Talk:Diplomatic career of Muhammad

message: *listing some mild points of critique against the author in his review of Cambridge History of Islam, Irfan Shahid says (7):
His presentation, however, could have been more effective (1) the pre-Islamic material should have been clearly separated from the islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammedan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pre-Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity... ... (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Muhammad's letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected.
*Nadia El-Cheick writes much of her account on the relationship between Muhammad and Heraclius under the assumption that Muhammad did communicate with Heraclius. i wasn't able to find her own personal opinion explicitly affirming historicity but she does say:
The authenticity of the letters of the prophet Muhammad to the Emporer Heraclius, the Persian Kind Chosroes, the Negus of Abyssinia and to others have been the subject of great controversy. Muhammad Hamidullah believes in the authenticity of the letter of the prophet Muhammad and has reiterated his position more recently. 
she then goes on to outline Serjeant's rejection and provides quite substantial footnotes over the pages referring to a number of Hamidullah's works. she also says that Arab chroniclers/historians did not doubt the authenticity, and she notes that the different versions of the narrative are very similar. after providing the text of the letter, she writes:
The letter sent to Heraclius was very similar in its phrasing and content to letters which the Prophet had supposedly sent to other contemporaneous rulers. A letter bidding the Persian king to embrace Islam or do battle (26) infuriated Chosroes who tore it apart and wrote to his governor in Yaman ordering him to march on Medina, fight Muhammad, and take him prisoner and send him to the Persian capital (27). The arrogance and total rejection of Islam by the Persian ruler as well as his outright insult to the Prophet is contrasted with the respectful behaviour of Heraclius, who is said to have read the letter and then placed it between his thighs and ribs (28).
the footnote (26) again mention Hamidullah and a work of his in a journal (see below) as well as the work of another author, the other footnotes are citing sources containing the narratives. her narrative of events continues (quite extensively, for essentially the rest of the 18 page article) all under the premise of authentic communications between Muhammad and Heraclius. 
*Hamidullah is a notable opponent because he is referrred to by both the EoI and by Nadia El-Cheick. that Nadia El-Cheick herself believes Hamidullah's opinions to be noteworthy, citing an article of his from Revista Degli Studi Orientali XL (1965), as well as Arabica ii (i don't know much about this journal, it is cited in some of the JSTOR articles though) suggests that he is a notable figure within this debate. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He definitely is a notable figure. One can have a look at here:. His bibliography can be read at:. He started his publication career at the age of 16. He definitely is notable and scholarly as well! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also you would like to see on google scholar:. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: it seems that he asserts that rejecting accounts of letters to leaders is unjustified, citing the letter to Heraclius as an example. i'm not sure that Hamidullah claimed to have the original copy, just that he produced what he believed to be the original text. it was in fact King Hussayn of Jordan in 1977 who claimed to have the original letter as El-Cheikh states in a footnote, which was apparently analysed by "specialists having confirmed its authenticity." yet, as El-Cheikh says, it is a topic of controversy. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: quotes for Beit Or

message: We need to make it clear that Medina was only forged into a political unit after Muhammad killed or drove out all the Jews. Arrow740 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV and Original research. TruthSpreaderTalk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.Opiner 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Watt doesn't seem to think so. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide full context. Your "seems" have not been accurate thus far. Arrow740 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the context is pretty clear. you're experiencing some problems in understanding a few sentences. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I had, you also experienced. The real problem is with your representation of a few sentences. Arrow740 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is already such nonsense it should probably just be deleted. Completely nonfactual propaganda and whitewashing. RunedChozo 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad killed the Jews, he didn't bring them into the fold 

message: The page is now locked in bad faith by a tool at the behest of POV-pusher Itaqallah following my complaint to WP:ANI about Itaqallah's blatant lying in his revert edit summaries.RunedChozo 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unprotected again, let's see if after the block of RunedChozo you other guys can work it out together. Evil Tool, 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After a lengthy thread on WikiEN-l and AN/I, it appears that RunedChozo's block is going to stand. I would heartily encourage all parties in this dispute to consider dispute resolution -- edit warring really is to be discouraged, I'd much rather see discussion, be it here or via RfC. I notice he's been rather rude, at times, but I also notice nobody seems to be putting much effort into getting him to calm down and talk things over. Discussion is not an obligation of one editor, but of all editors. All I ask is that you try. Luna Santin 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page locked by tool of Itaqallah 

message: As I've said before, everyone take a deep breath and realize everything is okay.  If there is ever going to be an article where good-faith editors are going to have a hard time agreeing-- this is it.   This is going to be one of the hardest topics on all of Wikipedia to get right.  And really, what we are doing on this article is unparalleled in human history--  average citizens from all across the world, coming together and trying to write a consensus article on what is probably one of the top five most controversial topics in all the world.  There have been hundreds of wars amongst people trying to  come to consensus on what the content of this article should be.  Centuries ago, all our ancestors were killing each other over this, and now we're all having a reasonable chat about it.  :)  Things are good.  Just be civil, be extra careful to assume good faith, and we'll get through it eventually.  Which of course, is easy for me to say, because I havent' been a part of it, but say it I shall. :)  --Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moral support

message: why are there too many tags in this article? why is this unencyclopedic? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wrong and wrong. ITAQALLAH 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: show where the article is biased and factually inaccurate using scholarly, reputable sources, and we can resolve to fix those problems. until you show where the problems are and why they are so, the presence of such a tag remains unjustified. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: you are being rather unreasonable by first baselessly tagging an article, reverting to retain it, and then refusing to justify the tag on talk. ITAQALLAH 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: please justify your tagging, demonstrating where the article is problematic and how so using scholarly sources. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: i don't have to comply with any of your demands... please stop this wikilawyering, and justify your tagging of the article. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: last time you accused me of lying, you were laughed off the ML (along with your friend who was found to be a puppeteer). in fact, you seem to accuse almost everyone you interact with of "lying." i'm not refusing to follow the rules, i don't see myself as having to make any "promises" to you as a pretext to your explanation of your dubious tagging. you don't seem to be following the rules too well yourself, despite your assurances. now, stop with these red herrings and explain where the article is problematic. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "because your refusal shows me you're just going to turn" - you've already shown that you cannot adhere to the promises you make. you simply wish to use such a 'promise' as a means to attack people as soon as they don't do things your way. it goes without saying that i will always endeavor to try to implement what i understand of wikipedia policy, and your judgement is by no means relevant with regards to when i have and have not apparently violated policy. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RunedChozo is blocked indefinitely. --Aminz 07:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tags 

message: i see no reasonable justification as to why the Constitution of Medina cannot be considered an act of diplomacy. as i said earlier, there is no basis at all on this talk page, except for OR arguments about the nature of the constitution. Lewis' quote simply confirms the notion that it was diplomacy, which other scholars similarly imply. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it can be considered an act of diplomacy. The sources directly and unambigiously state that. --Aminz 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for a couple of vague quotes, there is no support for the claim that the Constitution of Medina was a work of diplomacy. This issue highlights the problem with this article in general: it's based on vague passages or on what some scholars "imply" or, in most cases, on nothing at all. In a nutshell, the article is inherently POV and OR. Beit Or 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  relevance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502123135/http://www.sahihalbukhari.com:80/sps/sbk/ to http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526072029/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/054.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/054.sbt.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Formal request has been received to merge Muhammad's letters to the heads of state into Diplomatic career of Muhammad; dated: September 14, 2021. Proposer's rationale: The later article only has 3500 words of prose, considerably below the size limit, while there is already considerable overlap between the former and the later, with the former including minimal information that the later does not. Pinging proposer  Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge: I think this article should be kept, as it deserves it's own article. Best wishes, AdigabrekTalk  17:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal