Talk:Muhammad/Archive 2

message: i disaprove of the current order of "companions", it gives the impresion that Abu Bark & Umar & Uthman where better than Ali. They where not. I rather have random order, or Ali, Malik Ashtar, Abu Dhar and Ibn Abbas att the top.
: Hi, Striver, we usually add new topics at the bottom. Use the plus button to generate a new section. We could put the companions in the order in which they joined Islam -- that was important to the early Muslims. However, there would be a problem because existing accounts conflict as to whether Abu Bakr or Ali came first of the men. Or, we could just put them in alphabetic order, and add a note to that effect. Perhaps that would be the least controversial. Zora 10:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Companions

message: I thought I was keeping up with the changes to this article, but I seem to have missed a few. Someone revised the final para to say that the Muslims had conquered northern India a hundred years after Muhammad's death, and similar sillinesses. I sat down with my copy of Armstrong's Islam: A Short History and fixed the para as best I could. Zora 22:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding this: "Under the Ghaznavids, centuries later, Islam was introduced into northern India."   Islam was not first introduced into Northern India by Ghaznavids. The first Islamic invasion of India was much earlier by Muhammad bin Qasim (d. 715)  OneGuy 22:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I suppose it depends on what you call "northern India". If you go by present boundaries, Sind is in Pakistan. I don't believe that Muslim conquests (as opposed to raids) went beyond the Indus until the Ghaznavids. Just saying "northern India" is misleading, I suppose. I'll try a rewrite. Zora 00:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone revised history! 

message: Anthony, I removed your addition re the caravan raid, as it's misleading. Badr could perhaps be considered self-defense, as the Meccans had sent out a force to PUNISH the Muslims for a previous caravan raid. Was the raid justified? Particularily in the pilgrimage season, when caravans were supposed to be safe? I've seen Muslim editors tying themselves in knots trying to justify caravan raiding. Usually the defense given is that the Meccans had confiscated the property of the Muslims who fled to Medina, so that the Muslims were just righting the balance. Hmm. Raids don't play too well these days, but various historians point out that raiding caravans was the Arab national sport then. Like Great Plains Native Americans stealing horses and women from each other. Just good clean fun <g>. Perhaps the place to elaborate on all of this is the Battle of Badr article? Or Muhammad as warrior? If the Muhammad article gets bogged down in nit-picky polemic, it starts becoming useless as an information source for someone who just wants to know who Muhammad was. Zora 23:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Badr 

message: An article about a person who is perhaps the 2nd most influential figure in recorded human history ought to be much more sophisticated and expanded...I think Wikipedia can do a better job here...this article deserves to be featured-article quality someday--and ought to already be, given the man's importance and sheer number of Muslims, particularly Anglophone(-educated) ones. ~ Dpr 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite as long as most biographical articles. Why should it be longer? and why should we accept your grandiose conception of Muhammad's importance? Zora 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's shorter than both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, to name two far less historically significant figures.  Clearly there is still room for expansion. - Mustafaa 18:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Churchill and Stalin lived recently, and there's a plethora of documentation. While there is much recorded "oral tradition" about Muhammad, academics would also dismiss much of it as pious fabrication. The current organization, the skeptical view and the sira view, handles this somewhat, but any expansion of the sira view would privilege it unduly, and get us deep into partisan debate. Zora 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we do have a whole series on Jesus... granted he had that whole divinity thing going for him...  There is room to expand I agree.. but more important clarification about who accepts what.  There are many different conceptions about it.... I've heard Shia discussions about how they despise Bukhari hadith as portraying their prophet horribly...  So... sectarian complexities never end. gren 19:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see that "any expansion of the sira view would privilege it unduly" at all.  We already have the disclaimer at the top, and the contents of the sira view are of great interest both to historians and to Muslims.  It could "get us deep into partisan debate", but I see no reason why it has to, if approached with due care. - Mustafaa 21:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onward! 

message: If anyone is interested, Wikipedia NPOV policy can be found here NPOV.--Urchid 03:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re:changes to this article 

message: I was saying to Zora: a couple of things about your last edit:
* The wet nurse issue. I haven't read Ibn Ishaq, but the concept of the wet nurse Halima is very central to the narrative (mythology, if you will) of Muhammad's life for Muslims—if not the history. It might be useful to acknowledge that; maybe with language like "the traditions about Muhammad's life often mention that following Meccan customs, his mother sent him to the desert to be wet nursed by a Bedouin Mother. The desert air was fresher than Mecca’s, and it was felt that in this climate, a city boy would have a sturdier start in life...."
* The tomb is in the mosque as far as I remember. I was last there in 1980 or so—and the structure and size of the mosuqe has only been expanded since.
—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but i think i read somewher that it not in it... im not sure...
--Striver 11:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I said, I am telling you from experience...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
You know, the (false) hadith about "dont use my gave as a place of worship like the christian and Jews" blabla, as if Jesus (PBUH) ever had his grave worhiped, if he ever hade one...
read the rest of the fake hadith here:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.472
Where is Moses (PBUH) grave, you know, the one that Jews are suposed to worship?
Anyhow, using that pretexed the Saudis wahabis/salafis demolished(!) Ahl ul-Bayts graves... 
http://www.shianews.com/hi/asia/news_id/0001858.php
So i dont think odds are high that the Prophets tomb is in a mosque
"...So the grave worshiper, the Shiite,..."
http://www.al-manhaj.com/Page1.cfm?ArticleID=34
Look att their *LAME* arguments:
"Iqbal was a grave-worshiper. To pray at graves is considered by the Quran as reason for one to go to hell (102: 1-5)."
http://islamreview.org/AnwarShaikh/misc/Iqbal.html
You tell me, are this verses about grave-worshiping:
[102.1] Abundance diverts you,
[102.2] Until you come to the graves.
[102.3] Nay! you shall soon know,
[102.4] Nay! Nay! you shall soon know.
[102.5] Nay! if you had known with a certain knowledge,
[102.6] You should most certainly have seen the hell;
[102.7] Then you shall most certainly see it with the eye of certainty;
[102.8] Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons.
--Striver 11:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Umm...being inside a mosque is not the same as being worshipped...it is not in a position where people bow to it. It just happens to be in the same building...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
i found this link, check then en of it:
http://www.naqshbandi.net/haqqani/Islam/Haqqiqa/debate/visit_grave.html
--Striver 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This seems like a dead issue but... "Because the climate was considered to be unhealthful, he was given as an infant to a wet nurse from a nomadic tribe and spent some time in the desert." that is from the 1995 Encyclopedia Britannica. gren 03:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple things: wet nurse and tomb inside the mosque in Medina...

message: This is a "boo" word that does not belong in the opening paragraph, or probably anywhere else in this context. Consider:
:George W. Bush assumed office as the 43rd President of the United States, having claimed to win the 2000 presidential election.
Would that opening stand for long? I think not. 
Re: Muhammad's experience, a formulation like "reported" or "told those close to him" of visits from the Angel Gabriel should certainly suffice. 12:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  agreed --Urchid 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Claimed"

message: I rewrote the intro to incorporate all points of view discussed. I believe it provides a fair presentation of information that not only captures the Muslim POV but also Non Muslim as well. If you have any comments I will be hearing from you on short order.--Urchid 00:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it's not OK. For one thing, it repeats info that follows later, in two versions. Yours makes three, which is too much. You seem to have a fierce focus on the opening paragraph and YOUR edits, without much concern for what's in the rest of the article. Zora 02:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest version was an attempt at coming up with text which was fair to all points of view, yours and others. I upheld Wikipedia policy layed out in the NPOV article. So why not allow other POVs in this article besides the one you are so determinedly trying to uphold in these series of articles. I don't get your dogged refusal to open your mind to other POVs (such as the POV of non Abrahamistic faiths) and your apparent determination to block every non-muslim POV edit using any PRETEXT you can think of. This seems contradictory to the very assertions of "tolerance" so often used by Muslims to portray their faith. Is the lesson to learn that  ISLAM IS INHERENTLY INTOLERANT OF OTHER POINTS OF VIEW? That seems to be the message that is being heard loud and clear. You also keep repeating that you are buddhist , that is really perplexing to me, I am accustomed to expect a great deal of open-mindedness from Buddhists. --Urchid 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amended Introduction 

message: Both the Muhammad and the Islam articles have been attacked by a vandal who is spoofing other editors and admins. He has been dubbed the doppelganger or impersonator vandal. He creates a new account that appears to be the account of a well-known editor or admin, (ChantingFox instead of Chanting Fox, for example) and copies the user and talk pages of the victim onto his new account. He then proceeds to vandalize his targets, all the while claiming to be "NPOVing" the article. I imagine that various folks are engaged right now in figuring out what IPs he's using, and blocking them. Zora 02:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sad when someone's hatred towards a religion makes them spoof over 10 accounts and waste all that time for nothing.Yuber(talk) 02:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing NPOV proposal, new policy 

message: Can someone please explain this to me.
http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Banu+qurayza&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta=
--Striver 20:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banu Qurayza 

message: Brandon, we've usually gotten along, and I hope our collaboration will survive my latest revert. I think you lost sight of the overall goal when you expanded the summary section. It is NOT meant to be the main article. If you add too much detail, you end with an article that says the same things twice. Nor is it right to add Muslim triumphalist rhetoric to the summary (Number 2 and growing!). Finally, one of the reasons for the summary was to put down a list of the things that even the most sceptical of Western scholars would accept. There are many scholars who believe that we do not really know all that much about Muhammad, and that much of what Muslims think they do know is later fabrication, whether in the service of hagiography, or to explain obscure passages in the Qur'an (inventing occasions of revelation), or for political reasons, or as a basis for fiqh. One of the reasons that I split the article into summary and main section was to separate the version that even the skeptics would accept from the expanded version that Muslims prefer. Please don't lose sight of the distinction. 
OK? Still good buds? Zora 20:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandon's recent edit 

message: A brand new user just slapped a POV sticker on the article, without justifying it on the talk page at all. I trust that some justification is coming. Zora 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV sticker added 

message: This article is representing a single Islamic POV. It does not present the POV of editors who disagree with the assertions made. 
Discussion page is littered with evidence of this.
The current page POV is held by force by a number of pro-islamic editors who do not allow any alternate POV, and who even block the tag itself from the page. Thus the tag.--Clrhayt 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to remove the tag as you are a brand new user with seemingly no experience on Wikipedia.Yuber(talk) 23:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding ? This page is so POV , you could use it as a sermon in a mosque. I haven't been able to get any alternate POV in this page for weeks. The usual gang of pro-islam thugs goes into an immediate revert war whenever I try to add any other POV. The POV tag should have been inserted a long time ago.--Urchid 23:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... I think I see another paragraph of hand-waving generalities. Specifics please? - Mustafaa 23:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You might start by reading the discussions above , you might note all the concerns I or others have raised that have been bullied down through ganging up in revert wars.--Urchid 00:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see no arguments for a POV tag above - and still no specifics...  It looks like none will be forthcoming from you. - Mustafaa 00:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe this article can have a tag... I do not think it is horrible but there are some things that I believe could be helped.  I would make it  because the factual accuracy isn't really wrong but it is Sunni Islam slanted some... I do think that Urchid, based on his other edits wants it to have no "Islamic slant" but... there will always be the appearance of an "Islamic slant" as he calls it in the nature of the subject matter, we are not going to open with "Muhammad was a terrorist who has incited modern Muslims to violence according to Daniel Pipes" because... that's just bad... surely we could cite something along those lines but this article is about Muhammad who is only important because he is a famous Muslim... that is his foremost role... I do think we could use to show some of what Goldziher, Schacht, Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, Rippin, Berg (mentioned in the article say) critical of Sira's use or something along those lines... the Muhammad was a terrorist stuff (if that's what the doubledispute tagger wants added) is rubbish along the lines of Jesus was a big faker who drank too much wine and preached some.  Err, historically Muhammad is understood as a prophet in fact I am reading the 1995 Britannica encyclopedia article about him and it is far more "single Islamic POV" than this article is... gren 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the POV tag

message: Since I started reading the Britannica article to respond to some criticisms of this article's POV (not that Britannica is perfect, but it is a good reference point for what encyclopedic is, I think it might also have a lot more content about Islam in general than we do)... but it states "Muhammad (in full Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allāh ibn 'Abd al-Muţţalib ibn Hāshim" (the 'h' in Muhammad has the same diacritic mark as under the t in Muţţalib — I just can't find how to reproduce it) Should this be added to the article?  Where does this come from? etc. etc. gren 03:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have all this except for Abul-Qasim already; see the "Muhammad's genealogy" section. - Mustafaa 17:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I that's fine... I doubt he's ever called by his more full Arabic name... so splitting it up is fine I'd suppose. gren 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed. See Allah. - Mustafaa 22:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His name 

message: Michael H. Hart surly is not irrelevant...
http://www.google.se/search?q=Michael+H.+Hart+-muhammad+-islam&hl=sv
gives 1 830 000 hits--Striver 08:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael H. Hart 

message: The problem with "pagan" is that it was originally a term of abuse, for country-dwellers in the Roman empire who didn't adopt Christianity. It became the term used for followers of the traditional Greek and Roman cults -- but it's always been a bit problematic in that regard. 
Taking the same term and applying it to pre-Islamic Arabian religions is even more problematic. These folks didn't worship the Greek and Roman gods. They had their own gods. Nor were they one unified religion. Using pagan this way suggests that anyone who doesn't belong to one of the major religions, but follows an older and smaller tradition, is a "pagan" and a second-class citizen of the world of religion. Anthropologists just don't use the term, as it's too inexact.  
To use it is to buy into the Islamic condemnation of previous faiths as  pagans, idolators, infidels, etc. I don't agree with the Islamic attitude towards the "idolators", I think they deserve toleration and respect just as much as anyone else and even though they're all dead -- dang it, I'm gonna watch out for them <g>. Zora 4 July 2005 00:05 (UTC) (hopeless idealist)
:Took a quick glance at the wikitionary entry and thought about it for a bit, and I think you're right. To me the term pagan refers to any small/traditional religion, but I realized thats an artifact of my anglo-euro-western-centricism and what not. Good call--Tznkai 4 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
::It's true that the term "paganism" is etymologically linked to a derisive word used to refer to rural dwellers who continued to believe in polythiesm after the rise of monotheism in Europe. So initially, a "pagan" was basically someone who believed in ancient Greek or Roman polytheism. It was also used derisively by the Christians. But today, the word is used as a technical term in the comparative study of religion. As such, the word "pagan" no longer carries its original derogatory context (more or less). I remind you that all English translations of the Qur'an liberally use the word "pagan" to refer to Arabs who neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Muslim. No one will understand what "traditional Arab religion" means. FIRST of all, Arabs have believed in Christianity and Judaisms for hundreds of years before Islam came about. So technically speaking, Christianity and Judaism are also traditional Arab religions, in addition to the pre-Islamic, Arab paganism (which no longer exists today). I was referring specifically the people who are called "pagans" in the Qur'an, who believed in a polytheistic pantheon of gods, and who were eradicated with the rise of Islam; generally speaking, Muslims refer to Arabs pagans as "jahils" (barbarians), from the "jahiliya" (the time of barbarianism). Now, it would certainly be offensive to adopt the orthodox Islamic terminology on this subject, but I think "Arab paganism" does the job pretty well. There are people today who enthusaistically call themselves pagans, and I was not thinking "rural dwelling peasants" when I said "Arab pagans," I was merely trying to specifically refer to the extinct pagan Arab heritage. Your replacement of the phrase "Arab paganism" with "traditional Arab religion" does not make any sense because it is not specific enough; as explained, Judiasm and Christianity also fall into the "traditional Arab religions" and these religions are NOT extinct amongst Arabs (unlike Arabic paganism, which is extinct). I don't mean any offense by saying "paganism," this is a commonly used term in the comparative study of religion, and it is generally understood to now have semantic connotations beyond its Christian/Latin etymological history. --Zeno of Elea 4 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
: It is POV, it is not used by anthropologists, and it is not used by careful scholars outside the Graeco-Roman context. If you don't like my replacements for pagan, fine -- we can think of different ones. But you can't just use a POV term and insist that it's OK because you don't mean any harm. How about "worshippers of Hudbal, Azzat, and other pre-Islamic gods"?
:: Bull****. "worshippers [... of ] pre-Islamic gods" roughly equates to "pagan". [throw in with that "pre-Christian and pre-Isreali gods". Mohammad was a pagan before his self-described revelation. It's pretty simple. This seems to be apologetics at it worst.
:: An acknolgement of Mohammad's good standing in his tribes non-abrahamic rituals and pratices should be made. It should be in the one of the early section parts of his life. 
:: Bein pagan is not a "bad thing" ... that is a connotation that a one may subjectively put on it, but that should not be wikipedia's problem. The other path lead to delineating what is "is" and other insanity.  JDR 09:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "pagan" 

message: There is now a section on Muslim veneration of Muhammad, at the very bottom. I don't see why we couldn't move the picture down there and add these lines to the list:
* Muslims do not venerate pictures or images of Muhammad, as they believe that this is the sin of shirk, or idolatry; many believe that even non-iconic representations of the prophet are wrong. Some Muslims, notably Persian minaturists, believe that it is permissible to picture Muhammad as long as his face is veiled. 
This would put the picture at the very bottom and put it in context. Zora 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the first sentence, second sentence a bit clunky with the "notably Persian minaturists" schtick. All being said, I support the move, the wording is no big thing. --Mrfixter 00:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather it be moved to the sub article, but I do not oppose this solution.--Tznkai 03:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This would work for me too, though it would not be my first choice. Consensus may be to retain picture in this article, in which case this would be a diplomatic middle way. BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion re picture 

message: It is rather sloppy to say that 'Islam is considered by Muslims to be the final step in the revelation of a monotheist religion of which earlier versions were Judaism and Christianity.', as these two latter religions are not viewed by Muslims as the embodiment of teachings given by Moses and Jesus; Muslims regard these religions as distortions (only partially correct) of the true monotheism. Therefore, I have made the appropriate change. In fact, what is written in quotes above may actually be a non-muslim view, but it is certainly not a muslim view (believe me, I know). ---Mpatel  (talk) 07:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
: Subtle point, but fair enough. I'm not going to contest the change. Zora 08:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'd be inclined to put "Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus)" since... that's what the emphasis is on. gren グレン 08:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism and Christianity not earlier versions (strictly speaking) 

message: I copyedited an anon's revisions re Mawlid, in which the anon said that Muhammad did not celebrate his birthday, therefore Mawlid was bidah. I generalized from that to early Muslims as a group not celebrating anyone's birthday. So far as I know, that's true. I haven't run across any references to birthday celebrations in any of the primary sources. Most of the time the chroniclers can't even agree on what YEAR someone was born. I could be wrong, of course, in which case the more limited formulation, that Muhamamd did not celebrate his birthday, would make better sense. Zora 08:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdays 

message: Taken away the summary of the battle of Uhud, because it is innacurate.  A Meccan attack on Medina in which they failed to Claim the city or Kill the leader of the city is not a victory.  While it was clearly not a Muslim victory either, the Muslims did succeed in preventing the death of Muhammad, and held on to the city.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Doesn't matter if we think its a victory, or someone else thinks it was a loss. Get a refrence saying either way.--Tznkai 16:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Uhud]]

message: This article has been through some major changes recently and I'm not sure when some of them were made. We've had various versions of Muhammad's deathbed words, or last sermon words, seemingly picked by editors with agendas to advance. However, there is no agreement in the earliest sources on what he said, or when he said it. Madelung's book The Succession to Muhammad is a good study of the many accounts of his last actions. It would take a whole article to cover the subject. Unless someone wants to write the article, I'm removing the last words. 
A non-Muslim hand was also at work on the Hijra section, giving a somewhat anti-Islamic account of the influence of Judaism on Islam and of Muhammad's disenchantment with the Jews. I didn't want to remove this, since I tend to agree with it, but I also know that it is offensive to Muslims and would be considered POV. So I tried to tone it down and make it clear that there are various theories. Ditto with the caravan raiding.   Zora 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made quite a few of the recent revisions.  I wasn't aware of any POV included in my changes, but your revisions look fine.  Uriah923 04:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad in Medina 

message: Considering the majority of art venerating Muhammad is Calligraphy, my edit makes sense, avoids the appearance of being conversial for the sake of it, and should please all seeking a NPOV resolution. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
: The caption is POV, in that it assumes that Islam forbids life-like art. There are many Muslims who would dispute that. Some strains of Islam forbid figurative art. The caption should also include some translation of the Arabic, since most viewers won't be able to read it. I dunno what I think about replacing the picture. On the one hand, I don't want to be needlessly offensive; on the other hand, I really don't want Wikipedia to censor stuff that only a small minority of viewers would find problematic. It seemed to me that by presenting the picture but also saying the some Muslims found such pictures offensive, we did present both POVs. Zora 21:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Fact is that the overwhelming vast majority of Art venerating Muhammad is Calligrapy.  If you want an accurate representation of art venerating him, then Calligraphy is the way to go. No, this is not "is not censure-anything-that-someone-could-find-offensive-pedia", but neither is it "Controversial-for-the-sake-of-it-pedia".  The Image of Muhammad is neither representative of the wider Art in the Islamic world, not is it represetative of Art venerating him.  Why would you not want Calligraphy? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Could we have both? Zora 10:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Right now we do have both, but the insistance on having this seems to be a Flame attampt.  --Irishpunktom\talk 10:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Is it a "flame attempt" to add a painting of the person that the article discuss, which was created by a Muslim? Your bad faith accusations doesn't make any sense. -- Karl Meier 10:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the Miraj picture down, so that the two POVs-in-pictures are tother. Zora 10:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Why? It's a picture of something that is supposed to have happened years and years before his death. Zora 10:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, So, how about we replace the dodgy Minature, with a picture like this, the carving of Muhammad in the US Supreme Court.  Considering this is both a Photo, and has a rather interesting stry attached to it I think it's a good call. thoughts? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
I am not against it, but what is the copyright status of that specific photo? Also, I just uploaded a better version of the Minature which available at Commons here:  -- Karl Meier 13:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Zeno moved the pictures around and gave them completely illiterate captions. Sheesh. Zora 07:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Considering

message: I have replaced the reference that was removed by Zora.  It was used by me to add considerable content to the site and, therefore, must remain on the page as a reference.  Please see the history for details.  Uriah923 17:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added ON article reference 

message: The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here.  Uriah923 06:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ON content and quality of reference 

message: "Said to have been a merchant" because some academics doubt even that much. See Crone on Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Remove name of cave because this is supposed to be a summary, not a repeat of the rest of the article. "Ascended to heaven" removed because of religious overtones. I should think that this would be unacceptable to most Muslims, because of the Christian connotations. Zora 02:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I think it is only fair to incorporate what the anon editor said because it clarifies Muslim belief. Obviously Zora, no matter how much we try to make this NPOV, we will still need the basics of Islamic belief. For example, contrast this with the Jesus article in which almost everything is absolute as if everything from trinity to cruxifixion exists. Certainly if we are giving a summary of Muhammad, we have to include the Muslim perspective. It seems that there are higher standards of neutrality for Islam-related articles than any other religion. I mean one can't even go two lines without saying "Muslims believe" or "Muslims say". You would think that if someone was reading something about a person who most non-Muslims consider to be the "founder" of Islam that it would be understandable that they will get the Muslim view.  You will get people out there who will doubt anything, even our existence.  I will ofcourse not object to your revert of my minor edits, but I think for wider issues in the future we will have to consider whether too much neutrality can obscure content.  a-n-o-n-y-m 03:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by anon and Anonymous Editor 

message: <duplicate posting of something I just laid out on my talk page>
::::Okay, what about something like this:
::::In 625 the Meccan general Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with 3,000 men. The ensuing Battle of Uhud took place on March 23, ending in a stalemate. The Meccans claimed victory, but they had lost too many men to pursue the Muslims into Medina.
::::In April 627 Abu Sufyan led another strong force against Medina. But Muhammad had dug a trench around Medina and successfully defended the city in the Battle of the Trench. Shortly afterwards, a Jewish group thought to have been allied with the Muslims were found, by a neutral arbiter, to have been guilty of betraying their alliance with the Muslims. The men were, according to Jewish law, executed and the women and children enslaved. The incident has been the subject of much controversy in recent years; see Banu Qurayza and Muhammad as a warrior for a fuller discussion.
::::Following the Battle of the Trench, the Muslims were able, through conversion and conquest, to extend their rule to many of the neighboring cities and tribes.
::::Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also accept Brandon's version. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay what about something like this? 

message: I don't see any problem with "claiming to have had visions" myself. It's a subjective experience and all anyone can do is claim. I'd say that the Buddha claimed to have experienced enlightenment and not see it as POV. But ... if BYT feels that the phrase sounds too skeptical I'm willing to try a different phrasing. But "Muslim sources report" is NOT OK. "Report" has connotations of someone seeing something and then reporting it. It implies that something happened and that authoritative Muslim sources were just reporting it. I'm sorry, that won't do. There's a hadith where Aisha describes seeing Muhammad in the throes of revelation. "Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over)." No angels, just some sort of possession with noticeable physical effects. Zora 12:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Muslims say" works for me -- it's certainly accurate and nonjudgmental. As for Aisha, I hear what you're saying, but  remember she's considerably later in the history. Consider that a) initial revelations may have had extraordinary features and b) Muhammad may have seen and heard things (then and later) that others did not. BrandonYusufToropov 13:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim sources report 

message: Where can I find a list of movies about Muhammad?  Just because it may be offensive for some people to see a picture of Muhammad, or a movie about his life, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to see it, or read a short list of their titles.  Considering how many ways his name can be spelled, a short list (with dates produced, and names of directors) would be very useful to the interested viewer.
:Some that I know:
:*The message, 1976. The first ever. This film has been approved by both Sunni and Shi'ite scholars thus presents a pretty balanced view of the life of Muhammad. Directed by Mustapha Al-Akkad. Featured Anthony Quinn, Michael Ansara and Irene Papas. 
:*Muhammad: The Last Prophet, 2004. An animated film by Richard Rich and produced by RichCrest Animation Studios for Badr International. 
:*Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet,  2002. A documentary (Kikim Media) created and co-produced by Michael Wolfe and Alexander Kronemer, and co-produced and directed by Michael Schwarz and Omar Al-Qattan . Funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Unity Productions Foundation and some other foundation and individual contributors. 
:I haven't watched the last 2 ones but I believe that The message is a Must-See.-- Svest 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also many documentaries about the Prophet that shouldn't be hard to find. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't there any Movies about Muhammad? 

message: Re the repeated deletion of referenced pictures:
#The Islam's (or the Muslims') stance on whether pictures of Muhammad are acceptable or not is utterly irrelevant - WP is not a religious project, so religious rules cannot apply. Otherwise, anything that could be considered non-compliant with the rules of Islam would have to be deleted - any criticism of Muhammad, any doubts about whether he had a vision / an encounter with Gabriel / insert random religious belief here. Come to think of it - it could even be doubted whether the article should be changed during Ramadan!
#Take a look at what an encyclopedia is; the original project by Diderot and others was explicitly started as an indepedent collection of knowledge; independent from the restrictive and censoring influences of the Catholic church, too. Letting some religious belief introduce (self-)censorship to WP is an inacceptable corruption of the idea of a source of knowledge that is based on rationalism only and that is one of the most important products of the Age of Enlightment.
#Any reasonable user - and me one of the first of them - would object strongly to the idea of banning (e.g.) Michelangelo's works from WP, just for the reason that some Christian or Jew might feel offended due to the First / Second commandment. WP is not about some people hypothetically feeling offended - otherwise we had to either delete / censor a lot of articles, Dildo not by far being the most offensive.
#I can't find anything "cartoonish" about the picture: It is clearly made in the very usual style of it's time, nothing derogatory or malevolent about it. About it's historical accuracy - well duh, nobody can truly judge that.
:To conclude it: I deeply consider your actions as an unappropriate act of censorship; it is irritatingly resembling other most disturbing acts of suppressing personal freedom in favor of minorities' beliefs (,). So - I will insert the picture once more; if you keep deleting it's reference, I will seek the WP community's attention on this issue (this is no threat, just a clarification of my stance on this).
:--85.181.49.78 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, the picture had been inserted before by the editor who uploaded it. It was removed with an extensive discussion on the issue that has now been archived. You are just walking down the same path. The picture is both ridiculous (the artist was probably on drugs) and may be offensive to Muslims. These discussions never change. It's always the pathetic argument on "censorship". According to your logic, I suppose I can insert a swastika into the Judaism article? Inserting that pic again will only count as vandalism. And saying that it is a picture of the religion's "founder" is also ridiculous, simply because of the nature of the picture.--a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (As mentioned on your discussion page):You consider a picture of Muhammad (e.g. the picture of the religion's founder) in his own article comparable to the picture of a swastika in the judaism article (e.g. the symbol of the industrial attempt of eradication of the jews)? Sorry, but that must be the most invalid argument I have read for quite a time. --85.181.49.78 00:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see what's wrong with the term "founder", btw.
That picture really is awful. It deserves to be in a cartoon, not in an encyclopaedia page about a religion. --JadeManiac 00:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you consider "cartoonish"? --85.181.49.78 00:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why anyone would want to enter that picture unless they were biased against a religion to begin with. --JadeManiac 00:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See? That's exactly the point: For you it's a matter of being pro/contra religion; you don't even grasp the concept of an article being neither of the above or NPOV. --85.181.49.78 01:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General