Talk:Muhammad/Archive 18

message: Of course, maybe I shouldn't be butting in too much, but I'll call attention to this:
A while ago, there was a "western" representation of Muhammad, around where the Blake image has been being inserted.  It was this image.  Now, it was deleted as lacking copyright information, but I "suspect" the image is actually uncopyrightable, as the original author has been all kinds of dead for a long time, and the photograph is probably a "slavish reproduction" - but I don't know for sure.  A more "tasteful" and "mainstream" representation might satisfy both the expressed need for a western representation, and the objections to blatantly offensive images and concerns about their educational value to shock value. WilyD 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose that picture, but it might be more appropriately placed in a slightly different section.  The section in which the Blake/Dante image was placed dealt specifically with western views of Muhammad. Talmage 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is just one example, but it's a western image in a notable context.  I'm not particularly attached to it - I only held it up as an example of something that might be closer to addressing the concerns of all parties.  WilyD 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a definite consensus emerging here that some Westerm image should be included - and given this, I would go with Blake. How do we get the page unlocked? TharkunColl 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has no place for additional images but some exisiting images should be removed too. The images exist already are violating WP:NPOV. --- A. L. M. 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Develop a consensus on the issue that lead to the edit warring. WilyD 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me, the image that WilyD put up (the depiction of Muhammad on the Supreme Court) is fine. If any image should be included, that would be sufficient. Not all western views of Muhammad are positive, and not all are negative. Fitting then that an image in the section should seem neutral, neither glorifying nor mocking. Like ALM, I also do not see why the article needs to be littered with pictures. Not every section in every article requires a picture. The only thing everyone agrees with is that the Blake image does not belong here. It is needlessly provocative. On adding or removing images, I have a proposal. What is the number of images of Jesus on Jesus? On Moses? David? I say that the number of pictures depicting Muhammad should be proportional to that of other prophets, not more nor less. Whatever the average is for an abrahamic prophet, there should be that many pictures. That way Muslims can not complain that we are inciting them by depicting him, and non-Muslims cannot say we are pandering to the Muslim demands.  Ezag 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesus and his followers have different tradition. Muhammad has totally different. Everyone should be treating according to his own tradition and history. We cannot generalize it. Every other church has Jesus picture and almost mosque never have Muhammad picture. Jesus has 6 century pictures available and Muhammad has even no picture available of 12th century. For more information see my subpage. --- A. L. M. 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers are respectively 11, 10, and 6, making an average of 9. Furthermore, those other articles are almost completely devoid of any images that do not show a picture of their subject. TharkunColl 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Jesus has 11, Alexander the Great has ~15.  I choose ALexander as a comparable political/secular figure to Muhammad, and Jesus as a comparable religious figure. Alexander also features several non-likeness.  Campaign maps et cetera.  WilyD 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To conform to the suggestion of the page locker, and therefore get it unlocked, we need to add 5 more images of Muhammad (since there are currently only 4), and remove most if not all of the images that don't show him. TharkunColl 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither Jesus has any comparision with Muhammad and nor Alexander the Great.  ---- A. L. M. 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, they are very comparable indeed. TharkunColl 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ALM, while you're own opinion may be as such, from a "neutral/disinterested perspective", can you see why Jesus might be considered a historical religious figure of similar importance in that field, and Alexander the Great might be a Political leader of similar importance in that field? WilyD 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My status of page locker means you should give less creedence to my opinions, not more.  I'm merely trying to facilitate dialogue so that the editors here can come to a consensus.  While I'm happy to offer suggestions and thoughts, I don't want my opinion here counted towards any consensus on this edit war specifically because I was the one who locked down the page. WilyD 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But isn't it the case that most of these pictures depicting Muhammad were created by Muslims? All of those included, except the western ones are Muslim-created. All images should be tasteful, of course. As most conservative Muslim cultures and all areas of worship such as mosques use calligraphy as their representation of the prophet for visual purposes, counting calligraphy and other images should be fine. We cannot adopt a purely western set of criteria for deciding what is appropriate. It is true that how Christians view depictions of Jesus is different from how Muslims do of Muhammad, and that must be weighed. However I do not think most moderate Muslims oppose tasteful paintings or other depictions of Muhammad. Unless I am mistaken, the rationale for not visually depicting Muhammad was that Muhammad himself did not want to see Muslims worshiping him as an icon, the way Christians worship Jesus. Given we are posting existing images and not creating new ones, even by conservative standards we are doing nothing wrong. If we remove ALL pictures, we are giving in to the most conservative section of the Muslim crowd. That cannot be our choice. Personally, I think the article has a sufficient number of pictures already. Insulting and disgusting images are out of the question though, western or otherwise. Ezag 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you have expressed your point thoroughly enough as to not merit further argument on Blake or Dante. Let us put this question to rest. My vote is no, to anything from Dante. On that much I think we can find consensus amongst everyone but you. There is a range of western views of Muhammad, no one view dominates. We do not need to elect the most vile medieval representation to find visualization here. You say "the West has a right to develop its own opinions". The west no longer holds this view of Muhammad. Nor do I think that the West would be proud to have such a sickening caricature produced by one of its artists represented here as the image which summarizes their perspective on Muhammad. Not that anyone here is in a position to claim he represents the interest of all of "the west". Also, Muhammad never conquered any part of Italy. Yes, the west lost territory to latter Muslims in history, but by the same token they gained territory using force from peoples of other religions too. Ezag 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That assumption that consensus exists in unfounded.  While I do not presume that any consensus has formed yet, I am certain not everyone agrees with your position.  The following people have either reverted the page back to include the Blake image at some point, or expressed to some degree a desire to see the image included: Talmage, TharkunColl, Beit Or, Strothra, Proabivouac, Arrow740, Sefringle, Frotz, Briangotts, Alecmconroy.  This is not to say each of these people actively supports inclusion of the image (some do and some don't).  However, each has either taken to step to revert the page to include the image (indicating that it's not a no-brainer decision to censor the image) or has made points indicating at least tepid support or understanding of the image's inclusion.  This contradicts your statement that On that much I think we can find consensus amongst everyone but you.  Please do not pass your beliefs on as accepted consensus, especially before any consensus is formed. Additionally the section did not concern modern Western views. Furthermore, I disagree with your statement that the West no longer views Muhammad in a negative light. Some people do and some people don't. When you examine his actions and teachings there is considerable room for discussion, but modern views are not pertinent to a section concerning traditional views from the Romantic era. Talmage 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  1) The image is deemed unacceptable to several editors here. 2) The section is "Christian and Western view", "romantic era" is merely a subsection to a section which includes modern and archaic views. 3) While there may be no consensus to exclude the image, there is certainly none to include it. 4) It was I who pointed out no single view of Muhammad dominates the West, and therefore Blake's work should not be the image representing the section "Christian and Western View of Muhammad". If there is a variety of views on him, it makes sense that the image used be a neutral one. Include the US Supreme Court wall carving. It neither embellishes Muhammad with anything particularly flattering, nor denigrates him. Ezag 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why must we ensure no image of Muhammad ever casts him in a negative light?  If the point of view being discussed in the article casts him in a negative light, there is no reason the image shouldn't.  Just as there is no reason to censor positive images in sections documenting Muslim veneration of Muhammad. Muhammad is not immune to historical criticism or an expression of historical views. Talmage 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We may not be able to obtain a high quality free license version of that.  If there exists a consensus to use a neutral western version, I will dig up several options.  WilyD 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Jesus article has lengthy sections on how religions other than Christianity view him (including Islam). To suppress, or marginalise, such views of Muhammad is - once again, religious censorship. TharkunColl 22:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus is considered a prophet of Islam too. Given Christianity came into being many years after Jesus' death and that Jesus did not personally endorse the religion of Christianity, it would be wrong to say Christianity has exclusive rights to claim Jesus as its leader. Similarly, Bahais see Muhammad as one of their prophets, and that is mentioned in this article too. I don't see anyone fighting to censor non-Muslim views of Muhammad from this article, so I do not see what you are calling religious censorship. Ezag 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize this does not pertain to the Muhammad article, but it pertains to your previous post which I cannot let stand without correction.  I would caution you from speaking about Christianity.  In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  Christianity was founded with Jesus who then passed his torch to his disciples, specifically entrusting the church with Peter (although other apostles, such as Mark in Alexandria, also founded churches in other parts of the world).  While Jesus considered himself Jewish (and King of the Jews), Christianity is simply Judaism with the addition of the redemption of Christ and his teachings.  He didn't make the Jewish scriptures obsolete, but added significantly to them.  So to say Jesus did not endorse Christianity is false.  He founded the church and through apostolic succession, priests of many denominations can to do this day still trace their ordinations back to Christ.  Islam may claim him as a prophet, but even in Arabic the Islamic prophet is known as "Isa" (عيسى) not "Jesus" (يسوع) as he is known in every Arabic Bible.  When I was first learning Arabic I once used the name "Isa" in church, to which I was promptly corrected that no such person ever existed.  They are fundamentally two different people as recorded by the two different religions. Talmage 03:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do not caution me on speaking, as you do not know my level of knowledge of the subject. The Jesus Wikipedia entry is very well written. According to it, Jesus' name was not even Jesus. In Hebrew, the language he probably spoke, it was "Yeshua". The arabic "Isa" sounds closer to "Yeshua" than the very Roman "Jesus" does. Jesus is the Anglicization of a greek mispronunciation. See the article on Church, the usage of that word also comes about from a misuse of scripture. Jesus never said the word "Christianity", and the article on Christianity will show you the origin of the word does not go back to Jesus. You quote the Gospel of Matthew, although there is no certainty as to who or when that gospel was written. My point is, all these conclusions you've pointed out are questionable to say the least. There are other views of who and what Jesus was. The Druze have one view of him, the Muslims another. Since Jesus never used these words like Christianity and Church and even Jesus, for Christians to claim they have exclusive rights to the man as a leader is wrong. And like many, I do not consider the Bible to be an accurate historical document anyway. Given Muslims regard him as an Islamic prophet, the Islamic view of him should be included in the article on Jesus. I am not entirely sure why Christian views of Muhammad belong here, though I am not contesting its inclusion. Ezag 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  English Jesus comes from Latin Iesus, with the I pronounced like a Y.  Since I could be both a consonant or a vowel, the consonantal I was written later as J in Latin, where it moves to English.  (Just as the vowel V was later written U).  At any rate, even the Arabic Bibles refer to "Yaysua" (يسوع) never "Isa".  The whole point of this is that I am contradicting your absurd statement that Jesus never endorsed Christianity, which is the combination of Jewish scripture with Jesus's teachings, both of which he endorsed.  It is not my desire to get off course as much as we have, but I can't let modern Islamic revisionism go uncorrected. Talmage 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This will be my last post on this matter. Someone above referred to you as a troll, which seems plausible. On to my last response: Was Jesus English? Was he Latin? In your post just before this you said the Arabic Bible said "Jesus", now you say that same Bible said "Yayshua"? You are changing your story. "Jesus" and "Yeshua" sound nothing alike. Compensating for differences in pronunciation between Hebrew and Arabic (compare "shalom" with "salaam"), the name "Isa" seems far more believably authentic than "Jesus". As for Christianity being a continuation of Judaism, please consult informed Jews on whether they see similarities between the two religions. The answer will definitely be no. Jesus never endorsed the organization you call a Church. He never said the WORD "Church". He never endorsed Christianity. Until the Council of Nicea, there was much debating over the nature of Jesus and the basics of Christianity. That congregation ended with the production of the Nicene Creed, which held that Jesus was divine. It took 325 years to reach that conclusion. Whether that conclusion is true or false, authentic or invented, is not an argument I feel is relevant. My only point is that Christianity cannot claim ownership of Jesus. That is all from me on this matter. Ezag 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one referred to me as a troll.  If you wish to do so, then don't use weasel words.  I was translating the Arabic يسوع into English, which is Jesus.  Other the other hand, عيسى is translated into Isa.  In other words they are two different words/names.  I'm not interested in pronunciation, that's your kick. I apologize for erroneously assuming you were familiar with the language of Islam.  Otherwise I would have sounded everything out without including the Arabic script. Talmage 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: TharkunColl has made good arguments. We should represent the POV on Muhammad which a depiction of the Inferno symbolizes. Arrow740 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Even better -- just to be absolutely sure we're being fair here -- would be to represent, in the article Jesus, the POV on Jesus which Piss Christ symbolizes. Please go start a section at Jesus entitled Contemporary Artistic Representations of Jesus, use Piss Christ as the driving image, and let us all know what happens. BYT 14:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that. Please go ahead. The equivalent for this article would be the Danish cartoons. TharkunColl 14:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well Ezag has made his mind up.  We should probably discontinue discussion then. No negative images of anyone.  No criticism of anyone someone might admire.  We must also make it a point to censor the Adolf Hitler article of all criticism and negative POV.  We wouldn't want to possibly offend any remaining Nazis.  After all they believe Hitler was just a nice guy who wanted to take over the entire world, kill a bunch of people in the process, and establish his own culture. Talmage 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Childish comment, comparing Muslims to Nazis. By the way, you bring up Adolf Hitler. Bad example. The Adolf Hitler article doesn't have ugly caricatures or  commentary the likes of which you would like to have here. You further reinforce my point that it is not normal for Wikipedia articles to host such POVs. It is not censorship to exercise taste and editorial common sense. Ezag 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dante pictures don't really strike me as charicatures.  The Blake one is a simple illustration in the style of the times.  Dali's picture is what you'd expect from Dali: dreamlike and surreal.  Stating that the Hitler article does not contain criticism is false: the criticism is quite obvious.  The big difference is that Muhammad lived more than a thousand years ago.  Since Muhammad is a theological figure, of course he would attract attention from theologians and ultimately criticism.  That is the core of the 28th Canto of the Divine Comedy.  Frotz 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the criticism you are talking about in Adolf Hitler. The article is quite professional in its look, although I don't see the that his sexuality is a worthy bit of information in an encyclopedia article. There is no offensive artwork depicting him in the article. Also, I see there is a Criticism of Muhammad article in existence, and a Depiction of Muhammad article. All this western opinion and art should go to either of those. This article should be more factual and informative. Dante, and the entire section for that matter conveys no information as to who he was as a historical figure. The entire "Christian/Western" section should go to Criticism of Muhammad. Ezag 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems unlikely.  Many Western/Christian views of Muhammad are not particularly critical, and given the relative importance of Muhammad to Islam/Islamic culture and Christianity/Western Culture, the article already focusses far too much on his influence in Islam. WilyD 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you Taranah. WilyD, I agree that it would be good for the article to show the importance of Muhammad in Western culture. It seems to me intuitively that he has had a huge influence. But we cannot reflect that in the article without some good sources. Can you point us towards any? It was said above that Dante's description of Muhammad had an influence on Western culture. That point would need to be proved as well. Can I remind those in favour of inclusion of images that they need to make a case for their inclusion. I haven't seen that case made yet. Accusing other people of censorship does not count. Itsmejudith 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dante material is cited to the Encyclopedia of Islam Online.Proabivouac 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dante is one of the great figures in Western Culture. The fact that artists as disparate as Blake and Dali depicted him is proof enough. The real point here is this: Muhammad is a crucial figure in world history. The article should not just reflect the views of his supporters. TharkunColl 22:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually really like the American Supreme Court image for that - I'm still working on finding a free version.  Here he's held up by a (fairly prominant) western country's legal system as one of the 18 most important secular lawmakers in history.  The specific image has been the object of some attention too with the complaints by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. WilyD 14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The comment really wasn't childish.  There is enough criticism to go around for both, and commonly held negative views should be discussed, otherwise we give undue weight to the positive side.  I stopped far short of what this theologian stated. Talmage 07:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No. It's just a religious taboo, plain and simple. TharkunColl 11:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a suggestion

message: When I first read the article, I did not like the depictions of Muhammad that were included. When I tried to discuss the removal of these images, I was directed towards the archives. There was already a 'long long long long' discussion, and a consensus had been reached. I do not agree with the results, but seeing that my POV is not the one WP should follow, I came to the conclusion that maybe the article ought to be re-written/improved to a point where depictions are no longer needed; a time-consuming effort.
Now I understand that consensus is what dictates WP, so I thought "fine, for the moment". Then A new image was added, against consensus.
The consensus which took 6 months to reach was about images, if I am not mistaken. If we want to abide by that consensus, then this new "naked Muhammad with intestines hanging out in Hell" should not be included. If we are ignoring the consensus, then that leaves open the possibility that all depictions be removed.
So maybe it is time to choose? Do we follow the previous consensus or not? Unflavoured 12:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To TharkunColl. I am not saying that Dante is not an important figure in Western culture, of course he is. Whether his portrayal of Muhammad significantly affected subsequent Western ideas of the Prophet is another matter and one upon which we would need to refer to sources. EoI is not necessarily the best source for Western views of Islam, as evidenced by its rather loose use of the term "Romantic" (unless this is just because it has been quoted out of context here). Itsmejudith 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Except for the fact that the image does not pertain to the sub-section on modern Western views of Muhammad, but rather classical views. Talmage 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of those tiny subsections does not need an illustration.  From a page-design standpoint the overall section "Christian and Western views of Muhammad" might be improved with a single image.  If the image we agree on is the one from the Supreme Court, we can attach it to the "Modern Times" subsection.  We could even add a sentence or short paragraph to the Modern times section discussing it (or in the caption).  I found this article about that frieze after a quick google search. –Taranah 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The image is relative to the Muhammad article more so than the Blake or Dante articles.  Just as Shakespeare has a reference in the singular they article but singular they isn't mentioned in the Shakespeare article. Talmage 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The opposite of Talmage's above statement strikes me as true. The Blake and Dali illustrations are both highly relevant to the articles on the Divine Comedy. The main article on the Divine Comedy is just a stub linking to Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture, an embarrassing hotchpotch (leaping from Primo Levi to Craig Charles!) and needs replacing with a properly researched section or sub-article on the work's influence in culture, tout court. Itsmejudith 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another suggestion 

message: Please take a look at the Aws page, and the Khazraj page. The battle of bu'ath was mainly between these two clans. All the info u need is right there in the wiki entries. But calling Muhammad a brigand is POV, no ?! Unflavoured 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Arrow740 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting...many would consider that Muhammad was trying to compensate the 'outrooted' meccans for the losses they suffered when they got kicked out of mecca, but here the article makes it seem as though Muhammad was roaming the deserts looking for trouble. Unflavoured 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is all from Lewis's book, and is quite neutral language. A brigand is a brigand, and that's what Lewis calls it. Arrow740 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lewis doesn't say that. Everybody: You can read the relevant pages of lewis book (p.31 here) online at books.google.com--Aminz 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preview that Aminz is talking about does not have the pages in question, and the book I have says "brigandage" and "raiders." It's the 1960 printing. Arrow740 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can search for words in restricted pages. The search engine says that the word "brigandage" is not mentioned in the text. --Aminz 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's in the book I have. Maybe it's a different edition. In any case, I have the book, you don't have access to the full book, so stop this revert-warring. Arrow740 09:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the search engine searches the whole book anyway. "Taking up arms" doesn't come up either, so you were lying when you said "as Lewis says it," as I suspected. Arrow740 09:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reworded it. See my comments to the section "Arrow's edits" section. --Aminz 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's Arab history, rather than specifically Islam, that is at issue, we need to use Hourani alongside Lewis or instead of Lewis, as his book is the standard work on the subject. Later scholarship, too, as it was first published 1991. I have it to hand and will add text when I have a minute. Itsmejudith 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Judith, other sources should be utilized as well.  Particularly since the mainstream of the Middle Eastern Studies field has moved beyond the orientalism of Lewis.  In order to reduce POV, multiple sources should be used and contrasted against each other within the section. Lewis is a scholar, but he does not have the last word on the subject. --Strothra 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms used are accurate. There is no condescension or western bias. Arrow740 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I just consulted the Oxford History of Islam - you can also see it on Amazon - and Fred Donner uses "raids" and "booty" to describe the same events. Prof. Donner is a contemporary scholar compared to Lewis (and as far as I know, has never been labeled an orientalist as Lewis has been.) Jayran 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see sub-section on "What Lewis says" below. Lewis doesn't say what Arrow says on his behalf. --Aminz 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous conflict in Medina 

message: is it ok to use other wikipedia articles as a source? I found over 15 'citations needed', though there are articles on each event. Unflavoured 03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we cannot cite wikipedia own articles, except in special cases like Essjay controversy. I suggest to find sources from those articles and use here. --- A. L. M. 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations, citations 

message: Obvious problem with middle years section
"bn Ishaq records that Khadijah bore Muhammad six children: three sons named Al Qasem, Abdullah (who is also called Al Tayeb and Al Taher) and Ibrahim, and four daughters."
Thats seven not six. I don't know what the correct figure is so i don't want to edit it myself ClimberDave 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibrahim was by another wife. Unflavoured 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with middle years section

message: Most of the attacks are by IP. Unflavoured 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to WP:RFPP to request protection of the page. --After Midnight 0001 13:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Submitted request. → AA (talk • contribs) — 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect this article please

message: Shouldn't a IPA translation of the Arabic pronunciation of Muhammad be added in the intro to
aid readers? I would add it, but I don't know Arabic, much less classical Arabic. Jayran 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IPA Pronunciation on page