Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10

message: Itaqallah whats the whole passage can you quote it? It looks about Arabian raids in general. Is it saying that Muslim raids saw it as a sport and were careful not to kill anyone? Or thats what raids were like before? Doesnt it contradict to say it was a sport but then they did it to get property back?Opiner 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you cannot delete sourced material just because it conflicts with your own understanding. doing so may be perceived as vandalism. we AGF of whichever editor initially inserted it, assuming that they quoted him faithfully and in context. if you believe he has been misquoted, it is for you to explain how. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Opiner, you know how to check with the sources. Try books.google.com --Aminz 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for checking with source and coming into the terms of scholarship. Please note that Watt is trying to address how Muhammad could have turned into raiding caravans bound for Mecca. He is giving context to the nature of these raids in general. The only reading of the text that I can see approves what is written in the article. Muhammad raids 'deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans' is not related to the perception of the raids in the tradition. Infact the Battle of Badr happened in response to the raids. --Aminz 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha I find your discovery comical, Opiner. I would venture a guess that there exists much more blatant misrepresentation of sources in this article. —Aiden 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which blatant misrepresentation of sources? I don't know who added Watt quote, but I checked it myself. It isn't a misrepresentation of sources. --Aminz 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think Aiden may be noting that there are other cases where misrepresentation, if that's what someone is looking for, may be far more apparent than it is here. it can be read both ways :) ITAQALLAH 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: this is what Watt says: "The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad's behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war.", he then goes on to describe how raiding was perceived in comparison to actual war. within the context of the previous paragraph where he discusses (and probably questions) the act of raiding by Muhammad and the Muslims (which is where the above quote re: challenging/provoking Meccans is derived), as well as the passage directly afterwards which i have just quoted, it is clear that Watt is trying to justify Muhammad's actions by noting Arabian customs. looking at the current passage in the article, i would agree with Aminz in saying that the source has been represented fairly and entirely within its correct context. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watt caravan quote

message: Adding "historical" to "founder" would only make sense if there could be an unhistorical founder of something. But I fail to see what "unhistorical founder" might mean. — Editorius 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Historical Founder"

message: The word 'founder' floats between two sentences: Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, and other variants) [1] [2] [3] [4] 570-632 C.E.,[5] was an Arab religious and political leader who preached the religion of Islam. founder[6] [7] He united 
There should at least be something that makes sence instead of just a word. Maybe it's an idea to add the [6] and [7] to the end of the first sentence: The word 'founder' floats between two sentences: Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, and other variants) [1] [2] [3] [4] 570-632 C.E.,[5] was an Arab religious and political leader who preached the religion of Islam.[6] [7] He united ...................
-- unsigned by 145.52.160.68
*Looks like somebody has been blindly reverting instead of participating in discussions--JimWae 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Possible. At the same time, though, I've been participating in discussions. Lots of other people have been participating in discussions. Based on those discussions, there is simply no consensus for including the word "founder." BYT 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But saying he 'preached the religion of Islam' makes it sound like existed before AS Im sure you know. People didnt like my words 'a religion he called Islam' but that at least doesnt make it sound preexisting without saying he started it. Second paragraph makes clear what he was saying. Im sick of this though. Only evidence for preexist is, Qur'an says so. All real world evidence says Muhammad started it himself. If Qur'an says, dinosaurs around with humans do we go to Dinosaur and fight there over the introduction?.Opiner 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, though? I could live with "a religion he called Islam" -- totally accurate, neutral, no theological claims implicit or otherwise... what do you say we go back to that? BYT 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a small remark: 

message: Do not touch the disputed picture. It an imagary picture and will stay at its place. or be deleted from the article.) by Ibrahimfaisal
What does that mean? Now you have the powers to both determine which pictures are to stay and where they should be placed? Please play nicely, you sound a little bit aggressive.
A picture that shows Muhammad in general is much better suited for the overview section. What reforming actions or qualities of Muhammad's do you see inside the picture?
--The Hungry Hun 18:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind, it works better in the general overview section. An artistic depiction that is fairly faithful to the descriptions given within Muslim texts does definitely belong - human beings are visual creatures. We have sufficient context to know that it is a depiction of Muhammad, and preaching is certainly an activity Muhammad engaged in frequently, but we don't know enough to know that it's specifically related to Muhammad as a reformer. Oh, yeah, and it was a little odd how it just kept creeping further down the article over the past few weeks. Captainktainer * Talk 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of picture

message: My addition to the intro: "By 750, his successors had conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa, Sicily and Iberia and introduced Islam to the newly acquired territories, lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare.  Johm Esposito (1992) p.36 " 
Proabivouac removed my edits to the article on the following basis: 
"You are perfectly aware that we could source all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him in the intro. NPOV governs not just presentation but also placement of information; tacking hagiography onto a perfectly neutral introduction is POV".."shall we also mention that he beheaded hundreds of people and enslaved many more? also a fact, but equally inappropriate for the intro"
First, the intro is talking about "He united the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula under a state governed by Islamic law with its capital in Medina. By 750, his successors had conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa, Sicily and Iberia and introduced Islam to the newly acquired territories." All I added was in the context of this sentence. If you would like to add anything related to this, feel free to do it. 
Secondly, please go ahead and add "all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him". I will then come and bring other well-sourced material in his defense. This is how we should work on this article, not by censoring information. --Aminz 08:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esposito is generally talking about the time when the boundary of the Muslim empire was extended to Morocco and Spain in west and across central Asia to India in the east. But some of the comments may be only fit for Iraq, Syria or Persia. --Aminz 08:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, Esposito also talks about the misconception that Muslims wanted to spread their faith through forced conversion by sword. But I didn't get into that detail. I can if you would like. --Aminz 08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Farhansher wrote in his edit summary, "he actually beheaded only one ( who came to kill him at Ohad ) & enslaved none . Thats a fact)." That's a shameless lie. See Banu Qurayza. I'm also having trouble understanding how Aminz interprets death and enslavement as greater freedom for Jews. Maybe Islam helped some other Jews in some other time and place (such as Andalusia), but those seventh-century Arabian Jews who knew Muhammad didn't fare well.Proabivouac 08:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there was enmity between the seventh-century Arabian Jews and Muhammad, because Muhammad was expecting them to do not ally with his enemy after they allied to him and were given religious and cultural autonomy. But if you look at the early expansion of Islam, you'll see Jews welcoming and aiding Muslim armies. --Aminz 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The word HE is interpreted as himself . Moses/David led to the killing of many, we dont say HE killed them . Bush led to the killings of Hundreds of thousands of people , again we dont say HE killed all of them . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Farhansher: ridiculous. We were talking about prisoners Muhammad had beheaded in cold blood, not people killed in battle. The point is that the introduction is neither the place to indict Muhammad nor to sing his praises. To do either is tendentious and invites edit warring.Proabivouac 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "To do either is tendentious and invites edit warring." --> I am abiding by the golden rule. --Aminz 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My addition to the intro 

message: There is too much scepticism running around all over the article . We are told in every section that what muslims believe is not authentic, there way of collection knowledge is not so good e.t.c . Plz take a look Jesus or Moses article for comparasion . People writing theose articles arnt ashamed to state that their articleis based on bible , & they even consider gospels authentic. This should not be the only article that should bear the burden of "sceptic revisionism" or funny beheading disputes. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny beheading dispute? Do you really think there's anything funny about beheading childen? Do you know what Muhammad did after his unprovoked attack on Khaiber? 24.7.89.173 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much scepticism

message: Did Muhammad not marry a child of 6 years old, and consumated the union when she was 9? 86.7.208.240 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about you read the article? hint, find the section "family life", or click on Aisha directly. Hell, we even have Aisha's age at marriage, which has more on the question than you ever wanted to know. Only if you are asking in earnest of course, maybe you would prefer to just a few more "pedophile" headers to this page to stir things up a bit? dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to a child 

message: Please comment if this should be posted as an external link.
http://www.geocities.com/moreonislam/prophetmuhammadandyou.pps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation on the life of Muhammad

message: I deleted the variant" mohamet" at the start of the article as it is not really a correct transliteration of the arabic pronounication of the name, and honestly, in the many religious books about muhammad or mohammed i have never come across THIS (mohamet) type of spelling. Ofcourse its fine to mention there ARE other variants of the spelling of the name, but wouldnt it be correct just to mention the most widley used, and most widley regarded correct names ( which is i think muhammad and mohammed)?  what do the other wikipedians think ? thanks for your comments. 
--Aadamh 15:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Change 

message: There are many references to Esposito - many give only a year and no title. Some give different years for the same book. They all need attention.--JimWae 17:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that these books have undergone several reprints, some in the same year. Standard practice would be to use the original year and page number where possible, and to use titles until it's sorted out. If a pubication is to be cited only by year in references, its title must appear in the bibliography.Proabivouac 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esposito references 

message: ::::Why is there no mention of sura 4:34 here? It states that men are in charge of women, men are made by God to excel women, good women are obedient, and if men fear rebellion from their women, they can scourge them. Shouldn't these facts be mentioned here? If no one responds soon I will quote the entire sura here. Arrow740 07:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would this be in this article about Muhammad instead of a more general article about the religion he brought to prominence or a more specific article about women's rights in Muslim society?  It just seems to be out of place here.  --ElKevbo 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ElKevbo, there is a currently a fairly lengthy Muhammad#Women's rights section. It is, as you say, utterly out of place in this article (as well as entirely POV.) Would you agree with me that this should be moved elsewhere?Proabivouac 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to put Yusuf Ali's translation of sura 4:34 into the article, and will defend it once you guys try to take it out. So if you want to stop me this is the time to dissuade me. Arrow740 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that is known as disruption of wikipedia (in this case, to prove a WP:POINT), as is reporting an article again for afd less than a day after consensus was reached to "keep" in the previous nom. ITAQALLAH 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So discussing something beforehand is disruptive? I think this sura is relevant to "Muhammad and Women's Rights." And this is not the place to discuss the other article, though in my defense, the article I nominated for deletion is very different from the one that was kept previously. I'm working on a well-documented piece to put in the "negative views" section; it may take me a while. It's sad that it has to be done this way, but you guys have put so much work into the "positive views" section and it's so dense that I don't want to have to rewrite the whole thing. Arrow740 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sura 4:34

message: Who are you guys trying to block by refusing anonymous and new user editions, and how can you justify it? Arrow740 06:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz' readdition of the s-protect template is only cosmetic; it is of no real effect.Proabivouac 06:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Arrow740, why don't you edit using your regular account. --Aminz 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The talk page is not the place for such a request. It is inappropriate here, and you should post to my own talk page. You should ask itaq for a lesson on where you should post what; he makes a little more sense than you do. In any case this is the only account I use. What are you referring to? Arrow740 06:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a lot of vandalism from anonymous editors, so I s-protected the page. That's all. --Aminz 06:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So answer my question; what other account? Arrow740 06:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You need to stop harassing people, Aminz. Don't you think it's childish to constantly accuse people of using sockpuppets? Arrow740 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Your censorship

message: why u are adding this wrong variant "mahound" again n again. its a blasphemy against our prophet.can not be tolerated.respect other religions.Please dont add this word "mahound" again.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.179.191 (talk • contribs) 04:11, October 8, 2006
We are just saying that certian people say it. we are not calling him that or anything. please remember this is not an islamic encyclopedia. Zazaban 21:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blashemy? Hmmm....blashpemy only applies when refering to God; I'm quite sure mohowmud was not devine.DocEss 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: anon, please remember to sign your comments (type ~~~~ after your comments). if you wish to involve yourself further in the editorial process you may wish to consider registration. ITAQALLAH 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous "mahound" comment

message: I've requested this page be semi-protected as several anonymous editors insist on making large changes to the article with no discussion in Talk or useful edit summaries.  --ElKevbo 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection requested

message: The first sentence of this article reads: "Muhammad (Arabic محمد muḥammad; also Mohammed, Mohamet, and other variants[1] [2] [3]), 570-632 C.E.,[4] was an Arab religious reformer and political leader who preached the monotheistic religion of Islam which he established." Could we maybe add after "established",  " as we know it today" so it reads at the end of the first sentence "... who preached the monotheistic religion of Islam which he established, as we know it today". I say this because as many of you will probably know many muslims believe that Islam is not a new religion but a reestablishment of the true monotheistic faith, starting from the prophet Aadam. So to clarify that when we mean Muhammad founded Islam, we do not mean Islam just as a religion, but as a political, social as well as religious entity.  So just to save confusion and controversy among fellow wikipedians, readers and researchers etc., could we add these small five words? ("as we know it today")?? If everyone kindly agrees, could someone do this, as whenever i enter the "edit this page" tab i see something that is different to the article that is written. Thank you very much. --Aadamh 18:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a workable idea to me. What do others think? (BTW, that text dump you encounter when you try to edit the paragraph has, by a remarkable coincidence, the effect of making a controversial paragraph hard to edit for all but veteran editors of this page. The passage you want is in there, buried among footnote references that belong elsewhere in the article. You'll find it after making forty or fify tries.) BYT 13:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: What a trashy article, from a project that is increasingly going down the drain... The following crap, copy-pasted from the "article" says it all: 
"According to some scholars, vague hints of Muhammad's upcoming prophecy are foretold in the Christian Bible. In the following links, scholar ahmed deedat debates this thesis with the famous Christian preacher Jimmy Swaggart, with the end result having Jimmy Swaggart agree to ahmed deedat's thesis(movie links:[1] and [2]). Except in the very rare bible, the gospel of St. Barnabas, where Muhammad's fore coming is mentioned in more detail and clarity[3]. In addition, another bible, found in Egypt, also foretells the fore coming of prophet muhammad. The bible's name is the Didache(meaning the teachings of the twelve Apostles). Article in Arabic[4]" --Cyp.
:If only there were some way you could pitch in and help us make the article better...  --ElKevbo 19:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, it seems other people have seen the load of shit, i'm going to do some clean up in the last section.Toira 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Too late, someone did it before me! lolToira 21:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawah trash

message: The last section section says that the Gospel of Barnabas mentions the "fore coming" of mohamed while we know that this gospel is a ridiculous fraud written in the middle ages. It also uses an arabic website to speak about a bible "discovered in Egypt", none of this is found in the arabic website! it just says that an arabic translation of the Didache was done lately, and that the editor holds the belief that the Didache speaks about a successor of Jesus, nothing more.Toira 21:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap; someone added that earlier, and I and some others removed the nonsense; looked like it slipped by. I'm going to remove that part. If anyone has a problem, I suggest they can take it up here, and we can come up with some conciliatory language. -Patstuart 04:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: We need to somehow draw more unbiased people to work on these articles. Wikipedia is as it stands a platform for trumpeting false and incomplete information about Islam and Muhammad. Arrow740 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unbiased. In a concise maner, please tell use what exactly is false and misleading abou the Article. DocEss 15:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on a more attainable goal right now than cleaning up this article. I will suggest one area for you to consider. According to the hadith, Muhammad was a mass murderer. He slaughtered entire tribes and executed captured children (I'll beat the apologists to the punch by saying that according to the Muslim doctrine of Itmaam-i-hujjat, this was acceptable because he was a Messenger of God). You could inform yourself about this then quote reputable sources in the article regarding this, for a start. Arrow740 09:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia is as it stands a platform for trumpeting false and incomplete information about Islam and Muhammad." - and it seems, you'd only be contributing to that perception. ITAQALLAH 14:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I said is not false so you must be implying that it is incomplete. Well, sure. But in my mind (and probably in the minds of most people) the actions he took are not acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. Arrow740 06:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation

message: I don't know who said that Abu Is-haq could not have coexisted with any eyewitness of Mohammad. He was born 85 years after Hijra and it is very possible that he could have met some of Mohammad's companions. Therefore the personal POV that says "and would not have been able to speak to any eyewitnesses but does reference other biographies of which no texts have survived"
must be removed. 
Let us not make wikipedia a place for our personal conclusions and leave the reader do it. 70.25.83.46 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of Mohammad's life 

message: wive ???
 Aisha was the only virgin wive of Muhammad
wow..people here really need to double check what they write..
According to my knowledge, she is the only wife that was not already married once previously. What is wrong with that ? -- ابراهيم 09:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wive.. okay. Then why not you fix it yourself? --- ابراهيم 09:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Life 

message: With regard to whether or not the Maomé image might be considered offensive (to a large number of) other Wikipedia readers, it has been argued that some standard of objective and subjective offensiveness needs to be used.  What that standard might be has not been clarified, or that is the opinion of some editors.
:How about what might be considered offensive in a free Western country? Like the one where Wikipedia was made?
:Offensive can include lots of other things. If image of woman without veil in article where doesnt extra super NEED to be there you can say censor on VERY SAME reason: some readers say offensive. Muslim also find Jesus pic offensive right? Same thing dont REALLY know what he look like so take it out. What about other religion and what THEY find offensive? Why are they quiet BECAUSE have RESPECT for people who dont agree.
:Not-Muslims find pic removing offensive AND it doesnt make article more informing, SO you have NO right to say your concern about offending. You dont care what they think at all!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image might be considered offensive to Wikipedia readers

message: # Wikipedia is not censored
# The Maomé image is notable it is appropriate to Wikipedia's mission to include that image on Wikipedia
# Images of Muhammad are not in general proscribed on the Muhammad page by WP:Profanity, but would only be proscribed if at least one of two conditions were met, 1) they are not informative in the context of that article, or 2) equally suitable alternatives are available.  Agreement on this point does not imply agreement that one of these two conditions is sufficient to make an WP:Profanity applicable, but that at least one of these conditions is necessary for WP:Profanity to be applicable.
# Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to be informative to be appropriate for Wikipedia articles. 
# Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to reference a particular known event to be appropriate in Wikipedia biographical articles
# Images in general do not need to reference a particular known event to be informative within a given context.
# Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be appropriate for Wikipedia.
# Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be informative.
Unhelpful comment removed. HighInBC 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is agreed 

message: I have asked these questions before, and have been attacked as disengenuous for asking them, but they are honest questions and I want them answered. 
# What is the image showing?
# what is the image of?
# When was this set? Is this Muhammad in Makkah, or Madinah, or back in Makkah? 
# Who are those in the Image, they are obviously significant, they have Halos.
# Why are they gathered round?
# Why are some wearing persian-like Shia caps?
# Who is the woman? Is that Hafsa, Fatima or Khadija towards the top - Its important to know, it gives us a period in time.
# Is there a copy of the image in context, that is atop of the text that accompanies it, as that would explain what we are seeing. 
We know so very little about this image, it does seem important, but its done on a large minbar, which would appear to make it late-ish, but that would rule out Abu Talib from being present, but maybe that was artistic license.
When I asked these honest questions previous Briangotts replied "That's ludicrous. Your standards would eliminate virtually every image on Wikipedia. You are clearly searching for excuses to remove an image you find personally offensive." - Which firstly proves he Knows that people find the image offensive, secondly that he does not know much about the image (And thus, as an illistrative guide fails to portray its context), he wants to see people offended, which is not the way Wikipedia should work. There is another image of Muhammad in the article, and I know exactly what is happening there.  It is Muhammad replacing the black stone into the Kabaa, I know roughly when this happened because of the text in the article, and I know the general story because of this.  I know nothing at all about this image. Can anyone answer these questions? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Questions 

message: I'm puzzled as to why someone thinks that the location of the Dome of the Rock is irrelevant.  At the barest minimum, my statement that it sits on the most holy site of Judaism may be irrelevant, so I've removed that sentence and put back the location.  Frotz661 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I overdid the revert, and I apologise for that; I meant that the Jewish reference was irrelevant. Cheers. MP   (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you please revert the relevant section to read "...on the Temple mount..." less the Jewish reference?  Someone removed that and I don't want to look like a crank.  Frotz661 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that reference ("Dome of the Rock) is not just a Jewish reference, it's a global reference. Everyone, including Christians, Jews, their loving brothers the Moslems and even athiests all recognise the reference. DocEss 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the Dome of the Rock irrelevant??? 

message: Though this talk page is kinda TL;DR, I didn't want to change anything on this article without saying something, because I don't want anyone to get angry at me. This bit is just not well-written, particularly for such an important article.
As it was common among Arabs and particularly among nobels and leaders of the Arabian society, later Muhammad married more wives mostly because of social and political motives, to make for a total of eleven, of whom nine or ten were living at the time of his death. [43] "As was customary for Arab chiefs, many were political marriages to cement alliances." 
I'll leave the issue of "nobels" aside, but...we have a long run-on sentence, and then a short quote saying the EXACT SAME THING. I'm going to try to re-word this section WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING so it reads more smoothly. -Randomglitter 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward section