best knowledge about him (Muhammad) from their books (Torah and other scriptures). Qur'an seems to make references also. Instead of adding this information prematurely, I think a better idea would be to make a complete article on it, and then a small portion can be added here, as suggested by User:BostonMA. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad and bible prophecy should be there in article as he of prophesized in bible.I've given references of bible and showed you source by doctor zakir naik. User:Truthspread removed my work again and again as i've already showed you source and all that.Embarkedaxis

Doctor Zakir Naik of what?Proabivouac 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember once I saw some academic literature writing about the prophecies, but don't remember exactly where. Also, just one such source is not enough (need to also have a look at Encyclopedia of Islam & Encyclopedia of Qur'an, etc etc). I am extremely busy now but will work on such section/article. --Aminz 10:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was an Islam and the Bible that got renamed in bad faith to Bible und Muhammed and was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible und Muhammed. Maybe we can take it to drv, have it undeleted and start improving it? --Striver 12:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the AfD which led me to Islamic view of the Bible. I propose that Islamic view of the Bible be renamed to Islamic views of the Bible and the views that the Bible prophesies Muhammad be placed there as a first step. I think it important not to violate copyright, so this should not be a word for word copy of Dr. Zakir Naik's writing at [19]. --BostonMA ^talk 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but i don't think the rename to a plural form is really necessary, since you will always find somebody who criticizes. We can split the pro-Islam section out to "Islam and the Bible" when it has grown. --Striver 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created in my sandbox a stub article User:BostonMA/Sandbox/Paracletos - Periclytos Controversy. I created this in my sandbox because I don't think that it's quality is high enough to go prime time yet. My thought in creating this stub is that the Muslim/Christian controversy regarding certain biblical texts may be sufficiently notable to deserve its own article. I'm not sure one way or another. Nor do I believe I have necessarily chosen the best title. However, I wanted to bring this to the attention of other editors, so that 1) they may contribute to it while it is in the sandbox stage and 2) give me feedback regarding whether they think the subject matter is appropriate for a complete article. I would appreciate both types of assistance. --BostonMA ^talk 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Zakir Naik is *not* a reliable source on Islam related articles for he has got his degree in medicine. I am not disputing what he says. Similarly "answering-islam", "answering-christianity", etc etc are all unreliable websites. --Aminz 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Abdus Sattar Ghauri didn't even mention paracletos in defence of Islamic POV.[20] I am not sure, but there can be a problem with this approach. However, I found this article on view of Farahi on Gospel, which gives reference of paracletos to Ibn Hisham.[21] TruthSpreader^Talk 09:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt seems to have written about his POV about Paraclete, here:"Montgomery Watt, The Early Development of the Muslim Attitude to the Bible,Glasgow University Oriental Society Transactions 16 (1955–56):50–62" . But I couldn't find the article. --Aminz 10:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried my best but couldn't find it. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

These might be a useful papers:The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries: an exegetical inventorial table (part I), and then The Gospels in the Muslim Discourse of the Ninth to the Fourteenth Centuries: an exegetical inventorial table (part II) in "Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations", published by Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group. 14(1) and 14(2), Jan & April 2003. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TruthSpreader. I checked the articles. One thing that makes me somehow cautious is that the author, Martin Accad is "The academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary". Also, not sure if Routledge publication publishes academic sources or not (it is not a university press). Not certain if this would be a reliable source. --Aminz 21:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Routledge Press is a very reputable publisher. I will look up the on-line references that have been pointed out, but I would appreciate help with writing the article. Especially would appreciate help with material from sources which are in book form, but not online, because online is basically my only source. --BostonMA ^talk 22:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I wish not to offend anyone here; I am agnostic when it comes to religion (for example, Jesus is still debated by some of whether such a person actually existed; if he did, is probably not a god at all). If some people (though this is debated scholarly as mentioned in the article) believe Aisha was married to Muhammad prior to her median of puberty, would that make Muhammad a possible pedophile (again, it is still debatable by scholars)? Should that information be included here, or at least a link to pedophilia? Pedophilia is never natural, and is a definite disorder, which may have been practiced in their time and region, but regardless of commonality at the time, it would never have been justifiable from a scientific sense. Nonprof. Frinkus 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The traditional Sunni stance is that Aisha's marriage was consummated at 9 and at most ten, but other material gives some other picture, see Aisha's age at marriage for details. But in any case, all Muslims agree that she had reached puberty, which definitely answers your question. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like my point above is moot then.  :-) Do all scholars of all other faiths and non-faith agree with the Muslim view as you mention as well?

Mate! you are not signing your posts. Secondly, I doubt that a WP:RS would agree that the prophet was pedophile, but critics of Islam have a huge literature related to it, which has already been discussed under Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, if the source is not reliable, to me it is not even worth mentioning. Personally, I believe we should ignore crackpot critics who use inappropriate sources. I signed the original post … I guess I will sign each one to make sure. Thank-you for the tip.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Different cultures in different areas/eras define appriopriate age for sex differently. While the taboo in our culture is very strict, it does not mean a culture in the past was wrong. I would say that given the prevailing view of the area, he was not a pedophile. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I was referring to clinical definition, which is sans cultural (clinical has nothing to do with culture, it is scientifically based). So what occurs in culture at any time is moot when speaking of a medical definition (most moral decisions in the past, and still to this day, are based on culture and not scientific definitions). Yes, prevailing views currently is he was not, and I was making a comment before — that inappropriately sourced material should be ignored. Nonprof. Frinkus 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Clinical Science" up until recently (historically speaking) included bloodletting as a cure for the flu. You cannot separate a practice from its cultural context, nor can you claim science is objective. It is not. So to remove the cultural context from the relationship between Mohammed and Aisha while claiming to be a scientist amounts to quackery.69.143.160.204 04:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Jeff

Constitution of Medina / Historical view of Muhammad

What does "Muhammad's costitution" mean? It wasn't for Muhammad. He did that because he was asked to settle down the disputes. The way it was written seemed as if there was no agreement on making such draft by Muhammad. Esposito says Muhammad was invited as the cheif arbitrator for the whole community and I didn't say anything wrong. --Aminz 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why comparing Muhammad and Jesus is POV pushing. The contrast in the amount of disputes in academic is quite informative. --Aminz 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To address both issues:

• The problem is not the wording but the inclusion of the whole passage on the consitution in the "Jewish tribes" section. The constitution was set up after M's arrival and hence should be placed under "Hijra".
• The Jesus passage is POV pushing since it can be read as endorsing the Muslim belief of the corruption of Jewish and Christian scriptures, through which Jesus is turned into a follower of Muhammad and an enemy of Christianity. You might belief this, but WP cannot possibly endorse it. And even if it were that difficult to ascertain what Jesus said (and the doubts mentioned are not actually those of historical scholarship), it has absolutely no bearing on this matter. Hence I removed it.
• Finally, Aminz, please reread WP:OWN and stop reverting to your version all the time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• • No, saying that the constitution was Muhammad's constitution is wrong. There is nothing wrong with giving the context to this Constitution? What's wrong with adding a sentence.
  • Str, ah! what is the definition of POV pushing in your mind? --Aminz 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Str1977! I can't think of last time when you compromised for some changes. WP:OWN applies on you. Why we have to compromise all the time? The line regarding Jesus was informative in the sense that people who knew about Christianity, they could easily compare with it, and have a better understanding of the issue under discussion. And how come it is POV pushing? To the best of my knowledge, the information given regarding Gospel is accepted generally. And secondly, even inclusion of the passage into "Jewish tribes" section shouldn't loose its NPOVness. TruthSpreader^Talk 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, inclusion of a sentence doesn't harm if some editors think it is relevant and Str has no authority on what is relevant or not. --Aminz 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz,

• If you don't like the term, then please change the term. Just don't flood a section with information better (and already) included in another section. This one is about the Jews.
• The definition of POV pushing is to word an article/section/passage in such a way that it presents a POV as fact and/or endorses a certain POV. I have explained my reasoning above. If the problematic bit contained information important to this passage, we would have to try to reword it accordingly, but since the info is off topic, we can just leave it out.

Aminz has no authority on what is relevant or not and neither has truthspreader.

Maybe, TS, you can't remember because you haven't edited the same article as I have or because you haven't read this discussion page. There are numerous occasion on which I compromised or tried to work out a compromise, only to be frustrated by arguments like "we must include anything a source says" (as long as it convenient of course) and the flooding input of more and more information instead of a tackling of the existing problems first. However, what I have seen is apologetics for mass murder all along. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is about academic views, not your views. So, it is not POV. The only reason that you don't want that sentence to be there in the article is that you want to hide the position of Muhammad in drafting the pact. --Aminz 22:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A shorter version of what got lost in an internet crash:

An academic POV is still a POV and is just as subject to NPOV as yours and mine would be, were they not excluded via NOR.

You are violating AGF when you speculate about my motives. I have no intention whatsoever to hide this or that role of Muhammad and have no reason for doing so. However, I want a properly organized article and not a random collection of repetitive quotes.

What I do oppose is using WP to do apologetics for mass expulsions and killings and for letting WP endorse that Abraham and Adam (!) were prophets of Islam. That might be your faith and your POV and I won't take it away from you but one thing it is not is fact or NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lewis, who is significantly more esteemed than Esposito, states that Muhammad imposed the constitution unilaterally, and that while someone did invite him, most Madinans opposed his role as mediator, as discussed above. Are we now to proceed as if we never heard this? Esposito is clearly an apologist (and nowadays is paid to be by the Saudi royal family); the singular reliance upon his words and spin is producing a palpable and predictable bias.Proabivouac 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of Watt? --Aminz 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that Muhammad himself drafted the constitution, how did you arrived at opposition of most Medinaians (and that "somebody" invited him???) from the following quote of Lewis:

An Arab historian has preserved for us a series of documents, giving the embryo constitution of the early Medinese community. In the words of the chronicler, 'Muhammad wrote and issued a writing among the Muhajurun and the Ansar, in which he made an agreement with the Jews and concluded with them a treaty confirming them in the free exercise of their religion and the possession of their goods, imposing on them and conceding to them certain conditions.' The document is not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation. Its purpose was purely practical and administrative and reveals the cautious, careful character of the Prophet's diplomacy. It regulated the relations between the Meccan immigrants and the Medinese tribes, and between both of these and the Jews.

--Aminz 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I rekeyed several other passages in he section above; please read them.Proabivouac 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not our job as wikipedians to find out that who has the most NPOV version of the story, whether he is Lewis, watt, or Esposito. If reliable secondary sources contradict, we need to give accounts from all angles, and if more scholars agree some version of the story, that should get more highlight in the article than the others, as per Undue weightage of arguments. TruthSpreader^Talk 22:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently, it is Esposito's version which is given greatly undue weight.Proabivouac 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To Proabivouac: I read the relevant pages from Lewis's book. There is nowhere in which Lewis says Muhammad was invited by the minority. Watt says Muhammad was invited by the representatives of the twelve most important tribes of Medina. Lewis says for some reasons including "his ability to serve them as an arbitrator, and to settle their internal disputes" which watt also stresses. But yes, I got the impression that the Jews shouldn't have invited Muhammad. On the other hand, Watt says that people in Medina needed a neutral outsider with administrative power (Ubay's case was suspected of partiality) and Muhammad's case was the best . I don't know. I don't think the Jews opposed invitation of Muhammad. Lewis doesn't give much detail. He says that Muhammad unilaterally drafted the Constitution of Medina. Of course this is not disputed. But Muhammad was invited to do so. Can you support your statement that " while someone did invite him, most Madinans opposed his role as mediator" by refering to an explicit quote from Lewis. --Aminz 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To TruthSpreader: Yes, you are right. We are discussing what Lewis says, and not the *truth*. --Aminz 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the discussion in which you were involved? I shall repeat it here, from page 38:

There were from the first differences of opinion among the Medinese as to whether this 'foreign' arbitrator should be called in or not. Those whose supported Muhammad are known to the Tradition as the Ansar, helpers, those who opposed him are given the uncomplimentary title of Munafiqun, hypocrites.

From pages 38-39:

Muhammad's rule at Medina began with serious difficulties. His really devoted supporters were few in number, consisting of the Muhajirun, those Meccans who had accompanied him, and the Medinese Ansar. These had to face the active opposition of the Medinese 'hypocrites' which, though mainly political, wsa nevertheless redoubtable, until they were reconciled to the new faith by the tangible advantages which it later brought them. Muhammad had, it would seem, hoped to find a friendly welcome among the Jews, whose faith and scriptures would, so he thought, cause them to receive his claims with greater sympathy and understanding. In order to attract them, he adopted a number of Jewish practices, including the fast of Kippur and the prayer towards Jerusalem. The Jews, however, rejected the pretenses of the gentile Prophet and opposed him on precisely the religious level where he was most sensitive. They failed in their opposition because of their inner disunity and their unpopularity among the Medinese generally.

"There were from the first differences of opinion among the Medinese as to whether this 'foreign' arbitrator should be called in or not. Those whose supported Muhammad are known to the Tradition as the Ansar, helpers"

So, those who supported Muhammad are called the Ansar. Now:

"Muhammad's rule at Medina began with serious difficulties. His really devoted supporters were few in number, consisting of the Muhajirun, those Meccans who had accompanied him, and the Medinese Ansar."

So the emigrants and Muhammad's Madinan supporters together were "few in number."

There has so far been no evidence presented to the effect that three of Madinas five tribes, the Jewish ones, agreed to anything at all.Proabivouac 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Please give me some time to find another book article written by Lewis on this topic. That should make things clear. Aside from these, there is no indication that the Jewish tribes opposed to Muhammad's invitation since they were not Munafiqin either. --Aminz 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. As for the Jews, everything we've seen suggests that they opposed him at every turn, including the quoted Lewis passage, where Muhammad "hoped to find [i.e. but didn't] a friendly welcome among the Jews" and every event thereafter.Proabivouac 00:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but not that they opposed his invitation. Since they were not Munafiqin. --Aminz 00:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they're called Jews. I don't think the term Munafiqun is meant to apply to the Jews. Nevertheless, you are narrowly correct that this passage doesn't literally state that the Jews opposed his invitation (though that is obvious enough from what we know of the history), only that he did not find the friendly welcome he'd hoped for, and that they "rejected the pretenses of the gentile Prophet and opposed him on precisely the religious level where he was most sensitive," but "failed in their opposition" because the Jews were themselves disunited and unpopular. It would be nice to find a quote to the effect that "The Jews opposed the invitation of Muhammad to Madina," but it's obvious enough that we shouldn't be adding falsehoods to the effect that Muhammad ruled by general agreement. Why would they have agreed only to "betray" him at every turn? And why would he have exiled etc. his own supporters?Proabivouac 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The "hypocrites" are dubbed this way by M. because they are, in his view, hypoctical about something, namely their adherence to Islam and its prophet. The Jews, since they never claimed to accept M. as a prophet can in no way be numbered among them. Also, I don't think the Jews opposed M's coming to Jathrib or possibly not even his appointment as mediator (though we don't know whether they were asked in the first place) but they surely opposed his lording it over them (as did the actual Munafiquin) and his trying to bully them into accepting Islam (which is the source of conflict between him and the Banu Qunayqa). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the "Munafiquin (hypocrites)" did not oppose Muhammad as a prophet or his coming to Jathrib openly but instead professed Islam and secretly (perhabs not always actually) opposed Muhammad. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much hipocrisy involved. Please clear that up, ye in the know. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's correct and that's why I find Lewis's quote confusing. --Aminz 00:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the Munafiquin did not oppose M's coming and did not oppose him openly aftewards - however neither did they support him politically. So I guess, the Muhajirin and Ansar were few while the Munafiquin or the completely silent were the majority. The Jews are neither among the supporters nor among the "hypocrites". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Munafiqun didn't wilfully accept it, and the epithet "hypocrite" was undeserved. Lewis characterizes them as being in "active opposition."

We have on the one hand a story of Muhammad as a diplomat who comes by general agreement to solve everyone's problems in a peaceful and equitable manner, on the other a record of constant strife and bloodshed following this appointment. It may be that the inconsistency is inherent to the records, rather than an artifact of any misinterpretation on our part.Proabivouac 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Welch says (In encyclopedia of Islam):

"After Muhammad had entered into relations with some Medinans who had come as pilgrims to Mecca in 621, the latter began to spread Islam in their native town along with men whom he had sent there, and thus he was able after a preliminary conference in Aqaba[q.v.] to conclude at the pilgrimage next year (622) at the same place a formal agreement with a considerable number of Medinans, in which they pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to take him into their community and to protect him as one of their own citizens, which, as later history shows, was also to hold for his Meccan followers if they moved to Medina. Tradition, and no doubt rightly, mentions here only the promise of the Medinans to take Muhammad under their protection, without any further obligations."

. . .

"At first Muhammad could rely with confidence only on those who had emigrated with him from Mecca, the so-called Emigrants ( muhajirin[q.v.]). These ardent followers, who maintained their support of Muhammad and their belief in his cause during the difficult Meccan years, came to have a special rank among the Muslims. Some Medinans accepted Islam before Muhammad arrived there, but they formed only a small portion of the inhabitants of the Prophet's adopted city. Slowly at first and then in larger numbers the Medinans adopted Islam. Those who became Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime, called Helpers ( ansar [q.v.]), also came to have a special rank within the community second only to the Emigrants. Among the Arab tribes of Medina, Muhammad encountered direct opposition only from a few families, such as the Aws Allah. There were others who did not oppose him openly, but accepted the new relations reluctantly. Among these a particularly troublesome group gathered around a man of the ö9azraù3 tribe named #Abd Allah b. Ubayy [q.v.], who managed to let slip away every occasion on which he might have successfully weakened Muhammad's position. A further danger lay in the fact that an old and bitter feud between the two main Arab tribes of Medina, the Aws and the ö9azraù3 [q.vv.], continued and could have broken out into the open at any time."

"In addition to the Arab tribes of Medina there were a number of Jewish groups, the most prominent being the so-called k§hin§n, i.e. the tribes of al- Na'Êr and |urayía (cf. 0ass§n b. ø9§bit, no. 216; Ibn Hiê9§m, 660). Among the other Jewish groups the |aynuΧ# tribe appears to have been the most important. These three Jewish tribes played a significant part in Medina because of their wealth and the support they had among the Jewish colonies in ö9aybar [q.v.] and [VII:367b] other settlements to the north. During his first year in Medina Muhammad devoted considerable attention to the Jewish inhabitants there in the hope that as native Arabic speakers they would accept his claim to be God's one true prophet to the Arabs. His relations with any Christians who may have been"

"Muhammad's task was to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements. The first problem to be tackled was how to procure the necessary means of subsistence for the Emigrants, who for the most part were without resources of their own. This difficulty was alleviated at least temporarily through an arrangement by which MuÈammad ordered a relationship of “ brotherhood ” to be created between each Emigrant and a man of Medina [see mu"aÕ9§t]. Såra XXXIII, 6, dating from some time after the battle of Badr, is usually interpreted as abolishing this “ brotherhood ” arrangement, at least in matters of inheritance (cf. Ibn Hiê9§m, 344-6; Ibn Sa#d, i/2, 1). A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between MuÈammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn IsȧΠpreserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from MuÈammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and MuÈammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved (cf. R. Serjeant, The Sunnah J§mi#ah, pacts with the Yaï9rib Jews, and the taÈrÊm of Yaï9rib : analysis and translation of the documents comprised in the so-called 'Constitution of Medina ', in BSOAS, xli [1978], 1-42). The provisions stipulated in this document appear to have had little practical importance. It is nowhere mentioned in the |ur"§n, although some commentators interpret såra VIII, 56 as referring to it. In any case, it was soon rendered obsolete by the rapidly and radically changing conditions in Medina."

--Aminz 05:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jews and Paradise

The phrase "The Qur'an also criticized some exclusive claims of Jews such as that they alone will be in Paradise." is problematic. There actually are two claims within a single phrase:

• Jews have claimed that only they will go to Paradise
• Qur'an contradicted these claims

There is only one source, and I assume it would corroborate claim (2). As for claim (1), a Jewish source is needed, since the claim is made in the name of Jews.

In fact, Jews never made such ridiculous claim; see, for example,

http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

and also Wikipedia article on Noahide Laws. These are laws that, if followed by a Gentile (non-Jew), will get them their share in the World to Come.

(OK, it's not really a Paradise, but the very notion of Paradise is pretty blurred to begin with, so it's hard to find sources to either side. A common phrase in Judaism for a reward in afterlife, which I suppose is what "Paradise" is referring to, is "Have their share in the World to Come", so that's what I used as a guide.)

Can we replace this phrase with a more objective wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.142.210 (talk • contribs)

It seems that the Jews living at the time of Muhammad had taken such beliefs. Please note that the Qur'an does not necessarily refute the views of the mainstream Judaism. Watt says that it seems that the contemporary Jews of Muhammad were not very knowledgable of their scripture. The Qur'an does sometimes refute the views of some heretical Jews. For example it seems that some heretical Jews might have taken Ezra as the Son of God, as Christian took Jesus as the Son of God. --Aminz 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there any basis for either of these characterizations of Madinan Jewish belief outside of the Qur'an?Proabivouac 03:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kate Zebiri in Encyclopedia of the Qur'an writes that "the Qur'an does appear at times to have been addressing particular, possibly heretic, group of Jews or Christians" and as an example cites the belief that Ezra is the Son of God. But no Jewish or even extra-qur'anic attestation of it has been found. Regarding the belief that only Jews go to heaven, Watt quotes Medinian Jews belief that they alone are the friends of God and they alone go to heaven, but doesn't dispute its historicity, so I think he accepts it. --Aminz 03:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the author of this post. Judaism has not ever to my knowledge preached that they alone would go to Paradise. Some Jewish groups even reject the concept of Paradise. Further, Judaism presents the seven Noahide Laws laws which are binding on non-Jews and if upheld bring favor with God. Hence, it makes no sense to claim that Jews believed only they would go to Paradise. This is a flatout misrepresentation or sign of ignorance. —Aiden 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK problem solved. This is a clear misresprentation of Watt's book. Watt does not state that Quran criticized the Jews for claims of being the only ones to go to Paradise. On page 116 he states simply that "The Quran also went on to criticize Jewish exaggerations of their claim to be the chosen people." He then goes on to tell of a common Arab practice of challening one to take an oath calling down "some dire calamity or even eternal perdition upon himself if some assertation he made was false", basically a swear. He says that the Arabs challenged the Jews to swear that they were God's chosen people and that they alone would be in Paradise. Watt does not, however, say that the Jews believed this, nor that they even claimed it, nor that the Quran takes note of this custom in particular. What is happening is that people are rummaging through sources like this and cherry picking sentences to advocate their POV objectives. (By the way, you can see most of these sources for yourself at http://books.google.com. Simply perform a search on the book title. You may need a Google account for some materials.) —Aiden 07:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the specific page in question is located here. (You will need a Google account.) —Aiden 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is so easy for you to accuse, isn't it. Let's first have a look at the relevant Qur'anic verses:

2.111 And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."

2.112 Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

2.113 The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment.

5:18 (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

Watt says that Qur'an asked Christians and Jews to swear that they alone going to heaven. This implicitly imlpies that the Qur'an says that they had such a claim.

Watt also talks about another argument that Christians and Jews had and could not be both true. Isn't it the claim that they alone go to heaven? --Aminz 09:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Quranic verses you supplied are irrelevent. Watt was the source for your statement that the Jews claimed that only they would go to heaven, not the Quran. However, Watt makes no such claim in his book. Stating that the Jews were encouraged by Arabs to swear an oath does not mean they made such claims as you would have readers believe. To begin with, this article, and this section in particular, is about Muhammad and his relationship with the Jewish tribes, not about who is right or wrong concerning theology and dogma. —Aiden 11:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How can Muhammad ask them to swear on something if they never claimed it in the first place? How is these Qur'anic verses irrelevant? What is your interpretation of the last paragraph of his in the source? --Aminz 11:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a silly reasoning. This wouldn't be the only occasion the Quran or Muslims misrepresent other people's beliefs (I only say Mary as third person of the Trinity). However, The Quran doesn't even claim that the Jews claim that, only that they should swear something like that. That might be a rhetorical trick and not a fair way of arguing but it is not a statement on what Jews believe. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you just arrived or have you read the verses above. --Aminz 11:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I just arrived but I had time enough to read the verses yesterday. I am sorry I had forgotten about the very first verse, which however clearly is a fabrication combining Christians and Jews, something that certainly didn't happen in this way. In any case, the claim is just that a claim and cannot serve as a basis that it is accurate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You are a liar Str. I posted these verses an hour ago. --Aminz 11:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I was under the impression that I read them yesterday evening. I don't care when (or where) I read them but I did and I had an incomplete memory of them. If I (I assume I did as I, unlike you, assume that your statement is correct) was under a wrong impression that doesn't make me a liar, which is BTW not only violating WP:AGF but also a WP:PA. And it is not your first time today, as you only minutes ago attacked another editor in an edit summary (which is worse, since it will stay there forever). Nonetheless, despite all your aggression levied at me and others for the last few weeks, my reply on your talk page holds true. May His Peace be upon you! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, two points: First, as long as your only source of this information is the Qur'an (as you admit in one of your posts), then same rules have to apply to this data as ones that apply to any data coming from a holy scripture of some sort. And if you ask me, these rules should be: as long as it doesn't contradict any empirical data, or something coming from a reliable source, we can accept it. If there is a contradiction like that, and you're a believer in the holy scripture in question, you can take the position that your holy scripture must be re-interpreted. If you're not a believer, you can say that the scripture is lying or mistaken. Sometimes you can bend the empirical data a lot to fit in your system of beliefs, but changing somebody else's philosophy, or inventing some mysterious heretical groups is not the way to do it.

The situation is augmented by the fact that the information in question is not just anything, but part of theological dispute between Muhammad and the Jews. So, in a sense, what we're doing here is using the Qur'an to assert its own correctness - at least against Judaism! Isn't that a Circular Argument? In best case, it is a Strawman Argument, refuting claims that the other side didn't make.

In any event, there are a lot of Jews and a lot of Muslims as of today, and no huge stream of converts in either direction, so, clearly, the argument is not decided. Therefore the article should not take any sides.

Second, I didn't read the the Watt's book, but from a few pages I have seen on Google, it seems to me that it is clearly taking pro-Muslim position on the current question. Especially when it's talking about "claims that the Jews could not deny". Just to illustrate how easily these "claims" could be denied, here are some examples from the book. I'm not trying to re-start a 1500 year old argument, just to illustrate that there is much more to the issue than simply saying "could not deny".

• "Abraham was not a Jew" - "So what?"
• "Jews rejected a lot of prophets, so not surprising they reject Muhammad" - "The fact that there are a lot of fake $100 bills doesn't mean we have to start accepting them"
• "How can you say Ezra was son of God" - "We don't"
• "How can you say you alone will go to Paradise" - "Are you still beating your wife?"
• "Jews and Christians make same exclusive argument, both cannot be true" - "So what?"

I think Jewish-Islamic theology is a large enough topic for a separate article, so maybe it's time to create one and point to it from the Jewish section of the current one? Then it will be easier to clearly list the arguments from each side in an NPOV manner. Obzabor 14:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one quick restating of what I think your point was, Obzabor:

"Jews rejected a lot of prophets, so not surprising they reject Muhammad"

The Muslims point is that the Bible accepts people as prophets the Israelites first rejected. That point is also made in the New Testament by Jesus in regard to the Pharisees (I think it is in the Gospel of John), who are accused of now claiming prophets their fathers used to reject. Anyway, the analogy is not that we now have to accept fake dollar bills but it merely states the fact that some bills have been thought to be fake but turned out to be genuine. However, some of the rejected bills also really were fake. The point actually proves nothing this way or that way. In other words, just because the Jews oppose M. doesn't confirm his prophethood. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I overlooked that detail. I was arguing against Watt's quote though, not against the Muslims. I hope "real" Muslims can come up with something more substantial than this over-simplified recapture of claims "Jews can't deny". My main point is that this book seems to be heavily biased, and cannot be used to make claims in the name of Jews, much less arbitrate in this ancient dispute. Obzabor 18:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And I can return the favour: You are right in pointing out that Muslims do not generally this view. I should have said, "Muslims according to Watts". In any case the article should not even slightly appear to endorse the claim that the Jews claimed that, hence my addition of "supposed", which got reverted twice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Obzabor, the issue is something totally different. No. We can not use the scriptures directly since they are primary sources. We would like to understand what Watt says (not that it is true, or anything else). Watt says the Qur'an asks Jews to swear that they really alone go to heaven, something Jews weren't disturbed with but didn't respond to it either. The above verses of Qur'an are among those Watt is refering to. Does *Watt* says that Jews (of medina) never claimed that they alone go to heaven? Of course not. Yes, Qur'an states that the claim of both Christians and Jews can be true at the same time. So, the whole discussion here is to see what Watt says, correct or incorrect. And Watt says the Jews of Medina were not very knowledgable of their scripture (which I will probably add it to the article). So was the case with many Christians. And yes, that was the polemic JUST between Muhammad and his contemporaries. We are not saying knowledgable Jews have those beliefs. --Aminz 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you say that we cannot use the scriptures as source, but from your post above (the one with Qur'anic verses, and the one I was responding to), it looks like you were doing just that -unless I'm misinterpreting your words. Either way, looks like we're now in agreement here.

Now tell me, how does adding Watt's name to the quotation of the Qur'an make it any better? Formally it turns it into secondary source, but saying "Watt says Qur'an says Jews claimed they alone will go to Paradise" is just the same. Watt was a believer in the Qur'an, so what else could he say? Did he have an extra-Qur'anic source to provide a proof? You already admitted that there is no such source.

As far as the level of knowledge of Medina Jews, this seems more like an ad-hoc claim to avoid the obvious contradiction. Really, why would Muhammad bother having an argument with the ignorant mob and Heretics, and writing this down in the Qur'an for centuries to come, while completely ignoring the prominent Rabbis and community leaders he surely has met and debated with?

More to the point, Watt doesn't say this either. His text is very clear on that, and here it is:

"This new way of looking at things could be supported by various facts which the Jews could not deny. They could not deny the Muslim assertion that Abraham was not a Jew, for they had to admit that he lived before the Jewish religion was revealed, whether that is made to bagin with Jacob or, as the Muslims normally did, with Moses. And when the Muslims argued that there was nothing surprising in the Jewish rejection of Muhammad, since they had rejected many of the prophets sent to them and mentioned in their own scriptures, the Jews could not deny that there was some truth in this latter matter. ...The Jews were callenged to swear in this way that they were the friends of God and that they alone would be in Paradise. The challenge presumably did not worry the Jews, but by not responding to it they would weaken their position in the eyes of the Arabs. Another telling argument of the Qur'an against the exclusive claims of the Jews was that the Christians made similar claims, and that both could not be true."

Where is any mention of Jewish ignorance? Maybe elsewhere in the book; but when I read these passages, I see the best of Jewish scholars lined up looking down in silence, not knowing what to respond to Muhammad's demanding questions. These claims are pretty clear in the text, while we have to bend over backwards looking for hints that these Jews were actually not representative... Is this what you will have the readers of the article believe?

So why not just state the plain facts that we have? Qur'an contains some claims against Judaism (list claims); Right now there is no evidence that Jews at Medina held the beliefs that Qur'an is criticizing them for; Moreover, there is evidence to the contrary from the fact that Rabbinic literature of that time (i.e. Talmud) clearly states that such beliefs are alien to Judaism. Some scholars (insert list) suggested the Jews of Medina were ignorant of their own Rabbinic literature and Holy scriptures, giving raise to the Qur'anic criticism; however, there is no evidence for that either. There is a solid source behind every sentence here. What is the problem with this? Obzabor 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't using those verses as a source, just to give some context. I have yet to see an scholar who believes that the Jews of Medina were not believing they alone go to heaven and that the Qur'an put it in their mouths. Shall you find a reliable source for that, we could state both views in parallel. I was reading an article on "The quest for historical Muhammad". Infact the Qur'an itself is a major source. But of course, like other historical documents, the scholars know the proper way to use these sources. And yes, Watt talks about lack of knowledge of Jews of Medina somewhere else. I should find it. Obzabor, I have tried to make it clear that the Jews of Medina were not necessarily holding the orthodox beliefs. Please make it more clear if it is not already. Those Jews were living in Arabia, among pagans in one of the most uncivilized places of the time; not among the renowned Jewish Rabbis. And the Qur'an was in the first place for those people. To the Rabbis who are lined up :), the Qur'an states: "Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)."

Muhammad was willing to accept Jews on the basis of monotheism without requiring them to convert to Islam as long as they don't politically support his enemies. My question to Jewish Rabbis is that for what religous reason the Jews of Medina had to oppose such an agreement. --Aminz 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

MY question WHAT right Muhammad had to demand them? Sound you say its the Jews own fault what happen to them for not accept Muhammad as the dicatator!Opiner 06:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was invited to reconcile warring tribes of Medina. We seem to have some controversies around who invited him. Muhammad ask everybody to be in peace with each other. The pact he made was favorable to Jews (I read this somewhere and you can also read the pact yourself). If Jews didn't wanted to bring peace back to Medina after 100 years of bloodshed, then fine, I've got my answer. --Aminz 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz,

"I have yet to see an scholar who believes that the Jews of Medina were not believing they alone go to heaven and that the Qur'an put it in their mouths. Shall you find a reliable source for that ..."

That is a peculiar request, since a) your reference Watt apperently does not claim that the Jews believed that, only that M. used that as a rhetorical ploy to silence them, and b) it totally reverses the burden of proof: do we have to accept the statement of the Quran (thanks for using the article, BTW) as being accurate until someone disputes that? Even if the Jews of Jathrib were not very knowledgable that doesn't say a thing about what they thought or not on this particular issue.

Another particular statement: "Muhammad was willing to accept Jews on the basis of monotheism without requiring them to convert to Islam as long as they don't politically support his enemies."

Well, Muhammad was of course asking them to convert to Islam (by accepting him as a prophet) and in the beginning he hoped that would not be a big deal. He was disappointed in that and he was then prepared to accept or tolerate a separate Jewish community within the political framework of the city of Jathrib. However, he still hoped and aimed at their conversion and at the first occasion one Jewish tribes is confronted with a conflict, he in his position as arbitrator openly asks them to convert to Islam. What kind of arbitration is this. The event resulted in the expulsion of the Banu Qunayqa.

"If Jews didn't wanted to bring peace back to Medina after 100 years of bloodshed, then fine, I've got my answer" - yes, that indeed sounds like "its the Jews own fault what happen to them". The Quanqyqa episode shows that M. misused his position as arbitrator, at least after the victory at Badr emboldened him and his followers.

Especially since M. was called in - no matter who did it - as an arbitrator and not as a "dictator". I have read, either in Watt or in Glubb's biography, that the pact made him not the head of Jathrib but the head of a certain subgroup within Jathrib (in parallel to the tribal chiefs) with a certain authority for arbitration. According to this account he was not made ruler, king, dictator or whatever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not continue this. Are you okay with that? --Aminz 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz: You asked for a scholar that doesn't think Medina Jews were ignorant. How about this one: William Montgomery Watt. Even if you find some statements about the level of Jewish knowledge elsewhere in his book (do find it and bring it forward!), it is not mentioned in the context of Qur'an's accusations, and for me, that's already a big deal. Also, as Str points out above, some blurred hint of some kind of ignorance won't cut it, it has to talk about these particular beliefs. Since you are the one trying to put things in the mouths of Muhammad's opponents, the burden of proof is definitely on you. Don't bother bringing up "scholars" that only rely on the Qur'an with no other source or proof. This is as good as quoting the Qur'an itself.

You asked me to make the question of Jewish level of knowledge more clear in the article. I will insert something along the lines of my last paragraph in the previous post, if nobody minds (seems like you're OK with that, Aminz?). One thing I'm not prepared to do, is to accuse them of ignorance without a very, very good reason. Can we accuse Muhammad of ignorance instead? I mean, this boils down to that. Either Muhammand didn't know much about Judaism, or the whole Jewish community didn't. Which one would that be, Aminz?

And now to your question in bold. Since Jewish Rabbis of that time are not here to answer this, I guess I'll have to, even though this is an off-topic for this discussion. You, Watt, and the article give a strong sense of some kind of "missed opportunity" here, which I find quite a bit misleading. "If Only Jews could accept Muhammad's terms! How good life could be today!" Well, the very fact that Jews didn't accept Muhammad's terms on religious grounds, serves as a proof that they were well-versed in their laws. And the laws say that the topmost priority, above all else, (even one's own life), is to make these laws survive in unchanged form throughout the history. Anything that puts this in jeopardy was fiercly denied, sometimes at the cost of bringing great disasters on the communities. "Opportunities" like this one were "missed" throughout the history, and it is this "missout", not military power, that made Judaism reach our days in its original form.

I don't know what kind of deal Muhammad offered them. Did this deal include permission for the Jews to consider him a false prophet? All sweet talk about "religious autonomy" is irrelevant. Did he, or did he not, allow Jews to consider him a false prophet? If no, any deal was out of the question, and rightly so. Intellectual autonomy is far more important than "religious" or any other, and if that wasn't granted, no deal.

Back to the topic, please give me a good reason not to insert the text I suggested. I'm not interested in edit wars, so let's sort this out first. Obzabor 13:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Obzabor, have you read what I have written from David Waines, a Professor of Islamic Studies? We have several quotes from several scholars and they are all mentioned in the article as the sources explain them, word by word. I don't see any reason why we should re-arrange it at the moment. We don't have any source saying that the Qur'an was misquoting what Jews actually believed. If you bring any sources saying that Muhammad answered to claims the Jews didn't make, then we can think of how to represent these different views in the most appropriate way. But again, all the sources are presented well in the article and the burden of proving that the Qur'an was misquoting what Jews believed is on your side. I have done my job and now it is your turn to do some effort and spend sometime doing research if you really care about this.

And yes, Muhammad was probably ignorant about many thing. He couldn't read or write. And his message was nothing more than monotheism, believing in the judgment day and social justice. As to the freedom, of course they could retain their religion meaning Muhammad being a false prophet, but I don't think if they wanted to do propaganda against Muhammad if would be tolerated in long run. --Aminz 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, why did you remove the exact quote from Watt. Noting that Watt is pointing to the verses such as the above, how can you think Jews didn't claimed that they alone go to heaven? --Aminz 11:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that some have to drag new issue upon new issue into the article which we then have to work to clear of POV, misrepresentation and inaccuracies? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Accusations over accusations....--Aminz 11:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not accusations, just questions. Why is it like that, Aminz? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmh, Aminz, I think that still strange: Why do we have to include a quotation from a different work by Watt, a quotation that creates a POV problem, a problem that I am prohibited by Ibrahim/ALM from avoiding by the addition of a single word, prohibited on spurious grounds, when the undisputed information could also be taken from another writing by the same author. Why are things like that? I don't understand.

And note that I do not propose to state positively that the Jews did not think that, or that M. was devious in asking his question, maybe he was honestly mistaken. A statement arguing however that they did requires another statement that others say they didn't, leading again to a needless bloating of the article. Why can we not be reasonable on this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a different interpretation of Watt's words. The other work of Watt is more clear. There is no reason to exclude the other source.

As I stated above, we need another source saying that Muhammad accused Jews of something they didn't believe. --Aminz 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz: We're back to square one, and we seem to be going in circles. Once again, you are putting in a phrase that has two claims in one: (1) Muhammad has accused Jews of claiming X, and (2) Jews didn't claim X. (I'm referring here to the last phrase of your post). You have perfect sources for each of these claims - Muslim sources for (1) and Jewish sources for (2). So, you already have sources you are demanding. And yet, you keep raising the bar - nothing seems good enough. Now you want a single source that says both of these things at once. Now guess what - Medina Jews got expelled and/or exterminated by Muhammad, and we don't have their own records of that debate. What's more, now you're free to accuse them of ignorance, herecy, and who knows what else. That doesn't work, sorry. If you want to prove they were ignorant, you bring your proof.

Think again about your demands: you want a reliable source for the fact that Jews in Yathrib were not ignorant! Can you bring me a source that Muslims in Paris are not ignorant? Can you bring me a source that Christians in Beirut are not ignorant? Get back to Earth. Obzabor 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think if your argument is correct, there should be some scholars who have mentioned the possibility of Muhammad alleged false accusations? We can not say Torah says X so the Jews of Medina didn't believe in X. Your approach doesn't cut. You need to bring academic sources. --Aminz 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the Torah (Pentateuch), it Talmud - Rabbinic document written before Muhammad's birth, that states Jewish position on many questions. So we cannot use Jewish own statement of their position to assert their position, but we can use Qur'an for that same purpose (of course, attaching "Watt says"). Where's the logic here?

I could bring you sources like [22], saying "That the Jews regarded Ezra as son of God is due to Muhammad's own invention". So you will add one more quote to that list in the article, which is already unreadable. Doesn't make any sense. Obzabor 13:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and sources

As Aminz in his usual amiable fashion pointed out to me on my talk page, I have used up my three reverts for now. However, I want to ask this very simple question: Why are we not allowed to clearly state that the "Jewish claim" is only a supposed claim (supposed by the Quran) and why do we have to run the risk of giving the impression of endorsing Watt's view? My version did the former, avoided the latter and was in no way a misrepresentation of Watt's passaage. Again, I encounter here this strange view that WP should be turned into a collection of scholars' soundbites, all preceded by "Dr X says followed by quote, Professor Y says this followed by quote, and Quran (which some people still don't care to use the article with) says this". We used scholars' views and quotations in an article but it is WE, the editors alltogether that write the article and not these scholars. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very typical for Wikipedia to cite reliable sources when writing articles. This is particularly the case when there are competing points of view. Editors are to do their best to not alter the statements or introduce doubts about statements that sources are making but rather just present them. (→Netscott) 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture captions

I have seen Opiner's and others disputes about the caption of certain pictures. I am of the opinion that caption should be concise but not onesided. Details should be covered in articles about the depicted sites. Hence

• the caption of "Dome of the Rock" picture should have a caption saying something along the lines of "The Dome of the Rock, built ontop the Temple Mount, marks the spot from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Paradise."
• the Hagia Sophia picture caption doesn't need to go into all these details, as these are not relevant here. However, I see that the onesided picture title is indeed a problem and hence I have uploaded that picture again, under a more suitable title. See [23]. The caption should say something like "Muhammad's name, engraved in gold, adorning the walls of the Hagia Sophia".

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Much more neutral and better. Ill do it now.Opiner 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Other issues are much harder so I don't know why we should waste energies on such things. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They are looking at everything like the battleground. Now watch someone say NO MUST say third most sacred site in Islam! Probably why that was there really about Israel-Palestine conflict NOT Muhammad.Opiner 19:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, no, it was there because we have the most sacred (The Kabaa), the second most sacred (The Prophets Mosque and tomb), and the third most sacred (The Al Aqsa compund). The dome of the rock covers the rock that Muslims believe Muhammad used during his ascension, the building itself is fairly large, and that brief explanation explains its name, not mentioned elsewhere. Stop assuming bad faith and see the context in which it is written --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say it but 'do you think Muhammad was the size of 1000 men?' is a really dumb objection. Caption says it MARKS the spot not that its CONFINED TO ONLY the spot where Muhammad supposedly ascend.

IF youre going to say its THIRD sacred site in Islam surely also can mention its the FIRST sacred in Judaism. Non-Muslim call it the 'Temple Mount' like its a translation of Islam name! IS the Temple Mount then build a mosque on it.Opiner 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a biography on Muhammad. The Muhammad who, Muslims believe, ascended to Jannah via the rock over which that dome is built, making it Islams third most sacred site. In what context in the biography of Muhammad has the importance of the complex (not just the remaining wall) in the religion of Judaism got to do with anything? --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But why, IPT, do you need to make it needlessly wordy:

"The Dome of the Rock sits atop of the rock which Muslims believe Muhammad used in his ascension to Jannah, Paradise. It sits in the center of Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary, and is part of Islam’s third most sacred site. This site is on what non-Muslims call the Temple Mount in the old city in East Jerusalem."

There is no need to include long strings of Arab names, nor to attribute the name Temple Mount to "non-Muslims", nor to include the controversial term East Jerusalem.

Also, what is beyond me is what the edit summary

"factually inaccurate - what siza do you think Muhammad was?! that ite can hold over one thousand men, do you think Muhammad was the size of 1000 men?!)"

is supposed to mean.

I am all for assuming good faith but you are making it very hard for your fellow editors. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What bad faith is in that? I Mean, the line "This site is on what non-Muslims call the Temple Mount in the old city in East Jerusalem" - I don't mind getting rid of that, but the Temple Mount line kept getting repeated, so in the spirit of compromise, I kept the line in. Not, Muslims don't call it "the Noble Sanctuary", they call it Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif (or, Al Aharm Al Sharif), much like they don't call the Quran the "recitation", thus I am including its name as it is known to all Muslims irrespective of tongue, and the English translation of same. I could remove the english if you want, but I think that's unfair to Non-muslims. And the third most sacred site explictly makesnote of its importance. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The preceding was posted in three edit conflicts, so let me now address one issue mentioned above: "In what context in the biography of Muhammad has the importance of the complex (not just the remaining wall) in the religion of Judaism got to do with anything?" I don't see how the wording included the fact that it is the Jews' most holy site. It just stated that it is on the Temple Mount, which might be important to Muslims as well. After all, why did M. ascend here (if indeed the identification of al-Aksa and the Temple Mount is correct)? Why did Omar build the first Dome of the Rock right there? Because he considered it a shame that the place where Salomon's Temple stood was now a waste. Ah, and why did Muslims pray towards Jerusalem and more specifically towards the Temple Mount even before the supposed ascend into Paradise? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jews most holy site reference was a reply to Opiner, who previously replaced the text with "Built atop the Temple Mount, the most sacred site in Judaism, the Dome of the Rock now marks the spot from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Paradise." - Note how it makes note of its importance in Judaism, but not Islam, despite Muhammad having nothing at all to do with that religion! --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And I was replying to your latest reverting of a version that did not contain that statement. I am not completely happy with Opiner's previous versions, though I think that he tried to balance out what he considered a bias on your part. It's better to make the caption concise, detailed treatment belongs into articles, be it this one or others.

And I don't think it's accurate to say that M. had "nothing at all to do with that religion".Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the talmudic entries on the subject fair enough, but the religion of Judaism is not the subject of this article.There is no Bias, I have not tried to be hagiographic, simply stated the information as it is. There are images of the three most sacred sites in Islam on this bio. All are connected with Muhammad in some way. The connection with Muhammad, and their importance is stated in a quite concise manner. The Dome of the rock is not built as a "marker", it adorns the rock, the Sakhrah, and without explaining what it is there for, its importance and reason for stated is not clear. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All fine and dandy, but still captions should be concise and your edits did not respect that, quite apart from being confrontative. And in the case of your last revert, there was none of your stated reasons for reverting.

Finally, I have come across this link: [24] - I wasn't aware of that and now see that you have already broken that. I will not act upon that in retroactively but keep in mind that I now know. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually threatening me?! Rather htan work with me, you're going to threaten me?! What on earth is the point then. Slán. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not a threat, just a word of caution. If I were ill-willing towards you, I would have reported you. But I didn't do that because I hope that in the future you will mend your ways. Please, don't prove me wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Kindness to the Children and the Happy Animoos

JUST when I thought Hinduism was the least neutral now THIS is the LEAST NEUTRAL edit I see in very long time. Plus just long big quotes again its giving me headaches.Opiner 08:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with kindness to animals section? I am trying to make the other sentence referenced now. --Aminz 08:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE!!! AT MOST we can say ONE sentence Muslim tradition say Muhammad kind to children and animals and reference Watt. If theres something important about history specifics then say them in the biography in chronology order NOT part of a section Muhammad was Nice.Opiner 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

These stories are not just in tradition but also pass the critical methods of these scholars. And animals are important. --Aminz 08:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me WHAT critical methods?Opiner 08:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. Textual criticism, Higher criticism might give some idea. The article on Henri Lammens says "His contributions are considered highly influential among Western historians of Islam; and yet he has often been criticized for his skewed portrayal of many issues. It is universally acknowledged "that Lammens provided the study of the sira with a new basis; and none would underestimate his contributions on the history of the Umayyads." --Aminz 08:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many accounts of Muhammad's life that scholars don't accept. --Aminz 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A treatment of that is certainly in order but once again I would like to call for conciseness. In the children section, we once again have a large chunk taken from Watt. Why we need to include a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia jibe into this is also beyond me. And the animals section even takes its start with Watt, instead from a neutral basis. What follows is to a large extent anecdotal information, including one in brackets that is even disputed. It needs to be cut down and also copy-edited. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt is a perfect source. We can omit the explanation about Ali which is not in direct relevance to that section but again, there is nothing wrong with Watt. --Aminz 10:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is not defined in wikipedia. We have POV and All-POV = NPOV. If you have a source that disputes Watt, we can add it alongside Watt. --Aminz 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a stylistic remark. Starting a section with "Watts says ..." is ugly. It should at least be preceded by something like "M.'s relation to animals is noted for". Remember that section headers are not part of the text. The anecodotal information should be cut down. Finally, maybe it slipped your mind but NPOV is an acronym for Neutral Point of View. Including various views is a tool to achieve this, not an end to itself. We still have to write one article on one topic and not a plurality of articles, even if they are physically put on a single page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What are your explicit suggestions? I'll try to change it a bit soon, please let me know if it then looks good. --Aminz 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You say Muhammad loving the trees so much he say no one cut them down and then plant 300 himmself. Maybe these replacing the 400 trees cut down in Battle of Khaybar? See NOT neutral.Opiner 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That article is contains balant misrepresentations of the source. I need to check out the source myself. If it says so, I'll put it in this article as well. --Aminz 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the stupidest disputes I've ever seen. Muhammad: Greenpeace member or Lumberjack. Trees have nothing to do with this article, nor do animals, dogs, geckos or others. If this miserable section remains, it must include both pathetic sides, Aminz' and Opiner's. Muhammad: dog and cat lover, lizard slayer, the only question now being his attitude towards trees. Both editors are pyschic violators of WP:POINT: no one gives a fig about these details except as proxy.Proabivouac 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The lizard thing was not a religous duty. Opiner should back up himself by reliable sources. --Aminz 11:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's progressive ideas about Animals do have a place here as the progressive ideas of any other figure has. --Aminz 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm frankly more worried about what is a religious duty: e.g. to glorify the prophet by strained hagiography. What next, Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad never picked his nose? Then the inevitable opposition with Bukhari relating via Aisha that Muhammad did indeed pick his nose...then you removing it as original research.Proabivouac 11:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, being a sockpuppet of someone, you have been in wikipedia for a long time. You know well that we can not use primary sources directly. How do you know that there is no Qur'anic verse or other Hadith that makes the meaning of those Hadiths clear? Are you an scholar? No you can not quote Hadiths directly. --Aminz 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if Watt (a reliable source) says that, we still need to put it here. (which is definitely not the case here) TruthSpreader^Talk 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to call all parties in this dispute to reason. If we need to include something on this (of which I am not convinced) we need to make it accurate (reflecting all relevant facts, not just the suitable ones), NPOV (if there are disputes) and concise.

TS says: "I believe that if Watt (a reliable source) says that, we still need to put it here."

That is definitely not so. Just because Watt says it doesn't mean that we don't have to include it. It is us writing this article and it is our choice (via consensus) which topics to include or not. In many cases there is no dispute about the value in including something but whether the animals thing is relevant is for us to decide and not to Watt or any other scholar. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Section title isnt neutral either. Should be changed to Attitude towards Animals and include not only one side.Opiner 03:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I know we usually don't agree on stuff, so you probably don't think much of my opinion, but I must say, after seeing the text: not only is it not encyclopedic (e.g., can you find one other figure on wikipedia which talks about kindness to animals? And I'm not talking about people known specifically for dealing with animals), but it was POV. It seemed like just another attempt to pour praise on Mohammed. Perhaps he deserves it, but let's let people decide that without injecting information like "he was kind to his pet cat." -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section. There is no reason why Muhammad's supposed kidness to his pets should warrent its own entire section in this article. It is already 3 times the recommended size and I fear this is just a red herring meant to stir up another edit-war. —Aiden 07:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is notable for having progressive ideas about animals in his day and in his country. I have heard disturbing stories about how Arabs were sometimes treating animals. Muhammad is notable for making things better. Muslims also know him for his good attitude towards animals so there is nothing wrong with having that section. See, if I have progressive ideas about how animals should be treated, and my ideas turns out to be influential, then my future article in wikipedia should mention them. --Aminz 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You pick Watt over Bukhari because you are Shia. If it said something in a Shia collection you wouldn't be picking Watt. Arrow740 03:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Primary Sources

Policy doesnt say dont use the primary sources. Reliable sources talks about primary sources in history section and doesnt say dont use them. No Original Research 'Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.'Opiner 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe that there is no other hadith or verse that comments on those hadiths. + we have no reason to believe that it was a religous duty, perhaps an advice from Muhammad since he thought lizards are harmful. + we are not in a position to read the primary sources such as Qur'an and Hadith and interpret them and come to conclusions. --Aminz 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WHo saying anything a religious duty except you? How is it interpreting any more than you reading Watt and 'interpreting?' Unless youre in the special position to 'interpret' Watt? Policy is saying dont come to NOVEL or ORIGINAL conclusions. Not dont read it and use in obvious ways. Same thing with secondary source only be a little more careful with the primary one.

Also HAdith Muhammad say kill all the dogs then changing his mind and say only kill the black dogs because theyre demons.Opiner 02:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith is such a literature that even Islamic scholars sometimes criticize it. I lived all my life in a Muslim country and I never heard of Government campaign for killing all black dogs or Geckos. Contrary to that, I use to see alot of black dogs in the streets. Contrary to what you are saying, Muhammad never liked dogs as pets but Qur'an praises them (dogs, some translate them as beasts) as great hunters, which can be taught to do certain things (see ^[Quran 5:4]). TruthSpreader^Talk 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, though Muhammad didn't himself liked dogs as pets, in the story of the "men of the cave" in Qur'an those godly people had dog as pet. --Aminz 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That dog is presented in Qur'an more like a guardian dog than a pet. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know how you know that? I think dog is najis only under Muslim law. --Aminz 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, We can quote Watt word by word when there is no agreement (as it is done now). As you quoted:"For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Per my reasoning above, we can not check how it should be interpreted and what it means. Why don't you open an RfC on this if you are so certain. --Aminz 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If hadith say Muhammad commanded to kill geckos its not 'interpreting' to say according to the hadith Muhammad commanded to kill geckos! Youre not supposed to put NEW interpretation just like with secondary source. Its Truthspreader who is doing the original argument when he talking about the government campaign.

NO you shouldnt be quoting everything word by word anyway. instead of keeping it short with the summary of the main idea.Opiner 03:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we are having a dispute on the interpretation of primary source. I think all of us need to have a reliable secondary source to assert their argument. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No there is no interpreting at all from me. According to hadith, Muhammad say this. Are you sayinng that Hadith NOT say Muhammad said that? NO youre saying the Hadith is wrong. Thats what YOU need a source for.Opiner 03:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, we are going nowhere. File an RfC and tell them that I, a non-Muslim, want to use a Muslim primary source but some Muslim editors object to my reading of the text which I believe is clearly true reading without involving any original research. How is that? --Aminz 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Were going nowhere I think because you dont WANT the article to be neutral. How about you read WP:NPOV? How about you stop breaking 3RR all the time? How about you start COMPROMISE with other editor instead of revert revert revert? How is that?Opiner 03:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no compromise on the truth. Either we can use that primary source or not. There is no compromise. --Aminz 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth is youre making up the policy to make it say something it doesnt. Truth is you know these hadith dont look good. you want Muhamamd only looking good so you make up excuses to do that. Truth is you breaking the rules and revert all the time then lie on 3RR page about whats a revert.

Pretty stupid too for you to try and say that Muslim mean you have a special insight WHEN you didnt know about these Hadith until just now. Just another way of saying you WP:OWN the article.Opiner

Opiner, wikipedia has got some rules. If you want to play, you should play by the rules. And I didn't violate the rules. --Aminz 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, wikipedia has got some rules like WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. If you want to play, you should play by the rules BUT instead you break WP:NPOV all the time and break WP:3RR at least three time this week.Opiner 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request For Comment is the way to go. --Aminz 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OKay in the meantime take down your not neutral section. Not tell me request for comment while you owning the article.Opiner 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't because there is no reason to remove this scholarly written section. --Aminz 04:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It scholarly to use Watt but not Hadith? Islami scholar must be pretty awful then because use hadith but not Watt!Opiner 04:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All this about the sources and who are Aminz' sources? An engineer! Professors of wildlife! An Iranian diplomat! Pretty hard to think good faith in your argument here now that I looked at the sources YOU use. Hadith bad BUT engineer professor of wildlife and diplomats are okay. Yeah right.Opiner 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond sillyness. If we need such a section is needs to be balanced. If there are some sources indicating M. to be friendly to animals and others indicating that he wasn't or that he like these but not those animals, all these issues must be stated. And certainly this is no place to sneak in unwarranted jibes at Christianity, even if they were not onesided or factually wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We can move this section to "Muhammad the reformer", then it will be appropriate to have these comparisons as part of the reforms. I have no problem with adding negative things as long as they are backed up by secondary reliable sources. --Aminz 10:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My Sources

In response to Opiner's buchering the article, here are my sources:

1. The book written by Prof. Budinger 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/ Furthermore it is published by a reliable press. It has all the qualifications.

Engineer not scholar of Islam or Muhammad. Maybe your professor? If so WP:COI.

will add information about the others soon. --Aminz 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

2. The relevant chapter of the book The Animal Ethics Reader written by Richard Botzler and Susan Armstrong Professors of Philosophy and Wildlife at Humboldt State University is actually written by Martin Forward, Professor of Religious Studies at Aurora University, and Mohammad Alam. I forgot to correct this. It is nevertheless published by Routledge (UK) Press which is a reputable publication and by all means publishes academic books and practices the blind peer review tradition. --Aminz 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If Forward write it Ill reevaluate..

3. The book " P. Aarne Vesilind, Alastair S. Gunn, Engineering, Ethics, and the Environment, Cambridge University Press, p.301 ". Both authors are university professor, one at philosophy department and one at an engineering department. Nevertheless this book is published by Cambridge University Press which is a very reputable academic press and peer-reviews the books before they are published. --Aminz 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy, engineering. This article about Muhammad.

4. The book "Don Gifford, Robert J. Seidman, Ulysses Annotated: notes for James Joyce's Ulysses, University of California Press" & "Minou Reeves, Muhammad in Europe, New York University (NYU) Press," is again published by a renowned university presses. Do you want me to show you some reviews on these books? (see [25]) --Aminz 07:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Book on James Joyce Ulysses great book for Ulysses article NOT for Muhammad.Opiner 09:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning all parties to stop the edit warring now

Reach a consensus here or I will have no choice but to fully protect until you do - and this always happens to the wrong version. Consider this a last warning that's effective immediately.  Glen  08:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Supposed claim vs claim

Watt explicitly says: "against their claim that they alone had a true knowledge of God." He doesn't say "supposed claim". Furthermore, the sentence starts with "Watt claims..." so what is the reason for adding "supposed" when Watt doesn't say it. --Aminz 10:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding "supposed" is not mispresenting the source, it merely achieves a distancing between our article here and the claim, indicating that something might not be right or that this claim is disputed. We have three ways here: either we word it in such a way that there is no dispute - then we simply put that wording there, or we dePOV it by adding "supposed", or we present one side and then the other. However, the latter would bloat the article and the question is whether the addition is worth it. In any case, it should be relegated to a footnote, as I have tried to do. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate presentation of the source is not to including "supposed". And by doing so, we imply that Watt wasn't sure about that which is not true. If there are other people (which I doubt) having different ideas, then you are more than welcome to add them. --Aminz 10:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The aim of WP is to creat an encyclopedia under the policy of NPOV. Hence we cannot use a wording that implies as fact something that is merely a very disputed view. And, for the tenth time: adding supposed does NOT misrepresent the source. But we can go down the other roads I laid out as well. But you, Aminz, are simply ignoring the issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it is disputed? By which scholar? Show me please. And yes, it does misrepresent the source in the sense of making Watt look like as if he is not certain. We are quoting from him. And putting the sentence in footnote is even worst. --Aminz 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all there was no scholar cited who supported it, not even Watt himself. Secondly look into the discussion included in the footnote and you will see scholars aware of the problem. Some take the (IMHO easy) way out by stipulating that some Jews (heretics) thought that. Other simply call the claim spurious. And of course we have loud Jewish voices insisting that they don't think that (granted, this is OR and not utterly reliable in regard to former times and hence no basis for inclusion but it is indicating something). In any case, what is the harm in such a dissociating word. - That is if that is the way we want to go. As I said, two other ways open to fix the issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If Watt doesn't support it then let his quote remain (i.e. doesn't support it). Since his quote is neutral then I suggest we add what source says word by word and quote it. --Aminz 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, let's make it simple: there is Jewish side and Muslim side. Qur'an is Muslim side. Watt is also Muslim side (as he himself stated that he thinks Qur'an is divinely inspired). Whenever side A claims that side B claimed something, that side needs to bring a proof, like side B's signature on the claim. Qur'an is not a proof. Watt is not a proof, as he just quotes Qur'an. Therefore, it's all "supposed". These are the basics.

You keep saying "show me a scholar who says otherwise". Muslim scholars obviously support this. Neutral ones opt for the "heresy" hypothesis, as it doesn't really mean anything to their research. You want scholars from the Jewish side? Without looking too hard: Dr. Yitshak Ben Gad: "These anti-Jewish fabrications, articulated by Muhammad as reaction to Jews' rejection of him, have ever since been regarded by Moslems as God's word". Now let's see you putting that in the article! Obzabor 05:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can show me that Dr. Yitshak Ben Gad writes this in a reliable source (peer-reviewed academic source) and it is about what we are talking about, then we will have gone one step ahead. --Aminz 07:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur! TruthSpreader^Talk 07:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't. You're ignoring my point that any claim made in the name of Medina Jews by somebody else, especially if that somebody is arguing against them, is "supposed" by definition. I don't need to spend a day in a library and what not to prove that point. Obzabor 17:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Watt is not just quoting Qur'an. He also looks at other evidences, does Textual criticism,etc etc and at the end of the day say something. That's why we really need that you spend a day in a library as I have done many times in writing this article. --Aminz 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arab Custom

Aiden, how is this:"and challenged the Jews "to swear in this way[refering to an Arab custom of calling dire calamity or even eternal perdition if the assertation was false] that they were the friends of God and that they alone would be in Paradise." (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman). "? Please specify what more one needs to add? --Aminz 10:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because first of all Watt claims this was an Arab custom cited in the Quran but does not say whether or not the Jews actually claimed it. He does not state that the Jews of Medina rose to such a challenge, only that their silence implied wrong, nor does he say they actually believed that. So the sentence only clouds the message of the paragraph and provides virtually no information to the reader. I suggest you drop it for once. —Aiden 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The source doesn't say anything. --Aminz 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research w.r.t. Animals

Someone have a look at:[26] in which foxes are advised to be killed. In Queensland, Australia there is even fine for having a pet rabbit and rewards for killing them, which is in perfect harmony with nature:[27] (see also Rabbits in Australia). There are many other examples in which animals are stopped to migrate, just to protect nature. Is there any reason not to believe that there was no myth in Arabian society which would suggest that Geckos and black dogs were bad animals that can harm, or there were large number of Geckos that might be affecting the normal life of people or other reasons or certain animals were considered unclean and hence asked to be killed. We need a secondary source to make any claim. And this whole argument still doesn't undermine Muhammad's affection for animals, as this tradition of affection for animals is not only in books but a common Muslims knows with his best knowledge whether he follows it or not. This fact of affection of Muhammad is completely supported by Islamic and secular scholarship. People who are suggesting that killing geckos or don't liking black dogs is showing that Muhammad hated animals is purily Original research on their behalf. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

TS, you are fighting a strawman. No one here lays heavy blame on M. for wanting to kill Geckos or attributes him with hate, or suggests that he made it a duty to all Muslims (as Aminz decried above). He may very well have his good reason for wanting to kill geckos and black dogs, at least from his perspective. However, it appears to be a fact that M. made this statements and if we open up the issue of M. and animals, these statements are a part of it, like it or not. How can you on the one hand include in the article that M. sparing trees and guarding puppies shows how much he loved animals (in general), but his aim to kill geckos does not suggest in the least that he had other feelings for other animals. Also, these ignorant remarks about Christianity and Aquinas are completely out of order, especially when they are based on a book by an engineer, who clearly is not an authority on either history, theology or philosophy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to be discussing Muhammad's views about animals in this article? (→Netscott) 19:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢

As i see again an edit warring re Muhammad and animals i'd like to note the following:

• The section is encyclopaedic.
• If there are sources to the killing of geckos and black dogs than they must be there.
• If there are sources to Muhammad being kind to animals than they must be there.
• Are there any other sources apart of Budinger, Botzler and Armstrong? If yes compare them and decide who is more notable. If not Budinger, Botzler and Armstrong are to stay.
• The article is about Muhammad and anything related to Christianity or any other thing used for the sake of comparison than it mut be removed. -- Szvest 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Regarding my recent additions, I've tried to remove the stuff which User:Str1977 asked for and also incorporated User:FayssalF's suggestion. I couldn't understand why it has been reverted. TruthSpreader^Talk 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The additional paragraph is:

However, in Muslim culture hyena, bat, gecko, snake, and other reptiles as well as insects are considered to be ugly, dangerous, vicious, but also powerful and often ambivalent. While scorpion is also considered as an ebodiment of demons and evil spirits. Muhammad also issued advice to kill the sinful (fawasiq) animal within the holy area (haram) of Mecca.[ref]Jürgen Wasim Frembgen, Völkerkundemuseum. "The Scorpion in Muslim Folklore". Asian Folklore Studies, Volume 63, 2004: 95-123. Munich, Germany.[/ref] --TruthSpreader^Talk 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm looking at the article, and as someone else said, it's looking pretty long. If we absolutely must include information on Mohammed's treatment of animals, could we try to keep it to a few sentences rather than several paragraphs and a header? I'm not sure that most people typing "mohammed" into wikipedia want to know about his treatment of animals beyond what a few sentences could give them. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear, I agree with Patstuart... if folks want to talk about his view on animals then write a couple of lines and link to a breakout article (if necessary). (→Netscott) 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving my comment down: Muhammad is notable for having progressive ideas about animals in his day and in his country. I have heard disturbing stories about how Arabs were sometimes treating animals. Muhammad is notable for making things better. Muslims also know him for his good attitude towards animals so there is nothing wrong with having that section. See, if I have progressive ideas about how animals should be treated, and my ideas turns out to be influential, then my future article in wikipedia should mention them. --Aminz 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Black dogs and gecko finding them very influential.Opiner 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

General comment to Aminz, what does it matter if Muhammad was a little better than the pagan Arabs, if the pagans were really really bad? That doesn't mean that Muhammad wasn't really bad. Arrow740 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Drive by" criticism

I know this is a bit of a drive-by, but I have to say, after reading this article, it is overall one of the weaker pieces of writing on WP. I especially laughed as I read the M Death section (not because of the subject mind you--agnostics don't care much about it anyway) with its opening "One day, while M was coming back from a cemetary...." Frankly this article is LONG and lousy. Looks like a case of trying to please all the people all the time. The tone/voice, whatever need to be a lot more uniform. Menkatopia 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

Also, wanted to point out the lack of any info on Zaynab bint Jahsh, M's cousin and wifeMenkatopia 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

Yes, controversial articles have a way of doing that; I suggest you try to make some changes to the article, and clearly state on the talk page why. Worst case, someone will revert it. I might try myself, but my writing style stinks. Good luck. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a challenge :) I'll give it a shot.Menkatopia 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

Moved to reform section

His reforms and regulations and his progressive ideas (in his day and country) regarding animals is relevant to his bio through the reform section. The comparison with Christianity now is also relevant to the reforms. --Aminz 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Look like no one else think the Christian comparison relevant. Only you who own the article.Opiner 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not only me. Some other wikipedians and Watt and other professors agree that Muhammad is notable for having progressive ideas about animals in his day and in his country. --Aminz 22:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, please start an article and call it Muhammad's animal reforms or equivalent and then add a couple of lines on this article and link to it, ok? (→Netscott) 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively make an article and call it Muhammad the reformer and move all of the reform material there. (→Netscott) 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats a not neutral title.Opiner 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I have already summerized the reforms. For example, please taken a look at the Literary reforms, or women rights. --Aminz 23:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand... the reform section is very big particularly with the animal section. Breaking out the reform section into a new article and giving the new article a neutral title will allow further expansion relative to Muhammad and social reforms. (→Netscott) 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if literary reforms are considered social reforms. Are they? Please let me know what would be the best title. Muhammad and social, literal and moral reforms? --Aminz 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this: Muhammad and social, literal, moral and economic reforms? --Aminz 23:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tough to come up with a neutral title, maybe Muhammad and reforms or The reforms of Muhammad or Reforms instituted by Muhammad. Something along those lines... try to be as concise as possible. (→Netscott) 23:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a word in edgewise without an edit conflict?: Not a bad idea, on the new article, but we'll need to wacth out for a POV fork (I've seen these turn ugly before). If we create the new articles, they will need to have NPOV titles (Mohammed the Reformer implicitly implies he was necessarily a reformer; try Reformations under Mohammed - even Jesus or Martin Luther didn't get the title "reformer") - and we will want to make sure they include all points of view, not just one. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reformations under Muhammad is not a bad title as it allows for the view that others contributed to those reformations. (→Netscott) 23:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Reformations by Muhammad" might be better since I guess Reformations under Muhammad doesn't imply the reformations started by him, (or does it? I am not good in english) --Aminz 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That title would only make sense if no one else contributed to creating the reforms. Meaning if he was the only one to propose them then the "by" would make sense but if not the "under" would make more sense. (→Netscott) 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this "Reformations under Islam" since Muslims believe these are the works of God not Muhammad? --Aminz 23:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that is a bit odd seeing as the source section title is "Muhammad the reformer"... but I suppose that makes sense given NPOV concerns. (→Netscott) 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, the main article for the section "Muhammad the reformer" can be that article. --Aminz 23:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Reformations under Islam is good in my book, I say go with it. :-) (→Netscott) 00:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article was created. Reformation under Islam. --Aminz 00:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved it to Reformations under Islam --Aminz 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :-) (→Netscott) 00:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netscott. Now, We need to summerize each reform in a paragraph in this article. --Aminz 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I would suggest you make one summary "Muhammad the reformer" paragraph and then

Main article: Reformations under Islam

the link to the other article. (→Netscott) 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to write three sentences, at most, on each of the reforms. --Aminz 00:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I would suggest just writing one summary for them all. (→Netscott) 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, Encyclopedia of world history (1998), p.452, oxford university press , summarizes description of Muhammad's prophetic job as : He expanded his mission as a prophet, publicly preaching strict monotheism, preaching against the social evils of his day, and warning of a Day of Judgment when all humans shall be held responsible for their deeds. So, social reforms are important. --Aminz 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, they are so important that are being given their own article. (→Netscott) 00:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Around the size of the section "Western Academic view of Muhammad" would be good? --Aminz 00:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine... obviously you're going to have to work out the wording and length with other editors but I'd say that was a good target size. :-) (→Netscott) 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It will be so compact, but sure. I'll try to do it sometime soon. --Aminz 01:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

{{vprotected}} article until you guys get this under control

Well. It seems that even though earlier today I warned both individuals on their talk pages as well as here on this page, just a few hours ago, to immediately stop edit warring and reach at least something that could be deemed to be in the approximate realm of consensus or the page would be fully protected - It [28] seems [29] I've [30] been [31] completely [32] and [33] utterly [34] ignored.

As such, to prevent any more of the damage edit wars cause this page is fully protected. Sort it out guys  Glen  04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny enough most of the "reform/animal" warring on this article has just been worked out with the creation of another article: Reforms under Islam (610-661). (→Netscott) 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Real problem is Aminz breaking 3RR not caring about the consensus then he get Truthspreader to help him. Now theyve got their not-neutral own article over there and acting the same way. Anything good trumpting from the rooftop, anything bad hiding under the rug. Theyre not even trying to be neutral. Anyone who watch them know this am I wrong?Opiner 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader Double Standard on Hadith

Wikipedia is not democracy! we are simply quoting secondary sources as it is not our job as wikipedians to assert our opinions. We are only guilty of asking others for reputable secondary sources for their claims. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well well well look whose adding the primary sources.[35] You write that hadith 'suggest' something which is your interpretation so original research. No one can accuse you of not being flexible!Opiner 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look like Truthspreader using Hadith all the time! Especially for the original research. Look aat this diff with whole Hadith section.[36].Opiner 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Opiner, this is really my input. Truthspreader originally reverted it for Original Research concers. Please see this [37]. I hold any responsibility regarding the Isra' and Miraj article. Truth just simply has nothing to do with that really. I had to argue a lot with him to have him return my original edits. Again, I will work on improving that poor article sometime. Cheers Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 07:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not democracy!" - true but it has absolutely no relation to a statement like "we are simply quoting secondary sources ...". It means that WP is not ruled via majorities.

"we are simply quoting secondary sources as it is not our job as wikipedians to assert our opinions." conveys a profound misunderstanding of WP's aim and writing by human beings in general. WP aims to be an encyclopedia and as such its editors (i.e. we) are making decisions all the time - which articles to create or to delete, how to organize articles, merge or split them, and yes, what to include or not. WP is not a quotefest. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No compromise on Original Research

Hadith understanding is a complex knowledge. People have developed sophisticated ways of scruitining these hadith and interpreting them and putting them in context. Even historians accept some hadith and some don't. Hence it cannot be compromised on an encylcopedia that hadith be used as a reliable source.

And yes, I used Bukhari hadith suggesting Isra and Mi'raj was a physical journey, which I shouldn't have done so. Other hadith in "quotes" from Bukhari are mentioned in secondary sources, this is why their usage is fine. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You making those edits AT THE SAME TIME that you argue here the exact opposite.Opiner 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already stated that it was my mistake to add the hadith without any reference from secondary source. We had the same discussion on another article and it was concluded that hadith alone cannot be used, it has to be backed up by secondary source even if it is suggesting something clearly (see Talk:Banu_Nadir#Share_of_Muhammad). TruthSpreader^Talk 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you making those edits at the very SAME TIME you argue the opposite here?Opiner 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, this is not the way to go. We need to invite an admin to join in and to force and settle down the dispute. It is unlikely that we come up with an agreement. --Aminz 09:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To be qutie frank, this is getting a little tangential. It's like when arguing with your spouse, and starting to argue about arguing. Let's get back to the issue: should the article talk about Mohammed's kindness to pets, and if so, what should be said? I don't think this should be too hard to form an agreement on. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone would like to have a look at Reforms under Islam (610-661) in which hadith are directly being quoted as reliable sources without considering that how Muslims themselves use it with keeping the context in mind and how western scholars look at them. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. One minute he's inserting pages of direct quotes from hadith, then when Opiner puts in the stuff about Muhammad's hatred of certain animals Truthspreader says "Oh no you can't put that in! You need an expert to interpret it, it's probably not even a reliable hadith, and you can't use a primary source!" Can you ban someone for being a total hypocrite who wastes lots of other peoples' time? Arrow740 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's an unreliable hadith, he should provide a reference for that. And then we can label the hadith as such. But there is no basis for simply censoring it, as even "false" hadith had their impact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the article talk about Muhammad's kindness to pets, and if so, what should be said?

Patstuart has hit the nail on the head. This is the question, let's address it directly, please, and build some consensus. BYT 12:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this serious? How would this angle help us understand Mohammud? What is this angle, anyway: he loved his pets but murdered his brothers? Perchance, could he be the original founder of PETA/ALF? I'm confuthed; explain this all please.DocEss 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy?

I feel this article is much too long. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a book which means it should be easy to find KEY information. XYZ CrVo 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well...fix it then. Criticism is easier than creation.DocEss 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not on certain controversial articles, it's not. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, it's an eyesore to have such a long article that repeats itself often.

So what do we do about it? I suggest a few things could be removed right away. The blurb on etymology could be a stub, and means very little in the context of this page. The sources for muhammads life could also be cut significantly. The information is valid, but needs summarizing. I would like to ask others if this okay to do before I slash some of the minutiae from this section. The discussion between Opiner and Aminz seemed so vitriolic I didn't want to draw anyone's wrath. ;) Specifically, I think the quotes in this section (sources) have very little to do with the purpose of this section, I assume, to explain how we know anything of Muhammad's life. Seems to me, "sources" kind of implies brevity. Anyone feeling paticularly protective of this section. Menkatopia 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly concur. Please be bold and make the changes. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The etymology seems not too bad an idea, as there has been considerable discussion about Mohammed's name. The whole sources for Mohammed's life seems a little silly though, and off-topic. It's like using the word "I" in an essay; we don't want to talk about the fact we're writing an article in an article, we just want to do it. Mohammed's life has nothing to do with contemporary sources on him. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do what i did I talked about the first Hijirah and made a link to a section on Ethiopia and Islam so it was just a sum version of the full article, as opposed to having the full wack here.---Halaqah 11:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected for two days, and there has been 0 discussion. Is this because it's all moved over to Reforms under Islam? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this unprotected as there are many changes to be made. I don't claim to fully understand every nuance of the "debate" above, but it seems like the warring factions ought to take a break and hash out their issues before they do anymore editing on this. Frankly, this article IS too long (as is stated above) and needs work. It sucks to have such a poor example up on WP. I know it is not an endorsement of the page, but there is a tacit implication of that.I vote to unprotect the article--in about three days. Menkatopia 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Menk

Perhaps if the article is re-written to be shorter … it could be much more neutral instead of "all is great" or "all is evil" (this article slants largely towards the former). Much of the warring is due to no one can find balance (I do not know the final effect of bias parties has on this). C'est la vie. Nonprof. Frinkus 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Previously

Aminz wrote in my talk page:

"Aws and Khazraj were now a new community, Umma, the relation of which with Jewish tribes was specified. For example when Qurayza were attacked, Aws didn't helped them (cause they were on the other side; the Umma). You may also want to read the source. Can I put previously back? --Aminz 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

No, obviously you can't, if you are really asking for my permission.

• Yes, the Aws were now part of the Muslim Umma, but that doesn't mean that objectively their ties to their allies, the Khazraj were cut. Which obligation was ranked higher than the other is another matter - we know what the Islamic view on this, what M.'s view on this was, but that doesn't mean there were no ties. We know that the Aws did not help the attacked Jews but rather joined in the attack but again, this only means that they sided with M. first. In the case of the Qunayqa, Abdullah - who was a Muslim - interceded on their behalf and saved their lives. Yes, M. did not like that and it turned his face black but still, the ties existed. In the case of the Qurayza, some of the Aws pleaded, which is ample evidence that the ties were not cut, at least not from their perspective. M. does not define reality, even with a black face, even though his changes eventually prevailed (for good or ill, that is not for to decide here).
• Finally, the addition of previously is unreferenced as well, so calling on me to provide a source is applying a double standard. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be back with what the source actually says. --Aminz 09:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not dodge one side of the issue. To make it clear I will organize above posting into the two points. You should respond to both. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Watt says: "Indeed there seems to have been a strong desire in various sections of the Aws to honour their old alliance with Qurayza. Muhammad met this feeling by ..."

2. When did I ask for source? --Aminz 09:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Aminz,

I think it's better if you place your arguments here on the talk page and only a heads up on my user talk page. It is also simpler for you. Thanks.

1. As for the quote: Watt says that and there is nothing in that quote that suggests a cutting of the old ties. He just says that this alliance was an old one, not that it was one that was ended. Maybe superseded in some regards by Islam but not cut. Therefore I think Watt does not warrant the inclusion of the word "previously", which implies such an ending.

2. Sorry for misreading you.

Hope that satisfies you. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

How is this:

" Watt writes that some of the Arab tribe of Aws wanted to honour their old alliance with Qurayza, " --Aminz 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay by me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Does this case still require mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It still requires mediation. I wish to have some results. I am not removing pictures because we are in the middle of mediation. Please do not close it. --- ALM 11:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I have notices that article does not have any picture of Muhammad. If we can keep its current state then it will be great. --- ALM 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, we can't. It is the usual thing for an article to have pictures of its subject. M. is no exception. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So from above difference of opinion you can see that we still need mediation to continue. Please have some results because we have in edit-wars on it since a long time here. --- ALM 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there two mediation cases? I see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and the one Ideogram mentions above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The two are the same. If you look at the case page you can see that it directs conversation to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. --Ars Scriptor 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is just like Ars Scriptor and our old mediator User:Aguerriero are same. :) :). --- ALM 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with the dispute

Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression). I will appreciate it. --- ALM 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Tribes of Medina

The section "Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Medina" in my opinion, is really dragging down this article. Frankly, I don't see how it fits, or why most of the info is included. Could someone explain this? AND, if it is so important, why isn't this its own article? First, I'd like to get it out because it reads like a picture book, not a, encyclopedic entry. I want some responses b4 I do anything too drastic. Menkatopia 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is important to this biographical article as it discusses the events through which Muhammad established himself as the ruler of Madina and found the first Islamic state. It is too long, poorly written and, at turns, palpably biased (e.g. "his status as a prophet") Several of the quotes in particular should not be there. However, attempts to fix this have been met with edit warring.Proabivouac 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is a mess because some editors insisted on including every avaiable apologetic quote on the events, even if the information was already included and even if the content was only tangential to the section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And the above comments are a pretty good one-sided narration of the story :) --Aminz 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking is could this be severely trimmed and moved to a mani article on the Jewish tribes? I understand that the basic concept of this section is necessary to understand Muhammad, but this is ridiculous. I don't care about the debate, just looking at the language, this sucks. That's pretty negative, but I think this section is the problem. After reading it again, I think this info could be summarized in about three or four paragraphs. Seems like the bias would dissappear as it shortened. I might try something this week w/ it. Just wanted to give a bit of justification b4 I went nuts. (and pat, don't tell me to be bold ;) )Menkatopia 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy for using extremist sites

WP:RS states, "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." Hence, faithfreedom and answering-islam.org can only be used to describe their own activities and characteristics but not to comment on other articles, as WP:RS and WP:V policies have to be followed in every case. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The content is being reverted again and again. can someone please look into this matter! TruthSpreader^Talk 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

done! and thanks to User:Tom harrison. --TruthSpreader^Talk 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortening of Family life section

This section does need to be shortened, because there's a main article to cover all the details and the article as a whole is too long. Surely we can work together to do this without wholesale reverts?Itsmejudith 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a novel concept, let's take out all the stuff that is essentially meaningless in this article. Sorry for the sarcasm, but a lot of my work was rv'd, I feel, unnecessarily. I removed the social security and family structure because it absolutely useless as it is written. I am so sick of reading "So and so, a professor of Islamic minutiae says...." What we need is not all this discussion of POV, but real restraint. Less is indeed more. I move to begin by removing this section and placing a quotefarm tag under Muhammad the Reformer. I did this, but Charlotte Webb thought this was just too much. I don't know what was wrong with my edits, but I would like to see them taken as suggestions, if anyone cares to comment.

Also, I would love to see about 95% of these quotes disappear. Most are just long-winded pablum that could be expressed as a citation. Menkatopia 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does he look like?

Why aren't there any paintings or pictures of what he looks like? Surely some exist. 64.236.245.243 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There exist but the first recorded one dates back to sometime around the 15th or 16th century. Depicting at his times was not a custom so what you may find may have nothing to do w/ how he really looked like. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam strictly prohibits depictions of prophets, see the problems with showing Jesus (a white Jesus) Islam protects itself from this problem in a very smart way. It is sinful to draw any prophet. I think it is a very smart solution then no one can claim rank or no race can claim "i am closer to the prophet" or "i have hair like the Prophet"--Halaqah 14:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

However, that is no basis for keeping depictions out of this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is 100% because it would be offensive, and anyone that do it would clearly be looking to start trouble. apply your freedom of speech to your own prophets, I dont understand if because you can you do, u respect cultures and customs. why r naked women offensive, what about showing pictures of dead children? what rules and regulations stop people from doing this? right Europeans human rules, but technically i could argue whats the problem, why dont we put sex pictures up here as well? because we respect traditions of cultures. Europe is not the only culture, and the culture of Islam doesnt show pictures of Muhammad, and that is that, period, across the board because 1.5 billion people said so.--Halaqah 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a longish discussion on this. However, your posting doesn't add anything to it. Your views are not in line with WP policy. As for "your own prophets", why don't you restrict yourself to your prophet Muhammad and leave all the others that are not your prophets alone. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My revert to User:CmdrObot

I've just done a significant revert to remove copyright violating text but my revert was also directed at what User:Xtremeownage was reverting to. Referring to Muhammad in this article as a "pervert" is a form of subtle anachronistic vandalism. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other about there being a criticism section in this article relative to Muhammad but if the section is going to include polemical references that refer anachronistically to Muhammad as a "pervert" then I'm going to be removing that section. (→Netscott) 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing mentioned about anachronistic vandalism in the Wikipedia:Vandalism policies. There are critics who call Mohammad a pervert. Whether you think he should be judged anachronistically is irrevelant. If you believe so, say so as a response and cite it. But many critics of Mohammad view him as a "pervert" and that is why it is included.--Sefringle 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee that not only will I be removing such nonsense but a good number of other editors here will as well. Such nonsense stems from widely acknowledged extremist organizations and individuals and as such it is within Wikipedia policy to remove it. (→Netscott) 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So Times Online is an extremist website?--Sefringle 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali's not considered moderate (but is considered a partisan) when referring to Muhammad as "a pervert". Selfringle perhaps you fail to realize, we're here to write an encyclopedia not engage in soapboxery. Your addition of such material is soapboxing. (→Netscott) 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a notable critic. I believe her opinion is valid in this context and does not violate the soapbox policy. She is only being used for the purpose of NPOV--Sefringle 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are using her for NPOV, what about using others who doesn't agree with early marriage age (see Aisha's age at marriage). Secondly, Ayaan Ali is not a scholar at all. Her position as a critic is not notable, she is just a politician. Otherwise, someone would start giving references from Christian medievel era, where Muhammad was maligned alot and many of the personalities are well-known. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention them as a second opinion. Are all critics of Islam not scholars in your opinion TruthSpreader?--Sefringle 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott and me are just asking for a scholarly reference to criticize. And secondly, being notable doesn't make your scholarly. You need to use Reliable secondary and Verifiable sources. You can still refer someone, if he/she is not notable, but refered article is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is notable and there is validity in many of her criticisms of Islam but it certainly is not scholarly (meaning: not encyclopedic) when she's referring to Muhammad as "a pervert". That is a no-brainer. (→Netscott) 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ayaan's statement is not only not scholarly but not a descriptive statement at all, but gives a judgement on some event in Muhammad's life. As such it is valid as a criticism (because it's notable) but not as a fact in the general narrative. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST PAGE PROTECTION

This site is clearly attracting a lot of bored idiots, protect the page.--Halaqah 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just calm down Halaqah. Semi-protected now. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)