Talk:Muhammad's attitude toward animals

message: This article is terrible I know BUT someone had to get it out of the Reforms article.Opiner 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

message: What is up with the dog puppy? At least, get a real wild black dog, that would be informative, a puppy is not informative, it is just decoration, and i rather have it not there. --Striver 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course its not encylopediac. Thats why I took it out of the Reform article. it looked really dumb there and even dumber in the Muhammad where it was originally. You should nominate to delete it.Opiner 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, you created it. If you want to have it speedy deleted, blank the contents of the page. BhaiSaab talk 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not so sure that its un-encyclopedic... but maybe a rename... --Striver 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This wouldn't be the first time Muhammad made no sense. The article should be made encyclopedic and kept. It's an interesting topic. And me might have been nice to some animals, but he clearly had a somewhat insane idea about others. Arrow740 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any primary source for the hadith. Where is it? What is its Isnad?--Striver 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad's attitude towards animals is hardly an encyclopedic subject: his attitude towards some animals is mentioned several times in his biogrpahies, but it's hardly worth an encyclopedia article. "Animals in Islam" may be a better idea, though. Beit Or 08:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is that? --Striver 11:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think the attitude towards animals in Islam is not a subject worthy of an encyclopedia? Beit Or 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure it is. They both are. Let's not forget how important the person in question is. --Striver 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Attitude towards animals is usually not an encyclopedic topic for a biogrpahy unless the person is specifically notable for his attitude towards animals. Muhammad wasn't. Why didn't you start articles like Muhammad's attitude towards Jews, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians, Muhammad's attitude towards women, Muhammad's attitude towards pagans? These topics to be much more relevant and encyclopedic than his attitude towards animals and there is much more material on them. Beit Or 08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Muhammad's attitude towards Jews??? Desperately needed, in the light of the anti-Muslim POV article Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a paper encyclopedia, here we have the The Headington Shark. I did not create this article, Opiner did. Go ahead and creat them, those are great suggested article. --Striver 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure they do, its a scholars view on Muhammad's attitude towards animals.--Striver 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: alright SO can we bring back the dog and the gecko?Opiner 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ey what? No. The dog pictures is not representative of the wild grown up dogs, we both know that domestic anime-eyed puppies are not representative of those ordered to be killed. Stray dogs who pester people are routinely killed in many places around the world.--Striver 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog pic

message: Can some post reasons here why this article should be deleted. Perhaps we can have a vote here afterwards.Bless sins 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: I'm going to delete the sentence that states cats are embodiment of demons etc. This has no source and does not fit with the love the Prophet had of cats. I'll also add a link to the article on Muezza.M2k41 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit as of 16th January 2007

message: Please find secondary sources for "Muhammad commanded Muslims to kill dogs and sent men to kill them.[citation needed]Later he forbade the killing of dogs, except those completely black, whom he called devils.[citation needed]" Thanks. --Aminz 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs 

message: Karl, the quote is well sourced. Why do you remove it? --Aminz 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you think that there need to be a greater context or diversity of opinions, feel free to provide it. We are not stopping you from that.Bless sins 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad idea. --Aminz 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the evidence that this single specific incident, that is mentioned in the quote, is important in the context of Muhammads overall attitude towards animals? -- Karl Meier 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Watt has arrived to this conclusion and we are quoting him. --Aminz 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section that you want to include is horribly biased and unbalanced towards to point of view that Muhammad was somehow kind to animals. If you want it to be included then find other sources that balances Watt's opinions. -- Karl Meier 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying Muhammad was born in Mecca is baised towards saying he was an Arab. But it is true. Truth does takes sides. --Aminz 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be of the opinion that a person that among other things wanted to destroy entire species and make them instinct was somehow "kind to animals", but that doesn't make it the "truth". Only an opinion. I suggest that you start editing according to a balanced and neutral point of view and not according to your personal biases, even though you consider them to be the "truth". -- Karl Meier 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'vc summarise the first part and included it in the appropriate place but the second part I haven't because it's not related to the subject matter.  It has nothing to do with attitudes of Muhammed, rather it is a modern ethicist's statement of what limits humans should observe in the treatment of animals.DavidYork71 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watt's quote 

message: These are clearly chosen POV. The dogs at the time of Muhammad were wild dogs. This dog isn't. Same goes with gecko. What about putting the pictures of desert snake? What about cat or camel? 
These images are put there to make negative emotions.  --Aminz 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at my above comment. --Aminz 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can find a picture of a camel to introduce. The article or the pronouncement of Muhammed does not describe any restriction to 'wild' dogs, as we know there were instances of people having domestic and working dogs in that time and only such 'working' or hunting dogs were excused. Remember I'm not the person who gave the permissions for slaughtering and annihilation campaigns against certain animals, it's the article's subject.DavidYork71 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is fine to me if we include a picture of desert-dog, desert-gecko, desert-snake, a bat together with a desert-camel and desert-cat. --Aminz 04:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: under WPreligionDavidYork71 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality and importance ratings requested 

message: I just wanted to express my agreement with that suggestion. I feel it is too much fragmentation to have this as a separate encyclopedia article.  Wichienmaat 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes OK. Cool with that too. We're more likely to get a Good Article out of something with more breadth.DavidYork71 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Amendment of the Muhammad template would be necessary.DavidYork71 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please hold on. The template should stay at least for some time before merging. --Aminz 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging is done now at Islam and animals, which is on the Islam template. This page will become a redirect and I will remove reference to it from the Muhammad template.DavidYork71 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the articles must be merged. Most of this article is actually not on Muhammad, nor does the topic of Muhammad and animals look encyclopedic. Beit Or 08:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merge as well. --Matt57 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merging and redirecting this article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree with merging into broader article on animals and Islam