Talk:Muhammad/Archive 19

message: Hi! A very interesting and concise article. I have one question, though. Why is the biogrpahy of Muhammad only given in the traditional islamic form? That sure has cultural and religious value, but to those readers who are interested in the actual historical Muhammad, shouldn't the article contain a biography based on critical historical research? (Compare with Jesus). --Tungsten 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Muhammad

message: Merge discussions for [Al-insan al-kamil]. → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to share that interesting point for us? --Aminz 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-insan al-kamil, merge for discussion

message: All historical information in this wiki is presented like it's a fact. But this is not the Koran, this is wikipedia. There is no historical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. The mentioned sources all base their information on the Koran. And if Muhammad ever lived, there is some doubt that he lived in Saoudi Arabia (Syria is mentioned as a more likely place). The first scientific historical information about the new religion Islam comes from two centuries after Muhammad died.
In the wiki about Jesus, some doubts about the historical Jesus are mentioned. But the wiki about Muhammed does some copy / paste work form the Koran. Maybe this information should be an a different page, but it should be mentioned.
I also think there is far too much information in this wiki.
*Do you know of any reliable sources that doubt that there was a historical guy named Muhammad?  WilyD 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this kind of material is already in this article, as well as the much more detailed Christian view of Muhammad, for instance.  In general, there's a strong need to avoid recentism here - especially with unimportant stuff like "historic moral judgements of".  Since the kind of stuff you're talking about already has a section, why not begin by saying what you dislike about how it's covered?  Cheers, WilyD 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, make sure to have stronger sources.  Only a very few of the sources are not print sources and most are from well established press (and those are only about depictions of Muhammad and they are from major news organizations). gren グレン 07:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad as a historical figure 

message: Can someone address in the article the birth names of Muhammad (PBUH) which are circulating the internet please? Thank you 82.6.114.172 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kotham and Halabi

message: In the middle years section, it says that both his sons died before the Prophet declared his mission, while the family life section says otherwise. Could someone solve this ?! Thank you. Unflavoured 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict 

message: References 55 and 44 have disappeared because they apparently reference references which have since been removed.  I did a brief search but couldn't find what they originally linked to.  Can anyone find the references and we should be careful about this in the future. gren グレン 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroying references 

message: Ok, I have the perfect solution for this conflict and I am sure that the editors or the main people responsible for editing this page will definitely think over.
Adding Images of Prophet Mohammed is causing havoc among Muslims. And the other group of people do not want to remove it because they like it this way.
My suggestion is keep the images but hide the face exactly like the first image That way both groups will be happy and satisfied.
so what do you say. Azizfar 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad works.  It gives the impression that images are okay and removing them is not... (not shedding any light on when it's appropriate to use what images).  I think it would be very difficult to craft policy which made it clear that images cannot be removed for no reason but they should not just be added willy-nilly because a page mentions Muhammad.  I really doubt it's something that can be templated... I haven't seen what happened at kaba, but I think in extremely blatant cases of "I'm removing it because it offends Muslims" it can easily be removed... gren グレン 13:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ignity and dignity? Are you sure? Arrow740 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We have heard that speech a million times. Repeating it again will not remove the images.--SefringleTalk 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "ignity" is a propensity to ignite? Itsmejudith 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gren's approach sounds good to me -- we can be sensitive to culture without letting it be the dominant factor in deciding our content. This doesn't necessarily have to be an either-or thing. To use an outside example, just as we don't run around adding "may she rest in peace," to every article about a deceased person, but we don't add "Gee, I'm glad that one's dead," either. Mention and show things when they're relevant, I figure. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrapping up the issue of Muhammad's images 

message: In its current wording, the first sentence seems to imply the second, even though that doesn't seem to be the case.  I don't have access to the book to verify (Google have blocked it, strangely), or to edit the main article, but I think rewording it to say something like "He further believes that" would make it clearer. --Mark 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid conclusion about contemporary viewpoint 

message: Don't equate the objectivity of the two. The views of biased sources are not relevant as regards an article about history. Arrow740 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i see no need to ignore what classical and contemporary Muslim scholars write about their own historical traditions. it is certainly a notable view, and is given significant weight in the EoQ article on the "satanic verses". ITAQALLAH 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars vs. believers 

message: Re BYT's recent edits:
*"In a controversial account…"
:The central facts aren't controversial 1) it appears in the earliest biographies 2) it was (and still is) rejected by later Islamic scholars. There is a difference of opinion in academic scholarship, but I see no evidence that it this any more "controversial" than any other disagreement. If there is any controversy, it is related to the Rushdie novel, not to anything we're discussing here.
*"…they are seen by most, but not all, Western scholars as historical…"
:I do not think we need to mention that most Western scholars assume the account to be historical because it appears in the biographies. Stating that it appears in the biographies is enough for this main article. Additionally, "but not all" is redundant.
*"According to this version of events…"
:"This version of events" is palpably and unduly skeptical, and fundamentally inaccurate: there is no other version of these events, which doubters deny occurred at all.
*"…they are also seen as recognizing the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah."
:Besides being seen as poor writing, and also being seen as weasel words, it's also completely unnecessary: few dispute that this is what the verse would mean, were it delivered. This is al-Tabari's interpretation as well, and, according to al-Tabari, was the interpretation of the Meccans who heard it, and of Gabriel, who repudiated it.
*This is a poor source; we can do better.Proabivouac 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re BYT edits

message: * There is a pending request for an RFM on this matter here.
* User:Proabivouac
* User:Aminz
* User:Arrow740
... please respond. If you feel the dispute has not been adequately described, please use the talk page there so we can develop a fair and workable description of it, and then move forward. BYT 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we be sure we need mediation without knowing what we're mediating? Whatever it is, we should first attempt to resolve it here on the talk page, wouldn't you agree?Proabivouac 20:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfM

message: Maybe it's just my computer, but the Arabic for Muhammad's name seems to be screwed up. It's in the middle of the list of variations for his name. --MosheA 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: The article currently says "Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms" as the only reasons for the raids against Meccan caravans. I think this is not all the story. The Qur'an explains this in verses . Here is my suggestion:
Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca. The Qur'an in verses  gave the permission for warfare. These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.
--Aminz 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Gwen, the Qur'an doesn't do anything…but if Muhammad delivered Qur'anic verses which gave the go ahead, that is certainly topical and interesting: it's his bio, after all. If we have a good source, let's add it.Proabivouac 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. This is the first Qur'anic verse talking about the issue. --Aminz 07:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proab, re , I think a link to the qur'anic verse itself would be informative (as it explains the reasons for permission that Lewis doesn't say). As it is now, it just says there is a qur'anic verse in the Qur'an about this. --Aminz 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't remove the link; it's still there in the first reference appended to the sentence.Proabivouac 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it is in the reference section now. Can we please write it like (See ...) --Aminz 07:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who are interested will click the links, wouldn't you imagine?Proabivouac 07:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but I'd like to include it because that quote is adding to the reasons. Apparently Lewis is only interested in economic justifications of actions. --Aminz 07:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is included. If you are saying you want a full quote, that's one thing, but if it's just a link it should be a ref to the primary source. Not that I'd revert you - it's just housekeeping, really; sort of surprised this has become an issue.Proabivouac 10:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel an active link in the page would be best as it is something between full-quote and mentioning it in references. --Aminz 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up 

message: Watt has two point in this section: "The common attitude was that a man might do what he liked with his prisoner...(continues citing an example) Such excesses Muhammad put a stop to. Yet even he had two prisoners executed." I think it is fair to mention both points if we are about to write about prisoners of Badr. --Aminz 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it seems to me that the space we have given to prisoners of war is almost the same as the space given to the Battle itself ?!?!? I think we should reduce this considerablly. --Aminz 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad's execution of prisoners of war is critical to the understanding of the latter phases of the war between him and the Quryash, so it should stay. Beit Or 10:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say we should remove this. Would you please explain how it was relevant to the latter phases of the war between him and the Quryash? Thanks --Aminz 10:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As always, can we just state what happened? This hand-wringing continues to be of zero interest to me, and useless to readers. If we have a Qur'anic verse that is delivered, that is something that happened and a rightful part of the narrative. These latter-day moralistic commentaries are not.Proabivouac 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we can state what happened. To put it simply: A common practice(attitude) was condemned by Muhammad. That's it. --Aminz 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? What common practice, and when?Proabivouac 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is how Watt puts it. He says that the common attitude was that a man might do what he liked with his prisoner. He quotes of one prisoners of Badr being killed because the captor particularly hated him. Watt says Muhammad put an stop to such excesses. But even then he order those two to be executed. --Aminz 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner 

message: I think this subsection needs balance. It quotes Lewis who seems to justify everything through changes in economical/political situation of Muslims. I think this subsection should be balanced out with Watt (p.124-126) and others. Further, there seems to be some overlap with the Jewish tribes issue and it further seems that Lewis views it completely from an economical point of view. So, that also needs to be NPOVed. One last thing: statements like "Islam began to change" are interpretive; instead the underlying point he may refer to should be mentioned. --Aminz 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nice of you to first start a subsection and then admit it needs balance. Beit Or 10:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beit Or, please read my edit summaries regarding your revert. The family stuff should be placed in family section not beginning of conflicts. And more importantly, it is unsourced. Similarly, please check my edit summaries regarding other edits. --Aminz 10:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The significance of Badr 

message: I'll edit the section per Watt 132-135. There were 3 expeditions by Muhammad against certain tribes, one razzis against Medina by Meccans and one by Medina against Meccans (+other events). These happened before battle of Uhud but the current section doesn't seem to cover these. --Aminz 11:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict with Mecca section 

message: Everybody knows that it's forbidden in Islam to picture any prophet the article contains imaginary pictures for prophet Muhammad "peace be upon him", so I think respecting others' beliefs is more important than adding unnecessary pictures so I am asking the administrative users to delete them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 
:No. Wikipedia is not subject to the religious taboos of Islam or any other religion. TharkunColl 09:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because you would then have to delete the pictures of almost every historical figure for exactly the same reason - namely, that the pictures are not contemporary. Muhammad should not be singled out for special treatment. TharkunColl 10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They are real depictions of Muhammad, actually.Proabivouac 10:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No one said they were living portraits of Muhammad.Proabivouac 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They're not against any religion at all. At most, your religion is against them, but that's not a good reason to remove anything from Wikipedia, anymore than my religion would be. See WP:NOT, WP:NPOVProabivouac 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't completely made up my mind (still reading) but there are philosophers such as Joel Feinberg who maintain that preventing shock, disgust, or revulsion is always a morally relevant reason for legal prohibitions. How much his arguments are relevant here is a matter I need to try to understand better in order to be able to say anything. --Aminz 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pictures should be deleted 

message: Some mention should be made of Muhammad's favorite (and youngest) wife. His life wasn't all about war. Arrow740 09:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already there in the family section. --Aminz 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aisha 

message: Please write in the below a point to point response to the above 12 points I've raised. In my next turn, I'll comment on them and we can continue. If you agree with a change, there is no need to discuss it. --Aminz 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, that would serve no purpose. Arrow740 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't want to join the discussion, that's another issue. --Aminz 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Beit Or's response to you above, and do not remove sourced material (even if you don't have access to it, can't understand it, or don't like it). Arrow740 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please write a point-to-point response. --Aminz 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Beit Or's response was not helpful. unwillingness to discuss the issues at hand only stymies any attempt at dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The path suggested may be unduly laborious - I myself haven't had time to take too close a look - but the alternative is yet more edit warring.Proabivouac 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrow's point to point response 

message: 3. "There is a meaning in listing various places where the story is confirmed." Would you like to share its meaning? One source says that most western scholars agree with its historicity. I can list many sources saying no. 
4. If you agree with removal of this, then we don't need to continue anymore. But otherwise I'll provide an answer: You wrote: "After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims"When did this happen? In the last years of Mecca? You say: The satanic verses incident was a turning point. What does this have to do with what you've written in the article. 
5. Where did you answer to my comment: "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom" --> "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom." This is how the source puts it and is more accurate.
Now, regarding the second part of your writing "Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom, but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed.", Robinson only says those who were wealthy or influential but were not ransomed were killed and nothing more. Are you happy with :"In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Those who were wealthy but did not ransomed themselves were killed." 
6. We should mention what factually happened since there are various of different interpretations of what happened that we can not get into in the main article. If we are going to mention anything, we should mention anything of equal importance. And lastly, Watt is not an apologist.  
7. Arrow, thanks for addressing some of my points. But you have not addressed all of them, i.e. that we are here dealing with the historical narration of the events and I am not sure if this particular point is relevant here. If we are going to include it, here is my suggestion: "Following the Battle of Badr, the Qur'anic verses, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty."  
8. Muhammad expelled Banu Qaynuqa a few weeks after the Battle of Badr and I have seen some other scholars making the same point. The victory that Lewis is talking about is that of Badr.   
9. My point is quite different. We should say the underlying facts and then afterwards present various views. See WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. The underlying fact is the change of the qibla. That's the bit of information. Muslims have their own interpretation of it. Lewis has his own and others theirs. As of now, we have nothing but a loaded meaningless sentence: "Islam began to change." 
10. To be completed
11. You have not answered my point. Plus, how in your mind, 10 weeks is a few days? November 624 to March 625 is accurate.
12. Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions. Ibn Ishaq doesn't say anything on what Muhammad thought. Watt and Robinson are making their own conclusions. It is quite unneccessary to write such details in the main article. we need to just report basic facts rather than getting into controversial personal readings of the details. 
--Aminz 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aminz point-to-point response  

message: 3. What your problem with this? I don't understand why multiple citations is at all an issue. Is there some wikipolicy you're thinking of?
4. You didn't read the whole response, it seems. The complete break with the Meccans was after the satanic verses incident.
5. Please edit this response to make it intelligible. I'm representing Rodinson completely accurately. You're proposing something unreadable in exchange for something which clearly represents the sources Watt and Rodinson (the Watt material is from itaqallah, by the way).
6. Please be clear. You are saying we should include every assassination ordered by Muhammad? That is unreasonable. A summary by the most sympathetic serious historian should suffice for you.
7. Islam is more than the Qur'an. I don't even understand your problem with this sourced statement. Include "increasingly" if you wish.
8. I do not agree with your interpretation of Lewis. Muhammad assassinated a prominent Jew during this time period as well, and there were no doubt political machinations as well. Your interpretation is not relevant as the material is a faithful account of what Lewis (the secondary source, let's not forget) says. If there are other sources talking about the same issue and they will improve the article, include them.
9. It's not loaded, and it's not meaningless. It is a statement of fact. Do you even disagree with it? Again, this is what Lewis says so your agreement doesn't matter. Arrow740 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow, regarding the subsection:"Please make this the last round": I think we need to continue this discussion until either the disputes on each point are resolved, or we agree that we disagree on that point. Then we should probably go for a mediation or something else. This does not mean that your version or my version will stand during all these times, in reality it may become a mixture of both or so, but the POV tags will remain until the end. They are there for a different reason. --Aminz 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: small point, but Rodinson is sourced for the sentence that the unransomed prisoners were killed, while Watt indicates otherwise, and there is no mention of any killings in the EoI article. the Battle of Badr article notes that most prisoners were spared instead of being killed. can the relevant passage from Rodinson be provided? ITAQALLAH 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is neither excessive nor ugly. Look at the source cited. We're not mentioning the "complete break" in the article as following directly the satanic verses incident, even though we should because that's what the sources say. I'm sacrificing encyclopedicity in order to reduce edit warring. Arrow740 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, I assume this is answer to point number 3 regarding the list of the sources re story of the cranes. If so, please move it to the following section under point #3. --Aminz 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Arrow, your comments are becoming less and less helpful. --Aminz 09:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop pretending that there's a neutrality dispute. You're disputing what historians say, and that's not how wikipedia works. Arrow740 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: both 1) revenge and 2) defending trade -either due to a) prestige, as Watt says (which itself connects with the theme of revenge), or b) continued attacks, as Lewis says - are significant reasons for the Battle of Uhud. that is palpable from my comments in the discussion you link to. you are giving undue weight towards reason 2b. what do you mean by "vindictiveness of the historical event"? as for shallow threats on more tendentious wording if i copyedit the passage, see WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you couldn't understand my post, despite the fact that it was "shallow?" Read it again. Here is another wikipedia editor admitting that defending trade was the primary reason for the counterattack. Arrow740 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you didn't understand my above post, Arrow, then please ask for clarification. otherwise, please address the points raised therein. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that Watt and Lewis are quite clear. You find revenge mentioned in the EoI and try to trumpet it as an equal motivator, no doubt to portray the Meccans in a negative light. The sources don't share your POV. We will portray it as they do; defending trade was the primary motive. You said this yourself here. We're mentioning revenge excessively as it is. Arrow740 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please stop your bad faith attacks, which have been increasing in frequency of late. you misrepresent Watt by generalising his point to make it appear that he agrees with Lewis, and don't appreciate the stark differences in their points, nor the fact that revenge ties in quite well with regaining prestige. you need to let go of this obsession with my one single comment which you again clearly misunderstood - and take a look at the discussion as a whole. please address what i asked about Rodinson. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand anything, and you haven't even tried to explain your admission away. If you're saying I misunderstood this diff, then explain yourself. Anyone else reading here can see what you said. Watt states that they needed to restore their prestige in order to protect their trade. They needed to show their trading partners they needed to remove this threat to their trade. I think referring to the Muslims as a "threat to trade" is what is bother you about this, that's the only explanation I can come up with. Do not try to tie things in, let's just say what the sources say. You will not be able to censor this material. You didn't ask anything about Rodinson here. What are you talking about? Arrow740 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i will have to ask again, please stop making bad faith attacks. also, i don't think unfounded and mistaken "explanation"s as to other editors' actions are needed here. you have misinterpreted my comments, and you keep linking to it (at least half a dozen times already) to perpetuate your misunderstanding. please either request clarification of my position, or stop linking to it to advance pointless arguments. "Do not try to tie things in" - that is exactly what you are unsuccessfully trying to do with Watt and Lewis. returning to the issue, i asked for you to elaborate on what you meant by "vindictiveness of the historical event." ITAQALLAH 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please make this the last round

message: 3. Simply because it is excessive and it makes the footnotes look ugly. The same reason we don't do this with other statements. One source says that most academic scholars who mention it accept its historicity. That covers all those special cases.
4. I can not see the direct relevance of the complete break with "After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims" When did this happen? Of course every two statements in this article are relevant simply because they are about Muhammad. But that doesn't mean we can put them together. Aside from these, coming back to the "complete break": Can you please provide the citations.
5. "captives who were not wealthy" is different than "captives of little value". Please see the comment at 09:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: small point, but Rodinson is sourced for the sentence that the unransomed prisoners were killed, while Watt indicates otherwise, and there is no mention of any killings in the EoI article. the Battle of Badr article notes that most prisoners were spared instead of being killed. can the relevant passage from Rodinson be provided? ITAQALLAH 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is neither excessive nor ugly. Look at the source cited. We're not mentioning the "complete break" in the article as following directly the satanic verses incident, even though we should because that's what the sources say. I'm sacrificing encyclopedicity in order to reduce edit warring. Arrow740 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arrow, I assume this is answer to point number 3 regarding the list of the sources re story of the cranes. If so, please move it to the following section under point #3. --Aminz 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aminz point to point response 

message: 11. Uhuh was a few days after the raid. I suppose you failed to comprehend that from the reading, casting yet more doubt on your future reading of sources.
12. You have not provided anything from a reliable source contradicting Rodinson. That's all there is to it. Note: in Ibn Ishaq, ibn Ubayy is reported to have said "what, you will kill them all in one day?"
4. No, look at it yourself. I'm not using that in the article.
5. Aminz, you can take up the representation of the Watt material up with Itaqallah. Watt does not indicate otherwise. Rodinson says: The prisoners were herded together. Umar wanted them all slaughtered, but Muhammad decided that ransoms should be demanded first, after which they would kill any for whom no one was prepared to pay.
6. Are you saying that we should include every instance of a critic of Muhammad killed with Muhammad's approval or request? That is unreasonable in an article of this size. We will include this short summary from the most sympathetic serious scholar.
7. Lewis' wording is clearer than yours.
8. No, I don't think I will. This is not relevant. His statement is clear. If you find an RS disagreeing, present it, otherwise do not post.
9. Your OR is often faulty, this may be the case here.
3. Do not remove sourced material based on your personal ideas of esthetics. Arrow740 05:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow, your comments are becoming less and less helpful. --Aminz 09:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop pretending that there's a neutrality dispute. You're disputing what historians say, and that's not how wikipedia works. Arrow740 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrow's pro forma response 

message: Looking at these, first I've addressed the issue of the tags above. There is apparently no response to my defense of the material sourced to reliable secondary sources.
Now the issue of the "response to brigandage" (regarding "brigandage, that is Lewis' word, and Rodinson says we can "hardly call it anything else"). Itaqallah said that defending trade was the primary motive for the response. Read this here. Now, at the same time, the Meccans wanted revenge. I'll expand the revenge aspect while retaining the content sourced to Lewis.
Regarding the interpretion of Uhud: The Jews, pagans and non-believers were pointing out unkindly that if Muhammad had hailed the victory at Badr as proof of the genuineness of his mission, it was only logical to deduce from his present defeat a sign of the vanity of his claims. If Allah was now on the side of the Qurayshites, it meant that Muhamad could not be accepted as a prophet. Who had ever heard of a prophet who had heaven on his side being so humiliatingly worsted?
So my summary was already quite dry, and your does not include the vindictiveness of the historical event. We can go with "vanity of his claims" or something else closer to Rodinson if you insists on changing it again. Arrow740 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: both 1) revenge and 2) defending trade -either due to a) prestige, as Watt says (which itself connects with the theme of revenge), or b) continued attacks, as Lewis says - are significant reasons for the Battle of Uhud. that is palpable from my comments in the discussion you link to. you are giving undue weight towards reason 2b. what do you mean by "vindictiveness of the historical event"? as for shallow threats on more tendentious wording if i copyedit the passage, see WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you couldn't understand my post, despite the fact that it was "shallow?" Read it again. Here is another wikipedia editor admitting that defending trade was the primary reason for the counterattack. Arrow740 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you didn't understand my above post, Arrow, then please ask for clarification. otherwise, please address the points raised therein. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that Watt and Lewis are quite clear. You find revenge mentioned in the EoI and try to trumpet it as an equal motivator, no doubt to portray the Meccans in a negative light. The sources don't share your POV. We will portray it as they do; defending trade was the primary motive. You said this yourself here. We're mentioning revenge excessively as it is. Arrow740 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please stop your bad faith attacks, which have been increasing in frequency of late. you misrepresent Watt by generalising his point to make it appear that he agrees with Lewis, and don't appreciate the stark differences in their points, nor the fact that revenge ties in quite well with regaining prestige. you need to let go of this obsession with my one single comment which you again clearly misunderstood - and take a look at the discussion as a whole. please address what i asked about Rodinson. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand anything, and you haven't even tried to explain your admission away. If you're saying I misunderstood this diff, then explain yourself. Anyone else reading here can see what you said. Watt states that they needed to restore their prestige in order to protect their trade. They needed to show their trading partners they needed to remove this threat to their trade. I think referring to the Muslims as a "threat to trade" is what is bother you about this, that's the only explanation I can come up with. Do not try to tie things in, let's just say what the sources say. You will not be able to censor this material. You didn't ask anything about Rodinson here. What are you talking about? Arrow740 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i will have to ask again, please stop making bad faith attacks. also, i don't think unfounded and mistaken "explanation"s as to other editors' actions are needed here. you have misinterpreted my comments, and you keep linking to it (at least half a dozen times already) to perpetuate your misunderstanding. please either request clarification of my position, or stop linking to it to advance pointless arguments. "Do not try to tie things in" - that is exactly what you are unsuccessfully trying to do with Watt and Lewis. returning to the issue, i asked for you to elaborate on what you meant by "vindictiveness of the historical event." ITAQALLAH 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest IA edits

message: The "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" passage is under dispute.
There has been an RFC.
There was a request for mediation.
The mediation was refused.
If you are hot under the collar about this and want to enter mediation, leave a note on my talk page, and we'll get right to work. BYT 10:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BYT, if you have anything new to say on this issue, please use this talk page. We need no additional forums. Beit Or 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BYT, I'm trying to talk to you about the article in the thread you titled Talk:Muhammad#User:Arrow740, you are now reinserting your POV to a disputed passage you have refused to enter mediation on.Proabivouac 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty simple here 

message: this article is just offensive from people who hate Islam there is no info about Muhammad here no biography just a war. i suggest to rename the article to "Muhammad (Western Point of View)" .more details replace Western with Judaism. sorry Jewish but there is a group that applied the Arab-Israeli conflict here but with help. LOL (Muslim love Wikipedia - 86.108.94.25 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at a loss as to why telling people about Muhammad's life is offensive. What's your problem with the story of his life? Arrow740 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You must be talking about another article. This article contains reliable biographical data. If the data is wrong then fix it. That it lists war/conflicts e.g. with Mecca etc is because those were important events with respect to progress of Islam and the amalgamation of Arab tribal structures under Islam. The problem overall I feel is probably due to the lack of contemporaneous records. Though Ibn Ishaq obviously has provided biographical details - there is no original records either from the time of Muhammad or even from Ibn Ishaq (funny enough no one doubts Muhammad actually lived whereas Jesus ? - well there are no records at all on him from when he lived !). You're going to have to provide a bit more detail on where the view is biased rather rambling on about Palestine. Ttiotsw 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry wikipedia 

message: Please try this website Mohammad.islamway.com. 1 book author isn't a reference but this is really large group. <<Smart_Viral 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely presented site but what it says is unreliable as it is unsourced - I can't see any references in the text that allow anyone to verify what was said. Interesting backstory though with the reference back to Sumer and Ur, but again unverifiable and probably fictional. See WP:RS for what are reliable sources. Ttiotsw 07:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Mohammad 

message: At the introduction of the article the writer mentioned the following statement was the founder of Islam about the Prophet Muhammad "PBUH".
I believe this statement is totally wrong, some of the reasons are:-
1) All – or at least most- of the sources that the article relied on believe that Prophet Muhammad "PBUH" is the prophet of God, even the non-Muslims writers like Watt. So Why this contradiction with the article's resources.
2) Beginning the article by this statement makes me wonder if the writer is influencing the reader from the beginning by his own point of view.
3) In the article of the Prophet Moses"PBUH" at the introduction of the article  it is mentioned about him "was an early Biblical Hebrew religious leader, lawgiver, prophet, and military leader". I believe that all prophets must be described as prophets not as founders —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs). 
:Ibrahim999, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion
:"Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?"Proabivouac 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Prophet Muhammad "Peace Be Upon Him" being the founder of Islam 

message: Hijra is seem to be confused in Wikipedia English.Why can't replaced with Migration to Medina. <<Smart_Viral 05:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change the link to this: hijra. Arrow740 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijra or Migration 

message: Would someone please provide a link to the summary of arguments made in favor and against Muhammad's images (if someone has made the summary). If not, would someone please provide a link to the discussions so that I can read them as I wasn't following those discussions. I've been reading articles on issues like Freedom of speech, Pornography etc etc from some Encyclopedia of philosophies. I was wondering if the views of philosophers such as Joel Feinberg who maintain that preventing shock, disgust, or revulsion is always a morally relevant reason for legal prohibitions, has been discussed before. Feinberg, for example, suggests the "offense principle" and holds that a variety of factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether speech can be limited by the offense principle and these include the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large. So, I think the following question should be answered:
: 1. The number of images and their informative value 
: 2. The ease with which the images can be avoided
: 3. The motives for adding the images (related to number 1)
: 4. The number of people offended
: 5. The intensity of offense
: 6. The general interest of the community at large.
Re 1, we need to find the informative value of showing the pictures instead of saying such images exist. The answers to 2, 4,5 are strightforward. (6) is open to discussion. The answer to (3) depends on (1), so the starting point can be (1). Let's discuss (1) or if we have already discussed this, a link would be enough for me to read it. --Aminz 10:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could find a reliable source indicating that Joel Feinberg's opinion is relevant to this discussion. Arrow740 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joel Feinberg is proposing the "Offense principle" much like the "Harm principle" (that one is free to do something as long as he does not harm others). These principles can be applied to any specific applications e.g. pornography, hate speech, etc etc. --Aminz 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we care about his theories? Application of his ideas to this issue is synthesis, and original research. Arrow740 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All discussions in this regard were/are Original research. Do you have a reliable source saying we can/cannot use image of Muhammad in wikipedia? --Aminz 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was the conclusion of the mediation. Arrow740 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Aminz, why don't you write an essay on this? You could probably do better than the last one.Proabivouac 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Before that I need to know a summary of previous arguments made for/against having the pictures. A link to previous discussion would be appreciated.--Aminz 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links to the mediation are on the upper right beneath the talk archives.Proabivouac 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks --Aminz 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia, not a holy text. Removing the pictures would be censorship, plain and simple. Also, the pictures are just as informative as any pictures of Jesus, or any other prophets from any other religion. Fuzzform 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. Fuzzform 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad's images 

message: this article seems huge contains lots of info references & notes must be split into small articles this will make the maintenance easier & the discussion useful. <<Smart_Viral 23:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article separation 

message: Why isn't there an article with this title? There is, after all, an article called Christian views of Jesus. The advantage would be that we could stick all the Muslim theology and special pleading into the new article, and report the actual historical truth in this one, hopefully free of Muslim vandals and would-be censors. Such a hope, I accept, is forlorn, however. TharkunColl 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, someone has now created a link from the above title to Islamic views of Muhammad. Fair enough. I'm glad to report that I was able to correct a few lies in it. TharkunColl 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Muslim views of Muhammad]]