Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22

message: I Want Wikipedia to remove the protection from his page as this article has to be changed. there are many things in it that are wrong about Prophet Muhammad (P.H.B.H). So Therefore i request Wikipedia To Remove The Protection.Ahmedcena (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. For example, Mohamed (PBUH) was the greatest pedophile and terrorist that ever walked the earth. He had more than 10 wives and he liked talking to "angels" deep inside caves. Malbari666 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except adding that would be considered Original Research and is a POV. Zazaban (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to remember something about Moses and Abraham and other leaders venerated by Western tradition having multiple wives? Heck, Abraham talked to a bush. And didn't Jesus see an angel in the Garden of OLives?--Gazzster (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was mainly talking about the first two charges. But yeah, I find it amazing that Muhammad for doing things that many biblical figures have done. It's a bit one-sided. Zazaban (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think... that you may have crossed a few wires with your recollection of Biblical stories.--C.Logan (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Solomon has 700 wives. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you responding to me? I don't understand how that's relevant to my reply to Gazzster, so I'm unsure.--C.Logan (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Open Editing 

message: Ottoman miniature. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b)]]  This won't help with the depiction of Muhammad issues obviously, but the images and artwork should be cited properly, something like this. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's fine as it is. Jmlk17 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't receive full marks in a high school English class with the images cited the way they are now, so I'd say it isn't fine as it is.--24.57.157.81 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to fix this is to register for an account, which has lots of benefits, but if you'd rather not, improvements can be suggested here, and if nobody objects, implemented. WilyD 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if not, this seems like a sensible idea.  We just need an article on Nakkaş Osman, then!  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask and thou shalt receive. WilyD 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should ask more often!  Fantastic work!  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better citation needed 

message: Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.
The header has a typo int should be 'himself instead' not 'himself itself' I'd change it, but I cannot figure out how to do it myself. Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in the header 

message: Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here:
" and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca."
In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification 

message: The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work.  Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast.  Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship?  All three are covered in the FAQ.  Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling attention to the FAQ list 

message: The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work.  Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast.  Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship?  All three are covered in the FAQ.  Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling attention to the FAQ list 

message: The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.
Kind Regards!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to improve the text below images 

message: The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes.  I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here.  See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the FAQ 

message: If you are looking for the old conversation threads, they have been archived to Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22.  If you wish to further discuss any issues from there, then open a new thread.  On the other hand, all image related talk has been spun off to Talk:Muhammad/images, it is likely that any further discussions on this topic will also be moved to this subpage in order to reduce clutter.  Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving and Subpages (or, "Where is my conversation thread?") 

message: Where are the talk page topics going?  I know there has been a lot of activity here, and only a few of the resent talk page edits are in the archives.  Have the rest been deleted? Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the activity is related to the depiction of images.  There's a sub-page for that stuff.  It's at the top of the page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, however it seems that some threads which are not related to the image controversy have also been moved there, e.g. this and the following two sections. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Meh... That looks like a negligent yank and paste.  Somebody may have been a bit overzealous in a move.   It belongs here.-MasonicDevice (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page 

message: I added the claim that Qur'an is the miracle of Muhammad (Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles in the Muslim biographies 

message: Currently, the section (at least on my browser) is sandwiched between two images (Persian Miniature and the Mosque picture). Perhaps they should be moved slightly farther apart so they don't sandwich the text? I don't know if this is just my browser or not. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isra and Mi'raj 

message: Currently there is a statement on the page that says:
"In the Islamic prayer, Muslims end with the second tashahhud asking God to bless Muhammad and his descendants just as Abraham and his descendants were blessed."
I think that the above statement is referring to:
"..., Allahum salli 3ala sayedina Muhammad, wa ala aal sayedina Muhammad, ..."
Which literally translates to:
"God bless out leader/master/prophet Muhammad, and the family of our leader/master/prophet Muhammad."
I am not sure exactly how to state this, but by no means "aal" in Arabic means decedents. It means from my humble understanding to Arabic family or tribe.
I think the statement above should be rephrased to reflect the literal translation of the Arabic Muslim prayer, or if it does not serve the purpose of talking about prophet Muhammad's descendants, it might be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handooos (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages and children 

message: the silly "disclaimer" or whatever you want to call it sentence at the end of the intro should be removed imo, as per WP:SELF. It makes the article look pretty unprofessional - it should be taken as assumed that every image be used appropriately and in a way that is relevent to the article for *every* entry on the encyclopedia; we shouldn't have to state it for this article in particular. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it gives references and such. Jmlk17 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, to what exactly is he referring? нмŵוτнτ 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  self reference 

message: Muhammad was spelled Muhammed under Children & Marriages 
:Fixed, thanks for notifying us. AecisBrievenbus 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: How can it use Gregorian month with Hijra year????--Goon Noot (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Near as I can tell, all dates in the lead are on the Gregorian calendar.  Can you be more specific? Resolute 05:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence makes no sense 

message: Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here:
" and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca."
In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually     theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "capture" has a temporary connotation, like you're holding on to it for a while but will give it back or it could be captured back.  I think conquer is the correct word and could be read as if "conquering the hearts of the audience".  Victory is acquired, not just control.  An army might capture a prisoner, but the fighting is over when the enemy force is conquered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.72.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I read here: "In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own.". Actualy in a lot of islam countries it is forbidden to practice other believes, or it forbidden to move to a different believe or no believe at all. Try to establish a church or a budhistic temple in those countries and speak of other believes, or as a christian consume alcholics it is simply not allowed. When one familiy member would change his belief, breaks tradition we read about it here in the news. The last couple of years several women and girls have been murdered because they supposedly had ‘stained’ the honour of their family. Also a few men were victim of honour killings. so think again its not that free, unless you believe thats all a kind of respectull freedom. As a side note, i'm not offensive and i'm not against muslims. just presenting some known old news fact  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's where you're reading too much into it. Which countries force people NOT to have any other belief except Islam? Saudi Arab? Lebanon? Egypt? Pakistan? Syria? Think again, my friend. Almost all Muslim countries have significant minorities that practice other religions beside Islam. Then again if there might be a society so hell-bent on eradicating all non-Muslims from among their ranks, you couldn't possibly tag them with the label of Islamic fundamentalism. It's like saying that the USA invaded Iraq just because Christianity teaches to spread bloodshed and gaining of material wealth through arm-twisting other people. It's wrong to attribute the doings of a people to a particular faith. And the "honor killing" term is a little over-ambitious and this is not really the page to discuss it. We could have a chat on our respective talk pages perhaps. uXuf (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally from what i have learned from sources is that no one was asked to leave and no one was killed in mecca.  Also I assume this source is correct for he gave out a set of guidelines as to what the rules were for the bloodshed.  There may be no way to know the truth for certain as the victor always makes history.  However, the idea that Muhammed said that those who stood under the flag of bilal (a slave who Muhammed freed), those who stayed in their home, and those who stayed near a another object *slipped my mind, when i find the book i'll fix this*, would not be attacked.  Since no one went against the muslims, there was no bloodshed, nor was there any form of an attack that was recorded.  This sounds like the right idea, also i don't think that everyone converted in Mecca, for that was unlikely, sounds more like a generalization.  Another fact is it is possible to conquer people without slaughtering thousands arrow, there is such a thing as losing a debate. Also did the prophet have 11 wives, I was told that he only had 7, and never more then 4 at a time.  Ka$HisHere  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need clarification 

message: My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You quote the text with the footnotes included ("[8][9][10]")- I suspect that those are the sources in question. Islam does recognize all prophets as "great", but that doesn't equate to "greatest", which is something that- to me- seems to be a fairly ubiquitous belief amongst Muslims. No other prophet receives the same treatment in terms of emulation and reverence.--C.Logan (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top posted comment 

message: There are relevant icons in the commons pages.  Could the following be added under External Links?

\alpha 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons link 

message: Scholars usually discuss the life of Muhammad in the context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Watt for example discusses the economic basis of Arabia, the Meccan politics and the social and moral background, and religous and intellectual background of the region. Anybody willing to pair up with me writing such a section as it seems to be too much for me alone doing it? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background 

message: "...is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله).[7]"
Something seems to be messed up there. I don't know whether it's the reference or template but the Arabic text seems to be changing the order of the text following it. Oore (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has something to do with the non-latin character. Is that ref really necessary? If not couldn't we just have a comment in the code which would avoid the formatting problem? James086Talk | Email 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I fixed  instead. I am a bit confused why  should be necessary, since  theoretically ought to be sufficient... dab (��) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending of first sentence... 

message: This article should have a short section about Bahira. It doesn't have to be anything spectacular, but a short section about Bahira is of major importance to this article, seeing how he was a big influence on Muhammed. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I glanced over Bahira and your suggestion seems valid. Why don't you add a section about it? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A sentence or two in one of the currently existing sections ("Childhood" or "Early years") is reasonable (not a whole section, though). I think you mean that Bahira's role in foretelling Muhammad's role as a prophet is of significance here - the claims of influence are usually dismissed as medieval polemic (cf "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam). ITAQALLAH 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the positive feedback. I just added a short section (Muhammed#Bahira), basically covering the key points (i.e., that he met him young, that he has been in religious polemics, and how he is perceived in Islamic traditions). I think that just about covers it. If you feel like I've missed something, feel free to expand the section at your disposal. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahira 

message: I suggest we move it further down the article to the Farewell Pilgrimage section because the prohibition happened at that time. The image is kind of odd, I should add, because it does not depict Muhammad in the scene of Pilgrimage. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And we should also move the picture of Muhammad with the Black Stone further up, right to the top, because this incident happened long before his career as a religious leader. TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That image is much more notable as the earliest surviving image. The story of Black Stone is not considered historical by many scholars nor is it significant in later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalary months 

message: This article represents ʿayn in multiple ways.  Can we agree that ʿ is the standardized form of this?  '  is obviously a poor choice because it doesn't differentiate ʿayn from hamza (ʾ).  I know Wikipedia is a rather hard place to standardize such issues but--let's get it straight on this article and try to keep it up.  gren グレン 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. Go for it! нмŵוτнτ 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: use . Anything else is just laziness. I do use ` sometimes, but only because I cannot always be bothered to dig for the proper character. Standardization cleanup work towards  is always appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ' ` and ʿ 

message: I have made some edits on the Arabic language Wikipedia, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia is illustrated only with calligraphy images.  On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images
One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing.  Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it."  If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.  
Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden.  (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)
هذه الصورة قد لا يتقبلها البعض، قم بالإظهار إن كنت متأكداً  Warning: This picture may offend some people.
Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article.  I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate.  I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Wikipedia is not censored".
I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Wikipedia does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution.  If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Wikipedia censored. Resolute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only solution which has been offered upto this point was to not show any images at all. I like the opt-out solution, and I can agree that an opt-in solution would be objectionable to many. Could we define an additional skin, which has a class "sensitive visual material" to be used on each image, which in the normal skin is "collapsible" and in the additional skin is "collapsible collapsed"?  Then a warning at the top of the article for users to select a different skin could do the trick. Or am I mistaken?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on the Arabic Wikipedia 

message: Is there any general agreement (for instance between islamic scholars) to how "consumation" (sp.?) of the marriage with then nine year old girl should be interpreted? I heard someone claim that it clearly means he had sex with her, but the person claiming this is strongly anti-islamic, so it would be interesting to know what other interpretations would be possible (if any) and how moslems (sp.?) would typically interpret it. / JBobby  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.62 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it honestly even really matter in the end?  Time's were a lot different 1400 years ago in terms of taboo and sexual encounters with an age of consent.  I can't find much information in either direction personally, and I doubt that anything could be added without sounding POV. Jmlk17 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses this topic.  The article talk page is not the forum to raise such questions that do not deal specifically with article edits, adding, or removing information from the articles.  See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Veritas (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about Muhammad, the person (and not a theological treatise). If he had sex with a nine-year-old girl it is most certainly worthy of note. And all the sources - including Aisha herself - say that he did. Do Muslims deny this? TharkunColl (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the initial comment, and then look at what Veritas said. This is not a forum to discuss the general issue, nor whether or not Muslims deny it. ITAQALLAH 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary. This article is about Muhammad, and should give equal weight to those opinions that are against him as for him. He has been criticised for being a paedophile in many places, and the article should discuss this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  If you can show us quality material from scholarly journals, textbooks where the matter is discussed - bring them to the table, in many places tell us nothing. what quality material specifically do you feel should be added to the article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try these images - many of them play on Muhammad's paedophilia in some way. Incidentally, your insistence on only using academic sources is POV. An encyclopedia should address all relevant views of him. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   I just used scholarly journals as a short-hand and you can present any quality sources you have - Is that website the idea of a quality source when dealing with one of the most studied men in history? a site that starts it's articles with titles like Where's this bitch?  --Fredrick day (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would come under "Muhammad in popular culture". Why doesn't this article have one of those? TharkunColl (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Because that is a quality notable site that we would report on in such a section? Is that your proposal? that's the source you want us to consider for inclusion in such a section? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, why isn't there such a section? Is this article already censored? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect it's actually requires a separate article because of the length it would reach, feel free to start the section here or a new article on the matter. So, back to my question - is that site the sort of material you consider to be a quality source that should be included in an article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  and it seems the marriage issue is covered here --Fredrick day (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fredrick, given this, it might be best to just not feed him. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was called a hypocrite by another user, and responded in kind. He didn't even have the honour to do so in English, but insread used an Arabic term that I had to look up. TharkunColl (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A primary source of opinion (such as the images on the website you linked) does not fall within the bounds of reliable sources, and so runs afoul of Wikipedia policies on original research and neutral point of view.  If you really feel that those images have a place in this article, find a secondary source, i.e., one that discusses those images in a neutral context.  In terms of "Muhammad in popular culture", you would still need secondary sources that establish the notability of those images in a popular culture context.  You don't achieve entry into popular culture simply by doing something avant garde or anti-establishment - if something is truly a part of popular culture, then it will be popular enough to have ample secondary sources discussing it.  --DachannienTalkContrib 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely. I was already pretty sure that there'd be some really good reason why we shouldn't include such things. TharkunColl (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to be trolling - you are a long-term editor, you know our policies on sources, you know how we write articles. So put up or shut up, you want to write such a section - you write a section and you provide RS for it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  (Wikipedia:Trivia sections) says we discourage trivia ("in popular culture") sections. Nothing to do with censorship. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Is this really more than footnote worthy?  It doesn't have much to do with Muhammad's role in history.  It might fit in a section on his family/clan but anything more than a sentence on the subject is clearly pushing a POV.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed. The archives of Talk:Aisha are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the 7th century. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the current mention of her age (" Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage...") is just fine (though perhaps requires a source in the sentence such as "accordig to the koran" or "according to muslim scholars"... i'm no expert on the mater.  theres nothing "wrong" with this, according to some biblical traditions, Isaac's wife was only 3 years old when they married, this isn't mentioned in the article on Isaac, it probably should be.  SJMNY (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's from the Aisha article. In any case, it's not a pressing issue on this article... especially as we provide no ages for any of the other wives. ITAQALLAH 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife? 

message: In my opinion, this paragraph is really lengthy, and it's not strongly related to Muhammad, maybe it is more related to the Islam article? it discusses the spread of Islam in it's early days. Imad marie (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is lengthy but I think one needs to carefully summarize it. I think it is kind of relevant because it talks about the situation of pre-Islamic Arabia (background here is about the background of Arabia and not Muhammad's own background) which is setting the stage for the later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about renaming the section to "Muhammad 's character impact on Arabian Peninsula", or something like that. And the section discusses how Muhammad was able to influence the Arabian Peninsula, and turn its people from unorganized tribes to more organized people in the Islamic civilization. How does that sound? Imad marie (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Imad, the section is not about the impact of Muhammad's character but rather about the economic and social circumstances that favored (or caused according to Marxist historians) the rise of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: But that wouldn't shorten the length of that para. What about making a new article for that and writing here a summary of that article? --SMS  Talk 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the length of the content to be added. Do we have enough references to create a new article for it? Imad marie (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did have the idea of creating another article in mind. But it may take sometime... But if one can make a fair summary of the current section, that would be appreciated. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arabian Background 

message: In the "Muhammad in Medina" section, subsection "Hijra to Medina" there is the following typographical error:
"Muhammad instructed his followers to emigrate to Medina until virtually all of his followers had left Mecca. Being alarmed at the departure of Muslims, according to the tradition, the Meccans plotted to assassin Muhammad." Of course this should read "assassinate." I would correct this myself, but this article is locked. Thank you.
:Fixed. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fix this typo 

message: I came across this well written short biography of prophet Mohammed, it seems neutral, objective, and addresses some controversies in his history.
http://www.islam4women.org/?page_id=6  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.178.49 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider this external link 

message: Do I detect some hysteria developing here ? Hysteria can often be more dangerous than the thing that generates it. The current concerns of image usage should be handled by standard Wikipedia procedures. In my opinion this article can achieve what Wikpedia does so well. It can educate people about why images of Muhammad have become to be frowned upon in the first place. This is why the wonderful geometric Islamic artwork was developed...because actual depictions of Muhammad were verboten. Maybe if more people can understand this then the dispute can be resolved. DJ Barney (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article makes mention of these facts.-MasonicDevice (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to the unwary 

message: There's something that looks like a caption box midway down the page that looks wrong. It extends the entire width of the article and is occluded on the right hand side. From the text inside it looks like it has something to do the the image issue. I've not been a part of the argument, so I'm not sure if the consensus would be to reinsert the image or remove the now pointless box. I'd just like to bring it to the attention of those familiar with the article. It appears below the "Conquest of Arabia" heading and begins with "17th century Ottoman copy..."142.151.138.241 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks. RaseaC (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Caption 

message: Hello, I have been hearing a lot of talks on T.V , Mosques, Masjids, Religon Leader Speeches (even on T.V.), Schools etc ... That P.Mohammed is mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. I did some research and came up with some links perhaps you might want to go through.
Personally I believe Muhammad was mentioned in Hindu Scriptures because a Hindu could believe any religon like Christianity, Judaism or what ever a Hindu chooses (see ) and many Hindus that are followers of Christianity also have some kind of way relating back to Hinduism (which i will get into later). Further more, Prophet Mohammed made movements to Asia as well, and perhaps mentioned about Islam to Hindus and his position which gained trust and eventually became an book about him in Hinduism. Im not saying that Hindus are Muslims or we are followers of Islam, Hindus are Hindu and have their own way of beliefs and have over 1 billion prophets. 
Prophet Mohammed is known to be the Kalki Avtar in Hindusim known as the God of the Worlds.
The Kalki Avtar
The Bhavishya Purana is a Holy Book that contains prophets like Jesus, Mohammed etc.. further more Prohpet Muhammad is also metioned in the Bhavishya Purana (see ) - Image of PMuhammad in the Bhavishya Purana. 
Here are some sources i gatherd from watching Religous T.V shows and browsing through Google:
*http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/188/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Islam/ 
*http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/187/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-History-of-the-Bible/
*http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=275
*http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Hoaxes/kalkiavatar.html
*http://www.asnislamicbooks.com/title_list1.htm
*http://www.central-mosque.com/compreligion/MuhammadInHinduScripture.htm
*http://answering-islam.org.uk/Mna/hindu.html
*http://darulislam.info/Sections-article9-p2.html
*http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/mhindu.htm
*http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
*http://www.islamherald.com/html/interfaith/hinduism/kalki_avatar.htm
*http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/purana1%5B1%5D.gif - Photo of Bhavishya Purana
There seems to be a lot of Refs and Videos (even Al Jazeera) and It also gets presented on local T.V. by Faith Channels. 
So, if in this Muhammad article people can mention their views like (Christianity view of Mohammed) and (Jew view of Mohammed) i think a Hindu has a right to also create an article of their view of Prophet Muhammad and should also be mentioned on Muhammad Wiki page as well. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So can me and my team create the article ? and will it be added on the Muhammad page.? i mean if you can put (Christian view of Muhammad) and (Jew view of Muhammad) i think an Hindu has every right to add their prespective as well. so do we have permission ?--DWhiskaZ (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The things that need to be considered in this regard are neutrality, verifiability, notability, and a quality encyclopedic presentation. If you can provide these things then I see no reason why it could not or should not be included in wikipedia, and would in fact be a valuable resource of information for people seeking to better understand the relationship between Hinduism and Abrahamic religion. Peter Deer (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Mohammed In Hindu Scriptures 

message: Hello there,
This is my first comment on wikipedia and I think it deserves to be noted.
Firstly, the article is a primary source for both non muslims and muslims from different parts of the world. In the introduction of this article, it claims that Muhammad is the founder of islam. In fact, this statement is shown in the first sentence. 
"Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (Arabic: أبو القاسم محمّد; Transliteration: Abu l-Qāsim Muḥammad[2]; Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)[3][4][5] (c. 570 Mecca – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] was the founder of the world religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh)"
So, let us investigate how Muhammad is indeed NOT the founder of Islam. All the prophets before Muhammad: Abraham, Jesus, Moses, etc. were sent for one purpose- to make people know about God (or "Allah" which means God in arabic) and to make people worship only him. And, as the wikipedia article on Islam says: 
The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God
So we can say that Islam has been taught by many other prophets; the outcomes of which are new religions.
In a Muslim's point of view, Islam is the same religion which has come forth from God and He uses the different prophets as guidance to Him.
However, I can see why the article has claimed this. All other religions have a name "christianity", "judaism", etc. and Islam has the name "Islam"; but this does not mean that muhammad is the founder of Islam. Islam already exsisted long before Muhammad was there, for example, Angles would be classified as Muslims, since they all submit to God:
"An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim, meaning "one who submits (to God)"."
Thanks for your understanding
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.234.252 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All new religions have claimed to be reformed versions of previous ones. Doesn't mean it's true. Wikipedia adheres to facts, not theology. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims of the religion are entirely pertinent to the article. The claims can be displayed in a factual form. Peter Deer (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If Islam, as a religion, existed before Mohammed, please provide a source demonstrating an example of the Muslim religion existing prior to Mohammed, either in name ("Muslim" or "Islam") or in its practices.  Otherwise, I think this is just an attempt to add a Muslim POV to the article. fraggle (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. 

message: I'm bringing this up again because I think this section needs to be extensively discussed. I think providing an introduction to the setting of 7th century Arabia is certainly important, but it must be brief. Ideally, I would like to see the Arabian Background section trimmed and moved into the Geneology section (which itelf can be renamed to background, as it too concerns setting the scene pre-Muhammad). Hence we can have the discussion of the Arabian context and Muhammad's lineage in ~3 paragraphs. If anyone has any other ideas please do share them. By compressing the text here, I don't mean to remove any important information, but I really think we can employ something more resembling summary style here and expound in greater detail in a daughter article. This is especially important if we're interested taking the article above and beyond GA status. Feedback? ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I however couldn't myself do it. Please do give it a try. Regarding the Genealogy section, I think there is no need to provide a detailed genealogy; simply saying that in X number generations Muhammad is traced back to Y who is believed to be a son of Ishmael son of Abraham. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arabian Background (again) 

message: I don't think this issue deserves to be in the lead. That is The principal and most credible source of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an.[12][13] Next in importance are the historical works by writers of third and fourth century of the Muslim era. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my humble opinion, per WP:Lead, the intro should contain something of each section. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article and Imam Ali one has similar problem as User:John Carter told there. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see the problem with it myself, as perhaps it's better to start off the article acknowledging the primary source and chief written account. But that's just my humble opinion, I do not object if you feel it needs changing. Peter Deer (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it does... it's important to know what sources are considered reliable... and universally the Qur'an is considered the source closest to contemporaneous to Muhammad.  Followed by the hadith collections and other later sources.  So, you don't seem to be arguing its accuracy.  But why does illustrating what the primary sources of his life are not belong in the lead? gren グレン 07:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography of the Prophet's life 

message: Mahmoud, the section "conflict with Mecca" is about "conflict with Mecca ". The material you are adding is copy/pasted from "Hijra to Medina" section and "The Arabian background" section. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep - Edit seems to be in place. --C149 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahmoud123, a new sockpuppet? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud123's edit 

message: I suggest we remove the "Companions" section. It is not directly relevant to the bio of the article. Any objection? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think much of the Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina sections can be summarized, with the content moved to the prospective articles (Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina). Yahel Guhan 07:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the size of the article 

message: Is the article really protected against unregistered or newly-registered users ? User:Police99 registered not more than 20 mins. ago and has made a substantial edit!!! MP (talk•contribs) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get 20 minutes ago from? The log says the account was created on 22 March 2008. — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake. The account was created 4 days ago, but User:Police99 has only made 3 edits, the first one of which was about 20 mins. ago when I wrote my first comment above. Still a rather new user. Police99 has made a major edit involving many references. Since I have been away from this article for a while, I want to know whether Police99's major edit is a useful addition to the article - the references have been changed quite a bit. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Itaqallah has just answered my last query (thanks Itaqallah!). QED. MP (talk•contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Police99 seems to have mass-reverted a lot of edits made over the past few days. We've been attempting to cut things down and make the prose more succinct in preparation for a possible GAN (see above). I don't understand why that was indiscriminately reverted, nor was any explanation for it given... ITAQALLAH 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Police99 seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Mahmoud123 and others as reported here. --SMS  Talk 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed he is. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected ? 

message: I have cleaned up the references. Some errors may have crept in during the process. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References cleaned up 

message: Mahmoud has taken the information from different parts of the article and added it to the "conflict with Mecca " together with his own WP:OR synthesis. This synthesis is in fact not comprehensible. The section is about military conflict with Mecca following the battle of Badr. Meccans were pagans and not Jew or Christian. The Jewish community were in Medina and that stuff is mentioned in the article in its own place. 
Mahmoud has also taken a quote from the previous version of "The Arabian background" section that I had written sometime ago without any attention to what the section was saying. The type of conflict we were talking about there is part of the modern theories of materialistic interpretations of Islam and is somewhat Marxist in nature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the military conflicts. That type of conflict, if one accept it, did not began after migration to Medina. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the correct place for that content. thats the way the article was a couple of months ago. Nothing is wrong by putting it back up and adjusting it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please substantiate your claims instead of saying they are correct. That piece was never in that place. Please provide the link to the version you are referring to.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thats why the Expand Link is put up. You can expand it if you want, I think it seems to be in place just the way it is. If you want to get into more detail about how it happend or when they came this and that you can go on and expand it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody talked about "Expand Link"? Please substantiate your claims.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Mahmoud, a lot of things happened in the Medina period, but that does not mean that we should mention them in all places. The Jewish tribes of Medina were not directly involved in the battle of Uhud. There were some connections (Ka'ab going to Mecca and exciting people to attack) but these are mentioned in their own place. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relationship between Muslims and Jews looks irrelevant to Conflict with Mecca. I think there can be better place, if you insist on inserting it.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahmud, historically, the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews was not viewed as something significant. Muslim have been traditionally relaxed about it; it is only after the recent political developments that the Muhammad-Jews of Medina thing has become significant. But that is irrelevant to the conflict with Mecca section: yes, after sometime the Jewish communities and Muhammad were clearly enemies AND we have mentioned that "the Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him" in its own place --Be happy!! (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: What do you mean, The Muhammad article is all messed up with information here and some there and some in quotes and some hidden needs to be shaped up --Mohun (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If such a section is to be created, I recommend drafting a list of the basic information such a section would contain on this talk page. Which are the relevant tribes and groups? How did Muhammad view them? How did people in later times perceive Muhammad's views? Sorting this out here would help prevent edit warring and improve sourcing of such a high-profile article right away. AecisBrievenbus 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a correct style i wikipedia. I prefer "Relationship with Ahl al-Kitab" or "Relationship with Abrahamic religions"--Seyyed(t-c) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud123's edit (Again) 

message: Few months ago Aminz asked me to tell Shia view about this part and I sent him some articles. What has written in this section is in accordance with Sunni histories and reports. But Shia has different view. You can find Shia view in Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims C.e. 570 to 661. There's an online version of the book. Razwi writes In their respective accounts of the reception by Muhammad of the First Revelation, the Sunni and the Shia Muslims are not in agreement. Then he explains the differences.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the sources in question are reliable. If the Shia view differs with the majority view (that is, the Sunni and academic perspectives), then mention of it should be minimal, if it's even at all significant. ITAQALLAH 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only do Shias but Islamic philosophers have different idea. However I didn't mention them because they're explanation isn't relevant to historic context of the article, but in brief they think nobody else could be more certain about the prophecy but the prophet.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There're also another sources such as The Life and Religion of Mohammed as Contained in the Sheeah Traditions--Seyyed(t-c) 04:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check:Beginnings of the Qur'an 

message: I think the article is almost ready. Its size is less than other comparable GA articles (Jesus 125 KB). Any feedback? --Be happy!! (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a few things missing. There's no mention at all about Muhammad's legacy in the form of sunnah, its importance to Muslims and its role in legal theory. I'm going to go through the article and tighten up any language, and I'll quickly run through the bio and see if any key aspects are missing (I did note the absence of the fatra period a while ago, I'll include this if this hasn't been done yet). But overall it does seem to be shaping up nicely. I would have liked some information about Muhammad's companions to have been retained though. ITAQALLAH 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought putting a list of names of the companions when the reader is told nothing about them except their name is kind of unhelpful. But it is just me...--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking we can make a "Legacy" section in which we can have the sub-headings about "Reforms," "Sunnah and Islamic law," and anything else which is pertinent. Also, we really need to reduce the number of inline and block quotes we ae using... if we can summarise them efficiently it will be much more succinct and encyclopedic. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Good job summarizing the background section. IMHO, having a timeline is very helpful. but let's see what others think. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A better option might be to have two timelines, one for Mecca and one for Medina so that it does not pushe down the images that much? --Be happy!! (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the template up seems like a good idea. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reforms 

message: I think in some cases too many unnecessary information has put in the article. While the article is too long and some important issues and viewpoints haven't been mentioned. These are the cases which I propose to remove or summarize:
* Sources for Muhammad's life:Do we need too many details while there are especial articles for this issue.
:*I think we are not providing too many details, are we? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The reason for adoption of 3 daily prayer ritual bit is an opinion rather than a fact and hence can be covered in the articles on prayer and not here. The addition of "while Muslim believe this is the case which ordered by God in all religions.", while true, requires a source. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this a good source to show Muslim belief:Tafsir al_mizan,V.3--Seyyed(t-c) 07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *This can be summarized of course. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *I'd like to see the summary first :) --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *Of course we can. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern here is that details will be removed entirely from this article and not replaced anywhere else.  If there are, for example, other articles about Muhammad adopting certain details from Jewish religious practices, then when those details are removed from this article, they should be replaced with a link to those other articles.  If the details aren't yet in the other articles, they should be added there, of course.  If you're moving material to a different article, please mention it in the edit log so we know what's going on.  Thanks.  --DachannienTalkContrib 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At present you can find all of them in Muhammad in Medina.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the article 

message: Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reforms 

message: In Aftermath: "While Ali and the rest of Muhammad's close family were washing his body for burial". Is this necessary? and is this agreed upon between resources? Imad marie (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem has been solved.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Hi Seyed,
I am sorry but I reverted your edit not for sectarian reasons but because I think it misses the point and does injustice to the character of Ali (Ali for example said "Knowledge is inheritence of Prophets while wealth is inheritence of Pharohs"). Your edit for example does not explain the symbolic meaning of this particular inheritance at all and presents it as a fight over money. Not only that but the current presentation of dispute over Ali's successorship of Muhammad is completely inappropriate and stands in contrast with say the following Hadith:
Ibn Abbas says: "Once when I visited Imam Ali, he was mending his shoes. The Holy Imam asked me, 'What do you think will be the price of this shoe?' I said, 'It has no value at all'. The Holy Imam then said, 'By Allah! To my mind this torn shoe is more valuable than my ruling over the people provided I enforce the right and eradicate falsehood".
--Be happy!! (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what has been narrated by scholars such as Madelung should be narrated. I don't want to narrate interpretations, etc about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inheritance 

message: Hi Wiki1609,
I changed your edit because we are writing here about western and European view as our main source for this section deals with it, not with those living in lands ruled by Muslims in Middle east in Syria in 634. There are more important works by Syrian writers such as the polemical work of John of Damascus. If there is one work to be mentioned by these writers, it is the treatise Epistola Saraceni or Rescriptum Christiani, the translation from  Arabic  of a polemic which is dated before the year 1000 and composed by an Oriental Christian; this work had considerable influence on later European Christians. In any case, I think we should keep with the general dominant view rather than mentioning one particular work or the other. To be sure, the main source for west about Muhammad was those transmitted by non-Muslim writers that had lived alongside Muslims. Also, this section is not about Jewish view and I don't think you are correct in characterizing the early Jewish and Christian attitude of Syrians toward Muhammad as one from whom nothing came except bloodshed. According to Bernard Lewis, "Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance." You might want to compare this with the view of your source "[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed". Please note that most of Syrians Christians were non-Orthodox and that's why they were under pressure from Byzantium empire. It seems your source is presenting a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki1609's edit 

message: i reviewed the mentioned resources about the illustrations in the article , like Al-Biruni's book "Al Athar Al Baqya" .. and there is no such illustrations .. and its clear and obvious to anyone saw the illustrations that they look like each other , means that the same artist .. but the article mentioned different resources , which drives us to the fact that there are fake and none - Muslim made vandalism, and wikipedia is putting them there without any accuracy of the resources .. so please check the mentioned resources . there is no such illustrations . Basem
Which illustrations, and which specific citations are you challenging? Beam 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong resources 

message: In the section “Opposition in Mecca” there is a sentence that states: 
“The account holds that Muhammad pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, praising them, and appealing for their intercession.”  
I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters and I am pretty sure that these are them.  Yes?  Or is this statement saying that Allah and the Arab moon god is the same god?  If they are the daughters of Allah then who are they because I don’t remember Allah having any daughters.  Thanks for your time.  Bluetd (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Allah. There was never such a thing as "an Arab moon god". --Be happy!! (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. What a Topic to discuss. See Islam for more details on the so called "moon god".  Ignorance is a very foolish thing.  Also Allah never had any daughters or family. LOTRrules (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some would argue that arrogance is worse than ignorance. To what were you referring to as ignorant or as displaying ignorance? Beam 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: "I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters" - And I wasn't being arrogant. I provided the link to get him started and I was criticising the theory not him. Sorry if I came across that way! LOTRrules (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The Goddesses in question are, Al-'Uzzā, Manāt and Allāt. When Islam was invented then these existing God would have more or less been subsumed. It does seem that their names were simply cobbled into the '99 names of God. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  three Meccan goddesses 

message: Three weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about two weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM .
Then I asked some wikipedians to tell me their ideas but nobody disagrees with me. 
Thus I want to insert it in the related articles. Now if you disagree with it, please write your idea .--Seyyed(t-c) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My only suggestion is that you tread lightly so as to apply it in a fashion that does not suggest a particular religious point of view, but then you knew that anyway. Also, I'm thinking that if the quote used the term that it should probably include specification to show that the assertion is that of the quote and not that of the article's writing itself. Example: In an address to the Hague, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is quoted as saying "The Prophet (Muhammad) has commanded..." But that's just my suggestion. I'm still not able to think off the top of my head of a place where "the Prophet" could be included in a way that won't step on toes though, so best to avoid it if at all possible. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add your comment .  Please remind that we don't discuss about quotations.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New change in [[WP:MOSISLAM]] 

message: If the reverting back and forth continues I will either protect the page or start giving out blocks for edit warring. (1 == 2)Until 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just put in a 'Page protection request'. The edit warring seems to continue. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Who put this line in? Because I'm afraid that it too violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. We need to tell our readers the truth, namely that Muhammad founded Islam. All they've got at the moment is "central human figure", followed by the assertion (twice) that Muslims think he's the last in a long line of prophets and didn't really found Islam - which is, of course, a description of Muslim theology rather than factual history. TharkunColl (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather POV assertion that the beliefs of Islam are not fact. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should write this article as if the beliefs of Islam are true? What an extraordinary thing to say. And are you trying to imply that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam? TharkunColl (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common knowledge and a key part of Islamic theology that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, rather the religion is part of a longer continuum of religions.  This is the same in Christianity where Jesus is not the founder of Christianity but one attempting to reform the Jewish faith. This concept is explained in that article as well. Note that the article on Jesus also calls him "the central figure of Christianity."  The word "human" was omitted there because of the theological-secular debate over whether or not his nature was divine. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Tharkun please refrain from making this personal. Even though we may disagree it is important to be civil and discuss things rather than getting hostile. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Most Christians consider Jesus the founder of their religion as well as its central figure, as he expanded on Judaism to make it something new. I'd wager that omitting "founder" from his page is more to address both secularists and non-Christian religions who'd throw the blame on St. Paul. But, that's a different page. With Muhammad, it seems most Muslims feel that "founder" implies a religion is just made up on the spot. Even if Islam "originated with the teachings of" Muhammad (as the Islam article states), in Islam the big "F" word carries a negativity not shared by other religions—even the other ones started-up by human "prophets" who consider themselves restorers (e.g. Joseph Smith, Jr., Hong Xiuquan, Bahá'u'lláh). But there's no need to use "founder" on this page; I don't think anyone's going to read this article and think that the word "Islam" was floating around before Muhammad's life. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So we shouldn't use the word "founder" just because Muslims don't like it? And should we expect readers to plough through the article to discover that he did, in fact, found Islam? If so, why can't we write it in the lead? TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop baiting, you've been warned and blocked for that in the past. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you recommend the Jesus article say that Christians believe him to be a demigod (as suggested on the talk page), since, as son of a deity and a mortal, he fits the technical definition? No—sometimes even technically correct words have misleading connotations, and so they are avoided. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: "He is called the founder of Islam by non-Muslims while the Islamic theology does not consider him to be that" ? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Maybe a qualifier such as often, sometimes etc. before 'founder'; or that too weaselly? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Always wise to add references: here are a few     DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like the same weasel problem again. If we're going to go with that, why bother changing it from 'central human figure' in the first place? If we're going to change it, lets change it in a way that fixes something. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central human figure 

message: My bot just passed this page (and couldn't edit it, naturally). Thus, could somebody please add ? Thanks in advance --Guandalug (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link FA - Update 

message: I see that this is fully protected these days, and I remember once upon a time someone suggesting opt-out type collapsible images you could click to make disappear (but so they appear by default), and others thinking this might be an acceptable compromise.  I saw this sort of technique at another article where this was implemented to allow readers to hide a distracting animated image.  What would people think of something like this? Mangostar (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I would have no problem with this solution being used more broadly, e.g. in medical articles where it is important to have images available but I find them horrible to look at and would rather not see them while I view the text. Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It could just be me, but I don't see the option to collapse the image. The sample is provided at Shallow water equations (I have tried the code in the sandbox, it seems to work fine, might be a factor of the talk page).  This seems like a good compromise to the Muslim (Islamic?) viewers of the site. Biccat (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really appear that that page is being edited actively anymore, and I wanted to make sure that this proposal got more viewers. And I don't think this has ever been discussed at length; most proposals had to do with the default being hide.  (If you want to convince me otherwise, point to the relevant archive page.) I actively monitored the discussion for some time and people seemed receptive to this idea, but no one knew of any code that would implement it. Mangostar (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent discussion I could see is at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_9#Images on the Arabic Wikipedia, and I don't see a great deal of receptive responses.  I would be highly opposed to this, for the record. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion only addressed opt-in images, not opt-out images. Mangostar (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really relevant.  The idea of collapsible images in general has been discussed, and declined. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: More recently this has been implemented and reverted at Rorschach inkblot test.  Editors used code to hide the image unless clicked.  Review the discussions and archives if you wish.  It violates a number of policies which is why it may not be done here or anywhere else. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW Talk:Muhammad/images has had 5 edits within the last 2 days and watched by many.  This discussion will be moved there inevitably. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I support this proposal so long as the default option is to show the images.  I still don't believe this will be an acceptable compromise for the anons that come to the site and will likely continue to vandalize it in an attempt to censor the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: A show of hands on who'd find this acceptable and finds the current situation unacceptable would be instructive. WilyD 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support. I see no reason why this is even an issue so long as the default still displays it normally. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Support as long as default is set to display rather than hide the pictures. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oppose as it would set a dangerous and harmful precedent, to allow religious predilections to dictate what appears or does not appear on a Wikipedia article.  In my opinion, WP:CENSOR is the decider here, and if users are offended then they can follow the appropriate suggestions found in Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oppose Obviously I opposed this.  The precedent would wreak havoc.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Support Wikipedia should not censor minority views.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment: I think you meant to say "oppose." And honestly, if it doesn't prevent people from seeing it it's not censorship. May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oppose This matter has been long settled and the current state of the page's images reflects both consensus and policy. 1 != 2 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: All I can say in comment to this thread is, I've never seen an image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him (that addition should place me religiously) before today, and it just literally blew my mind.  I've been alive for 30 years and I've carried a ghost image of him in my mind for that entire time.  Now my brain has just been given something it really can't process.  If for that fact alone, I wouldn't want others to have to deal with similar psychological strife, and think a hide function would be ideal.  Of course, it's my own fault for enlarging the image. Bozatlim (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible images 

message: Hi, I have added the pronunciation of Muhammad in Standard Arabic in the intro line.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Does anybody really think the "infobox person" that was just added makes any sense for this article? "Occupation: Prophet"? I think it should be removed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Jesus gets an infobox, why not Muhammad?  Just edit the fields appropriately, which means Occupation should be axed as it comes out kind of silly. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, Jesus to the rescue then... looking at that article, which is quite good, we should also move the "part of a series" infoboxes in this article lower so they don't look like they're crowded. And "occupation" should be something more NPOV, like "preacher, political leader, general", not "prophet". - Merzbow (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. This article is already so full of pictures and timelines on the right that I don't see room for uncrowding... and if I recall MOS correctly it's not recommended to sandwich text between two pictures/templates. - Merzbow (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm removing it.  If it is re-added there needs to be consensus on the talk page first.  The infobox is problematic for a number of reasons foremost among them emphasizing the illusion of portraiture. gren グレン 09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly does the "the illusion of portraiture" mean? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just taking a guess here, but the 'illusion of portraiture' probably means giving the impression that this was a portrait of the person and not just a depiction of what the artist imagined he might look like. Peter Deer (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less... an infobox is like "vital facts" about a person... the problem is we have legend and cloudy history around Muhammad.  I don't mind depictions but they need good context since they aren't picture or portraits... they are products of the minds of artists centuries later drawing on hagiography and tradition.  I think that makes an infobox rather misleading. gren グレン 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Not particularly necessary IMO. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: You might want to read Arabic name.  There is no real last name scheme like developed in Europe. gren グレン 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: I added some information about Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba to clarify Last years in Mecca. On the other hand it's written something about the issue in Hijra section. It may cause people think these are two different issues. Can you help with this problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba 

message: Its removed again  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.163.14 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Perhaps there should be one section for the Dharmic views of Muhammad, that can include Parsism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. At the moment i've added some text however theres a lot more to be done. Anybody want to participate ? --Mujahideen54 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Muhammad 

message: So then please categorize this article as non islamic view then it will no be mixed with the Main Islamic View it will a good thoughtful work to do it. Then the islamic and non islamic view article can be identified easily and no one will be confused as we some people have done it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that those miniatures were drawn by Islamic artists, they seem to fit well into an Islamic view of Muhammad, even if the article were separated into two, which I doubt it will be.VigilantPuma (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As a general rule, Wikipedia does not split up articles based on views (there are some exceptions, mostly on less viewed articles that don't get attention).  Our goal is not to confuse anyone on whose views they are--and the article makes clear that a vast number of Muslims don't accept these drawings but that does not mean they haven't existed.  We hope to make this point clear. gren グレン 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  add muhammad article as non islamic view 

message: As an donation advertisement there is said that anyone can edit the wikipedia's article but somewhere is exceptional. Why it occurs??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone may edit Wikipedia however they must follow the rules and policies of the encyclopedia, otherwise we would have chaos... Garycompugeek (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Because protection is necessary sometimes.  Celarnor Talk to me 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This page is semi-protected. Anyone with an account which is over 4 days old, and has made more than 10 edits is automatically able to edit this page. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editting Muhammad Articles 

message: ok. I am not a writer here but the way this is written. This article is written of his life as a real person, But if you read the one on Jesus it is as if he never lived and it was just stories made up, It has alot of "according to" on "noted in" in it to me that smells of racisism or at least politics can this be changed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba1500 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad was a real, historical person whose historical veracity is undisputed.  Much is known and uncontested about Muhammad.  Jesus: not so much.  Not comparable.  Think of Muhammad as Aristotle and Jesus as Socrates. WilyD 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: jesus isnt very well documented compared to many MANY other religious teachers from the same period. the stories that exist are often conflicting.--66.158.232.107 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  views on Jesus and Muhammad 

message: Why an article subsection on his wives and children, yet not on his slaves? He exercised ownership of at least 12 females (including concubines, one at least he married and another at least bore him a child + Rayhana bint Zayd (yet another concubine if not wife)} and 26 males during the course of his life. His wet nurse (Umm Ayman), who raised him and to who he was extremely close throughout his life, was also his slave. Surely all notable information, which sadly also seems to been covered over and unmentioned in this article to date. Also, the cited observation of Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, that he "had many male and female slaves, he used to buy and sell them, and he purchased more slaves than he sold" warrants consideration for inclusion, as well as the maggot's exploitation of a fair number of his male slaves to fight his battles for him. Comments? 79.130.162.229 (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good idea to ad something about this issue in the reform section.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muhammad and slavery]] 

message: The "warning" at the top of the discussion page indecates images of Muhammad will not be removed, yet apperently they have been?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still here, just further down the page. Zazaban (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why have they been moved further down the page and replace with pictures of ancient text in a forign language? (this is English Wikipedia) These pictures of Forign language are irelevant and should not be here. They should be replaced by the relevant pictures with were once in an relevant place. Fanatics appear to have taken over this place  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.222.64 (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was part of the consensus, and if you had bothered to read the article, you might realise the pictures are not irrelevant Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you had read what I just wrote you would realize that the "pictures" are irrelevent. Howether the incorrect desision was made it has obviously been influenced by Fanatics who we should not be appeasing as a supposedly unbiased source of information  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.218.84 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion.  We were simply unaware that your wisdom trumped our editorial consensus policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: We try to represent historical representations in a way that reflects their prominance.  Hence a textual representation in the lead, with more pictorial representations in less prominant positions, where they better compliment the text. WilyD 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hello, at the timeline box, it says "622 	Emigrates to Medina (Hijra)
623 	Changes his name to Niema"
What the heck is Niema? I've never heard of that before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.188.19 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look like vandalism to me. I've removed it. ITAQALLAH 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niema 

message: Please add the category tag Category:Founders of religions.  Someone may mistakenly believe that this article should not be in that category, because :Category:Muhammad is already there; however, Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#Topic articles clearly says "If [a] topic article and [a] similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , makes sense to me. Thanks ~ mazca t|c 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add category 

message: This whole section is a tissue of errors and misrepresentation, entirely dependent on the fringe theories of Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, which are being presented here as fact. This is a serious blot on this article. Footnotes wholly misrepresent scholarship on this topic. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you link to says no such thing. Since your only other edit has been to claim that the word "Buddha" is Arabic, I don't think you are being helpful. Paul B (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Nothing is wrong with adding Views. if the Hindu scriptures say that than i see no problem with adding the content. How come delete the entire section including Bahas, Hindu, Sikh point of view ?
Perhaps change the name of the section to Other Religion Views ? --CMJTHY (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: What are you trying to say? it clearly says Muhammad in Hindu scriptures even according to Abdul Haq, Zakir Naik or any other scholar. Compared to the Christian View of Muhammad the Hind scriptures have more sources and scholar research.--CMJTHY (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi all. While it's clear the view is of a minority and probably even a fringe one, I was under the impression that some coverage would be adequate upon seeing the source used (published by Routledge Curzon, which is quite reliable). If it's the case that the source has been misrepresented, are there any details as to where and how? If it's the case that the attribution is correct, but it's just a dismissed theory, then isn't it appropriate to mention the theory alongside its dismissal by scholars? ITAQALLAH 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor in question is essentially concerned to push his views about the Bhavishya Purana, which are not cited to legitimate sources. The rest is designed to make the Purana passages seems legitimate. The Yoginder Singh Sikand book is indeed an entirely legitimate source, but it is about the very complex and obscure details of interfaith dialogue in India in which various religious leaders have attempted to interpret aspects of Muslim and Hindu scripture in ways which would imply some legitimacy to both. Of course so many suggestions have been made by so many pundits of one sort or another that it is terribly selective to pick these out. For example Siddiq Hussain was mostly concerned to prove that he was Kalki, not Muhammad, but the section as written here misrepresented that fact. Sentences like "In a variety of views of Hinduism held on Muhammad, scholars assert that the prophet was none else than the Narashan rishi of the Vedas" misrepresent extremely obscure views as if they are widespread among "scholars". Paul B (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks for the explanation. So am I right in assuming there was nothing vaguely salvageable in the removed text, even if alternative reliable sources were to be located? ITAQALLAH 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The section name was misleading, there are other views, where as Bhavishya is irrelevant, the relevancy is to account for many perspectives and make sure the sources are WP:V and reliable. Wikidās ॐ 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you assume that Hinduism is some sort of centralized form of religion, maybe worth have a look of what is Hinduism before showing your ignorance once again. You have to accept a variety of views, not only views that (you) for some reason select and consider to be 'good'. Wikidās ॐ 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I am sure did your discussion, and your argument is that "Hindus do not represent views of Hinduism"? Leaving aside it being scriptures, so many do represent views of Hinduism and its various sub-sections. You seems to propose that the views here are not appropriate, while other views or other religions are. What is your criteria for inclusion of views of the representatives of Hinduism then? For what I can see you just do not want these represented, because you can not understand how a Hindu can see Agni be represented in Mohammed. Yes there is a relevance as to the Dasavatara article on Islamic sub-sects such as Suffies and possibly others as they are closely linked to Hindu thought. Just as Muhammad will be considered Agni or avatara by some in Hinduism sources confirm that some of the leaders of Suffism were considered avataras. You just have not done a research and academics did. Let me hear what are your views of who of Hindu leaders should be represented in this article, if you do not like for some reason the list above? 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such, its about how from the point of view of Hinduism this particular person is viewed. For some 300 years Islamic rule was present in many orthodox areas of traditional Hindu areas, areas of Gaudiya Vaishnavism including. The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented. If it is not done and considering many other problems with this article, it should be reassessed. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected. I am seriously considering this. Wikidās ॐ 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu scripture section