Talk:Muhammad/Archive 1

message: 'About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.'
'He was illiterate his whole life...' 
MY POINT (Not View): There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Saint Peter, Saint Paul to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic] ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings. And this is one among many examples, he's stated events or geophysical/ scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good. He also spoke of the sea water with different temperatures not mixing, different densities not mixing, etc, etc, all from the Quran, and he was a man who lived his life in the arid desert of Arabia. The exact phenomenon that just got discovered in 1873 AD, by the British Marine Scientific Expedition of the Challenger Voyage. It was impossible for him to KNOW these things in the first place, much less to say it in contrast to the science then. If he really wanted to convince people, wouldn't he have given the accepted version of the time, 600 AD?). These examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not. 
As regards being poor, yes, he was a very successful trader and this was because he was known to be truthful. He was popularly known as As-Saadiq, The Truthful One and Al-Amin, The Trustworthy One. He and Khadija were quite well-to-do, she had her own business and was richer than he. But that was before the age of 40, when he received the call of Prophethood, an event that turned the economic tide for him. In an effort to supress his views that 360 Meccan idols be banished and one God be worshipped, they refused to trade wtih him and ostracized him and his few, poor supporters. So yes, he was extremely poor from the time he began receiving the Quranic verses, and he was a well-to-do, but not rich, trader before this event.
Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illiterate and poor 

message: I cited mostly Bukhari and Muslim, how could that be Shia POV? 
Is everything Sunnis dont like a Shia POV?
IF both Shia and Sunnis deem it as authetic, how could it NOT be NPOV?
Please tell me excatly where and MOST importatlý, WHERE its POV.
--Striver 21:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What do you mean shai POV?

message: He was a camel driver employed by a merchant woman named Khadijah on account of his trustworthiness, he was not the rich trader, it was Khadijah whom he later married who was the rich person. Muhammad's and Khadijah's trading activities ended with the beginning of his ministry, so in essence, he was a poor man with no income, he shunned materialism to the extent that he had only one garment to wear and gave away whatever came in to his possession as an example to his community on charity.
About historical evidence and such, most of it is written by muslims, the ministry of Muhammad was witnessed by arabs, and by the time of his death almost all arabs were muslims, so any early accounts of Muhammad's life will be from muslims, this does not make them unreliable tho, it is the same for Jesus, the New Testament and the Gospels in particular are the main sources on the historical figure and these pieces were authored by Christians
Islam – Submission to the Will of God. Muslim – One who submits to the Will of God. Linguistically these are accurate terms that may be applied to all Prophets, and if this is clarified then it should not be offensive to Christians and Jews.  --Omar 15:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad 

message: I checked all the links, deleted the dead ones, and added a few to round out the collection. I may not have gotten the best (in terms of representative, readable, comprehensive). Are there any directories with collections of links about Muhammad? A link to one of those would be ideal, as giving the largest collection of sources. Zora 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Since I decided that Mustafaa was right in wanting the criticisms to be put in their proper time and place, I broke up the section and moved all the bits to different places. It's big change and there's new material, so please look it over. Zora 21:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broke up pro and con section, moved it to other parts of article 

message: Were  "all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza" killed by beheading? Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zora here. That's what it says in Ibn Ishaq. Zora 12:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Probably .. I didn't have problem the that wording, until the guy as usual added other slants to articls with "incestous" .. the marriage to cousins is not considered "incestous" in many countries OneGuy 11:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Because of denials by certain people (read: Vandal OneGuy) who wish to rewrite history, here is some proof from hadiths that Aisha was 6 when she married and got porked by Muhammad at 9
 
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:  'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. 
 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64   Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).  
 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65   Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' 
 Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88   Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
: Of course... and there are several other traditions that contradict these hadits, implying that Aisha was just bragging about her age .. Since you brought this up, now I am going to fix the page on Aisha by citing these hadith that you cited and many other hadiths that contradict these hadits
: Thank you very much OneGuy 14:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aisha's marriage and consumation

message: And done .... See Aisha now ..  OneGuy 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Aisha

message: I just checked. There is no online hadith that says that boys who reached puberty were killed (at least I couldn't find it by searching online database). This comes from Ibn Hisham, "..all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded."  In Aisha article Lothario kept deleting references from Ibn Hisham, Tabari, and others, so why did he insert them here? Moreover, the other claim he inserted about recently made widows probably comes from Ibn Hisham too (unless he can post online hadith as proof). Playing by the same rule like his, I am going to wait for his answer and proofs (online) before I start deleting this stuff that is not in online reference OneGuy 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ibn Hisam Puberty Quote

message: Someone with just an IP address and no username removed an entire section (Muhammad as warrior) and the closing sentence of the historical significance section. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that these were deleted because they expressed doubt about Muhammad's character. 
I'm certainly willing to consider changes if this person will get a username and come here to debate things with us. But I'm not happy about deleting all doubt and criticism. That's heading down the path towards the extremely "pious" article that existed here before. 
Since I've been accused by some of being pro-Muslim in my edits, I'd like to make it clear that the "Muhammad as warrior" section is the strongest expression of MY own reservations about early Islamic history. As a Buddhist, I find it repugnant. Raids, seiges, captives, slaves, massacres, loot -- ugh. I know that every damn religion in the world has been used as a justification for war, but not every religion has a founder who engaged in it. At least Christians and Buddhists can claim that later rulers had misinterpreted the message. 
OK, so it's possible that that section is biased in some way. But I don't think that just deleting it is the way to deal with it. Other parts of the article (Satanic verses, family life) seem to be specific and neutral enough that critics from both sides are leaving them up. Is there some way that we can edit this section so that it's more neutral? 
Also, just deleting the last sentence of the historical significance section leaves the rest of it hanging without a good conclusion. I can try rewriting the whole thing if other people feel that it isn't a good summary. I thought it was a neat trick to end on a question, suggesting further thought on the matter, but maybe it doesn't work. Zora 08:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous deleter 

message: I removed the headings of the disputed paras and sorted them into the rest of the text, per Mustafaa's suggestions. I hope that this will resolve some of the problems. Zora 05:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I did a little more rearrangement. I hope it flows better now. Zora 11:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine to me.  I'll see if I can't find a couple of critics to name myself - the Heikal biography should provide. - Mustafaa 01:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranged per Mustafaa's suggestions 

message: Has anybody else noticed that the two columns of the timeline seem to have somehow fallen out of sync? - Mustafaa 11:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Anonymous vandal added critical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad to the bottom of the article; you deleted it and noted "Removed POV. I could have added my own. Should I?"
No, just removing it was the right thing to do. Anonymous vandal didn't bother to read the article and see that both his/her critical points were indeed already mentioned, and that there are separate articles in which to debate both. Zora 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your restraint is appreciated, IFaqeer 

message: Small correction on "the prophet passes" I have changed it to "The Death of Muhammad." This article should remain religiously neutral. As an earlier poster put it, we should be respectful of the subjects we are writing about - not reverant. Further, this article describes Muhammad the founder of Islam, the only people he is a prophet to is muslims. To ascribe him with the title of 'prophet' with no explaination or even a nod to the fact it is a belief/opinion from a religious perspective violates neutrality.
Also, I removed the line "Who was now to lead the community? To head the new state? " from the same section, it was pointless fluff.
: Hullo, anon. Take a username and sit down and work with us. As the author of the stuff you removed <g> -- well, I can see what you mean. The Prophet Passes was actually a recondite allusion to Browning's Pippa Passes, and the pointless fluff was rhetorical. Guess whimsy doesn't appeal, in an encyclopedia. Zora 18:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revisions 

message: ... and need to be discussed. (They are also riddled with typographical and style errors, which is reason enough for taking them off the page, in my opinion.)
I have already removed this text once, and it has been instantly reinserted without discussion. This is a problem that I hope others will take note of. BrandonYusufToropov 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article is about Muhammad. On one issue, it simply states in few lines the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. That's the end of that part. There is no need to go into detail on that one issue just in order to push Shi'a POV. That is not what this article is about OneGuy 01:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it to me. BrandonYusufToropov 00:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  These latest additions about Ali are seriously biased 

message: Under most recent revision (anonymous), we now have:
In 610, at about the age of 40, he had been visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
Personally, I agree with this statement, but I don't think it's neutral.
After pondering this type of edit, which I think we can expect pretty regularly, my personal feeling is that this sentence would be better stated (and less biased toward Muslim viewpoint) as follows:
Early Muslim sources report that in 610, at about the age of 40, he experienced a vision. He described it to those close to him as a visit from the the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
It's  a critical sentence, one that has to address the facts clearly and not inspire reversion controversies. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your rephrasing. I hadn't noticed the change. Please fix it! Zora 21:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing first revelation