Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6

message: JEREMY, why are scare-quotes better than 'Prophets of Islam' (which is the link anyway)? 80.135.255.49 12:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the scare-quotes to attempt to satisfy your edit summary "Jesus 'prophet' only in Islam". The "bare link" (or indeed "islamic prophets") equally implies something I'd have thought you'd have had a problem with, ie. that Jesus (for example) is a Prophet of Islam. I'm happy enough with the non-scare-quoted "prophet", which is what Timothy has rv'ed it to. — JEREMY 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder (continued) 

message: That looks more like a good faith edit you're rvv'ing there... was that extra 'v' a slip of the keyboard? Netscott 02:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *User:Anonymous editor appears to have failed to indicate (with a bit of commentary perhaps) that I posted this question to his talk page whereupon he moved it here and deleted it (not through revert but actual deletion as in speedy and without requesting my permission I might add). Is it just me or does that seem bad? Netscott 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know about that. The site in question is more about showing depictions of Muhammad in varying degrees of offensiveness (judging by the introduction and the Extreme Muhammad images). Given that the user subsequently blatantly vandalized the page, I would have to say that's an edit made in bad faith. joturner 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is disrespectful to Muslims. Should we for example add the list of all rude things people have said about Muhammad? I don't see any reason for that. --Aminz 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think being disrespectful to Muslims is enough to get the linked removed; it is more the degree and the manner in which it is intended. The link here contains some extremely offensive material and it's in bad faith. Maybe the addition (and Netscott's subsequent additions) were made in good faith, but the site being linked to certainly is not in good faith. joturner 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the Mohammed image archive is so not disrespectful... what it is about is showing a fair representation of the history of Depictions of Muhammad (and quite a bit more completely then Wikipedia I might add. Netscott 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If we could find another site with material equivalent to those in the first four galleries, that would be great. No site with material like that found in "extreme muhammad" belongs here.  Their intent is to upset Muslims under the pretense of making a point about censorship.Timothy Usher 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Netscott. Have you looked at this page? That is definitely disrespectful; even the webmasters opted to put a warning at the top. joturner 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there are pages that show disrespectful images (with a warning..... hmm doesn't that seem to be showing a bit of good faith?) but if one takes the site in it's entirety one will quickly see that it is an exhaustive repository of all kinds of Muhammad imagery and overwhelmingly the respectful kind I might add. Netscott 03:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscott, if you want you can create your own website with the same images (minus Extreme Muhammad) as most (if not all) of them are uncopyrighted as they are from long ago. It certainly is not exhaustive, and to be honest, not particularly relevant to learning about Muhammad. joturner 03:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Several of these images would be offensive to nearly all readers of wikipedia, including me.Timothy Usher 03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't a the problem with having the external link, because Wikipedia's purpose is not to be "respectful to Muslims" or anyone else. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide the readers of it's articles with genuine information regaring these articles topics, and the link obviously serve that purpose. -- Karl Meier 11:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rvv?

message: :*Just a note to apologize to my fellow editors for trying to revert/add the Mohammed Image Archive link. I must admit that it had been a month or two since the last time I had visited that site and when I originally visited it the "Extreme Muhammad" section wasn't the garingly reprehensible/hateful section it has become. Now that I've actually seen what's been added to that section since, I 100% agree that such a site has no business being linked to from the Muhammad article and if I personally see it added in the future I myself will remove it without hesitation. Netscott 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, had come across this site around the time of the cartoon controversy, and though I can't say these outrageous images weren't present, I don't recall having seen them.  Thanks for removing this link from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as well.Timothy Usher 08:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: I suggest moving some of the historical views on Muhammad to a new article (Muhammad in history or Muhammad as a historical figure). To avoid a POV fork they can be summarized back into this article. This article should also contain some of the religious (Islamic) views on Muhammad. What do you guys think? AucamanTalk 10:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad was both a religious and a historical figure, but this article seems more focused on the history part. AucamanTalk 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well my point was that some parts of that article should probably be summarized back into this article. Otherwise that article is a POV fork. Muhammad is famous not just for the person he was - but also for the ideas he spread (i.e., Islam). AucamanTalk 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For these ideas we have the Islam article. The Muhammad article is mainly for historical events and general role (from different POVs), thus mainly 'historic' and 'biographical', as far as this is possible when mostly relying on non-contemporary religious sources. If the "ideas Muhammad spread" were included, it would become necessary to make clear that while muslims believe that these ideas are God's, this is not an undisputed 'fact'. Generally, non-muslims think that they were Muhammad's own. The "they were Muhammad's ideas" view is naturally not covered in the Islam article, and would fit here nicely. 80.135.213.250 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical views

message: Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 85:
The Arabic sources call all these movements collectively the ridda, "apostasy" or "repudiation" (of Islam) and thus at least imply that all were equally acts of blasphemy that deserved military supression by the new state. Recent scholarship has taken exception to the traditional Islamic view and argued that not all the movements can truly be called ridda-- some because they involved no rejection of the religious teachings of Islam (e.g. in al-Bahrayn, Uman, or among the B. Fazara), others because the group in question had never made any agreement to recognize Muhammad as prophet or embrace Islam (e.g., the B. Hanifa). 
Donner footnotes the Banu Hanifa assertion to Elias S. Shoufani, Al-Riddah and the Muslim Conquest of Arabia, University of Toronto Press, 1972. 
Donner argues that if Abu Bakr had not attempted to put all the nomadic tribes under Muslim control (including tribes in the northern part of the Syro-Arabian steppe) he would have been able to control none of them, since they simply would have been able to move away from the Muslim-controlled areas and organize for a counter-thrust. Zora 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Zora.  I'll add it in a bit if someone else doesn't get to it first.Timothy Usher 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation from Donner re Ridda Wars 

message: The refs in this article are not associated with the text. Anyone know their history? Is there any way we can convert them to standard refs (ie. associate them with a particular quote in the text)? Floating unattached the way they are, they're not a lot of use to anyone but the serious student willing to go and read the lot. — JEREMY 10:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

message: "...fulfilling part of one of Muhammad’s prophecies (30:4)."
What on earth are you guys doing?  This kind of thing has no place here.Timothy Usher 11:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the fact that I've joined the two sentences so the "fulfilling" now becomes "(According) [t]o his followers", and thus purely a description rather than a claim. — JEREMY 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fulfilling part of one of Muhammad’s prophecies

message: You changed "...[Muslims] believe him..." to the passive "...believed by Muslims..."  That's warped.Timothy Usher 11:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy, passive voice is hardly a major crime. Besides, I couldn't come up with a better way to remove the titles and still avoid a more awkward construction. If you can reword it to active voice without sacrificing flow, please feel free. (Feel free anyway, of course; it's not my article.) Sleep well, Aminz. — JEREMY 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, how's that? — JEREMY 11:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is.  Remember, this isn't just a BBS for collective late night WP opinion, but an article that people are going to read.  Think of the reader.  Readers don't need ungainly hedges, nor parenthesized Arabic terms every other sentence, nor blow-by-blow POV about how the Muslims were joyful because their prophecy was fulfilled.  What is the purpose?Timothy Usher 11:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check, you'll see I've changed the sentence to active voice again (by breaking it in two) and removed Aminz's "joyful" stuff, but I continue to disagree over the Arabic. You're going to have to do better than the aesthetic argument (this is an encyclopaedia, not an artbook) to get me to agree that the Arabic is non-essential. And it's only 8pm here. — JEREMY 12:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please accept my apology for the scornful tone of my previous remarks above.Timothy Usher 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry? Which changes in particular? (You can find out what I've done using the diff function in the page history.) — JEREMY 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost every one of them, to tell you the truth.  The Arabic translations, although I still don't see the point, at least have been discussed.  I can accept that you think them important, even if it's never been explained why.  The rest is entirely obscure to me.Timothy Usher 12:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained my thinking on the Arabic text issue in several places on this very page. As for the rest... I'm trying hard to understand what you mean by "entirely obscure to me", but can only assume you're trolling me, as per . If I'm wrong, can you perhaps explain your problem a little more precisely? — JEREMY 13:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, wait a minute.  Check out blocked user MuslimsofUmreka's user page, and the history.  There's a very good reason I spoke to him that way, which does not remotely apply to you.  And it's somewhat strange to claim to say I was trolling on my own talk page.  No one made MOU show up there, it's not like a troll who lives under a bridge that one must cross.  As for this page, I'll try to be more precise tomorrow.  Just please, don't carry this abusive (and blocked) problem user's water.  Come on, he wrote, "Did you ever go to school and learn what sources were?"; I'm supposed to respond to that how, exactly?  Can you really call that trolling?Timothy Usher 13:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stylistic apostasy

message: Replacing 
"Following this victory, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa, whom they accused of breaking a treaty and risking the security of the city state. Muhammad and his followers were now a dominant force in the oasis."
To less persuasive version:
"Following this victory, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa, whom they believed to have broken a treaty and risked the security of the city state." 
Any objection?--Aminz 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK by me, since I think they did believe it. Accusations can be knowing lies. Zora 22:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accused , believed 

message: I've re-added the founder section, as follows:
:Muslims see Islam (literally "submission [to God]") as fundamental to all divinely inspired religions, and believe it was taught by biblical figures from Adam to Jesus (a proposition Jews and Christians reject). As such, they do not consider Muhammad the "founder" of the religion.
Aiden seems to think we need the whole, original three paragraph section or nothing. I can't see his point, but believe at least something is necessary in order to explain what might at first glance appear an odd idea (ie. that Muhammad didn't found Islam). Perhaps others might comment. — JEREMY 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link from the introduction amounts to asterisking the sentence "Non-muslims consider him the founder of Islam." Timothy Usher 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am intending to highlight the sentence, because I think it requires an explanation. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to say that you've joined the Mecca/Medina sentences quite well.  The second sentence was very awkward.  Thank you.Timothy Usher 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: np. But Zora's is fine too. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Going back through the archives...it was Dbachmann who originally strongly objected to this section as unencyclopedic, and though I disagreed with him at the time, after a little thought, I realized he was right.  Then Aucaman came in and proposed its removal.  I killed it, and Zora agreed.  Especially in light of the new link, I'm going to remove it again.Timothy Usher 06:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complete rewrite of the section — it's two lines, as opposed to three paras; your precedent is not relevant. Can you justify your deletion without reference to Dbachmann's poorly elucidated opinion ("(Jesus H Christ (sorry))") on a totally different version? — JEREMY 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shorter version is more confusing than the original, although briefer which in itself is good.  Most readers won't leave understanding what you wish them to understand.  The information is already present in Prophets of Islam, Seal of the Prophets and Islam, which are prominently linked.  The parenthisization of the Jewish and Christian point of view (shared by atheists, no doubt) is unduly dismissive, as is especially the link from the first paragraph.  Finally, as promised, it will never be stable.Timothy Usher 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[A]s promised", Timothy? Ah well, I guess at least you're prepared to openly admit your campaign. How a link to explanatory material could be "[especially] unduly dismissive" evades me. — JEREMY 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never promised not to remove the founder section, only the translations.  In the latter case, I did wait, and solicit commentary.  No one said anything.  In the absence of commentary, I don't see why these have to stay.  You re-added them without any commentary, after several editors removed them.Timothy Usher 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Founder, yet again

message: I'm going to advocate the return of "Non-Muslims generally consider him the founder of Islam." which covers the problem of Islamic offshoots like the Ahmadi and the Bahá'í. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back through the archives...it was Dbachmann who originally strongly objected to this section as unencyclopedic, and though I disagreed with him at the time, after a little thought, I realized he was right.  Then Aucaman came in and proposed its removal.  I killed it, and Zora agreed.  Especially in light of the new link, I'm going to remove it again.Timothy Usher 06:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a complete rewrite of the section — it's two lines, as opposed to three paras; your precedent is not relevant. Can you justify your deletion without reference to Dbachmann's poorly elucidated opinion ("(Jesus H Christ (sorry))") on a totally different version? — JEREMY 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shorter version is more confusing than the original, although briefer which in itself is good.  Most readers won't leave understanding what you wish them to understand.  The information is already present in Prophets of Islam, Seal of the Prophets and Islam, which are prominently linked.  The parenthisization of the Jewish and Christian point of view (shared by atheists, no doubt) is unduly dismissive, as is especially the link from the first paragraph.  Finally, as promised, it will never be stable.Timothy Usher 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[A]s promised", Timothy? Ah well, I guess at least you're prepared to openly admit your campaign. How a link to explanatory material could be "[especially] unduly dismissive" evades me. — JEREMY 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never promised not to remove the founder section, only the translations.  In the latter case, I did wait, and solicit commentary.  No one said anything.  In the absence of commentary, I don't see why these have to stay.  You re-added them without any commentary, after several editors removed them.Timothy Usher 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also...

message: it is not clear to me what mohammed believed his own faith to be, before or after becoming a prophet. what was the religion he was brought up in, and did he refer to himself as a "muslim" or by another term?
Aaronbrick 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great deal of controversy about what Muhammad believed, or did, before he reported receiving revelations. See Hanif. Zora 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: his own faith?

message: I prepared a draft of a version that puts commonly-accepted Muslim traditions not accepted by Western scholars like Watt into a separate section. Rather than put it up directly, I'm putting it up at Talk:Muhammad/temp for comment. Hold on while I set up the link and paste the text. Zora 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Zora.  Much work.  I'll take a look in a bit.Timothy Usher 01:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Zora. --Aminz 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version with yet another section 

message: "Muhammad was known to be a very trustworthy and honest person, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Amin" the trustworthy one or the honest one.  http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet   http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/profbio.html "
It is referenced and is a Muslim POV. Any objection?--Aminz 10:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The English is not quite standard. "Muslims believe that Muhammad was greatly respected by his Meccan relatives and neighbors, so much so that they called him "Al-Amin", the honest one." Those references establish that Muslims believe this; they do not establish that it's true. Consider that all reports re Muhammad's life were written down more than a hundred years after he died, after he had founded a religion and a community and the community had created an empire. They WANTED to believe that he was an extraordinary person. There was no one to say, "Hey, wait a minute, this is just not true. His neighbors called him "the crazy one" because he was always off in a cave praying." In any case, if people will accept the three accounts version, this can go in the Muslim account. It is simply not accepted by secular historians. Zora 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How is my last edit? I have made it NPOV. --Aminz 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for correcting me! :) I have actually no talent in learning new languages. --Aminz 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: That Abdulrahman link was some pretty sneaky vandalism.  Thanks, Aminz.Timothy Usher 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --Aminz 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sneaky vandalism

message: Isn't it forbidden to build structures above graves in Islam?
: The Wahabis would like to forbid it, even for Muslims who don't share their beliefs. Zora 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's YOUR belief, Aadamh, not Islam as accepted by all Muslims. Zora 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not all Sunni Muslims believe that. Only a minority. Zora 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not clear on where you get the idea that it is a minority?  --208.101.131.54 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So? He's a scholar you respect -- probably a Wahhabi or Salafi. That doesn't mean he represents all Muslims. Look at the article on Ziyarat. For hundreds of years, Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia have been building shrines over graves. Millions of Muslims have done ziyarat at those shrines. That suggests to me that a great many Muslims approve of building monuments over graves. Now you're going to tell me that they're not REAL Muslims? Sorry, WP doesn't take a position on who's a real Muslim or not, or what real Islam is. We just note what people do, and what people find acceptable. Obviously many Muslims find shrines acceptable. Zora 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masjid al-Nabawi 

message: Does putting the info into italicized subtitles help? Zora 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. The previous section titles were rediculous. —Aiden 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good solution, way better than before, thank you! -- 80.135.242.67 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's that for titles and subtitles? 

message: Expounding who Muslims think Muhammad IS, in a theological sense, is not really part of Muhammad's biography. It's part of the Islamic conceptions of Muhammad article -- I forget the exact name. 
Furthermore, it's stating as fact something that is not true. All Muslims NOW say that Muhammad is the universal prophet, but this was not the case in the first century or so of Islam. Suleiman Bashear's book Arabs and Others explores this in detail. He argues that there were two currents of thought in the Muslim community up until the Abbasid revolution: Islam for everyone and Islam for the Arabs. Those who thought Islam was for the Arabs thought that Muhammad was the prophet for the Arabs. In order to convert, non-Arabs had to be adopted into an Arab tribe. 
This is the kind of complicated matter that should be discussed in the "Muhammadology" article I mentioned above. Putting it in one sentence in the biography is glossing over history, and controversy, AND it's preaching. It's not necessary. The article has done fine without it for years. Zora 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, we should not pretend that Islam has always been the way it is now. Initially, non-Arabs had to become mawali, clients of Arab tribes, in order to become Muslims. I understand the urge to insert pious POV into this and other article, but I cannot say I support it. Pecher Talk 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You cannot quote directly from the Qur'an to support your view. You must cite reliable sources to show how Qur'an was interpreted. Pecher Talk 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, Zora, I saw the following verse which I don't know if it is relevant to above discussion or not:  --Aminz 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence re Muhammad a prophet to all peoples 

message: Bilal, I don't think it's accurate to say that Muslims believe that Jibril asked, rather than commanded, Muhammad. Isn't the first word of revelations supposed to be, "Recite!"? As for the sentence re head pain -- your edit made it ungrammatical but it wasn't such a great sentence before you worked on it. I realized that we didn't need it, so junked it. So I think you had a valid perception there, that it was less than optimal sentence. Zora 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bilal's edits 

message: I'm upset by Natalina's edits -- she declared the organization of the article invalid, then changed the section headers. I don't like her prose and I don't like the emphasis on "military organization". Editing when I'm angry is usually a mistake, so I'm just calling attention to this. I hope the other editors agree with me. Zora 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind and took out "Research into Muhammad" and put back "Sources." That may not be the best title, but "Research into Muhammad" sounds like we're taking a scalpel to the prophet to investigate his innards. Zora 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to make the article more professional. Explaining concepts with things such as "most people within [this group] would accept the following" is very relative, and often very shaky from a redaction point of view...rather label the viewpoints collectively, then say "most [people of this group] would accept [labelled view]". Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Natalinasmpf 

message: An anon added material to the sources section saying that the hadith had been written down from the start and that they are completely reliable. No Western academic scholars believe this, and even Muslim scholars recognize that the hadith are recorded oral traditions and that they are sometimes contradictory and unreliable. Much of the work of the ulema consists of judging hadith as strong or weak, reliable or unreliable. Different traditions, and even different scholars, weigh the hadith differently. 
Another editor had made some changes to the section re Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah. I didn't like the edits but rather than using the old version, I rewrote. Perhap that is more acceptable? Zora 09:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon's praise of hadith tradition 

message: This article discreetly promotes islam. That is NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaitan Al Mahdi (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 May 2006.
:Shayṭān, while your point may (or may not) be perfectly valid, you need to address specific areas where you see the article "discreetly [promoting] islam". Otherwise, your claim of NPOV holds little to no water. —Saposcat 08:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: At some point, someone wrote that Muhammad was poisoned, and then started embroidering on that. I removed all of that. It is not accepted by academics, or by the earliest Muslim authorities -- that is generally believed to be a later anti-Jewish myth. Zora 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finger slip, messed up edit summary 

message: : Zora, thanks for directing me to Criticism of Islam in the above discussion on "Criticism" 
In Criticism of Islam, I think the section on Muhammad is improperly categorized as it addresses Muhammad's character, not "Criticism of Islam". That overall section is also getting long. 
Accordingly I propose a new breakout page on: "Muhammad's Character." 
Character is a more neutral term than "Criticism" and allows both sides to address the issue.  Recommend that the major section on Muhammad in Criticism of Islam be placed in a major breakout article by itself titled Muhammad's Character and linked back to the main biography on Muhammad and to that  Criticism of Islam page.
Under the Section Title propose links to Muhammad's Character. 
Then propose the following paragraph in the main article on Muhammad linking to this new breakout page Muhammad's Character. 
-----------------
Muhhamad’s Character
	Main articles Muhammad’s Character
Muslims view Muhammad as patient, righteous, holy, and exhibiting other high moral qualities expected of a prophet. Others question his relations with women. They observe his strong reaction to criticism and approval of critics consequent murders. Vis Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. Some scholars view Muhammad’s character favorably with principles of Western civilization. e.g., Sir William Muir, and D. S. Margoliouth. Zwemer, Don Richardson (2004) and others detail differences with major Western principles. See also Muhammad's marriages, Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons, Criticism of Islam, Banu Qurayza.
----------------- 
Some of the general comments relating to above could be moved to this section. --DLH 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Muhammad's Character

message: In the summary bit I added in brackets that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad over a period of about 23 years. Just a quick mention Aadamh 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous Changes Made