Talk:Medieval Christian view of Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article (Then with the title Image of Muhammad in the West) was nominated for deletion on 03:09, 11 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
  • Please note that there are some conditions on the keep, please re-name this article, and fix the POV issues raised. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] AFD discussion

What is the use of having a biased version of a section that already - in a much improved version - is in the Muhammad article? -- Karl Meier 10:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for article for deletion WP:AfD, if you would like to redirect it or remove it. Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on this, so it is an encyclopedic topic. --Aminz 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this being a redirect, and I don't see any reason to delete it outright. If you can change this into something something that use well sourced material in an unbiased and neutral way and at the same time something that is more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article, then there is no problem. -- Karl Meier 11:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to redirect it or delete it, please use WP:AfD.--Aminz 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to keep it as something more than a redirect, then change it into something that is according to NPOV and which is something more than a POV fork of a section in the Muhammad article. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You can explain your reasons in WP:AfD --Aminz 11:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have what I believe is a better suggestion. Can you explain your reasons, why you wanted to copy the most biased version of a section in the Muhammad article into a new article, when several individual editors had expressed concerns about it being against Wikipedia's rules regarding neutrality? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can reason why it is biased, then you can add a POV tag. But I don't think it is. Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on the same topic. --Aminz 11:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad#Muhammad_and_the_West. The subject might very well be notable, but copying the most biased version of a section in the Muhammad article is not an acceptable way to start an article. -- Karl Meier 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt to Afd this article may well be marred by votestacking, as was Talk:Antisemitism#Existence_of_Dispute. Nevertheless Afd is probably the most appropriate way to proceed. Beit Or 11:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is one problem, another is that several editors will then have to waste quite a lot of time dealing with this nonsense. Perhaps, another solution could be to simply replace the vast majority of the content that is currently here, and which as mentioned is a copy of the most biased version of that section in the Muhammad article, with a lot of the more neutral content that we now have in that section in the Muhammad article. -- Karl Meier 11:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is just started. This is going to be the main article for the small section in Muhammad's article. --Aminz 12:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not much worth keeping here. Possibly nothing. I'll fix the neutrality issues tomorrow. -- Karl Meier 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased section on "Modern Times"

I made the decision to move the "Modern Times" section to the articles talk page, as it is entirely POV and unbalanced. -- Karl Meier 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Times

Watt states that since then the Western view of Muhammad has been much changed, particularly during the last two centuries. [1] In Watt's view some of the world's urgent political problems might be easier to solve if Christians and Muslims had a deeper respect for each other's religion, something which is so difficult for West to do due to its "deep-seated prejudice" against Muhammad. [2] While it is never possible to achieve pure objectivity in the case of Muhammad, since any judgment about him is bound to writer's culture and system of values, yet a measure of objectivity is attainable. [3]

[edit] Definition of West

This article needs to define at the outset what it means by the term West and back that definition up with references. Specific quotes defining the term would be especially helpful, perhaps as footnotes. It shouldn't be taken for granted that the reader will know what is meant by West. And, for neutrality's sake, the definition used for West ought to be one used by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike. Nick Graves 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article before looking through the discussion page (sorry). Bernard Lewis uses the term 'Christendom' which seems applicable here, as we are talking of Medieval Christianity. --Telecart (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title change from "Image of Muhammad in the West"

Leaving aside the issues of defining The West and neutrality concerns, let us consider a name change for this article, as it appears that many people commenting during the recent AFD discussion were dissatisfied with the name. Let me just point out two things that I believe will be fairly uncontroversial.

First, the word "Image" is ambiguous and potentially confusing, since the word is typically used to mean "visual depiction," rather than "opinion about." We're not talking about pictures of Muhammad, but opinions about him. (Note that one of the commentators on the AFD thought the article should be merged with Depictions of Muhammad, a suggestion that shows confusion about what this article is supposed to be about).

Second, the initial word of the title should not be singular, but plural. There are many opinions about Muhammad in the West, not just one.

Views about Muhammad in the West or Western views of Muhammad are two names that are good possibilities, I think. I like the latter option. It's punchier and more to the point.

However the article currently talks only about Christian views of Muhammad. As long as that is the case, the article really belongs at Christian views of Muhammad. The article doesn't even mention the secular tradition in the West, a tradition that is different from (and sometimes antagonistic toward) the Christian tradition. Nick Graves 06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited out all the references and reference data at the bottom of the page; I really hope someone can put it all back! Unicorn144 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some kind of typo... fixed. - Merzbow 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Late Middle Ages to Current Times

I have moved the following sections * from the article to this Talk page because they are of insufficient quality, clarity or independence to be included in any encyclopedia. - Fayenatic london (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope that now that I have found this I can edit it down to size with all the sources included and you will then put it back in the article. I am the originator of this information in an attempt to balance the rather one-sided views I found here: I thought it was like an "invitation to share my research for my book with you; quoting the sources I myself used: is this considered objective? St. Francis certainly shared none of these sentiments; and it should be in this article as well as the rest of the "Illuminated Ones" who knew the "wine" was the Wrath of God upon Israel for the betrayal and murder of Jesus: it came in the form of the Qu'ran. Is not it about time that someone actually reveals the true nature of Muhammed's book in light of the Providence of God?

I welcome any and all comments.Unicorn144 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The material below * cites one only one source and refers in the most general terms to another. Even though Idries Shah's teachings and Abraham Cohen's introduction to the Talmud have a place in this encyclopedia, it is not relevant to cite either of them under the title "Christian view...", as neither of them identified themselves as Christian. The rest of the material below is highly speculative and way off-topic. Practically none of it will ever belong in this article "Christian view of Muhammad". - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What a shame! The fact that Islam and Christianity agree on the existence of the 7 heavens is exactly where the ascension of Muhammed from Mt. Moriah or Zion as a parallel to another ascension which happened not far from there: at the Mt. of Olives; by Jesus. The understanding of these "two flights" is actually where any real understanding of Islam by christianity must start: the 7 heavens where the Lamb went up to the Throne of God as seen in the Revelation of John. Issac was "replaced" by Ishmael on the Altar of Abraham at Moriah: that was the sign and the signifigance of Muhammed meeting with God above Jerusalem: the inheritence had reverted to the "elder son"; the "firstborn"; Ishmael. Until 1967.

* I've moved it again to Unicorn144 user page as at 9 April 2007. Wikipedia is not the place for your to share your research; please see the policy pages WP:NOR, and the proposed new version WP:ATT which you may find clearer. If that is your only goal for contributing, please consider starting a blog instead. - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further proposal to rename as "Medieval Christian view of Muhammad"

Nobody seems to be working on making this a rounded article on "Christian view of Muhammad". As stated above, the wider subject is already covered in the article on Muhammad. The "Modern times" element has been moved to the talk page as POV, and all recent additions are original research at best. Let's make this into a specialist article expanding the start of Muhammad#Christian and Western views of Muhammad. - Fayenatic london (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this proposal. The information of of this article is limited to the Medieval Christian view of Muhammad and should be named accordingly. Captain panda 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just think it needs to be expanded to cover the modern era and so cover the historical development of the view. An easy starting point would be material from britannica. I haven't touched it coz I was not sure what the status of the talks was and there was a disclaimer at the bottom.--Tigeroo 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has expanded it yet I have moved it as proposed above. Meanwhile, excising the material below from the article. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

but that over time the Western view of Muhammad has changed significantly, particularly during the last two centuries[4] and that some of the world's urgent political problems might be easier to solve if Christians and Muslims had a deeper respect for each other's religion, something which is so difficult for the West to do due to a "deep-seated prejudice" against Muhammad.[5]

[edit] What kind of nonsense is this?

"...and that some of the world's urgent political problems might be easier to solve if Christians and Muslims had a deeper respect for each other's religion, something which is so difficult for the West to do due to a "deep-seated prejudice" against Muhammad."

This is not only biased, but also false.

How does the west have a "deep-seated prejudice" against Mohammed when we freely allow his disciples to worship, make converts, and build mosques here, something that Muslims never allow minority religions? There is not a single muslim-majority country where Christians are as free as Muslims are in the west. It would seem to any reasonable person that the problem is deep-seated prejudice on the part of Muslims . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.214.109 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 21 May 2007.

I don't think you have ever been to the Middle East. Except of the KSA; you can have a church in any other Middle Eastern state. Even in the KSA you can practice Christianty freely. Would do you please name the Masjids (what you call Mosques) in the Vatican!!!!???? OR Maybe Rome????!!!! Muslims reverence to Christ has always been there since the early ages of Islam. I don't think that WP is the platform for such a debate. I highly doubt that any reasonable person would have said what you said; he has to be baised and blinded by prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.96.68 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

–Not to nitpick, but there ARE Mosques in Rome. And the Vatican is less than a square kilometer, not to mention a papal state. The former you are just clearly mistaken on, and the latter is about as relevant as if the original poster were to complain about a lack of churches in Mecca.

The original poster makes an excellent point. He is commenting on the hypocrisy of a quote that blames the West for poor Muslim/Western relations. Do you have any thoughts on this?Drur93 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update tag

I am tagging this article with {{update}}, because the article timeline ends at the middle ages. The article needs to go into more recent history and even modern views of Muhammad by Christians.--Sefringle 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations added June 2006

Thank you, Hmk, for your contribution. However, there are some problems with this:

  • some of it is not specifically about Muhammad, e.g. Tritton & O'Leary.
  • it is just a selection of quotations, not a coherent continuation of the article.
  • It is much too long and unbalances the article.

Some of the material could usefully be "trans-wikied" to Wikiquote, if it is not there already.

Please re-write this in a more selective way, otherwise it is liable to be deleted. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's gone. Another editor removed it as a cut-and-paste copyright violation from here. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

Is this article truly neutral? It appears to me to simply be an attack upon Christianity. Perhaps this should be fixed. Captain panda 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this article has to be one of the worst I've ever seen on wiki. It's nothing but an attack on Christians.....perhaps it should be re-written to make it more neutral. It should also be noted, that many of the christian grieviences against muhammad are supported by fact....such as his pedophiliac marriage to 6 year old Aisha. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.6.117 (talk) 02:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

why is it not neutral? this article is not about muhammad, it's about medieval views of him. anything important missing? just explain. i think the unbalanced message should be removed.Maymana (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)