Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

"He is a prophet in Islam"

The purpose of this altered sentence is clear: it changed the (awkwardly phrased) assertion that Muhammad is considered a prophet in the religion known as Islam to the tendentious assertion that Muhammad is a prophet who has submitted to God. Neither the original sentence nor its tendentious alteration were necessary, as the following sentence characterizes the Islamic belief about Muhammad's role in greater detail. Hence, I have removed it.Proabivouac 08:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA has restored the sentence, "He is a prophet in Islam." Ignoring the wink to the sentiments of believers, this is a strange sentence by the standards of English language prose. How can we justify its inclusion, considering that the very next line is, "Muslims do not regard him as the founder of a new religion, but rather believe him to be the last in a line of prophets of God?"Proabivouac 09:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because you are edit warring. --BostonMA ^talk 09:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I was in the process of re-reverting your blanket undoing of edits when BostonMA beat me to it. I agree with the "restore the images" but leave the rest.. thinking that was expressed in the edit summary. (→Netscott) 09:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, it has become a well-known trick in these spaces that reverts of one thing are used as covers for reverts of others. Nowadays, even reverts of blatant vandalism must be scrutinized to see if something else has been included in the rollback. That was not my intention; rather, copying and pasting the old images to their previous locations proved more trying then reproducing the minor edits since, so I started with the version revert. I was not given a chance to restore the other edits, such as the well-deserved death of the tendentious and poorly sourced "pervert" section, your clarification of southern Spain (though I maintain that the Arabic translationi is unnecessary, and arguably tendentious, this we can discuss), the correction of "The" to "the", and the sprotect template.Proabivouac 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. How do you suppose the images were removed to begin with, if not by edit warring (by anons no less)? You must take responsibility for your own edits, as I did when Truthspreader challenged me to restore minor edits. You have now added the sentence "He is a prophet in Islam," and are censoring images while meditation is underway. The images issue is a botomless pit, as you've played it, we are by now well aware of the real reasons, so I ask only: why did you add the tendentious and unnecessary sentence, "He is a prophet in Islam?"Proabivouac 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to NPOV the wording we can say he is a prophet to followers of Islam? (→Netscott) 09:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what it said to begin with, "He is considered a prophet in Islam." Of course, your formulation is better, in that it refers to real-world entities (followers) instead of to an abstract space. Still better would be to rephrase this as an active sentence, with the followers as the subject and Muhammad as the object. And lo, exactly this is done in the very next sentence.Proabivouac 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The situation is ridiculously hilarious! Now we cannot even say that Muhammad is a prophet in Islam. :D I think netscotts opinion is also worth trying in satisfying some of our wikipedians, who even want to NPOV a statment like "Muhammad is a prophet in Islam" :D TruthSpreader^Talk 09:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one do not believe Muhammad to have been a "Prophet in Islam," in the way this sentence is clearly meant (otherwise, it is only redundant junk.) BostonMA, or Truthspreader, why should the article state, "He is a prophet in Islam?", when the very next sentence makes Islamic belief clear? This seems to me a decidely tendentious edit.Proabivouac 09:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Or For Muslims and Bahá'ís he is a prophet in their respective religions (→Netscott) 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But I can't even understand that whats the problem with the first statement. Whether it is a POV or whatever, it is a fact! And I would like to see someone who would disagree with "Muhammad is a prophet in Islam". Anyone? TruthSpreader^Talk 10:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really see a problem myself. (→Netscott) 10:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, you are well aware of the double entendre which is present and intended here, that Muhammad is a prophet who has submitted to the will of God ("in Islam".) The very next sentence reads, "Muslims do not regard him as the founder of a new religion, but rather believe him to be the last in a line of prophets of God." What information does the manifestly awkward sentence, "He is a prophet in Islam," add to this besides the insinuation of accordance with the will of God? If these insinuations exist only in my imagination (doubtful), then the sentence contains no information at all that is not present in the following sentence. In which case, why restore it?Proabivouac 10:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tis true that the first sentence is a bit redundant. (→Netscott) 10:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It tells in clear way the basic article of Muslim belief. It is a useful piece of information as it tells in concise and clear way the stature of Muhammad in Islam (as he is not considered son of God or God, for example, but a prophet and a human). TruthSpreader^Talk 10:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this not made even more clear in the next sentence, "Muslims do not regard him as the founder of a new religion, but rather believe him to be the last in a line of prophets of God," which, were it not for the restoration of, "He is a prophet," would be the first in this paragraph?Proabivouac 10:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise that reads in an encylopedic way however I am not sure it will hold. (→Netscott) 11:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence is as awkward and unnecessary as what it replaced, but it is at least neutral.Proabivouac

Well I adjusted it since this last comment of yours was made and now I see that User:Itsmejudith has done a fine job of tying it all together. (→Netscott) 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aisha criticism

I see no reason why there needs to be a "criticism" section at all. If there are controversial facts, they should be stated neutrally in the body of the article, not as points of partisan contention. One indispensable corrollary of this is that other editors not interested in criticism must allow this to be done. We have, "After Khadija's death, Muhammad married Aisha, the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr," then later in the hideously convoluted Marriages section, "Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib." Only in this context can the need for "criticism" be sustained. We should instead write, "After Khadija's death, Muhammad married Aisha, the six year old daughter of Abu Bakr." The opinions of today's critics is as irrelevant as that of today's apologists; let people discuss and debate the moral significance of the facts over dinner after having read a neutral and informative article. This approach would represent a significant change from common practices and attitudes on this article. If it is to ever be a good article, we must all start looking at this subject clinically, and leave our judgements and insecurities out of it.Proabivouac 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Spellberg is not a apologist. And secondly, the book is published by Columbia University. You should first read that book or atleast read its review in JSTOR. Spellberg has examined all the traditions of Aisha in classical Muslim record, and her work is one of a kind. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if we remove all criticism, we will have to remove so much other imformation for the purpose of NPOV, that this article would no longer be informative. It is better in this case to just leave the criticism section and give all viewpoints.--Sefringle 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You completely miss the point of NPOV. Having criticism and praise does not produce NPOV. Criticism should not be a part of this because it is polemics. Knowing that Muhammad was criticized for having a 6 year old wife is not the point. The point is that Muslim sources differ about how old she was 6/7 etc. and when it was consummated. Western scholars look at the aging debates within Islam in different ways and as part of a Muslim narrative vis-a-vis their prophet. The criticism section is written as a juvenile and unencyclopedic back and forth: Muir said Muhammad was sincere in Mecca but not Medina. Spencer says he was a pedophile because he married Aisha but Mr. Muslim says he was a good man cementing ties with his ally. Criticism is mostly not encyclopedic. It can have its own articles specifically about the discourse of criticism but it does not fit in an overview. This doesn't mean that Muhammad is portrayed as a great man. No, he is portrayed as 1) the Muslim narratives view him and 2) as academic historians have reconstructed history. Obviously religion breeds narratives and not history as we conceive of it in modern times. When we present these things it gives people a chance to use their own judgment. gren グレン 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of extraneous praise in this article which is likewise unencyclopedic. However, I would guess that the same editors which will fight to remove criticism will fight to retain this (even where it duplicates material from another article, see the topic below).Proabivouac 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite possible. Want to give some examples? I think it would be good if we could clean both of those things up. gren グレン 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to distinguish between two kinds of criticism here. One associated with different analyses of events and action of the protagonist, and the other dissociated from it, more akin to polemics. The Jewish tribes issue I would classify within the former, the Aisha issue within the latter group. The former is indispensable for the article, the latter is not. However, it is more feasible to also include the latter in a short and concise criticism & controversy section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet in a move which has made this article even less neutral, the entire section about the events in Madina has been reduced more or less to "Muhammad did battle with some Jews."Proabivouac 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What i find extremily offensive is that this article takes a false hadith (that muslims believe as false) as the truth. Aisha was between the ages of 14-20 years old when she got married to Muhammad. Muslims admit that their were a few false hadiths that were corrupted over time (such as this one). Please take off this nonsense.

Also might i add that other religious figures do not have any criticism section. Why Muhammad? This is not a neutral article. But an offensive one.

When was he born and when did he die?????

They don't want you to know this, but he was poisoned and after living in pain for three years, eventually died of it. According to the sahih hadith. Arrow740 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadith do not established that he died because of that. There is no poison that we know can keep man live for 3 years and then ... Finally, and more importantly we Muslim believe that a person cannot if Allah do not want him to die. Hence even if he dies with poisoned then there is nothing wrong with it so why should we want to hide it? There is no reason to hide it but hadith do not establish it. --- 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad the Reformer (MOVED)

Most or all of this material duplicates material found in the article Reforms under Islam. As the article is said to be too long, this would seem a natural place to start trimming it. We should aim to summarize this material in a paragraph or two.Proabivouac 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend not trimming the article unless the dispute by mediation committee is solved at above mentioned article and there is no haste to do so. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is happening because the article isnt neutral. Why can we think now its neutral here? Because the mediation about it not being neutral?Opiner 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that section has serious problems. Namely the scope issue I mentioned on its talk page. While it says reforms of Muhammad it really just means reforms under Islam that are ascribed to his name. Some jurist in 850 AD makes a ruling and its the reform of Muhammad because "that's what he really meant". It's a silly section because it's inherently political since it's only Muhammad's reform in order for someone to use his name for legitimacy. It bugs me because this just isn't how an encyclopedia should be written. It is us, the writers of an encyclopedia, legitimizing the course of Islamic history by agreeing that it's what the prophet wanted. If we were writing this in 2100 and the "liberal Muslims" have won out worldwide promoting a more sodomy-friendly Islam are we going to say that "this is what Muhammad wanted" and then quote some Qur'an quote as if it had to be interpreted in such a way? My opinion about this section would be to incorporate some of the relevant things into Muhammad's life and explain that "X report in the sira or whatnot was taken by later jurists to mean Y". This way the agency is given to whom we know made the religious decree--not retrojected onto the prophet. Firstly we're assuming that some hadith or Qur'an verse is true. Then we're assuming that later interpretations of it were what Muhammad wanted! I suppose this annoys me more than it does others. gren グレン 00:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify the exact reforms which you think later scholars did. Of course, in general, Muhammad didn't accomplish everything but he designed the conceptual structure. Watt writes: "there is Muhammad's wisdom as a statesman. The conceptual structure found in the Qur'an was merely a framework. The framework had to support a building of concrete policies and concrete institutions. In the course of this book much has been said about Muhammad's far-sighted political strategy and his social reforms. His wisdom in these matters is shown by the rapid expansion of his small state to a world-empire after his death, and by the adaptation of his social institutions to many different environments and their continuance for thirteen centuries."

So, as you can see, Watt says that what happened later also reflected Muhammad's far-sights and their flexibility. But anyways, Could you please specify the exact reforms which you think later scholars did. --Aminz 04:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The history from that time is blurry. The prophet is the origin and it's clear that something from early period 600-700 caused great changes that led to the Arab conquests--but we don't have Muslim comprehensive historical records until Ibn Ishaq as digested by Ibn Hisham--more or less.

Take for instance this from the article: "Muhammad's "insistence that each person was personally accountable not to tribal customary law but to an overriding divine law shook the very foundations of Arabian society". How, under Islam, do we know that people aren't accountable to tribal customary law? You have the interpretation of Qur'anic verses and hadith through jurisprudence or some other manner. Who wrote the Qur'an? More importantly what influence was had on hadith and sira by people who represent Muhammad's life? Few Western scholars take hadith to be true; too many supernatural things happen happen in many of the collections. There are layers of interpretation that inform our reality of the time.

When you say Muhammad made X reform it is not the same as saying Bill Clinton made X reform (also, you're ignoring the other factors of the time but that's less important). We have video tape of Clinton and can see the things he tried to initiate. For Muhammad we have late accounts. Because scholars don't fully know that much Muhammad becomes a proxy to represent agency during the rise of Islam. Scholars go about this in different degrees of explicitness and some, no doubt, believe that there was a man named Muhammad with exceptional agency who single handedly changed the system right then/right there and didn't just inspire the changes that we can clearly see existed in society by 800.

Look at the Islam and slavery section under reform. It says, "Lewis, however, states that Islam brought". Islam brought / Muhammad brought. That is not ascribed to Muhammad so it shouldn't be there. I do believe that Islam and Muhammad are often interchanged to mean the early processes that brought about change. Historians have pretty much rejected the great man theory of history. It makes for good writing (people buy books called The Truth about Muhammad not The Truth about the Social Processes Leading to the Arab Revolts). You have to know the historian very well to know how exactly they mean "Muhammad reformed"--whether they are referring to him as a proxy or not. We also can't have any of that stated as fact because it is deeply contested information.

Aminz, I am not arguing that any one scholar did something special. I'm arguing that pinning all of this social change on one man is a complete misrepresentation about how modern academics do history. It would be just as bad if I argued that "Ibn Hisham is completely responsible for all of the changes that developed in early Islam". The reform section--without contestation--argues that Muhammad created all of these changes. It does not mention the possibility that these reforms really happened when the Arabs were exposed to cultures with far more developed: monetary systems, ways of governance, sciences, etc. Not that any of us have good enough knowledge to make this more neutral instead of positing the great man theory. gren グレン 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we leave this whole discussion to scholars (by this I mean peer-reviewed sources) as wikipedians are not asked to solve such philosophical problems. We are here to quote stuff from reliable and verifiable sources. And if you think that reformists don't use Ibn Hisham or hadith literature, that would be wrong as well. They use more hadith literature than traditionalists e.g. to show female roles in Muhammad's time. Sometimes, the problem is not in the literature, the problem is in the interpretation. Hence, I find this debate quite futile and the topic under discussion is beyond the scope of wikipedia. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not outside the scope at all. To imply that we can leave this to the scholars is foolhardy. We have a hand in representing this. This is not we place the scholars on the table and they battle for truth and NPOV is served. There are many more reliable sources than we will ever use in this article and just by citing 100 reliable sources does not mean that we have an accurate representation. The problem is in the (our) interpretation--which is what I'm complaining about.

Look, let's fix the simple stuff first. I haven't just summarily removed this in order not to be provocative--but it should be removed if we are claiming that we need to pin these reforms on the man, Muhammad. The slavery section needs to go. It doesn't give any reference to Muhammad's agency--it just say the Qur'an makes reference to and regulates slavery. What does that have to do with Muhammad? What does it matter if pre-Islamic Arabian law gave women no rights and Islamic law did--how is that a reform of Muhammad? It's a reform of early Islamic society, not necessarily Muhammad. This whole section makes my point perfectly. It says about Islamic law gave women rigths--not Muhammad. The Dale Eickelman doesn't talk about Muhammad's reforms--it talks about the reforms of early Islam. Frederick M. Denny talks about the concept of ummah, not Muhammad's reforms. Michael Bonner talks about what the Qur'an says about economics--not Muhammad. You do notice something is seriously wrong here if this is all about Muhammad as a reformer? In fact, there are very few quotes that are actually talking about Muhammad as the reformer. They are saying early Islam created many reforms. YES! I am not disagreeing with much of this stuff. Early Islam led to many reforms but this is talking about Muhammad's reforms. I expect if we are going to keep this that everything will be linked to Muhammad as the agent of reform and that it will state that he made the reform--not just that it was done in his name after he died. (Because over a thousand years of Islamic reforms have been done in Muhammad's name). This section doesn't talk about Muhammad's reforms--it talks about the reforms of early Islam. These are two different things. gren グレン 09:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The secular scholarship doesn't believe explicitly that Qur'an is a divine book and hence they believe that it is written by Muhammad. So when it is said that Qur'an brought the changes, it means Muhammad is involved in the process (that also includes the concept of umma). More over this, secular scholarship also considers Qur'an a better source of Muhammad's life than hadith literature. Secondly, even if you talk about early Islamic community, there is an aspect of exemplifying Muhammad in Muslim society. And if you look at the sections closely, there are examples from hadith literature as well e.g. Muhammad's free market ideology, how that fits into quranic understanding of money flow from top to bottom. Just to give you an idea that how much slavery was changed within life of Muhammad, kindly read this section, which is quoted from a secondary source, but it is all written as per hadith literature and quranic directives: Islam_and_slavery#Mukatabat. Most reforms were carried out in Muhammad's own life and then it deterioted and not the other way around, and I haven't read anything against this hypothesis as this is what all scholarly sources suggest. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No! secular scholars don't say that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an! It's by no means implied. There are different hypotheses on it. It was written by the community, it was written by him. It was fragments put together over time. It was oral history eventually written down. There are late and early datings for it. Secular scholars believe the Qur'an has an earlier date than hadith but it doesn't talk much about Muhammad directly... and it has always been contextualized by hadith. So the fact that they date it earlier doesn't mean it's a good biography. You are also equating "changed within the life of Muhammad" with "changed by Muhammad". They are not the same thing. You are positing a theory of the gold age of Muhammad and you are turning this into hagiography. I don't see how all scholarly sources suggest this--in fact, I don't even see how your sources suggest this. gren グレン 11:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Within just one paragraph you nullified all the sources about Muhammad! But I will say which I said earlier that this article is not written from reformist point of view rather it is written on the basis of reliable and verifiable sources. And who says that what article is not implying the picture depicted by Ibn Hisham or hadith literature? We, as wikipedians, just need to use these reliable resources to write about Muhammad, as Ibn Hishan, Qur'an, and hadith literature are all primary sources and hence beyond the scope of wikipedia! TruthSpreader^Talk 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have stated earlier couple of times, that we need to benefit from research methodology that has been developed in the last one century to scrutinize historical events. What are the methodologies, that's not our concern, but these resources published by renowned world research centers must benefit all of us. Hence, if a traditionalist Muslim scholar writes something about Muhammad, he can be as much polemic as a non-muslim scholar from medievel ages. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gren, I am sorry to get back to you late. I am swamped now (will reply to your comments in detail soon). It is of course true that there were other factors involving in these reforms. For example, Arabia was already in a transition state and very prone to change at the time of Muhammad. Monotheistic ideas were to some extent being spreaded in Arabia. In some cases, Islam just made the reforms to happen faster. But given all that, such a great reform wouldn't have happened without Muhammad. Also, as far as I know, we do have a good knowledge of Arabia after Muhammad. I think Crone, et all are really in minority. Unlike the Bible, there is not much debate in Academia over the authenticity of the Qur'an. The theories you are refering to (such as Qur'an written by a community not by Muhammad himself), I believe, are in significant minority in Academia. The Cambridge History of Islam and other sources(such as F.E. Peters) I've seen even don't mention them. One thing all scholars agree and that is we don't know much about pre-islamic Arabia. I feel you are giving undue weight to minority views. --Aminz 05:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, what to you mean: "Unlike the Bible, there is not much debate in Academia over the authenticity of the Qur'an." Authenticity?

Do mean authenticity as Revelation from On High? That's not really a scholarly question but one of faith.

Or authenticity as regards the veracity of the claims about the author?

True, there is debate about some books of the Bible being by other authors than the one given (2 Peter, for instance). There is some debate about the author of various books that either don't give an author or only an ambiguous note (e.g. who is John in the Revelation to John). However, the (or most) books of the Old Testament are undisputed between Jews and Christians, and the New Testament clearly stems from the first few decades after Jesus' ministry and death. And, in the end, these disputes are of no consequence, as Christianity is not the religion of a book but a religion of a man, whom Christians worship as the incarnation of the eternal word of God (if that sounds familiar, see Quran).

As for the Quran, the common view is that it was assembled under Uthman and pretty much gives an authentic view of what Muhammad uttered as Revelation (and I agree with that, with the caveat that we have a road of transportation from the mouth of Muhammad to the actual letters in that book, via oral tradition and the editing by Uthman). There are some scholars holding different views but you are right that most accept the origin with Muhammad. However, that still leads us with Muhammad as the author and sometimes IMHO his limited understanding shows in that book as any human beings's limitation would. Whether this is a problem since Islam and the Quran claim to be dictated directly and verbatim by God through the angel Gabriel (in contrast to the Jewish and Christian idea of inspiration) you have to answer for yourself. Certainly academia does not commonly accept that God dictated the Quran. So you are right: there is no debate about the Quran's authenticity because the claims put forth by it are not seriously entertained.

In any case, the difficulty remains in how far, certain reforms can be directly attributed to Muhammad. However, I would tend to say: if it is in the Quran and constitutes a change (for better or worse) implemented during his lifetime (or shortly thereafter) this belongs into the article.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm probably being frustrating (and somewhat frustrated) but I'm really not trying to be. I am not arguing for a Crone thesis. I am arguing that the one-man-theory thesis provided by this section 1) misrepresents academic study of Muhammad and 2) even misrepresents the sources that our being cited in the article! I am not arguing that Muhammad did not make some of these reforms. (That would be just as bad as arguing that he did unequivocally make them). I am arguing that there is not academic consensus on what exactly Muhammad did. If you look at the language of most of the authors we have cited they will often say things like the Qur'an changes, Islam brought X change to pre-Islamic society. Can we at least agree that those articles are not calling Muhammad a reformer? TruthSpreader is just wrong when he says that Western scholars believe Muhammad wrote the Qur'an because they don't believe it's divinely inspired. Some might but that's not a universal. We cannot make the assumption that when an academic is talking about early Islam that they are arguing that the historical person of Muhammad did something. Look at the section on Slavery, it doesn't even mention Muhammad. All I ask is that we try to give the picture that there is debate about this (which there is). I think TruthSpreader is being belligerent. I am not nullifying the sources. I am just presenting the view that academia does not uniformly accept hadith/sira/maghazi literature as true. It's really not too radical of an idea. He seems to think that we are using modern research methods--we're not. We are not presenting a view of history, but instead we are trying to represent the field of views. This article represent that Muhammad was a reformer with tons of agency without questioning it. That is a problem.

Here is one issue I would like to throw out that I don't know the answer to. History like all academic fields (should) exhibit progress. Therefore it's not safe to weight all academic theories equally. I think all of us here are suffering from a lack of knowledge about how academia is progressing. Just like CltFn wouldn't believe that the Hagarism thesis did not fully progress and doesn't really exist today as a big issue I think there are many other such things that we don't know. We can read a book written in 1961 but does academia still debate its thesis or is there a consensus about it? Also, people like Esposito are fine for writing about the legacy of the prophet but he is not a scholar who studies his early life.

Just to sum up, I'm really not trying to unduly emphasize the revisionists. I am trying to say that we cannot just say that "Muhammad did this" quoting a scholar and think that makes it uncontested truth. This is all contested and not just from fringe elements. Since this obviously isn't going to be cleaned up in the first time I ask that we start removing things that aren't talking about Muhammad (such as the slavery section) because Muhammad isn't the Qur'an or early Islam (he is a part of it). gren グレン 11:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Academics are very guarded in attributing ideas or practices to Muhammad, since our only evidence for such things comes hundreds of years later AND because Muslims have historically argued about religion by arguing about Muhammad. If it could be shown that Muhammad did X, then X was the right thing to do. If you were in favor of X, there was great temptation to "find" a hadith that supported you. WP can't regard such claims for Muhammad uncritically. We can say that some Muslims believe Muhammad did X, but we can't say Muhammad did X. Zora 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gren, of course, I agree that there is a degree of uncertainty there. Sure, academics are viewing the hadith literature with caution. But I am really cofused. Let's discuss the points one by one. F.E. Peters, in the article The Quest for Historical Muhammad states:

Why, then, is there such apparent skepticism about retrieving the actual words of Jesus from the Gospels, while there is no similar debate about the Quran, which is generally thought to represent what issued from Muhammad’s mouth as “teachings” in the interval from A.D. 610 to 632? Indeed, the search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance. This is not to say, of course, that since those pre-Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, large “invented” portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. This latter charge has, in fact, been made by certain Shia Muslims who fail to find in the Quran any explicit reference to the designation of Ali as the Prophet’s successor and so have alleged tampering.’ However, the argument of the latter is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.’

... To sum up at this point: the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation, while the Gospels not only describe the life of Jesus but contain some arguably authentic sayings or teachings of Jesus.

My impression of "the Quran is convincingly the words of Muhammad", "a few have failed to be convinced that..." is that there must be a strong POV in academia that the Quran is what Muhammad spoke. I would be happy to see learn more on this if you can help me with sources. Thanks --Aminz 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Aminz do you need to deprecate the Gospels and Jesus using liberal so-called scholarship in order to alleviate your religion of Islam and the Quran? Can't your retain your faith without that. Can't you make your case without it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I thought I responded to this weeks ago. Firstly, Str1977, I don't think he was trying to be insulting. Aminz, I read half of the Peters article--. I need to finish it and read some of his other stuff. I will admit that I have not read enough to know what the feelings of the academics are about this issue. I do know that Crone, Wansbrough, Cook, Rippin, etc. are all on the skeptical side... I need to figure out who does a lot of work on the origins... rather than just take their view from another. I don't fully know if Peters is saying that most people believe that... he does mention Wansbrough as not mainstream. I don't know if he means that most people think it is Muhammad's words or if he is talking about most believe it was written earlier contra the claims of Wansbrough. Do you happen to have a list of people who have done 'primary' analysis? gren グレン 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't unfortunately have the list but based on Peters words, except a minority others accept Qur'an as Muhammad's words. Cheers, --Aminz 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we archive some of this?

This talk page is as long as the main article. Could most of this be archived so we can politely argue like reasonable church mice? Menkatopia 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Temple Mount

Irishpunktom is saying the Roman temple replaced the Temple Mount and says its only remaining as a wall![1]. Its the mountain a building cant be replacing it!Opiner 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A mount cannot be destroyed (unless you really mean to do it and take a lot of trouble, which no one has done). Furthermore, the Roman Temple was destroyed again by Constantine when he restored Jerusalem. The surrounding structures are not identical with the Temple either of the Lord or of Jupiter. Stop the denial of history. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's... complex? When you say built atop the Jewish Temple Mount it is trying to emphasize a certain imagery of a Muslim site on a legitimately Jewish landmark. Which isn't to say that's necessarily a bad thing. Early Muslims might very well have emphasized it roots as originally Temple of Daud or whatnot, I'm not sure. But, I think the mentioning that it's on the Temple Mount as opposed to some phrase like "Esplanade des mosquées" -- which is what the French use, only needs to be done when it's relevant. For this article it should just be simple: "The Dome of the Rock, marking the spot from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to paradise." It really doesn't matter in the least where the Dome was built... that's an issue for the Dome of the Rock article--not the Muhammad one. gren グレン 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter, maybe the Dome could be built somewhere else? BTW, who built the Temple? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, Constantine I was a Roman emperor, and calling it a roman building is more accurate than its current description. Actually, the most accurate would be to say that it was built atop the Sakhrah, because thats where it gets its name from and thats why it was built there. I added that before and it was removed.--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure Constantine was a Roman Emperor. How does that contradict what I wrote. Still the place was the Temple Mount and under Julian Apostata a last attempt of rebuilding failed. The place was left unused until the conquest by the Muslims, exactly because it was the spot of the Temple, whose destruction Jesus had prophesied. As Sakhrah - this rock is part of the Temple Mount, which - as I said before - is not a building but a landmark. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sakhrah is the reason the Dome of the rock is there and not where the Al Aqsa masjid is. The Sakhrah is more important in this relation than the mount. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You might still not get it, but the rock is part of the mount. No mount, no rock. And the rock is important to Muslims because M. supposedly travelled to paradise from there. And why from there? Because it is the spot of the Jewish Temple, the spot whereto Muslims prayed before M. fell out with the Jews, the place where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. There are countless rocks in the world - why this rock. Because of the history of the Temple Mount. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you don't get it! - If the rock was elsewhere the dome would be elsewhere. No Rock no Dome - The Rock is the most important feature here, not the mount. The rock is the important thing here.. The rock, not mount, nor the roman ruins, nor the western wailing wall, but the rock. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But the rock is in no way special if it were not for the real and supposed events on it. For Muslims the important event is Muhammad's supposed ascent. But why did he ascent there and not from the Kaaba. The answer is: because it was the site of the Temple. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not because it was the Jewish temple... but because it was David's temple. Which, would be very different things. It's not something that can be explained in an image caption. gren グレン 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I wasn't saying it doesn't matter where it was built. I am saying it doesn't matter for the image caption. We could write pages about it but we want a concise and accurate caption. Dome of the Rock should deal with issues of what it was built on. gren グレン 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

The Hagia Sophia was originally a Catholic Cathedral, then after the Great Schism it became a Greek Orthodox church, then, following the Muslim victory in the battle of Constantinople it became a Mosque, and now it is a Museum. Why are we selectively omitting parts of history allowing a false indication of both its original status and current status? Why was my factually correct edit removed? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Hagia Sophia was a cathedral of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Before the schism there is no distinction between Catholic and Orthodox. There was no change in denomination (with the short interlude of the Latin Empire) until 1453. And quite regardless of that, all your supposedly factually correct additions are of no importance anyway. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about importance, you are going to have to explain why the Fall of Constantinople is important in a biography of the Prophet Muhammad? --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think successful conquest is anything to be embarassed about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was carried out by Muhammad II though, not the prophet Muhammad! Its as irrelevent to this as the great schism is. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Mehmed II. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mehmed is a variant of Muhammad, he would have been known as Muhammad to his Arab speaking subjects.Irishpunktom\^talk 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Then say that it was the Osmanic Sultan M II - there is a sultan M I as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we mention the building so there comes the relevance. I wouldn't mention the conquest but merely that it once was a church and then a mosque ... or nothing at all. It is you, IPT, that is including spacious (and misleading) details. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Err, when I added it I just said that there was his name in calligraphy in the Hagia Sophia. Others demand the inclusion of irrelevent wars. If you want its history include all or none. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Further, right now its not a Mosque nor a Church --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, IPT, for admiting that you try to make a WP:POINT. I say either just say it is calligraphy in the Hagia Sophia (the link will explain all about it) or keep it short and concise (and accurate for that matter).

I never said it were a mosque now. I said it "once was a church and then (was) a mosque". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Point I was adding, was to make the article WP:NPOV, and really shouldn't be considered a Point at all, unless you were trying to make one. Selective use of history is wrong, and the highlighting that the building was "christian", when it was built by catholics (not copts, or other eastern early Christians) and then became Greek Orthodox and then became a Sunni Muslim Mosque and then became a secular Museum, is a selective use of the history of the building, and I propose either highlight all its functions through time, or none at all. That is WP:NPOV --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Muslims won great victories. They beat the Jews and turned their holy site into a Mosque, and they beat the Byzantines and turned one of the greatest cathedrals of Christendom into a Mosque. My ancestors did the same to others. Muhammad was a successful general, as were his sucessors, for all that the victories were a thousand years ago, and crowds still chant about Khaybar and the return of Muhammad's army. It all seems pretty relevent to me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget: they beat the Meccans and turned their holy site into a Muslim shrine. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"spacious comments" could be a good addition to discussion of the Haghia Sophia ;-) Seriously, though, too much detail is not necessary for this point. Itsmejudith 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooo...k. This is about the Calligraphy of the name Muhammad on the Hagia Sophia, not the history of the Muslim people! The history of the Hagia Sophia is linked to that of the Muslim Ottoman empire, which is linked to Muhammad, but Muhammads biog cannot, and should not, be about what was to happen after his death. Its about Muhammads life and what he did in his life, not about the fall of constantinople eight hundred years after he died. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can, or should, entirely seperate the biography of Muhammad from the history of Islam. What he did in his life lead directly to what his followers did after his death. I think that was kind of the idea. Prophets aren't like other people. Reasonable people can disagree about the level of detail, and the relative importance of one detail over another. Coming in once a week and reverting to your preferred wording is probably not the most useful way to resolve things. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I am striving for Factual accuracy and neutrality, where in my edits has this objective not been met? --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a spaceship in the article since Firouz Naderi is a Muslim and Muhammad was also a Muslim. Here, i propose this one: . Any objections? --Striver 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Anousheh Ansari would be a better choice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, spare us your ridiculous proposals.

IPT, just two examples: You repeatedly violated neutrality by removing references to the links between the Temple Mount and the Jews (so much for all the facts, all the history). You violated accuracy by introducing false information about the Hagia Sophia being converted from a Catholic (supposedly meaning Roman Catholic) into an Greek Orthododox Church - there was no such conversion, just a schism between the two local churches of Rome and New Rome and the respective communities siding with them. Finally, you either violated POINT or misstated your intentions here on talk. And finally you broke 3RR. That is enough to disqualify you as a serious contender and it is enough to report you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe the current description is adequate. It is only a caption and if someone were to want more information, he or she could click on the link to the article of the building. – Zntrip 05:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Family Life Section Clean-Up

Currently, this is how the section reads: "Some of Muhammad's companians were "shocked by the way he allowed his wives to stand up to him and answer him back. Muhammad regularly helped with household chores, mended his own cloths, preparing his food and took his wives’ advice seriously. On one occasion Umm salamah, helped him to prevent a mutiny." [34] [75]

Sometimes his wives were of worry, for example when Muhammad found them quarrelling about "the division of booty after a raid, he threatened to divorce them all unless they lived more strictly in accordance with Islamic values (33:28-29)" [34]

Among Muhammad's wives, the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.

Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad. [71] Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib.[76]"

And this is the information, as I see it, that is actually necessary for the reader: "Some of Muhammad's companians were "shocked by the way he allowed his wives to stand up to him and answer him back. Muhammad regularly helped with household chores, mended his own cloths, preparing his food and took his wives’ advice seriously. On one occasion Umm salamah, helped him to prevent a mutiny." [34] [75] Sometimes his wives were of worry, for example when Muhammad found them quarrelling about "the division of booty after a raid, he threatened to divorce them all unless they lived more strictly in accordance with Islamic values (33:28-29)" [34]

Among Muhammad's wives, the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.

Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad. [71] Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib.[76]"

Am I misreading something? This section is a mess, but when I try to clean it up, it just gets reverted almost immediately. I would love to hear a reason for keeping any of this material. Menkatopia 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world by Macmillan Reference USA doesn't even mention age of Aisha, and interestingly, it cites both Watts writing and Spellberg's writing in Bibliography of that article. The reason very well might be the neutralization of argument of both sources i.e. information regarding Aisha's age is so much dubious that it doesn't deserve a space in encyclopedia. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad marries a six year old girl its not interesting?Opiner 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Truthspreader, if these encyclopedias did that it's their editorial decision which cannot prejudice our decision here on Wikipedia. I am certainly not convinced by that neutralization argument, unless the piece of information is so unimportant that covering two sides would be overdoing it. And I think that is that these two books did, decide that it's unimportant. TS, your motive however is clearly different: you want to keep it out of the article because of the criticism attached to it. However that is no proper reason. Personally, in case you asked, I think it ridiculous to call someone living 1400 years ago a "pervert" for his marriages if it wasn't controversial in his day - what would someone from the 7th century call many currently living people's behaviour? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Might wonder who wouldnt include an especially cute nine-year old with his sex partners IF also having however many adult women he wants and everyone saying its okay. including even her dad who offer her to him! History is showing that men do almost anything sexual people are saying is okay.Opiner 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to start a discussion on this and I certainly am not the defender of M., but to discuss this on the basis of our conventions. Of course, it makes good polemics, if you like that. The thing is that we don't really know how old Aisha was and how "evolved" she was (which is actually more important) when the marriage was consummated. I think it much more clearly a problem with M. that he allowed himself to have as many wives as he wanted while restricting them for all others to four. And it Aisha that said: "Your Lord takes care to fulfill your wishes" (quoting from memory) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure I understand. Its only in cultural anthropology we have to discuss these things because thats what happening. If the society says its okay men will do it. there are no conscience objectors or brave lone Str1977s to stand against immorality of it all. Also Muhammad forcing the Jewish captive to be his wife BUT all the women divided among the Muslim SO everyone is saying its okay. No one is saying Muhammad dont do it and even God is for it.Opiner 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I do not know what you intend with these recent postings. You needn't convince me that a lot of the things M. did was wrong. You need convince me that he is not a prophet (or at least didn't remain one). However, all these other items are not relevant in regard to what I mentioned (and if there are relevant in regard to someone else's comment, please indicate this by addressing that person, so that I don't have to bother). Also, I never said that the Aisha marriage was okay by me, men or God. Only that I don't think this a serious criticism when not based on a proper basis of morality - and modern-day sensibilities are not a proper basis. I have heard this criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and don't think that a person that has no qualm about letting unborn children be killed can then get on a high horse and talk about the "perverted" nature of this marriage. Case closed? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just opining. Didnt think were disagreeing.Opiner 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay--I went ahead and changed it and tried to trim some fat, but I wanted to say I don't think including all this "Watt said, but Spellberg blah blah blah...." No one comes here for Watt and Spellberg, they come to get an overview of the subject, or issue. As I see it, the purpose of this project is to state the nature of the debate, not argue it for others. I would like to see almost all the "Watt" junk leave. That belongs at a conference, not on this page. It is still NPOV to state that there is a debate without trying to resolve that debate for the reader. After all, aren't we telling people what to think if we start just quoting hundreds of "experts?" That's the job of academia. No, the purpose is to summarize the information rationally. Not this he-said-she-said tea party of theories. I am positive that this will get reverted, but I really think this was a good edit, if I do say so. :-) Menkatopia 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that either an entire section or atleast a subsection should be added to this article about Muhammed's wife Khadija. She was a strong inlfuence on Muhammed and it is important to give her the credit. Shinybubbles 01:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That brave woman indeed deserves a passage but not a section or subsection. We can leave that to the article on her. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Child article for 'Muhammad and the Jewish tribe of Medina'

We can start a child article for this. How is Muhammad and People of the Book can have a sub-section on this. --Aminz 07:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, it is a POV title.
• Secondly, if the sub article is on Jews of Medina (and that is quite enough) it should be named accordingly.
• Thirdly, this will not result in a complete disappearance of the issue from this article.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ٌThe child article can also discuss relation of Muhammad and Christians, not only Jews. I mean we can have an article on relations of both Jews and Christians with Muhammad. Right now, the section is too long. Any suggestion for the title? Relations of Muhammad with Christians and Jews?--Aminz 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Muhammad's Impact on Other Faiths, or possibly, Muhammad and Other Faiths/Religions. I would rather error on the side of overly broad, than too narrow. But I agree, this info could be greatly condensed from where it is now.Menkatopia 13:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we should match the two together, Aminz. Separate articles certainly spare us any temptation to use a POV title like the above.

"Muhammad's Impact on Other Faiths" is a completely different topic, as it treats (rather would treat) not M. dealings with Jews and Christians but how his ministry affected the other religions. This also a delicate subject. I wonder what Aminz would say when the appearence of ideas like the Crusades are linked back to M. and his idea of jihad? But it certainly would be on topic in such an article.

14:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as a husband

None of this is important. I would like to get some consensus before I just remove it, but can anyone explain why this information should be in here? Since some on here are fond of quotes, I am reminded of William Faulkner's line "sometimes you have to kill your darlings." Not literally, but can we chop some of this blatant gooeyness? Menkatopia 09:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is viewed as a model for Muslims. His personal life is interesting, at least to some people including me. Personally, it is very important to me though it might not seem important to you. --Aminz 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that his personal life is not interesting, only that the way it is described is done very poorly in the section and I think it ought to be removed. The section has such a storybook quality to it. That shouldn't be seen as an indictment of Muhammad's life, I only care about the writing. My sole concern in this article is making the information easier and more enjoyable to read. I think the information can stay if it is written as a factual account, but as it stands, this info seems to be partisan narrative. Menkatopia 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you question the factuality of the sources? --Aminz 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I question the tone. Look at a sentence like "Muhammad used to share all his every hope and fear with Khadija who was very dear to him." This sounds like the way Santa Claus is described, not a prophet of god. I'm saying it would be possible to find sources that say M. was anything we might want him to be. The section, as written, sounds like naive, amateur writing. Instead of stating the exact quotes, couldn't this information be summarized so that it says the same thing? I would be perfectly happy with a phrase like: "Muhammad's 25-year marriage to Khadijah was happy, according to scholars, who generally accept that the couple shared a deep love." That's clumsy, but describing his avarice as "sharing every hope and fear," doesn't sound very authoritative. Does the tone bother you in the preceeding paragraph? I tried to remove that kind of language. Menkatopia 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think sharing every hope and fear is accurate. For example, when Muhammad had his first religous vision, he was terrified. He ran back to his wife and told everything for her. What do you call this? Do you have any better way to express it? The source says sharing his every fear and hope. Please let me know your suggestions. Thanks --Aminz 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What about, "Most scholars agree that Muhammad was closest to his wife, Khadija." I just object to the characterization as "every hope and fear." This section also is almost entirely quotes. Why should we be satisfied with quoting a particular scholar to create a section? Would you be opposed to summarizing the information? Menkatopia 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems in style are not reason enough to remove a section. It can be improved stylistically. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with style absolutely can be grounds for removal. Why not write this whole article from Muhammad's POV? Thay would be the wrong style, no? "His every hope and fear," (which sounds more like a Anne Rice novel than an encyclopedia) ought to be removed, but I am advocating either reworking the section so it doesn't sound so silly, or removing this section altogether. Comments on this point? Menkatopia 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If the style is wrong, we can improve it. POV problems can be solved by the various methods. I don't see how deletion is one of them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Muhammad

Did folks decide to remove the image of M. that was on here? Shouldn't there be an image of M. just like on other Bio pages? Menkatopia 10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is presently an image of Muhammad. For people we don't have pictures of like J. and B. and Z, A, C, and M to boot, you must be careful to represent them in a way consistent with their traditions. That is, Muhammad's depiction on South Park would not be a proper depiction for this article. Talk:Muhammad/Mediation is where the discussion has been going on. gren グレン 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a more historically accepted picture, like this one or this one or this one?--Sefringle 06:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The second of those was in fact in the "Overview" section until very recently; I hardly need to tell you why it was removed. There was a mediation on this issue underway, although it is recently in limbo as someone has forced the mediator off Wikipedia with real-life threats. I estimate this to be a good general and historical depiction which deserves to accompany the introduction.Proabivouac 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all in Islam, we are told not to be curious of what he looks like, and not to visualize the pictures on the website that shows him. The prophet said himself in the Quran that he did not want people to see pictures of him, nor having pictures of him on the wall. Why? Becuase he did not want people to worship the "picture" of the Prophet himself. I dont know where in the Quran it states that but I will look it up soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.229.145 (talk • contribs)

We are not here to discuss whether Islam allows pictures of Mohammad. What we are here to discuss is whether or not it is appropiate to include an image, and personally, I think it is.--Sefringle 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You spoke truly, anon, when you wrote, "...in Islam..." We are not now in Islam, but on Wikipedia. Last time I checked, the article discusses Muslim attitudes towards depictions of Muhammad, so I believe your point is already made; there is no need to demonstrate these prejudices through action.Proabivouac 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What does historically accepted mean. There are no pictures of Muhammad. 87.194.191.177 23:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous comment by anon wholeheartedly endorsed. No-one alive today knows what he looked like so what encyclopedic purpose could including an image possibly serve?Itsmejudith 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no body, not even Hadith's, or Imam's know what the Prophet Muhammad looks like. Their are no pictures of him at all. All the pictures you see on Google, or other websites, are just artist impression's on what he looks like. Wikipedia should not put a picture of the Prophet. If anybody uploads a picture, many people will be mad, and start a controversey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.229.145 (talk • contribs)

Yes it is an artists impression. But then again, almost all pictures of people before the invention of the camera are artists impressions. Many historic figures from the early classical era were painted during the Renaissance. That doesn't mean they are a completely accurate interpritation of the artist, but they are still encyclopediac. The pictures of Jesus are generally similar, however they are probably didn't look at all like the photographs of him. But they are still encyclopediac.--Sefringle 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this again, and again, and again, and again. [2]. It is completely irrelevant that the pictures are not 100% accurate; we all concede they are not photographs. They are appropriate for this article and removing them is tantamount to vandalism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but somebody keeps removing them, claiming they are unencyclopediac.--Sefringle 21:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Welll I for one don't believe that the case has been made that any images of Muhammad serve an encyclopedic purpose. That's after looking at the archived discussion that Brian Gotts pointed us to. Brian says that it is "completely irrelevant" that pictures are not "100% accurate". Let's be clear, we are not talking about pictures that might be say 80% accurate. We are talking about pictures that are pretty certain to be 0% accurate. If you are arguing that they nevertheless illustrate something, then please spell out what they illustrate. Would a picture add information? Exactly what relevant information could it add?Itsmejudith 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the pictures of Jesus are just as accurate as the pictures of Mohammad. Yet they are still encyclopediac. Pictures give people an idea of what someone or something looks like. For many, it is hard to picture something or someone if they don't have a visable picture. And the pictures are not 0% accurate. They were painted by muslim artists who probably have some idea, either from oral traditions, or from some hadith, as to what they think Mohammad looked like. But it is an artists interpritation, as the majority of historic paintings are.--Sefringle 06:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where you go wrong. The pictures of Jesus as we present them are not to represent Jesus. They are to represent Christianity's tradition of depicting Jesus. The best representation would be that of an historical anthropologist trying to depict the typical Jewish boy from that era and area. Yet, our main images are European ones. It's clear that we are trying to show Jesus' depiction throughout history--not some realistic view of Jesus. If we apply the same to Muhammad we will come up with calligraphy of his name and probably a covered-face image. We don't use images to represent the people. We use them to represent the traditions. This is why I believe we should at most have a traditional Persian painting since it represents a standard depiction of Muhammad. If our aim was to represent the people themselves we would scrap all of Christendom's images of Jesus. There is just about no chance he looked like that. But we keep them because they are traditional representations of Jesus. gren グレン 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

We are all aware of what's thought wrong with these images, and it's nothing whatsover to do with concerns about encyclopedicity or informativeness.Proabivouac 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to start another mediation. This dispute cannot be end without a good mediation. --- ALM 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Every religion has sacrosancts. And I think wikipedia should show respect them, and remove the images. 85.100.174.237 23:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)hakand

I see that the pictures are removed. I want to thank you for your understanding!`85.104.201.184 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)hakand

I'm suprised noone has been paying attention to the masked vandalism of the Muhammad page. Religious hardliners keep demanding "reasons" for putting up a photo of the prophet. What reasons are there not to put up a picture? And don't try to say "because the pictures are inaccurate", because any sane person will inevitably hear "because it violates my faith". That is the real issue here; faith. Encyclopedias are not about faith, they are about facts. If you don't want to see a picture of Muhammad, then don't go to the Muhammad page. Stop removing the pictures out of religious beliefs. See also: cartoons controversy.

"Religious hardliners keep demanding "reasons" for putting up a photo of the prophet" - a) what you mean is you consider someone questioning the inclusion of a "photo" a hardliner. There are very good reasons *not* to put a picture in the article - these being 1) there are no pictures and 2) there's a strong tradition of not representing Muhammad in a picture (meaning that not representing Muhammad pictorially will be more in keeping with an article describing the life, character and legacy of Muhammad than going out of one's way to find someone who has decided to draw a picture against the wishes of a large proportion of this planet's population and including it as some sort of depiction of Muhammad - something kind of touched upon by Gren above); b) "If you don't want to see a picture of Muhammad, then don't go to the Muhammad page." This is just silly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.191.177 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

This is a problem of "respect". When he was alive, he wanted people not to draw, or publish his pictures. I repeat again, this is a religious sacrosanct. That's the problem... I won't remove the image, because I want you to understand why muslim people remove them. Please show respect to Mohammed (pbuh), and islamic blief. 85.100.171.139 10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)hakand

Respect is not our concern here. This page is about information. Simply put, there is no reason to remove the picture of Muhammad. We have wiki pages for Damnation and Satinism with all kinds of references to material that is objectionable. An artit's rendering of Muhammad does not qualify as vulgar or obscene.

Protected State

I agree; respect may not be a concern in wikipedia. However, our concern must be to make wiki pages reach more people. I think that the image does not add to the content, and that many people will get a wrong impression when they see an image,figure,etc. depicted as Muhammad, and will close the page. Also, the addition of the image has arisen the debate, and the image should not stay in the protected status. It sounds like taking a side in a discussion. (Durdane 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

dating

See the MOS --Striver 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The MOS? You probably mean your postings on a talk page you yourself created? As for what the MOS really says, read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras as per this version (I am including this link, as Striver is already acting in bad faith by claiming to be acting in accordance with the MOS - we have discussed this same problem at Talk:Hadith_of_the_prediction_in_Sura_al-Rum#Section_break, so he is well aware that the MOS doesn't exactly agree with his view, to put it mildly). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I meant dating MOS for Islam related articles, yes, that is what i linked to. --Striver 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For those who do not bother to follow the talk in the Islamic MOS, here is a bit from the general date MOS:

You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both the Islamic calendar and the Julian calendar.

It does not say that any date is preferred above any other, but it does say "any appropriate calendar". Now, since a typical AH year spans two CE years, the AH year is more accurate, hence the more "appropriate calendar".

--Striver 03:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does say "as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar" - which clearly assumes that the Julian/Gregorian calendar is the standard one in the English language WP. MOS also says "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article." - it says nothing about AH, again implying that the AD/CE dating is the standard one. Stop your pushing of your Islamic superiority POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish years also span two CE years, but they are not routinely given in Jewish-history articles. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

maybe something could be added to the section on The Beginnings of the Qur'an about how Muhammads followers were so eager to preserve the teachings of Muhammad that they wrote on anything they could find like, animal hides, bones, and leaves. --Johnnybravo01 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Medina

This section is way too long. Worse, it almost word-for-word duplicates the contents of the Muhammad_and_the_Jews article. Any objections summarizing this to about 1/5th its length? The link to the full MatJ article is right there at the beginning of the section for readers to follow. - Merzbow 03:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this, trying to preserve the balance of the original text. The "2nd Hijra" and the "Overview" sections should be shortened also. - Merzbow 08:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look at it. Will read it more carefully but it looked good to me. Thanks. I have one request at the moment. Can we add in a sentence Qur'an's response to the claim that A non-Jew can not be a prophet, that the Qur'an developed the concept of religion of Abraham? --Aminz 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to the removal of my addition to the "Jews" section. In fact, I only added them because another editor selectively added his favourite theory without adding also a scholarly treatment of it. It is better to leave both out of this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking like we cant make the article shorter because its owned by Aminz. Every sentence hes adding he wants to keep no matter what. Look its not matering to reality what Watt think Jews maybe 'WOULD have' done! Why is it mattering to Aminz? WIts always this way. If Muhammad urinates on the Alamo he will add a whole paragraph at least about how the Alamo provoke Muhammad how urinating on things is common to all the cultures how ancient Jews maybe also urinate on the Alamo and how Watt is saying Alamo lucky to get away with only that! If these apology addings are removed its the edit war.Opiner 09:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First, Merzbow made the summary and second you don't own the article either. You should not remove well-sourced material. --Aminz 10:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that. One more point: Aminz, why include false information:

"After the Battle of the Trench, Muhammad appointed a leader from a neutral Arab tribe to decide on an appropriate punishment, and only acted against the Qurayza after a sentence of execution had been handed down."

Sad was hardly neutral - he was a Muslim who had fought against the Qurayza during the siege until he had been wounded. A "neutral Arab tribe"? Are you referring to the Ansar or to the Aws? Also, this completely glosses over the fact that M. agreed to another judge because of the intercession of some of the Aws, not because he himself wanted it so much. Again, this is chosing the comfortable sides of the event, twisting them around, and hiding what could be seen as not positive. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should modify this. Sa'ad was among the leaders of the tribe which was previously allied to Qurayza and some of its members were asking Muhammad to forgive Qurayza. Muhammad was thereby avoiding any likelihood of blood-feud and Jews also agreed to that. But Watt says that there is no need to assume Muhammad put any pressure on him. I would welcome any suggestions you might have. --Aminz 10:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no basis for saying that the Jews agreed to this as well. They had already surrendered unconditionally and were expecting nothing less than death. The intercession by some Aws could have saved them but M's proposed judge thwarted this. I never said that M put pressure on Sad - he knew him well enough to chose "the right man" (and the fact that Sad was dying was a factor as well - no one could go after him anymore).

On a grander scale, why are we including a large treatment of this at all, when we don't do this for the Qunayqa and the Nadir? The former were never accused of treason but just refused to yield M's request (totally in breach with the assumed Constitution) that they convert to Islam (stupidly they combined their refusal with a military challenge). The Nadir did probably try to kill M. but why are we glossing over the fact that M. had one of their chiefs assassinated before?

All these things are true but why are some editors only allowing only apologetical material? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I am echoing what the sources say. You can have your view but we should remain faithful to what the sources say. If they say different things, we can mention both of them. Esposito says Muhammad *accused*. So Qunayqa were never accused of treachery is your claim and is not supported by the source. --Aminz 10:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aminz edit war is continued[3]. Always the neutral fact has to be followed by the not neutral apology so every part thats making him uncomfortable which is a lot of parts has to be at least twice as long what it would normally be. Everyone telling him this thing but its just not stopping no matter what.Opiner 10:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I suggest that instead of making such comments, you start reasoning (as Str1977 is doing)--Aminz 10:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that reasoning is better than complaining, especially complaining here. However, I must say that his observation about the twice-as-big-commentary additions are correct in my book. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So what does my brother Esposito-Apologist-for every-kind-of-monstrosity -if-only-committed-by-Muslim-hands actually say? Does he say specifically that Muhammad accused the Qunayqa of treachery? When did he accuse them? I am sticking true to the sources I have. You know well that the Qunayqa affair started with that silly joke played on a Muslim woman, a killing in reprisal and another killing in reprisal for that. And the Muhammad, supposedly acting as mediator, invited the Qunayqa to embrace Islam and all would be forgotten (personally, I think this is the most heneious thing that the son of Abdallah ever did in his life). The Qunayqa refused and boasted that they would outlast his attacks in their fortress. Tragically, there were mistaken in that - a mistake that resulted in them being driven from their city.

Another thing, why constantly include the variant you like best, preferable from Watt. Everyone but Watt calls Uhud a defeat for M (though he lost only a battle and not the war) but you included without reference or discussion the minority view that Uhud was a stalemate. Ts ts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, see WP:Civil --Aminz 10:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz SEE WP:NPOV notice theres not the part saying to glorify or apology for prophet Muhammad so PLEASE and I mean that please stop it.Opiner 10:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I know about CIVIL and also about NPOV and NOR etc. I don't see where I was being uncivil to any fellow wikipedian. I cannot find the "convert to Islam" event right now in the spot where I though I had read it. I will get back on this later. But I am sure I did and uphold my comments on it. Finally, are you unaware that Muhammad endorsed Sad's judgment by calling it "the judgement of God"? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't found the book I read this in but I have found confirmation of this in Muir's Life of Muhammad, who however places the request by M before the affair with the girl in the market. In this he follows Katib al Wackidi. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Qaynuqa affair: may I enquire why Aminz, who usually loves to quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, fails to mention that the EoI's article on the Banu Qaynuqa says: "When Muhammad felt his position strengthened by the battle of Badr, he must soon have determined on expelling his enemies. The Kaynukah, as they lived in the city itself, were the first he wished to be rid of. Regarded in this light, his attack on the Kaynukah (in all probability as early as Shawwal 2/April 624) is sufficiently explained. Special reasons for the attack given by Muslim writers have no more than anecdotal value."? Beit Or 22:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read that article (will read it). But unlike you that remove quotes from EoI, I am interested in having all POVs presented. That "When Muhammad felt his position strengthened by the battle of Badr, he must soon have determined on expelling his enemies." can be included in the article together with all other POVs. --Aminz 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether you've read the article or not is irrelevant. This is a WP:NPOV violation regardless of its cause. Beit Or 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've some doubts about the following sentences:

The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. Is this true? It could very well be, but then was it also stated in the form of a direct response to the Jewish criticism? Not so sure about that. The Qur'an also claimed that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians". I doubt the Quran literally states this, so why the quotation marks? And I'm not so sure about the ref too. I haven't finished my Quran yet so I don't think I can fix these issues myself but any insights are appreciated. Feer 22:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Uhud

Str, I remember User:Zora was saying that Watt states that Uhud wasn't a Muslim defeat. That the Meccans had lost too many men to pursue the Muslims into Medina. Can you please cite it. --Aminz 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No of course Muslim cant be defeating because of mighty Allah. Come on they lose more men then run from the battle how its not the defeat?Opiner 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that Watt says this because the Uhud article refers to him and his view as the dissenting voice. However, the overwhelming view is that Uhud was indeed a Muslim defeat - not a crushing defeat, but a defeat nonetheless. It was not crushing because Abu Sufyan did not follow up and occupy Jathrib. His reasons are unclear to us and that he had lost to many man is a possibility (but not an established fact) - another reason, actually given by Amr in the Uhud article but also supported by my sources, is that the city was guarded by Abdullah ibn Ubay. I think it a bit ironic that the man vilified as a hypocrite (just because we was not a butcher like Hamza or Umar) saved Islam that day. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How can we date the events in Mohammad's life?

Would it be helpful to include why we know certain dates about Mohammad's life? (from 622- his flight to Medina= the beginning of the calendar)

(Crone, Patricia. "What Do We Actually Know About Mohammad?" 31 August 2006. <http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/3866.pdf>. Spunkiel 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

About Muhammad's sources

should something be added about the Hadiths and date they were written and what can be learned about Muhammad from them?

Main sources

i believe that the Hadith would be important to add, as long as the Koran and the biography by Ibn Ishaq. I also think that it would be valuable to include something about how his wife was the major support in his religion. When Mohammed doubted, his wife kept him encouraged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XCluvr16 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Long and Locked

I'm just wondering if this article is still considered lengthy, or too long. As I read over the page, it seemed to me that this level of detail was useful and informative. There seem to be adequate links to longer articles on most topics and, generally, these stubs are well-summarized enough for a typical reader.

I'm also wondering if we should keep this article locked a little longer, or should open it back up. I would love to hear comments on this. Thanks! Menkatopia 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There has certainly been some improvement on these counts since the issue was first raised. To me, the question is not only one of length, but of content value.Proabivouac 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is improving quite a lot recently. Aside from shrinking a couple more sections, I think the references should be cleaned up. (I'll make another talk page section about this). - Merzbow 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Any objections to cleaning up the referencing by putting all of the full book names in the "References" section, and then in the footnotes, just citing the author's surname, year of publication, and page numbers? This is already done for some footnotes but there are tons that needlessly repeat information, frequently in different formats. (This is just a formatting, not a content, change I'm proposing; no information will be added or removed overall). - Merzbow 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely no objection and thank you for volunteering.Itsmejudith 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Common era vs. anno Domini

It has come to my attention that this article uses both the "CE" and "AD" notations in regards to years of the current era. Although the page uses mostly "CE", I thought I would bring the issue to the talk page before changing all of the instances of "AD" to "CE". Per the WP:MOS, we must only have one of these systems used per article, or have both of them used at every occasion (i.e.–220 AD/CE, see Jesus). I just wanted to make consensus at the talk page on era notations before any alterations to the dating systems were made. Thank you. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have this made consistent in the article, so thanks for your attention to this detail. In my opinion CE would be a much more appropriate style than AD in this article, since although Muslims revere Jesus immensely they do not generally address him as "lord", which is implied in the "anno domini" formula. And since we are not using AH dates, Muslim readers already have to make a compromise. The CE formula can provide a bridge between readers of all faiths and none. Itsmejudith 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. To make it easier, I will create a voting process below, please sign it there. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey for AD vs. CE

Use "CE" only

1. I think AD is unnecessarily Christian-centric. --BostonMA ^talk 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Per my own argument above and BostonMA's more succinct summary. And I do think the poll is a good idea, nice to encounter editors who take care of details and want to establish consensus.Itsmejudith 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Merzbow 00:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Use "AD" only

1. Far mor common name Sefringle 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Use both "AD" and "CE" in every instance

1. My vote goes here. I think the presence of both is what many editors really want, since they're both used in the article already. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2. YES I don't much care about the christian-centric blah blah blah. I just think using both will stop this from being an issue forever. Menkatopia 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
3. support this one, for reasons already mentioned above. Feer 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
4. I think that if Jesus uses both, so should this article— OLP1999 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Use neither

1. Unless we also ad AH dates. gren グレン 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC) -- Context and linking the year makes it obvious that it's AD/CE and removes excess characters and controversy.
2. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC) -- i agree that this is the more appropriate suggestion.
3. Like Gren, unless we use AH. But (on reflection) AH dating is less necessary on this article than on others, as it applies to not all dates here involved and those it does apply to are more or less easily deduced from the AD date, unlike the case in later periods. Palmiro | Talk 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Well, BostonMA, I started the poll because Muhammad currently uses both AD and CE randomly, which is unacceptable per the MOS. Instead of changing all instances to one particular notation, I saw it more appropriate to discuss among editors. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` (merry C–mas)} 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to vote "neither". "Muhammad died in 632." is sufficient. You click on the link you get a page for the year 632 AD/CE. Why do we need a suffix? It can be presumed to be common era and that is backed up by the link. Context also makes this obvious. Why not avoid the whole dispute? gren グレン 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Gren's suggestion makes sense to me, although AD is in common use in the Islamic world and in scholarly work and I don't think it is generally held to be objectionable. Meanwhile, giving AH dates is common practice in scholarly work and is standard in Islamic writings. I would suggest giving AD/CE and also where appropriate AH. Palmiro | Talk 13:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't it make sense. Look at Charlemagne. It doesn't use AD or CE, why must Muhammad? Same basic era--context and linking the date makes it perfectly clear that it's an AD/CE date. gren グレン 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I can't read gren グレン 03:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Sigh. May I ask that people please stop removing the Gospel of Barnabas material now that I've sourced the claim properly and put it in the correct section? People are making incorrect claims in edit summaries about what this paragraph says:

1. It is not presenting the Gospel of Barnabas as canonical material - the term apocryphal specifically means otherwise. (Don't believe me, follow the link).
2. It is not presenting the Muslims' claims that Muhammad's coming was foretold in this 'gospel' as fact. The text says 'According to some Muslims' and 'they argue'.
3. The source I use is a book from a university professor, who says exactly what is written in this section - that some Muslims, including Deedat, make this claim.

- Merzbow 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I am well-aware of what apocryphal means. The problem is that the Gospel of Barnabas is widely considered a pious fraud. Frotz661 20:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, you are exactly right in saying "some Muslims make this claim". Ipso facto this is not a matter of "other faith traditions. The so-called Gospel of Barnabas is a pseudoepigraphical and essentially pro-Islamic work from the Renaissance. And that is why it is removed from "other faith traditions". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, your material is sourced and perfectly well-written. However, I don’t see that it belongs here. No doubt, we can find other equally contentious opinions about Muhammad and the Bible which might be similarly sourced. Ahmed Deedat's notability is like that of Billy Graham - certainly famous and influential, but not the types of opinions we should wish to fill this article. If it is to be included, we are obliged to mention that this gospel is generally considered to be a forgery. The section title "Muhammad in early Christian writings" is misleading (or at least POV) in this regard, as the Gospel of Barnabas is not an early Christian writing. Aside from these problems, the inclusion of this material in any form would reward the very negative approach User:Grandia01 has taken to editing this article.Proabivouac 21:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The authenticity or lack thereof of the GoB isn't really relevant here; what is relevant is how notable the view is in Islamic circles that the GoB foretold Muhammad. Perhaps you're right that even among Muslim scholars this is a rank minority view. I don't care enough about this particular topic to do the research to see if any other Muslims as notable as Deedat agrees with him on this. If someone else can corroborate the notability of this view, however, I will continue to press for mentioning this in the article. - Merzbow 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the authenticity of the GoB is not directly relevant. It is indirectly, because the wording proposed here insinuates that the GoB is a biblical text. However, what is relevant is the fact that this is a Muslim view include among non-Muslim views. Go and find a better place for this because it is not "another faith tradition" when Muslim scholars and non-scholars interpret a Islam-infuenced forgery. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did find a better place for it - the Islamic views section: [4]. - Merzbow 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So, if its status as a forgery is irrelevant, please tell us what IS relevant? If you don't care enough about this subject to do your homework, then why do you persist in bothering those who DID check their facts? It's not enough to toss a vacuous assertion on the table and demand it be respected. Frotz661 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, your sources are perfectly okay but to be honest with you it is making a negative picture of Muslims. That some Muslims still use the (most probably) forged Gospel as a text proof, while true, but just shows their ignorance. If I want to go for proving the case, I probably try to find an scholar who uses the fact that until 3rd century Holy Spirit wasn't considered to be a person among Christians. That the reference to Holy Spirit is feminine. And then somehow shows that the verses from John's Gospel might not refer to Holy Spirit. I dunno. Some sophisiticated theory! --Aminz 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Farah

The full quote from the source:

Angered by the betrayal of the Banu Qurayzah in the violation fo their oath, Muhammad submitted them to trial by the chief of the Aws whom they had requested to pass judgement upon them. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief, decreed all fighting men of the Banu Qurayza be put to death. This was in keeping with the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:12), which decreees the killing of every male in such situations, He was convinced that they would have meted out similar judgement on the Muslims had they and their allies triumphed instead. None but four would forsake Judaism for Islam as a price of survival.

The proposed addition to the this article:

"Caesar Farah writes that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was conducted according to laws of Torah."

First of all, Caesar Farah is demonstrably wrong - Deuteronomy 20:12 does prescribe the killing of every man, but in a totally different situation. If this is included, then others will rightly insist upon rebutting it, as they did on Banu Qurayza before I removed the section, which is even less relevant here. As with the gospel of Barnabas, it’s not productive to introduce marginal and ignorant opinions along with their rebuttals; the end result is to turn large portions of the article into a series of debates about these opinions which aren’t necessary in the first place.

More crucially, this is only a snide, Chomskyesque remark on Farah's part, not a assertion of historical fact. Read carefully - there is a world of difference between Farah today observing (correctly or not) that Sa'd and Muhammad did only what the ancient Jews would have done and Farah asserting that Sa'd actually said, "Let us try them according to their own laws," and proceeded from there, which Farah doesn’t allege. To say that his judgement was "conducted according to the laws of the Torah" is blatantly misrepresentative of Farah’s (already misinformed) claim.Proabivouac 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

simply alter it to "Caesar Farah asserts that the judgement of Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was applied in consistency with Jewish law.", no need to remove it. the belief, correct or otherwise, that Muhammad is mentioned in some way within Biblical texts, extant or extinct, is notable and perhaps even prevelant amongst Muslims and mentioned by a good source. there is no legitimate reason to purge it from the article. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Farah did not say that it was applied in consistency with Jewish law, which once more falsely suggests that Sa'd considered Jewish scripture (I'm not clear that this is "law") in his judgement. Rather, in Farah's opinion, the decision, in retrospect, happens to be consistent with Farah's (mis-)reading of Deuteronomy. To phrase it thusly and accurately shows precisely why it doesn't belong here. It is difficult to see what purpose it could serve except to the extent that it's misrepresented - an ambiguity you've carefully maintained in your proposed rewrite.

"...Muhammad is mentioned in some way within Biblical texts..."

That's precisely it: the "Gospel of Barnabas" is not a biblical text, but a medieval forgery. It would constitute an abuse of our discretion to mention it without pointing out its status as an infamous fraud. Once again, to characterize it fairly shows exactly why it doesn't belong in the article. That Muhammad's prophecy was "foretold" in a medieval forgery is quite irrelevant, and if anything only serves to make proponents of this notion look like cranks. That's not our purpose here.Proabivouac 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

the text of Barnabas is being cited as an example, not as the solitary basis for the claim. if you are familiar with the general claim you may already know that other - accepted- texts are also cited by Deedat et al. (e.g. the meaning of Paraclete). the proposal is ambiguous, mainly because there is a degree ambiguity in Farah's words and in what precisely he means/intends by the statement: when Farah describes Sa'd's "decree" as "in keeping with Jewish law", it completely avoids the question as to whether Sa'd was conscious of that connection or not. the proposal does not imply that Sa'd took the scripture into consideration anymore than Farah's phrasing does: it simply states that the application of Sa'd's judgement (meaning, his decree), according to Farah, was consistent with Jewish law/scripture. ITAQALLAH 00:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is ambiguous, then, between an original finding of momentous import, resurrecting a starling detail of a crucial event in Muhammad's career which had been otherwise been lost to the millenia, presented without any attempt to support it, and a snarky aside about Jews getting a taste of their own medicine which is completely irrelevant to this article. Were Farah claiming to have discovered this detail, no doubt he'd have made it clear. We cannot be hunting for possibly misconstuable sentences to include in the hope that they will be misconstrued once more by our readers, for it is impossible to see any other purpose to this addition.Proabivouac 01:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, Itaqallah, these are all Islamic views and interpretations. When Muslims use the Bible as prooftexts the restult is still something Muslim and not Christian. Even more so when they are using a Renaissance forgery. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pardon me, renaissance forgery, one that appears to have accomplished its intent, as we are still dealing with it centuries later here on Wikipedia, where several editors have either been duped by its deception, or find it convenient that others might be. I wonder which of these categories contains those who would blithely include it?Proabivouac 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see any misrepresentation. Farah says: "This[judgment] was in keeping with the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:12), which decreees the killing of every male in such situations[prisoners after an attack], He was convinced that they would have meted out similar judgement on the Muslims had they and their allies triumphed instead." Would you please explain? --Aminz 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac has explained it nicely above. Anyway, too much attention is being paid to outlandish claims of a very minor scholar. Beit Or 13:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the nice argument: "First of all, Caesar Farah is demonstrably wrong - Deuteronomy 20:12 does prescribe the killing of every man, but in a totally different situation." Maybe the situation in which the enemy is not attacked yet or that when they have not submitted themselves without resistence? I can not see his nice point. --Aminz 13:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What about reading the paragraph, starting with "More crucially..."? Beit Or 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Garbage Sources

Khan, Dr. Majid Ali (1998). Muhammad The Final Messenger. Islamic Book Service, New Delhi, 110002 (India)

I search for this book on Google in a bunch of different ways. All the first links to Wikipedia where users put it here! Other links to Islamic religion-pushing websites. From the Islamic Book Service.

Haykal, Muhammad Husayn (1993). The Life of Muhammad (Translated from the 8th Edition By Ism'il Ragi A. Al Faruqi). Islami Book Trust, Kula Lumpur, 353.

Muhammad Husayn Haykal is lawyer not historian. His book published by Islami Book Trust not the academic source.Opiner 06:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried searching amazon and other books sites too "Muhammad The Final Messenger" [5] is available on multiple places. Yes they are Islamic sources however, being Islamic sources does not make them unreliable by defaults. --- ALM 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See The Sealed Nectar for another purportedly reliable source which Itaqallah has been inserting into various articles. ALM scientist, if a source declares itself "Islamic," it cannot reasonably be considered neutral towards Muhammad, and may only be considered reliable as a source for its own beliefs (not even necessarily "Muslim beliefs") From WP:RS: "The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source."Proabivouac 19:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You can say same for non-Islamic sources because they do not believe in Islam hence they are non-neutral about Islam. This is just your assumption, you are assuming bad faith towards editors, without any evidence. Prove that by using other soruces, the editors while writing books did not present facts then I can considered it un-relable. Simply getting published by a publisher which publish only Islamic books do not make them non-reliable. I cannot give any input about "The Sealed Nectar" because I have never used it. --- ALM 19:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"You can say same for non-Islamic sources because they do not believe in Islam hence they are non-neutral about Islam."

Absurd.Proabivouac 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly your oponion is even more absurd that an (Islamic-publisher+Islamic-writer = non-reliable source). Only Non-Muslim writers are accepted? --- ALM 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the writer is Muslim or not is beside the point. A Christian writer writing from a blatantly "Christian" point of view, with a book, "Muhammad, the False Prophet" published by the Christian Book Service would be equally biased, non-academic and unacceptable.Proabivouac 20:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it will be however vice versa does not hold. They are two totally different things. A Christian writer book named "Jesus the son of God" published by some Christian Book Service, available in university libraries like MIT and purchasable from Amazon [6], other different places around world and used in section Jesus according to Christian tradition is acceptable.

I did not select this sources espacially but that was available in mine University library LUMS, among other two books I had used. Whenever I have used two references than those references are saying identical things. I used mostly THREE books to write each single paragraph and spend many days to just write those three sections. --- ALM 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, i invite you to resume our discussions about this book on your talk page which remain unfinished. "leaps of faith", without the pun, refers to unjustified opinions, reaching conclusions with little explanation or reason, and the like. the book however uses frequent citations to ibn hisham, ibn sa'd and other historians; whilst you persist in deceptively linking to a resource which excludes the footnotes employed, despite me having informed you of this quite a while ago. ITAQALLAH 20:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The pun is on point: "Islamic" sources assume Muhammad to have been God's final prophet and a model of emulation for all humankind, while the Qur'an is assumed to be the literal and inerrant word of God. These are the premises of their "investigations" to which all subsequent findings must be made to conform, and are leaps of faith to be sure.Proabivouac 20:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

you are assuming that a source must be neutral in order for it to be used. the conclusion you derive from your ascription to "Islamic" sources is irrelevant and inaccurate. the narrative and sequencing of the sira is based upon analysis of the historical sources, and in this respect Western narratives for the most part are in concordance with ones like Mubarakpuri's (naturally: they base themselves on the same sources). the most significant difference is that of the analysis and justification, which is where ascription of views becomes especially necessary. you seem to be asserting that the POV or presumptions of an author is the basis of deciding whether the work is appropriate. such an assertion is unfounded. ITAQALLAH 20:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There was NO non-Muslims sources in the start and ALL earlier books were written by devoted Muslims. All your non-Muslim/secular sources copy and quote Muslims sources. Hence according to your above assumption we should delete all the Islamic articles and relax ??? --- ALM 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic POV on Muhammad is significant enough to be presented. However, it must be presented neutrally, without endorsement, and this is what this article has so far failed to do. Beit Or 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic POV should be summarised and presented alongside all other relevant POV. Islamic scholarship on the other hand is as valid as any other tradition of scholarship and can be drawn on as necessary without reserve.Itsmejudith 21:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not according to WP:RS, which advises us that it must be "treated with caution."Proabivouac 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this source is not that it has a POV, but that it's not particularly reliable (author is a lawyer and publisher is not a university). I don't support evicting it entirely from the article now, but it should be replaced with a more reliable cite at the first opportunity. - Merzbow 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with Proabivouac's view that an Islamic author is per se unreliable and not quotable. Neither does NPOV require this, nor is it actually possible that an author can be neutral on anything. Merzbow I think is more on the mark. However, I have no knowledge about the individual book in question here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac is, I think referring to the statement in WP:RS "The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." I don't see this as applying to the Muslim tradition in scholarship, still less to the book discussed here. There is an important distinction to be made between the work of a scholar who may follow a religion but who writes in his or her own name, and a publication, probably anonymous, issued by a religious group. I agree with Merzbow that this reference should be replaced by another one as soon as possible, although I have a rather different reason. I'd suggest that the overriding point in this case is that the source is an old one. Too old for us to assess it by the author's area of qualification and publisher in the same way that we would for a more recent text. Also, likely to have been superseded by more recent scholarship, which could be either "Western" or "Eastern" - this is an international encyclopedia.Itsmejudith 17:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maome.jpg

This image does not add informative content to the article. I believe that its removal is correct per Wikipedia guidelines regarding uniformative images that may be offensive. --BostonMA ^talk 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe it is uniformative? Which Wikipedia guideline suggests "uniformative images that may be offensive" should be removed? Thanks, Gwernol 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gwernol, when I attempt to determine whether an image is informative, I apply a simple test. I ask whether I can write a short summary of what the image informs me. The guideline that suggests that uninformative images that may be offensive should be removed is WP:Profanity. To be clear, this image is informative about Persian art and about depictions of Muhammad and is correctly found elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, as you're aware, I've addressed your argument at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, demonstrating that this guideline enjoys no consensus, was explicitly rejected as policy, and that an attempt to add depictions of Muhammad to the guideline was explicitly rejected. Having not bothered to answer those points in mediation, you now reappear here to repeat a line of argument which, presuming that you'd followed the mediation you initiated, you can only be aware is seriously flawed.

Gwernol, although our prior mediator has left Wikipedia, supposedly due to personal threats, I imagine it will continue at some point. I invite you to review the discussion and, if you like, to join it.

In the meantime, we have a single-issue sockpuppet, User:Funnypop12, removing the images with ALM scientist's encouragement.Proabivouac 19:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, thanks for the reference to WP:Profanity. I think this comes down to whether the image is informative. I can see several reasons to believe it is: 1) It is the only image of Muhammad in the article; just as we have portrayals of Jesus in the Jesus article for example, it makes sense to have a portrayal of Muhammad here 2) It shows that there are indeed depictions of Muhammad 3) Most importantly it shows us how Muhammad is depicted by a religious artist. The Islamic prohibition on images of the prophet aside, he has been depicted and presumably none of these depictions are direct illustrations of the person of Muhammad. Therefore they are artistic interpretations that show how the artist interprets the prophet and the context in which he appears. The fact that in this picture Muhammad is shown above and to the right of his followers, the gesture of his hand and the expression on his face all hold significance. They tell us how Muhammad is perceived in the 16th. century. I don't see how this is not informative. Gwernol 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You said: They tell us how Muhammad is perceived in the 16th That means after nearly a century of Muhammad death. Do you think a historical article that tell about life of Muhammad should have something that has nothing to do with real Muhammad. You can go and improve article named Depiction of Muhammad and keep that picture there. (BTW I never had any sockpuppet since I am here in wikipedia.) --- ALM 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, stop compare Jesus and Muhammad they are very different persons and should be treated differently. Historically Jesus has be depicted in pictures and Muhammad not usually except in very very few instances. --- ALM 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[Responding to Proabivouac] In general, guidelines do not share the same level of consensus as policies. It is for that reason, in part, that they are guidelines. However, this does not mean that we should ignore the guideline and do the opposite. A fair number, if not the majority of participants in the mediation expressed the opinion that images should have informative or encyclopedic value.

[Responding to Gwernol]. I agree that the way Muhammad may have been perceived in the 16th century by a very distinct minority of his followers, is something that has encyclopedic value and deserves a place in Wikipedia. However, the article is about Muhammad and not about what individuals many centuries later may have imagined regarding Muhammad. Regarding your point 3, I think it is important to employ NPOV. The image does indeed show us how Muhammad is depicted by a religious artist. However, the overwhelming majority of depictions of Muhammad are in the form of calligraphy. Presenting the atypical as if it were typical may be very misleading to readers. Could you clarify what significance you find in the gesture of his hand or the expression on his face or that he is shown above and to the right of his followers? Do we know that Muhammad used this gesture, or that he had that expression, or that he made this purported address standing on a platform? --BostonMA ^talk 19:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have no idea what the specific significance of those gestures are, but I'm certain they had specific meaning to the artist, and I would assume they form an iconography of the relationship of Muhammad to his followers and the particular moment being illustrated. The point is that the illustration is embued with meaning and this meaning is highly informative. As for your point about calligraphy, this image isn't being presented in the article as being the typical or common form of depiction of Muhammad, so I don't think you can claim it violates WP:NPOV at least on those grounds. I don't believe it misleads readers, especially as the article already has a section on depictions that describes this issue. Gwernol 20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ALM, a lot of what we know about Muhammad comes from later sources. I think your line of argumentation is all wrong. Most of the images of Jesus are also over a millennium after his death but they are notable. The issue here is how to properly represent a tradition. It is clear that the images are not of this historical man, Muhammad. In terms of realism the pictures are often cartoony--Muslims did not develop the same painting traditions as Renaissance Christians to depict people as lifelike humans. What images represent the tradition of representing Muhammad? I would argue that first we need a calligraphy. We have that. Then we should probably have more calligraphy of a different style. Then we should have a face covered picture. I would have no problem with a face covered picture lower in the article. In fact, I really don't mind this image too much. Just, let us not pretend we are using it to represent Muhammad. We are using it to represent the tradition of representing Muhammad. I'd say we need one traditional image and then calligraphy. That is my prescription for this page. But, we need someone to do research to look into how prevalent paintings were of Muhammad and to find what kind of painting represents him best or, if you find that historically there is no case for using an image because it is such a minuscule tradition then make that case. I know there has been a long tradition of not depicting Muhammad... but I cannot make out if this argument against any image is privileging modern strains of iconoclasm or really representing how he was depicted throughout history. But, what I want people to gain from this post is that "informative" does not apply to representing the historical man. It applies to accurately representing the tradition of depiction. So, let us try to accurately represent the tradition without giving in to either modern Muslim iconoclasm or the Western sense that a picture is a more accurate representation. gren グレン 23:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is unnecessarily inflammatory to have so early in this article, and perhaps in the article at all. The subject of "traditions of depictions of Muhammad" is important enough to have an article about it with pictures, and it does, but not important enough to creep into this main article. - Merzbow 03:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way(s) is it "inflammatory?" Because we've a handful of editors deleting it? This seems to me entirely circular.Proabivouac 08:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is "inflammatory" because very large majority of Muslims feel it inflammatory. --- ALM 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I have no problems with including information in articles that piss off large numbers of people if it is highly encyclopedic, and in the correct place (i.e., the Criticism of Islam articles). But as has been pointed out a number of times here, this image is of minimal historical importance, so why throw gasoline on the fire by putting it at the beginning of this extremely high-profile article, which should be kept as short as possible and thus should only include the absolutely most reliable and relevant data? - Merzbow 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

ALM, that's not a good reason. You need to argue your case based on Wikipedia rules. If your only reason is because it offends Muslims then you have no case. Try to bring some evidence about whether or not it's relevant. I have just e-mailed a professor about their opinions. I may or may not get a response but hopefully that will be interesting. gren グレン 02:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules bound our actions, they do not write articles. It is within the rules to include the pictures, and it is within the rules to exclude them. It is a judgment call on the part of editors whether or not to do so. - Merzbow 08:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is inflammatory. Note, inflammatory is not a subjective feeling but an reaction that can be clearly shown. But, the guideline doesn't talk about "inflammatory" but about "offensive". In what regard is it actually offensive (as opposed to a mere dislike)?

The certainly is informative, as it tells us about how Muhammad possibly looked like. Clearly it is no passport photo and hence not very accurate but neither are the pictures we have at Jesus (leaving aside my view on a certain shroud). The answer to this is to include more than one picture of Muhammad, just as it is done over at the Jesus article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"How Muhammad possibly looked like". "Not very accurate". Are you actually trying to convince us with these statements? He was male and came from Arabia. Beyond that your guess is as good as mine. Islamic art is one of the world's most important artistic traditions - can we try to let its light shine through in this encyclopedia? Thanks. Itsmejudith 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you have misunderstood me. I am in favour of including one, two or more pictures (artistic depictions) of Muhammad in his article, just as we would do in any other article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is ludicrous that we are back at this again. The picture is now sourced. Why this one picture in particular has drawn the ire of some is beyond me, unless it is a prelude to the deletion of all such images. It is no more or less informative or relevant than the dozens of posthumous images of Jesus, Buddha, Moses, or, for that matter, Genghis Khan.

ALM's insistence that this is a different case because it deals with Muhammad fails to convince me, as do the constant appeals to irrelevant "profanity" guidelines. ALM's insistence that "Historically Jesus has be depicted in pictures and Muhammad not usually except in very very few instances [sic]" is entirely his own original research and a statement that is not borne out by the evidence. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay than I challenge you. You named THREE mosques and FIVE books with picture of Muhammad. Books should be published by reliable sources and should not have cartoon images but should have historical pictures If you succeed than I will drop my objection.

In Germany and Sweden all the churches I have visited had picture of Jesus. Even the train-station on Christmas had pictures of Jesus. I have visited much more mosques as compared to Churches in my life being a Muslim. I never ever found a single picture of Muhammad. Hence accepting that they both are different kind of people and should be deal differently is logical.

Similary you could find a picture of Jesus of 6 century an that time Muhammad was alive. Did you ever find any picture of Muhammad so old. Best all of those people pushing pictures are able to find a picture of 13th century and other from 16th century (compare it with 6th Century picture of Jesus). They were different kind of person and each individual should be deal differently according to history. --- ALM 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What one finds on wikipedia may not conform to what one might find in a mosque. Your argument would be relevant only were our topic Muhammad in Contemporary Mosques.Proabivouac 20:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Will it be conformed to other encyclopedia and books? Because many other encyclopedia has no picture of Muhammad too. Or it should only be conformed to just tease other people on the name of no-censorship? --- ALM 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It should neither tease people in the name of no-censorship nor censor in the name of no-teasing-in-the-name-of-no-censorship.Proabivouac 20:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued

Hi. I deleted the Maome image because I do not believe it is informative in that context. Could you explain to me the information you believe it adds to the article? Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It gives people a visual to understand what Mohammad looked like. That is why it is informative. Mohammad was a person and he obviously looked like something. The image fills our need to put a face to a name. See:Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10#Pictures. This has already been discussed here.--Sefringle 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How can it possibly give people a visual understanding of Muhammad. Which person in the picture looks most like Muhammad? Does the person on the platform look more like Muhammad than say Abraham? Satisfying a supposed need to put an face to a name is not something that I would consider "informative". It might be "nice" but it isn't informative. --20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious from looking at the picture that Mohammad is the one seperate from the crowd on the Minbar. If putting a name to a face is not informative, define what constitutes informative in your opinion.--Sefringle 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Visual depictions of Muhammad are a minority trend in Islamic culture, and peppering the Muhammad article with them is giving that tradition undue weight. Plus I believe that the fact that this offends a large percentage of Muslims is something to take into account (although it is not an overriding concern, hence the existence of the Criticism articles). - Merzbow 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You agree with who?--Sefringle 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BostonMA. - Merzbow 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Miraj2.jpg

A number of editors such as ALM Scientist keeps removing this image from the article. Could these editors please explain why? It is a high quality painting that seems to be both relevant and appropriate to the specific section of the article, and it also provide the readers with relevant additional information. -- Karl Meier 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not create a new sections with same heading read above a section already exist. --- ALM 14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't created "a new sections with same heading". Try to read it again, and do not edit my comments on this talk page. -- Karl Meier 15:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think because there's still debate on whether or not there should be an image of Muhammad. The debate was about the first image--now you're adding another. It is pretty obvious why this is happening. Can't we just get the question of the images settled and then maybe we'll come up with: "there should be 1 Muhammad painting" or 2 or none. I don't know, but this edit warring is stupid and I am going to have to get the page protected if it doesn't stop. gren グレン 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the image is relevant, adds additional information, is of high quality and is also appropriate in the section where it has been added, then I don't see what there is to discuss. Wikipedia exist to inform it's readers about various issues, and is supposed to use illustrations where it is appropriate and where these illustrations adds something to the readers understanding of the articles or sections topic. Islamic right wing opinions and ideas about what is allowed and what be published are irrelevant, as they are not a part of Wikipedia's policies. Another thing is that I don't see why we should discuss if we should have one or two images or a hundred images? Frankly, I believe it is a pretty strange approach to this issue. It seems more reasonable to discuss individual illustrations and whether or not including them is according to policy. -- Karl Meier 09:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Karl. I have voiced similiar opinions on Muhammad's mediation page here. This matter must be decided once and for all, not only for this article but for others as well like the Kaaba where I'm facing similiar issues where some editors keep removing pictures. The job of an Encyclopedia is to INCLUDE information, not exclude it. If inclusion of good interesting information offends some editors, well sorry - that doesnt mean the 8,000 people visiting Wikipedia every hour will never get to see that information.--Matt57 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If we needlessly alienate a large section of our potential audience by inclusion of pictures in a location far more prominent that their marginal encyclopedic value would appear to justify, then a greater disservice is done. - Merzbow 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If the editors we are alienating have opinions of an extremist minority nature, maybe we are better off without their contributions. You can be sure that someone else with better moderate more tolerant views will take their place. If you stop being afraid of people's views and give priority to "information", which is what this Encyclopedia is for, everything else will take care of itself.--Matt57 06:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 has a point. Editors who've deleted depictions of Muhammad have not, in general, contributed neutrally to this space, while readers who expect image-free articles are probably not looking for neutrality in text, either. Wikipedia is, by design, probably not their ideal resource or home.Proabivouac 09:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly only extremist Muslims who are offended by depictions of Muhammad; from what I understand, the majority of them are, extremist or liberal. Would you also advocate including a picture of the infamous Piss Christ in the first page of the Jesus article? There are a million ways to compromise on this; why not include one of the depictions with Muhammad's face blanked out at least, and put the picture much further in the article? - Merzbow 09:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to Piss Christ, the images of Muhammad are not intentionally inflammatory and provocative. They were made by Muslims in a good-faith effort to depict Muhammad. Beit Or 09:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"From what I understand, the majority of them are, extremist or liberal."

Merzbow, I am in all candor not convinced that this is the case. Silence in the face of social pressure does not necessarily equal support of censorship. Were I growing up in a country where such depictions were prohibited, and I heard that Wikipeda was uncensored, I would certainly hope to find them here, and would be disheartened to discover that the same elements which regulate thought and dialogue in my homeland had expanded their racket all the way to Florida. I'm not certain to how many readers this might apply, but I don't believe you are, either.Proabivouac 09:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no censorship going on here. The images are in Depictions of Muhammad, one click away. Thowing these pictures in the face of Muslims who, for whatever reason, are offended by them, by placing them on the first page of the second-most important Islam-related article here, is working directly against the goal of getting information to Muslims. Many will come to this article, new to Wikipedia, see the picture, and immediately log off, instead of being drawn into the article, seeing that Wikipedia is a high-quality resource, and in time perhaps becoming willing to push their own boundaries and click through to more controversial articles like the Depictions or the Criticism articles. - Merzbow 18:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No one is "throwing these pictures in [anyone's] face" anymore than pictures are thrown in one's face on any other article. Such langage is prejudicial and unduly dramatic: the images are merely displayed in the margins, no more obtrusive than the Islam or Muhammad template. Were a giant close-up in the center of the lead, then your characterization would be on point, and I should hope that we can all agree to stop such trolling.

“Many will come to this article, new to Wikipedia, see the picture, and immediately log off...”

We have no evidence to this effect. Perhaps, who knows? What I’m seeing is the implicit promotion of editors to this page to representatives of the Muslim world - and they are not logging off and quitting Wikipedia, but are as active as ever. The relentless anon and sockpuppet attacks are perhaps more meaningful, but what do they mean? Are they current or former editors? Are they responding to BBS posts? Or are they average people, reading Wikipedia peacably, who come across the images and feel compelled to act? I find that last scenario unlikely, but again, maybe. We don’t know.

I believe this discussion is important enough to be migrated to the mediation page. Do you agree?Proabivouac 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of depictions of Muhammad. Many of them are historically relevant and information. One such example is Muhammad with a bomb turban from Jyllands-Posten. It has an interesting story that belongs on Wikipedia. It does not belong in this article. My point is that adding information is not the only criteria. You have to weight what best represents the tradition. The reason I listed a certain number of pictures is because we will have X images on the page. A will be calligraphy, B will be places important to Muhammad (such as the mosque in Medina) and C will be paintings of him. They should be proportional to their importance to the article. Some things are informational but are just not important enough to warrant inclusion in the article. We should be trying to figure out if the paintings are important enough. I think this is completely reasonable. It's obvious information--the question is, "is it important enough to belong in this article compared to other representations". There are tons of images we can use--why are we using the ones we do? That is what both sides need to justify. Articles can only support a limited number of images so we need to use what best represents the subject. This is why no one is questioning pictures on Depictions of Muhammad (I hope) but they are for this article. gren グレン 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gren, see my comment below. Can we keep this discussion in one place?Proabivouac 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Grenavitar, I have responded to your statements regarding images of calligraphy on the Muhammad mediation page[7], where this debate should be taking place. Many editors may not be aware that the points they are raising here have already been raised there. Conversely, if they have new points to make, it is important that they appear there.Proabivouac 06:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Persian Kings

Funnypop12, could you please substantiate you claims that the picture that we have in the article is a painting of Persian kings, or could you please stop reverting? Another things is, that for the record and anyone counting reverts, I am the anon that made the first revert restoring the painting in this article. I actually logged in, but FireFox somehow and for some reason logged me out again.. -- Karl Meier 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, Karl, since you are the one who wants to include it, the onus is on you to show that the picture represents Muhammad.Itsmejudith 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be no dispute that both images were intended to depict Muhammad, besides the puzzling claims of the disruptive single-issue sockpuppet Funnypop12, who refuses to join discussion. I find it unusual that you'd see Funnypop12's edit summaries as reliable sources which place upon us and the Bibliotheque Nationale the onus to refute them.Proabivouac 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl has no such obligation. The pictures in question have been here for quite some time. They're only re-added when vandals remove them. Nobody questioned the identity of the subject of these pictures until now. The onus is on Funnypop12 to prove his assertions. Frotz661 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that the French Bibliotheque Nationale has them labelled as intended representations of the Prophet, then that is a prima facie a good enough source. I still have seen no coherent argument as to why any picture contributes to the encyclopedic purpose.Itsmejudith 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias typically have pictures of the subject in the longer and more important articles. Frotz661 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and Jewish Tribes

Hi This section could be improved as a new article, as this is not a very significant part of his life I suggest we create a new article for this. This will help keep the current article short and make it adhere to wikipedia article size guidelines. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed there is already an article called Muhammad and Judaism why not move this section there. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've some doubts about the following sentences:

The Qur'an's response regarding the possibility of a non-Jew being a prophet was that Abraham was not a Jew. Is this true? It could very well be, but then was it also stated in the form of a direct response to the Jewish criticism? Not so sure about that. The Qur'an also claimed that it was "restoring the pure monotheism of Abraham which had been corrupted in various, clearly specified, ways by Jews and Christians". I doubt the Quran literally states this, so why the quotation marks? And I'm not so sure about the ref too. I haven't finished my Quran yet so I don't think I can fix these issues myself but any insights are appreciated. Feer 15:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the following link leading to Google book search [8] and when I searched for the phrase quoted here I did not yield any result. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and the West

Aminz has written this highly biased section, in a quite transparent attempt to show how "one of the worlds great men" has been unjustly maligned by western bigots, according to his original research. I suggest that we deleted it and replace it with a more general and less biased section, called "Criticism of Muhammad" or something similar. Anyone disagreeing with that? -- Karl Meier 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Like the rest of the article in miniature: a biased quote farm. I have a strong feeling that some editors have resorted to quote shopping: the quotes most favorable to Muhammad were cherrypicked from secondary sources. Beit Or 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a major problem. I just read some of the "Islam" article, and what's currently in it is quite depressing. The fact that claims such as "Modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation" (in other words Modern Western historians have converted to Islam) and "The most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude" is allowed to stay there, pretty much says it all. -- Karl Meier 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's just ridiculous how some editors here have managed to collect the quotes in such a manner as to create the impression that academic historians believe Islam to be the true religion. Beit Or 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed..Proabivouac 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

non copyrighted images and biased editing removed. Mak82hyd 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting point you are making there Mak82hyd. You want to remove "non copyrighted images"? :-) -- Karl Meier 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry my mistake i mean copyrighted. Mak82hyd 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? So what makes you think that the images that you are removing, which are both more than 400 years old, should be copyrighted material? -- Karl Meier 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mak82hyd, some of your edit summaries are misleading, while others are rather disturbing.[9]Proabivouac 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very misleading and sometimes disturbing and strange. Here is another one: "i have prob". What does that mean? -- Karl Meier 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to be an admission.Proabivouac 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to censor reliable information?? (Proabivouac you too? ) --Aminz 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Crusades

• "The most destructive physical manifestation of the contempt and fear of Islam was the Crusades, during which hundreds of thousands Muslims were massacred."

Itaqallah, this is a simplistic and highly opinionated view of the Crusades, which moreover has no relevance to this article.Proabivouac 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the criticism section; the Crusades have nothing to do with criticism of Muhammad. - Merzbow 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, criticising Islam, it's customs and beleifs, as well as denigrating Muhammad were part of the build-up and popular demonizing of Muslims during the crusades. These things are common to justify and whip the war frenzy among the populace anywhere but the extent of the struggle did create such a tradition and athmosphere. This is a common feature of human society, demonizing the enemy.--Tigeroo 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval demonization of Muhammad is already covered in the section. Modern views from notable sources are far more important to give space to. There is a place to argue about the Crusades, but this small section isn't it. - Merzbow 07:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not making a statement on the article. It looks fine to me in this regard. Merely commenting on the comment that crusades had nothing to do with criticism of Muhammad.--Tigeroo 12:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sincerety of Muhammad

It is Modern Historian's view not that of Watt or Reeves or others. Please see "Cambridge History of Islam" or "Muhammad in Europe" or other sources. Please don't change it to "many think". BTW, "Cambridge History of Islam" is available in book.google.com you can check it yourself. Thanks. --Aminz 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I did check it, the articles in that book are written by individual contributors like Watt. That makes only two sources, and two historians, not all historians. - Merzbow 03:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he doesn't say his own opinion but that of Modern historians. Here we have a reliable source giving us the opinion of modern historians. --Aminz 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still only the opinion of that single source that other historians believe X, Y, and Z. The only way to reliably establish that a large number of historians believe something is to reference each of those historians' writings directly. - Merzbow 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if they are reputed folk in their field, they should be able to charecterize the majority opinion. They are the ones who interact and work with the opions the most. The only question can you trust they have no ulterior motive or can trust that they are impartial in their assesment of what the prevailing theory is. As an aside, I have little idea, what the issue under discussion is, I am just making a comment on the validity of the statement not the issue.--Tigeroo 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one noted scholar X claims that "Modern historians are in agreement that Y" gives one justification to say that "Noted scholar X claims that modern historians are in agreement that Y", but not justification to say that "Modern historians are in consensus that Y". The latter statement is far stronger, and requires multiple sourcing. - Merzbow 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.Proabivouac 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And it is simply not true that the Cambridge Histories work by having one scholar characterize majority opinion or summarize it. They write their scholarly opinion. They are chosen for that job because they are considered worthy scholars. But sill, what they write is their opinion. Other scholars will respect it as scholarly opinion but no more. I happen to be familiar with some of the Cambridge Ancient History which has some tremendously one-sided sections (say Taft on Alexander the Great) - it is scholarship no doubt, but it is not all there is or consensus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. As a leading professional engaged in the field, his assesment of the mood of common thought is expert testimony. As a professional he should be able to differentiate between his opinions and concepts and the prevailing majority concepts and acknowledge where they differ. They do not need to tally, but I think we can say that such people are qualified to make the assesment, unless there is reason to doubt his qualification, his neutrality or if there a different assesment gives reason to doubt the accuracy of his assesment. Ofcourse, the statement would be sourced back to the person who made it. I don't see how it is exceptional claim. Note my comments had little to do with the issue in question so I apologize if I am confusing the arguments. The way I see it it appears to be an attempt at depoving and balancing the article because of speculation on motives involved. In this case I think it may be better to remove such speculation as it is very subjective and I don't really beleive we can present a useful cogent view here except dabble in polemics--Tigeroo 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The other source says: "There has been a genuine attempt since 1950s by European experts on Islam and their popularizers to review Muhammad and his religion afresh, returning to Islamic sources in place of the deeply engrained, prejudiced Western perspectives that had built up over so much time. These writers, translating Qur'an into their own European languages, concluded from their analysis that, contrary to prevailing views, Muhammad had been devout and sincere."

Annemarie Schimmel states that the most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude; a man who was so certain of being God's instrument. --Aminz 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a tradeoff that you can do with this text here; if you phrase the text in a less controversial and more general way (i.e. without phrases like "prejudiced Western perspectives"), it's more likely you can find a large number sources that directly support the text. With 5 or 6 good sources, I wouldn't object to phrasing it as a "consensus of modern historians hold that Muhammad was honest in his religious convictions" or something like that. - Merzbow 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

thought i'd beat Aminz to it. from the Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad article (written by Buhl/Welch):

"He could now have consoled himself with the thought that he had done his duty as a “warner” and could regard [VII: 366a] it as the will of God that his people were not to be saved (cf. X, 99; XLIII, 89). But the consciousness of being a chosen instrument of God had gradually become so powerful within him that he was no longer able to sink back into an inglorious existence with his objective unachieved."

later, in evaluation of Muhammad's life:

"The great difficulty that the modern biographer of Muhammad feels on every page is this, that the real secret of his career, the wonderful strength of his personality and his power of influencing those around him by suggestion, is not recorded in the early sources and indeed could not have been, since the early, devout Muslim biographers proceeded with the assumption that his great feats and extraordinary successes were not the acts of a man, but were supernatural proofs that the Prophet was acting in the service of God. From the Kur`an, it is true, one becomes [VII:375a] acquainted with his earliest remarkable inspirations that continue to bring awe to the pious just as they no doubt did when Muhammad first recited them. Also, his eminent political gifts seen so often during the Medinan years are obvious to modern historians. Who could doubt that the commander at the battle of Badr or that the negotiator at Hudaybiya was a man of intellectual superiority and extraordinary diplomatic skill? These insights into Muhammad’s genius that are unmistakable in the sources are, however, only isolated flashes. For the most part we have to read the essentials between the lines.

The really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling. His real personality was revealed quite openly with its limitations: his human strength and his knowledge were limited; the ability to perform miracles was denied him; and the Kur`an speaks quite frankly of his faults (XXXIV, 50; XL, 55; XLVII, 19; XLVIII, 1 f.; LXXX, 1 if.; IX, 43)."

-- ITAQALLAH 04:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical. Honestly I've always thought that the major religious prophets in history like Jesus, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith (to name a few) believed they were actual prophets, as opposed to charlatans consciously trying to run a scam (although I'll make an exception for L. Ron Hubbard). I'm just being conservative with the language we use to write about this topic specifically since I know it is controversial for many people. - Merzbow 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought the same, and I earlier used the example of Joan of Arc for someone who believed that she directly heard the voice of God. I was surprised to hear that there had been any doubt at all about this question, but it's clear from Watt and Schimmel's comments that historians have been addressing it. So it needs to be included, but at a suitable place where it does not leap out at the reader.Itsmejudith 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Sincere" is a judgement call: if 90% of a would-be prophets' revelations are deemed "sincere", while 10% are possibly "insincere," was the prophet sincere, or insincere? We can agree in such cases that they are not rank frauds per Hubbard, but to call them then "sincere" is unwarranted (though to deny that they are broadly insincere might very well be warranted, if still speculative) It all depends upon one's expectations. That said, I don't see what these discussions might add to the article besides POV (in any direction).Proabivouac 10:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Watt in Cambridge History of Islam says that Muhammad was able to easily distinugish between the revelations and his words. The revelations were not the product of his conscious mind. So, Muhammad would be sincere even if 90% came from God and 10% from his unconscious mind. or if 0% from God and 100% from his unconscious mind.--Aminz 10:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really need me to tell you that even if Muhammad "was able to easily distinugish between the revelations and his words" and "the revelations were not the product of his conscious mind," that it does not in any wise logically follow that any particular proportion of the Qur'an is the product of these revelations, as you mean to suggest? This is an entirely speculative and fruitless discussion which the article will not benefit from including.Proabivouac 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, we just quote whatever Watt says. We don't have to convince each other. Peace --Aminz 10:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't quote everything the sources say; otherwise, articles would run to thousands of pages. We must be selective. Beit Or 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We may agree about Hubbard, but there a fair few who won't. Sometimes, even the experts can at best speculate. Can we decide if their speculation is based upon inferences or an assumption that they cannot really defend. Which raises the question, can we even decide what they basing their judgements on? ACtually in this case, I can't be sure but maybe hadith may be able to shed some light on what may have been behind such a speculation.--Tigeroo 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Aisha saw Muhammad sweating on a cold day after a "divine inspiration," ergo, the text of the Qur'an was not a product of his conscious mind?Proabivouac 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not follow that at all, but yes the fact that they mentioned and noted it says the narrators thought it was important to the credibility. If that was in reference to Aminz, I apologize, but the point I wanted to make was speculation on someones state of mind 1400 years ago is a futile excercise, and while interesting when made or addressed im this case can be done without. I suspect this was included more to cover snide aside remarks territory. I beleive the intention was likely to depov the "fits" which was seen as raising a mental balance question. Is there a better way to present this information?--Tigeroo 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset) per Beit Or, indeed we must be selective. that does not necessitate that we neglect this topic which is of primacy in this article and indeed central to any discussion about Muhammad's claim to prophethood. the evaluation of Muhammad's personality in this regard is essential, especially when this facet has received a significant amount of attention from academics. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personality of Muhammad

I'd be curious to hear what other editors think of this edit.Proabivouac 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added references. Here is the source [10]--Aminz 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots of problems here. First, this section doesn't belong where it is so prominently in the article, it should be section 6.5 or something. Second, it makes lengthly, sweeping statements based on just a single source, giving it far too much weight. It should be moved into a sub-section, shrunk to about half its size, and made clear that all the statements in it are the opinion of Watt. - Merzbow 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Aminz 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this section is against everything that Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality is about. It's nothing but unbalanced partisan commentary, and I'll delete it if substantial improvements is not made very, very soon. We can't have something like that in a major Wikipedia article. Aminz, I believe that it's now the second time you have added material to this article that is against Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality. Could you please (re)read Wikipedias policy regarding neutrality and adjust your edits according to that policy from now on? -- Karl Meier 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl, do you think Watt's evaluation is a partisan commentary???????????????? --Aminz 08:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly so. Beit Or 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I believe Aminz is doing is to piece information together in a way that promotes his own opinion, and that is not just against NPOV but also against WP:NOR. Even well-sourced material can be presented in a way that is shouting a message at the reader. -- Karl Meier 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I had the same experience with Aminz on other articles, too. Beit Or 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you people should bring some scholarly sources, which are published by University presses or renowned scholarly presses rather than criticizing others. This attitude of bad faith is not good for wiki-environment and not constructive at all. If someone thinks that content is not showing the actual picture, he/she should bring another scholarly source to show the other side of the picture rather than censoring the information, and judging the quality of the content yourself rather than leaving it to the scholarly source which has published it. *sigh* I have been explaining this thing on other articles as well, but I think no one is listening anymore. TruthSpreader^reply 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --Aminz 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Personality

Muhammad had a firm control over his feelings. He never spoke unnecessarily, always to the extent that made his point clear. He had carefully apportioned his time according to the demands from him. There was long periods of silence being deep in thought, yet he never rested but was always busy with something. He was very tactful in his dealing with people. In main he was gentle though at times he could be severe. Watt states that at least some among the many stories illustrating his gentleness and tenderness of feeling are worthy of credence. He was especially fond of children and was able to enter into the spirit of childish games and had many friends among children. According to Watt, he had "insight into the fundamental causes of the social malaise of the time, and the genius to express this insight in a form which would stir the hearer to the depths of his being." He was also a very skillful administrator and in choice of men to whom to delegate administrative details. According to Watt, "Muhammad gained men's respect and confidence by the religious basis of his activity and by qualities such as courage, resoluteness, impartiality and firmness inclining to severity but tempered by generosity. In addition to these he had a charm of manner which won their affection and secured their devotion."

I made the decision to move this section to the talk page, and I believe that this should be the place for it, until it has been changed into something balanced, unbiased and more suitable for one of our more important articles. -- Karl Meier 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to move the {{sermon}} template along with it. Good work. I also must second your sharp but pithy comment above re the neutrality policy. We all have our biases, but there is a point at which observers will question whether an editor is trying to follow it at all.Proabivouac 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Details of Revelation

Tigeroo has recently added this passage:[11]

• "Upon receiving the first revelation he was deeply affected, and when he returned home he related the event to his wife Khadijah. He was unsure of the meaning of his experience and expressed his fears that it might have been something diabolic or the action of evil spirits and was consoled and reassured by Khadijah and her Christian cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal. This was followed by a pause of three years during which Muhammad had gave himself up futher to prayers and spiritual practices. When the revelations resumed he was reassured and commanded him to begin preaching."

This speculative blow-by-blow anachronistically takes Muhammad's point of view, and entirely assumes the truth of the most controversial point in Muhammad's life, to which it adds a bogus patina of credibility.Proabivouac 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That section uses the Qur'an as a source for making factual historical statements, which isn't allowed because the Qur'an is a primary source. That paragraph and the paragraph before it should go or be sourced to secondary sources that are qualified to interpret the Qur'an. - Merzbow 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This passage should stay. Even if the sourcing is currently defective (but more so because the Quran is such a difficult book and not merely because it is a primary source). However, we do know that it is a more or less accurate description. I don't see where it assumy the truth of his claims (if you don't overemphasize the wording "receiving the first revelation", which can be rephrased). Maybe we can also include M's suicidal attempts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like any other improperly sourced but otherwise reasonable passage, it should be left up for a while to see if can be sourced, but only for a short time (a few days). The events related in this passage should be very easy to source to any book on Muhammad's life. I'll check this weekend. - Merzbow 01:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A little further on, it states, "When the revelations resumed," and yes, this is my biggest objection. Others include getting inside Muhammad's mind: "He was unsure of the meaning of his experience and expressed his fears...and was consoled and reassured..." and the uninformative "spiritual practices." If they can be sourced and stated neutrally, without the presumption of religious truth, I agree that such details are interesting and deserve to be here.Proabivouac 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The first appearance of "revelation" can be replaced with something like "The experience in the cave deeply affected him and he went home to relate it to ..." (note that the sentence above is also the grammatically incomplete). The outwardly events (what M. does and says) should be carefully distinguished from supposed inwardly developments (as these are necessarily speculative, they should be attributed). I agree that the spiritual practices should be specified or removed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Can clean up the language. I felt it was important that we were missing his intial reactions which are also an important part of the tradition of the first revelation. Especially when we are talking about sincerity or mental balance, and was an attempt at making it better though on second thought i think I made it more confusing. The source is here at the MSA site. It's pretty main stream and documented in both hadith and sira, I'll take a crack at cleaning up the language again. As an aside we are talking about his life from Muslim sources.--Tigeroo 13:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a source and cleaned it up. I didn't think the last bit about "physical manifestations" was important enough to include, I thought it would be difficult to source also. - Merzbow 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, your new version reads:

"Upon receiving the first revelation he was scared, and when he returned home he related the event to his wife Khadijah. He was consoled and reassured by Khadijah and her Christian cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal. Waraqah was immediately enthusiastic, but Khadijah proceeded more cautiously, and was only satisfied that the revelations had indeed come from a good source after the conclusion of a test she had devised to determine that very thing. This was followed by a pause of three years during which Muhammad had gave himself up further to prayers and spiritual practices. When the revelations resumed he was reassured and commanded him to begin preaching."

This version is still flawed:

• It still assumes the truth of received revelation. For many or most readers, this is the very most central point of contention, and this language is akin to beginning a sentence, "After Jesus Christ rose from the dead, ..." It's rather a problematic issue. Of course, we could begin every sentence with, "According to Islamic tradition, ..." but it'd be better if we could come up with some neutral language. Changing the focus from what may or may not have transpired between Muhammad and Gabriel, which we don't and can't know, to what Muhammad actually said, which people did witness, would avoid this problem.
• What test did Khadijah perform?
• What did she mean by a good source? Contrast to the topicality and specificity of Muhammad (vs. Khadijah) fearing he’d been contacted by evil spirits (vs. a good source).
• Again, what spiritual practices? These vary widely, and to call any practice "spiritual" is not just uninformative but also POV.
• As it happens, the ultimate source of Tigeroo’s additions, Muhammad Hamidullah’s Introduction to Islam (Centre Culturel Islamique, Paris, 1969).[12], may be (?) more authoritative than Brown.
• Tigeroo's physical details are very interesting, however they must first be sourced, and then appear further in the article, as they are in not, in fact, associated with the first episode.
• "When the revelations resumed he was reassured and commanded him to begin preaching." needs to be a new paragraph, and again, must not characterize them as "revelations" or speak of Muhammad's inner feelings as facts.
• Finally, although I realize it's a common way of putting it, I think it strange that we should call the next three years a "pause" or a "gap." It's more natural to begin a new paragraph, "Three years later, ..."Proabivouac 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think that reasonably frequent applications of the provisio "according to Islamic tradition" are enough to qualify nearby uses of the term "revelation". Reliable secular sources like Professor Daniel Brown's book are written in exactly this way (you can read it on Amazon, pages 72-74). In fact, we would be amiss in saying that "according to tradition" and then saying something like "alleged revelations". The tradition does not claim "alleged revelations", it claims "revelations". Merzbow 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in any given instance, either "according to" or something approaching "alleged" (as alleged is palpably skeptical) should be used, not both. However, I strongly object to the notion (not to assume that you are saying this) that one may say, "According to, ..." on one sentence, and then proceed through a paragraph as if this were still in effect, particularly where the content is controversial.Proabivouac 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but everything I read leads me to believe that this is how scholars write about religious history. See the Brown book; also see the Ernst book, p. 74. - Merzbow 08:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite often, yes. Even more so, actually, when recounting what is uncontroversially viewed as mythology. Does WP:NPOV oblige us to exercize greater caution? I think it does. If Muhammad's prophecy is real, and hence Islam is true, then, from the most orthodox perspectives, most living people are in error which will consign us to eternal hellfire. This is an extraordinary claim which requires careful handling at every step.Proabivouac 08:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If what you're proposed is prefixing every usage of any possible reference to a religious experience, like "revelation", with a qualifier, I can't agree, it would make the text absolutely unreadable. The question then becomes how frequent should the qualifiers be. I don't see it useful trying to formulate a hard-and-fast rule for this, but I think once per paragraph is enough to signal to even the most obtuse reader that Wikipedia is not trying to assert the truth of these experiences. - Merzbow 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the statements of Muhammad be characterized as statements of Muhammad, which in most cases (excepting disputed hadith) would relieve us of the need to say, "according to."Proabivouac 09:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The entire section is labelled as According to Muslim Tradition. I do not think it is necessary to continously repeat ourselves everywhere else. We have already established and sourced the POV.--Tigeroo 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph the second

Recent edits (I believe Tigeroo’s?) present us with this:

“Muslim history records Muhammad as having received revelations from God from the age of 40; delivered through the angel Gabriel over the last 23 years of his life. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an...”

There are several problems with this sentence and following clause. First, "records Muhammad as having received" is a horribly awkward predicate. Second, "history records" strongly suggests accuracy. Finally, history doesn’t actually record Muhammad as receiving revelations over 23 years, only Muhammad relating these experiences (truthfully or not) to others. The Qur'an, by general agreement, reflects Muhammad's words. Whether these continue revelations from Gabriel is the very heart of the question, "Is Islam true?," and, if WP:NPOV is to be taken seriously, must not be presumed at any point, for any reason.Proabivouac 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not saying "history records", it's saying "Muslim history records". Muslim, i.e. explicitly non-secular, history certainly does record revelations. - Merzbow 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Muslim history" is POV in this context; see "Muslim mythology." "Islamic tradition" is probably the most neutral choice I've seen thus far. "Records" unambiguously suggests fidelity.Proabivouac 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, "Islamic tradition" is probably better. And of course 'records' suggest fidelity - if a source "records" something, the implication is that the source is not writing down something it thinks is incorrect. I see no issue with the word; by attributing the recording to a specific source, we are freed from the burden of agonizing over issues of absolute truth. - Merzbow 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Records" suggests that someone witnessed the revelations occuring and wrote down what they saw - a far cry from the fairly uncontroversial reality of Muhammad relating to people what Gabriel supposedly told him and them recording that. There is no one who can claim to have “recorded” these except Muhammad himself. Conversely, there is no problem with using "records" if what is recorded is "that Muhammad said..."Proabivouac 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"that Muhammad said" is encompassed by the term "according to Islamic tradition". I think it's unnecessary to separate the two here; both "Muhammad" and "Islamic tradition" carry the same presumption of a non-secular Muslim perspective. - Merzbow 09:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problem with attributing claims to Muhammad that I am failing to appreciate?Proabivouac 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably more accurate (although not as precise) to say "Islamic tradition records", just like the Jesus article prefixes many sentences with "According to the Gospels". We'd have to qualify "Muhammad said" with "According to Islamic tradition" anyways. At this point perhaps you should make specific edits to show your intentions then we can talk more if need be. - Merzbow 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad said can only reliably be used with Hadith, and even that to a dubious account. Anything else is usually someones summary or account of what he said rather than his words. This can vary in detail, therefore tradition is fine. Also it is Muslim historical records that record these events. Record does not have to be eye-witness accounts. If that was the case most history books would not be able to claim authencity. It can be contended that charecterizing Muslim historical works as mythology is also a POV. Especially when modern historical accounts of the same period base the majority of their reconstruction upon the same historical accounts, ableit with a different interpretation and assumptions on social motivations much more distant in time. There was a rigor, albeit of a different kind, what the other option implies is presentism and could be argued that all historians of an earlier age were merely dabbling in mythology. More relevantly I think it is fairly obvious that the vehicles of prophecy, revelation and access to high truths etc. are phenomenon which cannot be reliably construed as unambigoulsy true without a certain leap of faith, therefore there is no extraordinary claim. Such claims in the field of religion can actually be classified as quite ordinary, and they are quite easily verifiably therefore the only degree of rigor required in this article is their attribution. Also claims creates an ambiguity and POV of doubt which is much more easily countered by attributing to hard facts.--Tigeroo 06:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Schimmel

Aminz, can you supply a quote from Annemarie Schimmel, supporting what has been attributed to her in the article? Beit Or 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are some quotes [13] including that of Schimmel. --Aminz 10:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not the direct quote. The referenced book is in German; please provide the direct quote in the original language. Beit Or 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that it is the translation by N.B.R. Reeves from page 51-2 of the book. I don't have the original text. --Aminz 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Revelations

Please don't say that Muhammad received revelations. Say Muhammad said he received revelations. And I have removed a couple instances of irrelevant speculation. Arrow740 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Those were the right steps towards cleaning up this page. Beit Or 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is mentioned once in the Sikh holy book, but there isn't anything positive about him in there. Arrow740 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica Encyclopedia

The article attributes "The Jewish groups had refused to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet and in the document only appear second in character. [And] the prestige of his [Muhammad] military successes [later in life] gave him almost autocratic power." to Britannica Encyclopedia. I couldn't locate it in the article Islam. Can you please specify where exactly this is mentioned. Thanks. --Aminz 10:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I can barely even understand that paragraph. Thanks for removing it. - Merzbow 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Jews

Merzbow, would you please explain why you took this out:"In the Constitution of Medina, Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy. " Thanks. --Aminz 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Arrow took that out... he thinks there is another source that contradicts it? Arrow, can you go into more detail? - Merzbow 09:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's as I said. Reuven Firestone: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118). The sentence in question was placed before a discussion of the killing of the Jews. The placement implied that it was related. I am fixing the sentence proclaiming that the Jews were accused by the Muslims of treachery, then by some unknown agents were punished for the Muslims' accusation. Arrow740 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There are debates on the date of the document that is preserved and passed down to us today. There is however no debate over existence of an early agreement after Muhammad's migration to Medina. --Aminz 11:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what the agreement was. Whatever it was, Muhammad utterly failed to keep the tribes together as a political unit. He took control of the Arab tribes and destroyed the rest. Arrow740 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Christian views of Muhammad

Some one has removed this section (which was reverted). I do not agree with the removal but the section is problematic for two reasons:

• it calls a view "medieval" that is not in any way restricted to the Middle Ages, especially since it explicitely includes a sentence about "after the reformation" (hence beyond the Middle Ages).
• it implies that this view was common among medieval Christians, failing to point out that very many people didn't care at all or hadn't heard of Muhammad in the first place.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this section as written, it has too narrow a focus. It should be reworked to cover modern times as well, and also cover positive views. - Merzbow 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been subject of constant vandalism. I suggest that locking this article be considered for unregistered or new users, especially because it is a major attraction for those who wish to manipulate the system. Aslamt 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad the reformer section

Str, we are claiming Muhammad also caused a "radical change" in moral values not that he made things utterly perfect. The tag can stay if you have a source saying in some cases Muhammad made it for worst. In case you would like to argue on that, I would be thankful if you could find sources making those arguments. --Aminz 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Aminz, the tag is put there because of concerns regarding NPOV. What you say refers to the way of fixing the problem. But the problem is there, at least because it words opinion as fact.

Neither am I complaining that Muhammad did not make everything perfect. He brought improvement in some areas but the opposite in other areas - you talk about love and equity and gentleness ... but what about those assassinated or massacred by Mr M, a thing unheard of before his time? Sure he advocated kindness among Muslims, but what about those outside of the Umma? This needs to be addressed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Grenavitar and Zora have already argued above that there is nothing in that section, suggesting all these "reforms" occurred in Muhammad's lifetime; there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Thus, we cannot equate Islam with Muhammad, as the section is doing. Islam was not the same always and everywhere; it evolved over time and space. Islam in the 8th-century Syria was not the same as Shi'a Islam in the 19th-century Persia, nor was it the same as in the 16th-century Ottoman Empire. Sunni Islam differs from Shi'a Islam, the Maliki schools differs from the Hanafi, and the list can be continued forever. As it stands, the "reformer" section is pure original research, with positive quotes about Islam having been gathered to bolster the image of Muhammad. Beit Or 08:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, I am not sure if you have read all the comments. Grenavitar wrote:"I will admit that I have not read enough to know what the feelings of the academics are about this issue." There are reliable sources explicitly attributing reforms to Muhammad such as the one I just added. --Aminz 08:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked Grenavitar for comment on this. That's the best way to go. --Aminz 09:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of sources may attribute some reforms to Muhammad, but it's not sufficient to justify the existence of the section. In any event anything dealing with Rome, Byzantium, Persia etc. must be removed, as Muhammad could not possibly "reform" anything outside Hejaz. And naturally, the section is a quote farm. Beit Or 09:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reform made in later centuries of course should be placed in an article on reforms of Islam rather than that of Muhammad. And existence of this section is justified because of many attribution of "reformer" to Muhammad. --Aminz 09:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Grenavitar's comment on my talk page. I'll remove the tag. --Aminz 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To Str: Sure. I'll see who has written the article on EoI and attribute it to him.

I am not still convinced that the incidents like Banu Qurayza, or other incidents or military decisions, were morally awkward in their context(that is in the eyes of people living back then) because I haven't so far seen any reliable sources making that claim. On the contrary Watt states the opposite, so at best that would be controversial. These issues are also already covered in their sections and in criticism of Muhammad article.

But these are what we write on wikipedia. Of course these justifications doesn't solve the issue nor does the justifications people bring for reconciliation of the natural catastrophes with a kind God solve the issue nor does the justifications people bring for violence in Bible solves it. Now this is all about this world; it gets worst and less intuitive when we talk about hell and hereafter. This is a complex issue and I have personal views and justifications for those incidents which I usually don't discuss on these talk pages because they are all my personal approach and personal thoughts and all OR.--Aminz 08:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I attributed the sentence. Instead of POV tag, please add the "opinion needs balancing" --Aminz 08:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Morally awkward?! Yes they were morally awkward. Natural catastrophes are a little easier to reconcile with the concept of a perfect God than the idea that God would tell his prophet that it's a good idea to execute prisoners. Why sacrifice your conscience for your beliefs? I don't understand how you can indicate here some understanding of the scope of Muhammad's actions while at the same time inserting that Islam brought compassion and self-restraint into Arabian life. I reverted that POV language back to the more neutral summary that was there before. Arrow740 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, as I stated above, the discussion page is not to be used for personal discussion about judgments on Muhammad. --Aminz 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you started with the musings on morality. For completeness I'll note that the "acts of God" problem can be solved if you assume that God is entirely transcendent, i.e. beyond "human" morality. So calling God either forgiving and merciful or unforgiving and unmerciful would be wrong, in this context. There are other ways to solve this, of course. Arrow740 22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The section in itself is valid, but a) it should be clearly restricted to things actually accomplished by Muhammad itself (in other words, he should at least begun a certain reform, if not finished it), and b) reform doesn't mean positive or good. Not only would that be a POV judgement we are not entitled to as editors, but this section cannot be restricted to the things Muhammad changed for the "better" (they undoubtedly exist and should be included). The section should also included the things Muhammad changed for the "worse". I put these in quotation marks to indicate that the judgement is purely in the eye of the beholder. Some Muslims may think that those things I here term "bad" are actually good and proper ... their call - in any case, these things must be included. And don't worry, I will provide sources. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should separate what Muhammad himself did. For that matter, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an is better than Encyclopedia of Islam. --Aminz 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow's Summary

Merzbow, I modified your summary but Arrow740 reverted it. Could you please have a look at my edit. Thanks --Aminz 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno; I think the shorter version is a better fit here. - Merzbow 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, Here are my points:

• Muhammad replaced the tribal morality with new virtues, not that he caused changes in the tribal morality.
• It is not only "the sanctions of the new religion" but rather 3 elements: "the sanctions of the new religion, fear of God and of the Last Judgment".
• I summerized "kindness and equity, compassion and mercy, generosity, self-restraint, sincerity, moral fellowship of the Believers " to -> "compassion, generosity, self-restraint and sincerity".

--Aminz 03:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all POV as these are all relative terms. Compared to Christianity and Buddhism these qualities are absent from Islam. Arrow740 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the term "replaced". It implies that there was no such thing as compassion, generosity, etc. at all in that society before that point. That's simply absurd; these virtues are all fundamental elements of human nature present to some degree everywhere. I think this is another case where a scholar is using hyperbolic language, where it is only clear with wider context what is actually meant. (It's the same situation with Lewis in his use of the word "myth" in that problematic quote in the dhimmitude article). Aminz, can you cut&paste a larger excerpt from that article to the talk page (perhaps a paragraph before and after the one containing that quote)? - Merzbow 06:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a bigger excerpt:

2. It would be erroneous to assume that the different kinds of morality which found literary expression in successive periods from the age of the pre-Islamic poets to the 5th/11th century present a cumulative process, in the sense that each new type as it emerged replaced or suppressed the earlier types. On the contrary, they co-existed for a long time, in varying strength. The tribal sunna of the pre-Islamic Arabs, based on usage and custom, described by I. Goldziher (Muhammedanische Studien, i) and others (e.g. B. Farès, L'honneur chez les Arabes avant l'Islam , Paris 1932), by no means died out with the advent of Islam; and since pre-Islamic literature eventually became part of the accepted Arabic humanities, the values expressed in it were never entirely forgotten: a high sense of personal honour [see ʿ IRḌ ], courage [see ḤAMĀSA ], loyalty to one's fellowtribesmen [see ḲABĪLA ], hospitality [see ḌAYF ], endurance [see ṢABR ], self-control [see ḤILM ], and a secular spirit which could never be completely quelled by the prevailing religious morality [cf. also MURUWWA ]. The preaching of Muḥammad obviously produced a radical change in moral values as well, based on the sanctions of the new religion, and fearof God and of the Last Judgment: kindness and equity, compassion and mercy, generosity, self-restraint, sincerity, moral fellowship of the Believers are among the new virtues to replace tribal morality, and to become the pillars of an ethical society or, at least, the programme for such a society.

--Aminz 06:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you agree that this is POV? It his his opinion alone that an Islamic society would be ethical. Murder of homosexuals and apostates, polgamy, sex with slaves, war to spread Islam, wife-beating. These are all unethical; this is my POV. Claiming that a society that endorses these things can be called ethical is the opposite POV. Arrow740 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he says the Islamic society became heaven, just that there were improvements over the tribal system. --Aminz 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as that is what's being communicated then there can be no problem. Including his POV that Islam lays out a program for an ethical society is not acceptable. Arrow740 07:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OK... I think this is where we have to compensate for the author's muddy language by quoting the part where he doesn't contradict himself and not the part where he does. :) In the italicized section, he's saying two things: That Muhammad's preaching resulted in a "radical change in moral values", which is fine, and that this enumerated list of values replace tribal morality, which is hyperbole. We can't take the second thing literally, because it would contradict what the author says just two sentences ago, that values such as "self-control", "personal honor", "loyalty" were pre-existing values, very similar to the "self-restraint", "sincerity", and the "fellowship" that were their supposed replacements.

So I think the best way to represent this is to emphasize the first part, where the author is speaking accurately (purely from the point of internal consistency, not personal opinion). - Merzbow 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I have a questions: Would you please explain why you stop at ", and fearof God and of the Last Judgment:"the sentence is continuing. --Aminz 07:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just for brevity... I think "fear of God and of the Last Judgment" is redundant; "sanctions of the new religion" includes those items. If you want to add it, I won't object. - Merzbow 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I will object. Let us keep this brief and unpresumptious. Any mention of God's judgement is inherently controversial, must be qualified and attributed in any case, and is not necessary to mention here.Proabivouac 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The sentence is already attributed and "fear of God and of the Last Judgment" were very important factors. --Aminz 08:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Merzbow that it might be considered redundant and disagree with Pro that it is, in this form, controversial in any way.

Aminz, could you stop messing up the indent. Simply increase the colons of the previous posting by one. If the posting appears to far on the right side of the page, begin again on the left side. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be more civil Str1977. --Aminz 10:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I came across as rude, but I asked you before and you said you would do it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename section?

Although I think the existing material is relevant, I'm still uneasy about "reformer", I still think "reformer" implies an improvement. While the consensus is that Muhammad's changes to existing society were overall an improvement, I think there should be a discussion of changes that could be considered a negative (impact on religious minorities, loss of religious freedom perhaps, etc.). To that end, I think we should use another term, like "social change". Perhaps "Muhammad's social changes"? - Merzbow 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that title is perhaps still too general. How about "Impact on Arab society", which makes it clear that the scope of the section is only on Muhammad's immediate changes to Arab society? - Merzbow 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And if this is agreed to, I'd also suggest renaming the Muhammad the Reformer and Reforms under Islam (610-661) subarticles to names like "Muhammad's impact on Arab society" and "Societal changes under Islam (610-661)". - Merzbow 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No objection. Arrow740 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and Jewish tribes political

Str, how is this: On political grounds, Watt writes that many of them had close ties with Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, a Medinan notable whose leadership ambitions were thwarted by the arrival of Muhammad. Esposito writes the Jews of Medina had close ties with Muhammad's Meccan enemies.

This is well sourced and relevant. --Aminz 08:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that Watt writes that on political grounds? That may well be the case, although I believe his anti-Jewish leanings were more religious than political. Being a Saudi-sponsored propagandist, Esposito is certainly not a reliable source. In fact, it's sufficient to state that the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza were the allies of the Arab tribe of Aws. That's NPOV and factual. Beit Or 09:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Esposito explicitly says political and that they had allies with Meccans. Watt says they wanted to have their influence increased through Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy becoming the ruler, so my understanding is that it was political. I just switched the Esposito and Watt statements in my suggestion without checking the first part, but it seems to be okay.

Both Watt and Esposito are reliable sources. This can be discussed on the WP:RS talk page but I am 100% sure that the community would accept Esposito as a reliable source. --Aminz 09:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is always a clever move to put ideas under the carpet by just labelling someone. Beit Or! do you have any scholarly source that says explicitly that Esposito is a Saudi Bigot. And please, keep you original research out of wikipedia by naming others. I suspect that tomorrow you would be calling Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press as part of Saudi Kingdom, with whome Esposito has publications. And as Aminz said, a better idea would be to take this issue to WP:RS talk page. TruthSpreader^reply 09:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that a Saudi-bigot can become the editor in cheif of the Oxford Dictionary of Islam. --Aminz 09:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Saudi bigot" is a quote from TruthSpreader, not from Beit Or, who wrote "Saudi-sponsored," per this.Proabivouac 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Esposito is not known for any research, only for writing several books for the general audience, extolling teh virtues of Islam. Beit Or 09:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, please bring this issue to the talk page of WP:RS. --Aminz 09:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:RS is the wrong place for that. WP:RS is a non-binding guideline, dealing with some very general issues. Reliability of sources is always discussed on a case-by-case basis. Beit Or 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page of Esposito article? --Aminz 10:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on this section is about a particular quote. We have used Esposito in other places as well and that issue should be considered separately. Please comment if the above suggestion makes it clear that Ubay was not a Meccan. If so, it can be added. If not, please comment how this can be improved?--Aminz 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: There are instances of Jathrib Jews having contact with Meccans (Nadir, Qurayza).

Also agreed: the Qunayqua were linked with Ibn Ubayy.

However, we cannot have it put in such a way that Ibn Ubay is termed an enemy of Muhammad. He was the most respected inhabitant of Jathrib and a Muslim, though his taking an more independent role from Muhammad in political affairs has resulted in him being labeled a hypocrite. There is absolutely no basis for claims that Ibn Ubayy tried to become ruler of Jathrib in opposition to Muhammad.

It is uncontroversial that Esposito is Saudi sponsored. And IMHO it is more than obvious that he has sacrificed his intellectual honesty on the altar of Christian-Islamic rapprochement. That distinguishes him from Watt, whose opinions are at least tenable.

Regarding this section, I think we should move away from narrating detailed events (this is better served in main articles ... the Qurayza one has come a long way) an restrict ourselves to a broad outline and analysis, all properly attributed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, of course Ubay was not Muhammad's enemy. He was a Muslim after all. That was why I moved the Meccan enemies to the end of the sentence. Please let me know if you agree with the suggestion.

I would appreciate if we can discuss the reliability of Esposito once and for all somewhere. Recieving fund from somewhere doesn't disqualify Esposito's scholarship nor Muir's being a Christian missionary disqualified his scholarship at his time. --Aminz 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like Esposito's personal views (which include anti-Israel statements), but he's an exceptionally qualified source. - Merzbow 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't being in the back pocket of a Saudi prince disqualify him? Arrow740 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is Bernard Lewis? "Lewis is perhaps the most articulate and learned Zionist advocate in the North American Middle East academic community, and an important opinion leader outside the ranks of academia. He contributes to the leading mouthpiece of neo-conservative militant Zionism, Commentary, the leading pseudo-liberal journal, New Republic, and the semi-official forum establishment discussion of foreign policy, Foreign Affairs…His book on Muslim-Black relation, Race and Color in Islam, was a thickly-veiled effort to undercut the rising sympathy of American and African Blacks for the Arab cause after 1967." cf. Joel Beinin, Review of "Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice." You can find this in JSTOR. --Aminz 02:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A review doesn't prove a conflict of interest. As you're well aware Lewis has been pretty soft on the Arab treatment of the Jews. Arrow740 05:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again this notion to create some automatism of including or excluding someone. No, receiving funding does not disqualify anyone. But we have to look as well on the information included and so far Esposito has consisted of nothing but Muslims apologetics well beyond the brink of dishonesty. I am all for defending Muhammad, whom I don't consider a true prophet, against unjustified charges, but for Esposito anything is good enough.

Now, I expect that certain editors will again resort to the typical "but all sources must be included" chant. If a source doesn't contain anything useful for this article, I don't think so. Also, if all must be included what about her and him? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Morality in Islam

This is a question that I think wikipedia should answer, and I don't know the answer myself. I ask here because we've started to touch this issue already. What is Islam's stance on morality? Is there an eternal, objective set of moral standards set by God, or is there no fixed morality, and it can change over time? Is morality determined by context or not? Arrow740 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you check out Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Islam and Ethics if you would like to do some research. --Aminz 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that covers morals as well? Arrow740 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I haven't read the article. I've just seen it. --Aminz 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

A lot of these articles need a lot more editing. We need to go through and replace the reliance on Watt and Esposito with a more diverse collection of quotes. Lewis should be stressed more. In a collaborative effort like this there is the tendency to cherry-pick quotes on both sides, but it will be difficult to get a stable version of articles on controversial subjects like this one if we keep it up. Arrow740 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"call to Islam"

Why did proabivoac change the phrasing? [14] Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same question actually. Muhammad also warned the governers that if they don't accept, the responsibility of the sin of the people living in their lands would be on them. The letters are also ended with a nice quranic verse. --Aminz 07:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that's called asking someone to convert.

I changed it for the same reason you like it: it's Islamic POV. One is generally "called" to a worthy thing; it suggests a spiritual meaning and connotation of destiny which is inappropriate to a neutral encyclopedia. Similarly, for "embraced/accepted" Islam.Proabivouac 07:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay:) --Aminz 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OR tag

Re: OR tag: Beit Or, Gren left a comment on my talk page about Muhammad the reformer. --Aminz 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Str, please see the shortened version of the sentence in dispute. I've added "lopsided" tag instead of the POV tag for now. Please let me know if you think the sentence is still POV. --Aminz 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the "lopsided" nature of the section makes it POV. Hence the POV tag is justified and necessary. Please don't play games. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Str, you added POV tag for only one sentence. You please don't play games. --Aminz 08:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please explain why the shortened sentence is POV. --Aminz 08:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, a list of selected good things Muhammad did under the title "Muhammad the reformer" isn't - and surely wasn't meant to be - neutral.Proabivouac 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that all the criticism of X articles should have POV tag? --Aminz 09:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If the article appears either to endorse or to argue against the criticism, the tag would be warranted (note my total lack of involvement/interest in such articles).Proabivouac 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, don't misrepresent my reasons for tagging the section. It lacks "not so good" reforms and ascends into overly lauditory language in the paragraph you added. You simply want to play down the problems by replacing the tag. Not an act of good faith, is it?

An article or section titled "criticism" relates criticism and a response to it. The topic focuses it on negative things. That might be problematic but you have to raise that issue elsewhere. "Muhammad the reformer" is not the same as a (never to be created) section of "Praise of Muhammad", which would be the proper opposite of "criticism of Muhammad". I agree with what Pro wrote immediately above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just jumping back in. I think the M. the Ref. stuff ought to be dropped entirely. There is only one good sentence in the whole section, otherwise it is just banal praise. While it is true that reforms under Islam generally improved the quality of life for women, which could be mentioned in the section above, the rest of this section has nothing to do with an encyclopedic account of M's life. I'm sure this sounds harsh, but none of this info is necessary for the average reader--only a current adherent.Menkatopia 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Esposito quote

I removed it for the reasons in the edit summary. Less glorification, please. Arrow740 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was overly hagiographic. That section could still use a lead, but it should be a neutral lead, one that at least mentions the possibly negative aspects of his legacy (centuries of religious warfare) along with the possibly positive (most of the stuff in the Reformer section). - Merzbow 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It was from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam; it is not signed and there is no way to know who is written that particular article. Arrow740, you are being disruptive. --Aminz 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with that. The quote was clearly inappopriate. Maybe an agnostic admin will post a WP:NPA notice on your talk page soon. Arrow740 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also replace it by that of Bernard Lewis or mix the two together: "He had achieved a great deal. To the pagan peoples of western Arabia he had brought a new religion which, with its monotheism and its ethical doctrines, stood on an incomparably higher level than the paganism it replaced. He had provided that religion with a revelation which was to become in the centuries to follow the guide to thought and count of countless millions of Believers. But he had done more than that; he had established a community and a well organized and armed state, the power and prestige of which made it a dominant factor in Arabia" --Aminz 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonight I'll go looking through some of the Lewis books to see if I can find a single quote that references both the good and bad points of his legacy. If not, maybe we'll have to cobble together something from multiple sources. - Merzbow 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Middle Way is often best. Arrow740 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I put back the removed esposito quote. I don't think you will find bad points of his legacy from RS. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote can be used but not in this way. Right now it is simply a quote with no context at all. Muhammad is one of the most important historical persons ... his legacy cannot be dealt with by merely a hagiographic quote from an apologetical author. This case again shows the complete disregard of some editors for the concept of an encyclopedic article. Stop the hadithisation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not from Esposito. The article was unsinged. It should be attributed to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam. --Aminz 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Which makes its usability even more questionable. We need to know who wrote this. My points raised above stand in any case. And mind the indent, Aminz. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ISLAM and is certainly a reliable source. please explain what do you mean by context. --Aminz 08:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent PB edits

Please note that I've removed only a few sentences. Among them, the pointless Muir debate as to whether Muhammad was or was not sincere in Madina, and the rebuttal thereto. For our purposes here, it doesn't matter if Muir or anyone else guesses him to have been insincere.Proabivouac 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I originally didn't think that this whole issue was relevant. But since then I've seen how many of the recent scholars address it. It may be difficult to find a summary wording that does not imply that the revelations were actually the word of God, as opposed to sincerely perceived by Muhammad as having been the word of God. But I think we should try. I will see what I can come up with, but it's hard without having all the books in front of me. One sentence should suffice. Itsmejudith 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Logically, all we would have to do is change, "According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad began receiving revelations from God..."to "Muhammad believed he was receiving revelations from God...", followed by the relevant cites - in theory, this would advance the revelations argument by adding the assumption of Muhammad's sincerity, but in practice, it substitutes Muhammad's word for the appeal to authority of 1+ billion Muslims. In theory, that appeal to authority is meaningless, but in practice, to remove it guarantees an edit war. It's this sort of observation which leads me to believe these articles can never abide both by WP:NPOV and by consensus.Proabivouac 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's much mileage in trying to edit the existing material in the article. We have to go back to the sources. Which sources are relevant? How can we best summarise them?Itsmejudith 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of sources is the most critical one for this article. Now it takes a bit from here and piece from there with no apparent order. Per WP:NPOV, we must use "commonly accepted reference texts" to represent amjority views. The key is to agree on what these "commonly accepted reference texts" are in this case. Beit Or 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not referring to the existing material as a whole, only to the bits relating to the sincerity issue. I strongly agree that the question of sources is critical. The references at the moment are mostly from texts issued by top academic (Oxbridge or Ivy League) publishers, so presumably there is no problem there. A few aren't, e.g. there is Accad from an academic journal. If you see any difficulties in regard to any of these sources, please elaborate. The ordering is an interesting, though separate question; did you have any further comments about it?Itsmejudith 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

?

Why is there a big gap at the beginning of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.61.46 (talk • contribs)

Muhammad marries Aisha

I was wondering why this highly controversial fact was not mentioned. That Muhammad, at 52 years of age, married a 9 year old girl and had sexual relations with her. This is well documented in Sahih Bukhari, Book 58: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234

Please do not delete this is it is a valid topic for discussion. It should be noted that he was what the western world would refer to as a pedophile. If you delete this topic for discussion it only means you are trying to hide the truth.

This has been discussed here and in other places before. The basic position for the encyclopedia is that the hadith is a primary source. It is not historical proof. Historians - and theologians - differ on how it should be interpreted. We mention Muhammad's marriages but should only use good secondary sources to interpret them.Itsmejudith 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I deteled your comment because it was inflammatory. I said you could re-submit it if it was less biased. I personally think it likely that Alisha had her age wrong. The facts simply go against her being Nine. Zazaban 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to reject the rest of the hadith narrated by her? Arrow740 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to wind up Muslim editors or editors of any other religion for that matter. It doesn't advance the article.Itsmejudith 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a great number of other articles where Islamic scripture is cited without secondary souces. As it happens, Aisha's age is as well-supported as anything based on hadith (thought some I recognize see all of these as suspect), but generally, I'd like to create a place where you, me, Arrow740, Itaqallah etc. can hash out and resolve these issues in general and broadly applicable terms (think MOS.) What I see now is a number of editors changing their standards towards primary sourced material according (so it appears) to POV, rather than to princples. They're not really to blame, as they are only following in good faith the rules and agreements as they are now understood. If we can be honest with ourselves, and admit there's been too much wikilawyering and not enough dispute resolution, that can be the first step towards a solution.Proabivouac 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Talking about good faith! This is why you want to remove all the Qur'anic references (which are alot more authentic considered than any hadith) here but insist on including those hadith on which we don't even have a single reliable secondary source criticizing this act. Even, Watt mentions it, but doesn't use it as a criticism. TruthSpreader^reply 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What hadith are you talking about (I suppose the one above)? What criticism? I'm fairly certain I've never created a section like the one in question, and I don't choose to add "criticisms" to mainspace - in fact I just recently eliminated the Criticism sectrion of this very article. The authenticity of the material to which you refer is not being questioned, and I suggested a way we might include all of it as a link to a list, which is what it is, to which you've not responded. We can't turn articles into long lists of quotes.Proabivouac 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

we need to add this in order to make a correct representation of the Life of the Prophet (Allah's peace be upon him)

please refer to more authenticate literature [for example: "Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar)Memoirs of the Noble Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri"] which shows Prophet Muhammad's(Allah's peace be upon him) life in good details.

As per this litarature, till age of 40 years he was a Noble man and Merchant. Revealations of God started at the age of 40 years, and continued for about 23 years. In these 23 years, Prophet Muhammad(Allah's peace be upon him) spread message of Islam, through call on contemporary Meccan Society and Arabs.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: this is not an islamic encyclopedia and does not need to conform the the Muslim viewpoint. Zazaban 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sealed Nonsense is hagiography, makes no attemtp to abide by standards of historians. Arrow740 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

that's your opinion. its pedigree, and the recommendation it has received as a notable biography of Muhammad in western academic publications dispels your theory. ITAQALLAH 10:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I agree that it's notable as a contemporary Islamic treatment of a relatively orthodox Sunni POV. What it's not is a non-partisan academic source. Per WP:RS, we are to treat it "with caution." I am quite certain that you recognize the basis for my objections. This is not a regular academic work as per Lewis or Watt (etc.). What I'd ask of you is to address my and other's real objections so we can hammer out some guideline as to when it is acceptable to cite this, and how. Pretending you don't understand what we're talking about is entirely normal wikilawyering, nothing I could really call you on, but isn't helpful because you're just blowing everyone off, even though you must realize there is a reasonable basis to our objections. Part of working all of this out is being honest with one another, but that's made difficult since any concession might be used against you later (though not by me: I reciprocate friendly behavior.) If you can admit that it's not quite a reliable academic source, I'm inclined to agree that it is a notable contempory source for a certain strain of Islamic POV. You're not getting pushback on this for nothing, wouldnn't you agree? That doesn't mean there is nothing to what you're saying, but there's not nothing to the pushback either.Proabivouac 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed by a University and a partisan view??? TruthSpreader^reply 11:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"A university" being the Islamic University of Medina. From their mission as stated on their website "The main objectives of the university are, as mentioned on their website: "To convey the eternal message of Islam to the entire world by means of dawah, call to Islam. We aim to do this through University education and post-graduate studies.", "Inculcating and fostering the community upon practicing the teachings of Islam and worshiping the only true God, Allah alone, with utmost sincerity and devotion." They're not shy about their religious mission and partisanship; why are you? As I suggested to Itaqallah, the first step is to be honest about what we are discussing. It may be noteworthy, but this is not what usually passes for an academic pedigree. Pretending you don't see this prehaps helps save face, or justifies edit warring, but cannot help solove the dispute. Do you think I am just a bad faith editor who makes up reasons to challenge your material? Per your endorsement of Zora's attack farm, perhaps you do, but that will not convince anyone or contribute towards resolulution. You should at least acknowledge that you understand why people are objecting, that you understand what people are talking about. Asking why people have a problem with "a University" doesn't accomplish this.Proabivouac 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some stuff needs disentangling here. Calling sources "hagiography" doesn't get us much further. Hagiography means writing the life of a saint. Of course much of the material on Muhammad's life is hagiographic; if he had not been revered by followers then there would be no Islam, no research and no article. For establishing what the views of a religion are, sources within that religion can be considered reliable, e.g. Christian theologians can be cited as sources for what Christians believe. This is not quite the same case. The article currently distinguishes a) the historical view of Muhammad's life from the b) traditions held by the believers. I would have thought that a view from an Islamic university was highly relevant for b), but should be treated with caution for a). Itsmejudith 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

i think the first step in the resolution of this is to drop the provocative language that has occasionally been used by people (i.e. "the sealed nonsense"). Proabivouac, i have responded with a lengthy comment on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandia01 edit

Grandia01 has repeated his edit.[15] I've reverted. Grandia01, FayssalF or anyone else is welcome to discuss it here.Proabivouac 08:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

i am adding (Peace Be Upon Him) with name

i am adding (Peace Be Upon Him) with name of Our Prophet .that is his full and correct name i hope this jsutify to edit article. and he had 3 son not just two, and i have also edit it .

Doesn't sound appropriate to me. That's like adding amen to the end of every sentence in a Christianity-related article. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't do that. That would be roughly equivalent to adding (Our Holy Savior) after every mention of Jesus. -Amark moo! 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. It is highly POV pushing.--Sefringle 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

why not ? if you are talking abut source for it ,i have ? and i think Quran is Big source and in Quran we have (SAWW) in english (PBUH).if you do not trust Quran then it is ok?lemme know source so that i will try to Prove.if this is POV pushing then what do you think of not using it ?is not that POV pushing? Khalidkhoso 16:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that Wikipedia is impartial. Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect the beliefs of the editors who contribute to it. Rather, it attempts to be an encyclopedia of information and fact. Regular encyclopedias do not use such remarks after Muhammad's name and it is also against Wikipedia's style guidelines at WP:MOSBIO. --Strothra 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the issue comes up now and then for discussion, but is always removed. Aside from the reasons mentioned above, it is not informative and seen as persuasive. This, simply, is not the place for that. Menkatopia 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been said many times. I am not sure if a notice re this issue is required on top of this talk page but there exist Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad. It has been discussed and agreed about that PBUH and SAW are to be removed. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sincerity question

Hi Proabivouac

I have come up with the following form of words to summarise the issue and Aminz is OK with them. What do you think? Please suggest any changes.

"A number of historians have addressed the question of whether Muhammad was sincere when he reported receiving revelations. A nineteenth century historian concluded that he was not sincere.(ref Muir) The contemporary historians reject this interpretation and say that as far as can be ascertained Muhammad did believe that he was hearing the word of God." (refs Lewis, Schimmel)"

Thanks

Judith Itsmejudith 09:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that we are setting up a straw man to have an excuse to knock it down. Muir did not (that I recall) express the opinion that Muhammad knowingly fabricated all of the revelations from whole cloth, and none of the sources asserting his sincerity expressly deny that Muhammad was never insincere in this. This is one reason I removed this material. I'm not certain why Aminz has chosen to fixate upon this idea, as there is currently nothing in the article which suggests Muhammad to have been an imposter. The only time this notion is mentioned is in the "Medieval views" section, where it's dismissed by Lewis and Watt. If it belongs anywhere, it would be as an brief clause following the Lewis quote to the effect of, "a view Lewis dismisses as caricature," but this should already quite clear from the quote.

We should be discussing this on the article's talk page, where I'm inclined to move it shortly. That would be the best way to obtain feedback from regular editors to the article. (Done.)Proabivouac 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not an straw man. Watt writes in 1960 that "One of the common allegations against Muhammad is tha he was an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated religious teachings which he himself knew to be false. Such insincerity makes the development of the Islamic religion incomprehensible. This point was first vigorously made over a hundred years ago by Thomas Carlyle in his lectures On Heroes, and it has since been increasingly accepted by scholars...There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate lying or imposture." Muir falls into this category. --Aminz 04:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What might be encyclopedic is "19th century views of Muhammad," with an appropriately brief summary of notable views such as Carlyle's and Muir's (of which this charge is only one component,) and an even briefer summary of Watt's and Lewis' pushback. Schimmel's quote is far too emotive and strange to warrant inclusion here, especially given her lesser notability.Proabivouac 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think Schimmel is a quite notable scholar. The point is the contrasting views between 19th century scholars and modern ones. --Aminz 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the views of 19th century scholars important in themselves? If so, their views should be the subject of their own section, just as with the Medieval views section. If not, there is no need either for their presentation or for their rebuttal.Proabivouac 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, the question those scholars were addressing is relevant to this article. The views regarding the question is important, not the time those scholars lived.--Aminz 05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying their views aren't important except as a foil against which Muhammad's (heretofor unquestioned) sincerity may be proclaimed. This suggests you are more concerned with heading off misgivings you feel readers might come to on their own accord, since otherwise merely ignoring this 19th century criticism would decisively solve the problem.Proabivouac 05:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Arrow740 08:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of sincerety is a separate topic which can be independently addressed and is directly relevant to this article. It is not a criticism in the first place. --Aminz 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, readers hardly *come up* with a view by reading this article. For most people, their views are mostly formed by their culture and background. --Aminz 05:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What about people who use wikipedia to learn about things they don't know? Arrow740 08:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In England and America, at least, most people don't think anything in particular about Muhammad. He plays no significant role, positive or negative, in contemporary religion, and Islam is not a required course even for most university students.

You know, it also strikes me: "According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad began receiving revelations from God..." might be changed to "Muhammad believed he was receiving revelations..." and cited to these sources. Wouldn't asserting that Muhammad believed it address your concerns?Proabivouac 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I don't think that that would be an improvement. The "According to ..." already covers the problem of whether he actually received revelations. The issue of sincerity is however a a different one: even a sincere Muhammad might be deluded or receiving relevations from other beings than God. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

<reset> I don't know why we're so hung up on this; Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were also sincere, but then again so were Mother Theresa and Gandhi. Being sincere doesn't make you good or bad, right or wrong. Arrow740 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. If scholars today consider him sincere, we state it. If others (now or then) disagree, we state it. Sincerity, although a positive moral quality, does not make one a good or bad person (it is anyway not our job to state this). If M. is sincere this simply means that he didn't conciously made it up. Even Watt, who speaks in favour of M's sincerity, does not say that M was right. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note -- Annemarie Schimmel was an extremely well-known and influential German scholar. She specialized in the study of Sufism. Zora 08:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i meant that but I mistakenly wrote "don't" --Aminz 08:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how we're going to move towards a consensus wording on this. Arrow, I actually think you're right about a straw man argument. If I was doing my own original research about Muhammad I probably wouldn't discuss the issue at all. But the WP way of working means we have to follow our sources, and they do discuss this point so we have to summarise it one way or another. I suggested a wording only to help move things forward. Please suggest alternatives and then, you never know, we could find ourselves agreeing.Itsmejudith 09:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Idea how to fix image dispute.

• Cut out Muhammad's face in every image of him. It's really the best we can do and keep everybody happy. Zazaban 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

my removial of POV material in this article

I removed many statements from this article that are POV pushing. This article should not contain praise or criticism, and that material has been removed.--Sefringle 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of an anachronistic image of Muhammad

While not wanting to wade into the image vs. no image debate here I will edit to remove images that show Muhammad but in an anachronistic way. Using such images is misleading for our readers and to use them is to further this. If there is to be an image of Muhammad included in the article then one of the minimums needs to be that it corresponds to what is known historically about his appearance. (→Netscott) 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this different from the numerous obviously anachronistic depictions of Jesus in the Jesus article? I think it's pretty clear that Jesus wore neither a toga, nor priests' clothes, nor is it likely Jesus wore anything during crucifiction. Frotz661 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the Jesus article which displays images of him as commonly found in Christianity to an article on Muhammad is a bit of a false analogy. On the one hand you've got a figure who is readily portrayed (and has been for millenia) while on the other you've got a figure that has been depicted on only a relative handful of occassions (particularly in terms of a depiction of Muhammad as he looked after the "revelation" part of his life). While I understand folks' desire to want to include an image of Muhammad here why inflame those who are against that by not only depicting him but depicting him in garb that is moreso associated with the west? (→Netscott) 19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the false analogy? Why did you unilaterally take it on yourself to remove a picture that was part of an ongoing and unsettled discussion? Why did you leave an unexplained message on my talk page suggesting that my use of the "undo" option is somehow wrong? I reverted a deletion that was not sactioned by the discussion you didn't want to enter. If you want that picture gone from the article, then perhaps you should explicitly enter that discussion, state your reasons, and wait for a concensus. Until then, please leave things alone. Frotz661 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I have not been involved with this article for some time? If so then you are mistaken. The false analogy is self-evident in my explanation of it. There is only one seemingly new user to this debate and that would be yourself. My edit was done in good faith (as can be determined by the edit summary I left) when a user undoes a good faith edit with either a revert tool or a simple click on the "undo" button and does not add an edit summary themselves, it is difficult to assume good faith on that user's part. (→Netscott) 19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu quo que noted. Please answer the question: why did you unilaterally act though the discussion was unsettled? Frotz661 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You know if there's going to be an image of Muhammad in the lead then let it be one that is based upon history of the man. Use this one. To describe my removal of that image as unilateral just shows your lack of experience regarding editing this article. All of the images have been going back and forth between being displayed or not... my removal of one of them is but the latest in this string of removals by many many editors. (→Netscott) 20:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Netscott that this particular image is inappropriate to the lead. The one which has been placed there more often is Image:Maome.jpg, which depicts a known event in Muhammad's life; he is shown preaching in now-Muslim Mecca against intercalation (631 CE), before his return to and death in Medina.Proabivouac 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to have a headshot of the person covered. How about cropping a headshot from this or this to use instead of that anachronistic one? Netscott, please note that most of the deletions came from one-issue editors who do their thing for a few days, then are never seen again. Frotz661 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) How is a head shot informative if it is inaccurate? --BostonMA ^talk 21:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm offering an alternative to the present headshot. Frotz661 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Netscott that this image is not the best choice. I don't think cropping out a head shot from another work is a good idea. I understand the purpose, and it does make some sense, but it may be too close to original research. A better choice might be to use Image:Maome.jpg with a suitable caption: "After the people of Mecca converted to Islamm Muhammad preached there in 631 CE." I don't necessarily oppose putting it or another picture at the top, but further down in the corresponding section might do as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a better link:Image:Maomé.jpg.Proabivouac 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at [16]. How about something from there? Frotz661 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While mediation on this issue is ongoing, I don't think it's proper to add new images to this article or to increase the prominence of existing images by moving them to the lead. - Merzbow 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree to restore it to the section in which it was previously, below the TOC. Additionally, the caption might be improved.Proabivouac 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we address this in mediation. --BostonMA ^talk 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote from a website listed earlier [17]:

"The artists represented here have expressed their mockery of and disdain for the Muslim world's violent reaction to the orginal innocuous Danish cartoons by making new Mohammed depictions that are intentionally direspectful and/or obscene, to make the point that freedom of speech in Western societies is unconditional."

This is an encyclopedia, not a religious treatise. Freedom of speech must always come before political correctness. If we censor ourselves just to please the Muslims, then we are no better than them. TharkunColl 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"We are no better than them"? kindly refer to Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from such inflammatory and predjudiced language that is entirely against the cooperative spirit needed to edit on an article like this. (→Netscott) 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech isn't what Wikipedia is after either, it's Neutrality. Zazaban 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These images are of persian kings of 10th century. Those persian kings were invading parts of India and Afghanistan at that time. So Persian artists made those images. These images are made actually in 10th century and it was the time of Fatamid dynasty. Such Images could be related to those saints who spread Islam in Persian, India, and Armenia. And this first picture is showing a persian who is not even wearing similar dress, the way Prophet Muhammad used to wear instead he is wearing persian dress. These pictures are disputed. These pictures are of Persian kings.Funnypop12 11:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Which images are of which kings, respectively? And what do the Fatamids have to do with this?Proabivouac 11:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it was the time of Fatamids. Image:maome.jpg and Image:Miraj2.jpg!.Funnypop12 12:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This point about the pictures not being contemporary with Muhammad, and not showing him in his original mode of dress, has been rehashed over and over again, but in fact is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the vast majority of historical figures prior the the late Middle Ages had no contemporary likeness made, yet Wikipedia is full of pictures of them. To take just one example, the picture of Jesus in his article is a sixth century mosaic showing him in sixth century Greek dress. It is also very famous and deserves to be in the article. TharkunColl 12:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Miraj2.jpg It is an image from Persian tradition, image of Zoroaster in fire. Zoroasterians worship fire. Miraj2 image is symbolizing "Arda Wiraz Namag". It was journey by Zoroaster. So It is image of Zoroaster not the image of Muhammad. It is 10th century drawing by persians(Time of drawing Fatamid dynasty)

(Reference:"Arda Wiraz", Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1987, Volume II, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London & New York, p. 357."

Image:Maome.jpg It is an image of Persian king made by Al-Biruni or Al Beruni, Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad. He made that image for saint or king of 10th century around 1023 in turkey in period Ghaznavid dynasty. He was philospher and scientist worked for king of Ghaznavid dynasty. You can see Persian or Turkish style cap in this image. It is pure Persian art not actually a Islamic art.(Reference: encyclopedic India (tr. 1888) and Chronology (tr. 1879))Funnypop12 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoroastrians worship God: same entity, different name. Read the article on Zoroastrianism. It states quite clearly that fire is a holy symbol. Furthermore, do you have any solid proof that Miraj2.jpg is of Zoroaster? That picture is found in just about all western texts that mention Islam. The same goes with Maome.jpg. Please point to either a reliable website or give a full citation of a work likely to be found in a university library. Frotz661 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of Muhammed?

I have questions

• Why you are provocateing muslims?
• Do you know that in Islam is forbiden to be painted a portret? - so according to this argument 100% is true that MUSLIMS HAVE NOT PAINTED THAT PORTRET (+ a situetion) (Subhan All-llah).
• Is this enciclopedia of the trouth or some collection of lies and propaganda. (In this article anti islamic propaganda).
• Are muslims editing this article and accepting those kind of things?
• Do you whana make equal Islam and Christianity with pictures?

In this case you are same as the danish tabloid which published the caricatures os Muhammed.

Who ever publishes lies is evil. So you are EVIL. (Puntori 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

• [18]
• Don't call your co-workers evil. It's needlessly antagonistic, undermines your own argument, and makes you sound like a fool. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please donot use pictures of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), it offends the muslims. Its not the right to put some pictures which can offend 1.5 billion population all over the world. If you want to put a picture, place a calliography/an icon in arabic stating Muhammad, but not a depicted person's picture. Please try to understand it.

Personally, I find it extremely offensive that we are told that we must not use a picture of Mohamed (sbuh). I, and many others, hold freedom of expression sacred. And in terms of Wikipedia, freedom of expression is prerequisite for NPOV. TharkunColl 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Secularism ensures that every one is equally offended. It goal is to respect no religion. Go and try to make Islamic state and Muslim wikipedia. There is no hope here. --- ALM 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The objective is to maintain a neutral point of view. If you are offended by neutral points of view, then perhaps you shouldn't view this website. This is not an religious tract. This is an encylopedia article. Frotz661 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes the neutral point of view could be trying to respect all as much as possible. Try to respect Christian, Muslims, Jews all (as much as possible). However, here it means disrespect all equally. Your neutral point definition is dash dash (fill them out). Thanks for your very constructive advice. --- ALM 20:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am already registered there. However I do not wish to leave from here because then you give me encouragement to work. I need your encouragements. :) --- ALM 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I use Adblock to avoid seeing images that I find unwelcome or offensive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom harrison you can not undestand how evil is this with pictures because you can't feel it. How evil for muslims is some lie like this picture see the situation with the caricatures. You can't say that is not evil because it is. (Or you have other different name for evil which will be more soft visually but in the core evil. And don't try to make me bad man when you cotrol the evil thing (if you have some muslim admin make some consultation over this about the picture and you will see if i'm wrong. I say again till you protect something what is not fact you are consideret a lier (I'm tallking universaly I don't have nothing personaly with you).

Frotz661 encyclopedia is to tell the trouth not to lie. In this case with the picture you lie (who ever puted there). We muslims are rejecting the picture because is not picture of Muhammed (pbuh). It's lie. So what are you douing? Collecting lies? Don't try to say true with lies because it's lie.

It's funny when non muslims are organiseing the muslim hisotry. Do you know the muslim hisotry? Or whenever you find a picture you put there as an argument?.

I'm not asking you to be neutral, I'm asking you to say the trouth. YOU LIE (piture is lie because there is not Muhammed (pbuh) there is some imagination of some non muslim (because Islam rejects muslims to paint protrets). (Puntori 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

You say the the picture is not Muhammad. Who are you compared to the scholars who prepared the textbooks that list those exact works as depicting Muhammad? Unless you have proof that those pictures are what you say they are, then your assertions have no substance or meaning. That's why I asked for a citation of a paper or book describing those painting as not being of Muhammad. Am I lying? No. I truly believe them to be depictions of Muhammad. Must someone be a muslim in order to comment on muslim history? Frotz661 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Frotz661:I truly believe them to be depictions of Muhammad. - When you argue something is it important what you bealieve?

About which scholars are you talking, about muslim or non muslim? Because non muslims have many ignorant things sad about Muhammed (pbuh).

To use some document you shoud have a proof that: THAT IS FACT and not a proof that : THAT ISN'T FACT.

Aniway, have you ever readet a description fo Muhammed (pbuh)?

No, you are not a lier sorry, you are manipulator. (Puntori 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

This is a very simple request. Please give me a citation of some work, article, or book that states unambiguously that these pictures are NOT of Muhammad. I want to be able to go to a library and find the book that you tell me to look in and find this information. If you can do this, then I will concede that these pictures are not of Muhammad. Your sayso isn't good enough. This isn't manipulation. I'm trying to wrest some semblence of scholarly honesty out of you and I'm beginning to think there isn't any. Frotz661 02:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Puntori, please follow Wikipedia policy by assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks. If you follow these policies, you are more likely to see a fruitful (and mature) discussion of the issues you've raised. Now, on the issues: of the vast number of biographical articles on Wikipedia, a great number provide depictions of their subject. Many of these are paintings, while articles on later subjects will include photographs. This is not meant to purvey any one point of view (see WP:NPOV), but is merely meant to provide additional information to the reader about the various portrayals and depictions the subject has received. In this case, it would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy of neutral point-of-view to remove pictures solely because one religious group finds them offensive. Wikipedia is a purely secular, neutral encyclopedia seeking first and foremost to provide as much information as reasonably possible to the reader (in such a neutral fashion). Limiting such a goal on the basis religious sensitivities is not what Wikipedia is all about. For example, Christians may find the "artwork" known as Piss Christ to be extremely offensive, yet for informational purposes a copy of said "art" appears in that article. Please try to see that this is a blanket policy in which first and foremost, any time, any article, religion or no religion, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, providing the reader with pertinent information in a neutral fashion is our number one concern. —Aiden 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that even if he abides by the rules you have mentioned above there will be a solution. If you include piss Christ in Jesus than it is right comparison with putting picture in Muhammad article and otherwise your comparison is very wrong itself. --- ALM 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, Aiden's comparison is absolutely fitting: the article on PissChrist includes a picture of PissChrist - a picture Christians would find offensive. Hence, the article on Muhammad should include a picture of Muhammad (at least one), even thought Muslims would find it offensive. The only difference between the two is that the PissChrist is way way more offensive in actuality than any (non-carricaturistic) depiction of Muhammad.

As for abiding by the rules and a solution: we expect any editor to abide by the rules. We demand it from him without any reward given for that (except that others will abide by the rules too).

Finally, Puntori, you are spilling ink and poison here, calling others evil accusing them of lying. Why are you lying on your user page about your English capablities? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But no! it's not. The question is not should we have pictures of Muslim on Wikipedia. Some people may bring that up but they are widely ignored. We have the Muhammad cartoons and they are not going anywhere. We have depictions of Muhammad and that's not leaving either. And if a picture of Muhammad dressed in drag surrounded by little boys creates a controversy like the Danish cartoons then we will have a picture of that too--no matter how offensive. But you cannot compare this to Jesus. These are not images to inform up about the personalities. These are images to inform us about the traditions in regards to the personalities. Images are prevalent in Christian history so we have many. Images are not as prevalent in Muslim history so how do we properly represent that. That's what you need to decide. Does that mean we shouldn't have any images? Should we have one? Two? But, it is not to represent Muhammad... it is to represent traditions relating to Muhammad. gren グレン 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Honorific linking

After several days of on and off work, I have finally succeeded in removing every link to every variant of Prophet Muhammad in a Wikipedia article, replacing it with a link to Muhammad. Please be on the lookout for anyone who tries to undo this as I would rather not have to go through 'what links here' again. KazakhPol 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Example how to fix the image problem used elsewhere on Wikipedia.

• Baha'u'llah

We should use the same solution here. Zazaban 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

An essay on Muhammad's pictures

I respect non-Muslim contributors' views as much as i respect Muslims contributors' views regarding Muhammad's depictions. However, i tend to agree w/ non-muslims views here for simple and rationale reasons:

• First and most important. According to some Hadiths but not the Qur'an, Islam discourages depicting religious figures and the reasons behind that are known to most contributors. However, logically, this discouragement concern solely Muslims. In other words, if you believe in Islam, than you'd be avoiding depicting but if a non-Muslim does depict Muhammad than it is not a Muslim's fault and therefore he would not be committing a sin.
• I am sure that no single Muslim would put any existing portrait or picture of Muhammad in front of him and pray. A good Muslim would not be influenced by a portrait i believe. Otherwise we'd be talking about weak-faithed Muslims. What would a devout Muslim do if he sees other people eating during Ramadan in a non-Muslim country? Nothing. What would a devout Muslim do if he sees a pretty unveiled girl? If he's really a devout Muslim than obviously he'd not be influenced because i believe a devout Muslim, if he really is, can really master his desires. Otherwise, he'd be a BIG Munafiq. It is about faith and not anything else.
• In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Ibn Sa'd describes Muhammad. The description is sourced to Ali ibn Abi Talib. The point here is how come one accepts oral and written descriptions while having a different attitude toward depictions. After all, any person can make/draw a picture on his mind out of oral or written discription. So what's the difference?
• Not all Muslims agree that depictions are forbidden. Ottomans and some Persians did actually had depictions of Muhammad. Actually, it is only idolatry that is condemned.
• Many Caliphs and Amir al-Muminins were depicted and nobody argued about that. Isn't Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz considered as the fifth rightly guided caliph by some Sunnis? Isn't there a risk of people worshiping him as Caliphs are considered by Muslims the representatives of God on earth?
• The building of the Congress features a sculpture of Muhammad as well as Moses holding the Commandments. Note that Moses' one got only 6 out of the 10 are visible and all the six got a secular character. I haven't heard of any Jew arguing against the fact that there should be 10 and not 6. I haven't heard of CAIR arguing against the existence of the Moses sculpture on the building. They only argued against Muhammad's sculpture. Isn't Moses a religious figure for Muslims as well? Why did CAIR argued only about Muhammad's one? That i really don't and can't understand.
• I agree that the 2 pictures posted on the article are encyclopaedic while i agree w/ Netscot about the removal of Mahomet.jpg as being unencyclopaedic. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly endorse all of these points in every detail. Might you be willing to post a copy of this mini-essay to the mediation page?Proabivouac 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of good points made by everyone, Fayssal's contribution particularly welcome and worth reading, although I didn't agree with all of it. Yes, let's discuss it on the mediation page.Itsmejudith 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: the depiction in question is on the United States Supreme Court building, not the United States Capitol.Proabivouac 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, comments such as:

"A good Muslim would not be influenced by a portrait i believe. Otherwise we'd be talking about weak-faithed Muslims."

are way out of line. --BostonMA ^talk 13:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How so?Proabivouac 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Throws hands up in despair.Itsmejudith 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with many things that Fayssal has written but do not wish to reply. --- ALM 13:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unimportant whether someone is a "strong" Muslim or a "weak" Muslim. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is irrelevant whether an individual is a strong Muslim, weak Muslim or not a Muslim at all. It is equally irrelelvant whether Isalm teaches that images of Muhammad are offensive, or that images of Muhammad are not offensive. We simply don't care. Since there are a number of Muslim editors, describing a certain position as "weak" faith, is in my opinion, quite out of order. --BostonMA ^talk 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If Fayssal had meant to cast aspersions on the faith of anyone editing here then it would have been out of order. But I know he didn't mean to do that. We all come to this issue from such different directions; we are just now managing to address each other civilly; we are starting to respond to each other's points rather than resort to ad hominems. I've already stated my position, more than once. It's in line with Boston's. We only need one thing now and that's the mediator to come and bang our heads together. Itsmejudith 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the things i really dislike in Wikipedia is categorizing people by their faith when talking about their opinions. I hate to compare Muslim editors Vs. non-Muslim editors but my categorization here got its own context. The comparison draws a line between editors who endorse having a pic versus editors who don't. On the other hand i find quite important to note another context. It deals w/ the line drawn between editors who bring no single argument versus editors who just want to provoke others for the sake of provocation. My arguments above deals w/ the first context and avoid the former one because of obvious reasons which most of us here are well aware of. I must point out here Islamophobic and disgusting comments like this one i happened to read today. I am not sure if co-admins Tom harrison and Grenavitar would agree about an adhoc committee to fight those kinds of provocational, disgusting, disturbing and nonsense comments whenever they are in Islam-related articles.

I'll be ready to explain my points above-mentioned on the essay w/ anyone here, on my talkpage, via email or at any mediation page. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"We are no better than them" is clearly out of line, and linking a site whose purpose is to offend people will do that and no more. The only "them and us" that matters here is the 'us' who are working to write an encyclopedia and the 'them' who one way or another interfere with that. None of us are inferior because of our religion, race, national origin, or gender (no doubt there are other things I should add.)

I don't know how an an hoc committee might work, but I am willing to consider it. Removing trolling, soap-boxing, and attacks is fine with me, on talk pages related to Islam, or anywhere else. I continue to support blocking for disruptive personal attacks, whether those attacks are someone implying Muslims are inferior, or someone calling me evil, or a liar, or a racist.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a committee wouldn't have any powers that we don't... and I do think we need to deal with certain problems. TharkunColl doesn't really edit Islam-related articles and... I don't want to jump to conclusions about that comment. [full stop] I looked through his edits and this edit. I was going to say that his comment you cited might not be meant as an all around insult but then I saw the "sbuh". Apparently it is an oh-so-clever "shit be upon him" which I have found at some sites. That is unacceptable and I have warned him. In any case, I think people too often call things personal attacks which really aren't just to threaten admin action. When things get heated users will call others disruptive... it's not a big deal. But, yes, we should deal with cases in general. I don't think we need a committee and I'm not particularly worried about insults to Muslims as opposed to other problems. But, I think if we use our judgment, give warnings to users who are not constantly doing it and then act things will be fine. No? gren グレン 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The source of the picture

When ever you work in articles in en.wikipedia I see you use facts (template used:{{fact}} ). I this case you have just puted the picture and the source where have you taked it. But you never sad the real source: Who painted? Is this a true picture? Is this manipulation? It's obvious that it is not interesting you, it's important to provoke (as much as I see). I say to provoke because you havee seen what happened with caricatures and what was the reaction of muslims.

I whana say: Find facts (what you will never find) that in this picture is Muhammed (pbuh) and all muslims will accept your provocation as a work (It's not important we like or don't the picture It's important that picture to be true). (Puntori 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Please explain. gren グレン 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Who painted the picture? (Puntori 09:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

It took some searching but here:

• Le Prophète Mahomet
• Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé).
• BNF, Manuscrits orientaux (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

I have added it to the commons page. The other image seems to have more information. gren グレン 10:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wipeout

If found something POVish, and unencyclopedic: "After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans, then wiped them out". "...wiped them out." should be replaced with "...executed the male members of the tribe, in accordance with a judgement made by Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, and kept the women and children in bondage."Bless sins 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image is disingenuous

The sad thing is that all these arguments for adding the image of the prophet are academic arguments for doing so. There is no real need met by adding the picture. The images are not accurate portrayals anyway. So the question is why do people want so much to add these? It seems like one has no regard for the feelings of another large number of people, and creates academic arguments to seem justified in so hurting. The article is not harmed by not having an image, and the deadlock can be broken. Let's let it go. Cott12 Talk 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. We are not going to remove an image just because some people are offended. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion. This image is jsut as accurate as some of the Jesus pictures and it does serve encyclopediac value. If you wish to see it removed, you can discuss it at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.--Sefringle 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lame Image

What is the purpose behind the image showing a group of fictitious (Persian?) people. Who is the deluded disbeliever here that thinks the image actually depicts Muhammad?

(206.126.83.79 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC))