Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12

message: I see no reason why there needs to be a "criticism" section at all. If there are controversial facts, they should be stated neutrally in the body of the article, not as points of partisan contention. One indispensable corrollary of this is that other editors not interested in criticism must allow this to be done. We have, "After Khadija's death, Muhammad married Aisha, the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr," then later in the hideously convoluted Marriages section, "Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib." Only in this context can the need for "criticism" be sustained. We should instead write, "After Khadija's death, Muhammad married Aisha, the six year old daughter of Abu Bakr." The opinions of today's critics is as irrelevant as that of today's apologists; let people discuss and debate the moral significance of the facts over dinner after having read a neutral and informative article.  This approach would represent a significant change from common practices and attitudes on this article. If it is to ever be a good article, we must all start looking at this subject clinically, and leave our judgements and insecurities out of it.Proabivouac 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spellberg is not a apologist. And secondly, the book is published by Columbia University. You should first read that book or atleast read its review in JSTOR. Spellberg has examined all the traditions of Aisha in classical Muslim record, and her work is one of a kind. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if we remove all criticism, we will have to remove so much other imformation for the purpose of NPOV, that this article would no longer be informative. It is better in this case to just leave the criticism section and give all viewpoints.--Sefringle 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You completely miss the point of NPOV.  Having criticism and praise does not produce NPOV.  Criticism should not be a part of this because it is polemics.  Knowing that Muhammad was criticized for having a 6 year old wife is not the point.  The point is that Muslim sources differ about how old she was 6/7 etc. and when it was consummated.  Western scholars look at the aging debates within Islam in different ways and as part of a Muslim narrative vis-a-vis their prophet.  The criticism section is written as a juvenile and unencyclopedic back and forth: Muir said Muhammad was sincere in Mecca but not Medina.  Spencer says he was a pedophile because he married Aisha but Mr. Muslim says he was a good man cementing ties with his ally.  Criticism is mostly not encyclopedic.  It can have its own articles specifically about the discourse of criticism but it does not fit in an overview.  This doesn't mean that Muhammad is portrayed as a great man.  No, he is portrayed as 1) the Muslim narratives view him and 2) as academic historians have reconstructed history.  Obviously religion breeds narratives and not history as we conceive of it in modern times.  When we present these things it gives people a chance to use their own judgment. gren グレン 21:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great deal of extraneous praise in this article which is likewise unencyclopedic. However, I would guess that the same editors which will fight to remove criticism will fight to retain this (even where it duplicates material from another article, see the topic below).Proabivouac 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite possible.  Want to give some examples? I think it would be good if we could clean both of those things up. gren グレン 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We'll have to distinguish between two kinds of criticism here. One associated with different analyses of events and action of the protagonist, and the other dissociated from it, more akin to polemics. The Jewish tribes issue I would classify within the former, the Aisha issue within the latter group. The former is indispensable for the article, the latter is not. However, it is more feasible to also include the latter in a short and concise criticism & controversy section. Str1977 (smile back) 00:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet in a move which has made this article even less neutral, the entire section about the events in Madina has been reduced more or less to "Muhammad did battle with some Jews."Proabivouac 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't want you to know this, but he was poisoned and after living in pain for three years, eventually died of it. According to the sahih hadith. Arrow740 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hadith do not established that he died because of that. There is no poison that we know can keep man live for 3 years and then ... Finally, and more importantly we Muslim believe that a person cannot if Allah do not want him to die. Hence even if he dies with poisoned then there is nothing wrong with it so why should we want to hide it? There is no reason to hide it but hadith do not establish it. --- 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aisha criticism

message: This talk page is as long as the main article. Could most of this be archived so we can politely argue like reasonable church mice? Menkatopia 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we archive some of this?

message: Irishpunktom is saying the Roman temple replaced the Temple Mount and says its only remaining as a wall!. Its the mountain a building cant be replacing it!Opiner 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's... complex? When you say built atop the Jewish Temple Mount it is trying to emphasize a certain imagery of a Muslim site on a legitimately Jewish landmark.  Which isn't to say that's necessarily a bad thing.  Early Muslims might very well have emphasized it roots as originally Temple of Daud or whatnot, I'm not sure.  But, I think the mentioning that it's on the Temple Mount as opposed to some phrase like "Esplanade des mosquées" -- which is what the French use, only needs to be done when it's relevant.  For this article it should just be simple: "The Dome of the Rock, marking the spot from which Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to paradise."  It really doesn't matter in the least where the Dome was built... that's an issue for the Dome of the Rock article--not the Muhammad one. gren グレン 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't matter, maybe the Dome could be built somewhere else? BTW, who built the Temple? Str1977 (smile back) 14:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, Constantine I was a Roman emperor, and calling it a roman building is more accurate than its current description.  Actually, the most accurate would be to say that it was built atop the Sakhrah, because thats where it gets its name from and thats why it was built there. I added that before and it was removed.--Irishpunktom\talk 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Constantine was a Roman Emperor. How does that contradict what I wrote. Still the place was the Temple Mount and under Julian Apostata a last attempt of rebuilding failed. The place was left unused until the conquest by the Muslims, exactly because it was the spot of the Temple, whose destruction Jesus had prophesied. As Sakhrah - this rock is part of the Temple Mount, which - as I said before - is not a building but a landmark. Str1977 (smile back) 16:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sakhrah is the reason the Dome of the rock is there and not where the Al Aqsa masjid is.  The Sakhrah is more important in this relation than the mount. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might still not get it, but the rock is part of the mount. No mount, no rock. And the rock is important to Muslims because M. supposedly travelled to paradise from there. And why from there? Because it is the spot of the Jewish Temple, the spot whereto Muslims prayed before M. fell out with the Jews, the place where Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac. There are countless rocks in the world - why this rock. Because of the history of the Temple Mount. Str1977 (smile back) 16:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you don't get it!  - If the rock was elsewhere the dome would be elsewhere. No Rock  no Dome - The Rock is the most important feature here, not the mount. The rock is the important thing here.. The rock, not mount, nor the roman ruins, nor the western wailing wall, but the rock. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the rock is in no way special if it were not for the real and supposed events on it. For Muslims the important event is Muhammad's supposed ascent. But why did he ascent there and not from the Kaaba. The answer is: because it was the site of the Temple. Str1977 (smile back) 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not because it was the Jewish temple... but because it was David's temple.  Which, would be very different things.  It's not something that can be explained in an image caption. gren グレン 23:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Str1977, I wasn't saying it doesn't matter where it was built.  I am saying it doesn't matter for the image caption.  We could write pages about it but we want a concise and accurate caption.  Dome of the Rock should deal with issues of what it was built on. gren グレン 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temple Mount

message: Currently, this is how the section reads: "Some of Muhammad's companians were "shocked by the way he allowed his wives to stand up to him and answer him back. Muhammad regularly helped with household chores, mended his own cloths, preparing his food and took his wives’ advice seriously. On one occasion Umm salamah, helped him to prevent a mutiny." [34] [75]
Sometimes his wives were of worry, for example when Muhammad found them quarrelling about "the division of booty after a raid, he threatened to divorce them all unless they lived more strictly in accordance with Islamic values (33:28-29)" [34]
Among Muhammad's wives, the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.
Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad. [71] Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib.[76]"
And this is the information, as I see it, that is actually necessary for the reader:
"Some of Muhammad's companians were "shocked by the way he allowed his wives to stand up to him and answer him back. Muhammad regularly helped with household chores, mended his own cloths, preparing his food and took his wives’ advice seriously. On one occasion Umm salamah, helped him to prevent a mutiny." [34] [75]
Sometimes his wives were of worry, for example when Muhammad found them quarrelling about "the division of booty after a raid, he threatened to divorce them all unless they lived more strictly in accordance with Islamic values (33:28-29)" [34]
Among Muhammad's wives, the status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.
Aisha was the only virgin wife of Muhammad. [71] Watt states that she 'cannot have been more than twelve years old when the marriage was consummated, while Spellberg writes that Aisha's youth might have been deliberately emphasized by scholars during the Abbasid caliphate to reject Shi'a political claims for the descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib.[76]"
Am I misreading something? This section is a mess, but when I try to clean it up, it just gets reverted almost immediately. I would love to hear a reason for keeping any of this material. Menkatopia 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim world by Macmillan Reference USA doesn't even mention age of Aisha, and interestingly, it cites both Watts writing and Spellberg's writing in Bibliography of that article. The reason very well might be the neutralization of argument of both sources i.e. information regarding Aisha's age is so much dubious that it doesn't deserve a space in encyclopedia. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Muhammad marries a six year old girl its not interesting?Opiner 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Might wonder who wouldnt include an especially cute nine-year old with his sex partners IF also having however many adult women he wants and everyone saying its okay. including even her dad who offer her to him! History is showing that men do almost anything sexual people are saying is okay.Opiner 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to start a discussion on this and I certainly am not the defender of M., but to discuss this on the basis of our conventions. Of course, it makes good polemics, if you like that. The thing is that we don't really know how old Aisha was and how "evolved" she was (which is actually more important) when the marriage was consummated. I think it much more clearly a problem with M. that he allowed himself to have as many wives as he wanted while restricting them for all others to four. And it Aisha that said: "Your Lord takes care to fulfill your wishes" (quoting from memory) Str1977 (smile back) 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I understand. Its only in cultural anthropology we have to discuss these things because thats what happening. If the society says its okay men will do it. there are no conscience objectors or brave lone Str1977s to stand against immorality of it all. Also Muhammad forcing the Jewish captive to be his wife BUT all the women divided among the Muslim SO everyone is saying its okay. No one is saying Muhammad dont do it and even God is for it.Opiner 11:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opiner, I do not know what you intend with these recent postings. You needn't convince me that a lot of the things M. did was wrong. You need convince me that he is not a prophet (or at least didn't remain one). However, all these other items are not relevant in regard to what I mentioned (and if there are relevant in regard to someone else's comment, please indicate this by addressing that person, so that I don't have to bother). Also, I never said that the Aisha marriage was okay by me, men or God. Only that I don't think this a serious criticism when not based on a proper basis of morality - and modern-day sensibilities are not a proper basis. I have heard this criticism from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and don't think that a person that has no qualm about letting unborn children be killed can then get on a high horse and talk about the "perverted" nature of this marriage. Case closed? Str1977 (smile back) 15:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just opining. Didnt think were disagreeing.Opiner 03:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That brave woman indeed deserves a passage but not a section or subsection. We can leave that to the article on her. Str1977 (smile back) 10:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Life Section Clean-Up 

message: None of this is important. I would like to get some consensus before I just remove it, but can anyone explain why this information should be in here? Since some on here are fond of quotes, I am reminded of William Faulkner's line "sometimes you have to kill your darlings." Not literally, but can we chop some of this blatant gooeyness? Menkatopia 09:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad is viewed as a model for Muslims. His personal life is interesting, at least to some people including me. Personally, it is very important to me though it might not seem important to you. --Aminz 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to imply that his personal life is not interesting, only that the way it is described is done very poorly in the section and I think it ought to be removed. The section has such a storybook quality to it. That shouldn't be seen as an indictment of Muhammad's life, I only care about the writing. My sole concern in this article is making the information easier and more enjoyable to read. I think the information can stay if it is written as a factual account, but as it stands, this info seems to be partisan narrative. Menkatopia 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you question the factuality of the sources? --Aminz 21:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I question the tone. Look at a sentence like "Muhammad used to share all his every hope and fear with Khadija who was very dear to him." This sounds like the way Santa Claus is described, not a prophet of god. I'm saying it would be possible to find sources that say M. was anything we might want him to be. The section, as written, sounds like naive, amateur writing. Instead of stating the exact quotes, couldn't this information be summarized so that it says the same thing? I would be perfectly happy with a phrase like: "Muhammad's 25-year marriage to Khadijah was happy, according to scholars, who generally accept that the couple shared a deep love." That's clumsy, but describing his avarice as "sharing every hope and fear," doesn't sound   very authoritative. Does the tone bother you in the preceeding paragraph? I tried to remove that kind of language. Menkatopia 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think sharing every hope and fear is accurate. For example, when Muhammad had his first religous vision, he was terrified. He ran back to his wife and told everything for her. What do you call this? Do you have any better way to express it? The source says sharing his every fear and hope. Please let me know your suggestions. Thanks --Aminz 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about, "Most scholars agree that Muhammad was closest to his wife, Khadija." I just object to the characterization as "every hope and fear." This section also is almost entirely quotes. Why should we be satisfied with quoting a particular scholar to create a section? Would you be opposed to summarizing the information? Menkatopia 13:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Problems with style absolutely can be grounds for removal. Why not write this whole article from Muhammad's POV? Thay would be the wrong style, no? "His every hope and fear," (which sounds more like a Anne Rice novel than an encyclopedia) ought to be removed, but I am advocating either reworking the section so it doesn't sound so silly, or removing this section altogether. Comments on this point? Menkatopia 16:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the style is wrong, we can improve it. POV problems can be solved by the various methods. I don't see how deletion is one of them. Str1977 (smile back) 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad as a husband 

message: :::I agree; respect may not be a concern in wikipedia. However, our concern must be to make wiki pages reach more people. I think that the image does not add to the content, and that many people will get a wrong impression when they see an image,figure,etc. depicted as Muhammad, and will close the page. Also, the addition of the image has arisen the debate, and the image should not stay in the protected status. It sounds like taking a side in a discussion.  (Durdane 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected State

message: See the MOS --Striver 01:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please WP:AGF. I meant dating MOS for Islam related articles, yes, that is what i linked to. --Striver 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You can give dates in any appropriate calendar, as long as you also give the date in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar, as described below. For example, an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both the Islamic calendar and the Julian calendar.
It does not say that any date is preferred above any other, but it does say "any appropriate calendar". Now, since a typical AH year spans two CE years, the AH year is more accurate, hence the more "appropriate calendar". 
--Striver 03:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Jewish years also span two CE years, but they are not routinely given in Jewish-history articles. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: dating

message: maybe something could be added to the section on The Beginnings of the Qur'an about how Muhammads followers were so eager to preserve the teachings of Muhammad that they wrote on anything they could find like, animal hides, bones, and leaves.
--Johnnybravo01 00:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: Str, I remember User:Zora was saying that Watt states that Uhud wasn't a Muslim defeat. That the Meccans had lost too many men to pursue the Muslims into Medina. Can you please cite it. --Aminz 10:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course Muslim cant be defeating because of mighty Allah. Come on they lose more men then run from the battle how its not the defeat?Opiner 10:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that Watt says this because the Uhud article refers to him and his view as the dissenting voice. However, the overwhelming view is that Uhud was indeed a Muslim defeat - not a crushing defeat, but a defeat nonetheless. It was not crushing because Abu Sufyan did not follow up and occupy Jathrib. His reasons are unclear to us and that he had lost to many man is a possibility (but not an established fact) - another reason, actually given by Amr in the Uhud article but also supported by my sources, is that the city was guarded by Abdullah ibn Ubay. I think it a bit ironic that the man vilified as a hypocrite (just because we was not a butcher like Hamza or Umar) saved Islam that day. Str1977 (smile back) 11:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Uhud 

message: Would it be helpful to include why we know certain dates about Mohammad's life?
(from 622- his flight to Medina= the beginning of the calendar) 
(Crone, Patricia. "What Do We Actually Know About Mohammad?" 31 August 2006. <http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/3866.pdf>. 
Spunkiel 22:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we date the events in Mohammad's life?  

message: i believe that the Hadith would be important to add, as long as the Koran and the biography by Ibn Ishaq. I also think that it would be valuable to include something about how his wife was the major support in his religion. When Mohammed doubted, his wife kept him encouraged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XCluvr16 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main sources

message: I'm just wondering if this article is still considered lengthy, or too long. As I read over the page, it seemed to me that this level of detail was useful and informative. There seem to be adequate links to longer articles on most topics and, generally, these stubs are well-summarized enough for a typical reader. 
I'm also wondering if we should keep this article locked a little longer, or should open it back up. I would love to hear comments on this. Thanks! Menkatopia 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has certainly been some improvement on these counts since the issue was first raised. To me, the question is not only one of length, but of content value.Proabivouac 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the article is improving quite a lot recently. Aside from shrinking a couple more sections, I think the references should be cleaned up. (I'll make another talk page section about this). - Merzbow 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long and Locked

message: Any objections to cleaning up the referencing by putting all of the full book names in the "References" section, and then in the footnotes, just citing the author's surname, year of publication, and page numbers? This is already done for some footnotes but there are tons that needlessly repeat information, frequently in different formats. (This is just a formatting, not a content, change I'm proposing; no information will be added or removed overall). - Merzbow 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely no objection and thank you for volunteering.Itsmejudith 08:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference cleanup 

message: It has come to my attention that this article uses both the "CE" and "AD" notations in regards to years of the current era. Although the page uses mostly "CE", I thought I would bring the issue to the talk page before changing all of the instances of "AD" to "CE". Per the WP:MOS, we must only have one of these systems used per article, or have both of them used at every occasion (i.e.–220 AD/CE, see Jesus). I just wanted to make consensus at the talk page on era notations before any alterations to the dating systems were made. Thank you. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be very helpful to have this made consistent in the article, so thanks for your attention to this detail. In my opinion CE would be a much more appropriate style than AD in this article, since although Muslims revere Jesus immensely they do not generally address him as "lord", which is implied in the "anno domini" formula. And since we are not using AH dates, Muslim readers already have to make a compromise. The CE formula can provide a bridge between readers of all faiths and none. Itsmejudith 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment. To make it easier, I will create a voting process below, please sign it there. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Common Era|Common era]] vs. [[anno Domini]] 

message: ====Use "CE" only====
#I think AD is unnecessarily Christian-centric.  --BostonMA talk 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey for AD vs. CE

message: #I think AD is unnecessarily Christian-centric.  --BostonMA talk 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use "''CE''" only

message: #Far mor common name Sefringle 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use "''AD''" only

message: #My vote goes here. I think the presence of both is what many editors really want, since they're both used in the article already. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use both "''AD''" and "''CE''" in every instance

message: # Unless we also ad AH dates. gren グレン 23:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use neither 

message: *Well, BostonMA, I started the poll because Muhammad currently uses both AD and CE randomly, which is unacceptable per the MOS. Instead of changing all instances to one particular notation, I saw it more appropriate to discuss among editors. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` (merry C–mas) 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: Sigh. May I ask that people please stop removing the Gospel of Barnabas material now that I've sourced the claim properly and put it in the correct section? People are making incorrect claims in edit summaries about what this paragraph says:
# It is not presenting the Gospel of Barnabas as canonical material - the term apocryphal specifically means otherwise. (Don't believe me, follow the link).
# It is not presenting the Muslims' claims that Muhammad's coming was foretold in this 'gospel' as fact. The text says 'According to some Muslims' and 'they argue'.
# The source I use is a book from a university professor, who says exactly what is written in this section - that some Muslims, including Deedat, make this claim.
- Merzbow 20:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The authenticity or lack thereof of the GoB isn't really relevant here; what is relevant is how notable the view is in Islamic circles that the GoB foretold Muhammad. Perhaps you're right that even among Muslim scholars this is a rank minority view. I don't care enough about this particular topic to do the research to see if any other Muslims as notable as Deedat agrees with him on this. If someone else can corroborate the notability of this view, however, I will continue to press for mentioning this in the article. - Merzbow 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the authenticity of the GoB is not directly relevant. It is indirectly, because the wording proposed here insinuates that the GoB is a biblical text. However, what is relevant is the fact that this is a Muslim view include among non-Muslim views. Go and find a better place for this because it is not "another faith tradition" when Muslim scholars and non-scholars interpret a Islam-infuenced forgery. Str1977 (smile back) 23:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find a better place for it - the Islamic views section: . - Merzbow 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: So, if its status as a forgery is irrelevant, please tell us what IS relevant?  If you don't care enough about this subject to do your homework, then why do you persist in bothering those who DID check their facts?  It's not enough to toss a vacuous assertion on the table and demand it be respected.  Frotz661 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gospel of Barnabas 

message: Hi.  I deleted the Maome image because I do not believe it is informative in that context.  Could you explain to me the information you believe it adds to the article?  Thanks.  --BostonMA talk 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives people a visual to understand what Mohammad looked like. That is why it is informative. Mohammad was a person and he obviously looked like something. The image fills our need to put a face to a name. See:Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10#Pictures. This has already been discussed here.--Sefringle 20:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it possibly give people a visual understanding of Muhammad.  Which person in the picture looks most like Muhammad?  Does the person on the platform look more like Muhammad than say Abraham?  Satisfying a supposed need to put an face to a name is not something that I would consider "informative".  It might be "nice" but it isn't informative.  --20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty obvious from looking at the picture that Mohammad is the one seperate from the crowd on the Minbar. If putting a name to a face is not informative, define what constitutes informative in your opinion.--Sefringle 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also see Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Visual depictions of Muhammad are a minority trend in Islamic culture, and peppering the Muhammad article with them is giving that tradition undue weight. Plus I believe that the fact that this offends a large percentage of Muslims is something to take into account (although it is not an overriding concern, hence the existence of the Criticism articles). - Merzbow 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree with who?--Sefringle 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BostonMA. - Merzbow 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued

message: Funnypop12, could you please substantiate you claims that the picture that we have in the article is a painting of Persian kings, or could you please stop reverting? Another things is, that for the record and anyone counting reverts, I am the anon that made the first revert restoring the painting in this article. I actually logged in, but FireFox somehow and for some reason logged me out again.. -- Karl Meier 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, Karl, since you are the one who wants to include it, the onus is on you to show that the picture represents Muhammad.Itsmejudith 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be no dispute that both images were intended to depict Muhammad, besides the puzzling claims of the disruptive single-issue sockpuppet Funnypop12, who refuses to join discussion. I find it unusual that you'd see Funnypop12's edit summaries as reliable sources which place upon us and the Bibliotheque Nationale the onus to refute them.Proabivouac 19:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Karl has no such obligation.  The pictures in question have been here for quite some time.  They're only re-added when vandals remove them.  Nobody questioned the identity of the subject of these pictures until now.  The onus is on Funnypop12 to prove his assertions.  Frotz661 19:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're saying that the French Bibliotheque Nationale has them labelled as intended representations of the Prophet, then that is a prima facie a good enough source. I still have seen no coherent argument as to why any picture contributes to the encyclopedic purpose.Itsmejudith 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias typically have pictures of the subject in the longer and more important articles.  Frotz661 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian Kings

message: Hi This section could be improved as a new article, as this is not a very significant part of his life I suggest we create a new article for this. This will help keep the current article short and make it adhere to wikipedia article size guidelines. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed there is already an article called Muhammad and Judaism why not move this section there. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the following link leading to Google book search  and when I searched for the phrase quoted here I did not yield any result. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad and Jewish Tribes 

message: Aminz has written this highly biased section, in a quite transparent attempt to show how "one of the worlds great men" has been unjustly maligned by western bigots, according to his original research. I suggest that we deleted it and replace it with a more general and less biased section, called "Criticism of Muhammad" or something similar. Anyone disagreeing with that? -- Karl Meier 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Like the rest of the article in miniature: a biased quote farm. I have a strong feeling that some editors have resorted to quote shopping: the quotes most favorable to Muhammad were cherrypicked from secondary sources. Beit Or 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a major problem. I just read some of the "Islam" article, and what's currently in it is quite depressing. The fact that claims such as "Modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation" (in other words Modern Western historians have converted to Islam) and "The most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude" is allowed to stay there, pretty much says it all. -- Karl Meier 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's just ridiculous how some editors here have managed to collect the quotes in such a manner as to create the impression that academic historians believe Islam to be the true religion. Beit Or 20:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed..Proabivouac 20:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a very interesting point you are making there Mak82hyd. You want to remove "non copyrighted images"? :-) -- Karl Meier 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry my mistake i mean copyrighted. Mak82hyd 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? So what makes you think that the images that you are removing, which are both more than 400 years old, should be copyrighted material? -- Karl Meier 22:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mak82hyd, some of your edit summaries are misleading, while others are rather disturbing.Proabivouac 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very misleading and sometimes disturbing and strange. Here is another one: "i have prob". What does that mean? -- Karl Meier 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to be an admission.Proabivouac 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad and the West

message: *"The most destructive physical manifestation of the contempt and fear of Islam was the Crusades, during which hundreds of thousands Muslims were massacred."
:Itaqallah, this is a simplistic and highly opinionated view of the Crusades, which moreover has no relevance to this article.Proabivouac 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked the criticism section; the Crusades have nothing to do with criticism of Muhammad. - Merzbow 00:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, criticising Islam, it's customs and beleifs, as well as denigrating Muhammad were part of the build-up and popular demonizing of Muslims during the crusades. These things are common to justify and whip the war frenzy among the populace anywhere but the extent of the struggle did create such a tradition and athmosphere. This is a common feature of human society, demonizing the enemy.--Tigeroo 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Medieval demonization of Muhammad is already covered in the section. Modern views from notable sources are far more important to give space to. There is a place to argue about the Crusades, but this small section isn't it. - Merzbow 07:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was not making a statement on the article. It looks fine to me in this regard. Merely commenting on the comment that crusades had nothing to do with criticism of Muhammad.--Tigeroo 12:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crusades

message: I'd be curious to hear what other editors think of this edit.Proabivouac 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of problems here. First, this section doesn't belong where it is so prominently in the article, it should be section 6.5 or something. Second, it makes lengthly, sweeping statements based on just a single source, giving it far too much weight. It should be moved into a sub-section, shrunk to about half its size, and made clear that all the statements in it are the opinion of Watt. - Merzbow 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this section is against everything that Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality is about. It's nothing but unbalanced partisan commentary, and I'll delete it if substantial improvements is not made very, very soon. We can't have something like that in a major Wikipedia article. Aminz, I believe that it's now the second time you have added material to this article that is against Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality. Could you please (re)read Wikipedias policy regarding neutrality and adjust your edits according to that policy from now on? -- Karl Meier 07:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Undoubtedly so. Beit Or 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I believe Aminz is doing is to piece information together in a way that promotes his own opinion, and that is not just against NPOV but also against WP:NOR. Even well-sourced material can be presented in a way that is shouting a message at the reader. -- Karl Meier 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I had the same experience with Aminz on other articles, too. Beit Or 09:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you people should bring some scholarly sources, which are published by University presses or renowned scholarly presses rather than criticizing others. This attitude of bad faith is not good for wiki-environment and not constructive at all. If someone thinks that content is not showing the actual picture, he/she should bring another scholarly source to show the other side of the picture rather than censoring the information, and judging the quality of the content yourself rather than leaving it to the scholarly source which has published it. *sigh* I have been explaining this thing on other articles as well, but I think no one is listening anymore. TruthSpreaderreply 09:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well said. --Aminz 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I made the decision to move this section to the talk page, and I believe that this should be the place for it, until it has been changed into something balanced, unbiased and more suitable for one of our more important articles. -- Karl Meier 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You forgot to move the  template along with it. Good work. I also must second your sharp but pithy comment above re the neutrality policy. We all have our biases, but there is a point at which observers will question whether an editor is trying to follow it at all.Proabivouac 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality of Muhammad 

message: Muhammad had a firm control over his feelings. He never spoke unnecessarily, always to the extent that made his point clear. He had carefully apportioned his time according to the demands from him. There was long periods of silence being deep in thought, yet he never rested but was always busy with something. He was very tactful in his dealing with people. In main he was gentle though at times he could be severe.  Watt (1974) p.229 Watt states that at least some among the many stories illustrating his gentleness and tenderness of feeling are worthy of credence. He was especially fond of children and was able to enter into the spirit of childish games and had many friends among children.  Watt (1974) p.229 According to Watt, he had "insight into the fundamental causes of the social malaise of the time, and the genius to express this insight in a form which would stir the hearer to the depths of his being."  Watt (1974) p.236 He was also a very skillful administrator and in choice of men to whom to delegate administrative details.  Watt (1974) p.236 According to Watt, "Muhammad gained men's respect and confidence by the religious basis of his activity and by qualities such as courage, resoluteness, impartiality and firmness inclining to severity but tempered by generosity. In addition to these he had a charm of manner which won their affection and secured their devotion." Watt (1974) p.229
:I made the decision to move this section to the talk page, and I believe that this should be the place for it, until it has been changed into something balanced, unbiased and more suitable for one of our more important articles. -- Karl Meier 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to move the  template along with it. Good work. I also must second your sharp but pithy comment above re the neutrality policy. We all have our biases, but there is a point at which observers will question whether an editor is trying to follow it at all.Proabivouac 07:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality 

message: Recent edits (I believe Tigeroo’s?) present us with this:
:“Muslim history records Muhammad as having received revelations from God from the age of 40; delivered through the angel Gabriel over the last 23 years of his life. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an...”
There are several problems with this sentence and following clause. First, "records Muhammad as having received" is a horribly awkward predicate. Second, "history records" strongly suggests accuracy. Finally, history doesn’t actually record Muhammad as receiving revelations over 23 years, only Muhammad relating these experiences (truthfully or not) to others. The Qur'an, by general agreement, reflects Muhammad's words. Whether these continue revelations from Gabriel is the very heart of the question, "Is Islam true?," and, if WP:NPOV is to be taken seriously, must not be presumed at any point, for any reason.Proabivouac 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not saying "history records", it's saying "Muslim history records". Muslim, i.e. explicitly non-secular, history certainly does record revelations. - Merzbow 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Muslim history" is POV in this context; see "Muslim mythology." "Islamic tradition" is probably the most neutral choice I've seen thus far. "Records" unambiguously suggests fidelity.Proabivouac 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, "Islamic tradition" is probably better. And of course 'records' suggest fidelity - if a source "records" something, the implication is that the source is not writing down something it thinks is incorrect. I see no issue with the word; by attributing the recording to a specific source, we are freed from the burden of agonizing over issues of absolute truth. - Merzbow 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Records" suggests that someone witnessed the revelations occuring and wrote down what they saw - a far cry from the fairly uncontroversial reality of Muhammad relating to people what Gabriel supposedly told him and them recording that. There is no one who can claim to have “recorded” these except Muhammad himself. Conversely, there is no problem with using "records" if what is recorded is "that Muhammad said..."Proabivouac 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "that Muhammad said" is encompassed by the term "according to Islamic tradition". I think it's unnecessary to separate the two here; both "Muhammad" and "Islamic tradition" carry the same presumption of a non-secular Muslim perspective. - Merzbow 09:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a problem with attributing claims to Muhammad that I am failing to appreciate?Proabivouac 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably more accurate (although not as precise) to say "Islamic tradition records", just like the Jesus article prefixes many sentences with "According to the Gospels". We'd have to qualify "Muhammad said" with "According to Islamic tradition" anyways. At this point perhaps you should make specific edits to show your intentions then we can talk more if need be. - Merzbow 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Muhammad said can only reliably be used with Hadith, and even that to a dubious account. Anything else is usually someones summary or account of what he said rather than his words. This can vary in detail, therefore tradition is fine. Also it is Muslim historical records that record these events. Record does not have to be eye-witness accounts. If that was the case most history books would not be able to claim authencity. It can be contended that charecterizing Muslim historical works as mythology is also a POV. Especially when modern historical accounts of the same period base the majority of their reconstruction upon the same historical accounts, ableit with a different interpretation and assumptions on social motivations much more distant in time. There was a rigor, albeit of a different kind, what the other option implies is presentism and could be argued that all historians of an earlier age were merely dabbling in mythology. More relevantly I think it is fairly obvious that the vehicles of prophecy, revelation and access to high truths etc. are phenomenon which cannot be reliably construed as unambigoulsy true without a certain leap of faith, therefore there is no extraordinary claim. Such claims in the field of religion can actually be classified as quite ordinary, and they are quite easily verifiably therefore the only degree of rigor required in this article is their attribution. Also claims creates an ambiguity and POV of doubt which is much more easily countered by attributing to hard facts.--Tigeroo 06:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph the second

message: Aminz, can you supply a quote from Annemarie Schimmel, supporting what has been attributed to her in the article? Beit Or 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not the direct quote. The referenced book is in German; please provide the direct quote in the original language. Beit Or 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Schimmel 

message: Please don't say that Muhammad received revelations. Say Muhammad said he received revelations. And I have removed a couple instances of irrelevant speculation. Arrow740 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were the right steps towards cleaning up this page. Beit Or 12:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revelations 

message: The article attributes "The Jewish groups had refused to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet and in the document only appear second in character. [And] the prestige of his [Muhammad] military successes [later in life] gave him almost autocratic power." to Britannica Encyclopedia. I couldn't locate it in the article Islam. Can you please specify where exactly this is mentioned. Thanks. --Aminz 10:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can barely even understand that paragraph. Thanks for removing it. - Merzbow 08:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Britannica Encyclopedia 

message: Merzbow, would you please explain why you took this out:"In the Constitution of Medina, Muhammad demanded the Jews' political loyalty in return for religious and cultural autonomy.<ref>Neusner (2003), p.153 " Thanks. --Aminz 08:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Arrow took that out... he thinks there is another source that contradicts it? Arrow, can you go into more detail? - Merzbow 09:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's as I said. Reuven Firestone: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118). The sentence in question was placed before a discussion of the killing of the Jews. The placement implied that it was related. I am fixing the sentence proclaiming that the Jews were accused by the Muslims of treachery, then by some unknown agents were punished for the Muslims' accusation. Arrow740 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not clear what the agreement was. Whatever it was, Muhammad utterly failed to keep the tribes together as a political unit. He took control of the Arab tribes and destroyed the rest. Arrow740 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad and the Jews 

message: Some one has removed this section (which was reverted). I do not agree with the removal but the section is problematic for two reasons:
*it calls a view "medieval" that is not in any way restricted to the Middle Ages, especially since it explicitely includes a sentence about "after the reformation" (hence beyond the Middle Ages).
*it implies that this view was common among medieval Christians, failing to point out that very many people didn't care at all or hadn't heard of Muhammad in the first place.
Str1977 (smile back) 09:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of this section as written, it has too narrow a focus. It should be reworked to cover modern times as well, and also cover positive views. - Merzbow 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval Christian views of Muhammad

message: This page has been subject of constant vandalism. I suggest that locking this article be considered for unregistered or new users, especially because it is a major attraction for those who wish to manipulate the system. Aslamt 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Although I think the existing material is relevant, I'm still uneasy about "reformer", I still think "reformer" implies an improvement. While the consensus is that Muhammad's changes to existing society were overall an improvement, I think there should be a discussion of changes that could be considered a negative (impact on religious minorities, loss of religious freedom perhaps, etc.). To that end, I think we should use another term, like "social change". Perhaps "Muhammad's social changes"? - Merzbow 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that title is perhaps still too general. How about "Impact on Arab society", which makes it clear that the scope of the section is only on Muhammad's immediate changes to Arab society? - Merzbow 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if this is agreed to, I'd also suggest renaming the Muhammad the Reformer and Reforms under Islam (610-661) subarticles to names like "Muhammad's impact on Arab society" and "Societal changes under Islam (610-661)". - Merzbow 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Arrow740 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename section? 

message: This is a question that I think wikipedia should answer, and I don't know the answer myself. I ask here because we've started to touch this issue already. What is Islam's stance on morality? Is there an eternal, objective set of moral standards set by God, or is there no fixed morality, and it can change over time? Is morality determined by context or not? Arrow740 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you check out Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Islam and Ethics if you would like to do some research. --Aminz 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that covers morals as well? Arrow740 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dunno. I haven't read the article. I've just seen it. --Aminz 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality in Islam 

message: A lot of these articles need a lot more editing. We need to go through and replace the reliance on Watt and Esposito with a more diverse collection of quotes. Lewis should be stressed more. In a collaborative effort like this there is the tendency to cherry-pick quotes on both sides, but it will be difficult to get a stable version of articles on controversial subjects like this one if we keep it up. Arrow740 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Re: OR tag: Beit Or, Gren left a comment on my talk page about Muhammad the reformer. --Aminz 07:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: I removed it for the reasons in the edit summary. Less glorification, please. Arrow740 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it was overly hagiographic. That section could still use a lead, but it should be a neutral lead, one that at least mentions the possibly negative aspects of his legacy (centuries of religious warfare) along with the possibly positive (most of the stuff in the Reformer section). - Merzbow 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I take issue with that. The quote was clearly inappopriate. Maybe an agnostic admin will post a WP:NPA notice on your talk page soon. Arrow740 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tonight I'll go looking through some of the Lewis books to see if I can find a single quote that references both the good and bad points of his legacy. If not, maybe we'll have to cobble together something from multiple sources. - Merzbow 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Middle Way is often best. Arrow740 00:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put back the removed esposito quote. I don't think you will find bad points of his legacy from RS. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote can be used but not in this way. Right now it is simply a quote with no context at all. Muhammad is one of the most important historical persons ... his legacy cannot be dealt with by merely a hagiographic quote from an apologetical author. This case again shows the complete disregard of some editors for the concept of an encyclopedic article. Stop the hadithisation. Str1977 (smile back) 08:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is not from Esposito. The article was unsinged. It should be attributed to the Oxford Dictionary of Islam. --Aminz 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes its usability even more questionable. We need to know who wrote this. My points raised above stand in any case. And mind the indent, Aminz. Str1977 (smile back) 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ISLAM and is certainly a reliable source. please explain what do you mean by context. --Aminz 08:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esposito quote 

message: Please note that I've removed only a few sentences. Among them, the pointless Muir debate as to whether Muhammad was or was not sincere in Madina, and the rebuttal thereto. For our purposes here, it doesn't matter if Muir or anyone else guesses him to have been insincere.Proabivouac 10:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proabivouac, I originally didn't think that this whole issue was relevant. But since then I've seen how many of the recent scholars address it. It may be difficult to find a summary wording that does not imply that the revelations were actually the word of God, as opposed to sincerely perceived by Muhammad as having been the word of God. But I think we should try. I will see what I can come up with, but it's hard without having all the books in front of me. One sentence should suffice. Itsmejudith 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Logically, all we would have to do is change, "According to Islamic traditions, Muhammad began receiving revelations from God..."to  "Muhammad believed he was receiving revelations from God...", followed by the relevant cites - in theory, this would advance the revelations argument by adding the assumption of Muhammad's sincerity, but in practice, it substitutes Muhammad's word for the appeal to authority of 1+ billion Muslims. In theory, that appeal to authority is meaningless, but in practice, to remove it guarantees an edit war. It's this sort of observation which leads me to believe these articles can never abide both by WP:NPOV and by consensus.Proabivouac 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's much mileage in trying to edit the existing material in the article. We have to go back to the sources. Which sources are relevant? How can we best summarise them?Itsmejudith 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of sources is the most critical one for this article. Now it takes a bit from here and piece from there with no apparent order. Per WP:NPOV, we must use "commonly accepted reference texts" to represent amjority views. The key is to agree on what these "commonly accepted reference texts" are in this case. Beit Or 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I was not referring to the existing material as a whole, only to the bits relating to the sincerity issue. I strongly agree that the question of sources is critical. The references at the moment are mostly from texts issued by top academic (Oxbridge or Ivy League) publishers, so presumably there is no problem there. A few aren't, e.g. there is Accad from an academic journal. If you see any difficulties in regard to any of these sources, please elaborate. The ordering is an interesting, though separate question; did you have any further comments about it?Itsmejudith 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent PB edits

message: I was wondering why this highly controversial fact was not mentioned.  That Muhammad, at 52 years of age, married a 9 year old girl and had sexual relations with her.  This is well documented in Sahih Bukhari, Book 58: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234: Narrated Aisha: 
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. 
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/058.sbt.html#005.058.234
Please do not delete this is it is a valid topic for discussion.  It should be noted that he was what the western world would refer to as a pedophile.  If you delete this topic for discussion it only means you are trying to hide the truth.
:This has been discussed here and in other places before. The basic position for the encyclopedia is that the hadith is a primary source. It is not historical proof. Historians - and theologians - differ on how it should be interpreted. We mention Muhammad's marriages but should only use good secondary sources to interpret them.Itsmejudith 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to reject the rest of the hadith narrated by her? Arrow740 23:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't try to wind up Muslim editors or editors of any other religion for that matter. It doesn't advance the article.Itsmejudith 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Talking about good faith! This is why you want to remove all the Qur'anic references (which are alot more authentic considered than any hadith) here but insist on including those hadith on which we don't even have a single reliable secondary source criticizing this act. Even, Watt mentions it, but doesn't use it as a criticism. TruthSpreaderreply 11:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What hadith are you talking about (I suppose the one above)? What criticism? I'm fairly certain I've never created a section like the one in question, and I don't choose to add "criticisms" to mainspace - in fact I just recently eliminated the Criticism sectrion of this very article. The authenticity of the material to which you refer is not being questioned, and I suggested a way we might include all of it as a link to a list, which is what it is, to which you've not responded. We can't turn articles into long lists of quotes.Proabivouac 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad marries Aisha 

message: please refer to more authenticate literature [for example: "Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar)Memoirs of the Noble Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri"] which shows Prophet Muhammad's(Allah's peace be upon him) life in good details.
As per this litarature, till age of 40 years he was a Noble man and Merchant. Revealations of God started at the age of 40 years, and continued for about 23 years. In these 23 years, Prophet Muhammad(Allah's peace be upon him) spread message of Islam, through call on contemporary Meccan Society and Arabs.
I've said it before and i'll say it again: this is not an islamic encyclopedia and does not need to conform the the Muslim viewpoint. Zazaban 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sealed Nonsense is hagiography, makes no attemtp to abide by standards of historians. Arrow740 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's your opinion. its pedigree, and the recommendation it has received as a notable biography of Muhammad in western academic publications dispels your theory. ITAQALLAH 10:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itaqallah, I agree that it's notable as a contemporary Islamic treatment of a relatively orthodox Sunni POV. What it's not is a non-partisan academic source. Per WP:RS, we are to treat it "with caution." I am quite certain that you recognize the basis for my objections. This is not a regular academic work as per Lewis or Watt (etc.). What I'd ask of you is to address my and other's real objections so we can hammer out some guideline as to when it is acceptable to cite this, and how. Pretending you don't understand what we're talking about is entirely normal wikilawyering, nothing I could really call you on, but isn't helpful because you're just blowing everyone off, even though you must realize there is a reasonable basis to our objections. Part of working all of this out is being honest with one another, but that's made difficult since any concession might be used against you later (though not by me: I reciprocate friendly behavior.) If you can admit that it's not quite a reliable academic source, I'm inclined to agree that it is a notable contempory source for a certain strain of Islamic POV. You're not getting pushback on this for nothing, wouldnn't you agree? That doesn't mean there is nothing to what you're saying, but there's not nothing to the pushback either.Proabivouac 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorsed by a University and a partisan view??? TruthSpreaderreply 11:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A university" being the Islamic University of Medina. From their mission as stated on their website "The main objectives of the university are, as mentioned on their website: "To convey the eternal message of Islam to the entire world by means of dawah, call to Islam. We aim to do this through University education and post-graduate studies.", "Inculcating and fostering the community upon practicing the teachings of Islam and worshiping the only true God, Allah alone, with utmost sincerity and devotion." They're not shy about their religious mission and partisanship; why are you? As I suggested to Itaqallah, the first step is to be honest about what we are discussing. It may be noteworthy, but this is not what usually passes for an academic pedigree. Pretending you don't see this prehaps helps save face, or justifies edit warring, but cannot help solove the dispute. Do you think I am just a bad faith editor who makes up reasons to challenge your material? Per your endorsement of Zora's attack farm, perhaps you do, but that will not convince anyone or contribute towards resolulution. You should at least acknowledge that you understand why people are objecting, that you understand what people are talking about. Asking why people have a problem with "a University" doesn't accomplish this.Proabivouac 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some stuff needs disentangling here. Calling sources "hagiography" doesn't get us much further. Hagiography means writing the life of a saint. Of course much of the material on Muhammad's life is hagiographic; if he had not been revered by followers then there would be no Islam, no research and no article. For establishing what the views of a religion are, sources within that religion can be considered reliable, e.g. Christian theologians can be cited as sources for what Christians believe. This is not quite the same case. The article currently distinguishes a) the historical view of Muhammad's life from the b) traditions held by the believers. I would have thought that a view from an Islamic university was highly relevant for b), but should be treated with caution for a). Itsmejudith 13:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: i think the first step in the resolution of this is to drop the provocative language that has occasionally been used by people (i.e. "the sealed nonsense"). Proabivouac, i have responded with a lengthy comment on your talk page. ITAQALLAH 14:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  we need to add this in order to make a correct representation of the Life of the  Prophet (Allah's peace be upon him) 

message: Grandia01 has repeated his edit. I've reverted. Grandia01, FayssalF or anyone else is welcome to discuss it here.Proabivouac 08:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grandia01 edit

message: i am adding (Peace Be Upon Him) with name of Our Prophet .that is his full and correct name i hope this jsutify to edit article.
and he had 3 son not just two, and i have also edit it .
:Doesn't sound appropriate to me.  That's like adding amen to the end of every sentence in a Christianity-related article.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, don't do that. That would be roughly equivalent to adding (Our Holy Savior) after every mention of Jesus. -Amark moo! 16:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't do that. It is highly POV pushing.--Sefringle 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea is that Wikipedia is impartial.  Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect the beliefs of the editors who contribute to it. Rather, it attempts to be an encyclopedia of information and fact.  Regular encyclopedias do not use such remarks after Muhammad's name and it is also against Wikipedia's style guidelines at WP:MOSBIO. --Strothra 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the issue comes up now and then for discussion, but is always removed. Aside from the reasons mentioned above, it is not informative and seen as persuasive. This, simply, is not the place for that. Menkatopia 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It has been said many times. I am not sure if a notice re this issue is required on top of this talk page but there exist Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad. It has been discussed and agreed about that PBUH and SAW are to be removed. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i am adding (Peace Be Upon Him) with name 

message: *Cut out Muhammad's face in every image of him. It's really the best we can do and keep everybody happy. Zazaban 00:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea how to fix image dispute. 

message: I removed many statements from this article that are POV pushing. This article should not contain praise or criticism, and that material has been removed.--Sefringle 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: my removial of POV material in this article

message: While not wanting to wade into the image vs. no image debate here I will edit to remove images that show Muhammad but in an anachronistic way. Using such images is misleading for our readers and to use them is to further this. If there is to be an image of Muhammad included in the article then one of the minimums needs to be that it corresponds to what is known historically about his appearance.  18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this different from the numerous obviously anachronistic depictions of Jesus in the Jesus article?  I think it's pretty clear that Jesus wore neither a toga, nor priests' clothes, nor is it likely Jesus wore anything during crucifiction. Frotz661 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing the Jesus article which displays images of him as commonly found in Christianity to an article on Muhammad is a bit of a false analogy. On the one hand you've got a figure who is readily portrayed (and has been for millenia) while on the other you've got a figure that has been depicted on only a relative handful of occassions (particularly in terms of a depiction of Muhammad as he looked after the "revelation" part of his life).  While I understand folks' desire to want to include an image of Muhammad here why inflame those who are against that by not only depicting him but depicting him in garb that is moreso associated with the west?  19:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the false analogy?  Why did you unilaterally take it on yourself to remove a picture that was part of an ongoing and unsettled discussion?  Why did you leave an unexplained message on my talk page suggesting that my use of the "undo" option is somehow wrong?  I reverted a deletion that was not sactioned by the discussion you didn't want to enter.  If you want that picture gone from the article, then perhaps you should explicitly enter that discussion, state your reasons, and wait for a concensus.  Until then, please leave things alone.  Frotz661 19:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you under the impression that I have not been involved with this article for some time? If so then you are mistaken. The false analogy is self-evident in my explanation of it. There is only one seemingly new user to this debate and that would be yourself. My edit was done in good faith (as can be determined by the edit summary I left) when a user undoes a good faith edit with either a revert tool or a simple click on the "undo" button and does not add an edit summary themselves, it is difficult to  assume good faith on that user's part.  19:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tu quo que noted.  Please answer the question: why did you unilaterally act though the discussion was unsettled?  Frotz661 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know if there's going to be an image of Muhammad in the lead then let it be one that is based upon history of the man. Use this one. To describe my removal of that image as unilateral just shows your lack of experience regarding editing this article. All of the images have been going back and forth between being displayed or not... my removal of one of them is but the latest in this string of removals by many many editors.  20:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Netscott that this particular image is inappropriate to the lead. The one which has been placed there more often is :Image:Maome.jpg, which depicts a known event in Muhammad's life; he is shown preaching in now-Muslim Mecca against intercalation (631 CE), before his return to and death in Medina.Proabivouac 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is to have a headshot of the person covered.  How about cropping a headshot from this or this to use instead of that anachronistic one?  Netscott, please note that most of the deletions came from one-issue editors who do their thing for a few days, then are never seen again.  Frotz661 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm offering an alternative to the present headshot.  Frotz661 22:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Netscott that this image is not the best choice. I don't think cropping out a head shot from another work is a good idea. I understand the purpose, and it does make some sense, but it may be too close to original research. A better choice might be to use :Image:Maome.jpg with a suitable caption: "After the people of Mecca converted to Islamm Muhammad preached there in 631 CE." I don't necessarily oppose putting it or another picture at the top, but further down in the corresponding section might do as well. Tom Harrison Talk 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a better link::Image:Maomé.jpg.Proabivouac 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at .  How about something from there?  Frotz661 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While mediation on this issue is ongoing, I don't think it's proper to add new images to this article or to increase the prominence of existing images by moving them to the lead. - Merzbow 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can agree to restore it to the section in which it was previously, below the TOC. Additionally, the caption might be improved.Proabivouac 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we address this in mediation.  --BostonMA talk 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "We are no better than them"? kindly refer to Wikipedia:Civility and refrain from such inflammatory and predjudiced language that is entirely against the cooperative spirit needed to edit on an article like this.  01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freedom of speech isn't what Wikipedia is after either, it's Neutrality. Zazaban 03:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which images are of which kings, respectively? And what do the Fatamids have to do with this?Proabivouac 11:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This point about the pictures not being contemporary with Muhammad, and not showing him in his original mode of dress, has been rehashed over and over again, but in fact is completely irrelevant. The fact is that the vast majority of historical figures prior the the late Middle Ages had no contemporary likeness made, yet Wikipedia is full of pictures of them. To take just one example, the picture of Jesus in his article is a sixth century mosaic showing him in sixth century Greek dress. It is also very famous and deserves to be in the article. TharkunColl 12:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Zoroastrians worship God: same entity, different name.  Read the article on Zoroastrianism.  It states quite clearly that fire is a holy symbol.  Furthermore, do you have any solid proof that Miraj2.jpg is of Zoroaster?  That picture is found in just about all western texts that mention Islam.  The same goes with Maome.jpg.  Please point to either a reliable website or give a full citation of a work likely to be found in a university library.  Frotz661 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of an [[Anachronism|anachronistic]] image of Muhammad

message: After several days of on and off work, I have finally succeeded in removing every link to every variant of Prophet Muhammad in a Wikipedia article, replacing it with a link to Muhammad. Please be on the lookout for anyone who tries to undo this as I would rather not have to go through 'what links here' again. KazakhPol 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honorific linking

message: * Baha'u'llah 
We should use the same solution here. Zazaban 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example how to fix the image problem used elsewhere on Wikipedia. 

message: If found something POVish, and unencyclopedic: "After the Battle of the Trench in 627, the Muslims accused the Jews of Banu Qurayza of conspiring with the Meccans, then wiped them out". 
"...wiped them out." should be replaced with "...executed the male members of the tribe, in accordance with a judgement made by Sa'ad ibn Mu'adh, and kept the women and children in bondage."Bless sins 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wipeout 

message: The sad thing is that all these arguments for adding the image of the prophet are academic arguments for doing so. There is no real need met by adding the picture. The images are not accurate portrayals anyway. So the question is why do people want so much to add these? It seems like one has no regard for the feelings of another large number of people, and creates academic arguments to seem justified in so hurting. The article is not harmed by not having an image, and the deadlock can be broken. Let's let it go. Cott12 Talk 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. We are not going to remove an image just because some people are offended. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion. This image is jsut as accurate as some of the Jesus pictures and it does serve encyclopediac value. If you wish to see it removed, you can discuss it at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.--Sefringle 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image is disingenuous 

message: What is the purpose behind the image showing a group of fictitious (Persian?) people. Who is the deluded disbeliever here that thinks the image actually depicts Muhammad? 
(206.126.83.79 00:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame Image