Talk:Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.
Important notice: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
To-do list for Muhammad: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Recently the references were cleaned up. Some errors may have crept in. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources.
  • Cleanup: reduce the number of inline and block quotes by summarizing them efficiently
  • Expand: The "Sunnah and Islamic law" section
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Good article Muhammad was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Muhammad is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Date: 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

  • Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

  • Mediation Archives
  1. Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild
  2. Statements
  3. Clarity discussion/Refining positions
  4. Ars' final archive
  5. The rest of the mediation by Ars
  6. Archive 6
  7. Archive 7
  8. Archive 8

Contents

[edit] re: Images on the Arabic Wikipedia

I cannot find this discussion in the archives, so I'm copying it from history now. /X

[edit] infobox

Does anybody really think the "infobox person" that was just added makes any sense for this article? "Occupation: Prophet"? I think it should be removed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Jesus gets an infobox, why not Muhammad? Just edit the fields appropriately, which means Occupation should be axed as it comes out kind of silly. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, Jesus to the rescue then... looking at that article, which is quite good, we should also move the "part of a series" infoboxes in this article lower so they don't look like they're crowded. And "occupation" should be something more NPOV, like "preacher, political leader, general", not "prophet". - Merzbow (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. This article is already so full of pictures and timelines on the right that I don't see room for uncrowding... and if I recall MOS correctly it's not recommended to sandwich text between two pictures/templates. - Merzbow (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing it. If it is re-added there needs to be consensus on the talk page first. The infobox is problematic for a number of reasons foremost among them emphasizing the illusion of portraiture. gren グレン 09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does the "the illusion of portraiture" mean? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just taking a guess here, but the 'illusion of portraiture' probably means giving the impression that this was a portrait of the person and not just a depiction of what the artist imagined he might look like. Peter Deer (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
More or less... an infobox is like "vital facts" about a person... the problem is we have legend and cloudy history around Muhammad. I don't mind depictions but they need good context since they aren't picture or portraits... they are products of the minds of artists centuries later drawing on hagiography and tradition. I think that makes an infobox rather misleading. gren グレン 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Not particularly necessary IMO. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What was Muhammads last name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.37.24 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read Arabic name. There is no real last name scheme like developed in Europe. gren グレン 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

I think the work done on the article in recent months (barring the endless disputes about images etc.) has been generally good, and, reading through the article - everything seems roughly in the right place content wise. There might be slight issues with presentation or one or two areas where it's not comprehensive but I think these are more FA-related criteria. The content is generally thorough, citations are employed well, there is no original research so far as I can tell (I've only read through the bio section thoroughly though), there aren't any major omissions or neutrality issues I can see, and, well, stability-wise... this is probably as stable as we're going to get it. I do think the article needs improving in areas (I'd like to see the Western/European views section incorporate better structure given the presentation of the topic in the Muhammad article in EoI), but I do think it's near-GA standard if not already there. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Aisha's age has yet again been suppressed (why, if it's okay?) and the images showing Muhammad's face have been relegated to the bottom of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It's a big can worms, I'm not willing to open. Besides, being an atheist, my opinon on any religion article, isn't much help. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, as was repeated ad nauseum, there's nothing remotely significant about Aisha's, Umm Kulthum's, Khadija's, Sawda's etc. age at marriage. You personally find it significant for motives you have already divulged. The current status of the images in the article appear to reflect a general consensus, not that I agree with it. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Aisha's age is sigificant, unlike the others, precisely because she was a child. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Significant to you, yes. Encyclopaedically or historically significant, not really. We already discussed these points to a significant extent, the end result being that you didn't provide any academic references demontrating or explaining that Aisha's age was uniquely significant, and, more preciesly, one of the most important things about her that it required mention in the sentence allocated to her. The discussion is there in the archives for you to review, and no consensus for inclusion materialised from it. ITAQALLAH 00:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant in such a short section where the names of each wife isn't even mentioned. gren グレン 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two perspectives on this one is a perspective of a faithful and other is a perspective or regular reader. ITAQALLAH represents one side User:GoodDay represent the other side. She was a child and a minor child, that is a significant fact (to the other party) that is not addressed as yet in the article and I believe its misleading to say she was young. I would want to have clarity to this issue that may destabilize the article at any minute. In other words I will look at a compromise of 50%-50% for both sides - faithful and regular readers. I would recommend at least in a footnote providing sufficient information to make sure the above concern is addressed. I believe for a majority of (only) English speaking readers this information can be considered of a sufficient significance for inclusion in the main text if not in the lead. In other words if its not included and someone includes it after article is GA (and there are plenty reliable sources for such inclusion) it will destabilize the article and will result in the edit war, this discussion needs to be concluded to ensure article is stable. Please provide options of how to word it to make sure its sensitive to the views of the faithful. Wikidās-ॐ 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I find your characterisation a little offensive. I'm arguing from a Wikipedia policy perspective, not from a 'faithful' one.
The whole debate has been about whether this tid-bit of information about her age is significant. If so, where are the sources establishing its significance? Where are the sources showing us that it's one of the most important things about her, that it must be mentioned in the one-sentence overview? Note that the ages of other wives aren't mentioned (some wives are only mentioned in passing), and note that Aisha's historical significance is established by her role in the Muslim community as a leader and a scholar - not by the age at which she married. In fact, her age at marriage has never been historically significant, nor is it particularly significant amongst academics. ITAQALLAH 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikidās, understand that I agree with you, but compromise is really a tall order if we insist that Aisha's age is a "significant fact" that needs to be clarified for the sake of stability. The "young girl" was the compromise... if we must further clarify Aisha's age, then we are siding with those of us who feel it's important. It'll be more like 90%-10% at best, not 50%-50%. As for a footnote, I personally think a footnote mentioning her age would look messy and random, but that's just me. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This argument is fallacious. Your assertion presupposes the notion that persons who support a position (as opposed those who reject that position) are absolutely incapable of making edits without basing them on prejudice and their own personal motives as opposed to the objectives of Wikipedia.
As to your statement of her being a "child" and a "minor", just as we do not state that Buddha was from Nepal but was from Ancient India, we do not presuppose our current standards of adulthood and legal minority status upon ancient examples. In regards to her being a "minor" she was old enough in that society that the marriage was not considered extraordinary, as for her being a "child" she had reached puberty by the time that Muhammad began living with her, thus biologically (and legally at that time) making her an adult, not a child. The objections are based entirely on todays conceptions of propriety and maturity, not on legality or biology.
Continuing to assert that she be labeled as "child" is dubious and POV. If her age is to be expanded upon, including the sources which discuss what her age purportedly was according to primary sources, then it should be in her article, not in this summary here. Its notability insofar as the criticism of Muhammad is concerned is contained within its own section. I can see little reasonable reason why you are continuing to pursue this be included here as well, as it already receives significant Wikipedia coverage, and I have a hard time seeing how I can assume this is for the sake of improving the encyclopedia. Peter Deer (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
See? Referring to Aisha as a child is apparently too dubious and POV, but stating her age in a less dubious form is apparently even more POV! I really don't know how to satisfy the anti-mentioning side, other than just pretending that Aisha's age has had no impact whatsoever on Muhammed's life or his legacy in history. Which is—I'm sorry, but—erroneous, considering that even Muhammad himself waited before consumating the marriage. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I actually do not want to include or exclude anything, but its necessary to see if a compromise can be achieved. I do not think its critical for the article, but I guess whoever wants to include information on it will have a hard time. Some primary sources give a different perspective to what you are suggesting:

Aisha reported: Allah's Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old."

—-Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310

The Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years

—-Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Do you have a proposal on how to deal with this issue? As BaronGrackle states that word 'child' is somewhat dubious and POV. Okay but why stating her age in a less dubious form is apparently even more POV? Wikidās-ॐ 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

In light of discussion above I recommend reaching the compromise to ensure that article can be called stable. There is no evidence of an edit war, however the above discussion contributes to article's stability issue. Article needs to include reasonable spectrum of views in the lead section, particularly of the critics, however because this is article of the religious leader, it should not overemphasize it and can mention alternative POVs in passing.Wikidās-ॐ10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas. The main significant critical views about Muhammad are covered in the European and Western views section. The section above is about whether Aisha's age needs to be noted (not whether criticism should be inserted) - and the contention is that it doesn't because there's nothing uniquely significant about it. If there is, and if this is one of the most important things about Aisha's life that it must be mentioned in the sentence allocated to her, then its significance needs to be backed up by academic sources. None of the academic sources (i.e. Encyclopedia of Islam) actually give substantial coverage about this aspect, because historically it wasn't an issue - hence to discuss it in the sentence allocated to her in this section would be undue weight. The contention has always been that this particular issue about Aisha is simply not significant enough that it outweighs the other things she is significant for (i.e. being one of the greatest female Islamic scholars, her participation in the Battle of the Camel, the incident of Ifk, etc.). We've had a few discussions on this, with the general opinion being that it's not particularly necessary. I don't mind covering the issue in a footnote in the interests of compromise, but I don't believe it's anymore significant than that - especially when the article already notes in that passage that Aisha was young. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I will appreciate that when the issue is resolved (ie critical views reflected in the lead) and article is stable (ie the age issue is resolved one way or the other) we can conclude. I hope that about a week should be sufficient for this be addressed. Wikidās-ॐ 14:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little lost... the above discussion isn't about critical views in the lead... or is that one area you are recommending be worked on?
Regarding the lead... I don't think it would be fair to include critical views without coverage of traditional views, positive views, pre-modern and post-modern views, and so on. I don't quite know if it does need coverage in the lead, which is already quite large. What do you suggest? ITAQALLAH 14:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah, I had a look at your suggestion diff and I think that the lead is acceptable in this form with small additions and removals, with a particular mention of sensitivities. I suggest arranging a compromise on the disagreement above to make sure article is stable. BTW I do not think that engaging in something that resembles edit war helps articles process on the way to GA. I would suggest WP:1RR for a while to prove the stability. Ideally we can stop at this revision for the lead [1] with associated editorial notes and concentrate on resolving inclusion or exclusion of other material material. Wikidās-ॐ 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a few issues with some of the changes you made. I don't quite see what wasn't neutral about "... he was treated harshly and so were his followers. To escape persecution Muhammad and his followers migrated to Medina." All academic sources attest to persecution in Mecca, and this being one of the prime reasons for migration to Medina. The death of Khadija is not so relevant here. Similarly, "By the time of his death most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam" is a statement of fact. I've raised some of the other issues on your talk page about wording which is less than ideal. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any problems in excluding the text and like the way it looks now, in other words I am almost happy with the lead, small changes may be required to make sure some RS are not cut out in to WP:SYN style, and considering some of the WP:RS used can be considered tinted the last phrase clears it all up, as the debate continues - so its not 'facts' but a NPOV. An important aspect in the article should not be lost and that Mohammad PBOH as a real person. Its a biography, and the living side of a person is very very important, but that will be a part of my report at the later day, once the concerns above are addressed, after all we want to go for FA after that and that I see as a key to an engaging read.Wikidās-ॐ 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm intending on restoring some of the removed material as it provides important context as to a) why he left Medina and b) what he had achieved by the time of his death. This isn't an issue of opinion, you can find this in virtually any academic text on Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass, with minor comments (criticisms were included in the lead)
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:(lead as here is neutral.) Minor areas of the article still need some more work.
5. Article stability? Subject to WP:1RR test.
6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days (that is until 8 June 2008), the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.Wikidās-ॐ 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some little editions to clarify and improve the article and there isn't any editorial war. I think it doesn't violate stability.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to see if there are edit wars or a potential of edit wars, considering the sensitivity of the subject - this is my interpretation of 'stable' article. Your edits were just fine and any clarifications are much welcomed, to ensure the copy that is put on the record is clear. Wikidās-ॐ 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba

I added some information about Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba to clarify Last years in Mecca. On the other hand it's written something about the issue in Hijra section. It may cause people think these are two different issues. Can you help with this problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)