Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5

message: The list of links to online biographies was getting longer and longer. I deleted the duplicate link to MSA, one link that was just to a proselytizing site, and then picked some links that seemed representative and not too kooky. I may have made bad choices; I'm not at all sure of myself. I request the help of the Muslim editors here. We need only the best of the links; that means most informative and best written. We need a Sufi version, a Salafi version, perhaps a modernist version if one exists, maybe a Shi'a version ... not more than five, say. We can't have five links to Salafi or Wahhabi sites. We need to be even-handed. 
I'm getting better at sussing out the motives of the various sites, but I still make mistakes ... so help from the Muslim editors IS needed. Zora 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Harun Yahya link is a good one in that it is well written (to the point) and has many references. The second one is more of a historical description with a lot of extraneous details. The last one is quite informative too. I'd say scrap the second one and it's a close call between the first and third. I'll try to find a better one, but personally, I like Yahya's style of writing. MP   (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just found an online book: Life of Muhammad(pbuh) - fairly comprehensive, but probably too detailed. Looks like a sunni source. MP   (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Witness-pioneer site is strange. It doesn't come out and state its motives or position; it seems to be a strange amalgam of Sunni and Shi'a material. It's credulous and doesn't give any sources. Let's NOT link to that one. Zora 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Muslim biographies of Muhammad 

message: Here is a website in many languages describing our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s):
http://www.islamway.com/mohammad
It would be great to put this as an external link for the biographie
:Yes maybe. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all praise and no real information. Zora 07:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s)?

message: An IPA pronunciation key is needed for this entry.  I'd provide one myself but I'm not sure of the correct pronunciation of Muhammed. Agateller 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA pronunciation needed 

message: If the goal of an encyclopedia is to be accurate then only things that are true should be in it.  This is the logic I am pursuing.
If you look up the word "inaccuracy" and "true" on dictionary.com the you will find that  inaccuracy is defined as "containing or characterized by error" and that the word true is defined "Consistent with fact or reality".
Since none of the pictures depicting prophet Mohammed (PBUH) are actually of him, but most probably of some other person (or just made up) then if those images are to be included then one can not suggest that the purpose of this encyclopedia is to be accurate.  If there is no desire to make Wikipedia accurate then really it is meaningless and has no value.
If someone can "prove" that one of these pictures is actually of him and not someone else's image then at least I will have to cede acceptance of the picture on the front of historical accuracy.
Of course even a historicly accurate picture is still not beneficial because the next issue is what is the educational value of that picture.  How is someone learning enhanced by it, unless we are also making Wikipedia for the illiterate who can only look at pictures. Autoshade
: You are at liberty to create your own Salafi version of Wikipedia, sans pictures. However, the Persian miniature should stay; it's valuable information about how some Muslims saw Muhammad. Zora 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one knows what Jesus, Zeus, Mary, Budda, Vishnu, or Ganesh looked like but we still have artist's conceptions of them. Muhammad is no different. Blueprinter 05:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it is important to learn about the tradition of pictorial representation in Persia and the Ottoman Empire. This is rightly treated in the "veneration" section, obviously without any claim that the depictions are historically accurate. I believe that the article has "educational value" even for Muslims who may not be very well informed on the history of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You are taking "some" Muslims at face value when they say that they represent "all" Muslims. "All" Muslims are not shocked by depictions of Muhammad. The fuss over the cartoons was less over depiction than it was over the supposed disrespect. The point of the picture is precisely that the Salafis and Islamists do not represent all Muslims. Zora 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With all due respect, you are doing no one any favors by assuming that only "Salafis and Islamists" prefer not be exposed to visual depictions of Muhammad, using those words as weapons, or by approaching the issue as though it were a front to be defended.  One side of the issue appears to be some people's feeling that to include an image directly and without warning shows disrespect to a level which is itself a sort of POV action against people who would strongly prefer not accidentally happen upon such an image -- saying "the point of the picture is precisely that the Salafis and Islamists do not represent all Muslims" appears to be more of an in-your-face remark than a remark about inclusivity.  The point of using a link is not censorship, but that people who prefer not be exposed to the image do represent some Muslims, and are people who are just as likely to read here as any other.  What could be a legitimate question in your remarks is that of whether or not including an image through a link makes the information unreasonably difficult to find.  That, then, is what should be discussed.  --66.109.253.61 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When respect and understanding means suppressing information, then they amount to censorship, and I'll fight censorship to the death. If this is ultimately a matter of YOUR honor, your demanding respect from me -- I'll give respect where it is due, not where it is demanded. Zora 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not saying censor the image, I have no intention of asking for the files deletion or blanking it (which would amount to vandalism).  I am just saying don't actually have the image on the page, link to it.  It's still on Wikimedia so I do not see how that is censership. - Autoshade 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Making information you don't want public harder to find is censorship. Zora 07:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: in the strict sense, it is only censorship if you have actual executive power. Say, if Jimbo converted to Islam and had the image deleted by fiat. Autoshade is making a suggestion, as it happens a suggestion that was made several times and stood no chance of majority support. Come on. Nobody is suggesting we inline the turban bomb image on this page. The image we have here is  actual Muslim pious hagiography, and Wikipedia is not to decide whose Islam is "better", and representing historical non-aniconic currents is both encyclopedic and respectful. Enough said. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Recent edit violates WP:ASR. It was not an improvement; much the opposite really... Argyrios 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article and I now understand the error. Thank you.  However I do not feel that removing the picture violates NPOV.  I would appreciate it if someone can logicly argue that it IS a violation of WP:NPOV.  Thanks. - Autoshade 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is five days and no responce.  it is my view that the picture provides no educational value.  Therefor I am removing it.
3RR hit, done for today, See you tomorrow Autoshade 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of encyclopedia  and Pictures of prophet Mohammed (PBUH) 

message: List of people known as father or mother of something lists Muhammad as "Father of Islam". This sounds really odd to me. Thoughts? -- 201.51.208.156 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed his name from there, it's very odd. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad as "Father of Islam"?

message: should Muhammad be placed in the slave owner Cat.?
: So who set up this category? Is it intended to stigmatize historical figures? A great many of the historical figures who have articles were also slave owners -- probably including most of the early Islamic figures. So, is your intent just to cast stones? I'd say that this is a provocative and inflammatory category and should not be added to anyone's page. Zora 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Question is 

message: Why do people want to remove this? Those who want to remove it would have a better case if they come up with alternative pictures. AucamanTalk 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I placed an image of the Dome of the Rock there as a substitute for the depiction of prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ascending from this spot. - Autoshade 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persian painting

message: Anyone here disagree that BlatherAndBlatherscite is a troll?  --Zero 09:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He need to find sources for his arguments. AucamanTalk 10:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He looks like a sockpuppet. He seems to be attacking a lot of middle east articles, but also this one. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for identifying another of your socks. --Zero 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BlatherAndBlatherscite

message: There's so much churn here that I lose track, but someone doubled the size of the sources section, adding a lump of text and quotes that repeats a lot of what was said earlier. I have a strong suspicion that this may be a copyvio from somewhere. It would take a bit of research to figure out who added this and when. Is the editor reading here? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Relieve my mind and tell me it's not a copyvio. Zora 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek! Another POV fork! Blubberbrein, you shouldn't do this. Every time you don't get your way on a main article, you just create another one, with a slightly different title, in which you can have things just as you want them. That's a waste of everyone's time, if we have to then go and have them deleted. Zora 12:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone added a bunch of text to the "sources" section 

message: It's late here in Hawai'i, and even later in much of the rest of the world, so I ended up cleaning up some POV edits that were added in the last few hours. 
First of all, I restored the Persian miniature. Autoshade, please, stop. 
Second, I removed some recent edits re the Mecca-Medina wars that tended to cast the Meccans as the blackest of villains and the Muslims as pure innocents who were the subjects of aggression. I could make arguments that turned these claims on their head -- but I won't. This really isn't the place to discuss whether the matter -- if we did, it would take over the whole article. Let's try to keep the language here completely neutral, and confine the controversy to the Jihad and Muhammad as warrior articles. 
Third, someone had turned the fate of the Banu Qurayza women and children from "slaves" to "captives". This is whitewashing. Ibn Ishaq says that "the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims". What is that but slavery?
Fourth, there were claims that Muhammad had offered a general amnesty to the Meccans. Not so -- some people were excepted. Also claims that people were free to convert or not -- not so. The Jews and Christians were allowed to keep their faith, but the so-called pagans HAD to submit, give the bay'ah. "I said to him, 'Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,' so he did so." That's from Ibn Ishaq, re the conversion of Abu Sufyan. 
Fifth, there were claims that the Meccans broke the treaty of Hudaybiya. Not necessarily so. Tribal allies of the Meccans and Muslims, who had been long-time enemies, clashed. Both the Meccans and the Muslims accused the other side of breaking the treaty. We can't say who was right, since there was a dispute. 
Sixth, I took at look at the timeline again, and realized that there were matters presented there as fact that are in fact disputed, such as the date of the Constitution of Medina. There were items like "End of South Arabian high culture" which is just plain ... wrong. The timeline went past the death of Muhammad and ended with "Abu Bakr reestablishes the caliphate" which is misleaded and Sunni POV to boot. 
: Um, adding this later -- I forgot -- I pruned the "see also" section, which was full of stuff with little or no relevance. This is not to say that the "see also" section is done. I suspect that there are articles that should be listed there but aren't. Would appreciate help by other editors in selecting the MOST relevant articles. Zora 09:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more edits by Zora 

message: As near as I can tell, this is a Shi'a story. I need to correct the Zulfiqar article to state that. It would be POV to link to that article. Zora 09:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand why linking to a Shi'a story would be POV. Zulfiqar may well need work to reduce or indicate its biases, but acknowledging the existence of the story is not POV. — JEREMY 10:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern is that such ephemera doesn't simply vanish, but is kept as close to the main article as possible. If there were a Folklore about Muhammad article (or even a category of Muhammad-related articles) the sword would naturally go there, but I feel simply cutting stuff loose (it's in Category: Islam, but is unlikely to be noticed there by someone researching Muhammad) reduces the usefulness of the encyclopaedia. — JEREMY 11:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But this is not really a legend about Muhammad -- it's about Ali and Husayn. Ali is said to have received the sword from Muhammad, but that's about it. By linking this article to Muhammad, you're stressing the link between Muhammad and Ali, in a very Shi'a-POV way. Zulfiqar is mentioned on Ali's page. Let's leave it at that. Zora 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. — JEREMY 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zulfiqar/Thulfiqar 

message: After the removal of the unsourced mosque image, I've moved the remaining images around to improve the article's balance. — JEREMY 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving images

message: According to the Red Hair talk page the prophet Muhammed is supposed to have had red hair.  Does anybody know if this is true, please? 83.104.185.49 16:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm finding that very hard to believe. An Arab with red hair? That's genetically impossible. Unless he was exceptionally fair-skinned. joturner 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive there are ahadith that say he had red hair in his beard. I do doubt any claim that says the hair on his head was red. Pepsidrinka 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair Colour

message: I say if it's useful and relevant, why not let it stay? AucamanTalk 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please see Joturner's logic for it's removal on this section of his talk page. Following the logic of "most influential person" in history I would sooner argue for Johann Gutenberg whose development of the printing press allowed for the easy spread of texts of The Qur'an (and Muhammad's word and everyone else's for that matter). Netscott 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Depictions of Muhammad most definitely should return to the See Also section. But I don't want to add fuel to the fire by re-adding it myself. Any objections to the re-addition of this link? joturner 22:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * I just re-added it Joturner... Anonymous editor's editorial comment seemed to indicate that was his idea (if one goes by what's written on your talk page). Netscott 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also and [[The 100]]

message: I removed that picture, and the caption, because the mosque really has nothing to do with that section, and because the caption was irretrievably POV. Non-Muslims do not believe in the reality of the Isra and Miraj, and hence would not describe Al-Aqsa as the site of the Isra and Miraj. Furthermore, there is much academic dispute over the identification of Al-Aqsa with "the furthest mosque". Some historians say that Muslims did not make this identification until much later. Zora 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its the place from where miraj took place, since the other image about prophet (pbuh) talks about Miraj its important to know where it took place. Mystic 05:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it is on the wrong section.  There is no mention of the Miraj in this section.  The Muhammad image relates to the statement about images of Muhammad in this section.  Also, why does no other location in the article have a picture?  The biography here is rather wanting, as well as being tilted towards the muslim POV.  I've little doubt that your additions will also reflect this POV, but that is okay as long as you allow other editors to review it and collaboratively edit it.  Thanks for engaging, Arsath.Timothy Usher 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Al-Aqsa in gallery 

message: After living with that section heading for a long time (in fact, I think I wrote it), I've decided that it's inaccurate. That is, Muslim scholars and Western scholars who based their work on traditional sources use many kinds of sources, not just Sira. They also call on hadith, explanations in tafsir (the occasions of revelation), military histories like Waqidi, etc. So is there a better section heading? You may not like the one I came up with, which is fine with me, but I think we need to be more accurate. Zora 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Life according to Islamic tradition? --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life according to Sira 

message: Starting the article with an argument doesn't make for easy reading, so I moved the whole thing to the bottom. 
The editor whose name starts with C (sorry!) rewrote the sources section to make it very sceptical. I'm a sceptic myself, but I think that he overstated the case. Western academic scholars are generally MORE sceptical than devout Muslim scholars, but they certainly aren't all sceptics of the Wansbrough ilk. A lot of them take a much more centrist position. So I tweaked that section back. Zora 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And he moved it back again to his version, which as far as I can tell is copied from freerepublic.com and is just plain inaccurate. Not to mention prejudiced. Zora 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very skeptical?, I like to think of it as more factual. I do not seek skepticism, I seek facts. --CltFn 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not 'starting the article with an argument' to mention in one sentence the views of the 5/6 of the world who are not Muslim. View any other religious figure article such as Jesus and see you will a detailed account of alternative views, not only in the article, but in the intro. It in no way is in line with WP:NPOV to represent only one POV in the article as you are advocating. —Aiden 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved founder argument, rewrote sources section 

message: I invite those interested in POV issues on this page to visit Musaylimah.  I've tried to clean it up to some extent, but you can check the history to see what it was like to begin with.
From the neutral point of view, how are Musaylimah's claims different from those of Muhammad?  Well one way, Muhammad was first, making Musaylimah sound like rather the cheap knockoff.  And perhaps he was.  But I still think a look at this page is worthwhile to see what some wikipedia editors consider NPOV when dealing with someone who their religious understanding derides rather than reveres - at least as unsympathetic as anything (besides vandalism) I've seen on this page, or elsewhere as an example of "Islamophobia".  
I'm not entirely comfortable with getting rid of purported examples of Musaylimah's verses, as they are informative, but they were clearly (and explicitly) chosen to make him look ridiculous.  I think all of us familiar with the Qur'an realize that the same could be done by an unscrupulous editor, and that regardless of their suposedly impeccable pedigree (in contrast to the secondhand examples of Muslaylimah) they would likely be deleted as POV.
Not sure where I'm going with this, but I can say this: someone claims to be getting word-for-word revelations from God, many might find this inherently dubious if not ridiculous.  We can debate to what degree this POV should be represented, but if this article were any guide...
Any feedback?
Timothy Usher 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musaylimah

message: I pruned some hagiographic material -- someone had added something re how much other Meccans loved and trusted Muhammad. Also, someone had added details on Muhammad's last illness that are simply not found in sira. The statement that he lost his voice is contradicted by many passages in Ibn Ishaq. 
I slightly rewrote the section on Muhammad's marriages, which I thought had become unbalanced in the Muslim direction. However, I tried to avoid specifics, which are, IMHO, better discussed in the breakout article. If we tried to put them in this article, it would double in size and triple in dissension. 
I don't think I've done anything controversial, but other editors will doubtless check out the diffs and comment. Zora 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruned some new material 

message: While your edits are well-intentioned, they are unnecessary. As the entire section is titled "His life according to Islamic traditions," there is no need to place qualifiers in front of every section or sentence. The sub-section is titled "The First Revalations" because that's how the event is reffered to "according to Islamic traditions." Take a look at the Jesus article. There is a sub-section titled "Resurrection and Ascension," but it is under the section "Life and teachings based on the Gospels." There is no need to title the sub-section "Reports of Resurrection and Ascension," if you see what I mean. —Aiden 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I didn't get it. You are right. Thanks for clarification. I saw that out of the context. --Aminz 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow Aiden; did you read my previous post or did you come up with that argument independent of me? joturner 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. I did not see your previous post or I would have saved myself the time. Oh well though, at least we're all on the same page now. —Aiden 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aminz's NPOV'ing edits 

message: I removed some detailed info from the sources section and replaced it with a more general recent quote from an academic. Timothy told me to take it up with the creator. Um, I am the creator. I wrote that section a LONG time ago, and I now think it's too detailed for the article. It's distracting. I've put that info into the Historiography of early Islam article, which we should probably link, and which I need to update. So the info isn't gone, it's just in a breakout article. 
Does that satisfy your concerns, Timothy? Zora 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, of course.  I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were the creator.  So much vandalism recently, I guess I've just been waiting for the other shoe to drop.  I like you, though, and your edits.  Sorry.Timothy Usher 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sourced info 

message: Timothy, the sentences I rewrote are just plain UGLY. Bad prose. I didn't change the sense, I just made things plainer. "Item of debate" is clunky phrasing. "Matter for debate" or "debateable" would be better. Saying that an "item of debate" is a "notion" is also a strange juxtaposition. Surely you should be able to SEE the difference? Zora 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've no doubt there is a better way...just "community" is a little weak I'm sure you'll agree.  Reminds me of "So-and-So Community Center" or something.  So, please do keep at it.  I'm going to sleep.  Thanks.Timothy Usher 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: This section was added after a consensus was acheived among editors involved in a dispute. It mentions some religions which consider Muhammad important, but is by all means a work in progress and will need additions of other prominent views, such as those of Christianity and Judaism. Mentioning the views of other religions by no means indicates importance. WP:NPOV suggests views based on prominence not importance. The title of this section should be straightfoward: "Religious perspectives," not another pro-Muhammad soapbox where we discuss just how important he is. —Aiden 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't agree with calling it a pro-Muhammad soapbox but was for limiting it to religions where he actually has some significance. But I will wait to see how it works out. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that may have been an overstatement, but I just think it's important that we end this policy of policing where dissenting views are not permitted. Jo has attempted to resolve the issue, though I don't know why we need to name the section "Other religious perspectives" when of course they are perspectives of other religions. —Aiden 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Religious perspectives" 

message: William Muir's bio is extremely old and pro-Christian. I don't think it makes sense to have it here. It is of historical interest only. Zora 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zora. And the link doesn't work either for the first link and the second one was in French. If links like that are added, that means we can do the same for Arabic and other language Muslim biographies that are often added. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Historical interest only" isn't a good reason to delete, nor is"pro-Christian."  I must admit I don't like seeing the Answering Christianity site much due to perception of NPOV, but if they're the only ones posting, it should stay. p.s. first link working fine over here. Timothy Usher 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of those extremely agressive, non-Academic links. I also removed the French article since that language has no bearing here. However, as the section is appropriately titled, I think Muir's biography should stay.  —Aiden 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Free, online and in the public domain is a plus, though.  It's not the ideal one-stop source for info on Muhammad, but I don't see that it has to be to merit retention.  Not spam, at least, like 99% of the links added to this article.Timothy Usher 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyhow, what difference does it make?  It's not like there's been much in the way of breaking news re Muhammad's life during this period.Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Advances in scholarly technique have made possible re-analysis of older materials. Zora 09:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link-pruning 

message: Why no picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.147.95 (talk • contribs) 
:That'd be something to ask Anonymous editor. —Aiden 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: He thinks he owns this article. He always reverts. Admins should do something about him. RedCrescent 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Crescent you cannot personalize this discussion.  This is a place to discuss why you have made the edits you've made, or why some other edit should be made.  Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY if you haven't already.  Timothy Usher 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timothy Usher

message: Because we have breakout articles for all the stuff that's controversial. Muhammad as warrior, Muhammad's marriages, and Banu Qurayza. If we were to include ALL the controversies, and all the documentation and argumentation pro and con, this article would quadruple in size. It's already longer than desirable. 
Trying to pack everything into one article is "main-articlism" and it's pernicious. We're a wiki, and we can have breakout articles. 
This article is a delicate balance between the editors who want it to read like a mosque handout and those who want it to denounce Islam. Breakout articles let us keep the balance. Zora 07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the article itself still needs to be balanced. Right now it includes virtually no negative history. —Aiden 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that has probably to do with the fact that his biographers were sympathetic. Jesus contains hardly anything negative because Jesus' biographers thought he was cool, the same goes for Muhammad. The "negative" stuff is mostly constructions by Christian critics who portray as "negative" (warfare, polygyny, slavery) what was not perceived as negative at all in 7th century Arabia (owning a slave was about as controversial as owning a car today, and it didn't contribute to global warming). We might well compare 7th century Arab values to 21st century USian values somewhere, but that appears to have very little to do with Muhammad. It is another things for followers of Muhammad to insist they want to live like in the 7th century today, but that can hardly be blamed on Muhammad himself, who has been dead for nigh 1400 years now. If I insisted I wanted to live like Chrocus today, and went about beheading people and burning towns, would that be Chrocus' fault now, or would it be my own fault? dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're attributing a straw argument to my point. No one is saying Muhammad should be discussed as an advocate of slavery or any such thing, but those things that we might consider negative also shouldn't be censored. You could very well use your same point against you. If those things were acceptable at that time, why do some editors feel the need to remove things deemed immorral according to modern-day standards? Secondly, I'd recommend you read the Jesus article and reexamine your statement. —Aiden 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am missing your point then. The fact that Muhammad is reported to have had several wives and to have engaged in warfare is explicitly discussed. We even give opinions of critics, "Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of much criticism on the part of opponents of Islam. They regard it as scandalous that he should have been permitted more wives than his followers and they criticize the circumstances of some of his marriages." and "Critics claim that Muhammad expanded his realm and imposed his religion by force.". That's basically it (the "negative stuff"), or am I missing something? Clearly, discussion of details of such criticism belongs on the sub-articles, but the existence of criticism is not hushed up at all. dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for instance, the addition (by an editor other than myself) of Aisha's age (9 years) at the time of marriage to Muhammad was quickly reverted by several editors (including an administrator). This is an undisputed fact, yet it is censored. There is not even mention of this controversy in the article, and the only way one would even stumble across it is to click the link to the seperate Muhammad's marriages article and go to the Aisha section. There are many other examples of documented facts being left out of the main article because of their negative connotations. —Aiden 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't the negative stuff here? 

message: This whole section is unsourced. The information in the section also talk about Islam in general and has nothing to do with Muhammad. I propose removing it. AucamanTalk 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information in the section is common knowledge. —Aiden 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not add the section nor do I favor it. The section was created by an editor who refused to allow the sentence "Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam" in the introduction. —Aiden 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the section was created by me (though only a portion of my prose remained after communal hacking), but as Aiden says, I did this in an attempt to put to rest the "founder" dispute by representing the POV that Muhammad was not the founder.  You can say what is encyclopedic and you might be right, but we also make compromises to keep people from attacking the page.  I've now no idea how to stabilize the article.Timothy Usher 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I feel it represents the opposing views equally fairly. —Aiden 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is not talking about the issue of how Muslims see the "earlier prophets"; that aside is used only to expand on the issue of how Muslims could believe that they were teachers of Islam. No "response" is required in this case, although I've parenthesised the remark to indicate that it is less directly relevant to the section than the adjacent sentences. — JEREMY 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your change looks fine to me.Timothy Usher 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Muhammad#Was_Muhammad_the_founder_of_Islam.3F|Was Muhammad the founder of Islam?]]

message: Someone had reorganized the last few sections of the article into two sections, Islamic views of Muhammad and other views. That may not be such a bad idea BUT -- it was so badly implemented as to be confusing. Non-Muslim and Muslim views were mixed up through all the sections, making the headers pointless. I returned to the way it was previously.
I've already said that it may be a good idea to have a "Islamic views of Muhammad" article, just because there is no one view. Muhammadology can be just as vexing for Muslims as Christology is for Christians. If we can develop such an article, then we can summarize it briefly in the main Muhammad article. Trying to do the development IN the Muhammad article is probably a mistake.
I'd do it myself, if it weren't that I'm overwhelmed. Money-earning work to do, about a square cubic yard of books to read stacked all over my house ... isn't there anyone else who wants to write the article? Zora 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sections (on the spur of the moment), but I agree with you now that it was 'badly implemented' (well, not _quite_ right at least), so you were right to revert that. Thanks. 80.135.226.166 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bless you for being so easy-going about this. As for writing the article -- it's more than just the stuff here. Barelvi/Barelwi views on Muhammad are distinctive. Shi'a views on the 12 Pure Souls are distinctive. There is much disgreement on just how sinful/sinless or inerrant Muhammad was. Plus some disagreement on just how much miracle to admit into the biography of Muhammad. Zora 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Aminz, YOU don't have to do it. Please don't feel obligated. I'm talking to that possibly non-existent person out there with a great deal of spare time :) Zora 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reversed the re-org