Talk:Muhammad/Archive 7

message: Not to change the subject, but is there any chance that at least the first half/part of this talk page could be archived?  The page length seems to be getting a little outta hand...—Preceding unsigned comment added by FairNBalanced (talk • contribs) 
::Thank you IrishPunk Tom --F.N.B. 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive in the Works?

message: Here comes the myth:
"Muhammad did not found Islam. Islam was created by Allah at the beginning of time, and in fact Muslims regard Adam as the first Muslim."
(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/world_religions/islam_begin.shtml)
When Muslims say so, they are equivocating on "Islam", deliberately mixing up its etymological and its present lexical meaning, the latter of which happens to be the only active one in the English language (and of course in many other ones such as German as well).
But even if one employs "Islam" in the deactivated etymological sense, what matters most is the question whether there is any empirical historical evidence proving that, from the dawn of mankind  onwards, all (or most) tribes and all (or most) people(s) have always "submitted" to the one unique god as conceptualized by Muhammad and the Muslim theologians:
"For exclusive monotheism only one god exists; other gods either simply do not exist at all, or, at most, they are false gods or demons; i.e., beings that are acknowledged to exist but that cannot be compared in power or any other way with the one and only true God. This position is in the main that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islām.
[...]
Exclusive monotheism is not to be found in either primitive or archaic religions, according to present knowledge."
["Monotheism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, from Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2004 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.]
[see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-38218]
That is to say, no evidence is available that proves that Islam-like monotheism is innate in the sense of having been primordially implanted in the human mind by Allah himself. — Anyway, even if there were evidence confirming the hypothesis of an exclusive (or strict) primoridal monotheism, that would certainly by no means imply that there is a god which implanted such a kind of religious belief in the human mind!
Therefore, the story of the beginning of "Islam" told by the Muslims must be considered a mere myth—period.
Editorius 13:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editorius, we are with you, there is no need to preach to the choir. Let's focus on the subtleties that are disputed.  I agree that the argument you cite is mixing up the etymological and  present lexical meaning of "Islam". However, I do not think that this is in all instances done deliberately. Not everybody is a linguist. I fully agree that on en-wiki, the present English lexical meaning is what counts, but I insist that we should add a footnote explaining precisely the issue of shifting semantic fields to avoid further misunderstandings. I am not asking you to move in your conviction. I am asking you just to allow for the instruction of hot-headed readers who may not be as enlightened about the murky pitfalls of terminology as you are. dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Editorius, kudos for the Lyons cite.  That's a great general work as they go.Timothy Usher 21:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If we can unprotect the article, I'll do a nice informative footnote shedding light on this point. dab (ᛏ) 11:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Like I said before, I think he was God's final prophet and he completed the message of God are more or less tautological statements, the second of which is not correct (it is believed that he conveyed God's message). ----Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primordial Islam?

message: Quick question.  I am curious as to if the burial site of Muhammad still exists.  If so, where, and if not, what became of it?  Google didn't immediately have any useful information that I saw.  This would probably be a great addition to the death section if indeed the information exists. Vonspringer 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I shall add a brief sentence to that effect in the article.Vonspringer 00:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a place where me and my brothers in struggle get together to discuss and plan our daily activities.  It's called The Muslim Guild.  Post your allegation there, if you've the nerve.Timothy Usher 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup.  Like I said, take it there.Timothy Usher 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy, up to some baiting are we? Netscott 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial

message: Under Life based on Islamic traditions -» Childhood the following passage can be found: 
"(...) a stone temple (now called the Kaaba) that wrongfully housed many different cult figures (idols)."
What does the word "wrongfully" do in that sentence? Are we to understand that the idols that stood in the Kabaa in that time should not have stood there? If so, that means that they should not have stood there from a later, muslim belief-based perspective.
If this assumption is correct, I think the word should be removed. When giving a historical account in an encyclopedia, there should be no moral judgements whatsoever incorporated in the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.140.2.129 (talk • contribs) .
- I agree. Monty2 09:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too but unfortunately the article's currently protected due to an earlier revert war that is being worked out. Netscott 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, wholeheartedly agree.Timothy Usher 09:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "should be removed": yes. --tickle me 13:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jumping on the bandwagon. Pecher Talk 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am wondering why we had to vote on a POV expression like this. Anyway, it is removed. Cheers - Szvest 15:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do not change article on this kind of voting. They are their wrongfully in Kaba because Prophet Ibrahim (PUBH) has not made it place for idols. Kaba was not build for them. No one should be allowed to change the article in the protected form. --- Faisal 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you produce a reliable source substantiating your claim that Abraham built the Kaaba, and didn't want any idols there?Timothy Usher 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. -- Szvest 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Editorius, i am already an involved party in this debate and therefore i don't believe that unprotecting this page by myslef would be a good idea. I wish i could Editorius but it is out of my power. I'd suggest to check w/ AmiDaniel who did the protection. Indeed, it is already under request, so there would be some admin out there. -- Szvest 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrongfully? 

message: To everybody participating or not in this mess, i'm saying that i'm out of it. Bias and POV pushing from both sides of the universe is unhelpfull. Good luck to you all. The page is protected, yes. But what the hell w/ removing a blatant POV from a section (re wrongfully) and what the hell w/ the footnote proposed above (re established)?! Guys, god bless Wikipedia. I'd rather go support Trinidad & Tobago in the World Cup. -- Szvest 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't leave.  Your change - our change - will take place the moment the article is unprotected.Timothy Usher 10:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which change are you talking about Timothy? I mentionned a couple above. -- Szvest 10:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of "wrongfully".Timothy Usher 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Szvest, it would indeed be very unfortunate to see your balancing force leave regarding this article. You've shown balance even in your parting statement. Seriously, please stay with this article. Netscott 10:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please mention your establish POV in footnote and then use that footnote to clam down yourself. --- Faisal 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue has already been sorted out prolixly, and so there is absolutely no need for further discussion.Editorius 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Szvest, I just happened to notice that you are an admin. So how about unprotecting this page before you go support Trinidad & Tobago in the World Cup? — That would really be a kind thing. Thanks in advance! Editorius 12:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered above and i noticed that Dieter's already done it. -- Szvest 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am out of this mess

message: This is a pre-emptive post but please let us not return to edit warring about this! It'll be so foolish to return to that and have the article become locked again where stuff like "wrongfully" can't be rightfully edited with ease. Netscott 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I beg everybody to tolerate the current formulation, which does justice to the historical facts and to what the Muslims believe! — This is what can justifiably be called a compromise. Thanks to all for your understanding! Editorius 13:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the present intro reflects more or less a consensus. The wording can be tweaked still, especially the rather technical-sounding footnote may be made more accessible. However, if people are unhappy with the present state, wikiquette would demand that they propose changes on talk first, and have them run through a few iterations of debate or straw polls before inserting them. Let's hope the wikiprocess starts to bear fruit at this point. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most passionate dissenting editor has been spamming for reverts,, which will probably occur at one point or another.  I doubt anything we say on this talk page will change that.Timothy Usher 00:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone can say Faisal isn't honest.  He's been completely upfront about why he's here - have you seen his posts on the Muslim Guild?  He believes that there is a plot to fill Wikipedia with anti-Islamic propaganda, and that we, and the introduction to this article, are part of it.  See also his user page.Timothy Usher 02:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On his userpage, Faisal openly declares his views about the editors who dissent with him "I think that some specific people group is using wikipedia for their propoganda." What is it if not an assumption of bad faith writ large? Pecher Talk 09:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: I can't stand the ugly audio link (the speaker icon and the (help|info) thing) messing up the lead, so I moved it to the footnote. Alternatively it could be in an "Arabic term" box. I note that the pronunciation was recorded by a non-native speaker; it sounds ok to me, but I have no perfect recognition  of the  phoneme. Do we have a native Arabic speaker here who can check it out and comment? Imho, it only makes sense to feature an audio file if the pronunciation on it is impeccable. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation

message: I'm not happy seeing User:FairNBalanced trying to add Ali Sina's "challenge" to this article. This "challenge" reaks of hate and imho doesn't merit inclusion in this article for this reason alone. Can we get a consensus on the addition of info related to Ali Sina to this article? Netscott 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ali Sina]]

message: Various biographies on Wikipedia have quotes about the person in their respective articles. Some anon user decided to included a "quotations about" section for the holy Prophet.  
It is also true, that Muhammad was a fiercely controversial figure.  
Ali Sina's challenge is a very notable quote about Muhammad at least as much, if not more, than the other quotes provided.  I think all of the other quotes about Muhammad are great.  However, Muhammad is long since dead (so don't worry about "libel") as in WP:BLP.  Also, Sina provides a myriad of evidence on his website (using predominantly Islamic sources, no less) to support his claims.  --FairNBalanced 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, we could just delete the whole quotations section altogether :)  --FairNBalanced 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I'll grant you, the quote you included was the only one which was sourced.  The other quotes may very well be from the listed sources, but were most likely copied and pasted from an Islamic website - this is a very common thing for them to have.  They're as irrelevant here as they are there.Timothy Usher 18:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: quotes belong on wikiquote. Sina is not notable in the long run. He is just an notable (fierce) critic of Islam on the internet. No reason to quote him here to be sure, quote section or no quote section. dab (ᛏ) 21:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Sina's inclusion in the New Quotations Section 

message: Pecher please do not put Muhammad (PBUH) picture in the article. It does not matter if no face is shown. It is not related to the article. So stop reverting back the change. Why we have to compromise everytime? (oh i forget it is not islamic-wikipeida).  Faisal 21:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "oh i forget it is not islamic-wikipeida".  Bingo.Timothy Usher 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: the picture was discussed ad nauseam. Check the archives. It's Islamic hagiography, not some western caricature.  dab (ᛏ) 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Islam is against pictures. It might be drawn by so-called muslim but cannot be islamic. --- Faisal 22:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can put it on the bottom of the page like they've done at Bahaullah.  BhaiSaab  talk 00:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They shouldn't have.  "This violates my religion" is simply not a valid reason to change anything in Wikipedia.  It honestly doesn't matter that "Islam is against pictures."  Wikipedia isn't.Timothy Usher 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're opposed to what they've done over at Bahaullah, do you intend on changing that?  BhaiSaab  talk 00:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I just left a message on the Talk:Bahaullah, as there is a special warning on the article.Timothy Usher 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The picture drawn by hand of living beings (humans, animals ...) are haram. The controversy is only with the pictures taken by camera, whether if they are halal or haram. The pictures of trees, nature, building etc are halal. --- Faisal 13:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...even within Islam the issue ...has ...given rise to controversy": I agree, but even that is irrelevant here. "...it is not islamic-wikipeida": yes. --tickle me 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Editorius. Please see WP:NPA. Did I ever said such words about you? Even though I also disagree with you on your edits. --- Faisal 13:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Die, infidel, DIE! lol, now seriously, the picture is not relevant to the Muhammad biography, its relevant to "Islamic art" or something. It belongs to the Depiction of Muhammad article. --Striver 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: we don't exactly have too many images on this article so far, and "depictions of Muhammad" is a subtopic to this article, so while obviously we won't include the entire gallery found there, it is perfectly normal to keep one or two representatives here. The picture was, furthermore, drawn by a Muslim. This is simply not an issue. If you don't like pictures, configure your browser to not display them or use lynx (or switch off your monitor. You are here because you want to, not because anyone is forcing you to look at pictures). dab (ᛏ) 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it really should be a nonissue.Editorius 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the prophets of islam and almost none of them have pictures to them (two do).  This is obviously a religious thing because many muslims have drawn pictures of them.  Every time I see a discussion about a Muhammed picture someone always says it shouldn't be here it should be somewhere else.  It DEFINITELY deserves to be here since the article is about Muhammed. (Anonymous User) 12 June 2006
What advantage would there be anyways of having a picture of Muhammad, as noone really knows what he looked liked. The best we can get to is imaging from decriptions written down in the hadiths or Quran
A picture brings life to an article. Otherwise we could forget about comics books, magazines... If that hurts somebody in his religious sensitiveness than he can still clic away ;) Just Protest 10:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad picture 

message: ...most paragraphs and sections lack sources. I recommend adding inline <refs> for every paragraph or section with contended and controversial articles. --tickle me 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we'd do that... but, it would be good to get some footnotes... we have the references that were used... but, we don't know where they were used.  We can't just remove the old sources without totally rewriting sections or quoting them.  This is clearly an important enough article that it should be well cited and maybe keeping the ugly sign at the top will help get that done.  Who wrote big chunks of this article and added those references to the reference section?  Maybe they will be able to remember what they were citing. gren グレン 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: footnotes/<refs>: I guess we're talking about the same thing. "we have the references that were used... but, we don't know where they were used": That's the issue, cf. the ensuing trouble with the "conquest of Mecca Section" above. --tickle me 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: I would recommend replacing all occurances of "booty" with "spoils".  Firstly, the formal definition of booty has a negative ("ill-gotten") connotation, while "spoils" is neutral.  Secondly, booty also has sexual connotations in the vernacular, while "spoils" doesn't. Publicola 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. 'Booty' in this sense is nearly archaic. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Booty" 

message: I have today completed my first section of Muhammad article. I have to write many more sections. I will try to use as many books as possible for me and will avoid adding any POV of mine. Each line will be well-citied. Please take a look at the Section I have written and give your comments. --- Faisal 11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for your comments 

message: Please see my comments regarding the legitimacy of using the Norm Stillman quote here.  Thanks, Tomertalk 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Stillman quote for claim regarding "ha-meshugga" 

message: I'm afraid that, in order to ward off spontaneous vandalism, this article needs permanent semi-protection.Editorius 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Necessary Semi-Protection

message: In the article one reads the following:
"The name Muhammad was originally a title (...)."
This seems to be wrong.
Prof. Bobzin writes:
"Der Name 'Mohammed' bedeutet 'hochgepriesen' oder 'einer der hoch gepriesen werden wird'. [...] Schon in vorislamischer Zeit ist dieser Name belegt; er ist daher nicht, wie gelegentlich behauptet, als eine Art Titel aufzufassen."
(My trans.:)
"The name 'Muhammad' means 'highly praised' or 'one who will be highly praised'. [...] That this name has already been used in pre-Islamic times is verified; so it is not, as occasionally asserted, to be taken as some kind of title."
[Bobzin H | 2002 | Mohammed | 2nd ed | Munich / Beck. (67)]
Editorius 11:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. -- Szvest 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Muhammad" a title?

message: The article says following at Conquest of Mecca section. 
The Muslims had been disappointed by the Prophet's recent abortive attempt to make a pilgrimage to Mecca and by his signing a truce with the Quraysh at al-Hudaybiyya. They needed a victory to raise their spirits. Furthermore, it was clear from the circumstances surrounding the incident at al-Hudaybiyya that most of the Bedouin were still not closely tied to the Umma (the Muslim community). Muhammad needed to show them that it was worth their while to be allied to his cause..
However Muslim had already perform hajj Peacefully next year after al-Hudaybiyya. That is on 7th Hijari they had perform Hajj in Mecca. Hence conquest of Mecca (that happened after 2 years of al-Hudaybiyya at 8th Hijri) had nothing to do with above quote. I am sure even Stillman would had not said above about conquest of Mecca. Hence please remove this propoganda from conquest of Mecca section. --- Faisal 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conquest of Mecca may have nothing to do with it, but the attack on KHaybar has everything to do with it. Pecher Talk 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So It means you agree that it in the wrong place. Remove it from conquest of Mecca yourself as you have put Khyber in the conquest of Mecca section (even the war of Mecca has nothing to do with Khyber war) otherwise I will remove it. --- Faisal 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've chosen a wrong place to make threats. Pecher Talk 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong place for Quote 

message: Does anyone see any issue with the Islam template being at the top of the article and not in the Islamic traditions section? The reason I ask is because at the Jesus article, several editors moved (and continued to move) the Christianity template from the top of that article to the small Christian views section. Several other editors noted that the Islam template remains at the top of this article despite Muhammad's importance to other religions (such as the Baha'i Faith). Some argued that as Jesus is the central figure in Christianity (he is considered God incarnate by most Christians) this warrants having the article as part of the corresponding Christianity series, in much the same way as Muhammad's importance to Islam warrants the Islam template at the top of this article. I'd just like to collect feedback as to what people think about this issue: whether you think both templates should be in their resepective sections, whether they should remain at the top of both articles, or any other views. —Aiden 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So according to that reasoning should the Islam template be in the Islamic traditions section of this article? P.S. There is and has been an Islamic views of Muhammad spin-out article. —Aiden 02:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is fine. Please leave it there. --- Faisal 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam template 

message: My question is hhy is his quote used so prominently in this section if this quote is a singular opinion, vs. more common opinion on the events as implied by the section (there are enough works around to be able verify this opinion on Muhammad). If it is not that common a belief then it should suffice as a footnote as the opinion of x, if it is a minority view then it should be mentioned inline as an addendum to the more commonly held views. Does that sound reasonable? As is the section reads a little strangely if the authority of a quote featured so prominently is weak (I realise he may be a expert, but there are a lot of experts and not all will or even expected to necessarily agree with each other). 
Maybe this can be used with the ha-meshugga issue as well, I am more familiar with the term "Kahina" being used rather than ha-meshugga and find that it is not featured any where in this article, but then I am no expert on that issue so it is merely a suggestion.--194.170.10.119 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion. I want to improve that section but not getting enough free time to work on it. I will try to improve it with full of references and with opoinions of other scholars whenever I have some time available. --- Faisal 23:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman Stillman Quote - Khyber

message: I reorganized some of the content, i dont think anyone would object to the re-arengaing and some re-wording:I didnt make any controversial moves. --Striver 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize

message: isnt he the penultimate prophet of islam, as the quran mentions about one more prophet to be born at qayamat.
also can we have this page a bit like we have it for Moses. i really liked that page, and i feel we should have similar page for muhammad, where we can talk about his controversial teachings too. i know that it may amount to blasphemy and lynching according to quran, but still i may say, that continuing with the policy of NPOV on wikipedia, cant we have a page like that of moses.
nids 12:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he is the last, there are some figures in apochrypha for the end of days, the return of christ and the Mahdi but they won't play the prophetic role.--Tigeroo 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: isnt he the penultimate prophet of islam