Talk:Muhammad/Archive 11

message: Why are there so many pictures of people this article has absolutely nothing to do with (such as the modern 'scholars')? It looks very unprofessional. —Aiden 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good. Please have also a look at the New Anti-Semtism article. --Aminz 04:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that it looks quite unprofessional.   --Nehwyn 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: There is hardly any mention of the long history of rape, murder, robbery and warmongering on Muhammads account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs) 
:If you supply reliable sources to this information, it would help your cause more than simply disparaging the current article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, please remember that this is an article about Muhammad and not an article about world history after Muhammad's death.  --BostonMA talk 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Muhammad was a warmonger (conquering of Mecca and rest of Arabian peninsula), and a rapist, and sentencing innocent people to death and bondage.  This is fact ... I tried putting in referenced stuff, but people removed it.  For shame (for those who claim he is a saint and wish to suppress all else).  Nonprof. Frinkus 07:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Please list, describe and cite sources for said description regarding Mohammud's career as a rapist, murderer, robber and warmongerer (if such is the case). Please remember to write the material in an encyclopedic manner and to use formal writing style, including properly grammar, punc;tuat-ion, and spallung.DocEss 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Arrow740, without some sort of citation, your comments are without context and not very usefull. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume everyone working on this article already knows about the Jewish tribes whose men he beheaded and whose women and children he sold into slavery. If you really want a citation I can get you one. But shouldn't people working on this article have some familiarity with the hadith? Arrow740 20:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All Hadith, or just the specific ones you choose to portray the man in the light you rather? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Ibn Ishaq and al-Tibari, the most reliable biographies of Muhammad. Both contain hadith generally considered genuine. Why are you acting ignorant? Arrow740 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW who exactly told you Ishaq & Tabari were "most reliable sources". Generally genuine...dude wake up . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 01:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wake up and read the hadith and the early biographies of Muhammad. You might learn something about the methods that he used; he only started to become powerful after he started having people assassinated, starting with Asma bint Marwan. She was just a poet. Ibn Ishaq was the earliest biographer of Muhammad. His Sirat rasul Allah is the earliest extant biography of Muhammad. Also, according to the Islamic journal Renaissance, al-Tabari is "the father of Islamic History and one of the greatest historians that the world has produced." Arrow740 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ibn Ishaq is taken from Tabari, and Tabari's is a collection of the hadees and traditions of his era. He is not autorative as his collection gives equal weight to the absurd as the obvioulsy true. His is not Sahih, but as a historian he is brilliant for the era, using sources of every side of a conflict or divide. How much of Tabari have you actually read? Do you know how many witnes statements he collected? Do you treat all equally? --Irishpunktom\talk 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Ibn Ishaq is primarily taken from Ibn Hisham. Ibn Hisham said that he censored some stories which he deemed to be too offensive to Muslims. This is why Tabari and other authors, who also recorded extracts of Ibn Ishaq's work, must be consulted for a complete biography. Ibn Hisham probably left out the story of the Satanic Verses, for one thing, but this is found in Tabari and in other places. Ibn Ishaq's work must be considered the most reliable because it was done closest to the time of Muhammad, and it was probably relatively complete; he did not censor to the extent he could have. Bukhari died over a hundred years later, when the concern over isnad had already developed in response to debates between Muslims. Arrow740 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: al-Tabari is "the father of Islamic History and one of the greatest historians that the world has produced.....Ibn Ishaq was the earliest biographer of Muhammad. ...agreed . But being old doesent mean most authentic . Deen is different from Vedic mythology . Unless an event is backed with unbroken chain of asnad , in which all links are authentic, it gets categorised as a myth . This is what differentiates Sirah from homer's odyssey. The aim of both these people was to gather everything that was available , & not to differentiate authentic from myth . Their works served & still serve as a library of events from which later scholars picked events that were Sahih according to their standards . Tabari recorded dozens of volumes of history in his life , out of which not even half is considered authentic by scholars , which they compiled as Sahih. While Ibn Ishaq, besides being devoid of authentic asnad is heavily based on "Israeliaat" (records originating from jewish sources) . You cant rewrite history according to your own whims. BTW asnad are not developed, as I said before, its not mythology . People base their lives on these events , & they like it to be very authentic . Just to let you know, the first part of your thesis is badly wrong. Learn to learn from learned people , & not from trolls on the net, otherwise you will keep on creating things like the new version of history, as above . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're getting silly. Ibn Ishaq wasn't writing a myth like Homer, or recording ones like the early Vedic people. He was writing a biography. The Sahih Bukhari was compiled decades after Ibn Ishaq's work, and the Sahih Muslim even later. Sunnis choose to give precedence to these works for religious reasons. The concern over isnad did not exist in the early period after Muhammad. So in general, claims that hadith existing during Bukhari's time have good isnad are even more suspect than they otherwise would be. This is probably why so many of the hadith compiled at his time and later contradict each other. If you choose to trust your religion over logic, that's your choice. I'll trust the early biographers. Either way, there's not much more to be said about this. Arrow740 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibn ishaq was collecting records that included both fact & fiction . Sunnis give precedence to authentic works because their writers spent all their life in differentiating fact from fiction . You can trust whatever you want to , but you arnt scholarly enough to rewrite history according to your personal standards . Cheers F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if they managed to separate fact from fiction, Muhammad said some pretty funny things: , , , , , . And also Aisha was both six years old  and nine years old  when Muhammad married her, though both Bukhari and Muslim say she was nine when he first had sex with her. Arrow740 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: i don't think ibn hisham ever says he "censored" material which was "too offensive". all we have of ibn ishaq's sira today is guillaume's attempted reconstruction through alternative (and yes, later) sources. so no, we don't have the original. within the work itself, the poetry section especially is deemed as containing multiple forgeries. if you have read tareekh at-tabari you will see tabari stating that he did not seek to authenticate any report: he included them whether he considered them fabricated, weak or sound, so that people later would be able to analyse more closely upon more detailed investigation. even if we look at the methodology of ibn ishaq, in a number of instances he was non-committal, preferring to state the narration and its chain without deriving from it, or using cautious language such as "it is claimed" or "it is alleged". ITAQALLAH 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikipedia article on Ibn Ishaq states that Ibn Hisham admitted that he did not include all of Ibn Ishaq's work in his presentation of it. I have read elsewhere that he left out material which he deemed to be to offenive to Muslims. I was under the impression that some of Ibn Ishaq's material was also included in Tabari's work, though that might be wrong. The fact that Ibn Ishaq was noncommittal in parts of his biography would make the rest of it more reliable, in my mind. Anyway I have some sources on Ibn Ishaq avaiable to me and I'll read them to see if modern Muslims are right to distance themselves from the Sirat Rasul Allah. Arrow740 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Asking for a citation is not ignorant, it is required here. Please be civil, it is not optional here, for more information read the WP:CIVILITY policy. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was acting as if he did not know which sources I was referring to. Thus, he was acting ignorant. Asking for a citation is not ignorant; acting as if you do not know what someone is referring to is acting ignorant. Arrow740 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Attack the arguement, not the arguer, please. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article Muhammad#Muhammad_and_the_Jewish_tribes_of_Medina. Now whatever you want to add come with the sources and I might also help you to add that. --- ابراهيم 09:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed there, albeit in a very onesided way. Str1977 (smile back) 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Funny how when Arrow740, displayed his sources, everyone got quiet....only proving his was right all along.Photoguy77 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is a disgrace, and extremely revisionist 

message: i am surprised why not one single person noted this but the name Muhammed (p.b.u.h) should be followed by the words p.b.u.h or peace be upon him, or SAW, meaning sallahu allaihi wasallam. people wil be ill fated who do not do so at the time of resurrection. 
so if you could change the artilce accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabraiz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC}
:no. but I assure you other people have made the suggestion before. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) Not everyone on this blue earth is Muslim, and not all of them believe in Muhammad's teachings. You cannot ask a non-Muslim to follow Islamic customs. 2)Where in the Quran does it mention 'pbuh' or "SAW"? ImKidding 23:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  removed the ensuing round of indulging in pointless provocation. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please use p.b.u.h after using the name "muhammed" (p.b.u.h) 

message: We know that Qur'an is widely considered the most perfect example of the Arabic Language, largely agreed that the Qur'an represents the standards by which other literary productions in Arabic are measured . Is something like "literary reforms" defined? Does reforms means influence? If yes, then Qur'an has been very influential (e.g. Arabic grammers were written based upon the qur'anic language). --Aminz 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghamidi and Islahi normally use extensively Pre-Islamic Arabian language in their exegesis and put a lot of emphasis on The Importance of Classical Arabic. Similarly there are two interesting articles written by Al-Tabari, which might be helpful:The Qur’an and Pre-Islamic Arabic 1:5-6 and Does the Qur’an Contain Non-Arabic Vocabulary? But I think the most relevant article would be from Prof. Mustansir Mir on The Qur’an as Literature. (Mustansir Mir's "The Qur'an as Literature," Religion and Literature 20 (1988): 49-64) TruthSpreaderTalk 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There are many other articles, which are available at: written by Mustansir Mir. That might also be helpful. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary reforms 

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

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

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

message: I am not a religious person at all.  But, how can we prevent religiously biased people from suppressing further discussion related to criticism?
:Gee, no one comments here?  Interesting.
::No one comments because everyone has better things to do than to reply to a anonymous dropping that is not bound to lead to anything constructive. Str1977 (smile back) 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not constructive in terms of the point being entirely invalid?  Nonprof. Frinkus 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regligiously biased individuals 

message: Tom, would you please explain this edit .
If you could refer to the original source, you can see that these two sentences were a short summary of a big paragraph. And Prof. Esposito is one of the most renowned scholars of Islam today. Like Watt and Lewis. He is the editor in cheif of Oxford History of Islam, Oxford Dictionary of Islam, etc. --Aminz 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can reply to parts of this edit, since I did the same before. A referal to Hebrew prophets, apart from being factually inaccurate (which Hebrew prophets did massacre whole tribes - only one or two comes to mind), is clearly an apologetical tool (why Esposito stoops that low is beyond me). As a historian, I am familiar with the need to see someone in the context of their own time, but why should we see Muhammad in the context of Hebrew prophets, the last of which died almost a millenium before him? Str1977 (smile back) 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, Aminz, no need to reply, as I know what you are about to say: This is what the source says. Well, not every blurb of an academic is relevant to a certain topic. Str1977 (smile back) 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this dispute is settled now but you guessed correctly. My answer was that "This is what the source says." and in general each of us can have our own point of view as to which paragraph is relevant to a certain topic. Some of us may disagree with the author. But that's a POV. The author's POV should be only reflected. --Aminz 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I say that it is not WP's obligation to include any view by any author. We have to judge whether it is relevant to what the article/section/passage is trying to cover. If it is scholarship on that event, this quote by Esposito fails the test. Certainly, the inclusion must be concise, which the former wording wasn't. Str1977 (smile back) 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Despite my misgivings about Esposito's whole point I can live with this more concise version of it being included. Str1977 (smile back) 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question from Tom 

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

message: Embarkedaxis has made edits adding content derived from .  Could someone more knowledgable than myself comment on whether the views expressed there by Dr. Zekir Naik represent mainstream views among Muslim scholars?  --BostonMA talk 03:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well! Muslims in generally do believe that bible have certain clues which can tell that Muhammad was foretold. For a more reliable source than this one would be:   TruthSpreaderTalk 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be a notable position taken by Islamic scholars.  Perhaps it deserves an article similar to Virgin Birth, which can deal with the arguments raised on all sides in an objective fashion.  Then a short mention of this view could be mentioned in the Muhammad article and linked to the separate article.  --BostonMA talk 03:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many articles written on this issue by Abdus Sattar Ghauri, who is a Fellow at Al-Mawrid: . TruthSpreaderTalk 03:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Actually, there was an Islam and the Bible that got renamed in bad faith to Bible und Muhammed and was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible und Muhammed. Maybe we can take it to drv, have it undeleted and start improving it? --Striver 12:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the AfD which led me to Islamic view of the Bible.  I propose that Islamic view of the Bible be renamed to Islamic views of the Bible and the views that the Bible prophesies Muhammad be placed there as a first step.  I think it important not to violate copyright, so this should not be a word for word copy of Dr. Zakir Naik's writing at .  --BostonMA talk 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, but i don't think the rename to a plural form is really necessary, since you will always find somebody who criticizes. We can split the pro-Islam section out to "Islam and the Bible" when it has grown.  --Striver 14:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created in my sandbox a stub article User:BostonMA/Sandbox/Paracletos - Periclytos Controversy.  I created this in my sandbox because I don't think that it's quality is high enough to go prime time yet.  My thought in creating this stub is that the Muslim/Christian controversy regarding certain biblical texts may be sufficiently notable to deserve its own article.  I'm not sure one way or another.  Nor  do I believe I have necessarily chosen the best title.  However, I wanted to bring this to the attention of other editors, so that 1) they may contribute to it while it is in the sandbox stage and 2) give me feedback regarding whether they think the subject matter is appropriate for a complete article.  I would appreciate both types of assistance.  --BostonMA talk 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: As Aminz in his usual amiable fashion pointed out to me on my talk page, I have used up my three reverts for now. However, I want to ask this very simple question: Why are we not allowed to clearly state that the "Jewish claim" is only a supposed claim (supposed by the Quran) and why do we have to run the risk of giving the impression of endorsing Watt's view? My version did the former, avoided the latter and was in no way a misrepresentation of Watt's passaage. Again, I encounter here this strange view that WP should be turned into a collection of scholars' soundbites, all preceded by "Dr X says followed by quote, Professor Y says this followed by quote, and Quran (which some people still don't care to use the article with) says this". We used scholars' views and quotations in an article but it is WE, the editors alltogether that write the article and not these scholars. Str1977 (smile back) 16:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very typical for Wikipedia to cite reliable sources when writing articles. This is particularly the case when there are competing points of view. Editors are to do their best to not alter the statements or introduce doubts about statements that sources are making but rather just present them. (→Netscott) 20:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and sources

message: Policy doesnt say dont use the primary sources. Reliable sources  talks about primary sources in history section and doesnt say dont use them. No Original Research 'Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.'Opiner 02:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have no reason to believe that there is no other hadith or verse that comments on those hadiths. + we have no reason to believe that it was a religous duty, perhaps an advice from Muhammad since he thought lizards are harmful. + we are not in a position to read the primary sources such as Qur'an and Hadith and interpret them and come to conclusions. --Aminz 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hadith is such a literature that even Islamic scholars sometimes criticize it. I lived all my life in a Muslim country and I never heard of Government campaign for killing all black dogs or Geckos. Contrary to that, I use to see alot of black dogs in the streets. Contrary to what you are saying, Muhammad never liked dogs as pets but Qur'an praises them (dogs, some translate them as beasts) as great hunters, which can be taught to do certain things (see ). TruthSpreaderTalk 03:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, though Muhammad didn't himself liked dogs as pets, in the story of the "men of the cave" in Qur'an those godly people had dog as pet. --Aminz 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That dog is presented in Qur'an more like a guardian dog than a pet. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please let me know how you know that? I think dog is najis only under Muslim law. --Aminz 03:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Opiner, wikipedia has got some rules. If you want to play, you should play by the rules. And I didn't violate the rules. --Aminz 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, wikipedia has got some rules like WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. If you want to play, you should play by the rules BUT instead you break WP:NPOV all the time and break WP:3RR at least three time this week.Opiner 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: In response to Opiner's buchering the article, here are my sources:
1. The book written by Prof. Budinger is an scholarly book (see http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/content/view/297/156/ ). This book is used by Prof. Budinger as the text book for the course Bio-ethics taught at University of California Berkeley (BioE 100 - Ethics in Science and Engineering) see http://bioeng.berkeley.edu/content/view/204/156/  Furthermore it is published by a reliable press. It has all the qualifications. 
:Engineer not scholar of Islam or Muhammad. Maybe your professor? If so WP:COI.
will add information about the others soon. --Aminz 07:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Forward write it Ill reevaluate..
3. The book " P. Aarne Vesilind, Alastair S. Gunn, Engineering, Ethics, and the Environment, Cambridge University Press, p.301 ". Both authors are university professor, one at philosophy department and one at an engineering department. Nevertheless this book is published by Cambridge University Press which is a very reputable academic press and peer-reviews the books before they are published. --Aminz 07:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Aiden, how is this:"and challenged the Jews "to swear in this way[refering to an Arab custom of calling dire calamity or even eternal perdition if the assertation was false] that they were the friends of God and that they alone would be in Paradise." (Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman). "? Please specify what more one needs to add? --Aminz 10:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because first of all Watt claims this was an Arab custom cited in the Quran but does not say whether or not the Jews actually claimed it. He does not state that the Jews of Medina rose to such a challenge, only that their silence implied wrong, nor does he say they actually believed that. So the sentence only clouds the message of the paragraph and provides virtually no information to the reader. I suggest you drop it for once. —Aiden 11:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Custom 

message: I know this is a bit of a drive-by, but I have to say, after reading this article, it is overall one of the weaker pieces of writing on WP. I especially laughed as I read the M Death section (not because of the subject mind you--agnostics don't care much about it anyway) with its opening "One day, while M was coming back from a cemetary...." Frankly this article is LONG and lousy. Looks like a case of trying to please all the people all the time. The tone/voice, whatever need to be a lot more uniform. Menkatopia 21:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, wanted to point out the lack of any info on Zaynab bint Jahsh, M's cousin and wifeMenkatopia 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, controversial articles have a way of doing that; I suggest you try to make some changes to the article, and clearly state on the talk page why. Worst case, someone will revert it. I might try myself, but my writing style stinks. Good luck. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a challenge :) I'll give it a shot.Menkatopia 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Drive by" criticism

message: His reforms and regulations and his progressive ideas (in his day and country) regarding animals is relevant to his bio through the reform section. The comparison with Christianity now is also relevant to the reforms. --Aminz 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look like no one else think the Christian comparison relevant. Only you who own the article.Opiner 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, please start an article and call it Muhammad's animal reforms or equivalent and then add a couple of lines on this article and link to it, ok? (→Netscott) 22:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively make an article and call it Muhammad the reformer and move all of the reform material there. (→Netscott) 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a not neutral title.Opiner 22:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: Aminz, I would suggest you make one summary "Muhammad the reformer" paragraph and then  the link to the other article. (→Netscott) 00:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Well. It seems that even though earlier today I warned both individuals on their talk pages as well as here on this page, just a few hours ago, to immediately stop edit warring and reach at least something that could be deemed to be in the approximate realm of consensus or the page would be fully protected - It  seems  I've  been  completely  and  utterly  ignored.
As such, to prevent any more of the damage edit wars cause this page is fully protected. Sort it out guys  Glen  04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny enough most of the "reform/animal" warring on this article has just been worked out with the creation of another article: Reforms under Islam (610-661). (→Netscott) 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Real problem is Aminz breaking 3RR not caring about the consensus then he get Truthspreader to help him. Now theyve got their not-neutral own article over there and acting the same way. Anything good trumpting from the rooftop, anything bad hiding under the rug. Theyre not even trying to be neutral. Anyone who watch them know this am I wrong?Opiner 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|vprotected}} article until you guys get this under control 

message: Wikipedia is not democracy! we are simply quoting secondary sources as it is not our job as wikipedians to assert our opinions. We are only guilty of asking others for reputable secondary sources for their claims. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well well well look whose adding the primary sources. You write that hadith 'suggest' something which is your interpretation so original research. No one can accuse you of not being flexible!Opiner 05:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Look like Truthspreader using Hadith all the time! Especially for the original research. Look aat this diff with whole Hadith section..Opiner 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthspreader Double Standard on Hadith

message: Hadith understanding is a complex knowledge. People have developed sophisticated ways of scruitining these hadith and interpreting them and putting them in context. Even historians accept some hadith and some don't. Hence it cannot be compromised on an encylcopedia that hadith be used as a reliable source. 
And yes, I used Bukhari hadith suggesting Isra and Mi'raj was a physical journey, which I shouldn't have done so. Other hadith in "quotes" from Bukhari are mentioned in secondary sources, this is why their usage is fine. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You making those edits AT THE SAME TIME that you argue here the exact opposite.Opiner 08:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated that it was my mistake to add the hadith without any reference from secondary source. We had the same discussion on another article and it was concluded that hadith alone cannot be used, it has to be backed up by secondary source even if it is suggesting something clearly (see Talk:Banu_Nadir#Share_of_Muhammad). TruthSpreaderTalk 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you making those edits at the very SAME TIME you argue the opposite here?Opiner 09:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To be qutie frank, this is getting a little tangential. It's like when arguing with your spouse, and starting to argue about arguing. Let's get back to the issue: should the article talk about Mohammed's kindness to pets, and if so, what should be said? I don't think this should be too hard to form an agreement on. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 09:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone would like to have a look at Reforms under Islam (610-661) in which hadith are directly being quoted as reliable sources without considering that how Muslims themselves use it with keeping the context in mind and how western scholars look at them. TruthSpreaderTalk 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a joke. One minute he's inserting pages of direct quotes from hadith, then when Opiner puts in the stuff about Muhammad's hatred of certain animals Truthspreader says "Oh no you can't put that in! You need an expert to interpret it, it's probably not even a reliable hadith, and you can't use a primary source!" Can you ban someone for being a total hypocrite who wastes lots of other peoples' time? Arrow740 12:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's an unreliable hadith, he should provide a reference for that. And then we can label the hadith as such. But there is no basis for simply censoring it, as even "false" hadith had their impact. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No compromise on [[WP:OR|Original Research]] 

message: Patstuart has hit the nail on the head. This is the question, let's address it directly, please, and build some consensus. BYT 12:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this serious? How would this angle help us understand Mohammud? What is this angle, anyway: he loved his pets but murdered his brothers? Perchance, could he be the original founder of PETA/ALF? I'm confuthed; explain this all please.DocEss 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the article talk about Muhammad's kindness to pets, and if so, what should be said?

message: I feel this article is much too long. Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a book which means it should be easy to find KEY information. XYZ CrVo 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...fix it then. Criticism is easier than creation.DocEss 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do we do about it? I suggest a few things could be removed right away. The blurb on etymology could be a stub, and means very little in the context of this page. The sources for muhammads life could also be cut significantly. The information is valid, but needs summarizing. I would like to ask others if this okay to do before I slash some of the minutiae from this section. The discussion between Opiner and Aminz seemed so vitriolic I didn't want to draw anyone's wrath. ;) Specifically, I think the quotes in this section (sources) have very little to do with the purpose of this section, I assume, to explain how we know anything of Muhammad's life. Seems to me, "sources" kind of implies brevity. Anyone feeling paticularly protective of this section. Menkatopia 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I whole-heartedly concur. Please be bold and make the changes. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology seems not too bad an idea, as there has been considerable discussion about Mohammed's name. The whole sources for Mohammed's life seems a little silly though, and off-topic. It's like using the word "I" in an essay; we don't want to talk about the fact we're writing an article in an article, we just want to do it. Mohammed's life has nothing to do with contemporary sources on him. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy? 

message: This article has been protected for two days, and there has been 0 discussion. Is this because it's all moved over to Reforms under Islam? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see this unprotected as there are many changes to be made. I don't claim to fully understand every nuance of the "debate" above, but it seems like the warring factions ought to take a break and hash out their issues before they do anymore editing on this. Frankly, this article IS too long (as is stated above) and needs work. It sucks to have such a poor example up on WP. I know it is not an endorsement of the page, but there is a tacit implication of that.I vote to unprotect the article--in about three days. Menkatopia 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps if the article is re-written to be shorter … it could be much more neutral instead of "all is great" or "all is evil" (this article slants largely towards the former).  Much of the warring is due to no one can find balance (I do not know the final effect of bias parties has on this).  C'est la vie.  Nonprof. Frinkus 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Aminz wrote in my talk page:
"Aws and Khazraj were now a new community, Umma, the relation of which with Jewish tribes was specified. For example when Qurayza were attacked, Aws didn't helped them (cause they were on the other side; the Umma). You may also want to read the source. Can I put previously back? --Aminz 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay by me. Str1977 (smile back) 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Previously

message: Does this case still require mediation or can I close it?  --Ideogram 10:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still requires mediation. I wish to have some results. I am not removing pictures because we are in the middle of mediation. Please do not close it. --- ALM 11:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have notices that article does not have any picture of Muhammad. If we can keep its current state then it will be great. --- ALM 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we can't. It is the usual thing for an article to have pictures of its subject. M. is no exception. Str1977 (smile back) 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The two are the same.  If you look at the case page you can see that it directs conversation to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. --Ars Scriptor  14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is just like Ars Scriptor and our old mediator User:Aguerriero are same. :) :). --- ALM 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28expression%29. I will appreciate it. --- ALM 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with the dispute 

message: The section "Muhammad and the Jewish tribes of Medina" in my opinion, is really dragging down this article. Frankly, I don't see how it fits, or why most of the info is included. Could someone explain this? AND, if it is so important, why isn't this its own article? First, I'd like to get it out because it reads like a picture book, not a, encyclopedic entry. I want some responses b4 I do anything too drastic. Menkatopia 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is important to this biographical article as it discusses the events through which Muhammad established himself as the ruler of Madina and found the first Islamic state. It is too long, poorly written and, at turns, palpably biased (e.g. "his status as a prophet") Several of the quotes in particular should not be there. However, attempts to fix this have been met with edit warring.Proabivouac 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is a mess because some editors insisted on including every avaiable apologetic quote on the events, even if the information was already included and even if the content was only tangential to the section. Str1977 (smile back) 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: WP:RS states,  "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." Hence, faithfreedom and answering-islam.org can only be used to describe their own activities and characteristics but not to comment on other articles, as WP:RS and WP:V policies have to be followed in every case. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is being reverted again and again. can someone please look into this matter! TruthSpreaderTalk 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: done! and thanks to User:Tom harrison. --TruthSpreaderTalk 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy for using extremist sites 

message: This section does need to be shortened, because there's a main article to cover all the details and the article as a whole is too long. Surely we can work together to do this without wholesale reverts?Itsmejudith 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a novel concept, let's take out all the stuff that is essentially meaningless in this article. Sorry for the sarcasm, but a lot of my work was rv'd, I feel, unnecessarily. I removed the social security and family structure because it absolutely useless as it is written. I am so sick of reading "So and so, a professor of Islamic minutiae says...." What we need is not all this discussion of POV, but real restraint. Less is indeed more. I move to begin by removing this section and placing a quotefarm tag under Muhammad the Reformer. I did this, but Charlotte Webb thought this was just too much. I don't know what was wrong with my edits, but I would like to see them taken as suggestions, if anyone cares to comment. 
Also, I would love to see about 95% of these quotes disappear. Most are just long-winded pablum that could be expressed as a citation. Menkatopia 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening of Family life section 

message: Why aren't there any paintings or pictures of what he looks like?  Surely some exist. 64.236.245.243 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There exist but the first recorded one dates back to sometime around the 15th or 16th century. Depicting at his times was not a custom so what you may find may have nothing to do w/ how he really looked like. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does he look like? 

message: I've just done a significant revert to remove copyright violating text but my revert was also directed at what User:Xtremeownage was reverting to. Referring to Muhammad in this article as a "pervert" is a form of subtle anachronistic vandalism. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an addendum, I don't have a particularly strong view one way or the other about there being a criticism section in this article relative to Muhammad but if the section is going to include polemical references that refer anachronistically to Muhammad as a "pervert" then I'm going to be removing that section. (→Netscott) 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there is nothing mentioned about anachronistic vandalism in the Wikipedia:Vandalism policies. There are critics who call Mohammad a pervert. Whether you think he should be judged anachronistically is irrevelant. If you believe so, say so as a response and cite it. But many critics of Mohammad view him as a "pervert" and that is why it is included.--Sefringle 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can pretty much guarantee that not only will I be removing such nonsense but a good number of other editors here will as well. Such nonsense stems from widely acknowledged extremist organizations and individuals and as such it is within Wikipedia policy to remove it. (→Netscott) 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So Times Online is an extremist website?--Sefringle 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Ayaan Hirsi Ali's not considered moderate (but is considered a partisan) when referring to Muhammad as "a pervert". Selfringle perhaps you fail to realize, we're here to write an encyclopedia not engage in soapboxery. Your addition of such material is soapboxing. (→Netscott) 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a notable critic. I believe her opinion is valid in this context and does not violate the soapbox policy. She is only being used for the purpose of NPOV--Sefringle 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are using her for NPOV, what about using others who doesn't agree with early marriage age (see Aisha's age at marriage). Secondly, Ayaan Ali is not a scholar at all. Her position as a critic is not notable, she is just a politician. Otherwise, someone would start giving references from Christian medievel era, where Muhammad was maligned alot and many of the personalities are well-known. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention them as a second opinion. Are all critics of Islam not scholars in your opinion TruthSpreader?--Sefringle 03:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott and me are just asking for a scholarly reference to criticize. And secondly, being notable doesn't make your scholarly. You need to use Reliable secondary and Verifiable sources. You can still refer someone, if he/she is not notable, but refered article is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My revert to [[User:CmdrObot]]

message: This site is clearly attracting a lot of bored idiots, protect the page.--Halaqah 14:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just calm down Halaqah. Semi-protected now. -- Szvest  Wiki me up ® 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REQUEST PAGE PROTECTION