Talk:Muhammad/Archive 4

message: Somewhere in all the vandalism and revert wars, pious hands were editing the summary. I just now noticed that it had become extremely POV -- and incoherent in places, probably as a result of multiple, overlapping edits. I revised the summary. It may not be the consensus version that stayed stable for so long, but I can't find the point at which the POV edits started. Zora 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I missed some serious distortions of the summary 

message: I would like to insert this image of the Prophet Mohammed. I have read the previous discussion of this issue. I appreciate that civility to a cultural taboo is the basis upon which the decision to remove depictions of the Prophet Mohammed has been taken, but I disagree with it. 
If you are to remove material which offends the sensibilities of some adherents to a particular belief system, then you will denude Wikipedia of its content. 
At the risk of being rhetorical, what's next? The deletion of the entry on theory of evolution?
:I have told you, insert something like  near the end of the article. If the other editors still don't like it, then leave the article alone.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User: Questor2]] 

message: It might be just me not finding it, but I can't find info on why depicting Muhammed is considered harmful by lots of Muslim people. Is it the Qu'aran or hadith or some other tradition that prohibits it? -- PEZ 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it prohibited? 

message: Right now, we've got two levels of detail in the life of Muhammad: the summary, which is everything that even extreme skeptics would admit to be true, as well as a good overview, and the bio according to sira, which is much much more detailed. Now we're loading detail into yet a THIRD place, the opening paras. If Muhammad's parents' names are given later, we don't need to give them in the intro. The confused reader who just wants to know who Muhammad is doesn't CARE what his parents were named, or what his name means. That's stuff for later. We just need to establish why he's notable (religious and political figure, check), and where and when he lived (Arabia, 6th and 7th centuries CE, check). 
This is not the stuff of religous controversy, this is just a matter of clarity and style. 
I have noticed, over the years I worked on this article, that some people don't read very far before staring to edit. They read the summary and say to themselves, "Hey, that's not all!" and start adding stuff to the summary as fast as they can. They haven't even read the later, more detailed, sections. I don't think we should allow stray details in the first paras, or some editors are going to say, "Hey, they've got his parents' names, but they don't have his CLAN. I'd better add his clan!" And the cruft will start piling up. 
Let's just be sure that parent's names and meaning of his name ARE in the later sections. I agree that this could be useful info. Zora 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, it's not that important. You could only have replaced it somewhere. I reverted because of that fact that you didn't care if that info is relevant to readers or not. From my side, it was not because of the intro. Please do whatever you see ok except throwing it to the bin. Still, the info about the meaning of the name is relevant to the intro, I believe. The name of the parents can be put wherever you want. Cheers -- Svest 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overloading intro para with detail 

message: I reverted a bunch of edits by anons. They were either edits that munged the prose (I think these might have been editors who spoke English as a second language) or moved the article in more overtly pious direction, or added a level of detail that makes it difficult for readers. I don't think I removed anything crucial.
However, I did make one change. I had thought that "sahih" meant reliable. D'oh. I'm reading a history of Shi'a Islam that says "sahih" just means "the works of". So Sahih Bukhari is "The works of Bukhari". I'm trusting this is true and changed one sentence that used "sahih" mistakenly. If the book I'm reading was wrong, please let me know. Dang, I really should learn Arabic. Zora 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right the first time. According to The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, SaHiiH (adjective, under the root SaHHa) means: "healthy, well, sound, healthful; complete, integral, perfect; whole, entire, undivided; right, correct, proper; true, veritable, actual, real; authentic, genuine, truthful, reliable, credible, believable; valid, legally valid, legal, lawful, rightful..." For more information on why this term is used, read this page and/or this page. Kitabparast 06:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by anons 

message: According to Ar-Raheeq Al-Maktoom, arguably the most complete biography of Muhammad in the English language, cites that Muhammad had three sons.  In addition to Qasim, as this article states, he also had children named Abdullah (who was known as Taiyib) and Tahir.  Both of these were mothered by Khadija, making the total seven (and not five like the article states).  Beyond this references, I have always been taught that their were three sons.  However, my knowledge should not be considered with any weight.
: Thanks! I'm sure someone will look at it soon. I should, but ... stuff to do. Zora 04:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad's children 

message: I reverted Mistress Kyle's re-org of the links. Something can be secular without being critical, so changing the title is not OK. Nor is it necessarily BAD to come last. Some people consider that as "having the last word" and being a favored position. Zora 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of links 

message: Hello guys, fellows, sis, fellas, ikhwa, bros, etc... As of January, 2006, i got to note that the article is getting more and more stable. This is due to all contributors' participation especially in the talk page. Thanks all!
However, i'd ask every contributor to discuss any further major edit to discuss their issues here before any other thing. It's a call for everybody, including myself. Cheers -- Szvest 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability ''pact'' 

message: I'm seeing some unclarities regarding the governing structure of Mecca by the time Muhammad came around.  I am seeing sentences that variously refer to "leaders" and "rulers" of Mecca.  One sentence even refers to Ibn Sufyan as a "general."
As I understand it, Mecca was governed by a loose confederation of clan leaders, with no discernable governing structure, so these descriptions do not seem accurate. Saltyseaweed 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification RE: the Governing Structure of Mecca 

message: I think the way Muhammad's prophethood is dealt with in this article, comes very close to a neutral point of view. I'd like to compliment the various contributors for that.
Lately, I have been making some effort myself to make articles concerning religions and religious figures comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, I've changed "Holy Bible" to "Bible", "Holy Qur'an" to "Qur'an", and "Lord Krishna" to "Krishna". I have received some criticism for that, I was at one point accused of engaging in a "crusade" against the word "holy". At this moment, I have a hard time editing Hinduism/Vedas-related articles, because my removals of the term "Lord" are not appreciated. But that was to be expected, I'm not complaining ... ;-)
I believe it's necessary to formulate some general guidelines for addressing religious figures, books, etc., but have only found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I wouldn't know where to place my appeal for such a set of guidelines, but since a (in my opinion) reasonable, and workable solution appears to have been achieved on this talk page, I place it here. Please feel free to move it to an appropriate page, and let me know where you left it. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been skirmishing over this for years. Benne, I'm a Buddhist, and the article on the Buddha embarrasses me. I can't criticize Muslims for insisting that we all venerate Muhammad if the Buddha article reeks of piety. Can you start on a cleanup? I may not be the best person for this, because I'm USED to pious Buddhist language. Zora 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles of veneration 

message: I'm not sure it's fair to say that the Muslims had a whole lot of choice re the raiding. Understand that Medina is an oasis in the middle of lava fields, in the middle of desert. Arable land was limited and so far as we know, it was all being used when the Muslim refugees arrived. Charity and wage labor would both have been very limited. I'm not a Muslim, not a Muslim apologist, and don't like the way some Muslims try to restate early Islamic history, so that the Muslims ALWAYS fought in self-defense, they were poor, innocent, persecuted people. That being said -- we have to be fair in describing the situation faced by the refugees. Whether they could have taken another course is a matter for debate. Zora 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora--I've followed your edits, and I recognize your fair-mindedness and good faith.  I am sure that caravan raiding was a very common, very rational practice in 7th Century Arabia, and I in no way intend to portray the Muslim refugees in a worse light than their contemporaries.   But saying that the robbing of travelling merchants was purely "a matter of survival" strikes me as unnecessarially apologetic and dramatic when alternatives existed.  I am, of course, open to suggestions.--Jbull 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think something as simple as "economic survival" would do it.  Any disagreements?--Jbull 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survival or choice 

message: I'm assuming there's a justification for selecting the spelling 'Muhammad' in preference over others, but wanted to ask about it, since it struck me as odd that the most common version seems to be 'Mohammed'. 'Beijing', for instance, yields 60 million hits on the internet, compared to 4 million for 'Peking', so it is clear which spelling is accepted. However, if you google Mohammed you get 15,8 million hits, compared to 13,4 million for Muhammad, and in a Yahoo news search, Mohammed yields 15,000 hits compared to less than 5,000 for Muhammad.
Obviously, in many cases names and words get butchered in transliteration, but since both versions seem like they would be pronounced the same way in English, is there a reason Wikipedia uses a less common (and therefore more obscure) spelling?
:Checking through the article history, this  was the earliest revision. Its dated Dec 2001, and the original editor used Muhammad. And just to comment on your findings, your google search revealed that about 45% of the pages had Muhammad, hardly obscure. Pepsidrinka 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious about Spelling 

message: At the top of the page it says 'Muhammad' is a common Muslim male name. While it is true that many Muslims are named Muhammad, the name existed 'pre-Islam' and is also given to non-Muslim Arabs. I think the phrase should be changed to say 'Arab' instead of 'Muslim', as the name is not limited to followers of the religion.
Sicarii 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same argument, the name is not limited to Arabs. Muslim converts will take the name, as well as Muslims from the Indian subcontinent. Pepsidrinka 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Is this a joke? There was no photography in 7th century. Please remove the picture, as it belongs to somebody else (Mirza Hosseinali Noori, a 19th century Persian Mulla). Heja Helweda 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture has since been delete. Pepsidrinka 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture belongs to a Persian Cleric! 

message: Dbachmann changed the caption to say that flames were more typical than veils. I did some googling on buraq, which produces numerous depictions of Muhammad. A few had full facial features; some had veils; some had featureless blanks radiating light. (I think the flames represent light, Noor, which has a theological significance.) So I put all three in the caption. Zora 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption on Miraj picture 

message: I've put a range block on the vandal of this article. DJ Clayworth 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I hope you don't mind me interrupting but I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure where is the best place to ask my question. I have arrived at this part of the site because you are discussing the prophet Muhhamad (pbuh)and my question concerns him.
I have copied and pasted my original entry here which I hope is OK. Many thanks, Carlyt --Carlyt 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of this but you are right the webstite does say that. But to answer a question of holy places in Islam if you are interested, the next most holiest place in Islam is Medina and that is where the Prophet Muhammad is buried. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is possible that the mosque may have held a copy of one of Uthman's original copies (he had four made, according to legend, and sent them in four directions); it is also possible that it was merely an old Qur'an. Experts don't believe that any of the four copies still exist today. As for an arm bone ... that has got to be a grotesque mistake. Christians venerate the bones of saints, but I don't think that Muslims do. That would mean that the body of Muhammad had been dug up, which seems unlikely -- the mosque in Medina where he was buried has been in daily use up to this very day. Zora 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question from a newcomer 

message: Among other things I gave Waraqah's full name and linked him to his Wiki article.  I can't imagine how that edit can be the slightest bit controversial.  You reversed this, and many other edits, some fully cited, wholesale.  Can you explain your behaviour please?Bdell555 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora 

message: AE, the bit re the hanif is not accepted by non-Muslim scholars, it cannot be sourced to PBS, it is not needed to explain Muhammad's life. Write an article about Pre-Islamic Arabia and its religion if you want to discuss hanif! 
As for the newer editor, who keeps inserting the long hadith, the reference from tafsir, etc. -- this article is already too long, and it is not an opportunity to preach Islam to the infidels. We are trying to give a Muslim/non-Muslim consensus version here. Or two versions -- the short one, that even sceptical non-Muslim scholars, like Patricia Crone, would accept, and the long one, that scholars like Watt, who are more willing to trust the early sources, would accept. Whenever the academic version diverges from Muslim belief, that is noted. BUT there is not room here to include everything that could possibly be said about Muhammad, or to argue it. Watt's biography of Muhammad runs to 600 pages! 
The solution is breakout articles. Instead of trying to pack everything into THIS article, link to articles on narrower topics, where there's room to expand on things. We already did that with topics like Aisha and the Banu Qurayza, and that took a lot of controversy out of this article. Zora 09:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are much more likely to get a response here if you in turn respond to others, I would think.Bdell555 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not inserting any "hadith".  If you would revert the particular edit that did, instead of reverting that and a whole bunch of edits by other people besides, you wouldn't have people complaining here!  You haven't been arguing for your reverts.  You still haven't answered me as for why Waraqah should not be linked to his own page, for example.  Finally, this is not immediately relevant but what Muslims, or anyone else, believes is not the issue for an encyclopedia.  Would an article on the Earth avoid any hint that it might be round because some people people might believe that it is flat and one wouldn't want to start an argument or offend them?Bdell555 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a MUSLIM-owned article 

message: That hadith is not needed. It is too long and too pious in tone. Please stop re-inserting it. We have covered the event in several summarizing sentences. 
Shame on all the supposed Muslims editing this article for not immediately removing the claim that Muhammad had only four wives at a time. That is completely false. Even Muslim scholars agree that he had nine or ten wives living at the time of his death . 04:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zora, see this edit. That was one of your edits less than 48 hours ago. Now, you edited the page, and you didn't remove the contents about the four wives at a time. Just as its quite possible, and highly plausible that you didn't see it when you were reverting other stuff, it is quite possible, and also highly plausible that "the supposed Muslims" didn't see it when we were reverting the other various "claims" inserted into this and the other high profile Islamic articles. As you mentioned the other day on a talk page, you don't read the entire article every day. Similarly, neither do I nor do I think anyone does so. Pepsidrinka 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, Pepsidrinka, and I'm wrong. Sorry for being so tetchy. I'm just tired. Zora 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dang hadith 

message: AE, I'm glad that you're willing to compromise on the hanif issue. I have a suggestion -- how about an article on Arabia before Islam? The hanif issue could feature prominently there, as could other discussions re conditions at the time of Muhammad (Meccan trade, status of Kaaba, pre-Islamic religion, etc.). This would take the pressure off the biographical article(s). 
I don't REALLY have time for this, but I'm willing to try to set up a stub in the next few days. Once we have a framework, I think we can detail the controversies and give all views enough space for real fairness. Zora 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I set up a stub for Pre-Islamic Arabia. It is an extremely stubby stub. But at least there are slots into which we can shovel material. Zora 02:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Islamic Arabia, hanif 

message: This is incredibly unrepresented on this page. A section should be devoted to discussing this. KI 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tempest in a teacup and it will blow over soon. We link to the cartoon article (towards the bottom) and that seems to me to be enough. Zora 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: With 1,400 years of tradition related ot the man the last 4 months (to be generous) is nothing.  It also is not a study of Muhammad himself, but views on him.  I think we could make a decent article called Contemporary views on Muhammad or somesuch.  But even that shouldn't be dominated by the cartoon issue.  It's big now, but small in history. gren グレン ? 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a news ticker. dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

message: Someone added that old photo. It was uploaded without any copyright info, so it's going away in a week. I gave it a caption and moved it right, but I'm neutral on whether or not it should be kept for the seven days of grace. Whoever uploaded it should add the copyright info if he/she wants it kept. Zora 08:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The photo of Muhammad's tomb