Talk:Muhammad/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Sabotage by FayssalF (Szvest)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_.2F_Muhammad

Editorius 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid such future vandalism I vote we bring this article in line with other article on religious figures such as Jesus and Moses and simply alter the paragraph structure to equate Muhammad with Islam without requiring the use of language that has been the source of contention or requiring footnotes etc. and expansive declamations. I am not sure why this was not proposed before since it seems to smack of simplicity and effectiveness. Proposed (changes in bold):

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد muḥammad; also Mohammed and other variants) 'is the central figure in Islam. Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia.

The rest of the Intro can go into subsection Etymology to make the intro succint.

--Tigeroo 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were a Muslim, I'd object that God is the central figure in Islam, not Muhammad.--Editorius 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Call it central or the most marginal figure. Call me a vandal or a sabotteur. What matters is that there are 2 historical views (history documents) that must be defined and included here:

• Non-muslim historical views.
• Muslim historical views. -- Szvest 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is just one historical view: the scholarly academic one. The Muslim view is by definition religious rather than historical. Pecher ^Talk 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the implication that Muslims can neither be scholarly nor academic is 100% true. There are differing fields of academia holding different views altogether. The 'nonMuslim' academic view is entirely based on western reviews of Arabic sources. To suggest that such a review is categorically superior than the sources such reviews rely on is ludicrous. His Excellency... 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reference about your statement Pecher? -- Szvest 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need a reference for Islam being a religion, look up the basic reference texts. Pecher ^Talk 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to your statement about the Muslim view which may refer to works by Academics who lived or live in Muslim societies. The Muslim view can refer to a secular view. Any reference? -- Szvest 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not swallow Szvest's bait!--Editorius 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Szvest 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are always two (or more) points of view: For example, there are the coffeeists, who claim that the moon is made of coffee, and the non-coffeeists (such as the physicists), who deny that the moon is made of coffee ... --Editorius 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito in his book "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam" p. 4-5 writes: As Christians view their revelation as both fulfilling and completing the revelation of the Old Testament, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelation from God through the angle Gabriel to correct human error that had made its way into the scripture and belief systems of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore Muslims believe that Islam is not a new religion with a new scripture. Far from being the youngest of the major monotheistic world religions, from a Muslim point of view Islam is the oldest because it represents the original as well as the final revelation of the God to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. "He established for you the same religion as that which He established for Noah, that which We have sent to you as inspiration through Abraham, Moses and Jesus namely that you should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions within it" (Quran 42:13)

Therefore "Non-Muslims believe he established the religion of Islam and the Muslim community... Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed." is more accurate but it is better to be clarified even further. --Aminz 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the scientific historians (i.e. the non-mythologists) know that Muhammad established/founded the religion of Islam.--Editorius 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And are you their representative? --Aminz 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, are they the same who state that God exist or doesn't exist? That Jesus established Christianity? That Satan invented evil doing? That Darwin is wrong or right? If they say the same than we only have one academic source, if not than we have many. -- Szvest 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworked version; removed reference to central figure as per comment. Aminz quote paves the way for an academic reference to Szvest's contention of a different POV vs. established/founded. In the new version the Second sentence still maintains and creates the desired strong link between Muhammad and Islam.

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد muḥammad; also Mohammed and other variants) is believed by Muslims to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia.

Continuity can be referenced and appropriately incorporated elsewhere describing Muslims and their beleifs on Islam or Muhammad.--Tigeroo 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Szvest, Aminz, what is your bloody point?!

That Muhammad founded/established Islam (in the non-etymological sense of the word!) is unquestionably part of our historical knowledge.--Editorius 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

MY point is your using the word "Sabotage" if you haven't noticed yet. --Aminz 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We have no bloody points Editorius. I don't know why this makes you furious toward my point! Calm down and have a deep breath then relax. You don't have to make it a big deal. What i am saying is that i am not saying he didn't establish islam but i am saying why your historians are keen to point out that he did when Jesus in WP is almost considered as God. All i want to clarify is that we have to suggest that all articles about theological figures should follow the same standard. Otherwise, i am considering this as a total bias. If you agree w/ me about my suggestion than we are in harmony. I hope i made it clear. -- Szvest 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like saying after Editorius: "What's the bloody point here?" If there is any logic in the posting above, then I have failed to grasp it. Pecher ^Talk 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still cannot discern your point clearly. I glimpsed at the article on Jesus, which begins as follows:

"Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity."

Well, this statement is certainly not incorrect. But we cannot simply copy it by writing that Muhammad is the central figure in Islam, since Jesus is religiously central for the Christians in a different sense than Muhammad is for the Muslims, even though in Muslim folklore he is often venerated like a "Übermensch" ("superman"). But from the strict theological point of view, Muhammad is not god-like, and the central figure in Islam is God and nobody else but God. — You're talking about some sort of common "standard", but this cannot mean that always the same formulations should be used, can it?!--Editorius 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my fomulation please, it is formulated to acheive the goals of both, it makes all the necessarry linkages while avoiding all the objections, while at the same time being very simple to read and comprehend in comparison to the current version. At least thats the intention.--Tigeroo 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Editorius using Nietszcheesque terms like "Übermensch"?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Give us an answer!--Editorius 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal simply endorses a Muslim POV and is very confusing. Pecher ^Talk 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it endorses a Muslim POV and which part is confusing so that we fix it, because I don't see it.--Tigeroo 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved? Will make the change soon then.--Tigeroo 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC SUmmary

Could someone write a short summary about the recently placed RfC? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size

The article is now 60+ kb, more than the prefered 32 kb. Should we move some of the text in the biography to the sub-articles i created? --Striver 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--Tigeroo 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam template -- poses POV threat

Having the Islam template placed at the beginning of this article and not in the "Islamic views" section is in violation of NPOV. Doing this asserts that Muhammad is essentially not a stand alone historical figure, but a mythical Islamic figure. At Jesus, the Jesus template is placed at the top of the article, while the Christianity template is placed in the appropriate sub-section. As with Jesus, Muhammad is a historical figure whose historical existence is verified (or at least widely recognized), and thus is viewed upon by non-Islamic religions, as well as secularists. Until a Christianity, Judaism, atheist, and all other beliefs' templates are placed at the top of this article, it is POV to place the Islamic template accordingly. Please view the Talk:Jesus archives for detailed discussion on the Christianity issue. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a better link, can't find want you want us to see.--Tigeroo 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have followed that discussion, and i have to say that the consistent thing would be to treat both article in the same way. --Striver 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Material from http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Muhammad.htm has been used without permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs)

Please see the bottom of that page, where they acknowledge they copied it from us, not the other way around. Dragons flight 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You got to know that it's the opposite. Try this out http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Mexico.htm. -- Szvest 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Was the prophet Mohammed homosexual?

No, this is nonsense.Peter Agga

Please do not open this title discussion. This title is considered very offensive and does not show respect towards Islam and also towards Our Beloved Muslim Prophet. — Emrrans 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you even make a suggestion of something like that? Do some research into a topic before asking absurd questions.--Aadamh 01:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He was not a homosexual. This is strictly forbidden in Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smea (talk • contribs) .

Well, you think that Jesus was a man and nothing else - how's that for showing respect toward our beloved God?

Everyone is either a man (nothing else) or a woman (nothing else). Every human must be grouped into these two categories. As a result, there is absolutely no disrespect towards Jesus by saying he was a man (nothing else).

But there is still disrespect towards christians, since they believe that Jesus was God incarnated. Besides, to say that "everyone is either a man or a women" is to beg the question since christians do not believe this. Similarly muslims do not believe that physics and chemistry is all there is to say about the world - they want to make room for Allah. So if I were to claim that "there is nothing in the world but material things" you, as a muslim, would certainly beg the question against me - as christians would against you.

P.S. He's a prophet of God (nothing else) (206.126.82.31 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

P.P.S. The above is not an argument but an expression of personal subjective belief. Muslims must come to understand that there are no dhimmis in here.

Like you said, it may be strictly forbidden in Islam, but when is Islam going to wake up to the world and get with the 2000's? To call homosexuals sinners is offensive to me as a homosexual. I am a gay Muslim and on my next pilgramage I hope to convert all the poor Muslims still in the closet.

And facts are facts and I just don't know why you deprive everyone of the facts concerning the afterlife and the promises of male sex (if we choose it) in the afterlife? This is absurd to edit this!User:Rainbowjoe

Homosexuality is clearly a sin in the Qur'an. Part of being a Muslim is to follow the Qur'an as well as the authentic Hadith of the Prophet. Since it is clear in the Qur'an that homosexuality is a sin, and that Allah has created men and women so that they may compliment each other, support each other and be together, than it is also clear that there is no such thing as a homosexual Muslim. Therefore, the Prophet could not have been homosexual to anwser the initial question. And to the member who said he is a homosexual Muslim....you are only kidding yourself and have a very limited knowledge of Islam if you believe this to be true. There can be no homosexuality in Islam whatsoever. It is completely not allowable. Also, to say Jesus is simply a man, a prophet of Allah, is no disrespect at all. Muslims have always defended Jesus, even in times when Christians have not, and have given him all the respect in the world, just as Muslims are to show any other prophet of Allah, including Muhammad. Just because we do not believe similarly does not make it disrespectful.

Quick quiz (place for a picture)

How is the Muhammad article different from every single one of the following articles about important figures from antiquity:

• Jesus
• Buddha
• Charlemagne
• Alexander the Great
• Zeus
• Thor
• Homer
• Sophocles
• Moses
• Adam

That's right... there's no picture at the top of the page.

As this list shows, moving the picture to the top wouldn't be something that was undertaken just to annoy Muslims; it would simply be in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. On the other hand, deliberately keeping the images shoved below the fold must only be to avoid annoying certain religious people, which is odd, since we don't give Christians a similar heckler's veto over Evolution, for example. —Chowbok 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And which picture would you like to use? Traditionally, there are no pictures of Muhammad. I suppose the article could use one of the images from Persian texts that shows him as a figure with a veil over his face... - unsigned

There are plenty of pictures of Mohammad. See the Mohammed Image Archive. Lack of available images is not the reason there isn't one here. - Nunh-huh 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) - It's probably worth adding to the list above the article of Bahá'u'lláh, as he represents an instance of a religion with a similar taboo against such images, which Wikipedia has chosen not to respect. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Early history about Muhammad is written by Muslims and they do not put any picture of Muhammad. Hence any picture you present will be just a picture which has nothing to do with Muhammad. It is just like you create a new one today. I will use my right to revert any such change. --- Faisal 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that different from Jesus, Homer, Sophocles, Moses, or Adam? There are no known pictures from their lifetimes in existence; all images of them are by later artists. By your logic, the images have "nothing to do" with the subjects. Why aren't you removing those images? —Chowbok 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The diff is simply what Faisal's explained. The first ever picture of Muhammad dates back to centuries after his death. It cannot be real. -- Szvest 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? That is also the case in the examples I gave. The depictions of Homer, for example, are even farther removed in time. So why don't you remove those images as well? —Chowbok 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was debated in depth few times over here. I may advise you to read them at the archives first so we won't waste time discussing them every single moment. -- Szvest 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through the archives. I see several people making the same point I did, but I don't see anybody refuting it. Can you answer my question or point me to where somebody else did? —Chowbok 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If I could then I will remove all those images too. Hence if you support me then lets start ? --- Faisal 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Start with Homer. Let's see what happens. —Chowbok 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know! I cannot but the point I was trying to make was that if one cannot correct something wrong in other articles then it does not implies that all other article should have wrong thing in them. So your reason that if other articles have it then this should have too is very wrong. Btw I am going to deleted the picture at Homer page now, just to make a point (I already know what will happens). --- Faisal 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Islam cannot be treated differently than any other person in Wikipedia, it would not be fair to give special consideration to Muhammed, but not Jesus or Buddha. As a Christian, it burns me to see some of the things they write about Jesus, but you have to accept that this is a secular encyclopedia.

I favor moving the Bibliotheque Nationale illustration of Mohammed to the top of the page. It is the best illustration yet, since it as an Arab illustration and depicts Mohammed´s face. I agree that Islam cannot get special treatment in a secular encyclopedia. There are certain Christian religious groups that are against depicting Christ, but Wikipedia does it anyway; so why adopt a different stance towards Islam. Wikipedia must apply an equal criterion. --Moshe Katslav 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Marhaba

Was Muhammad illiterate? UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:Peter Agga

The article says yes. Please stop trolling! -- Szvest 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are actually hadiths that raise doubts about this issue. It is no historically established fact, that Muhammad was illiterate. So this definitely can only be mentioned as belief held by Muslims. --124.176.157.61 10:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is written in the Quran that Mohammad was illiterate. Let's see how you can refute that (206.126.82.31 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

That would certainly make sense considering the fact the Quran was originally an oral history.

The Prophet Muhammad was illiterate for 40 years of his life until the Angel Gabriel came to him and granted him the miracle of being able to read. This is one of the miracles of the Qur'an by the way....how an illiterate man could come up with such beautiful text. Arabic was seen as a very poetic language at the time of the Prophet and people often wrote song and poems....and the words of the Qur'an exceeded the words of these often lifetime songwriters and poets by such extreme degrees that just hearing the words often caused people who understand the language to convert to Islam alone.

Formatting Issue?

I'm currently running Firefox v. 1.5.0.6, and the "Timeline for Muhammed" is conflicting with other objects on the page. I've provided a link to a screenshot to give you a better idea of what's happening. http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2056/screenshotmuhammadrz7.jpg

My resolution is 1440x900 pixels (widescreen monitor). Just thought I'd throw it out there if someone knows how to fix it.Hanzolot 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the page today, the problem appears to be fixed. Hanzolot 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad a paedophile?

He married Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. TharkunColl 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute. Is it my imagination, or has this come up before? BYT 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a very good reason for that. TharkunColl 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a very good reason the partisan attacks never seem to stick around in the actual text: They're vandalism. In this article, we clearly enunciate Watt's view of Aisha's likely age at the time the marriage was consummated. If the label "pedophile" is important to you (and why would that be, I wonder), then what you're doing is proposing your own personal retroactive psychoanalysis of a historical figure. He married an over-the-hill widow, as well -- perhaps we should figure out what the dysphemism for that is, while we're at it, or would that muddy the rhetorical waters for you?

The prevailing academic opinion on this is not exactly hard to come by: he used marriage as a political resource. If you see clinically diagnosable misbehavior in that ... start a blog. If you want to put something that backs up your blogging in an encyclopedia: reliable, neutral sources, please. BYT 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is gerontophilia - sex with old people - but unlike paedophilia it is not illegal because the person concerned is a consenting adult. The fact is that Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old child. That may be acceptable in Muslim society, but it sure as hell isn't in the West. TharkunColl 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought you were proposing changes to the text. If it's just a rant ... again, you might consider a blog. BYT 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What I find most annoying is all the attempts to excuse his behaviour, just because he happens to be the founder of Islam. TharkunColl 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem, if you're really interested in discussing this, is the (often-cynical) attempt to apply 21st-century European/American social standards to the political and social processes of seventh-century Arabia. If you read the history, you'll find that it was not at all unusual for girls to be betrothed before puberty, and not at all unusual for the marriages to be consummated shortly after the first menses. This culture, in other words, had a different way of defining sexual maturity than yours does. I can understand your discomfort with that, and I celebrate your right to express that discomfort, but I find it a little disingenuous when people who should know better imply, or state outright, that Muhammad (pbuh) was the only one defining female sexual maturity in this way at the time in Arabia. He wasn't. BYT 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov is making extremely valid points here. Applying the moniker of "pedophile" to Muhammad is anachronistic. A similar anachronism would be to call the colonists of the original Thirteen Colonies involved with the Boston Tea Party "terrorists". See this talk. (→Netscott) 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is boring to rehash such placative 'monikers' every couple of weeks. I see no intent of real debate here, let alone of improving the article. This has been discussed before, see the archives. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum where people can stop by whenever they feel like discussing the "M was a pedophile" topos. Stick to discussing the actual article, make good-faith suggestions (informed by what has already been discussed, we archive talkpages for a reason!). Changing evolved articles takes some dedication and effort on the part of the editor wishing to introduce the change. just don't bore us by listlessly kicking a dead horse now and again. Comments such as the one at the top of this section should not be considered constructive contributions, and should remain unanswered or even be removed per WP:NOT. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have responded to it -- my bad, I guess. Sorry. BYT 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of re-dedication

As the person who implemented the above-named picture, I'd like to express that I find it's deletion without discussion rather rude. This even more as the picture is deemed "useless" and someone flatly stating that it has "no consensus". In addition, I'm being attacked ad hominem as "a new user" (the point being?) for inserting the image.

What kind of discussion is that? If you want to evaluate the image's worthiness: Fine, go ahead; and best with the image, so that other participants in this discussion can judge for themselves, and without having to search the page history. Is there any compelling reason for pulling the image before a discussion has taken place? Even before it has started? I frankly just don't get it.

To start a discussion concerning the image itself:

1. It depicts an important historical event
2. It is penned by someone from the very culture of the event - giving it additional authenticity
3. It is part of a truly masterful historical compendium - while all those self-shot flower photos and DIY-SVG-coats-of-arms are well done, Wikipedia can only benefit from featuring some examples of superbly crafted medieval art from centuries ago.

--The Hungry Hun 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hun -- you can start the discussion anytime, and you just did, so no worries. I apologize for mistaking you for a new user. I glanced at the redlink on your name, and at your history of contributions, which was under a dozen, and made an error. It turns out those edits were made over a period of two years or so. My bad. Certainly no ad hominem intended. Personally I'm reserving judgment on the image until we hear how other editors feel about it. BYT 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No harm done; I was just irritated that my contribution got deleted before even the first sentence of a discussion was written. I'm interested in other editors' comments, too. --The Hungry Hun 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not get what is the historical or informational significance the picture has? Is it portrait real Muhammad? No! Secondly, one should discuss before making a contribution. Instead of thinking that other should discuss before deleting things added without discussion. --- Faisal 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes it is also offensive (and very disrespectful) to me too being a Muslim. Hence if it is not important for the article and gives no important new information then it should not be there. Add it on pages like Depictions of Muhammad, but please not here. You can say it is given by a Muslim author but does not matter as it is against Islam (most Muslims will feel it offensive). --- Faisal 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking out loud, here.... surely we wouldn't choose to include an image along the lines of Piss Christ at Christianity, and surely the fact that Christians would consider it offensive would figure into that choice.

Wikipedia is not censored, of course, which is why it would be appropriate to include it at Depictions of Muhammad. BYT 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that Piss Christ is offensive (although it is, by design), but that it's unrepresentative. It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to use this in this article. But this does not apply to the portrait being discussed here. —Chowbok 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal: With all due respect, I don't really see why we should avoid offending you. That sounds a bit rude, and I apologize for that... but a lot of people are offended by a lot of things, and I don't think Wikipedia should start down the road of not offending people. Of course, we shouldn't go out of our way to deliberately offend people, but we're not doing that by adding a picture here, just following standard practice (which was my point above). If you're offended, then I think you should just not look, rather than forcing your beliefs on the rest of us. You don't have to use Wikipedia. And, if you're feeling ambitious, there's nothing stopping you from creating a Muslim-friendly Wikipedia fork. You can mirror all the data and add a script that removes images of Muhammad and inserts PBUHs after his name. —Chowbok 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Piss Christ have to do with anything? Piss Christ would add nothing to the Christianity article as it is satirical, purposefully offensive art. The art in question in this debate is Islamic art that depicts an event according to Islamic sources. In that sense, there is no comparison between Piss Christ and Mohammed widmet die Kaaba um. Again, this image adds to the article as millions of images across hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia do. There is no reason why an image should be prohibited from being used because some people find it offensive. Such policies would lead us down a slippery slope. Hence, Wikipedia is not censored. —Aiden 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, Aiden -- if "It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity," and I agree that it would, there is some point at which we might ask what makes it anti-Christian. Maybe the perceptions of a cross-section of Christians about the image in question would count for something. BYT 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to ask Christians about it. Piss Christ is pretty objectively anti-Christian. Anybody would agree with that: Christians, Muslims, athiests, or the artist. —Chowbok 04:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason for pulling the image before a discussion has taken place? Even before it has started? I frankly just don't get it.

Are you then saying you had no idea that pictorial representations of Muhammed are insulting to most Muslims? I guess so, because if you had known any of this, you would have discussed before adding the picture. You might have read the archives of this page. You might have read the article Depictions of Muhammad. Please consider that there is much background behind this matter, and that you might have, unintentionally, been rude. Please do go read the archives. Shenme 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I was still aware of the controversy regarding the Muhammad cartoons in that Danish newspaper; I didn't know of the extensive discussion here, though.
Since the whole discussion is already getting a little unstructured and confusing, I’d like to make my point right here, while it addresses the several sub-threads above. There’s basically two questions here IMO: a) Is the picture worth keeping? and b) Should certain pictures be included at all?

Shenme, whether Muslims are offended by the picture (or claim to be) is not relevent. There are many things on Wikipedia which a huge number of people, whether Muslim, Christian, atheist, communist, or any faction or group may find offensive. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that you are offended by relevent content is no reason to remove it. —Aiden 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Many islamic scolars have tried to portray Mohammad, and as he was a real man me must have had an appearence and appart from offending the sort of people who drive truck bombs into embassys in far off places (and they already hate us) i can't see what harm a portrayal, providing it was from a good source, could do. --La France 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the specific picture

1. It helps people understanding and imagining the concrete event that is described. Many readers appreciate some visual assistance on complex and difficult matters, especially schoolchildren, who are an important target audience of Wikipedia.
2. In general, it is considered good style to enrich a textual wasteland with some visual hookups.
3. Such pictures simply help understanding the historical context, both the contexts of the event and the depiction itself. That’s specifically why these illustrations were crafted after all, to help posterity understand their history!
4. This specific picture is of an immense historical value: It is, as stated in the article, part of the Jami' al-Tavarikh by Rashid Al-Din, a veritable cultural treasure of immense richness. Wikipedia can surely only benefit from such references.
5. Reasoning that the image doesn’t depict the historical Muhammad is slightly awkward to me. Would you only accept detailed portraits or photographs to supplement an article? As mentioned, this is not about giving an impression of bodily characteristics but of the historic dimensions and events.

Regarding pictures for this article in general

1. As far as I can tell after a quick glance in the archives & researching the internet, different schools of Islam have different interpretations of the picture ban (actually, right now, there are Muhammad icons being sold in Iran to believers - with full face and everything). If Muslim law were applied to Wikipedia (to which I strongly object, since Wikipedia is not a religious project), why should it be the strictest interpretation which is being adopted. not only banning derogatory, but any pictures of Muhammad?
2. The latter is probably the more important point, too: An encyclopedia is by definition a project in the spirit of enlightenment - knowledge being collected, edited and published in absence of restricting or censoring powers, be they of religious, governmental or whatever else nature. I can imagine that you feel embarrassed by something that you consider a violation of your beliefs. But actually, those beliefs are not the standard to apply here - Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic or any other religious law.
   Christianity, for example, has a similar ban on pictures, the Second Commandment. Yet, if some hard-core evangelical zealots demanded enforcement of this Commandment in Wikipedia, nobody would even consider it seriously for a second. Why should other beliefs be granted a preferential treatment?
3. I, too, find a lot of things rude, especially on Wikipedia. What do we need an article on butt plugs for? What gain of insight does it deliver? How does it help us understand our world in a better way? Actually, I consider that article gross, perverted and dispensable. Yet, the object undeniably exists, and it wouldn’t go away if the article was scrapped. So, if some perverts want to describe their favorite toys, well, have fun.

The beautiful thing about WP is, though, that if you don't want to look at the article about butt plugs, you don't have to visit that article. If you don't want to look at images of them at all, you won't find them at Anatomy. They're not appropriate there. BYT 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And on a final notice: If someone wishes to delete the picture, they should do so after a consensus on deletion is reached. This is the due process on whole articles and there’s no reason to change this course for constructive additions to an article! I invested some time, both for research and integration into Wikipedia. Negating these efforts by deleting my contributions without comment and without discussion is, all arguments of the contents aside, simply a sign of bad manners to me.

--The Hungry Hun 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an "off-topic" curiousity that has nothing to do w/ the pics. You claim I invested some time, both for research and integration into Wikipedia. I see that the comment above is your 15th edit! Is that sufficient to what you call research or you are just someone who used to contribute under another username? -- Szvest 11:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I exactly understand your question: I didn't mean to boast about some incredibly glorious WP contributions of mine in the past, but talked about this specific addition - I had to work a little into the MediaWiki engine & syntax, looked a little into the source and its writer, streamlined the description with the article text, had to find a good position inside the article and so on... And all of a sudden, an hour or something has passed, everything's neat & the next thing I know is it getting deleted with some generic "Nah, dinna like it" boilerplate - that's what I meant, not that I'm some kind of secret WP hack who must not be annoyed by mere human beings. --The Hungry Hun 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer HH. -- Szvest 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we place a picture of Muhammad in this article?

I wrote:

Chowbok, Aiden -- if "It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity," and I agree that it would, there is some point at which we might ask what makes it anti-Christian. Maybe the perceptions of a cross-section of Christians about the image in question would count for something. BYT 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok wrote:

I don't see why we need to ask Christians about it. Piss Christ is pretty objectively anti-Christian. Anybody would agree with that: Christians, Muslims, athiests, or the artist. —Chowbok 04:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Pretty" objectively? Hmmm.
• I'm not at all sure "anybody" would agree with this assessment. I've known some Unitarians who took inclusiveness and theological vagueness to surrealistic heights.
• Problem is, by the same reasoning, a sizeable group of people would view the inclusion of an image of Muhammad here as "pretty objectively anti-Muslim."
• The fact that not everybody would view it that way may not be all that relevant. Arguing for unanimity on such a point seems to me akin to holding that some editors -- and there would be some -- would go along with including Piss Christ at Christianity, as, say, an example of how the religion's symbolism has affected popular art and culture. And that we therefore should put it at Christianity.
• Look at it this way. We wouldn't include Piss Christ as an image at Christianity. Why not?
• Because it would be seen -- whether inaccurately or accurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities of Christians, even though the image is arguably relevant to a discussion of (for instance) the ways Christian imagery, and the Christian faith. is portrayed in the mass media. Translation: The fact that it would p*** people off would enter our calculation.
• In the case of Muhammad, there is a long-standing (and bitter) series of controversies over representations of the Prophet (whether the representations are reverential or not).
• So here's my question. Is including the picture here likely to be perceived -- whether accurately or inaccurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities of Muslims? BYT 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not want to adopt a standard that we don't include material that is "likely to be perceived -- whether accurately or inaccurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities" of anyone. If the picture we are talking about adding here were reasonably thought to be an accurate likeness of Muhammad, there would be a good case for including it. But the caption says it was painted in 1315. (Who painted it? Do we know?) We have the article Depictions of Muhammad, which is clearly the appropriate place for this picture. I don't think the picture adds enough to this page to justify annoying several good editors, so I oppose including it here, on a purely pragmatic basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Tom. -- Szvest 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The strongest reason I can see for including this image would be as a lead-in to the Depictions of Muhammad article but there already is an image that does this (and that image's inclusion in this article has already been quite contentious). Tom Harrison makes a good point about being pragmatic only I would extend it additionally in that removing the image would likely save later edit warring/long protracted discussions over having an additional image in the article. The primary difference between this new image and the image that has been included in the article for some time is that the existing one does not show a face (and the figure of Muhammad is very small). I prefer the newly added image as it evokes the story of a key point in Muhammad's youth were he solved the issue of what Meccan clan would have the honor of raising the Black Stone in its place after the rebuilding of the Kabaa and as well there's more to see. (→Netscott) 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning against inclusion of the picture is getting slightly unitarian, as someone might have said ;-)... IMO the applicable standard shouldn't be the lowest common denominator (i.e. will anyone object) but common sense (is there a valid reason to object).

To apply this to the Piss Christ example: Covering an effigy of a person in urine will be universally considered as deeply humilitating towards the person, be he revered by other people or not. Contrary utilitarian shenanigans would simply constitute a weird case of derangement syndrome, let's face it...

The depiction of a person in itself would not face such a universal revulsion. Wikipedia is meant to be universally accessible, so this universal standard should apply here.

Besides, as mentioned above, the rejection of such depictions is anything but universal in Islam - adopting the strictest of all possible interpretations would implicitly mean to prefer a certain variety over others - something I don't consider justified. --The Hungry Hun 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, there is manifestly a "valid reason" to object, even if you happen not to care how people feel about this. It is this: The article will be subject to even more vandalism and edit warring than it already endures if we include this, which is a significant consideration in terms of the workload alone. (Why will it attract this trouble? Because the image will be perceived as offensive.)
• I might add that, given your edit history, it looks like you haven't been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to cleaing up this article after these conflicts and graffiti-fests, so you may not be familiar with this process.
• The picture is also, in my view, an unnecessary distraction that prevents us from focusing on more meaningful editing work. Listening to this discussion, I hear nothing that this picture adds to the article -- beyond, I suppose, lost time, aggravation, and needless ill will toward a substantial portion of the reading audience. BYT 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not-censored. Is that means that we should start offending a large community purposely with the things that does not add significant value in the wikipedia? It is just like you start doing all the things that law permit you but your friend or a neighbor does not like. Even if you know that by not doing those things you will lose nothing and your neighbor/friend will be annoyed. In that case when your neighbor/friend will complain you than you will reply that laws allows you ... so he should shut up. Such a city will be a filthy and ugly city to live in, even if all the people in that city follow the law. Please do not make wikipedia such a place. --- Faisal 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

there are indeed cases of wikilawyering that qualify as WP:POINT: i.e. insisting on the letter, not the spirit of policy. For example, it would be WP:POINT to insist on having the JP cartoons on this page, invoking "WP is uncensored". Such a suggestion would be legitimate prima facie, but it would be turned down as an obvious attempt to provoke, per Wikipedia:Recentism and per Wikipedia:Notability. The image suggested at present is an entirely different matter, since it is obviously of historical interest and does illustrate the subject matter. As such, these reasons trupm concerns of offending hyper-sensitive religionists. Otherwise, we'd have to delete half the images on Wikipedia. (ᛎ) qɐp 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The image in question is Islamic art which depicts a historical event held very high in regard within Islam, the religion to which Muhammad is considered the founder. Thus, the picture has complete relevance and provides both historical and theological context to the article. It is not thrown in to "distract" editors or offend anyone--the artist who made it had no concept of Wikipedia or sought to use it as an anti-Islam tool. But whether it does or does not offend is not relevant; being offended by content is not grounds to remove it. There are thousands of images in thousands of articles which various groups may find offensive. Creating an "Islamic forbidden zone" like many editors want to do by confining all images of Muhammad to one specific article equates in my mind to a form of censorship, in that all other articles which may benefit from such images are prohibited from using them. One should not have to view a separate article to find images which are completely relevant to the first article. This amounts to nothing more than censorship of Wikipedia, and as we know, Wikipedia is not censored. —Aiden 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would editors kindly not edit war over this? As appears to be the case there is not consensus for this change. Normally when that is the case the original version is what remains. Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what is Islamic art. Who invented this terminology and when to use it? If 1000 books are written about Muhammad without any image in them and one book give some image of made by so called Muslims then 1000 books are rejected and that single image is label as Islamic art. For me that is a "non-Islamic Art". --- Faisal 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is getting somewhat embarrassing: First, you reasoned that this picture was not worth including in the article. Then I made my case, arguing that this is a worthful addition to the article. My reasoning has never been answered. Instead, the new rationale is that no pictures at all should be allowed, no matter how relevant or valuable! And while the discussion is still underway, the picture gets deleted - plus, funny enough, the person deleting the picture warns of an edit war, in case the picture is re-inserted. This is not about arguments but about the sheer personal urge to delete the image at all costs, whatever the discussion.
BTW, how are people supposed to judge the picture without the picture? Whole articles can be deleted upon request, too, but this doesn't happen preemptively but after a lengthy discussion has taken place. It is unacceptable to let someone bully the form of the discussion into a way he considers favorable at the expense of the other participants.

The stated number of x percent of (English-speaking) Muslims and ultimately y percent of all English-speaking people objecting these pictures seems highly flawed to me. Are all formally Muslim people deeply obedient and as passionate re Muhammad pictures as their religious leaders and officially articulated views? In Christianity, ordinary people are usually by far less zealous & principle-stricken than their spiritual leaders, and I doubt that this is much different in Islam.
BUT: This doesn't matter anyway; you brought in the example of legal but unjust behaviour, i.e. doing something just for pestering someone else - but this is not the case here, and I hope you didn't mean to insinuate that. The image is a valuable contribution to the whole article - I made that case above and nobody bothered objecting my reasoning. Let me specify:

• Example 1: You're having a perfectly legal barbecue in your garden, but your neighbour is bothered by the noise & smell. He complains to you, but as a reaction, you turn up the volume & nudge your grill even further towards his garden. The case is clear - someone doing this is a rude and annoying jerk! But did this happen here? No, because:
• Example 2: Point of departure as above, but this times your neighbour complains about barbecuing steaks & burgers as such because he is a hardcore vegetarian. He considers killing animals murder & eating them the devouring of rotten corpses. His stomach turns on seeing you flipping your burgers and consuming them. Addressing his complaints you tell him “Sorry dude, but I'll keep on doing what I'm doing” - so, is the barbecue guy a rude jerk just like the guy from Ex. 1? I don't think so. He has no obligation to quit grilling, his actions are both legal and justified, i.e. in accordance with generally accepted social norms. It might be considered polite to stop your barbecue because your neighbour already feels nauseous - but get real, the guy obliged to give in is the neighbour, not the barbecue guy!

And this is exactly the case! It's not some nasty actions, which are leading to frictions here, but the individual perception of an otherwise perfectly acceptable behaviour. So, this is, in a nutshell, why I object to deletion of the picture and strongly reject grounds like “It's rude” or “You do this just to bother me”.

In addition, I don't quite get the points a) “there would be attacks on the article if the picture were permanently integrated” and b) “we would intimidate some good editors what might cause them leaving WP”:

1. The first could sound to a sensible person like a kind of mer a boire threat - I sincerely hope that I'm misinterpreting here. So far, the only objections (and first throes of an edit war) happen to come from the very editors who are warning against such an edit war! Technically, the article can simply be protected until the dust of an (alleged) outrage has settled. Plus, the WP concept discourages vandals over time, as reverts are faster executed than vandalisms. And finally, giving in to vandals should never be accepted and will only encourage them to try flexing their muscle again.
2. And regarding the second point: Well, maybe editors are not that good if they consider articles a kind of private property or personal responsibility & have trouble accepting dissenting opinions. I sincerely hope that everybody around accepts that WP is public domain as a whole - both regarding the articles and the entitlement to edit them.

--The Hungry Hun 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the editors wanting removal of all pictures (or just this one) are advocating outright censorship due to their religious beliefs. This is not in keeping with the policy or spirit of Wikipedia. —Aiden 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting several days & none of my arguments has been addressed convincingly. I assume that there is either a consensus to reinsert the picture or a lack of valid, i.e. objective, reasons to do so (the latter is probably true). Therefore, I included the image inside the article again. --The Hungry Hun 09:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Hun. It seems to me there is no consensus to insert this image. BYT 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a consensus as in "everybody agrees", but one like in "no valid objections were raised beyond a general averseness to pictures". I made several points, none of them were addressed as regards content, only with variants of "I don't like it". Since the image in question lifts the article's quality both in content and form, I suggest to re-insert it and request FayssalF to unprotect the article in order to do so. --The Hungry Hun 09:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in on HH's behalf here regarding "no consensus" - simple refusal to agree does not make this a deal-breaker. If you can't cite any good reason for your refusal on the basis of actual Wikipedia policies, and there is good reason to include the image in the article, as I think HH has established and I think most of us can concede, then I say the decision should fall in HH's favor. Again, the only reason I have read in the above discussion to NOT include the image is the possibility of perceived offense on the part of some Muslims - this is not a valid reason for excluding the image, or for excluding images in general. And since it's clear that HH is not simply inserting the image to make a point or be combative, I see no reason to refuse. Graft 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no vote here, but, as a white, completly british person, with no islamic links, I'd like to say that I am against placing a picture of Muhammad on Wikipedia.
It is (at the least) a personal taboo of many people, and breaking it by posting a picture here I feel is not a good reason.
Likewise, I would vote against breaking personal taboo's of any people without good reason, for example, posting a created image of one of us having sex with our mothers. If The Hungry Hun and other editors debating for the inclusion of a picture have no such personal taboo's and they are debating from this point of view, I'd be surprised, and open to education by them on how they attained this (in my view) enlightened perspective.
My belief is that "a general averseness to pictures" is a good enough reason, in this situation. --RickiRich 04:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you certain that your input is in accordance with WP:NOT censored, which is official policy? Since its founding, it has been a guiding principle that we do not censor content for the protection of minors or religions. Captainktainer * Talk 04:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevant guideline: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

It is already evident from the above discussion that the inclusion will be considered offensive by a lot of people, so the question becomes whether leaving it out would cause the article to become 'less informative, relevant, or accurate'. While I agree that the image might be a valid embellishment to the article, I don't see it as reducing the informativeness, relevance or accuracy in any way if it were left out. An article on the Jyllands-Pollen cartoon controversy, for example, would clearly lose relevance and informativeness if the cartoons themselves weren't displayed; over here, however, an image serves a purely illustrative purpose and hence should not be included. 'If and only if' is a very strong conditional. - Valarauka(T/C) 05:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this from the guideline perspective, clearly this is aimed torward obscenities and vulgar references in the Western sense. The picture that has been the subject of much reverting is neither obscene or profane. Nor is it defamatory. That leaves the question of whether it is offensive. While this may seem subjective, it is really is not. The only way this picture is offensive is from a religious standpoint. Which is making a lot of liars out of those people who delete this picture for this reason but yet lie in their edit summary. This is another matter that needs addressing, but I digress.

Since the servers for wikipedia are located in Florida, they fall under the protection of US Federal law. Clearly this picture is considered 'blasphemous' in a few Islamic circles. So if it was blasphemous, no blasphemy law could be enforced as the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held that a New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

So that leaves Wikipedia's policy. Clearly this policy was written for a modern sensibility of what we consider obscene or vulgar (whatever moving target that may be), not for a fifteenth century scrawl of a guy on some steps preaching to his cohorts.

So that leaves the last and only consideration. Should we censor this image because it might offend some Muslims someplace? Well, that question should be answered rhetorically. Should the article on evolution be cut out because it offends the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians someplace? Should the picture of Charles Darwin be removed because some fundamentalist Christians hate it and it is nothing more than an 'embellishment'? Does it really matter that we know what Charles Darwin looked like? If it doesn't, why is the picture there? How about that cartoon picture of part Darwin part ape animal? Isn't that offensive to scientist's sensibilities?

Which brings me to that last point. Pictures have value because they give us a sense of historicity, even if the picture may be inaccurate. It tells us what people of another era were thinking about historical figures. Which is very valuable in itself. It helps our mind by giving us 'context' for the surrounding text. It gives us a perspective that this person was even thought about enough that they took the trouble to make a picture of him, and the setting that they imagined Muhammad in. Even if it was another culture that didn't know that it was wrong to draw pictures of Muhammad.

If you are going to be worrying about offending this group or that group for whatever reason, you might as well shut down Wikipedia today. I think that people who are fortunate by living in democracies can understand these principles, and why nothing happened anywhere when the president of Iran said that Israel should be wiped off the map. But yet when a quote from the pope was misunderstood churches were firebombed and a nun was shot. Now that's what I consider truly offensive. The picture should stay. Nodekeeper 06:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Freaking Propoganda

Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, while Muslims differ as to whether or not visual depictions of Muhammad are permissible[citation needed]: Some Muslims believe that to prevent idolatry and shirk, or ascribing partners to Allah, visual depictions of Muhammad and other prophets of Islam should be prohibited. Other Muslims believe respectful depictions should be allowed [citation needed]. Both sides have produced Islamic art — the aniconists through calligraphy and arabesque, the pictorialists through book illustration and architectural decoration [citation needed]. Negative portrayal of Muhammad, whether spoken, written, drawn, or filmed, may be taken as a great offense by Muslims, see Muslim veneration for Muhammad.

I have not seen any Muslim scholars that say it is good to represent Muhammad. There might be few black sheep. But if you still want to write above misleading claims. Than provide each line with multiple references please. Otherwise do not make huge claims without giving a single reference. ---- Faisal 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I believe User:Zora was the primary author of that text on the Depictions of Muhammad article (that text is the lead there). (→Netscott) 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It does NOT matter who is the author. I will still like to see proper references. Am I wrong in asking for them?? I do not believe that main stream scholars says that it is okay to have pictures of Muhammad (may be very few might say so). If above claim is true than I would have found at "least a single picture of Muhammad" in the houses of thousands of Muslims I met (from Indonesia to Africa). But I have never seen a single picture in Muslim house or Mosque. It is an extremely extra ordinary claim hence where are references. --- Faisal 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. We keep treating this like a "majority is X, but there is a minority school that holds Y" issue. That's simply not my experience. In Shia literature, I've seen lots of imagery, but ... no Prophet. In Sunni, you see only calligraphy and geometric design inside a masjid, never any living being, and certainly not the Prophet. BYT 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has to say may surprise you then. (→Netscott) 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied the lead without even looking at it. If you have an issue with it, go over to Depictions of Muhammad and change it. Once you get your changes accepted, adjust the text here. There is no point in arguing about the same piece of text in two separate places. Faisal, I am not sure if "from Indonesia to Africa" includes Afghanistan, but I hear that devotional images of Muhammad are quite popular there. Reading the text, I agree with BYT insofar as the aniconists should be portrayed as a clear majority. As usual in cases of Islamic demography, it will be impossible to get any reliable statistical data, of course, so "majority" must suffice. (ᛎ) qɐp 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an impossible task for me set by you. That if I have to correct Muhammad article than I should correct other articles first. I have really less time these days to fulfill such a task. However, I will try to fix this above text with lots of references from Sunni and Shai scholars. That will be still a difficult task but I will give it a try. But remember that burden of proof lies on you as you have added the text. I have the right to remove that unreferenced text otherwise give proper acceptable references. --- Faisal 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that's right, and I'm not defending the text; I'm just saying, if you're going to edit it, maybe adding {{fact}} tags, why not do it at Depictions of Muhammad at the same time? It the text is objectionable here, it is just as objectionable there, and so far, that article wasn't graced with any warning tags. (ᛎ) qɐp 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just cited Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who made a fatwa in reference to films, television and theatre that said, "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." (with respect to portraying Muhammad). That one line goes a long way towards verifying the text in question here, does it not? (→Netscott) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only issue under discussion, though. BYT 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that... but Faisal's tagging up the text as though there's no basis of truth to it and I'm showing that there is indeed basis for truth in it. The other issues are sill left unaddressed. The majority of the above text was arrived at by User:Zora and User:Joturner two rather highly respected Wikipedia editors who tend to focus on Islamic topics. (→Netscott) 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your reference, Netscott. I think it is still undisputed that aniconists are a clear majority. I do not know if "an-aniconists" should be described as a "sizeable" minority, however, but you certainly established that the position has notability. (ᛎ) qɐp 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if Shia Muslims represent 10% of the Muslim population (and you surely know they tend to go by what Sistani is saying) then we're talking about ~ 150 Million individuals which is certainly "sizeable" in the context of Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I don't know that "they" tend to go by what Sistani is saying. Have you got some reason to believe that this is the "default" Shia position? (Not being sarcastic, I've just had very little exposure to Shia practice.) I can tell you that we'd be waving a rather defiant red flag in front of large number of Sunnis ... for the good reason that .... ? BYT 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is not obvious that this is the "default" Shia position. It is true that Shiites don't seem to care too much. Maybe their default position is something like "strictly speaking there shouldn't be any images, but whatever man, this isn't the 7th century" (and cheers to them if it is). The question is, does your average Shia Muslim accept Sistani's position? (ᛎ) qɐp 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

When the man is a Twelver Marja his word is what goes (save for perhaps 20% of the Shia population). Did either of you need more proof? (→Netscott) 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

so we'd arrive at a minimal estimate of some 8% of Muslims. That's not a "tiny" minority, but I don't know if it should be described as "small" or "sizeable". (ᛎ) qɐp 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1.5 Billion x 8% = 120,000,000 that's equivalent to more than 1 in 3 of the population of the United States. That is a sizeable population. (→Netscott) 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that's not the point. the question is the position's relative notability within Islam. If it was just Shia, it would have to be briefly mentioned on articles on Islam in general, as a minority position, and treated in greater detail in Shia-specific articles. (ᛎ) qɐp 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree but the point of this discussion was to show that there was a significant population of Muslims who based upon the fatwa of Sistani would have no problem with an image portraying Muhammad (which BYT and Faisal seemed to have doubts about). (→Netscott) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the only active Shi'a clear things up: Not all Shi'a belive in the consept of marjas, but the great majority of them does. The others simply view the marjas as learned people. The people that do follow marja, start by choosing one, the one they view is the most knowledgeable (not popular or anything else). Then they view themselves as being obliged to follow any verdict that marja gives, for as long as they choose to follow him. Sistani is one of the biggest Marjas, and holds a huge power. He singlehandidly thwarted the US plan of having a a great Shi'a-Sunni war by vedicting that "we will not fight, even if you kill the last one of us". Thus Shi'a refused to swallow the false flag US bait, not even when they blew up the al-Askari shrine. That much for Sistanis power. So now you have it: Those who follow marja, follow their verdicts, and Sistani has a large amount of followers. Those who do not follow sistani dont care for his verdics, in theory.--Striver 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it; what do you mean by "the US plan of having a a great Shi'a-Sunni war" and "they blew up the al-Askari shrine"? --The Hungry Hun 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly new to this debate, but as an historian I feel it encumbant on me to make a contribution. Wikepedia is not about censorship - if Muslims feel offended at an historical, accurate and verified portrayal of Muhammed, then that is no part of our concern - after all, we don't take into account whether Nazis might be offended at our portrayal of Hitler. The Hitler article is very fair, and so should be our article about Muhammed - portraying both the positive and the negative opinions about him. TharkunColl 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law? So soon in this discussion? Personally, I would not compare Hitler to Muhammad (even in this type of a context). (→Netscott) 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was very careful not to fall foul of Godwin's Law. Hitler is a perfect analogy insofar as he is the founder of a movement that has been hated by many, but loved by some. TharkunColl 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler --- Nazis, Muhammad --- Muslims ... Good point with good example is made TharkunColl. Netscott, I will contribute after some more research. Although being a Sunni Muslim, I dislike all the representation of Muhammad but I am not fully aware of Shia view about this. Hence I must do some research before taking part in this discussion. Even if some Shias believe in what you said, things could have been written in much better way than they are written now. --- Faisal 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if every Muslim on earth objected to us having a picture here, it should still cut no ice. This is the English language Wikipedia, and every single English-language speaking country on earth has an ancient and unconditional tradition of free speech. This means that we should be able to include whatever picture we like to depict the written content, whatever the consequences. TharkunColl 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really, is that so? --Striver 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria isn't an "English-language speaking country", so your argument isn't that sound. --The Hungry Hun 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I tend to have a bit of faith when it comes to the edits of User:Zora and User:Joturner on Islamic topics. But perhaps my faith is misplaced? (→Netscott) 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

please try to keep the discussion "what images should we display here" separate from the discussion about the accuracy of the lead of the "Depictions" article. This section discusses the latter (is it fair to say "some Muslims [are aniconists] -- some Muslims [aren't]" when the ratio is 95:5? 92:8? 85:15? (ᛎ) qɐp 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the above text is a bit weasel worded. While maintaining such language it would be more accurate to say most Muslims subscribe to an aniconistic view when it comes to portrayals of Muhammad but some do not. Or, ~92% (90% Sunni and 2% Shia?) of the world's Muslims subscibe to an aniconistic view when it comes to portrayals of Muhammad while 8% (Twelver Shia) do not (based upon a Fatwa by Ali Sistani). (→Netscott) 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

something like that. But keep in mind that these numbers are just pulled out of our sleeves. I would recommend a wording like "large majority" for the aniconistic position. (ᛎ) qɐp 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, that quote from Sistani is actually very very vague on what that means there was a movie called the message and as well as an animated movie done as well on the life of the prophet that can easily fit the bill here or what he could be referring to, and they did this by not showing the prophet at all. There maybe another ruling by him granting allowance, but that's too vague to work off. So while there may be pictures representing him around, they would likely be there inspite a concensus agaisnt it. I think the sentences should be altered to reflect this, unless ofcourse you can source a clearer notable allowance.--Tigeroo 10:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The Message strictly avoided showing Muhammad - but no matter how large the concessions, it's never sufficient for all: In 1977, stirred up by this very movie, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis - interestingly enough a former Seventh Day Adventist - still considered it an abomination, even without directly depicting Muhammad, and together with a dozen fellow Muslims he seized three buildings in DC and took 120 hostages (one of them being Marion Barry). Several dozens were hurt, Jewish hostages were abused and one reporter was killed. Lesson learned: There's never enough enough appeasement to appease everyone. If you say “Okay, we won't show him”, there will still be some embarrassed by the overall representation. --The Hungry Hun 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I do not like to believe blindly on any person when its come to Islam teaching. As anyone could be mistaken. I do not believe on Imam-of-Kaba, Or Imam-Hanfi or Imam-Malik etc. I wish to know different people reasoning that they had given according to Islamic text (Qruan/Sunnah/ijma) and then choose one that I feel is more convincing (based on its sources). That is the way I want to find my way out being a Muslim. So even if Zora and Joturner are good people and I like/respect them. But I want to know how they have written what they have written. I want to know there sources. --- Faisal 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is understood but the way you've tagged up the above text as though it coudln't possibly be true is why I wanted to show you that yes indeed it is true. You've seem to have taken what I was saying into consideration which is good. I suggest you and BYT both try to learn more about the Shia faith. (→Netscott) 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be improved and MIGHT not be very "true". The text read like the two groups are of equal sizes. I do not know Shia offical position but still think that above text might not represent Shia's offical position. In case it does not represent two groups offical position then it is a big blow for above text. --- Faisal 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes dab and I pretty much came to the same conclusion about the lack of propotionality in the wording. As far as the Shia view you might try posting a question over on User:Striver's talk page, I think he's a Twelver. (→Netscott) 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My hunch as a Shi'a is that we should not depict him, nor the Imams. But some people still depict the Imams. There is some internal diputes among Shi'a about the issue of depicting immas, mainly due to the multi-marja system (i guess). But i can't recal any Shi'a depiction of Muhammad (as)... im not 100% of that, but my guess is that no mater the verdict, Shi'a strongly tend to avoid depicting Muhammad, even more than they tend to avoid depicting Ali (as).--Striver 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary style

This may be a level of detail that should be worked out at Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. Then summary style can be used to frame the section here. Right now the section has the Persian miniature of the Miraj. Are there any big objections to that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Header edit war - reaching consensus

Unfortunately, a cursory glance over the above discussions did not reveal to me any form of consensus over the header. So let's either reach that consensus here, or if it has been reached, it will certainly harm no-one to make sure this is clearly defined somewhere under a recognisable title.

BrandonYusufToropov prefers:

'''Muḥammad''' ({{langx|ar|محمد}}; also '''Mohammed''', '''Mahomet''', and other variants),<ref>Mahomet etc.; [[Turkish language|Turkish]]: ''Muhammed''; {{Audio|Ar-muhammad.ogg|click here}} for the Arabic pronunciation</ref> [[570]]-[[632]] <small>CE</small>,<ref>According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. [[570]] in [[Mecca]] and died [[June 8]] [[632]] in [[Medina]], both in the [[Hejaz]] region of present day [[Saudi Arabia]].</ref> is the pre-eminent [[prophet]] of the religion of [[Islam]] and the leader of the early [[Muslim]] community ([[Ummah]]) at Medina. [[Muslim]]s believe him to have been God's final [[prophets of Islam|prophet]], to whom the [[Qur'an]] was divinely revealed through the [[angel]] [[Gabriel]] as the final revelation to mankind.

Whilst Editorius opts for:

'''Muḥammad''' ({{langx|ar|محمد}}; also '''Mohammed''', '''Mahomet''', and other variants),<ref>Mahomet etc.; [[Turkish language|Turkish]]: ''Muhammed''; {{Audio|Ar-muhammad.ogg|click here}} for the Arabic pronunciation</ref> [[570]]-[[632]] <small>CE</small>,<ref>According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. [[570]] in [[Mecca]] and died [[June 8]] [[632]] in [[Medina]], both in the [[Hejaz]] region of present day [[Saudi Arabia]].</ref> established the religion of [[Islam]] and the [[Muslim]] community ([[Ummah]]).<ref> This does not mean that Muhammad was the first to propagate the submission to one god (= monotheism). Here, "Islam" and "Muslim" are used in their current meanings, ''not'' in their original Arabic meanings.</ref> [[Muslim]]s believe him to have been God's final [[prophets of Islam|prophet]], to whom the [[Qur'an]] was divinely revealed.

Now, it seems to me that BYT's main complaint is "religion of islam", as within the arab world this would be equivalent to "founder of monotheism". If this is the main problem, then such wordings as "the religion refered to as islam" may be more appropriate. I would suggest to all involved that if there is a disagreement, niether wording is the solution. Let's work on some form of sensible compromise. LinaMishima 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer BYT's version. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain your reasoning as to why it is preferable, please? Consensus is based on informed opinion, so your reasoning is very important and may help others to understand why it is prefered. LinaMishima 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other encyclopedia's generally avoid using "founder." There is no reason Wikipedia cannot do the same. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer BYT's version too (btw I think User:Tigeroo first introduce this version). For me the word "established" is a problem and footnotes are annoying. -- Faisal 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer BYT's version--Striver 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, please give your reasons, this will help people follow your reasoning as to why we should use one over the other LinaMishima 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Muhammad stablished Islam is west-centric pov, formulating it, and then having a disclaimer in the notes is just weasel wording it. We need ambiguity to acheve NPOV. --Striver 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could expand on what you mean by these points, that saying that muhammad established Islam is west-centric? And I don't entirely follow what you mean when you say "We need ambiguity" - abiguity should be avoided unless the subject being covered itself has to be described in an ambiguous way. LinaMishima 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try ...
• Editorious found a (highly condensed) summary from another encyclopedia that used the language he wanted, so I stand corrected, but that still doesn't change the inherent pov in words like "established" and "founded." If it shows up, it's a problem.
• MOST responsible published encyclopedias avoid these formulations, because they are so clearly representative of an ancient Christian critique of Islam: that it was the invention of a single (dishonest) man. That is -- what's the technical term I'm looking for -- ridiculous as an opening to an important article about a major historical figure.
• Now: No one, as far as I can tell, is trying to make the entry state for WP as an objective fact that Muhammad as the final Prophet to mankind (though that is certainly a pillar of the faith, and it is what I believe). But attempts to refute the Islamic faith should not show up in the opening paragraph in the guise of "objective fact."
• Certain issues are under dispute between the faith systems, and yet somehow Columbia manages to write a neutral opening sentence about the man that works: The name of the Prophet of ISLAM, and one of the great figures of history." Surely something like that would be worth emulating. BYT 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, as far as the wording of the non-Muslims is concerned, certain Muslims enjoy quibbling pointlessly over semantics.Editorius 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, calling Muhammad "the founder of Islam" entails neither that he was dishonest nor that his teachings are false!

By the way, Muhammad syncretized various aspects of Judaism and Christianity, that is to say, there were some men before him who, ahead of time, unknowingly contributed to Islam.Editorius 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this from another angle: Rather than arguing simply against any one version, please argue for one of the texts this time. And two thoughts. Firstly, perhaps we all need some perspective on this subject. We can easily draw inspiration from similar articles, and Jesus seems to be not too bad. Notice how the christian believes are clearly marked. Secondly, it seems to me that the islamic community do not believe that muhammad founded Islam. Based on the prior example, what about a wording such as "Muslims believe that muhammed was not the founder of islam, but rather..."? LinaMishima 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: In the example above, I am using Islam as "the religion commonly known as", rather than the arabic meaning. I am starting to wonder if half the global fuss is all down to this misinterpretation of that word :P LinaMishima 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also been reminded that a comparison with the article about jesus is being made, not one between the people themselves (further than both being major religious figures prone to inspiring debates over the correctness of content). LinaMishima 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction after a long is looking good and no need to change it, especially in the way mentioned above. --- Faisal 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If Muslims don't like to admit that Mohammed was the founder of Islam, then why don't we say instead that he was the founder of Mohammedanism? Surely there cannot be any argument about that, can there? TharkunColl 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an edit page remark by BrandonYusufToropov:

"(Following the lead, again, of 1) Columbia, 2) World Book, and 3) Encyclopedia Britannica, by avoiding "founder" formulation)"

The only encyclopedia he mentions that doesn't use "founder" is World Book.

The other two do use it:

Encyclopaedia Britannnica:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368246 [founded]

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105853/Muhammad [founder]

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9372773 [established]

The Columbia Encyclopedia:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/is/Islam.html [founded]

So the ratio is 2:1 ...

Editorius 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously different versions here. Here's what I was referring to:

World Book

Encyclopedia Britannica does use it, my error.

My (three-dimensional, not virtual) fifth-edition (1993) Columbia says, (and again I quote:) The name of the Prophet of ISLAM (small caps there indicate a cross-ref) and one of the great figures of history. Could I ask you, once again, Editorius, what specific problem you have with such an approach?

Tharkun (apparently unhappy with the resolution of our discussion of Aisha, above) changes the subject and asks:

If Muslims don't like to admit that Mohammed was the founder of Islam, then why don't we say instead that he was the founder of Mohammedanism? Surely there cannot be any argument about that, can there? TharkunColl 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Mohammedanism is precisely what Muslims reject (and an example of shirk). Did he read the WP article? "The term is considered offensive by many Muslims, who say the words imply that Muhammad is worshipped...'"BYT 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But the article goes on to point out that the Muslims are incorrect in their opinion, and the word does not imply worship at all. It is unreasonable for Muslims to redefine words and then tell the rest of us not to use them. TharkunColl 16:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims are incorrect." Hmmm. What else are they incorrect about, and how else could you use the opening of this article to correct them?

I have an idea. Let us try using a similar approach at the opening paragraph of Catholicism first, just to see how it goes: "Catholics claim to venerate, rather than worship, the Virgin Mary, even though they believe in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception." From whose POV would such a sentence issue? Whose agenda would be promoted by putting a central belief of Catholocism under a rhetorical "if you buy that sort of thing" shadow? Those who a) manifest a prejudice against Catholics and b) wish to see that prejudice enshrined in an encylopedia.

Strange way to spend your day. Anyway, give it a try there and let me know what happens. BYT 16:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You appear to have missed my point entirely. The fact is that Mohammedanism does not imply worship of Mohammed - it simply means a follower or adherent of. The Muslims object to the word because they think it means that they worship Mohammed, but they are wrong, because it doesn't mean that at all. TharkunColl 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody wrote above:

"Could I ask you, once again, Editorius, what specific problem you have with such an approach?"

First of all, it is up to you Muslims to explain to the public what specific problem you have with the formulation

"Muhammad established the religion of Islam" + the foonote "This does not mean that Muhammad was the first to propagate the submission to one god (= monotheism). Here, 'Islam' and 'Muslim' are used in their current meanings, not in their original Arabic meanings." !!!

(I already know your mythological answer, but many others don't.)

Editorius 17:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1) footnotes and 2) "establish" both are not acceptable. No one read footnotes usually as they look like references. Tell me how many people read the references? He has NOT "established" Islam that is what non-Muslim believe. Do not make it a general claim. --- Faisal 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To claim that Mohammed didn't found Islam is pure intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I know that Muslims believe that Islam has existed since the beginning of time - just like Scientologists believe all sorts of ridiculous sci-fi rubbish - but that's no reason to take them seriously. We are in the business of reporting truth here. Mohammed founded Islam, and this is an absolute, incontrovertable fact. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. TharkunColl 17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, please tell us why you consider the footnote and the verb "establish" inacceptable; and also tell us how you know that usually footnotes aren't read.Editorius 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes created by the <ref> system are most commonly used for references, and in most uses within journals they are again reserved for references. Footnotes for explaining a fact are discouraged, as this breaks a reader's flow and normally indicates poor formulation of the initial text. I shall go in search of style guidlelines if so desired, but I believe there is no harm in working towards making sure that footnotes are only used when absolutely needed. LinaMishima 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst Editorius seemed to use (understandably) a slightly argumentative tone, sadly he did have a very good point on this matter. We should probably establish exactly what each side believe and what sources they are using to support their argument. Please can you all input to the following, in a strictly academic tone. Do not reply to other people's comments, nor be argumentative. SImply answer the questions as best you can, stating your reasoning and whatever sources you are using. Please expain your position simply, as if you were explaining to someone with no knowledge of this subject area at all:

• The non-muslim camp: What, exactly, is your view on this matter? Why is that your view? What sources are you using?
• The Muslim camp: What, exactly, is your view on this matter? Why is that your view? What sources are you using?

And again, stay calm, just state your belief, why that is the one you hold (explaining any teaching rather than simply citing it) and let's make sure everyone knows what we are looking to work in. LinaMishima 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

LinaMishima, you are inclined to Editorius since the start and supporting his view on the article. It does not makes him correct or his point valid. --- Faisal 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look back through the history and Editorius's talk page, you will see I argued with him, not for him. I am not letting either side have an absolute say. In reaching compromise, both sides must be prepared to fully state their reasoning in an open manner. Ironically, so far Editorius has been a little lapse at this in my opinion. You'll see I'm asking him to plainly explain his reasoning as well. LinaMishima 19:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Being polemical ...

We non-Muslim Wikipedians interested in Islam are accommodating people, aren't we? We always want everything to be to the liking of those Muslims who don't give a damn about Wikipedia's being a non-Islamic encyclopedia, where scientifically ascertained historical facts matter and not fabricated religious myths. So let us all be friends of Islam and rephrase the introductory statement as follows:

"According to the cursed unbelievers, who will be rightly tortured eternally in Allah's hellish concentration camp, Muhammad (pbuh) founded the religion of Islam. Needless to mention that anybody who says so is a hateful subhuman slanderer."

Editorius 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions. LinaMishima 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lina, I have already made a good deal of "serious contributions" (read the relevant discussion pages anew).Editorius 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there actually is seriousness in my polemics.Editorius 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My statement above is much less humorous than you think. — Take a look at the Quran (trans. by Arberry):

2:89. The curse of God is on the unbelievers.

2:159. Those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance that We have sent down, after We have shown them clearly in the Book -- they shall be cursed by God and the cursers.

2:161. But those who disbelieve, and die disbelieving -- upon them shall rest the curse of God and the angels, and of men altogether.

33:64-65. God has cursed the unbelievers, and prepared for them a Blaze, therein to dwell for ever; they shall find neither protector nor helper.

4:56. Surely those who disbelieve in Our signs -- We shall certainly roast them at a Fire; as often as their skins are wholly burned, We shall give them in exchange other skins, that they may taste the chastisement. Surely God is All-mighty, All-wise.

Editorius 17:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...I could easily bring in quotes from the Bible that say similar things and say how evil the Bible is but that would be taking it out of context, just as you are doing now with the Qur'an. People tend to do this all too often, quoting violence alone in the Qur'an as a means to justify their message of how evil it is, when the same can be found in their very own beliefs if looked for. Let's not take things out of context and let's look at things objectively

Establish vs. Founded

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establish&x=0&y=0

Establish:

1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.
8. Cards. to obtain control of (a suit) so that one can win all the subsequent trick

Muhammad's involvement with Islam falls under defintions #4 and #5.

Encyclopedia of Islam writes: "...Also, he is regarded not as a “founder” but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham." --Aminz 10:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just adding gasoline to the fire ...

Isn't anyone interested in the proposed merger of Islamic view of Muhammad and Islamic views of Muhammad? For example, in the first one, the section The birthday of Muhammad (Mawlid) says,

Most Muslims celebrate Muhammad's birthday with elaborate festivities. Cities and homes are illuminated with colorful lights and candles, parades and processions are carried out, and conferences on the life of the Prophet are held.

Perhaps because I've only been a Muslim for 25 years, and living in America, I've never been invited to one of these celebrations (Mawlid lists the dates through 2021), but who am I to contradict the assertion "most" without proof?

Anyway, the stuff in those two articles looks like a Much Better waste of time than this tiresome debate. --Dennette 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also never heard of celebrating the Prophet's birthday in Islam being a Muslim all my life. I do not believe Islam promotes the celebration of birthdays in general, including the Prophet's. This is likely only done in certain cultures.

A Simple Situation

The Muslims believe that their purely ideological, mythological view of history is equal to the one of the scientific historians, who explore history strictly empirically.

If we grant them that there is no substantial difference between religious myths and factual scientific accounts, they have succeeded in Islamizing Wikipedia.Editorius 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Muslim and I'm familiar with some of the methodology of history and Philosophy of science. I think you make some mistakes. First of all history is based on valid quotations not experiments or any empirical approaches. Seconed point is Muslims don't says their narrations is compatible with materilialistic viewpoints. Muslims believe in Angels and believe they helped them in Badr and this is religious viewpoint which a historian can't judge about it. So I propose writing these beliefs as Muslim POV. --Sa.vakilian 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, before we say anything else, I'd like to remind people that for a very long time, Islamic science was well ahead of western science. Just because one is of devot faith does not mean that their ability to conduct science is hindered. It is a great sorrow, in my opinion, that the modern islamic states are not as supportive of scientific research as they once were. Empirical research sadly needs evidence, typically direct obserational. Obviously this is not possible. Historians have to work from the accounts of those who were alive at the time of the events being discussed. This is obviously a major issue, and why the historical method is considered seperate from the scientific method you talk of. I am quite curious as to which contempary (to muhammed) sources are being used to establish the non-muslim account of the events, and I think that introducing these to the debate would be helpful.

I still see no reason why a compromise is not possible. As far as I can tell, you want to make sure that it is not implied that non-muslims hold the muslim point of view over the events. Seems to me like a simple few lines will solve all of this. We need to focus on solutions rather than the problem. It is often all too easy to get caught up in the argument and loose sight of the goal. LinaMishima 18:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though I said the cup of my willingness to compromise was drained, I just happened to spot one last drop in it.

After having unsuccessfully proposed the formulation "M. promulgated the religion of Islam", I hereby propose the following similar one:

"Muhammad, the man who preached the religion of Islam in the 7th century CE and established the Muslim community (Umma)."

This statement is at least true to the historical facts.

(Just for your information: I still emphatically deny that religious myths are equal to scientific accounts! By "unequal" I do not just mean "incommensurable" but that scientific accounts of history are superior to myths.)

Editorius 18:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are just going overboard and irrational with the word established. It is important to provide information that he is regarded as a part of chain of prophets and the most important of them than to insist on a wording that is apparent to those who do not, especially it also improves the readability and creates the same linkage of the centrality of him to the religion Islam. The important message to be gotten across is the strong link between Muhammad and Islam, wether you use the term establised, founded or not and that has been done adequately. There are many ways to formulate the concept that links Islam and Muhammad or a person and the religion surrounding him as has been done elsewhere, and as far as I can see everything Muslims beleive has been clearly marked out as such and properly attributed to them, and what they or others beleive stands out. I suggest you take the impact of the intro as a whole into account than focus on singulary reframing a sentence which when reinstered into the paragraph would then stand as strange and awkward. Statements such as Greek traditions regard Helen as an extremely beautiful woman does not have to be followed by caveats, nor does it imply a hellenization of wiki.--Tigeroo 19:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, thank you! That was a rather helpful contribution indeed! :) LinaMishima 19:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: That means I agree entirely with you, and you said that better than I could :) LinaMishima 19:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Editorius, I belive that might actually help us work towards a solution :) I suspect there will be issue taken with "established the muslim community" - would "and became the leader of the muslim community" suffice, perhaps then with later mention of the differences between non-muslim and muslim interpretations?

Unfortunately I have to take issue with the insistance of "scientific accounts", for I am fairly certain that all possible observers at the time were highly spiritual people - indeed, it is a fairly new occurance for science and religion to become separated! By scientific accounts, you are refering, I presume, to the analysis of sources from near the time in question. That is why details on these sources are vital. Whilst the scientific evaluation of these is probably the most probable, I can fairly much guarentee that these evaluations would have been heavily biased. Whilst the analysis of these sources, if done fairly, do provide stronger references, these references cannot be used to override a religion's own beliefs. If you look at similar articles, the scientific evaluation is not used within the header to refute the beliefs, instead simply the beliefs are stated as being held. Further evaluation is saved for the article itself. Anyways, thank you again for a helpful attempt LinaMishima 19:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the science of history has the non-trivial empirical problem of finding reliable evidence concerning the past so that the historians' accounts must often remain full of gaps. Of course, mythological accounts do not suffer from any such inevitable methodological complications, since the mythologists hardly care for objective evidence anyway. Their stories happen to be gapless just because they complete them by brazenly fabricating the missing or desired facts. Scientific historians are more honest: when there is not enough evidence, they openly admit it.Editorius 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Very true, especially for modern historians. However it must be recalled that this has not always been considered standard practice, and at many times historians were employed for the vainity of some noble persons, and hence had some major biases. But that's academic to the issues at hand, mainly. LinaMishima 19:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Tigeroo that Editorius is "going overboard," and I'd specifically call attention to Tigeroo's suggestion that we all "take the impact of the intro as a whole into account (rather) than focus on singulary reframing a sentence which when reinstered into the paragraph would then stand as strange and awkward."
• There is nothing to negotiate here.
• There are no "camps."
• In my view, Editorius is manufacturing a crisis that does not actually exist, and, having violated 3RR, may also be in violation of WP:POINT.
• On an entirely different subject, there is an extremely suspicious pattern of edits here that is worth discussion. BYT 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I agree with you there. but it's policy here to use 'soft security', and to 'reach concensus'. I strongly suspect that our friend Editorius will not simply stop editing if we decide, without their involvement, that consensus suggests the version before their changes (which, to be frank, it does, and the reasoning behind it makes sense). This is why I am trying to get Editorius to explain exactly their view point, which allows us to consider any valid points there may be (so far I've seen a lot of shouting, and little exact points with reasing and references); and to get those arguing against Editorius to explain their position in a form that Editorius can understand. In theory this either leads to further warnings of incivility, or a means being found to mesh these points (which we are but a short distance off doing, from what I can tell). I'm sure that Editorius does want to reach a solution that everybody's happy with really (well, we have to assume good faith, don't we?). Sadly such mediation is all there is to offer before such nasty and bitter extremes as RfC and ArbCon :( LinaMishima 19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Foul play is your game, BrandonYusufToropov, isn't it?!

"Editorius is manufacturing a crisis that does not actually exist."

That's bullshit, and you know it!

YOU are the troublemaker who wilfully (re-)started an edit war!

One final thing:

Do you consider the following acceptable or not?

"Muhammad, the man who preached the religion of Islam in the 7th century CE and established the Muslim community (Umma)."

If not, I am no longer prepared to take you seriously, for then I know you're an ideologically blinded missionary!

Editorius 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, I am afraid it is very hard to argue that the above was in any way called for, and it really has not helped your cause. Please consider retracting it, as a sign of good faith to everybody. LinaMishima 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is how is that sentence going to fit into the intro, and will it improve it or just make it more awkward to read like the force fit version which was edited.--Tigeroo 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Others have cited examples and has editorious has also cited examples, and I have throughout said that founder is equivalent in the English language to the prophet and it implies no POV, and is common usage as well. Here are the following to substantiate that claim that others have demonstrated by example. Empahsis mine.

Oxford English Dictionary [1]

prophet • noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

Encylopedia Britannica [2]

[[..the Prophet Muhammad. In contrast to the diviner or interpreter of omens (see divination), who may answer private questions, prophets often address the destiny and moral life of a whole people. Some prophets seek to create a new society that will realize their message and thus found new religions...]]

American Heritage Dictionary [3]

proph·et (prŏf'ĭt) pronunciation n. 1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3. A predictor; a soothsayer. 4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause. 5. 1. Prophets (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The second of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve. Used with the. 2. Prophet One of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, especially one believed to be the author of one of these books. Used with the. 6. Prophet Islam. Muhammad. Used with the.

What the argument seems to be rather than the words, is the perception of a POV either for or against the concept of originator, a word thesaurii identify as a possible replacement for founder. I think I have struck a balance between both in my version, by ascribing the god = originator (read divine message) concept by clearly ascribing it to it's basis in Islamic belief (read Faisal, BYT), and the man (read as in non-divine historic figure) = originator (read Editorius, Aiden) concept along the Encylopedia Britannica explanation of .. to create a new society that will realize their message and thus found new religions by ascribing it to the new community and political polity that was founded upon the social reforms.--Tigeroo 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the page lock

It appears User:FayssalF has locked the page due to the edit war. While I have no problem with this, I am concerned about the specific administrator who locked the page. The page lock states, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version." However, FayssalF himself was involved in the revert war, reverting at least twice from the previous consensus version. And rather than locking the page outright, he reverted once more to his desired version before full-protecting the page. I think this is a clear endorsement of a version and a sad expression of the cabalistic way in which this article is controlled/censored. —Aiden 14:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not directly related but I keep hearing talk of "the previous consensus", and yet I have been unable to spot it. I would very much appreciate it if somebody could point this out to me. (Please take this as it is intended, that there may well be one, and I'm curious, rather than something less in good faith). LinaMishima 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you appear to agree that the protection was not an issue in it's own right, and perhaps helpful. I agree with you on your points about the initiation of the lock, an unbiased admin should have been asked for. Although it is always a very tough choice as to which version to lock - it wil always be the wrong version no matter which one is chosen. I don't think that removing the lock is the best solution, but rather to work towards a definate understanding of consensus, be that a new one or the old one. LinaMishima 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See archive 7. —Aiden 15:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden. An administrator has the cabability to judge the behaviour and the nature of contributors. Involving in an edit warring since someone's first edit is not a good sign. I reverted the edit before locking it for that simple reason. Refer to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. There's no cabalistic consp theories envolved here. You may call it a previous concensus but it is not. -- Szvest 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See archive 7… well, it's a start, and thank you for being the first person to give some assistance with this. It is really appreciated. However archive 7 is pretty large, so any assistance in narrowing down the relivant parts would be appreciated. LinaMishima 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LinaMishima, see Talk:Muhammad/archive_7#Compromise.3F and Talk:Muhammad/archive_7#Can_we_vote_yet.3F. FayssalF, I think you know policy dictates that admins involved in an article, much less an edit war on an article, should not be locking that same page. Secondly, your reverts were in no way reverts of vandalism. Simply because an IP edits the article and you disagree with it does not make it vandalism, nor does it automatically mean that user a sockpuppet. Thirdly, on your talk page, you were quite rude and dismissive to this user, who raised very valid points. Considering the number of revert wars you yourself have been involved in here, you should not be using your administrative capabilities on this article. Finally, I think it is quite clear that your rollback and lock did in fact amount to an endorsement of a version. Again, completely unethical. —Aiden 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm working my way through all the archieves, as this issues actually extended far further back than that, and I have seen some rather disagreable activity happening in archive 7's discussion, from the first part at least (namely shoutings about reliable sources in contradiction to the article). I'll get back to you on the prior consensuses reached once I'm done looking at them all. With respect to FayssalF, now that this issue has been taken up on a more formal level, it would be prudent to stop dicussing it here. LinaMishima 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I fully agree with you that Fayssal's modus operandi is suspect, to put it mildly.Editorius 13:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts so far

Reading back accross prior discussion and archive 7 (still reading it), I am noticing a few things:

• I see a lot of people shouting about reliable sources, yet the section "Sources for Muhammad's life" within the article itself is a very good explaination of how there are none. Most written at or shortly after the time were of muslim origin, and those which people are trying to call 'reliable' are infact interpretation of these primary sources.
  • NB: That particular section is wonderful, in my opinion, bar one issue: As much as it is logical, it needs sources! I am positive however that there are sources which would work well. I would appreciate it those less inclined to the header debate could find some.
• It appears that the muslim teachings appear to be that muhammed's islamic teachings were based upon the prior beliefs of the community. That is actually how, in my opinon, large belief communities actually form and prosper, and yet this is being argued against! (I could reference that if desired, but it should be fairly self-evident - and christianity is a very good supporting example)
  • Hence what is being disputed here seems to be highly POV - if a significant contribution, to the point of what may be percieved as new docterine, should be called 'founding' or not. Perhaps we should be asking instead exactly what such a statement would add to the article?

More thoughts later as I continue to read. LinaMishima 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Sabotage section where the current version style was first proposed there is a quotation from John Esposito which can be used as the benchmark or even referenced into the intro. I simply hold, it is ludicurous and really unmanagelable to say something akin to "Muslims beleive he was the final prophet in a chain of prophets who completed gods and delivered god's final revelation to mankind" and then say but non-Muslims do not beleive this, but regard him as the founder of Islam. Now the sentence that highlight Muslim belief about him is a vital introductory concept to his status, because his entire historical importance is the role he has played in the development of Islam, and therefore belongs in the introduction, it is clearly marked this is a muslim beleif implying that non-muslims ofcourse do not beleive this. Remember Muhammad was not god, not an angel but his whole status was that of a messenger and especially that of the "final messenger/prophet" upon whom the revelation of god is complete, this is the distinction by which Muslims define themselves and their identity and why Christians and Jews are called as People of Book. It's the belief in the continuity of the same tradition but of a non-updated version. --Tigeroo 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well said Tigeroo. --- Faisal 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite so well said. Here's BrandonYusufToropov's formulation:

"M. is the pre-eminent prophet of the religion of Islam."

This is the kind of formulation one finds in Islamic dictionaries and encyclopedias, which suggests that Muhammad is in no way the originator of the Islamic religion but merely a non-creative "messenger". According to Islamic mythology, which anachronistically Islamizes the entire pre-Muhammadian history of monotheistic religion for purely ideological reasons, there is a pre-Muhammadian era of Islam. According to the myth, the religion of Islam did not originate with Muhammad, who is merely considered the historically last medium ("seal of the prophets") through which the eternal Quranic message was conveyed to the people. According to the myth, the history of Islam begins with Adam and Eve, and not with Muhammad.

Here's my comment on the equivocation on "Islam": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/archive_7#Primordial_Islam.3F

Editorius 12:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that whilst most editors are now fairly happy and accepting of the arabic/english meaning divide, you would prefer to bring this back up by refering to your previous statement. Which, I note, argues the arabic meaning, not the meaning in the context here. As to the context here, Tigeroo's excellent quote says it all, really, and it would be more benificial if you found similarly scholarly discussion to submit, acepting of the fact that all contempary sources to the events we are talking about will be of islamic origin. I'm going to try and leave further input for Tigeroo, they are far more skilled than I at this. LinaMishima 13:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wellywell, so let both sides have their say. New formulation:

"According to scientific historiography, Muhammad is the founder of the Islamic religion; according to Islamic mythology, Muhammad is not the founder of Islam but only God's final prophet in a series of prophets preceding him, who all convey essentially the same eternal divine message to mankind."

Editorius 17:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I might only accept something that presents two sides view clearly. like Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last and most important Prophet of religion Islam and .... and non-Muslim think him as ... The Muslim believe must come first than non-Muslims because that is more related to Muhammad. Furthermore, one can skip non-Muslim view in case it is just opposite to Muslims view. --- Faisal 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What we have to be careful about is the fact that non-muslims, as far as I can tell, don't view him as not the last prophet, but rather they view him as this and also as the founder of the religion of Islam. Might I suggest: "Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last and most important Prophet of religion of Islam. Many non-Muslim also view him as being the founder of the religion". The bit 'religion of Islam' suffers a little perhaps from not being the clearest seperation between the two potential meanings, but that's for others to debate, really. Once we have made the distinction about the non-muslim belief, we may well wish to discuss this in the main part of the article in a clear manner - although I'm certain that will be an equally difficult task! LinaMishima 19:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, there is one basic thing you misunderstand: It's not non-Muslim view vs. Muslim view but scientific view vs. mythical view.Editorius 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

That is perfectly neutral for a number of reasons: Namely, the vast majority of people on Earth are not Muslim and thus do not believe Islam has existed since Adam. Historical evidence points to adoption of various other monotheistic traditions amongst Arabs who before the time of Muhammad were polytheistic. Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded as the last in a long line of prophets. This version addresses both views from their respective standpoints. —Aiden 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's suggestion works perfectly. There's no need to say Muslims think and non-Muslims think; not all Muslims and non-Muslims think the same. -- tariqabjotu 01:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can swing with that. As Tariq said, the removal of the cludgy muslim/non-muslim divide is a good thing, if nothing else. LinaMishima 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, again I fully agree with you. From the objective point of view, your formulation is doubtless impeccable. We know that Muhammad founded the Islamic religion, and nobody except for the Muslim dogmatists denies this historical fact. Some of the Muslim Wikipedians want to make us believe that this is a debate between the Muslim worldview and the non-Muslim worldview(s). But actually, it is a debate between the objective historical perspective and the ideological Islamic perspective, the latter of which is mythological by nature.Editorius 02:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it is skewing the article. In an encylopedia article about a religious figure the most important information to be relayed are the beliefs about him because they are the primary drivers of his historical impact. The historical narrative then takes over rationalizing, explaining, commenting, contextualizing, validating/invalidation and theorizing upon the historical figure because he wouldn't be one if not for the "mythological beleifs". In the case of any religion/ideology the beleifs and perceptions are always more important than the historical facts in their historical impact upon events, and similary need to be PROMINENTLY put forth.

I don't have a problem with either the concepts or the formulation but that I REALLY think the formulation is clumsy and a terrible to read, though better than the footnote, because the focus is the once again on one sentence rather than the whole paragraph, in this instance there is absolutely no need to go into that mode, not for mythological/scientific debates because the beleif is very distinctly attributed so I doubt it even closely implies that the rest of the world beleives in the same and infact implies that the beleif is exclusive to the mentioned parties, so the second view when included becomes redundant and a duplication. I think the article Jesus demonstrates a clear way forward by simply linking Muhammad to Islam by referring to his importance/authority/role within the formulation of Islam. The sentences Aiden writes fit better in the later paragraphs rather than the introduction. If you beleive Crone and Cook's, Hagarism even the idea of founder is a dodgy historical position. May I ask why the insistence on the blinding inclusion of the word founder/established or whatever at the cost of readability when it can be done otherwise much more elegantly.--Tigeroo 07:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, another fine comment. In addition to the question about the value of 'founder', we should surely ask if non-muslims do not view him as the last prophet of Islam. As far as I can tell, a prophet is by defintion of a cause, and hence non-muslims agree that he was the last prophet of islam. As such, we should be careful to not imply that non-muslims do view him as not being a prophet. LinaMishima 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Encyclopedia of Islam (EoI) which is an academic secular source:"Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research. For instance, in traditional Muslim belief Muhammad is the “last and greatest of the prophets ” , a concept that is most likely based on a later interpretation of the expression “ seal of the prophets ” ( khatam al-nabiyyin) that is applied to Muhammad in sura XXXIII, 40. Also, he is regarded not as a “ founder ” but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham. It should not be surprising that it was at the very time when these concepts were being proclaimed by the Qur'an, during the early years after the Hijra, that historians see the emergence of a new religious community and tradition founded by Muhammad, a man of extraordinary perception and skills." --Aminz 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

THUS, Editorius who calls Islamic religious beliefs and theological formulations, Islamic mythology should take note of how the reliable sources he supposedly supports deal with this issue.

My POV is that this point should be made clear in the article as these academic sources do. Thus I do not support suggestions that do not write it as "Islamic religious beliefs and theological formulations say X and modern historical and sociological research say Y". --Aminz 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Tigeroo and Aminz: I understand the need to discuss (and likewise introduce) Muhammad in the context of Islam, in which he is the most important (human) figure. However, we must make sure that the article as a whole, and in individual parts, does not convey this view was fact per WP:NPOV. In much the same way, the Jesus article states that he is the "central figure of Christianity." It does not say that Jesus is God incarnate as Christians generally believe. While I see where you're coming from in saying that an intro describing Muhammad as the last or most important prophet of Islam needs no historical context, I'm afraid the implication of such a sentence conveys a point-of-view. Namely, any use of terms such as "last" or "most important" prophet implies that there were other prophets before him (as we all know Muhammad is considered the last) and thus subtly conveys the view that Islam has existed throughout all time, something which all historians and (I would assume, by definition) all non-Muslims disagree with. I think that according to Wikipedia's policy of due weight, we must factor in that nearly 5 billion of the world's 6 billion people may not believe the Muslim point-of-view. Thus, I think it is quite necessary to first include basic information on Muhammad from a historical standpoint. You may not know, but I have been involved in editing the Jesus article for quite some time, and helped to write much of the article (including the introduction). There you will find Jesus described in first a secular historical sense, then in from various religious perspectives. This is because a majority of the earth's population may not believe the Christian views of Jesus.

In response to LinaMishima: While I agree that the word "Islamic prophet" can and should be used as it is Islam which ascribes such titles to individuals, my main concern is the implication of prior prophets due to the open-endedness or vagueness of the sentence. Without the historical context, a reader unfamiliar with Muhammad and Islam may very well assume there were many other Islamic prophets before Islam, something which is believed within Islam but not necessarily outside of it. With the historical context, a reader would know that Muhammad is historically considered the founder of Islam, although within Islam he is believed to have restored the true religion of God as the last in the long line of prophets sent from God. That clearly demonstrates both points-of-view fairly and equally, and in my opinion is considerably more informative to the reader.

Muhammad is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

Again, I consider this quite neutral. —Aiden 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, Thanks for your comment. I am afraid I can not agree since 1. Jesus being the "central figure of Christianity" does not contradict Jesus beingGod incarnate. But Muhammad having founded Islam does contradict Muslim belief. 2. As you said, we must make sure that the article as a whole, and in individual parts, does not convey this view was fact per WP:NPOV.

Here is my suggestion:

Muhammad is, from an academic historical and sociological standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed. According to the Muslim religious beliefs and theological formulations Muhammad was however not a founder of Islam but the one who confirmed and restored the true, original and the oldest monotheist faith, Islam, which was established by Abraham.

--Aminz 05:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I think we're getting somewhere. My point was that your comparison between Jesus and Muhammad is somewhat difficult because the language of a simple description of Muhammad in the sense of him being the "last" prophet inherently implies a point-of-view. However, I do understand your concerns with highlighting the Muslim rejection of Muhammad as the founder of Islam. I must say, however, that your version seems a bit bloviated. I think the fact that my version states Muhammad is the "last and most important" implies very plainly that Muslims do not consider him the founder or first prophet, but the last and most important one. —Aiden 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I honestly personally didn't get that the implication that being the last and most important prophet of God actually implies the following sentence I added. I think Jews believe Maccabee II, was the last prophet of God but I am not sure if that sentence would imply the same position for him or if it should make sense. My proposed sentence may be a bit bloviated: please modify it. You know my sources: The quotes from Esposito and Encyclopedia of Islam. Cheers, --Aminz 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden I think you are missing the Muslim concept of the last prophet and of Islam. Islam as a term was not even the term emphasised during the early years, but deen was and if you were a Christian prophet, or Jewish prophet or anyone of the thousands of other prior nameless prophets, or their followers, that preceded Muhammad that muslims beleive preached the monotheistic beleif as localized or earlier versions of Islam, or submission to god you would be a Muslim. Therefore, implying that within the Islamic tradition there were other prophets before him is fine because it is true and is implicit by the usage of "last". The objection people are raising to founder is that it seems to them to imply a break with the continuity of the development of Abrahamic religions. Within the Islamic definition and concept pre-muhammad a christian would be a muslim etc. Islam is defined within its tradition in the historic sense as having evolved and only crystallized in the current form. Ergo historians may say Muhammad was borrowing from the Christian and Jewish traditions and founding a new religion (as in disntinct enough) or they may say he was reforming it by expanding and modifying upon it and would both would be correct in a sense because diverging and creating a distinct identity was a concious decision, aka the swith to the Kaaba etc. Muslims simply beleive he corrected and updated the pre-existing beleifs. In the muslim concept he is just the last but defining brick to be linked, like a keystone in an arch. This is consistent with the existence of a Abrahamic family of religions, so if traditions and customs overlap it is not strange or extraordinary but natural. For a long while he and Muslims were even portrayed and understood by christians in terms of schismatics or heretics. Out of curiousity in your experience with the Jesus article, did anyone insist that the wording be Jesus was the founder of Christianity, or that adding such would improve the intro, or that the current form implies a POV because it does not equivocally call him out as "founder", which is true in the same sense that Editorious wants to see it used here. Like Aminz's example I think intrinsicaly however saying he was the founder to soso and then explaining the muslim beleif is just making sentences convoluted and break the flow of reading, so while yours is better than his formulation it is still worse than it need be. The declarations are mutually redundant, one version however conveys less information and concepts succintly than the other. --Tigeroo 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is virtually inarguable, historically speaking, that there was a break (as is evident of the need for the Qur’an to "restore" Islam). In a historical sense, it is quite clear that Muhammad adopted monotheistic beliefs from various faiths (such as Judaism and Christianity) in order to replace the common polytheistic belief in the Arabian Peninsula. But that is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that omitting the commonly held historical belief that Muhammad founded a new religion, quite different from earlier monotheistic faiths, is not in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. Again, I fully understand the Muslim belief that Muhammad did not found Islam, but again I emphasize that that belief is not held by the vast majority of the world. That Islam is simply a term for 'monotheism' is not necessarily the common view. Most regard it is a new religion with its own unique customs and beliefs, many of which you will not find in other monotheistic faiths. Thus, it is quite necessary to indicate the viewpoints of both Muslims and non-Muslims. Concerning the Jesus article, Jesus was a practicing Jew, not a convert, who claimed to fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecy. Only later did Christianity become a distinct religion, largely due in part to the rejection of Jesus as Messiah by Judaism. He did not found Christianity, so that comparison is null. —Aiden 17:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see even the article on Christianity skips the term founded in preference for centered, when it can easily be used in the manner editorious defines below. Like in Jesus, the formulation in Christianity is also seen as not violating POV by stating the facts in a neutral manner.

Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah and God incarnate and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ.

No mention of founder, founding etc. as is being attempted to be inserted here, nor of a refuting non-christian views or "historical non-mythical views" that does not beleive in his godhood to NPOV the intro. Others do regard him as the founder of christianity, his being a jew is irrelevant because his teachings led to a new religious tradition in the same sense of Muhammad. A huge part of the world is not christian either and makes the connection of "founders" as Jesus = Christianity, Moses = Judaism, Muhammad = Islam on the precept of source of teachings = founder. Personally I care a whit about the term founder or what not, as I have stated earlier, before even beginning to edit in this conflict.

Notice including all the irrelevant info refuting clear beleifs ascribed to christianity is not included. Very sensible, since it adds nothing, and just ruins a perfectly good intro. Very sensible and commendable. I think we are missing the boat because of too many words. Simply formulate the wording to read that Muslims regards his as the last prophet. Mentioning that others regard his as a founder, is redundant, bloats the text and adds no valuable information, nor does it counter any POV because there is none since the beleif is clearly attributed to Muslims thereby excluding others not mentioned from being party to it. No one is going to read Muslims beleive that he was the last prophet of Islam, as anything but as a muslim beleif so and that they beleive there were other prophets in Islam. What is religion but a set of beliefs, what founder does is lay the emphasis not on the beliefs as the defining charecteristic of a religious tradition but on visible differentiation, but thats what the mention of the ummah is doing isn't it equating him to a distinct community with visible practices. Better than repeating yourself with founder. The point is why bicker over it when the same associations can be conveyed without? It's not "not omitting" anything to do it this way.--Tigeroo 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A clear distinction needs to be drawn between "Islam"'s reference to the Islamic religion and "Islam"'s reference to strict monotheism in general. In the English-speaking world (and elsewhere) "Islam" definitely and indubitably refers only to the former. What is the Islamic religion? — It's the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran. This particular religious system is not identical to other monotheistic systems such as Judaism and Christianity, even though there are similarities between them. To say that the Islamic religion existed before Muhammad is sheer historical nonsense, whereas it's certainly no nonsense to say that there is a pre-Muhammadian history of (strict) monotheism. — Editorius 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be sheer nonsense to declare that Islam extended upon prior beliefs? Would it be sheer nonsense to declare that christianity is entirely seperate and not extending upon prior (jewish) beliefs? LinaMishima 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an Encyclopedia, is it to inform by providing information to clear misconceived notions or to regurgitate misconceptions? I see a man in the street wearing a red had and I can name him red hat, and all my friends can call him red hat, he may even answer to the name red hat after a while because he realises he is being addressed, but thats not his name, its just our name for him.

Zeus Greek: nominative Ζεύς, Zeús genitive Διός, Díos) is the king of the gods, ruler of Mount Olympus, and god of the sky and thunder in Greek mythology.

Zeus doesn't need another sentence to say that non-greeks disagreed etc. etc. So you need not say or imply that any existed as fact before Muhammad, merely state the fact that Muslims beleive that there were others, especially since his finality is a key aspect of the "mythology" about him. To then append a statement to negate an imagined POV with a statement that non-muslims however don't is bizzare paragraph construction. Even Aidens version is guilty of doing the same. Here is a good principle: KISS - Keep it simple stupid. How to pick one version over the other? Since this is an encyclopedia, Which one conveys more information? -Tigeroo 23:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone please make a proposal. My question is that why do we need to start with the founder sentence. Encyclopedia of Islam writes: "That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded cannot be seriously questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose Muhammad as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other empirical evidence: Muhammad had remarkable leadership skills and a charismatic personality that enabled him to attract other strong leaders who were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the early success of the Muslim community."

THUS, I suggest this:

Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact he had. Muhammad is, from an academic historical and sociological standpoint, the founder of Islam. According to the Muslim theological formulations Muhammad was however not a founder of Islam but the last prophet of God who confirmed and restored the original monotheist faith, i.e. Islam, which was established by Abraham.

How is that? --Aminz 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That won't fly because its glorifies Muhammad, and can still be made simpler and clearer. Here is a variation on the current intro, which is less ambigious and creates a clear and direct linkage between Muhammad and Islam, while avoiding the term founded.

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is the prophet upon whose teachings the religion of Islam is based. He is regarded by Muslims as God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was revealed through the angel Gabriel, as the final revelation to mankind.

Ideally the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence should be merged. It still partially repeates itself but is simpler, directer and less convoluted than Aminz proposal. It's still awkward to read but it should set a new direction in which to improve and should solve the non-issue by being more direct in the association of Muhammad and Islam as a distinct social community and addressing the concerns of those who associate Islam as a philosophical or spiritual progression. Reference to the term Ummah has been removed as it extends into a secondary tangent. --Tigeroo 01:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, I approve. I suspect we could see some complaints about the 'based' with regards to how absolutely based upon they are, but I suspect any alternative would get quite cludgy. The two occurances of prophet linking to different articles is probably non-standard, can 'final prophet' be used on the second instance as the link, rather than just 'prophet'? LinaMishima 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, yours is a kind of formulation I could live with. But I'd rather replace the first "prophet" with "man":

"Muhammad is the man upon whose teachings the religion of Islam is based. Muslims believe him to be God's last prophet, to whom the Quran was revealed through the angel Gabriel."

That should suffice. — Editorius 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with calling Muhammad a prophet. After all, it's correct (see prophet), and if you're worried about the implications of his teachings, remember that Nostradamus and Merlin count as prophets, too :P LinaMishima 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was indeed a man and it is better to call him man to begin with. But the above intro has still a slight problem that is "whose teachings the religion of Islam is based". I think it could be improved further. --- Faisal 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

majoritively based or similar? LinaMishima 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Spare us further verbal cramps! According to the American Heritage Dict. "prophet" means "a person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed". The problem is that there is a semantic difference between "real prophet" and "alleged prophet". To write that "Muhammad is the prophet ..." too strongly connotes "Muhammad is the real prophet ...", while for atheists he certainly is just an alleged or "so-called" prophet. For this reason the simple noun "man" is preferable to "prophet". And I don't think Muslims find calling Muhammad a man objectionable. — Editorius 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No there is nothing objectional to calling him man, but this another change like the earlier that takes away more from the article than adding anything to it. The new formulation proposed by Editorius is quite like the emphasis Wahabis like to place. By defintion is a prophet is either a man or a woman and no extra-teresstial being, and an acknowledgement reference by peers is sufficient and including it is quite redundant and neutral, true and false are the POV definitors. By definition prophet is always alleged, plus it was his profession, title etc. etc. an di you won't mention the whole the role that made him significant then this intro is worthless. Yes whose upoon whose teachings is based is a bad formulation and I said so when I made it and even why it is bad, because it is already a verbal cramp created by the change upon by Editorius. Like I said earlier the narrow focus on the sentence messes up the paragraph.

"Muhammad is the final prophet of god within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He established Islam as the primary religion of a unified state upon the Arabian peninsula."

New version, incorporating his historical significance, alongside his religious significance. Clarifications, primary because other religions still existed at this point, Islam alongside the mention of the state because this was the ideology that bound the new state under him. Religious relevance before historical relevance, because one led to the other, and also thats the historically progression. (unsigned comments by Tigeroo)

"Muhammad is the final prophet of god within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the angel Gabriel. He conveyed Islam as the religion for humanity." Here is mine version it is not final. You can add anything by saying non-Muslim say that.... The above definition specifies "Arabian peninsula" that may lead to believe that Islam is limited to a specific area only and no person outside that area was Muslim at Muhammad era. --- Faisal 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, I think you are misunderstanding Christianity. Jesus is not described as the founder of Christianity because he did not seek to found a new religion. Christianity only became a distinct religion decades after his death, when early Christians such as Paul began formulating Christian theology that differed from Judaism. Jesus did not seek to found a new religion; he sought to be accepted as the Jewish Messiah which was prophesied in the Tanakh. Since the Jews rejected him, the Christian sect eventually split and became separate religion. So the comparison you keep bringing up makes no sense. Muhammad on the other hand made a clear and conscious break from the polytheistic religion of the 7th century Arabian Peninsula. Historically speaking, it is undeniable that he adopted various beliefs from Judaism and Christianity and made a new religion called Islam. That he claimed to have restored the "true religion" is simple theology and is not historically based. Thus, it is quite important per WP:NPOV to make note of the historical evidence of the emergence of a new religion in the 7th century, founded by Muhammad. That said, it would also be a violation of WP:NPOV not to note that within Islam, Muhammad is regarded as the last and most important prophet, who restored the true religion of God by imparting the message of the Qur'an. Omitting the either viewpoint is not going to fly. Many of these proposals have a theological bias. —Aiden 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

That is perfectly neutral in my opinion. —Aiden

Tigeroo's latest version is very good. Perhaps we could address some of Faisal's concerns by using the following "Muhammad is the final prophet of god within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He established Islam as the primary religion of a unified state upon the Arabian peninsula, which has since became one of the dominant religions of the world". The end I'm suggesting would need a reference, I suspect, but it's true. the initial wordform is neat, and both makes the "within Islam" point and the whole bit about being a prophet (which people not so hot on this term can take solstice in the fact this means he's official listed up with Nostradamus and Merlin - no offense, of course). LinaMishima 01:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this version intentionally skirts the issue so that in its ambiguity it can imply the preexistence of Islam. It will not comply with WP:NPOV without explicitly mentioning the historical viewpoint that Muhammad founded a new religion. —Aiden 03:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, Muhammad claimed to be the messiah in terms of both the Jewish and Christian traditions, the break was more related to established a difference after it was rejected by them, same deal as Jesus but just within his lifetime rather than in Pauls. He did no set out or even attempt to create a new religion, just a seperate identity to avoid confusing the potential new converts into which tradition they were converting into and to differentiate between the Jews and Christians after he had been rejected, and dealt more with specific practices not the central beliefs. Same deal, restoration of the "true deal" from corruptions. These are claims and argument made within his life time by him and commented upon by contemporaries, whats the later theology aspect of this?Anyway, the point is moot regardless because to be a founder you do not really have to make a concious break with the past, you just have to be the source so while you may not see Jesus as the founder, because his teachings are the basis of the religion he is viewed as the founder by a significant proportion of the world. Your version is just a repetition and seems to be based in the same misconception of Islam and his teachings that you are implying to have. I also personally dont like Ibrahims idea of a you say they say sort of deal. Aiden which part implies that Islam existed prior is stated as a fact? The concept of Islam right from him is rooted in the tradition of the Hanifs, Christians, Jews so it did, just not in the form he left it in later, he expanded, restored, reformed regardless it existed. You are trying to say that doctors wear scrubs or white coats and come with degrees, all those before them were not really doctors but something else. Ibrahim, the Arabian peninsula is merely a factoid of his impact during his lifetime. A following sentence can lead onto his continued historical impact after, and is probably something I overlooked.--Tigeroo 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

hey all.. sorry for crashing in! i would just like to note that it is telling that the EoI totally avoids the issue initally about whether or not he "founded" Islam (as Aminz describes above) until several thousand words later where they then discuss the issue. i think Tigeroo's latest version is very good. perhaps a slight tweak to the last sentence: "He established Islam as the primary(better word "dominant"?) religion in the Arabian peninsula, under a unified state which would spread beyond these boundaries." or something along those lines? ITAQALLAH 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad is the final prophet of god within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He has conveyed Islam as the religion for whole humanity, which has since became one of the dominant religions of the world " I am even happy with the change done by LinaMishima (thanks) but above might bit better. I have copied a reference form Islam page that say Islam is second largest religion of the world and majority is non-Arab (Arab are less than 25 percent or so). Although the intro is now looking very good and most of the Muslims will be happy with it but I am afraid that Editorius and Aiden might not be happy. --- Faisal 09:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I take some issue with including He has conveyed Islam as the religion for whole humanity, as this can either be seen as POV, or more appropriately redundant - most prophetic types believed their teachings are suitable for everybody. It doesn't have the best of flow to reading it, either (but I suspect that may be a language related issue rather than an intentional one). As far as I can recall the creation of a unified state upon the arabian peninsula is quite an achievement, and should be mentioned. So, working in Faisal's reference and the word international (please feel free to suggest other variants), we get: "Muhammad is the final prophet of god within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He established Islam as the primary religion of a unified state upon the Arabian peninsula, which has since became one of the dominant international religions of the world" LinaMishima 14:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable. The wording makes it appear that Islam existed before Mohammed, and it is completely dishonest to repeat this religious belief as if it were a historical fact. Furthermore, the Arabian peninsula has not become one of the dominant international religions of the world (i.e. whoever wrote that sentence cannot construct proper English). TharkunColl 15:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The grammatical problem is noted, but it's not a major worry. It would have been more constructive if you had suggested the simple solution of "and the relgion has became", or similar. As to the POV pushing, well... if you look, we don't state explicitly that it existed before Muhammad. And I for one have no qualms with the fact that religions are normally derivative works of prior believes. Tigeroo has detailed why we should not call him the founder far better than I ever could. Finally, I would dearly like to see a discussion of the value of asserting muhammed as the founder of Islam. LinaMishima 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the wording doesn't actually state that Islam existed before Mohammed, it merely fudges the issue and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). As for the value of asserting that Mohammed was the founder of Islam, it is simply the truth. I should have thought that most people would value truth very highly - especially those who happen to be helping to write an encyclopedia. Oh, and by the way, Mohammed was not the final Islamic prophet. Check out Bab, who lived in the 19th century, and there have been many, many others - most of whom met with rather unpleasant ends. TharkunColl 15:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the argument - "most of whome met with rather unpleasant ends signify?" - divine deliverance?--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a statement that willfully overlooks the input of prior preachers and beliefs on a religion, and as you state, serves no purpose other than to push a POV. Tigeroo, I believe, argued that to the arab community of the time, the teachings were seen as extensions of existing beliefs, and only later did they become significantly recognised as a seperate faith. You may have a point about the 'final' bit, although I personally believe that the following qualifier is enough. What about Principal, and it will allow us to change 'within' to 'of', which will probably read a little better. LinaMishima 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed certainly took ideas and concepts from other religions, and in this he was no different from any other founder of any religion throughout history. The early Christians regarded themselves as Jewish by religion, but that doesn't mean that they were - and in their case they had far more justification since they were Jewish by nationality and culture, unlike Mohammed who was an Arab. Just because Mohammed used such pre-existing concepts does not mean that there is any historical continuity - and any objective reading of history makes it clear that there was not. In short, to say that Mohammed was the final prophet of Islam is actually the very opposite of the truth - not only was he the first prophet of Islam, but he was followed by many other prophets within that religion. TharkunColl 18:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Name another, there are none. Nationality does not preclude relgious thought or beleif. Early muslims beleived they were carrying on the same faith. However, I agree there is a wide body of people who regard the preacher/source of a new thinking to be the founder, and personally that was my position as well aka Marx=Marxim/Communism, Jesus=christianity and Muhammad=Islam and this also widely attested to considerable literature, but the question here was prior examples of ambiguity in the wikipedia, nevertheless there is a new clear version that should be sufficient for thos who had a problem with founder earlier.--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to also wikilink 'prophet', but I can't decide between Prophets of Islam (the specific article) or prophet (the proper introduction to the term). LinaMishima 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

prophet includes a section on the islamic meaning of prophet and the tools needed to further explore this, so I've wikilinked to prophet in the above. Also, do we wish to wikilink god, and if so to god, or allah? allah is more correct, but is also more specific (something to avoid, generally), however it does quickly wikilink back to god. I've decided to introduce the wikilink to allah, but leaving the word as the more general 'god', as this is probably a more appropriate intoduction for readers with no prior knowledge of the subject. LinaMishima 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

God is an english translation of Allah and a more accurate rendering, however the word known well enough to that in the first instance it should be bracketed in and linked to for its wide usage in english has linked it with the Islamic concept of god, further ahead all reference is god. Even non arab muslims in others languages also use Allah interchangeably with word for god in their native languages.--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to amend the sentence to read "is believed to be the last prophet within Islam" is if is not clear enough fact. Regarding Muhammad as the founder is a POV, as Muslims regard Adam as the first prophet, for that you need to understand what is regarded as Islam to Muslims, and what it is regarded as by folk who beleive founder is a better term. What you are referring to is regarded by Muslims as merely the final form, because they define it in terms of continuity of ideas and would say Adam is the founder, while you have defined it in terms of an established of a disctinct set of practices and social community. I have referred to them both in the intro and made sure to include the concepts, without resorting to the rather crude, So and so beleive x but so and so beleive y type of format. The "bab" is also much Muslim as Jews ands Christians, and Christians and Muslims, the Baha'ii are regarded as a distinct faith because they do not ascribe to the concept of last prophet, much as the Ahmadiyyah and beleive in a new prophet which the older ones reject. So if you disbeleive this point you are regared as a different religious tradition, which once again just emphasis the centrality of this fact, and the importance it has vis-a-vis Muhammad.--213.42.21.76 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We are going round in circles now. Many of the editors still fail to address the historical viewpoint that Muhammad founded a new religion. Please see any mainstream encyclopedia for information on the historical view. While both views need to be represented, it should be noted that about 5 of the world 6 billion people are not Muslim and thus may not believe the Muslim view that Islam has "existed forever". Thus, it will continue to be a violation of WP:NPOV unless the intro specifically states both viewpoints.

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

The main sources of information on Muhammad's life are sira, the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. Due to the date of their writing, with the earliest sira being written 150 years after his death, historians attatch varying degrees of skepticism to these biographies. Most historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet.

Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded not as the founder of a new religion, but rather as God's final prophet who restored the original monotheistic faith which had existed since Adam. Muslims believe that Islam had been corrupted by man over time, and that through the Qu'ran, God's "true religion" was restored. Most Muslims believe Muhammad was infallible and the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

The name Muhammad etymologically means "the praised one" in Arabic. Within Islam, Muhammad is known as "The Prophet" and "The Messenger". The Qur'an (^{[Quran 33:40]}) also refers to him as the "Seal of the Prophets". In verse 61:6 he is referred to as Ahmad, Arabic for 'more praiseworthy'.

This is how I believe the entire introduction should read. —Aiden 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that they do not beleive that nore does the article state that, however for the sake of moving ahead I have incorporated it and unequivocally stated the founder POV, into a version, as per WP:Avoiding weasel words.--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from an academic historical and sociological standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

The main sources of information on Muhammad's life are sira, the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. Due to the date of their writing, with the earliest sira being written 150 years after his death, historians attatch varying degrees of skepticism to these biographies. Historians, unlike theologians and other believers who seek to understand Muhammad's success by evoking the concept of God and his acting through Muhammad, seek explanation for Muhammad's success through measuring the man itself. Most academic historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet.

Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded not as the founder Islam as a new religion, but rather as God's final prophet who confirmed and restored the original monotheistic faith which was established by Abraham. Muslims believe that Islam, i.e. submission to the one and only one true God, had been corrupted by man over time, and that through the Qu'ran, God's "true religion" was restored. Most Muslims believe Muhammad was the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

The name Muhammad etymologically means "the praised one" in Arabic. Within Islam, Muhammad is known as "The Prophet" and "The Messenger". The Qur'an (^{[Quran 33:40]}) also refers to him as the "Seal of the Prophets". In verse 61:6 he is referred to as Ahmad, Arabic for 'more praiseworthy'.

My sources are EoI: "While the theologian and other believers seek to understand the role of God acting through the Prophet, the historian seeks the measure of the man himself. The theological answer is obvious and indisputable for the believer, but, if taken alone as the explanation of the Prophet's success, it runs the risk of diminishing Muhammad's greatness as a man by making him a mere agent of divine action. The purpose of the first section of this article is to seek the historical Muhammad."

--Aminz 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't beleive the theologian and historian issue should be brought up in this article, of if so in the intro.Uncessary bloating.--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants),[7] 570-632 CE,[8] is considered the final prophet of god (Allah)within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He established Islam as the primary religion of a unified state upon the Arabian peninsula, thereby founding one of the major modern religions. Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded not as the founder of a new religion, but rather as God's final prophet or messenger, whose purpose was to restore the original monotheistic faith which had existed since Adam. Muslims believe that Islam (Submission to god) had been corrupted by man over time, and that through the Qu'ran, God's "true religion" was restored. Most Muslims believe Muhammad was infallible and the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

The name Muhammad etymologically means "the praised one" in Arabic. being a passive participle from the root Ḥ-M-D حمد "to praise". Within Islam, Muhammad is known as "The Prophet" and "The Messenger". The Qur'an (^{[Quran 33:40]}) also refers to him as the "Seal of the Prophets".

The main sources of information on Muhammad's life are the sira, the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. Due to the date of the earliest surviving scripts of the sira dating to 150 years after his death, modern historians attatch varying degrees of skepticism to these biographies. Most historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet.

Acceptable version that incorporates founder and contextualizes both founder and prophet, also correcting some information.--Tigeroo 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the following formulation, which is based on Aiden's good one:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

This should really suffice. (By the way, to write "Koran" in English with "Qu" or even with "Qu"+apostrophe is needless.) Editorius 15:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, to put it slightly more precisely:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of history, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

Editorius 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This formulation, which is fortunately free from stupid weasel words, should really be perfectly agreeable to both Muslims and non-Muslims. — Editorius 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not at all clear to me that there's any consensus whatsoever to change the intro. The obsession for getting the word "founder" into this opening paragraph is not, as far as I can tell, shared by any significant portion of the editors working on this page. BYT 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there certainly wasn't consensus to change the intro to its current form either. The previous version had stood for some time and was generally accepted until some users sought to change it to its present POV form and employ an admin (involved in the dispute) to abuse his sysop by reverting changes and locking the page in place. Thus, I think it is quite ridiculous to shun this entire process by claiming we need another consensus to change a biased version which was put in place without a consensus in the first place. That said, the above versions still use weasel words and attempt to smudge or whitewash clear historical facts. Muhammad is the founder of Islam by any historical standard and any bit of non-theological evidence you can find. Thus, unless this is unequivocally stated, the intro will violate WP:NPOV. I honestly see no problem with the version I proposed above. It's concise, clear, and most of all fair. Many of the other proposed versions are overwritten, hard to follow, and riddled with weasel words. —Aiden 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The prior concensus for 'founder' of which you speak only formed, it seems, on the last talk page archive. And that 'consensus' was really steamrolling by people who believed there were 'valid relibale sources' of non-muslim origin, which was quite laugable, really. prior to that, it seemed that absense of founder prevailed. LinaMishima 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually think my last version is the clearest and most contextual, also free from errors small errors in Aidens version, and clearly and equivocally states founder in the correct context, and agrees with both WP:NPOV and refrains from weasels words and present all clear facts. If Aiden is commenting upon it I do not see how any of his comments pertain to my version. Editorious version is a they say, but they say version which is very brief and insufficient, it is a singular sentence not a proper intro to an article.--Tigeroo 18:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic theology", by its very definition, has absolutely nothing to do with Muhammad ("Within Islam" would be more appropriate). furthermore, mentioning "historical" or "science of history" as if classical muslim historians with a scientific methodology have never existed (which, of course, have existed as per mustalah al-hadeeth.. noteworthy examples including historical works by Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Qayyim), is entirely misleading. perhaps when you mean to say "historical", you actually mean "secular historical"? ITAQALLAH 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BYT, what is clear to me is that you're not at all willing to compromise. Talking about "consensus", wasn't it you who repeatedly deleted the previous version high-handedly !?! And as regards "the obsession" with founder, what I'm actually obsessed with is truth, whereas it seems to me that what you're obsessed with is not truth but ideology. — I defy you to state a non-ideological reason why the "Aiden-Editorius formulation" shouldn't be deemed fully agreeable, generally and particularly in a non-Islamic encyclopedia such as Wikipedia!!! — Editorius 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, please explain to me why it is "laughable" to want 'valid reliable sources' based in historical fact and not theology. Remember, the vast majority of the earth is not Muslim; that is a substantial point of view we need to represent. Tigeroo: the only problem I have with your version is the sentence, "He established Islam as the primary religion of a unified state upon the Arabian peninsula, thereby founding one of the major modern religions." This subtly implies that Muhammad simply brought Islam to the Arabian Peninsula, founding it there when in actuality history points to him founding a new religion in general. I think this subversive language is quite misleading. —Aiden 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The desire for valid reliable sources is not at all laughable. What is however foolish is the insistance that any such thing exists in this case. The rise of Muhammed was documented at the time by arabic and islamic scholars only, and all non-arab/muslim sources people have cited have inevitably been from many centuries after by christian scholars, normally writing to support their lord, religion, war, etc (it wasn't until the enlightenment that NPOV become considered important).

As for the possible ambiguity in Tigeroo's version, I really don't see it - and honestly, most people would interpret "thereby founding one of the major modern religions" as just that. I'm half tempted to cry for "establishing Islam as" rather than founding, as it's more open to allowing for both sensible interpretations :P LinaMishima 20:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, let me remind you of the fact that the readers of encyclopedias expect the initial sentence of an entry to be as concise as possible. — Editorius 18:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's another thing. That version is quite cumbersome. —Aiden 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the conciseness of other proposed intial sentences either, they are factually absolutely correct, and verifable that can be cited from notable and important sources. An introduction however in a format like wiki is supposed to give a quick snapshot of the topic, therefore we see "paragraphs" used vs. sentences, therefore it needs the first sentence needs to be integrated with it in a concise yet informative flow.--Tigeroo 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• My concerns: If you would like to write: "Most academic historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet.", then please add before it that "Historians, unlike theologians and other believers who seek to understand Muhammad's success by evoking the concept of God and his acting through Muhammad, seek explanation for Muhammad's success through measuring the man itself." I believe we should mention this in the intro since the intro is supposed to say historians believe Muhammad founded Islam; well historians have a particular methodology and it needs to be clarified. Something like: modern historians, who seek to view the history without using super-natural concepts such as God, and also modern sociologists believe that Muhammad founded Islam. would be good enough. --Aminz 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's already been much too much senseless verbal meandering here. I really fail to understand why you still don't simply accept the "Aiden-Editorius formulation" above, which explicitly states (it's no longer mentioned in a footnote!) that within Islam Muhammad is not regarded as a founder. What else you do want?! Tell me, and be honest! — Editorius 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And don't overlook that we've been arguing here ad nauseam only over the very first sentence and not the entire entry, which consists of many further sentences! — Editorius 23:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

See, my general point is that academic historians don't seek to understand the history based on supernatural concepts, BUT not that it is not possible to do so, OR that it is wrong to do so. Saying: "Most academic historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet." seems to imply that there is only one POV inside academia, or one true POV. We are writing this article for public use. Majority of people are not aware of assumptions made in scientific historical investigation. I am afraid your insistence of avoiding these “clarifications” has something to do with your view of calling Islamic theological formulation as myths. Why do you oppose saying academic sociological perspective together with academic historical perspective? --Aminz 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No additional "clarifications" are needed! — Spell the word "concise"! — What you seem to have forgotten is that this encyclopedia entry is titled "Muhammad" and not "Scientific Historiography vs. Theological Historiography". — There are two simple things everybody ought to learn first about Muhammad:

(1) From the standpoint of the science of history, Muhammad is the founder of the Islamic religion.

(2) From the standpoint of Islamic theology, Muhammad is not the founder of the Islamic religion (but merely "the consolidator of Islam").

That's it, and it is no bloody doubt in accordance with the "NOPV policy"! The Aiden-Editorius formulation mentions both (1) and (2). — Editorius 00:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the historical method (science of history), muhammad is not the founder, as no contempary sources exist detailing this concept :P But yes, according to sociology or similar he can be conisdered the founder, whereby sociological founding does not require that you came up with something anew, but rather added lots of significant material and propelled the idea into the mainstream as if it were your own (even if you did not lay claim to it). And from the standpoint of all theology, muhammad was not the founder of the religion, only of a sect, for theology generally respects the earlier contributions to a subject, and understands that the sect only later became a religion. Interestingly, that's just what the historical method teaches us. LinaMishima 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorious, Err, the EoI's article on Muhammad is about Muhammad, but its intro makes the "clarifications" I mentioned. Historians will never be satisfied with a supernatural explanation. Anyways, my main problem was with the sentence: "Most academic historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet."

I consider removal of the "clarifications", both in the first paragraph of the intro and the second one, to be intellectual dishonesty in the sense of covering the basic assumptions made in the science of history. This should be mentioned somewhere in the intro. Again, we are not writing this article for historians, but for public use. --Aminz 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you two (and some others) ever get bored by your own idle chatter?! — Editorius 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as you do Editorius. The word Islam has an spectrum of meanings withing Qur'an. The problem really arises when we see the Qur'an using the word "Islam" and "Muslim" in different meanings in different places (Honestly, it makes me feel crazy with I remember those verses and read the sentence that Muhammad founded Islam). And for the record, it is not actually only the word "Islam": Another example of such confusion is the word "Salat" (prayer). Is "salat" what Muslims pray 5 times a day? If so, then how can Qur'an speak of those who are always in prayer? Similar to the word "Muslim", "Salat" is sometimes used to refer to something which is not the formal prayer. I can list many more examples: "Tasbih" (praising) and "Mumin" (believer), etc. etc. I think the words have some external symbolic meaning and some internal spritual meanings. You can not push your definition of Islam or Salat in wikipedia. --Aminz 04:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the Aiden-Editorious formulation is the same as the one with the others. Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam is also a statement that is perfectly in line with all historical and scientific traditions and accepted as a concept widely and as equally as the concept of founder, as you can seen in numerous examples in historical and scientific literature. Every religion defines its own prophets, thats the nature of the term and the religion, which you are missing, so it is more of placing emphasis on his role in a distinct phsyical manisfestation of islam or the emphasis on its evolution from pre-existing beleifs. I don't think this is a question of the chicken or the egg, as the ideas were codified into observances. The beleif of the community, what is Islam, muslims place more emphasis on the beleif ergo pre-existing concepts which are accepted as earlier versions of islam or the distinct social community and practices emphasised by founder. Both references can also be found aplenty in scientifical and historical sciences, I still have to find one reference where he is cited as the first prophet. Aiden I didn't see that sublime inference you spotted, however he did for a fact establish, found it alongside a state in Arabia, its spread elsewhere was not his doing, and I dont see how that absolves the connection of him being the founder of the religion because we also specify where it arose.--Tigeroo 08:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, once again, this entry's title is not "The Koranic meanings of Islam" but "Muhammad". You've never read the footnote to the introductory statement that was deleted by you and your friends, did you?! The only thing that is relevant here is the current meaning of "Islam" in the English language and not its original (etymological) meaning(s) in Arabic. What is more, you also seem to have overlooked that I consciously substituted "the Islamic religion" for "Islam" in Aiden's original formulation, hoping that it is then clear enough that what is referred to is the entire religious system called "Islam" and not simply monotheism. — Editorius 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, as regards the noun phrase "the last prophet", let me stress that Aiden+I actually use it in our formulation:

Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

This implies neither that he is the first prophet of Islam nor that he is the only one! — Editorius 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Founder is also mentioned in mine, and more accurately as that of both the pre-dominant religion of Arabia and a united political polity. That it spread onwards is a second fact which I have also allowed space for.--Tigeroo 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo's comment on "the last prophet" raised a much more important point that you appear to have missed. Traditionally, it has been the first prophet that is regarded as the founder LinaMishima 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, I beg you, it's really time for you all to step out of your smokescreen! — Editorius 12:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to take off your blindfolds to see that others have!--Tigeroo 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to rephrase our formulation slightly as follows:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

There is a difference between religion (theology proper) and the science of religion, for the latter objectively studies a religion without affirming its faith. That is, the science of religion, as any other science, is characterized by methodological nontheism. Needless to mention that theology as such is not a science — neither is philosophy by the way. Of course, there are lots of academic theologians who also work in the field of the science of religion (= sociology of religion + psychology of religion + history of religion). Many of those actually do happen to hold the faith of the religion they're studying; but as scientists of religion they must not employ the methodology of dogmatics but only the (empiristic-nontheistic) methodology of science [*. Anyway, this meta-discussion need not be mirrored by the initial sentence, whose sole function is to provide the reader quickly and concisely with the most relevant core information about who Muhammad is/was. The rest is contained in the sentences following the initial one! [* This is certainly problematic for the theologians, since as scientists of religion they might discover facts about the religion they adhere to which contradict or even clearly disprove its dogmas and myths previously taken for granted.] — Editorius 14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorious where do come such classifications that absolute crock, there is no such distinct of even widespread thing as the historical empirical formulation defined in the manner you are proposing and even if you are referring such folk as cron and luxenbourg etc who are modernists then he is not even regarded as the founder but as synthesiser and associated more as a political leader and founder of the untide arab polity. Aiden no from the stand point of history or the scince of history as can be found in historical litereature he is regarded as both the founder and the final prophet of islam, with both terms used interchangeably so hardly raising any POV, and making both formulations equall valid from that stand point. This is merely a preference of readability issue to read founder as implying that it contradicts the other formulation. See historical narratives and biographies and you will found last prophet used quite widely just like founder. There is no issue here either of POV or weasel with either formulation, one is just more informative than the other. Follow a similar discussion also going on at Jesus.--213.42.21.76 14:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur, still I have incorporated the term founded in terms of the legacy he left behind in terms of a religion marked by it's distinctive social charecter, and a political polity in terms of it's importance on the development of future political structures in the region. Not sure what the problem is anymore.--Tigeroo 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, Theology is a science, just like philosophy. Both of these matters can be explored using the scientific method. Given the fact that universities teach these subjects, and peer reviewed journals exist, I consider arguements to the contary to be on dangerous ground. And as I have already stated, by the science of theology, the influence of previous works is a vital consideration, and such matters acknowledge that most religions start as sects, and only later become seperate religions. LinaMishima 17:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, there is no such thing as a science of God. The theologians know nothing, not even whether their subject matter exists. As regards its theoretical part, theology is metaphysical speculation. Don't take me wrong, I don't mind metaphysical speculation at all, but its purely a priori reasoning cannot be justifiably called "scientific".

"Religion shares the scientific aim of giving an account of the world as it is in itself, not as it is for us. But, unlike science, and closer to a work of art, it reveals the world as informed by purpose, will, and personality, as expressing the intentions of a transcendent being. In presupposing a transcendent being, religion avoids the possibility of direct refutation by empirical or scientific evidence."

["Science, Art, and Religion." (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (T. Honderich, ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

Editorius 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Editorius's suggestion if 1. article for science of religion would be created 2. The sentence 'he is not considered a founder' would be linked to an uncreated section in Islam (or Muhammad) article where Islamic definitionsis of "Islam" are further explained.

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

Also, Editorius, I am sorry for missing the Islamic religion thing. --Aminz 04:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Historians have not made any such distinction as Editorious wants us to infer. They have used both terms and concepts interchangeably, and very widely. Founder problems deal with conception as demonstrated by crone and cook it was umar, as by many others he only founded a social structure based upon existing information. by historical records it was not regarded as seperate religion by the practicitioners except by the dint of their faith in his prophethood and his claim to succeed jesus, and moses in the prevalent religious traditions of the region, but thats a common problem and minor, the real issue is that stating "he is him beleived to be last prophet of islam" is not NPOV or Weasel or factually incorrect. That is a term used widely in academia synonymously with founder, is accurate because he generally modified rather implemented existing systems.--Tigeroo 12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, there already is an entry on the science of religion (German "Religionswissenschaft"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_of_religion

(This entry has some weak spots, but those do not matter here.)

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed.

As regards the etymology and the definition(s) of "Islam", there is no need to place such a link in the initial sentence. The link to the entry on Islam, where those linguistic aspects should be explained, is sufficient. And generally, "overlinked" sentences look awful! — Editorius 13:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And generally, "overlinked" sentences look awful! - More importantly, the manual of style recommends against it. LinaMishima 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, can't that fruitless sophistry be ended now?!

When, from the standpoint of the science of religion, Muhammad is called a "founder", this does not imply that he created the Islamic religion out of nothing. Actually, we all know that he amalgamated various pre-existent aspects of Judaism and Christianity; but, nevertheless, the Islamic religion emerged from history as a new religious system (which is not say that all its ideas are absolutely new!), which is partially related to the other two ones but, as a whole, distinct from them. — Editorius 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as playing semantics is silly, the Islamic religion emerged from history is exactly Tigeroo's point. When Muhammad started spreading the messages he'd recieved, he did not call it a new religion. It was not untill a long time later that the sect emerged as a new religion. I'm with Tigeroo, and more importantly, Tigeroo knows his scholars. LinaMishima 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, you enjoy misreading my words, don't you?! :-( — Editorius 14:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed (For further information see this)

--Aminz 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, the link to the entry on Islam in the previous sentence is really sufficient. There already is an information overload! — Editorius 22:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to link it to Islam article, but to an uncreated section in the Islam article where the relevant discussions (the relevant verses, etc. etc.) would be available in details. --Aminz 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why you have to lead with a bloated, overwritten sentence. Be concise, fair, and informative. We don't need jargon; we don't need POV:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from a historical standpoint, the founder of Islam. Within Islam, he is considered the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

The main sources of information on Muhammad's life are sira, the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad. Due to the date of their writing, with the earliest sira being written 150 years after his death, historians attatch varying degrees of skepticism to these biographies. Most historians agree that Muhammad lived during 7th century and adopted various monotheistic traditions in an effort to replace the common polytheistic religions of the Arabian Peninsula, eventually gaining wide acceptance as a prophet.

Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded not as the founder of a new religion, but rather as God's final prophet who restored the original monotheistic faith which had existed since Adam. Muslims believe that Islam had been corrupted by man over time, and that through the Qu'ran, God's "true religion" was restored. Most Muslims believe Muhammad was infallible and the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

I've based the above off of the neutral, well-written introduction used in the Jesus article. It addresses all major points-of-view fairly and accurately. Some people need to stop whitewashing the views of others. Not all people believe the same! Represent everyone's view fairly. —Aiden 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole problem here is that the intro is not spacy enough. My suggestion is to avoid controversial issues in the intro but to have them linked to other sections of the article. We will never reach to any consensus. --Aminz 04:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll never reach any consensus when people are not willing to compromise or base their outlook on the article's progress on their personal beliefs. —Aiden 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And that applies to everyone, of course. It doesn't help that when one person puts forth the views of experts in the field and names these people, such views appear to be discounted out of hand. LinaMishima 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I am not happy with Aiden introduction and will not accept it. I think at this time we all know what is wrong with it. --- ابراهيم 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you seemed to have missed that the Jesus article calls him the central figure of christianity, why don't you settle for a similar formulation which is also both historically and factually correct and was inspired from the same Jesus article in the first place as the solution to this debate?

Secondly, How would you reconcile the fact that various historians seem to see no dichtomy between the fact that he was the last prophet of Islam and that he was the founder of Islam? Can you cite that he was a founder from a "historical standpoint?" or is that just OR we are engaging in to define what a historical standpoint is. Historic standpoints easily accept concept such as "Zeus was the chief god of the Greeks" so I don't see how they could reject "Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam". These examples can also be cited easily. I posit Founder is an equivalent, but in the context of the intro and as a source of contention requiring explanations it is easily replaceble with a better less contentious, more readable and more informative substitute. Ergo your lead is actually bloated and repetitive. I don't see a problem with founder personally, but I disagree that is from a historical empircal POV, it's just a conceptual identification of a sufficiently distinct creed with its primary formulator. We can do this elsewise, founder is not an essential term essentially since it's seen as problematic.

Thirdly, just a minor correction the sira from 150 years are only the earliest known surviving manuscripts, not the first written. They usually make mention and reference to earlier ones of which none are known to survive.

Fourthly, infalliable has particular connoations in Islamic theology and is a source of debate and so using it in the intro is again contentious and would require contextual explanations that don't belong.--Tigeroo 20:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's introduction is more than fair and conciliatory towards all but the most extremist views, which unfortunately seem to have made their religious agenda known on wikipedia's Muhammad page, and almost appears to be a coordinated effort. I would like to point to other pages of other religions Mary Baker EddyJoseph Smith Jr. Charles Taze Russell, all of which are called 'founders'. I think that the distinction needs to be made between a doctrinal argument and what is stating clear, objective (and by now widely accepted) fact. Also, compromise should not lead to accepting their apparent single-minded fundamentalist goal of editing everything to conform to their world view, to the point that there can't even be a historical picture of Muhammad. Carried to it's logical conclusion, images of the Sistine Chapel would be unacceptable. I think that it needs to be noted that there is a difference between 'collaborative' effort and 'tactic'. One tactic seems to be disagreeing on the meaning and 'connotation' of words specifically to entangle, delay and continue the argument. Especially when there is no subsequent suggestion other than rejecting everything out of hand. Thus turning this 'collaborative' effort into an 'exercise of futility'. Many of the arguments made on this talk page are ridiculous, and it is unfortunate that editors have to give them credence by participating in them. It is clear to me that some users want to export their culture of ideological censorship and revisionism to wikipedia. Nodekeeper 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I advise that you assume good faith that not everybody who is campaigning against something is automatically has a religious agenda. Secondly, read Tigeroo's comments. he has cited clear historian discorses against the term founder, and indeed it is those who are obsesded with this word who fail to actually follow these. Thirdly, the exaples you seem to cite are actually of founders, not people who preached something and only much later did it separate off into a distinct religion (again, based on the findings of Tigeroo, they're a clevel chap). Finally, on the images front, we actually do have an image, it's just not headlined - it's Image:Miraj2.jpg. Any headlined image would probably have to be of a similar sort. LinaMishima 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good point is raised by Tigeroo. Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" is the earliest surviving traditional biography, and was written less than 150 years after Muhammad's death. It refers to earlier siras writter much earlier. We do not know if those siras also refer to even more earlier writter siras or not. Hence that perticular sentence needs to be corrected too. --- ابراهيم 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Campaigning." You said it, not me. Brilliantly put. Until the campaigning stops, there really is no collaboration here.

I went to a current dictionary and looked up Muhammed and it reads "Arab prophet & founder of Islam." How unbelievably hard is that? Even wiktionary says that. Just for kicks I looked up Qur'an and came up with this definition, "the book composed of sacred writings accepted by Muslims as revelations made to Muhammad by Allah through the angel Gabriel."

Ok, do you say that the book that Muslims hold as most sacred and complete and the foundation of Islam is the Qur'an? If we all have consensus as to that (and I think we do) then it follows that Islam had a unique beginning in time, and it started with the Qur'an. Then following that it is either the angel Gabriel or Allah that Islam originated with. The angel Gabriel or Allah neither had corporeal form. The angel Gabriel did not put the Qur'an into written, physical tangible form. It was Muhammad who did that. So whether directly or indirectly Islam's beginning in time was with Muhammad as the primary agent. He is held in such high esteem that countless Muslims take his name. Why does he hold this position? Is he the one who founded Islam? No matter what obscure religious theory you espouse, Islam follows the Qur'an, which either directly or indirectly comes from Muhammad.

About the picture, you said "Any headlined image would probably have to be of a similar sort." I assume that you are referring to the fact that it is faceless, and any other picture would have to be the same. The website to the picture I linked to states that the picture of Muhammad preaching to a group of followers is a common one and is expressed in many instances with a face.

Essentially, what is happening here is that obscure religious theories are being used by an Islamic "campaign" to censor wikipedia for religious purposes. Not allowing the word 'founded' or an example of historical art depicting Muhummad is censoring, not editing.

I wp:assume good faith. Let's have consensus that the introduction paragraph is never going to be perfect and please everybody. Nor is it the purpose of an introduction to do so. Perfection is not required. But it is a functional NPOV for an introduction paragraph. Let's use Aiden's version until we come up with something better, as it's better than what's there. Maybe the difficulty here is that the people of this 'campaign' do not understand the wisdom of secular knowledge presented without bias. Maybe english is a second language for most people here and they don't understand that when people say 'founded' they do so to concisely illustrate historical fact. Maybe they don't understand that outside their closed culture art is not prohibited. Or maybe there is a campaign/cabal of Islamic users here who want to hijack a wikipedia page in the name of Allah. You tell me.

As to the picture, I will find a public domain representation of the link I posted, and when I (or somebody else) do we can put both into the article.

Or does the 'campaign' not allow these things? Nodekeeper 08:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think implying there is a "campaign" assumes good faith, nor from you comments above one should even beleive you approach the matter from a NPOV stance. Why not use keep the curent form if it is never going to be perfect and reflects not some obscure religious theories but quite mainstream muslim thought ignored and considered by some as beng negated by a western/christian centric POV. Where is the bias or POV in stating that "he is beleived by muslims to be last prophet of islam" or "he is the pre-eminent prophet of Islam" both are absolutely accurage. The current formulation was itself taken from the example formulation used in the Jesus article. It is perfectly historically accurate, its the blinkered insistance on the term "founder" and no other equivalent formulation that is holding this up. I have provided numerous formulations but even including the words founder in terms of illustrating the historical facts, but for some reason this does seem to get any headway either. Here is what I beleive to be a superior formulation that incorporates the concept of founding in a manner that actually adds to the intro instead of reading like a force fit.

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants),[7] 570-632 CE,[8] is considered the final prophet of god (Allah)within the religion of Islam. Muslims beleive that their primary religious text, the Quran was revealed to him through the agency of the angel Gabriel. He established Islam as the predominant religion of a unified religious polity (Ummah) upon the Arabian peninsula, thereby founding one of the major modern religions. Within Islam, Muhammad is regarded not as the founder of a new religion, but rather as God's final prophet or messenger, whose purpose was to restore, God's "true religion", the original monotheistic faith which had existed since Adam that Muslims believe that had been corrupted by man over time. Most Muslims believe Muhammad set the perfect example of how a Muslim should live.

The name Muhammad etymologically means "the praised one" in Arabic. being a passive participle from the root Ḥ-M-D حمد "to praise". Within Islam, Muhammad is known as "The Prophet" and "The Messenger". The Qur'an (^{[Quran 33:40]}) also refers to him as the "Seal of the Prophets".

--Tigeroo 10:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly Tigeroo, I think you seem to have completely missed the point, or are intentionally ignoring it for the sake of further argument. What you propose is convoluted, confusing, and hard to read. Especially for an introductory paragraph. I found that wikipedia originally had this;

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants),[1] 570-632 CE,[2] established the religion of Islam and the Muslim community (Ummah).[3] Muslims believe him to have been God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

How did we manage to go from that to your incomprehensible version? I'm sorry that the concept of an concise and brief introductory paragraph completely escapes you.Nodekeeper 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodkeeper I dont know you mean to say "campaign." Several things that are wrong with your statement, 1 Islam exists since Adam (p.b.u.h.) with no change, only those who change it come up with something else that is close but not the same (Christian and jewishness) 2 Qur’an does not come from prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) but writen by Allah (God), someone told you something wrong here 3 Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is to emulation because he followed Allah in everything he does in life, no wrong step or shirk because Allah guided him. 4 You do not know or anyone else know what prophet looks like or have picture of him so please do not lie and put a picture 5 why should nonmuslim write part of article on Muslim prophet?? LionofTruth˜˜˜˜

Because I am able to state accurately historical fact in a couple of sentences. Which everybody here seems unable to do, apparently because of their jihad on the english language.Nodekeeper 21:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It was stated simply and accurate in the version you are attempting to change as well. It was terrible in the earlier version. Point which part is convoluted in this one, i think its mere more comprehensive and informative.--Tigeroo 12:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

English must be your second language, because you are showing a very poor command and comprehension of it here. You either ignored or were unable to read my above comment to you. But I will wp:assume good faith one (very) last time and state it simply;

---

Tigeroo, and others who have participated in this discussion up to this point, It's not the purpose of a short introductory paragraph to be completely 'comprehensive and informative'. As such, it is not an appropriate place for theological discourse, especially in the very first sentence.

---

Tigeroo, don't suggest using your version again. It's embarassing.Nodekeeper 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. An intro cannot be entirely comprehesive and informative, but it can definitely be comprehensive and informative in it's highlighting of important facets. The purpose of it is to lead up with the highlighting important information and orient the reader to the article, and thats what is being done from both the theological and the historic/social aspect. He only has had a historic/social impact because of his theological/social position, so its importance from the relevant theological perspective deserves to be prominent. The earlier formulation with the footnote was incomprehensible, and this version is really only to reach out to accomodate Aiden by modifying his intro.

Also I don't have to assume good faith in the face of personal attacks, or demonstrated states as such as used in your edit summary. --Tigeroo 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have to assume good faith. But you never had it before I arrived on the scene either. It was you who started the 'pre-eminent prophet theology in intro' 'edit war' back on August 29, which violates Wikipedia's NPOV (and other) policies. I'm sorry that you consider the truth as 'personal attacks', but unless you can explain the action of you and your friends for the reverts back to the 'pre-eminent prophet theology line' when clearly there was no consensus or discussion on the talk page about it over the past three weeks, you get no apology from me. Really, I think it may be a form of vandalism and should be dealt with as such if it continues to show up. Nodekeeper 10:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because we non-Muslims have a right to do so!!! — Editorius 13:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, it makes me sad to learn you're not happy. Is there anything we cursed unbelievers can do to make the Muslim in you happy again? — I guess definitions such as the following ones will cheer you up:

(1) "compromise" = "concession of defeat by the non-Muslims"

(2a) "truth" = "Islam"

(2b) "untruth" = "everything else"

(3) "historical fact" = "anything Muslims regard as such"

(4) "opponent's arguments" = "something a Muslim is not happy with and hence ignores"

Just wanted to say: Thanks for nothing! — Editorius 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper, you're absolutely right in claiming that that endless and utterly nonsensical quibbling'n'cavilling about "founder" serves but one ideological purpose: obfuscation of the historical facts => Islamization of the entire history (of religion).

But as a matter of fact, the noun "founder" has a very simple and very clear meaning: "One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" (Source: http://www.bartleby.com/61/92/F0279200.html).

In exactly this very sense Muhammad is a founder! For example, even such an eminent scholar as W. Montgomery Watt (who is known for being very Islam-friendly!) applies "founder" to Muhammad:

"[...] So far Muhammad has been described from the point of view of the historian. Yet as the founder of a world-religion he also demands a theological judgement. [...]"

(Source: W. M. Watt: "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman". <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html>)

Editorius 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Its there in my formulation.--Tigeroo 12:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tigeroo has repeatedly stated my position far better than I could ever do. They have found real references arguing against the term "founder", and have seemingly understood the issue with contempory accounts. I am quite happy with Tigeroo's revisions. I am also quite pleased to see Editorius use references to support their stance, which is a welcome development. Matters are distinctly not helped by those who are keen on a 'founder' formulation apparently assuming a religious bias, rather than simply a disagreement with the term. There is a compromise hiding here, but the lack of detail on the muslim history article isn't helping me find when his teachings began to be viewed as a separate religion rather than a sect. Indeed, that article highlights that it was his statesmanship and abilities as a military leader that apparently had the greatest of effects to early islam. LinaMishima 16:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, what do you mean "a welcome development"?! — I already quoted Watt on June 4:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/archive_6#.22Founder.22_again

Editorius 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another short quotation from an eminent scholar, Bernard Lewis:

"Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ..."

[Lewis, Bernard W. (1995). The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years. New York: Scribner. (p. 138)]

Editorius 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, There are many other sources who make this founder attribution clear. I again re-state my suggestion:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed (For further information see Islam#Theological Definitions)

--Aminz 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I really appreciate your support for "the Aiden-Editorius formulation"; but your addition in brackets is completely misplaced in an encyclopedia's initial sentence. — Editorius 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, The addition in brackets actually redirects the rest of discussion to another place. The intro is not spacy enough and I think we have to make a separate section on this topic and link it from here. All I am trying to do it to shift the arguments from here to another place. --Aminz 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion:

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of the Islamic religion. Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Koran was divinely revealed. The details are discussed in [[this section.

--Aminz 01:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He is not anything from the standpoint of the science of religion, that is theology and it depends entirely upon which theological perspective you view things from. He is a founder from the historicity of the social perspective, because of the distinctive social and ideological traits of the community that he personally led, and the ones of those which profess to be guided by his message. P.S. I posted a more detailed logic of process behind my formulation, and a synopsis of the gist of what appears to me the real problem with the wording, and my approach in addressing it. I posted it in a different section by error, but it is approx 2 sections above.--Tigeroo 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I take it back, just visited the linked section, will review then comment. sorry.--Tigeroo 07:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am waiting. The religous studies article reads: Religious studies is the designation commonly used in the English-speaking world for a multi-disciplinary, secular study of religion that dates to the late 19th century in Europe (and the influential early work of such scholars as Friedrich Max Müller, in England, and Cornelius P. Tiele, in the Netherlands), but is practiced today by scholars worldwide. It is distinct from confessional theology in that it emphasizes human society and behavior rather than metaphysics. I hope it is fine. --Aminz 07:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, what is "[Muhammad] is not anything from the standpoint of the science of religion" supposed to mean. From this standpoint Muhammad actually is something, namely, the founder of Islam, in the following sense: If Muhammad had not existed, the religious system known as "Islam" would not exist. — Editorius 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, your addition in brackets is superfluous, because the introductory sentence already contains a link to the entry on Islam. Generally, avoid an information overload! In an encyclopedia, less is often more.

So please remove it. — Editorius 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, It is a link to an uncreated section. The section is going to include what is discussed in John Esposito (1998) p.12; (1999) p.25; (2002) p.4-5 . Please have a look at these. It is an important piece of information. Please! I'll create the section soon. --Aminz 22:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition to "Muhammad the reformer" section

I wanted to add this to the section but it was protected.

Slavery existed in all the ancient civilizations of Asia, Africa, Europe, and pre-Columbian America and had been accepted and even endorsed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as other religions of the world, Lewis states. Lewis however states that Islam brought two major changes to ancient slavery 'which were to have far-reaching effects. One of these was the presumption of freedom; the other, the ban on the enslavement of free persons except in strictly defined circumstances.' The position of the Arabian slave was "enormously improved": The Arabian slave 'was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights.' The practice of slavery in the Islamic empire represented a 'vast improvement on that inherited from antiquity, from Rome, and from Byzantium.'

I suggest having sub-sections within the "Muhammad the reformer" section. --Aminz 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

- John L Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path p. 79 writes:

"Much of Qur'an's reforms consists of regulations or moral guidance that limit or redefine rather than prohibit or replace existing practices. Slavery and women's status are two striking examples. Although slavery was not abolished, slave owners were encouraged to emancipate their slaves, to permit them to earn their freedom, and to "give them some of God's wealth which He has given you" (24:33). Forcing female slaves into prostitution was condemned. Women and the family were subjects of more wide-ranging reforms affecting marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Marriage was a contract, with women entitled to their dower (4:4). Polygamy was restricted (4:3), men were commanded to treat their wives fairly and equally (4:129). Women were given inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives.

--Aminz 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)