Talk:Medieval Christian views on Muhammad

message: *Please note that there are some conditions on the keep, please re-name this article, and fix the POV issues raised. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is the use of having a biased version of a section that already - in a much improved version - is in the Muhammad article? -- Karl Meier 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with this being a redirect, and I don't see any reason to delete it outright. If you can change this into something something that use well sourced material in an unbiased and neutral way and at the same time something that is more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article, then there is no problem. -- Karl Meier 11:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to keep it as something more than a redirect, then change it into something that is according to NPOV and which is something more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have what I believe is a better suggestion. Can you explain your reasons, why you wanted to copy the most biased version of a section in the Muhammad article into a new article, when several individual editors had expressed concerns about it being against Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Muhammad#Muhammad_and_the_West. The subject might very well be notable, but copying the most biased version of a section in the Muhammad article is not an acceptable way to start an article. -- Karl Meier 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is one problem, another is that several editors will then have to waste quite a lot of time dealing with this nonsense. Perhaps, another solution could be to simply replace the vast majority of the content that is currently here, and which as mentioned is a copy of the most biased version of that section in the Muhammad article, with a lot of the more neutral content that we now have in that section in the Muhammad article. -- Karl Meier 11:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is not much worth keeping here. Possibly nothing. I'll fix the neutrality issues tomorrow. -- Karl Meier 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD discussion

message: I made the decision to move the "Modern Times" section to the articles talk page, as it is entirely POV and unbalanced. -- Karl Meier 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section on "Modern Times"

message: This article needs to define at the outset what it means by the term West and back that definition up with references. Specific quotes defining the term would be especially helpful, perhaps as footnotes. It shouldn't be taken for granted that the reader will know what is meant by West. And, for neutrality's sake, the definition used for West ought to be one used by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. Nick Graves 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited the article before looking through the discussion page (sorry). Bernard Lewis uses the term 'Christendom' which seems applicable here, as we are talking of Medieval Christianity. --Telecart (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of ''West''

message: Leaving aside the issues of defining The West and neutrality concerns, let us consider a name change for this article, as it appears that many people commenting during the recent AFD discussion were dissatisfied with the name. Let me just point out two things that I believe will be fairly uncontroversial.
First, the word "Image" is ambiguous and potentially confusing, since the word is typically used to mean "visual depiction," rather than "opinion about." We're not talking about pictures of Muhammad, but opinions about him. (Note that one of the commentators on the AFD thought the article should be merged with Depictions of Muhammad, a suggestion that shows confusion about what this article is supposed to be about).
Second, the initial word of the title should not be singular, but plural. There are many opinions about Muhammad in the West, not just one.
Views about Muhammad in the West or Western views of Muhammad are two names that are good possibilities, I think. I like the latter option. It's punchier and more to the point.
However the article currently talks only about Christian views of Muhammad. As long as that is the case, the article really belongs at Christian views of Muhammad. The article doesn't even mention the secular tradition in the West, a tradition that is different from (and sometimes antagonistic toward) the Christian tradition. Nick Graves 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some kind of typo... fixed. - Merzbow 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change from "Image of Muhammad in the West"

message: :I have moved the following sections * from the article to this Talk page because they are of insufficient quality, clarity or independence to be included in any encyclopedia. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material below * cites one only one source and refers in the most general terms to another. Even though Idries Shah's teachings and Abraham Cohen's introduction to the Talmud have a place in this encyclopedia, it is not relevant to cite either of them under the title "Christian view...", as neither of them identified themselves as Christian.  The rest of the material below is highly speculative and way off-topic.  Practically none of it will ever belong in this article "Christian view of Muhammad".  - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: * I've moved it again to Unicorn144 user page as at 9 April 2007. Wikipedia is not the place for your to share your research; please see the policy pages WP:NOR, and the proposed new version WP:ATT which you may find clearer.  If that is your only goal for contributing, please consider starting a blog instead. - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Middle Ages to Current Times 

message: "...and that some of the world's urgent political problems might be easier to solve if Christians and Muslims had a deeper respect for each other's religion, something which is so difficult for the West to do due to a "deep-seated prejudice" against Muhammad."
This is not only biased, but also false.
How does the west have a "deep-seated prejudice" against Mohammed when we freely allow his disciples to worship, make converts, and build mosques here, something that Muslims never allow minority religions?
There is not a single muslim-majority country where Christians are as free as Muslims are in the west. It would seem to any reasonable person that the problem is deep-seated prejudice on the part of Muslims . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.214.109 (talk • contribs).
I don't think you have ever been to the Middle East. Except of the KSA; you can have a church in any other Middle Eastern state. Even in the KSA you can practice Christianty freely. Would do you please name the Masjids (what you call Mosques) in the Vatican!!!!???? OR Maybe Rome????!!!!
Muslims reverence to Christ has always been there since the early ages of Islam. I don't think that WP is the platform for such a debate. I highly doubt that any reasonable person would have said what you said; he has to be baised and blinded by prejudice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.96.68 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of nonsense is this? 

message: I am tagging this article with , because the article timeline ends at the middle ages. The article needs to go into more recent history and even modern views of Muhammad by Christians.--Sefringle 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: update tag

message: Thank you, Hmk, for your contribution.  However, there are some problems with this: 
*some of it is not specifically about Muhammad, e.g. Tritton & O'Leary.  
*it is just a selection of quotations, not a coherent continuation of the article. 
*It is much too long and unbalances the article. 
Some of the material could usefully be "trans-wikied" to Wikiquote, if it is not there already. 
Please re-write this in a more selective way, otherwise it is liable to be deleted.  - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's gone. Another editor removed it as a cut-and-paste copyright violation from here. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations added June 2006 

message: Is this article truly neutral? It appears to me to simply be an attack upon Christianity. Perhaps this should be fixed. Captain panda 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why is it not neutral? this article is not about muhammad, it's about medieval views of him. anything important missing? just explain. i think the unbalanced message should be removed.Maymana (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: Please see Category talk:Perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That page was recently renamed to Category talk:Religious perspectives on Muhammad#Reverts by Doc Tropics. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspectives on Muhammad 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Medieval Christian views on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111092803/http://www.tf.uio.no/lo/lck/watt0191.html to http://www.tf.uio.no/lo/lck/watt0191.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It is only in the domain of superstitious beliefs that one can write a million articles about a person that no one in his time has seen, therefore who did not have a real existence. Mohamed is just a distortion of MHMT.
The character is invented from scratch, as well as the whole history of Islam which is only, very bad, literature. Until the word Arab which designates a way of life of savages which Europeans have made an ethnic group to better impose an Islam born in an unknown region, among an unknown people, in cities, Mecca and Medina, fantastic.
Mohammad : The Muslim fable Adbouz (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammed : The muslim fable