Talk:Muhammad/Archive 21

message: There is a Veda on Prophet Mohammed. Prophet Mohmmed is the God Of The World in Hinduism .. 
Shaheed Azam Muhammed is one of the most important prophet in Hinduism. Prophet Muhammed is also mentioned in Hindu Holy Vedas books, Hinduism has Holy Scripts of Prophet Muhammed in the Vedas. Unfortunatley Christianity has no Holy Scripts of Prophet Muhammed. Many Hindus sacrifice themselves to Shaheed Muhammed and only Prophet Muhammed, who is mentioned in Hindu Holy Scripts. Hindus believe in Prophet Muhammed and only Prophet Muhammed. They also follow their way in Islam in a twist. according to where you live you must follow most prominent religon or would result to conflicts. There is a serious relation between the two. Hindi language has many many words same in Arabic which is extremly serious and proves some kind of serious relation. must be investigated.
:Hindi has Arabic words in it because Muslims occupied and subjugated India for hundreds of years. The rest of your statement is quite bizarre. Arrow740 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

message: At the end of that part of the page, it says that sufis create an image, this is NOT true, they are simply using calligraphy, NOT to create, but to praise, you are NOT actually forming an image by calligraphy. This is completely wrong, please CHANGE this, because calligraphy is writing in the form of art.
==== Summary so far ====
It seems that there is still some disagreements on the wording of the Qur'an speaking shamefully of the idols but I suggest we move on for now. The SV incident is currently mentioned in the "last years in mecca" section where it does not certainly belong. I've summarized previous discussion here. Let's move on to new sections and discuss the further disagreements in the second round.I've made the change "Some scholars suggest".
; Early years in Mecca
According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. William Montgomery Watt (1953), p. 86  She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.
Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36 
According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he [Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven."  ref to Peters  According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor.  Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam  Religious duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls.  Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam 
; Opposition in Mecca
According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped besides God... and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief." ref to Peters  According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. 
The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage.The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36 Some scholars suggest that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below). The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.37
Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Slaves and Slavery  Bilal b. Rabah, Encyclopedia of Islam  Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. See:
*Watt (1964) p. 76;
*Peters (1999) p. 172
In 615, some of Muhammad's followers emigrated to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king. While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."
The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," which recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah.  Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had instructed him to do so.*Some early Islamic histories recount that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). cf Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume p.166.  Starting in the tenth century AD, Islamic scholars began to reject the account.EoQ, Satanic Verses, Shahab Ahmed. The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated. 
According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. The boycott lasted for three years.  Francis E. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, p.96 
--Aminz 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing" -> "was tortured by Umayya ibn khalaf who." Also it's not clear how a goddess could be "valid." So "validity" -> "existence." Otherwise it's pretty good. Arrow740 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both changes are good. I suggest two more changes: 1. switching "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated." with the historicity discussion as this bit belongs to the incident. On historicity, EoQ on SV says that "Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century", so I suggest "Starting in the tenth century CE, Islamic scholars began to reject the account." --> "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the fourth/tenth century". --Aminz 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourth/tenth century is likely to be confusing for readers not particularly familiar with Islam (and we might well expect people with only the vaguest familiarity to be interested in Muhammad).  Using an Islamic dating system is fine, but any phrasing should probably be more explicit.  WilyD 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. So,how about "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the tenth century CE"--Aminz 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Strong" is POV. Modern scholars reject them, so they're not that "strong." It's better to state the facts. The fact that Islamic scholars reject this story is already somewhat tangential. Arrow740 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a fact that they strongly disagreed with. If X strongly disagree with Y, saying that "X strongly disagreed with Y" is reporting a fact; to say that their disagreements were correct or not is an opinion. The exegesis of the first two century (not all, e.g.Ibn Hisham) include that. In 4th century strong disagreements happened the author says. It doesn't say there were no scholar before that who rejected it. --Aminz 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a problem with reading comprehension on your part. Adjectives are not the same as adverbs. Your version calls the objections "strong." This is saying that they are persuasive, correct, etc. It is different from saying that some Muslims "strongly objected." It is describing the objections themselves, not the act of objecting. Arrow740 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how is "Islamic scholars strongly objected to the historicity of the incident as early as the tenth century CE"? --Aminz 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think "strongly" and "as early as" are needed? Arrow740 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What about "vigourous" as an alternative adjective to "strong".  "Strong" in this context can mean either the objections had good merit (not a conclusion we should draw) or that the objections were strongly worded, considered of significant importance, et cetera. WilyD 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "vigourous" seems good too. It is needed because an active type of disagreement could be observed at that time (i.e. one including persuasion of others) --Aminz 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depiction

message: It seems that there is still some disagreements on the wording of the Qur'an speaking shamefully of the idols but I suggest we move on for now. The SV incident is currently mentioned in the "last years in mecca" section where it does not certainly belong. I've summarized previous discussion here. Let's move on to new sections and discuss the further disagreements in the second round.I've made the change "Some scholars suggest".
; Early years in Mecca
According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. William Montgomery Watt (1953), p. 86  She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.
Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36 
According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he [Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven."  ref to Peters  According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor.  Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam  Religious duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls.  Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam 
; Opposition in Mecca
According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped besides God... and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief." ref to Peters  According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. 
The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage.The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36 Some scholars suggest that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below). The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.37
Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Slaves and Slavery  Bilal b. Rabah, Encyclopedia of Islam  Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. See:
*Watt (1964) p. 76;
*Peters (1999) p. 172
In 615, some of Muhammad's followers emigrated to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king. While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."
The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," which recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah.  Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had instructed him to do so.*Some early Islamic histories recount that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). cf Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume p.166.  Starting in the tenth century AD, Islamic scholars began to reject the account.EoQ, Satanic Verses, Shahab Ahmed. The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated. 
According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. The boycott lasted for three years.  Francis E. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, p.96 
--Aminz 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing" -> "was tortured by Umayya ibn khalaf who." Also it's not clear how a goddess could be "valid." So "validity" -> "existence." Otherwise it's pretty good. Arrow740 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both changes are good. I suggest two more changes: 1. switching "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated." with the historicity discussion as this bit belongs to the incident. On historicity, EoQ on SV says that "Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century", so I suggest "Starting in the tenth century CE, Islamic scholars began to reject the account." --> "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the fourth/tenth century". --Aminz 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourth/tenth century is likely to be confusing for readers not particularly familiar with Islam (and we might well expect people with only the vaguest familiarity to be interested in Muhammad).  Using an Islamic dating system is fine, but any phrasing should probably be more explicit.  WilyD 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. So,how about "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the tenth century CE"--Aminz 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Strong" is POV. Modern scholars reject them, so they're not that "strong." It's better to state the facts. The fact that Islamic scholars reject this story is already somewhat tangential. Arrow740 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a fact that they strongly disagreed with. If X strongly disagree with Y, saying that "X strongly disagreed with Y" is reporting a fact; to say that their disagreements were correct or not is an opinion. The exegesis of the first two century (not all, e.g.Ibn Hisham) include that. In 4th century strong disagreements happened the author says. It doesn't say there were no scholar before that who rejected it. --Aminz 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a problem with reading comprehension on your part. Adjectives are not the same as adverbs. Your version calls the objections "strong." This is saying that they are persuasive, correct, etc. It is different from saying that some Muslims "strongly objected." It is describing the objections themselves, not the act of objecting. Arrow740 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how is "Islamic scholars strongly objected to the historicity of the incident as early as the tenth century CE"? --Aminz 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think "strongly" and "as early as" are needed? Arrow740 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What about "vigourous" as an alternative adjective to "strong".  "Strong" in this context can mean either the objections had good merit (not a conclusion we should draw) or that the objections were strongly worded, considered of significant importance, et cetera. WilyD 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "vigourous" seems good too. It is needed because an active type of disagreement could be observed at that time (i.e. one including persuasion of others) --Aminz 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary so far 

message: Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) preached Islam not the Baha'i nor Druze religions. Their views of him are hence secondary compared to that of his Muslim companions. Hence, the Islamic view should hold the center point of this article. To that extent it is important to remind people how the prophet (PBUH) spent every effort to avoid him being revered as a god, he even said to a nomad who called him Master, "Al Sayidu Allah" meaning "The Master is God", further more he forbade his companions from standing up when he arrived at their meetings, just to sight a few examples off the top of my head. So after all these efforts it would be outright against him to proclaim that he is a manifestation of God (verily God is above their descriptions).   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.206.121 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you might know, this is a delicate subject. Try to seek a concensus first. Though if I were you, be bold. Tourskin 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Propose a wording and see if anyone objects. WilyD 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baha'i 

message: The name of the holy prophet has to be accompanied with "peace be upon him (PBUH)"...
like the Muslims say Muhammad "sallala hu alaihi wa sallam"
(Suhayl's 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) --Wasell(T) 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the name Muhammad 

message: http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/swords/swords_index.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  swords 

message: Obviously, both positive and negative biographies should be added. But they have to be reputable, and accepted by either the public or the academic world It is clear from the article on the Craig book that it is not considered reputable or reliable, and is written for the purpose of attacking Islam, not providing a biography of Mohammed. Perhaps it might be good to indicate the orientation of the ones that are there. If all responsible views are not represented, then good ones can be found to fill the gaps. DGG (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bios

message: It Looks quite funny that in Muhammad's (PBUH) genealogy the word 'ibn' is used as if, for example, Qusai ibn Kilab meant an augmented name rather than simply meaning "Quasi, son of Kilab". As a native Arab, I guarantee you all the ibns can safely be replaced by son of's, and... that's pretty much it! -- 213.6.8.24 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Ibn' == 'Son' 

message: Can someone PLEASE change the spelling of Ka'aba under "opposition in Mecca" to Kaaba.
The rest of the article uses Kaaba, that one time is the only deviation.
This will help with confusion and uniformity.
Thank You. (Run4fun 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  uniformity of Kaaba 

message: I have always thought that Prophets full name was 'Muhammad Mustafa.'
Where did 'Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh' come from?
Can someone confirm this????
:As traditional Arab naming goes, AFAIK he technically would've been Muhammad ibn Abdullah.  However, people were given honorary titles as in many cultures no doubt people do based on merits, personality, looks, etc.  Muhammad was known as siddiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy) to his fellow tribesmen.  Finally he was also known later as Mustafa which according to wiki means "chosen one" and as you should probably know, he proclaimed to be a prophet of God for all of humanity so you can gather where that could/would/should come from. Jedi Master MIK 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Muhammad's full name!? 

message: The title of the section Muhammad#Life_based_on_Islamic_traditions is misleading and unnecessary.
First, and foremost the section contains a lot of information from non-Muslim secular sources. For example in section Muhammad#Childhood there is a discussion of Western critical analysis. If we do choose to keep the section title as such, then we should remove all non-"Islamic tradition" material and put it in a separate section. But that would not be a good idea, and I favor changing the title instead.
Secondly, the inclusion of "Islamic traditions" is unnecessary. The sources of Muhammad's life are already discussed in Muhammad#Sources_for_Muhammad.27s_life. To label the diverse set of sources as "Islamic tradition" is an oversimplification that best be avoided.Bless sins 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Western scholars may use pre-Islamic sources or knowledge they have from other area too. So, Muhammad#Life would be better. --Aminz 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wily, can you please apply this change if you nobody disagrees. Thanks --Aminz 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll give people a little while to disagree, and if no one does, I'll apply it. Cheers, WilyD 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Life based on Islamic traditions"

message: It's pretty trivial, but did Muhammad die in Madina or Medina? Clicking on the Madina link directs you to the Medina page, so is it just a spelling error? Wkpdia rox 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Medina (which is also spelled as Madina). That's where his tomb is as well (since he was buried on the spot). An administrator should change "Madina" to "Medina" in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM.Bless sins 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madina/Medina? 

message: I think it's worth putting down 'The Sealed Nectar' by Saif-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri as part of the further reading. It's an execellent biography of the prophet Muhammad, and a credible source in my opinion.  
Quote from The Sealed Nectar article: 
" It was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following a world-wide competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979."  
Aadamh 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading Addition 

message: This article needs a summarized criticism section. I'll add it when the article is unprotected. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think it does. if there's any noteworthy criticism, it should be diffuse wherever relevant throughout the article. in this case, both positive and negative views can be covered in sections like these. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, tell me why its ok to have a Criticism section in Islam but not Muhammad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section, and Talk:Islam#Criticism_section. ITAQALLAH 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it just means the very small criticism section in the Moses article should be removed and the text incorporated into the main body. It's only a few lines related to some of the OT Moses law and 1 of the lines is uncited anyway.Ttiotsw 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that i read the links given above, I guess we'll have to abide by what Jimbo said here, which says criticism should be distributed throughout the article as opposed to it being separate, which is actually not a bad idea. That way, the rest of the article doesnt whitewash or appear positively biased as it would if it we had a separate criticism section. All the sections will then appear uniform and nuetral instead of being only positive. In another way of saying it, having 100% of the article giving a nuetral view, is better than having 95% of the article having a positive view and only that small 5% criticism section having a negative view. But in the end Jimbo's unbiased ruling rules anyway, so.. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: It would help to have Muhammad's entire name written in Arabic as well. Also, Muhammad's full name is Abu-l-Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd-Allah (thats attested in several sources), so updating that would be nice too.
Sicarii 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not comfortable making this change while the page is protected. If there are other editors that support the change, please speak up, and I'd gladly make the change. However, this seems a bit like word soup, and I know that filling the lead of the Jesus article with different translations of his name was opposed by some users, so I figure someone may oppose adding this extra text. However, if I'm wrong, please speak up to support this change. We need more input before I'm comfortable with the notion of this edit being non-controversial.-Andrew c [talk] 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there isn't a great deal of clamor for this change, I agree with Andrew it is better not to make it while the page is protected. I will disable the editprotected request. When the issues that led to the disagreement in September are resolved, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP.  — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article seems quite long compared to the other articles in wikipedia.Hasseniqbal192 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there are many conflicting agendas on this page, eh?  Thus, a long article --Bill Bisco 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the English-language Wikipedia . . . please translate.  Thanks, Alanraywiki 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last Arabic line had something to do with "Pictures of depriving a messenger" and "delete the image excavating near". --Hojimachongtalk 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is far too long 

message: Can we have a left-to-right mark (‎) after the Arabic text of Mohammed's name in the first line please, before the <ref> tag?  Otherwise, at least on my browser, the Arabic version of the script ends up "crossed out" by a broken footnote marker.  Thx.  Jheald 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -Andrew c [talk] 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lrm 

message: I think much of the friction in the editing of this article results from a complete lack of distinction between Muhammed and people much later in history.  How much relevance do Christian diatribes from the twelfth or eighteenth century have to the actual topic of this article?  Meanwhile much of the most relevant content - regarding what Muhammed did and when he did it and whether he really did it and who saw him do it - is scattered among little articles like historicity of Muhammad, Muhammad before Medina, Migration to Abyssinia, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca, several articles on specific events, and Allah alone knows how many other itty bitty articles composed mostly of summaries of one another.
I suggest that this article be split into two, into which smaller articles would be merged:
* Events of Muhammad's life, which should be merged with most if not all of the articles I name above
* Cultural references to Muhammad, which would be like the garden-variety "Cultural References" sections of many other articles, except with sections for many different eras, religions, and perspectives - everything from "Traditional views of Muhammad" onward, including the Christian view of Muhammad, the Mormon, Baha'i, and Druze views mentioned in the article or above.
* Muhammad should either be a disambiguation page or be used as the name for the former article, with the disambiguation line "This article describes what is known of the events of Muhammed's life.  See cultural references to Muhammad for subsequent reactions. 
It greatly disappoints me to see permanent full protection becoming the norm for Wikipedia. 70.15.116.59 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just second that the organizational scheme employed here is very, very odd.  The Before Medina, Migration, In Medina, and After Medina at least have some sort of sanity to them, although they could be vastly improved.  Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general are just a mess, and I can't believe that structure has survived as long as it has.  I took a stab at trying to fix it once, but it didn't take.  --Alecmconroy 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of Muhammed vs. later events 

message: Should the article on Jesus be written with an Islamic perspective? Why is it that Jesus is quoted according to the bible and not according to Islamic scholars?. While there is a small section with the Islamic perspective on Jesus, I think there should be a Christian and seperately Western perspective of Muhammad listed. The Muhammad article is filled with perspectives and refereances of western scholars, while these perspectives should be welcomed, there should be a seperate view of this and it should be listed under the title of according to western scholars, and the Muhammed article should be re-written according to muslim scholars and other scholars can have their quotes in a seperate section, after all  Muslims do not learn about Muhammad's life according to the  Oxford dictionary, Watt and or Richard Bell, Muhammed's life, while quote well recorded as a historical figure is not taught to muslims according to western scholars. This article needs to be completely re-written according to Islamic history by Islamic scholars, and other views should be listed as well, under the sub-heading Muhammed according to western tradtion. The is how Jesus and all of the other prophets are listed on Wikipedia, written by their own subsequent scholars, with limited quotes being seperately listed under sub headings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.106.198 (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe you missed Islamic views of Jesus. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and Christian view of Muhammad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus to Christians and Muhammad to Islam 

message: Since it seems the dialogue has dried up, I'm going to reduce this page back to semi-protection. WilyD 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, if you're going to protect an article as prominent as this one for the incredible length of time you did, you should take a more active role. Arrow740 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll apply the changes that were discussed above in the "opposition" section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Summary_so_far). For the rest of the disputes, I'll continue discussion here before making any changes. --Aminz (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the job of a mediator is to oversee dispute resolution and help facilitate discussion (which i think he did), not to force a hand in the debate. WilyD's intervention was certainly welcomed, and i request he continues to monitor these pages more often. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-protected 

message: Fazlur Rahman, in Islam, p.21, mentions several reasons for the existing state of war between Mecca and Medina. He says:"But, besides all this, the most urgent and immediate reason for the Prophet's measures against the Meccans was the hostility of the Meccans themselves against the Muslims even when these latter had emigrated to Medina. The Meccans had not only seized the properties of these emigrants whom they had virtually expelled from their homes, but ..." 
I'd like to add "The Meccans had seized the properties of Muslim emigrants in Mecca." to "the beginning of armed conflict" section. --Aminz (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pure POV. Adding this fact there is original synthesis because you are implying a connection, and that is pure POV. Arrow740 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not an original synthesis, he is talking in the context of action taken against Mecca. at the same time, Aminz, if you find corroborating sources suggesting Meccan seizure of Muslim property (related in some primary accounts i think), then it may add more weight to the rationale for inclusion. ITAQALLAH 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Arrow, I can not understand your point. If you read page 21 from Rahman, you'll see he is talking exactly about what we are writing here. Rahman is making the connection between the warfare that followed and seizing the properties of these emigrants. --Aminz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An addition 

message: Please add detail about Zeinab, one of Muhammad's wives. The current entry says "Later, Muhammad married additional wives, most of them widows, to make for a total of eleven, of whom nine or ten survived him".
Zeinab was definitely an exception to the 'widows' comment. She was not a widow. 
I would propose that we should add the following to the section "Marriages and Children" after the existing text:
--
Muhammad fell in love with Zeinab, the wife of Zeid. Zeid is the adopted son of Muhammad. Then Muhammad received a revelation from Allah that it was permissible to marry the wife of an adopted son. Zeid divorced Zeinab. Muhammad married her. 
--
The source of this information is Quran itself as well as Haditha, and hundreds of historical and theological texts from Islam. There is never any dispute about the facts of the marriage of Muhammad to Zeinab. There obviously is a lot of discussion on the morality of it. Islamic purists insisting devine decree is beyond moral critique, and others pointing out that the 'revelation' sounds too convenient. I am not suggesting we put this discussion on the article. Let's just put the facts. 
Dharmateja (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Marriages and Children section, please add some detail on wifes 

message: Hello, I've been taking a glance at the article here for recreational purposes, but sections 2 + 3, or more accurately, their titles, I have a small concern.  Be assured my concern is a purely neutral one and am not trying to assert any point of view in particular, but in these titles are contained the following honorifics: "The Holy Prophet" "peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah upon him" "The Holy Life" and "(pbuh)".  This is a concern to me because of the following section of the manual of style: WP:MOSISLAM#Muhammad, which specifically states to remove "The Holy Prophet" and "(pbuh)" due to their POV, and also states: "There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles", which would lead to the conclusion that the two other honorifics which, while not explicitly mentioned in this section of the Manual of Style, should also be removed based on their POV.  I would have moved myself to remove these but considering the volatile nature of pages like this, I did not want to spark a heated debate/flaming, and also was not sure whether some prior consensus had been reached on the matter; therefore, I bring the matter here to ensure the proper course is taken.  Thank you.  (A note: I did not read the article thoroughly, so I do not know whether other honorifics are contained within the text, but this is something that should be checked upon as well). DoomsDay349 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Regards to Sections 2 + 3 Titles 

message: this section should and has to be removed. muhammad is beliveed as a prophet to muslins, critising him mean rasism. it is like insultind a religion. this artical has to be removed.
those who believe in him will be hurted like me. so remove it.
how would you feel if someone insult your religion. 
critism section is located at the ight side of the contents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam100 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel any part of the criticism article is incorrect then feel free to go there and discuss it on its respective talk page. Furthermore, criticism is not an insult, and trying to ban criticism leads to tyranny. --144.32.177.145 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove the critism section  

message: An article of an encyclopedia should bear all references, concepts and beliefs of all the sects of Islam. In the information box showing the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws), only one name of Abu Bakr is mentioned which is incorrect. The belief of the Shi'a sect should also be considered and the name of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) should be added as the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws).
--Ya 'Ali Ya 'Azeem (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go and remove the box in its entirety - it doesn't make sense to have a successor to the "Founder of Islam".  It's like having a second discoverer of the theory of gravity after Isaac Newton, or something.  Also, obviously, it's unnecessarily provocative in its present form in preferring the Sunni POV over the Shi'a POV.  Lankiveil (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the seccessor. 

message: Prophet Mohammed is the God Of The Worlds in Hinduism.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources that attest to this fact, you are welcome to include such a section in the article.  Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Muslims have claimed that the NT Paraclete is Mohammed, and agree that the God of Jesus is Allah. I looked into the last geocities page and found some rebuttals to it, like as for the claim Mohammed and Kalki live on olives and dates, in fact in Kalki Purana Chapter III[17], Verse 43, Kalki and his wife is shown to have been feasting on rice, curd and other milk products. rebuttal. So each claim by Prof. Parkash should be verified in the primary Hindu source, and if there is contradiction then editors can deem it to be unreliable. Also his actual book on the subject, not a homepage about it, would be the source to use. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism 

message: Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here every couple of weeks to demand that we should adhere to their religious taboos? Can we perhaps create a special page and automatically transfer all such demands to it, where they can stomp their feet as much as they like? Or instead maybe we should make some counter claims. Before they come here trying to tell us what to do, perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran. I am not a Christian I hasten to add - religion isn't compulsary in the West - but I merely suggest this in order to highlight a certain level of hypocrisy and double standards. TharkunColl (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the FAQ is a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea!  I've started it based on the Evolution FAQ.  See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.  Frotz (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran." That made me smirk, I have to admit.--C.Logan (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Koran claims, for example, that Jesus was not crucified and that another took his place. This is highly offensive to Christians. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should have a zero-tolerance policy for this. If somebody brings this up again, we simply revert them and leave a warning on their talk page. It's quite clear that people wanting the images are not willing to debate the issue. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As annoying as it is, leaving a warning might be a bit bite-y.  How about a friendly pointer to the FAQ page on their talk page, and a revert here?  Most of the requests, while misguided, have been made in good faith.  Lankiveil (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do they actually, honestly believe that we might be tempted to worship Muhammad? The mind boggles... TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Muslim but I guess like, more of a freethinker you could say. The idea is for Muslims not to turn Mohammed into an idol like Christians did with Jesus. That rule isn't there because he is just so holy he can't be imaged, that one is reserved for God. But too bad, a lot of Muslims don't really know why they believe stuff, that's just what they are taught and they run with it. So I don't recommend humoring them since there's no real rule like that to start with. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of offensive material 

message: I've attempted to answer two parts of the FAQ with arguments that are as much based in Wikipedia's policies as I could managed. The criticism section should be removed should itself be removed as there is no criticism section on the article. Recent trends have been to incorporate criticism throughout the entire article instead of segregating it into one section. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that stub there because of Talk:Muhammad#remove_the_critism_section and Talk:Muhammad#Criticism_section.  The question seems to have popped up often in the archives as well.  Frotz (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is no longer relevant, so why have it in the FAQ? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no criticism section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. Any criticism that is relevant and reliably sourced should be incorporated throughout the article. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I didn't quite realize that it was gone.  Frotz (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Muhammad/FAQ]] 

message: Maybe I'm just being pendantic, but having all those disclaimers and other stuff at the top of this talk page makes an awful clutter.  Frotz (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it might cut down on a tiny bit of the repetitive argument about the pics etc being brought up by newcomers. Merkinsmum 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many leading thingies 

message: We're making headway on the "Story of the Cranes" material, which is great.
A question moving forward: Can I ask why you think it's important that we imply that works printed in 1996 and 1998 are not "modern"? BYT (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrow 

message: If the concensus is to keep these POV's in the intro as it appears to be, they should be attributed and balanced as I have recently done. What are some opinions on the matter? I made mine clear when I removed the first attempts to add this material. In particular, what are some opinions of this edit by User:Bless sins? Arrow740 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Put simply, the statements you added do not follow the same metrics as the preceding statements; they are not opposing views of the same subject. This does not constitute an "opposing" point of view. What does Muhammad being an orator or messenger according to Muslims, for example, have to do with Islamic imperialism? The two ideas are not explicitly related and it would be an inappropriate addition, at least, under the guise of NPOV. Certainly I could see an inclusion of Islamic imperialism in this article, but the area in which you placed it in was completely irrelevant to that subject. There wouldn't be a counterargument to Islamic/Arab imperialism (because it is a historical reality), so placing it randomly next to sentences about Muhammad being a merchant and apostle would actually be a POV statement. You are essentially trying to place a negative statement next to any (apparently) sympathetic statement on Muhammad, even though the two statements have no relation to each other. That is why your statements should have been (and were) removed. On the topic of Bless sins's edit, if you can find a "counter view" to those statements, then by all means. Honestly, I don't think there is a counter view to Muhammad being an apostle according to Islam. That is a fundamental, defining characteristic of Muhammad that should be included in any lead that describes him. I suppose he should be able to find a better source than what he did for Muhammad being an orator, philosopher, etc. A "famous quote" from a French poet doesn't seem like a very good source for information on Muhammad. Perhaps his statements should be removed as well. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: These are not "POV"s but facts. Are there any sources that deny Muhammad was an apostle, an orator, a merchant, a general, a diplomat etc? If you can find some, then there would be a need for attribution.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These sources are unacceptable, as I said in my edit summary when I removed this material. There's nothing in the body about him being an orator or physician. Arrow740 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would suggest also that this is unnecessary in the intro. An argument could be crafted for their incorporation into the views section.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aspersions aside, Trifkovic is a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to disagree. Can you tell us all a little more about the publisher? ITAQALLAH 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about this book specifically. Despite your reluctancy, I think it's important to mention the publisher of this work, that is, Regina Orthodox Press. Do you think that this book, cited as an example of anti-Islam sentiment displayed by the conservatives of Eastern Orthodoxy ("No God in Common:" American Evangelical Discourse on Islam after 9/11, Cimino (2005), Review of Religious Research 4(2):162-174), is really a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. I don't deny that Trifkovic has critical views of Islam, as other qualified scholars do. He is still qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trifkovic does seem to be a historian (I would be interested to see precisely what his specialisation is), although he appears to have been criticised by Sells. His views and the book in general does appear to be highly partisan and polemical, which is why I think it is published by a religious press, rather than an academic one. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike other editors in the Islam space, I do not spend my time POV mining, but fact mining. If I use Trifkovic for a POV it will only be done with restraint and regard for WP:NPOV. Arrow740 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to believe your first statement, but considering your string of edits on Islam, I don't think I can. Last I checked, multiple sections here were tagged with POV-sect... the last thing we need here is more POV. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but when biased language is added we should balance it as best we can. Arrow740 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Biased language should be tackled on its own, not "balanced" by adding more biased material. I think we are digressing. Trifkovic's polemical book seems to be published by a partisan press. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muhammad was an apostle, orator, and physician" 

message: We want to address issues in more civilized manner, no offensive opinions , we are all human beings love each others, but someone might be offended by some media materials published we shall look at this and solve, all media materials shall not be there for propose of offense others, and if it does we shall think about it.if lots of pepole does not like it just remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.88.239 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  i think 

message: Muhammad's name was unique in his time. One would say he was the first male to have this name. Its meaning is also unique but where does it come from? I like the wikipedian saying: "The name Muhammad literally means "Praiseworthy"". This is litterally true, as read in Arabic. However, some tribes in Arabia have their own dialects and their pronunciations and moods. These moods sometimes reveal the origins of the current meanings since Arabic is an evolving language. For example: the Caliph Omar once heard a Kuran reader pronouncing the term "Hatta" (Palatal sound) with a Ayn (guttural sound). The Caliph then had to stop the reader and correct him by asking him where he comes from. The caliph knew what tribe the reader was coming from because that tribe pronounces the Ha sound in a guttural manner.
Therefore, the name Muhammad could mean the "baptized" since the christian monks of Arabia were known for their blessings, and when they baptize, the blessing is made in a ritual gesture with water, and with the "palm" of the hand. The Palm of the hand means the number five, which leads to the term "Mukhammas". Arabian linguists cannot deny this permutation because it goes back to centuries before Islam and Jesus Christ. The term Mukhammas could also mean "Mughammas" - dipped- (in water of course).
Permutations in Arabic are common in history lest not forget the story of King Ahmos of the Egypt, the king who, in the Osiris scriptures was predicted to come in the future to free Egypt from the rule of the Hyksos: ".. and there will come a liberator with the name Ahmos to set you free from the...". Apparently the prophecy was held for generations after Ahmos freed Egypt in 1580 BC until the Old Testament mentioned an up-coming prophet <from among yourselves> by the name Mechammed, so tender and praiseworthy that you will follow him. No wonder that the name Muhammad had several equivalent names like Ahmad and Mahmoud.
Noureddine (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the Name 

message: It is not permitted in Islam to draw a sketch / painting of either the last Prophet Muhammed or the previous Prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Joseph etc. (peace of Allah be upon them all). Muslims are bound to surrender to this Islamic teaching and non-muslims are required to respect this. It is not "neutral" to connect to Islam what is prohibited in Islam. DELETE ANY KIND OF SKETCH OR PAINTING CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (posted by Abu Bakr Al Falahi)
Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here:
" and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca."
In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Pls. remove the fotos of the Holy Prophet''' 

message: Ottoman miniature. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b)]]  This won't help with the depiction of Muhammad issues obviously, but the images and artwork should be cited properly, something like this. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's fine as it is. Jmlk17 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't receive full marks in a high school English class with the images cited the way they are now, so I'd say it isn't fine as it is.--24.57.157.81 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to fix this is to register for an account, which has lots of benefits, but if you'd rather not, improvements can be suggested here, and if nobody objects, implemented. WilyD 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if not, this seems like a sensible idea.  We just need an article on Nakkaş Osman, then!  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and thou shalt receive. WilyD 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should ask more often!  Fantastic work!  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better citation needed 

message: Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.
The header has a typo int should be 'himself instead' not 'himself itself' I'd change it, but I cannot figure out how to do it myself. Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in the header 

message: Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars. 
Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site.  And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.  
And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.
Regards,
Hazem Mohamed
Italy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not asking us to respect your doctrine, you are asking us to follow it.--172.202.230.119 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I appreciate that you have taken the time to formulate this message, but it has been gone over one too many times before, and the consensus on the issue favors inclusion. See the FAQ. I also agree with the sentiment of the anon- the encyclopedia does not favor any religion in particular, and as such will include many topics which can and do cause upset or ire in adherents (I know of many topics which unsettle me, but I don't oppose their inclusion unless a policy violation is being made). Understand that you are imposing your religious requirements upon us to some extent. Additionally, note the fact that not all Muslims have a religious sanction against images, and that many of these images were created by a Muslim for another Muslim (at least in the case of al-Biruni's illustrations.--C.Logan (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Muhammad is not owned by Islam. As a human being with a definite - indeed, in his case, extremely important - place in history, he belongs to all of us, and the views expressed in this article should not simply be those of Muslims. To exclude the pictures because of Muslim pressure would devalue Wikipedia beyond measure, because our readers would legitimately wonder what else we had censored to avoid causing offense. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to start, Hazem Adel, by thanking you for raising this issue in a respectful and polite manner.  It is certainly a difficult and for some emotive topic that has as you can see caused some controversy.  Wikipedia has had extensive discussions on this topic, and we have reached consensus on many occasions that such controversial images, like the ones you refer to, are best left in the articles, as they are of great historical interest and relevant to the topic.  This is the only reason for their inclusion, they are most definitely not intended in this context to insult or be disrespectful towards either Muhammad or Muslims in general.  I acknowledge that many Muslims will either not believe this, or will not accept this decision, which truly does sadden me, but Wikipedia's policies for building consensus must be followed on all articles, regardless of content, including this one.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it would help for those who do not like the images to understand why they are there.  It is Wikipedia policy that we do not remove material relevant to an article for reasons external to encyclopedic value and NPOV.  I find the number of pictures to be a tad ridiculous as they over represent a minority view in favor of standard representation of human beings.  While this is not ideal by any means it is the consensus version and while it over emphasizes a means of representation it is rather more difficult to invoke NPOV when their purpose is primarily aesthetic (although, I argue it still is relelvant).  The point is Wikipedia is driven by consensus and generally that should be respected even though the Islam-related articles seem to be troll magnets.  If you would like to discuss the images according to Wikipedia policy feel free to.  But, even if the images are someday removed from Muhammad some  will still remain on Depictions of Muhammad where there is no doubt that they are relevant.  Not to open a-whole-nother can of worms but there will be images that insult some Muslims because notable artists create them.  For Christians there is Piss Christ, for Muslims you have the Muhammad cartoons and even Peter Klashorst's work of nude models with niqab on.  Regardless of images here, there is no way that Wikipedia will remove all offensive images. gren グレン 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respecting the others doctrine 

message: The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work.  Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast.  Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship?  All three are covered in the FAQ.  Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling attention to the FAQ list 

message: Pictures are what he would have wanted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia. Jmlk17 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but also please see . Using hidden template would resolve all the issues I believe as suggested above. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but I doubt these issue would rest unless they were removed completely and not even offered for viewing. Jmlk17 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we provide a clear note regarding the content of the images, then how can Muslims disagree? If they choose to see the picture, it will be their own fault. Aren't they 18+? :) The important point here is to give people choice to decide for their own. If somebody wants to find something on the internet to watch he can easily find and certainly images of Muhammad are not the most sinful ones to Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Jmlk17 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the pictures 

message: The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.
Kind Regards!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to improve the text below images 

message: last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? 
this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.
--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why cant i edit this page ? 

message: The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes.  I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here.  See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the FAQ 

message: The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all.  This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me.  I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article.  Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More calligraphy please 

message: Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of "to conquer" 

message: The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail.Rehanz 138 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/images. Jmlk17 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Not really.  It's a depiction of him, as true, photographic images haven't even been around for more than about 160 years or so.  They're depictions of Muhammad for educational purposes. Jmlk17 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the "appearance section" below regarding the educational purposes. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No. The images are centuries-old drawings/paintings that have only been said to depict Muhammad, and have been accepted as so, including by Muslims since their inception. Sorry if the images offend you and other Muslims, but blurring Muhammad's face would censor them, and Wikipedia does not do that for any reason, at all, ever. Jmlk17 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Rehanz, by that same logic, we'd have to remove the images of Jesus, Buddha, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, Moses, Adam, Plato... basically everybody who lived before the fifteenth century (when accurate portraiture first became commonplace). That's a pretty tall order. You really want all of those images to be removed?—Chowbok ☠ 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Presumably, if you presented those characters on canvas and they acquired some sort of notability/relevance/historical value, then yes, we could include such an image on the Air article, I suppose. The funny thing about many of these arguments presented to somehow "defeat the logic behind the images" is that they are actually valid possibilities which are reasonably allowed within Wikipedia guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No we are not passing any incorrect information.  Our image of Muhammad from 1315 is the earliest verifiable depiction of him, hence it is included.  His face is not covered or marked out, conforming to the accepted laws of the time when it was produced, as well as the others.  Your argument has little to no basis based upon fact. Jmlk17 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 1. Since it doesn't claim to be an accurate depiction of Muhammad, but merely a painting, that doesn't matter. 2. If people get offended by it, too bad. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not censored. JuJube (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Since the inception of the images.  There are no actual images of Jesus, Buddha, nor anyone until the mid 19th century.  The images are used to show a story, or tell a tale, and are coming from a Muslim source.  I still fail to see exactly what your argument is other than "they are incorrect". Jmlk17 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: They are widely accepted images/depictions of Muhammad, and hence belong in an encyclopedia.  You're argument that they are invalid, is, in itself, invalid.  Wikipedia is not censored, not for myself who might be offended by certain things, nor for yourself who finds Muhammad's depicted face offensive.  We serve as an educational site, and are using these images in their correct context. Jmlk17 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Everything, every image and painting throughout human history could easily have the exact same label attached to it though.  Muhammad is no different than any other man's depictions throughout history. Jmlk17 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Many paintings are only available as reproductions.  Your question is irrelevant. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: How is it incorrect? For all we know there's some obscure culture that calls what is beneath the earth just that. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Zazaban.  And Rehanz, your argument that they are incorrect simply because the images are from the 13th century and not from before has no basis.  They are commonly accepted as depictions of Muhammad, have been for hundreds of years, and hence will stay.  End of story my friend.  We will not removed them, especially under some unfounded basis as being "incorrect". Jmlk17 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You think I'm Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж?! Wow, thanks! I thought you were upset at me and all, and then you go and say such nice things. Have a cookie. Also, I really think this whole argument is absurd. This is not a conspiracy to offend muslims, it's simply a picture. It's no different from pictures of quite a few other historical figures, and I don't see what makes this so special. If you want this image gone, go and protest all the other articles mentioned above. Zazaban (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument makes no sense. The images of muhammad are valid, and shall stay, due to our being an encyclopedia, one that is not censored.  End of story. Jmlk17 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: What's "laking" in common sense is people expecting the images to be removed simply because they're "offensive to millions".  Your arguments, which are a sideways justification to the same old "zomg muslims are offended" ruckus repeatedly brought in here, have already been shot down and you're just repeating the same thing over and over.  Give up. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image of no scholarly/historic significance  

message: Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens.  If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye on it as well.  Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively.  This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is full protection necessary? 

message: Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?
: no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all how it works.  That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures, wikipedia servers 

message: Explain in a short note,"the migration of prophet Muhammad (saw) from makkah to madinah 102.88.62.139 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic religious studies