Talk:Muhammad/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Historical Muhammad

Hi! A very interesting and concise article. I have one question, though. Why is the biogrpahy of Muhammad only given in the traditional islamic form? That sure has cultural and religious value, but to those readers who are interested in the actual historical Muhammad, shouldn't the article contain a biography based on critical historical research? (Compare with Jesus). --Tungsten 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad being the "greatest" prophet

Where is the source that Muhammad is considered the greatest of the prophets according to Muslims? He is the most well known in Islam because he is considered the reviver of the faith, but greatest? I don't think Muslims as a whole would be so bold as to ignore all of the other prophets before him or to put them on a scale? Is Esposito the source, where does he say greatest? Muhammad compared to other prophets in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition was not as powerful, he could not separate the sea or cure the blind, so from what source is he considered the greatest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.135.178 (talk • contribs)

The sources are referenced in that sentence with the page numbers. I would expect it to be mentioned there since they are references to this specific statement (which indicates this question has arisen before). → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad is considered the greatest prophet in Islam, because he is the "al-insan al-kamil" ("the perfect man"), which is a unique title Muhammad has in islam, and a privilege he possesses, unlike all other Judeo-Christian prophets before him. In reality, Muslims more or less, worship Muhammad, though of course, they would never admit this. But it's pretty clear that they do indeed worship him, seeing how they go berserk every time someone says anything critical of Muhammad. By the way, in Islam, the Judeo-Christian prophets are considered Muslims, not Jews or Christians. Hope that helps. EliasAlucard|Talk 18:48 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
This explains the al-insan al-kamil part, and this explains that Islam considers all Judeo-Christian prophets as Muslims. Now, how is that trolling? Look, you may not like criticism. I understand some people have a problem with that, but get used to it. With criticism, comes improvement. EliasAlucard|Talk 01:54 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
I think al-insan al-kamil should be included in the article. What say you? EliasAlucard|Talk 05:21 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Not per those sources. If you can refer to scholarly sources, then there may be a case for inclusion. Cheers. → AA (talk • contribs) — 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are scholarly sources. If you checked the first link, Robert Spencer provides links to several Islamic sources. Also, saying that Robert Spencer himself, is not a scholar on Islam, is ridiculous, and most likely a bias motivated by the fact that he is a critic of islam. So really, it's just Ad hominem. He has written several best selling books on Islam, and they're all properly sourced to Islamic scholars and Islamic sources. Also, imam Abu Laban (before he died) was featured on 60 Minutes, and he proclaimed that, and I quote, “Muhammad, is the perfect man”, so what's the problem? Oh and one last thing: could you please stop censoring me? If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but look, I didn't exactly write anything outrageous; I didn't use profane language. Maybe you have a problem with accepting criticism, but that's not my problem. I'm allowed to express myself, and you should perhaps, try to listen to what I'm saying. Calling everything you disagree with "trolling" is just a cheap shot. Wikipedia is not censored. If you keep this up, I will report it. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:55 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Citing reliable sources does not a reliable source make. Kent Hovind cites Scott Tremaine when he talks about planet formation - yet Tremaine is a reliable source and Hovind isn't. I definitely see no evidence that the "JihadWatch" blog is a reliable source - and it doesn't pass the duck test at all. JSTOR gives me only 33 hits for "al-insan al-kamil" - indicating that it's probably not a very important concept. But I'll see if any discuss it in depth. Cheers, WilyD 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, searching through JSTOR this morning, I haven't found much of interest - most references to the concept are off-hand, and many associate with things apart from Muhammad to boot (like Adam, or generic, or whatever). Ibn 'Arabī's Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought by Masataka Takeshita might be a good reference for the issue, I'm not sure - but it's the best I've found. Cheers, WilyD 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent] Thanks, WilyD for doing the research (although the duty is on the editor who wants to add the content). EliasAlucard, I removed your comment above in line with policy:

  • "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article"

However, if you feel they need to stay to show your POV, then it's fine with me. I was not trying to censor it but to ensure the discussions remain civil. → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe in uncompromised free speech, and I am against all forms of censorship, whether it's religious censorship, or, as WilyD called it on my talk page, "productivity censorship" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I wasn't at all off topic, or trolling. Anyway, I'll be looking for better sources, don't worry. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:59 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have no right to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad. You can say "It seems," or "I think", because it's offending. Just because Muslims, as you put it, "go beserk" everytime someone criticizes Muhammad (PBUH) doesn't mean that they worship him. I mean, Muslims don't go beserk everytime someone insults God---and that is because people hardly insult God. The Qu'ran says to treat Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with respect, and that doesn't mean to outward worship him. Everything in the Qu'ran that tells us what we need to believe in, what we need to do is straight-forward. No hinting. Iman S1995 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have no right to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad — is that a threat? Is my fatwa coming up? Actually, I have all the right in the world to say that. It's called freedom of speech. I'm not a muslim and I'm not obliged to follow the Qu'ran. Please knock this off. You're not helping anyone, least of all, this article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:17 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Elias, Muslims defend muhammad with, what you call. "Violance" because they fear that your comments
are intended to spread lies about them or their prophet. No body knows what is there in the hearts, if you are
just purely expressing soughts you are free to do that......or you want to delebraetly spread lies to distort the truth or defame the image about this relegion and its people...that is a direct assult that is not tolerated by this relegion..you are FREE to critisize but not free to attack it...it seems it is the favourate song these days to attack islam....and you should know..even you like it or not..that is a powerful relegion..and will fight back any attack by any means that will depond on the level of ur hatered and assult on it...Many messages have been distorted through ages, because thier people have not stood up aganist the people who tried to turn off the light and make it fade...because a guy just don't like the idea of a diety or commitments or commandements and they thought of god's people as prejudiced people who claim superiorty. Muslims don't claim superioty, but sure we will cut off any hand who will try to turn off the light? got it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.167.191 (talk • contribs)
Thanks, for proving me right on islam. I rest my case. — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 22 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, Elias, the behavior you're experiencing is unfortunately woefully consistent throughout the world's religions. I'm an atheist and I don't have a tremendously high opinion of any of them, but Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists are frankly just as bad when it comes to handling criticism. But you have to compare apples to apples -- you can't compare a muslim fundamentalist to a secular European catholic and conclude that Islam is evil and intolerant on that basis alone. Pretty much any fundamentalist of any religion is going to be completely intolerant when you question or criticize his belief system, that's just the nature of the beast. Making no apologies for the behavior of many muslims these days, it is worth noting that fundamentalism -- in any religion -- always rears its ugly head when one or both of the following criteria hold: poverty or political instability, and the perception that their religious values, morals, and/or way of life is under attack. Both of these are pretty prevalent in the muslim world these days. Remember, it was only a few hundred years ago that Christians were routinely burning people at the stake for being heretics. Islam too will become less fanatical as the muslim world becomes more affluent and stable.
But if you come to an article on Muhammad and are surprised that you meet fundamentalists on the Talk page, well, what can I say? Try editing Jesus. It's the same BS. That doesn't make it right, but don't think that all muslims are batshit crazy. Most are very middle-of-the-road, especially the ones living in the west. And people care about their symbols, religious or otherwise. Look at how most Americans react when you burn the flag -- we have flag-laden patriotic toilet paper for crying out loud but lots of Americans get completely hysterical when you even mention burning the flag. 70.132.14.22 17:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

al-insan al-kamil

All right, I think we got a case now. Feel free to improve it. EliasAlucard|Talk 04:05 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I very much dislike these accusations of trolling and believe threats such as "If you persist on trolling Talk:Muhammad, you will find yourself unable to do so." are inappropriate and counterproductive. It would be better to discuss concerns instead of issuing threats in this situation because I think the original statement was intended to express a relevant point (whether right or wrong) as viewed by EliasAlucard, but not intended only to offend. Failing to make an effort not to offend isn't the same as attempting to offend and thus isn't trolling. The essence of what he was trying to say does have some veracity, although I would prefer to say Muhammad is highly venerated and nearly idolized in that criticism of him generally meets severe rebuke from Muslims. Ultimately however, Muslims pray to God, not Muhammad. So he might be considered perfect in religious, political, social, etc. matters, but still not quite worshiped. Talmage 06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. In my honest opinion, though muslims regard it as shirk and deny that they worship Muhammad, I consider it worship, seeing how they defend him with violence. Is this offending muslims? Well then, so be it. But I still think Muslims should take what I'm saying, into consideration. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:22 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
See point two of WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages, also WP:SOAP. The opinion you've offered is interesting, but has nothing to do with improving the article.Proabivouac 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Al-insan al-kamil, merge for discussion

Merge discussions for [Al-insan al-kamil]. → AA (talk • contribs) — 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support merge - it is a notable aspect of how the Prophet is thought of and should be dealt with in the main article, doesn't need its own article. Itsmejudith 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, no merge. The term al-insan al-kamil is notable enough to warrant its own article. This Muhammad article is generally about his life from the beginning to the end, and shouldn't focus too much on how Muhammad is revered in Muslim tradition. The Muhammad article is already huge, we don't need to overload it with more content. Just pointing out in the intro that he is called al-insan al-kamil, with a link to the article, is enough. We can expand this topic a lot more in its own article. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:22 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge, i think it can be covered in a few sentences in this article, there doesn't seem to be much else to the concept anyway. needs some reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 12:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I can see what you're trying to do here. You're removing the sources from the main article and trying to make this into an obscure topic and undermining support for its existence as an article, in order to support your argument. You are simply trying to give this article less attention, presumably, by merging it into this one. Also, one of the reasons this article shouldn't be merged, is because it's not exclusively about Muhammad. This title (the perfect man) is also given to Adam, and other islamic saints. It's a notable article in its own right, and I know, for a fact, that there's a lot more to it than the few sources I've added right now. I haven't had enough time to expand on the article on my own. However, the sources I've provided, are all to islamic sources, and reliable. Period. EliasAlucard|Talk 14:43 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
      • please cease the incivility and bad faith attacks. the sources you added to the article aren't reliable, nor have you attempted to explain why they are so. back to the discussion: as said above, there's no need for content forking. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If Adam is also regarded as al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an, then there's no reason the al-insan al-kamil article should be merged into this one, is there? Because the article is not exclusively about Muhammad. Also, there's nothing wrong with the sources. You just don't like them because you're biased. EliasAlucard|Talk 14:55 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
          • Quit the personal attacks, will you?Proabivouac 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with EliasAlucard. Al-insan al-kamil is a concept and it's not equal with the prophet. In practice prophet is matched with it perfectly. Itaqallah has claimed there doesn't seem to be much else to the concept anyway while there is sufficient information to have a separate article. There are several authors who wrote the books in Persian which discussed about this issue like Morteza Motahhari, Aziz Al-din Nasafi, Yahya Kamali. However we can have a section in this article to satisfy Itsmejudith too.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge per above--SefringleTalk 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - barely anything there anyhow.Proabivouac 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That's because, thanks to Itaqallah's revert warring, the article is protected, and no one is allowed to work on it. More content is available though, if you just look for it. Lots of muslims have written books on the al-insan al-kamil concept. This article, could be huge in its own right, if we started working on it. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:53 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
      • Discuss the changes you intend to add in the talk page. If there is consensus, it can be included via the use of the {{editprotected}} template. → AA (talk • contribs) — 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merge per Itsmejudith and Itaqallah. BYT 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging as this would be a very narrow focus of Muhammad in Muslim tradition. I have included this point among others in this edit of mine [1]. I think details (if there are any) should be mentioned in the al-insan al-kamil article. --Aminz 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The "oppose" votes are indicative of something interesting. Arrow740 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to share that interesting point for us? --Aminz 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the current article is, indeed, shit. That doesn't mean the answer is a merge - it looks like the concept might be worth writing about, and writing about well, with real sources. If it is just a concept in Sufiism (or even more restrictive) then it's not necessarily worth mentioning here (and definitely not in the opening!) but may be worth exploring somewhere else. I've linked a couple sources on the talk page there, for a start - anybody else interested in trying to make an actual article on the subject? WilyD 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply – I can't believe a merge is being discussed. This insan kamil concept, is a concept of mainly, sufi islam, but not limited to sufi islam. It shouldn't be in the article of Muhammad, because that's not what the Muhammad article should focus on. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:11 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
      • from the sources available, it would seem that `al-insan al-kamil` is a concept in Sufism. there is currently no evidence to suggest it extends beyond that. this article should naturally cover the topic, as it relates to how he is perceived in Sufi thought. some users above are claiming there is more coverage of the concept, which i'll try to investigate. ITAQALLAH 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • It may not be a concept of mainstream islam, but definitely, not only Sufis use this. Abu Laban (a Sunni muslim) called Muhammad the perfect man on 60 minutes. I don't see any reason to merge it into the article of Muhammad, because this article is supposed to be sort of biographical, not delve into theological concepts on Muhammad. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:06 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
          • This article doesn't have to be just a biography. It should cover all the notable aspects of the topic Muhammad. If "60 minutes" is a TV programme then I think I am right in saying it doesn't count as a source unless a transcript has been made available. Itsmejudith 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't think you understand what I'm saying. This article is about Muhammad, not about general concepts on muhammad. It's an article, focusing on his life, his prophetic career, his military career, etcetera. This is not the right article to write a huge concept of how Muhammad is perceived by muslims. This merge discussion is beside the point in the first place. You can't pack just about everything related to Muhammad in this article. It's already huge. People are not going to read it all. It's better that we have separate articles on each topic instead. We already have other, similar topics, like for instance, Mohammedan. Why doesn't al-insan al-kamil deserve an article of its own? — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:46 16 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
              • The simplest thing is for you to draft an article in your sandbox, using all the sources that you say are available. Then everyone can see if there's enough reliably sourced stuff for an article. Itsmejudith 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm getting the feeling that you simply just don't want this article to exist. Why all the hassle with sandboxes and stuff like that? There are plenty of reliable sources available on this concept. I don't have access to them. But, if several prominent muslims have written books on the subject, there's a lot to glean from that alone. How about, instead of discussing it here and wasting time, collaborating on the subject? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:33 16 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
                  • Sandboxes are actually a good place to start article you're working on alone (i.e. User:WilyD/Sandbox2). For an article without anything really ready yet to discuss, it's harder to work it out elsewhere. A draft that can be discussed is probably needed. As for quality sources on the subject - I'm not sure how to help you with this. You can try talking to the other users at the relevant talk about some sort of comprimise to get the page unlocked - find out what people's specific objects are and figure out how to work with them. It does seem that Al-insan al-kamil is a fairly specialised subject, which most editors may not be inherently familiar with. Until it's independant notability is shown (and I believe it exists), they're likely to be luke-warm at best. Cheers, WilyD 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Why do you oppose the existence of this article? — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:48 21 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
                      • Just cause I've yet to see there is enough sourced stuff for it. If there is, I'll change my mind, hence the sandbox suggestion. Remember, there are editors on this 'pedia who delete 50 articles a day. Itsmejudith 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
                        • There is enough sourced stuff for it. You'll just have to look for it. I've told you, several prominent muslims have written books on the concept. Search and you will find. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:58 21 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
                      • As far as I know, I have neither supported nor opposed such an article, only offered comments and done relevant research. WilyD 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Yes, and you found plenty of material, did you not? Look, this merging, isn't necessary. There's plenty, PLENTY of material, available on this concept. What you found is just the tip of the iceberg. Can we please close this merge for discussion as keep the article, unlock the actual article, and get down to work with scholarly sources? I'll admit, I don't have access to all these scholarly sources on the al-insan al-kamil concept. But, I'm sure other people, with access to various encyclopaedias of islam, and access to the book Al-Jili wrote, can dig up some serious stuff on the concept. So, what do you say? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:34 22 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, see first if anyone at the page is question objects to unlocking - without bias towards future editorial decisions. WilyD 14:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support:it's very simple,its about prophet muhammad(peace be upon him). By the way,didn't anyone realize that it took too long for this minor case to be resloved??Grandia01 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad as a historical figure

All historical information in this wiki is presented like it's a fact. But this is not the Koran, this is wikipedia. There is no historical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. The mentioned sources all base their information on the Koran. And if Muhammad ever lived, there is some doubt that he lived in Saoudi Arabia (Syria is mentioned as a more likely place). The first scientific historical information about the new religion Islam comes from two centuries after Muhammad died.

In the wiki about Jesus, some doubts about the historical Jesus are mentioned. But the wiki about Muhammed does some copy / paste work form the Koran. Maybe this information should be an a different page, but it should be mentioned. I also think there is far too much information in this wiki.

  • Do you know of any reliable sources that doubt that there was a historical guy named Muhammad? WilyD 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my comment? Political correctness? I think more needs to be said about how nonmuslims see Muhammad. They do not consider him the perfect man, to say the least.

  • I explained why your comment was removed on your userpage. If you have productive comments to add, feel free, but vague insults are unhelpful. This is not a forum, but a discussion page for how to write an encyclopaedic article about Muhammad. Off-topic posts can be removed (and are aggressively here, for obvious reasons). Cheers, WilyD 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Amongst some non-Muslims and particularly westerners, Muhammad is seen as a controversial figure. Accounts of his actions and Islam, the religion he founded are considered to be excessively violent and immoral. In his 50s, he married Aisha, the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr, while she was only 6 years old. According to some, this justifies labeling him a pedophile. In recent years, many view his contributions and the religion that he passed on to his followers as inspiring of terrorism and colonialism. Sources:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27975 , http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm ,

There are plenty of sources for this much information. If that muslims think he's perfect is mentioned, what the rest of the world thinks of him should be mentioned as well.

A lot of this kind of material is already in this article, as well as the much more detailed Christian view of Muhammad, for instance. In general, there's a strong need to avoid recentism here - especially with unimportant stuff like "historic moral judgements of". Since the kind of stuff you're talking about already has a section, why not begin by saying what you dislike about how it's covered? Cheers, WilyD 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, make sure to have stronger sources. Only a very few of the sources are not print sources and most are from well established press (and those are only about depictions of Muhammad and they are from major news organizations). gren グレン 07:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kotham and Halabi

Can someone address in the article the birth names of Muhammad (PBUH) which are circulating the internet please? Thank you 82.6.114.172 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

conflict

In the middle years section, it says that both his sons died before the Prophet declared his mission, while the family life section says otherwise. Could someone solve this ?! Thank you. Unflavoured 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Destroying references

References 55 and 44 have disappeared because they apparently reference references which have since been removed. I did a brief search but couldn't find what they originally linked to. Can anyone find the references and we should be careful about this in the future. gren グレン 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping up the issue of Muhammad's images

Ok, I have the perfect solution for this conflict and I am sure that the editors or the main people responsible for editing this page will definitely think over.

Adding Images of Prophet Mohammed is causing havoc among Muslims. And the other group of people do not want to remove it because they like it this way.

My suggestion is keep the images but hide the face exactly like the first image That way both groups will be happy and satisfied.

so what do you say. Azizfar 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)



Recently, we had another unnecessary uproar over a Muhammad image at the Kaaba article. Its time to form a clear policy page that we can just link too in future and warn the user for a block if they continue to remove a Muhammad image. I've made this page on the Wikiproject Islam's page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC

I don't think Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad works. It gives the impression that images are okay and removing them is not... (not shedding any light on when it's appropriate to use what images). I think it would be very difficult to craft policy which made it clear that images cannot be removed for no reason but they should not just be added willy-nilly because a page mentions Muhammad. I really doubt it's something that can be templated... I haven't seen what happened at kaba, but I think in extremely blatant cases of "I'm removing it because it offends Muslims" it can easily be removed... gren グレン 13:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it will go on i know because muslims now they believe that each and every image of Mohammad PBUH is to dominate them just because of those cartoon images of Mohammad and still the question is if muslims they dont like the images & the statue of Mohammad why every one is creating & publishing it even they knows very well that it will hurt muslims please respect others ignity & dignity.--Kashi. 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Both ignity and dignity? Are you sure? Arrow740 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
We have heard that speech a million times. Repeating it again will not remove the images.--SefringleTalk 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "ignity" is a propensity to ignite? Itsmejudith 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Gren's approach sounds good to me -- we can be sensitive to culture without letting it be the dominant factor in deciding our content. This doesn't necessarily have to be an either-or thing. To use an outside example, just as we don't run around adding "may she rest in peace," to every article about a deceased person, but we don't add "Gee, I'm glad that one's dead," either. Mention and show things when they're relevant, I figure. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove Image: It is really panic to see such images either made by jews or non-Muslims who want to play with the religious emotions of Muslims all over the world. I don't think so Encyclopedias should be used to publish controversial images and religious issues which may have a world-wide impact. Especially after the 9/11, the hate against Muslims is on rise from West and US. Kindly respect our religion as we never quote such images or absurd remarks about other religions and prophets. Thanks. Muhammad Shoaib 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect religious views over the content of pictures and inflammatory information I don't see this image as an attempt to rile up Muslims and while I do see their point regarding the censorship of images regarding certain images I'm in favour of Wikipedia Not censored. RBlowes 00:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


There are 4 big sect of the Sunni part of Muslims. And all these 4 sects objects to the idea of publishing the Images of prophet Mohammad. Some of the main reasons not to keep these images on the site are as follows.

1. These pictures in a way might be found offensive by some people. As they are human made they can't reflect the original persons looks. It is not a photograph. We can not know who will like whom. And this can cause a possibility of keeping that specific person far from Islam. This is a very bad consequence.
2. People might somehow print these images and hang up on the walls or make them background Images. And in time this may cause the belief system of that specific person to split and maybe start worshiping the messenger rather than or with the Creator (Allah). This would be disastrous.
3. Prophet Mohammad himself never approved paintings of human beings. Knowing this, what is the reason of keeping these images?
4. There's a very very slight chance that the Images of Mohammad saw look like him. And these images adds us nothing. Just covers some space on the page and makes it more readable. These images are not technical designs nor gives us a better point of view. Then why are we putting ourselves in a risk and discussion like this?

What's the good in keeping them. It just draws opposition. I Suggest the images must be removed right away.Zipekci 01:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, the internet is supposed to be a free place, my family is muslim and so dont think im being biased, if people want to put up historical non-offensive pictures of Muhammad then they have the right to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.51.210 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the conflict section

Arrow re your edit summary [2], Lewis says:"The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war."

They were already in the state of war. --Aminz 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is deliberately vague as to the cause of the war. Watt is explicit. Do you doubt that Watt would say otherwise if he could? Arrow740 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
from the quote, it seems that Lewis is saying that they were already at war, thus acting as a pretext for the raids. if Watt appears to disagree, saying Muhammad started the war, then there is nothing wrong with relating a divergence of opinion. ITAQALLAH 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Watt doesn't say that they were not in the state of war. He is just saying that Muhammad provoked and took the initiative in the series of razzia. Lewis says the raids were justified because they were in state of war. In fact, Muhammad was forced to migrate to Medina, he and his followers were openly persecuted in Medina. The reason that Muhammad merely focused on Mecca rather than other cities show the case.
Arrow, please follow WP:CIVIL in both your edit summary and comments. --Aminz 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
that's true... if Watt simply says Muhammad initiated the razzias, it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't in a open state of hostility before then. ITAQALLAH 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Page 105: "In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive...In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor." Page 112 (Nakhlah is where the Muslims violated the sacred month and killed a Meccan in a raid): "Such was the expedition to Nakhlah and its consequences...it is clear that Muhammad had here, more or less deliberately, thrown down the gauntlet to the Meccans." Arrow740 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you stopped quoting Watt at those points. Watt provides two explanation for that: 1. Razzis were a normal feature of desert life and were kind of sport rather than war 2. For Muhammad, a religous body included the whole matter of their lives not just worship. The razzis were made solely or primarily by Emigrants. Watt continues: "The Emigrants went on Razzis because they thought they were badly treated by their fellow-Meccans. One verse described them as 'those who after persecution emigrated, then strove and patiently endured..." Please either represent the sources fully or don't quote them. --Aminz 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I stopped because we neither include his "it seems weird that a holy man would kill people" nor his moral relativistic argument (which, you should know, is not compatible with Islam's view of objective morality) why it's alright. Arrow740 04:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No. Watt doesn't say what you say on his behalf. On the second point he explains "For us a religous body is a group of people who come together for common worship, and perhaps some other limited purposes; but for Muhammad the religous community was a body of people associated with one another in the whole of their life, that is, was also a political unit". --Aminz 04:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Attribution and mention of all significant variations is the solution as per WP:NPOV--Tigeroo 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis doesn't contradict this. He is being intentionally vague. Arrow740 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
he's not being vague, he says: "The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its [i.e. razzias] excersise.", brackets mine. ITAQALLAH 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>That is vague. Here's what he says on page 45 of the 1960 (unredacted) version: "In March 635 Quraish, reacting against the growing danger of Medinese brigandage, sent an expedition against Muhammad and defeated the Muslims on the slopes of Uhud." So he is making it clear that offensive action on the part of the Meccans was provoked by the prior offensive actions of Muhammad. Arrow740 21:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is not vague he clearly states that there was a state of war. There was a serious tension both from the situation that required the Muslims to leave Mecca and from the fact that Medina was giving them safe haven. Meccans even sent a delegation to Medina to get them to not support the Muslims, that is what Lewis is referring to. If it didn't exist he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. Uhud is not the beginning of the conflict either, it's well after Badr and the material under discussion is of the time leading up to Badr.--Tigeroo 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
we all know the Meccans sent out forces in reaction to the razzias. that just means Muhammad raised the stakes, not that they weren't in state of hostility before that. ITAQALLAH 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's what Cook says: "The central theme of this activity was Muhammad's confrontation with his home town of Mecca. In the second year of the hijra he made plans to intercept a rich Meccan caravan returning from Syria. The caravan escaped, but a force sent out by the Meccans to defend it was roundly defeated by some three hundred Muslims (reinforced by angels) at Badr. Subsequently, however, it looked as if Muhammad had taken on more than he could handle." Arrow740 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
erm.. it looks like Cook's talking about post-Badr events (i.e. Uhud), which fared less successfully for Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This version strikes me as unnecessarily convoluted. Besides the poor writing, these accounts don't substantially differ such that we'd need to represent them as competing opinions.Proabivouac 23:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, given the sources I have provided here, your recent edit is disruption. You are to taking a vague statement and inserting it to oppose the truth we have sourced to Watt and Lewis himself. Arrow740 04:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, your edits are disruption. This is the kind of arguments you provide: 1. When Lewis says:"The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise.", he is deliberately vague and that there was no state of war. 2. You misquote Watt and make him saying there were no hostility between emigrants from Mecca (who solely or primarily engaged in raids) and Meccans. --Aminz 04:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Try reading the quotes again. Muhammad started it, the sources say it clearly. Arrow740 06:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad started what? The state of hostility? The razzis?
Arrow, this is getting tiresome. Watt is clear that The razzis were made "solely or primarily by Emigrants...The Emigrants went on Razzis because they thought they were badly treated by their fellow-Meccans..."- Lewis is clear that "The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion" for excersise of what was "seen as a natural and legitimate act of war."
Watt says Muhammad (and the Emigrants) initiated the razzis as Watt says because they felt persecuted by Meccans and forced to be exiled. Muhammad himself escaped an assassination plan before migration.
You have not made any case for your claim that Lewis is vague in the sentence:"The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its[arms] excersise." How can you read this sentence in a way that it doesn't imply the state of war? And further, how do you conclude he is deliberately vague? --Aminz 07:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis says in the 2002 edition on that same page that this was an act of war. As itaqallah already knows, an act of war starts a war. See [3]. The "state of war" must refer to the war which the raids themselves initiated. The sources make it clear that there were no battles until the Muslims became really aggressive. The only possible interpretation is that the "war" Lewis is referring to is the war the Muslims started. Arrow740 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis is very clear in what he says:"The immigrants... turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war."
Why don't you quote Lewis word by word? --Aminz 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to start repeating yourself and ignoring my attempts to provide evidence from a variety of sources and explain to you their meanings, I'll just start copy and pasting my previous responses. Arrow740 01:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to "explain" their meanings. They are quite plain as seen in the quotation. You are mistaken in the assumption that the state of war must refer to the war which the raids themselves initiated. Lewis is quite clearing alluding the state of war existing prior to the raids. The reasons for that state have been explained above and follow from the persecution faced by the Muslims by the Quraysh both in Mecca and in Medina.--Tigeroo 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for ignoring my points again. Arrow740 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong

Someone asked "Why not Karen?". I have been wondering this for a while. I know that she has not held an academic post, but I would say that she is part of mainstream scholarly thought, in the UK at least. She featured prominently this year in events organised by the British Library. They don't invite just anyone. She is also frequently on the BBC. Itsmejudith 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

She has no training. Arrow740 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that Robert Spencer would be at least as qualified by the same metric.Proabivouac 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Spencer has a MA in a relevant field, Armstrong is unable to boast of being so highly educated. Beit Or 15:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Peer-review is the back bone of what constitutes WP:RS. On Robert Spencer we have a good idea on what his peers think of his work. What is their opinion on Karen Armstrong??--Tigeroo 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We can easily do without her. Her scholarly errors are grievous and bizarre. She is the mirror-image of Robert Spencer, and equally unsuitable for vital articles like this. - Merzbow 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a big issue. Was just curious when I made that inquiry. No problems if we can supersede her with better sources.--Tigeroo 17:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case it could be useful to add a "criticism" section to her article, using scholarly reviews. I don't know what the "grievous and bizarre" errors are, although I don't doubt you Merzbow. I can see easily enough that she is not doing primary research into this historical period. She does seem to have gained respect for her reflections on "mythos" and "logos", so it may be that her viewpoints need to be referred to in the context of other articles. Itsmejudith 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
she is a recognised Muslim Scholar and is an Oxford graduate. If her scholarly errors are "grievous and bizarre", pls provide an established source else she should not be accused as unreliable. ~atif - 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm at most she has an undergraduate degree. From Karen Armstrong: "She continued to work on [her PhD] while later teaching at the University of London, but her thesis was rejected by an external examiner. She eventually left academia without completing her doctorate." There are plenty of sources we can use from actual professors. If you insist on using Karen Armstrong, I'll insist on using Robert Spencer, who is equally as qualified as her. Instead, let's agree to reject both. - Merzbow 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, while I agree that we can do without Armstrong but would you please explain your assertion that: "Her scholarly errors are grievous and bizarre" through some examples. We know that Karen Armstrong is an editor to Encyclopedia of Religion (The publisher says:"The first edition of this work was published to considerable acclaim in 1987. For this revising, all 2,750 entries were reviewed. While a few were eliminated, the remainder were put in one of two categories: retained with few changes (1,800) or significantly revised, either by the original or by a new author. These are identifiable by the date at the end of the article. There are 600 new topics in this edition on healing and medicine with an overview and separate articles from Africa to Australia."),

Here are a list of a few of Armstrong's scholarly works:

"The Holiness of Jerusalem: Asset or Burden?, Karen Armstrong, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3. (Spring, 1998), pp. 5-19."

"Women, Tourism, Politics,Karen Armstrong, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3. (Jul., 1977), pp. 135-145."

"Ambiguity and Remembrance: Individual and Collective Memory in Finland, Karen Armstrong, American Ethnologist, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Aug., 2000), pp. 591-608"

Aside from these, for example The Economist described her bio of Muhammad as "respectful without being reverential, knowledgeable without being pedantic, and, above all, readable."

In any case, it would be great if you could provide examples of her errors. Thanks --Aminz 03:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Read these reviews to start:
[4]
[5]
She hilariously claims that the early Islamic empire had "no designs on Europe", despite the fact that any history book will tell you that it was only the narrow victories won by Charles Martel and others in 8th-century France that prevented them from expanding beyond Spain. - Merzbow 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


"She hilariously claims that the early Islamic empire had "no designs on Europe", despite the fact that any history book will tell you that it was only the narrow victories won by Charles Martel and others in 8th-century France that prevented them from expanding beyond Spain." That is clearly a myth. The 732 Battle of Tours is a later Christian tale, that has no historical basis. Early sources tell that a gang of Berbers -- perhaps unintentionally -- made excursion to proto-France and were beaten. No big battles were fought. For further reading, see Jayyusi: The Islamic Spain, Vol. 1. And as you know Merzbow, "any history book" almost always tell on and on the same unhistorical tales. -- dreipasou

Moreover, Islamic empire did not expand further as there were hardly trade/booty opportunities in Europe and was used in acquiring slaves from that part of the world (Arab slave trade). Secondly, Merzbow, you are quoting articles by already controversial figures like Danial Pipes, you have no problem accepting him as reliable but you have a huge problem with Karen Armstrong? Just because she does not hold conventional Orientalist view, does not qualify her as unreliable? she has a well recognized qualifications as pointed out by Aminz to be quoted! ~atif - 11:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
blank accusations will not work, unless somebody clearly states the reasons for accusations against her. Else I will put back her quotes. ~atif - 15:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
rephrased and added Karen Armstrong view about raids/ghazu. She or anyone should not be called unreliable just because the person has non-conventional Orientalist view which happen to be Pro-Muhammad. ~atif - 15:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
there is so much conversation going on in this section, but none have come up with convincing sources (other than the likes of Daniel Pipes) to declare Karen Armstrong as unreliable, I will put back her quotes ~atif - 08:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. Daniel Pipes at least has a PhD in Islamic history from Harvard. Karen Armstrong has nothing. Please read WP:RS. Arrow740 09:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with characterizing Armstrong as the oppose side of Spencer, I think there are plenty of other sources that we can use instead of her. --Aminz 09:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, Reliable sources are "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and do not have to be a PhD. I pointed the same thing to you when you were asserting the "reliable source" has to be a scholar (which you now have changed to PhD). Regarding, Daniel Pipes, you should read controversies related to him before praising his PhD. Aminz, there is no reason to ignore Karen Armstrong. Those who find her unreliable, pls tell us the convincing sources/reasons for it and I am open to suggestions. Else she should not be accused irrelvantly ~atif - 12:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanic Verses

There are lots of issues on which there is a split between the beliefs of practitioners of a particular religion and the consensus of the academic community on the topic. This issue effects virtually every Wikipedia article on a religious topic. I think that in these situations, NPOV requires writing the article in the format: "Some adherents of religion X [better yet, specify which adherents] believe Y. Modern scholars say Z." I think it's pointless to engage in an argument on a Wikipedia page about whether religious beliefs can constitute "facts" - for adherents of that religion, they are "facts", for non-adherents they aren't. People reading the Wikipedia article will have no difficulty distinguishing the two - if they're not adherents to the religion, they'll probably side with academia, but it's not Wikipedia's place to make that choice for them. That's the entire point of NPOV. Adam_sk 00:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, you know well that the incident is controversial and you closely watch the section here [6]. What WP:POINT do you want to prove by writing it as a fact [7]? --Aminz 08:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things are controversial. In the academic community, this is not. Leaving the self-taught caetani aside, every modern scholar supports the idea that it happened. Cook mentions it in passing. If even Watt states that it happened, we don't need to give credence to internet dawah sites by saying that it might not have happened. Arrow740 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that "everybody" except caetani "supports the idea that it happened"? What do you think of Muslim view of it? It is disruption to write this as a fact.
Now you are disrupting the section here [8]. --09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Islamic studies scholars state it as a fact. In CoQ, I'm not being disruptive, I'm insisting upon standards for sources. Arrow740 09:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, Where did you get the idea that "everybody" except caetani "supports the idea that it happened"? Who said that all "Islamic studies scholars state it as a fact."? --Aminz 09:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis, Watt, Rodinson, Cook, Muir, Guillame, Rubin, Etan Kohlberg (not sure who he is, it's Brill though) Arrow740 09:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The first one is Watt. I am aware of scholars who accept the incident. You have not answered my question: Where did you get the idea that "everybody" except Leone Caetani "supports the idea that it happened"? What about Muslims? --Aminz 09:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What about John Burton(Journal of Semitic Studies (JSS)) who argued for its fictitiousness based upon a demonstration of its actual utility to certain elements of the Muslim community – namely, those legal exegetes seeking an "occasion of revelation" for eradicatory modes of abrogation:
"Far, however, from being unthinkable, it has now become possible both to establish that the story is indeed the invention of Muslims and to identify the motive that compelled them to invent it (p. 249) The exegetes have long given rein to a strong predilection for reference to concrete historical occasions to facilitate the interpretation of the Qur'ān's frequently oblique utterances, and in this instance, the suggestions that Satan is supposed to have "cast into the longing" of Muhammad are the so-called "satanic verses"...It was solely in order to justify these interpretations of what this verse [Q.22:52] was thought to state that Tabarī introduced the infamous hadīths alleging Muhammad's incredible compact with the Meccans (p. 253)"
Doesn't this contradict your statement?
Why did you remove this from the article? --Aminz 10:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
What might you be referring to? Arrow740 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Irving Zeitlin speaks of it as if it happened here and here, though in the second place he disputes Watt's interpretation of the event (while assuming its historicity). Muslims believe a lot of things, wikipedia doesn't have to reflect the concensus of the Muslim nation. Arrow740 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Further, Zeitlin implicitly characterizes all modern western scholars as accepting the essential validity of the narrative. Arrow740 10:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Where does the sociologist Zeitlin imply that "all" modern western scholars accept the historicity of the incident. Do you deny that in the face of having a counter example(John Burton and Catenai)? I don't mention the Muslim exegesis view. Please don't write controversial matters as facts in the future because it is disruption. --Aminz 10:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Forget Catenai, he has no degree. Burton has been proven to be an extreme minority view, please accept this. Arrow740 10:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That it is a minority view in current western academia is true. Muslim view of the incident( based on the weak isnad of the narration, etc etc) is also important. In any case, it is not a fact that it happened. --Aminz 10:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It probably is a fact that it did happen, but that does not mean you can't find someone saying it didn't. Just like pretty much everything these days, if something is presently controversial, it probably didn't happen.Proabivouac 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bukhari mentions that the pagans also worshiped when these verses were delivered, which only makes sense if they were henotheist, not the monotheist ones which attacked the goddesses. Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this. Arrow740 10:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the much more reasonable option would be to provide a summary of opinions from a tertiary source like the EoI, wherein Welch says that most European biographers accept it, while most Muslim scholars reject it. Welch himself dismisses the historicity of the story that is related today (as found in Tabari, Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd), but he says that this doesn't rule out the possibility of some historical accuracy therein. ITAQALLAH 13:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in fact Welch writes:

This does not rule out the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story. It is possible that this story is another example of historical telescoping, i.e. that a situation that was known by Muhammad's contemporaries to have lasted for a long period of time later came to be encapsulated in a story that restricts his acceptance of intercession through these goddesses to a brief period of time and places the responsibility for this departure from a strict monotheism on Satan. This interpretation is completely consistent with what is said above regarding Muhammad's gradual “emergence as a religious reformer” and with evidence from the Kuran that a strict monotheism arose in stages over an extended period of time during Muhammad's Meccan years...

Beit Or 14:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. He's probably referring to the Muslims returning from Abyssinia issue. It must have lasted for some time. Arrow740 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
i am well aware Welch writes that, he is proposing his own theory as to how the story fits in to the sira i.e. by stating it was something which occured over a long period of time, and then the story came about via historical telescoping. it cannot be avoided, however, that he states: "The story in its present form (as related by al- Tabari, al-Waqidi, and Ibn Sa'd) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons given in AL - Kur`an , at 404. This does not rule out the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story." ITAQALLAH 15:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
We are, in the article, not referring to the length of time before the reversion to monotheism. Fortunately, Beit Or checked the accuracy of your statement. Arrow740 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
the article discusses a specific incident at a specific point in time, as related by some primary sources. Welch rejects it, and his proposed alternative is not compatible with the typical narrative of the story. ITAQALLAH 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "satanic verses" refers to the verses. Saying they were delivered at this time is reflecting the scholarly consensus, including that of Welch. Arrow740 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Lewis says they were retracted "at some later date," and that seems to sum up the ambiguity. Arrow740 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
let's not spuriously claim consensus. Welch denies the historicity of the incident, calling it a product of later historical telescoping. i think his summary of the dispute is fine. ITAQALLAH 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what the quote Beit Or provided is saying. You yourself said that Welch is advancing his own theory which entails the historicity of the essential two details, that the satanic verses were presented and then later retracted. Those two details, the historicity of which is a matter of solid consensus, are all we are relating in the article. Arrow740 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
that's not the point, the article is relating the story as provided in Tabari et al. which is presumed to have occured at a specific place and time, under the momentary influence of Satan - which is what makes the story so notable. Welch openly denies that, saying the blame attributed to Satan was the result of the telescoping, and thus, the verses weren't "satanic". ITAQALLAH 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
as for claims of consensus, Welch says:

This curious story, which is also found in Ibn Sa`d (i/1, 137 f.) but not in Ibn Hisham and presumably not in Ibn Ishaq, is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention. Most European biographers of Muhammad, on the other hand, accept it as historical on the assumption that it is inconceivable that later Muslims could have invented it (e.g., Watt, Mecca , 103). This reason, however, is in itself insufficient. The story in its present form (as related by al-Tabari, al-Waqidi, and Ibn Sa`d) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons given in AL - Kur`an , at 404.

and i think the first part is a fair portrayal of the dispute. it's certainly not sensible to claim consensus amongst sources here. EoI as a tertiary source is in a better position. ITAQALLAH 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"the article is relating the story as provided in Tabari et al" No, the article is relating history as described by trained scholars. We are using secondary sources. This should be blatantly obvious. Arrow740 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you notice that it was blockquote out of secondary source and it called the story curious?--Tigeroo 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Hawking is not saying it didn't happen, just that he doesn't agree with a particular line of argument for it. Will someone please chastise Tigeroo for his edit of the Hudaybiyya section? Arrow740 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please stop your disruption. You should not state the incident as a fact. [9]. It is amazing that you reference to Welch that himself says that most Muslims reject the incident but most westerners accept it. --Aminz 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proven that we are accurately representing the scholarly concensus. It doesn't what most Muslims believe. There are all manner of things that most Muslims believe. Arrow740 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If most orientalists accept this(and not all), we should say that and if most Muslims reject it, we should too say that. There are all manner of things that most Orientalists believe. --Aminz 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So when western scholars say something you like, you use them, but when they don't, they transform into bigoted "orientalists." That makes total sense. Arrow740 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
My sentence "There are all manner of things that most Orientalists believe." was a parallel to your sentence. One can note the conclusions you draw from the sentences of your own type (bigoted "orientalists" stuff). --Aminz 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference, as western scholars with PhD's generally don't believe in, for example, flying donkeys. My point is that scholars are trained to be objective, while Muslims are trained to first and foremost accept certain data on faith. Arrow740 03:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please revisit WP:NPOV, WP:V & WP:Notability you seem in need of a refresher.--Tigeroo 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
actually, what Muslims believe about their own traditions is quite pertinent, especially since they have been a topic of study since virtually the time of Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Presenting this as a consensus view of even non-Muslim academics is quite irresponsible, Arrow.

Could I ask you to explain, using specifics, why you deleted this reference?

ref>"To argue for the historical reality of an event or detail because it is possibly embarrassing for Islam is tempting but not necessarily convincing ... (this) reasoning has often been used to argue for the reality of the incident of the 'satanic verses.'" The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History By Gerald R. Hawting, Cambridge University Press., page 43</ref BYT 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's above. He's not taking a stand on the historicity there, just on an argument for it. Arrow740 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Again. Why did you take it out? Are you saying it's not relevant to the article? If so, I disagree. BYT 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. We're not mentioning any of the arguments for authenticity, and your quote is only relevant to those. Arrow740 03:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And the three-card monte game continues. ("That's a critique of the argument, not of the underlying factuality.")

Look, if this were Moon, and you were obsessing about rounding up "scholars" inclining unto the fascinating "green cheese theory," it would be relevant to quote someone of authority critiquing contemporary efforts to convince people that the moon is "actually" made of green cheese. BYT 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are other arguments, in fact, put forth by people like Welch who, like Hawting, don't accept Watt's argument. Another one, and one that I also find to be as compelling, is that in the sahih Bukhari hadith collection it is recorded that pagans also bowed down when the verses (that are in the Qur'an presently) were delivered. As those verses attack the pagan gods, the only likely explanation of this is that the satanic verses were the ones delivered, and the story underwent redaction along the way. The point is that attacking the one argument isn't the same as attacking the underlying story; that the henotheistic verses were delivered, then at some point retracted. Arrow740 08:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a reason why they are controversial, the fact there is no consensus for them.--Tigeroo 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Issue, the section for it limited impact is taking up far too muce space. WP:Undue weight.--Tigeroo 09:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.Proabivouac 09:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a comment above by Arrow which can't go unchallenged. That's the distiction between "Muslims" and "scholars". Arrow, if it were the case that Muslims couldn't think in an objective, scholarly way, then there would be quite a lot of bridges falling down and sick people left uncared for. Remember, a Muslim can be trained in the Islamic scholarly tradition, or in the Western tradition, or both. Itsmejudith 09:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you referring to, specifically? Arrow740 09:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just above. "My point is that scholars are trained to be objective, while Muslims are trained to first and foremost accept certain data on faith." Itsmejudith 09:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a true statement. It has nothing to do with bridges. It's not just Muslims, it's anyone who puts faith before all else. As regards scholarship of Islam, this poses a problem if someone puts his faith before analysis, don't you agree? Arrow740 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Many religious people are perfectly well able to reconcile their belief with their scholarship. Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria applies. To assume that there is a particular problem in relation to Muslims is discriminatory. If religious people were unable to engage in scholarly thought about their religion then there would be no theology as an academic discipline. Note also that while we have to use good scholarly sources we also have to guard against systemic bias (towards a Western viewpoint). Itsmejudith 10:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your third sentence, I think I already addressed that. The example of theology is not relevant. Theology is the development of ideas on the assumption of the religion's tenets. The issue at hand is not one of theology, but of history. You are right that we have to guard against a Western viewpoint. However, we have also to guard against the idea that all views have equal likelihood of being true. That's not reasonable. Certain views are arrived at through better means than others. This is one such case. Interestingly, a Western-trained Muslim scholar named Fazlur Rahman argued for historicity, according to the main article. I'll try to get ahold of that. It's also worth noting that I haven't objected to the use of Martin Lings in this article. The issue, I think, rests in approach. A Western-trained scholar is trained to try to enter into a topic with no preconceived notions, and discover what is true using reason. The problem is when a thinker enters into an issue with an axe to grind, and uses reason to produce an argument for a conclusion he had going in. That is what we see here. Arrow740 10:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Invalid conclusion about contemporary viewpoint

Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken for divine revelation his own unconscious.[135]Although Muhammad's image in the west is much less unfavorable than in the past, prejudicial folk beliefs remain.[136]

In its current wording, the first sentence seems to imply the second, even though that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't have access to the book to verify (Google have blocked it, strangely), or to edit the main article, but I think rewording it to say something like "He further believes that" would make it clearer. --Mark 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Scholars vs. believers

Don't equate the objectivity of the two. The views of biased sources are not relevant as regards an article about history. Arrow740 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i see no need to ignore what classical and contemporary Muslim scholars write about their own historical traditions. it is certainly a notable view, and is given significant weight in the EoQ article on the "satanic verses". ITAQALLAH 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Is the "satanic verses" incident (not the Rushdie book, but the account of heretical verses being added to the Qur'an in Muhammad's day) to be reported as historical fact?14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"To argue for the historical reality of an event or detail because it is possibly embarrassing for Islam is tempting but not necessarily convincing ... (this) reasoning has often been used to argue for the reality of the incident of the 'satanic verses.'" The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History By Gerald R. Hawting, Cambridge University Press., page 43BYT 14:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"But the prevailing Muslim view of what is called the "Gharaniq" incident is that it is a fabrication created by the unbelievers of Mecca in the early days of Islam, and, Haykal comments, afterwards the "story arrested the attention of the western Orientalists who took it as true and repeated it ad nauseam." (Haykal 105) The main argument against the authenticity of the two verses in Haykal and elsewhere is that "its incoherence is evident upon the least scrutiny. It contradicts the infallibility of every prophet in conveying the message of His Lord." (Haykal 107) In other words, since Muslims believe Muhammad to have faithfully reported God's word, it is surprising that Muslim scholars have accepted such a discreditable story, and not at all surprising that it might have been invented by Islam's enemies. In his analysis of the passage, Haykal comes to the conclusion that "this story of the goddesses is a fabrication and a forgery, authored by the enemies of Islam after the first century of Hijrah" (Haykal 144)." Notes on Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses (1988), Joel Kuortti, and nota bene that Kuortti lists among his sources private correspondence with Salman Rushdie, as well as over 50 published academic sources. BYT 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You found a self-published website repeating polemic. Good. Here's what Uri Rubin has to say about Naykal: "There have also been Arab authors who wrote about the life of the historical Muhammad according to the Islamic sources, such as Muhammad Husayn Haykal, amongst many others. Most of their work is marked by the apologetic need to restore the authenticity of those parts of the sources rejected by Orientalists as reflecting literary models borrowed from Jews and Christians." In the introduction to The Life of Muhammad. As if we needed a confirmation. Arrow740 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Scholars disagree. Precisely my point. (That they may backbite each other in doing so is entertaining, but irrelevant.) BYT 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Naykal does not have any standing in the field of Islamic studies. Arrow740 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The information about Muhammad's satanic verses was very well sourced. Obviously it will stay one way or the other. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


And, amazingly, an angle that has somehow eluded our steely "historical" advocates ...

Burton theorizes (Burton, 1999, Those are the high-flying cranes, p.350) that the story owes its existence to Muslims who were keen to offer a clear historical example of the theory of naskh (abrogation) ...

...and he holds that Tabari placed the story in his collection on account of his requiring “evidence to establish a further meaning of the term n.s.kh.” (as it appeared in the Qur'an). (ibid, page 365)

Comments? BYT 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We all knew about that. It's an extreme minority view. I have Rubin; the EoQ article is also quite a good source. You should check those out. Arrow740 05:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect, I don't think your assessment of what is and isn't a minority view should govern what goes into this article. You've proven yourself to be a deeply biased player here.
  • Again: You're rewriting the article as though there were no other voices or opinions on the historicity of this event. It is obvious that there are.
  • You've given no reason whatsoever that an article about Muhammad should lean toward Orientalists-with-whom-you-happen-to-agree, and ignore entirely all dissenting views.
  • You have even refused, in the text you've persistently reverted here, to identify the account in Tabari as a controversial one, something that even the most fire-breathing academic Islamophobes have acknowledged, and that the most cursory examination of the record will confirm.
  • I think perhaps the act of disagreeing with Arrow is what renders an opinon "minority."BYT 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You could try counting and listening to the sources. Arrow740 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is strongly sourced and relevant material, supported by a long list of refs. If there are other versions of this event, you're welcome to add them in the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
the long list of ref have no more than WP:POINT value. Welch says most European authors accept it, while most Muslim scholars, classical and contemporary, reject it. why not just say that in the article? ITAQALLAH 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it makes no sense to give the two varieties of scholars equal weight. Arrow740 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
is that what you believe Welch is doing? ITAQALLAH 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this is an article about history, not opinions. Arrow740 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
that's not relevant to the current discussion. ITAQALLAH 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that both positions should be given with references, and that the bulk of the content should remain in the Satanic verses article. Would we give more weight to an Eastern (or non-Christian) interpretation of Christian scriptures over that of Christian scholars? This type of argument isn't the same as "flat earth versus round earth"...I have yet to see any hard facts or otherwise concrete arguments that support either position. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the EoQ article has about the satanic verses has to say:

The satanic verses incident is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qurʾān commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra (see calendar ): Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/714), Mujāhid b. Jabr (d. 104/722), al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (d. 105/723), ʿIkrima the client (mawlā) of Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 105/723), Abū l-ʿĀliya al-Riyāḥī (d. 111/729), ʿAṭiyya b. Saʿd al-ʿAwfī (d. 111/729), ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ (d. 114/732), Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī (d. 118/736), Qatāda b. Diʿāma (d. 118/736), Abū Ṣāliḥ Bādhām al-Kūfī (d. 120/738), Ismāʿīl al-Suddī (d. 128/745), Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 146/763), ʿAbd al-Malik b. Jurayj (d. 150/767), Muqātil b. Sulaymān (d. 150/767), Maʿmar b. Rāshid (d. 154/770), Yaḥyā b. Sallām al-Baṣrī (d. 200/815). Several of these relate the incident on the authority of ʿAbdallāh b. ʿAbbās (d. 68/687; see exegesis of the qurʾān: classical and medieval ). The incident also appears in the respective sīra-maghāzī works transmitted in the first two centuries from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/713), Muḥammad b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742), Mūsā b. ʿUqba (d. 141/748), Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 150/767), Abū Maʿshar al-Sindī (d. 170/786) and Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823). Thus, the satanic verses incident seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muḥammad (q.v.). The incident continued to be cited and its historicity accepted by ¶ several Qurʾān commentators and authors of sīra-maghāzī works throughout the classical period, including authors of important commentaries, such as Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Abū Isḥāq al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), Abū l-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (d. 468/1076), al-Ḥusayn b. al-Farrāʾ al-Baghawī (d. 516/1122), Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī (d. 864/1459) and others. Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century.

Written by Shahab Ahmed. It was as historical as anything else about Muhammad for 340 years. Rubin essentially says the same thing; "This is a unique case in which a group of traditions is rejected only after being subjected to Quranic models, and as a direct result of this adjustment." The "Quranic models" basically has to do with new doctrines that had developed later. The SV incident contradicts the doctrine of 'isma which was a later invention. Further the two grounds that are given in the EoQ article, one is as follows:

First, the satanic verses story portrays Muḥammad as being (on at least one occasion) unable to distinguish between divine revelation and satanic suggestion. This was seen as calling into ¶ question the reliability of the revelatory process and thus the integrity of the text of the Qurʾān itself (see inimitability; createdness of the qurʾān ). The incident was thus viewed as repugnant to the doctrine of ʿiṣmat al-anbiyāʾ, divine protection of the prophets from sin and/or error, as it developed from the third/ninth century onwards, all theological schools coming eventually to agree that God protected prophets from error in the transmission of divine revelation (see impeccability)

The other is that current versions have mursal isnads, though not sahih. Ahmed notes:

Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsīr and sīra-maghāzī reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnāds, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports (al-tawātur bi-l-maʿnā; Ahmed, Ibn Taymiyyah).

Rubin also notes that versions of this story have various Companions in the chain of transmission, and essentially says that it once had sahih isnads that were purposefully corrupted by the assemblers of the hadith collections, who basically said "that man couldn't have said that!" which is one of the two arguments against it. So we have almost every western scholar and all Muslim scholars for the first 300 years of Islam accepting this. After that the story became incompatible with existing doctrine and was disavowed. The only important point is the concensus of mainstream scholars, but it is intereting to know these other details. Arrow740 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

these are the portions from the article Arrow has not quoted:

Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century — as evidenced in al-Nāsikh wa-l-mānsūkh of Abū Jaʿfar al-Naḥḥās (d.338/950) — and continued to be raised in subsequent centuries, to the point where the rejection of the historicity of the incident eventually became the only acceptable orthodox position (see abrogation; theology and the qurʾān ). From among the many important Qurʾān commentators who rejected the historicity of the satanic verses incident, the respective opinions of Abū Bakr b. al-ʿArabī (d. 543/1148), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210), Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), Abū Ḥayyān al-Gharnāṭī (d. 744/1345) and ʿImād al-Dīn b. Kathīr (d. 773/1373) have been regularly invoked by their successors down to the present day. Probably the most authoritatively cited refutation of the incident, however, appears in the al-Shifāʾ of al-Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ al-Yaḥṣubī (d. 544/1149), a work written in demonstration of the superhuman qualities of Muḥammad (see names of the prophet; but see also miracles; marvels ).

and:

The historicity of the satanic verses incident is also rejected on the basis of the isnāds, the chains of transmission that carry the numerous reports of the incident. In the standard Islamic methodology developed by the scholars of ḥadīth (see ḥadīth and the qurʾān ) for assessing the veracity of reports, a report is judged by the reputation for truthfulness of the individual ¶ transmitters who constitute a complete isnād that goes back to an eyewitness. The satanic verses incident is not carried by isnāds that are complete and sound (ṣaḥīḥ); at best, some of the isnāds are ṣaḥīḥ mursal, meaning that while the transmitters are bona fide, the chains are incomplete and do not go back to an eyewitness. Thus, the reports are viewed as insufficiently reliable to establish the factuality of the incident. The incident is not cited in any canonical ḥadīth collection, although it does appear in some non-canonical collections.

--ITAQALLAH 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So? I said the isnads we see now are mursal. I also said a lot more, read it again. "The satanic verses incident seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muhammad" and was only rejected when new doctrines developed that contradicted it (basically the idea that a prophet could even temporarily be influenced by Satan). Western scholars (including western-trained Muslims) and the early Muslim scholars agree on this issue. More to come from Rubin. Arrow740 02:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ok, so you (presumably an unreliable source) are claiming, in rather sweeping fashion, that all early Muslim scholars and all Western scholars consider it historically sound, while Welch (presumably a reliable source, who himself rejects its historicity) says that most European scholars consider it sound, while most Muslim scholars consider it unsound. as for whatever fantastic theories about isnad-tampering Rubin forwards, that can probably be addressed over at Satanic Verses - for our purposes, it's sensible to say that the authenticity (and its interpretation) is disputed - which it is. ITAQALLAH 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You are being purposefully misleading. No one denies that the narrative in Tabari is not completely accurate. There is broad concensus that Muhammad delivered then retracted certain henotheistic verses. That includes Welch. We're only talking here about the data present in this article: henotheistic verses delivered then retracted. The story in Tabari is disputed. We're not mentioning it, except in a footnote that I will soon fix. I have already gone over this with you in this section and hope not to have to do it a third time. No, I'm not the one saying that all early Muslim scholars and all Western scholars consider it historically sound. The EoQ is in fact saying it. Peters, Watt, Lewis, Cook, Kohlberg, Lambton, Holt, Muir, Hughes, Erickson, Rodinson, Rahman, Welch, and Sahas say that this happened. I see your receptiveness to new ideas when you call a theory "fantastic" without having personal familiarity with the isnads in question. This issue is, as you say, not relevant here. We're here to relate history as described by reliable sources. Arrow740 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
this isn't about Muhammad delivering then retracting/abrogating particular verses, this is about the precise incident which apparently occured in the "last years of Mecca" where Muhammad was in the presence of polytheists and was tricked by Satan into reciting these verses (hence the "satanic verses"). it is quite inappropriate to blur the lines and claim that a scholar is in agreement just because he concedes a possibility of historicity in one fraction of the story. that you've completely reversed Welch's position, in spite of his clear denial of what is related in the primary sources, and that you are now suggesting some scholars object to certain parts of the narrative, leads me to i wonder what other critical disparities i may discover should i decide to go through this source mining one by one. as for Shahab's statement, he appears to be a bit more reserved in his paper about Ibn Taymiyya and the SV (Studia Islamica, #87, p. 70): "The indications are that the incident formed a fairly standard element in the historical memory of the early Muslim community regarding the life of its founder (ftn: That the incident is a standard element in the early Muslim historical memory does not, of course, necessarily mean that it constitutes historical fact)." as we know (and as Shahab explains), objections didn't arise solely because doctrines had been codified, but also because hadith methodology had also been codified and standardised in the light of the increase of fabricated reports. Shahab has also done a detailed analysis of the isnad as part of his PhD dissertation, and if his EoQ comments are anything to go by, he doesn't appear to put much confidence in them. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What was the point of this post? You also said Welch accepted the historicity of certain details. I assumed you had read the text carefully. Arrow740 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
i can already strike five names off that list you provide after several minutes of checking up. the list of refs provided in the article (from which you assumedly have listed the names here) have some interesting entries. one is the Cambridge History of Islam, presumably from which you declare that Holt, Lambton, and Lewis assert the historicity of the incident. what you had perhaps overlooked, is that the chapter in question is written by Montgomery Watt, not by the three aforementioned authors - who are the editors of the book, and it is not reasonable to assume they agree with the every assertion of Watt or the other authors of the various chapters(-3 from your list). we know that Welch denies the historicity of the "satanic" verses,(-4) and Erickson's book on "Islam and Postcolonial narrative" is just that. a major part of his book is about Salman Rushdie's book and the "apocryphal "satanic" verses condemned as heretical by Islamic authorities" (p. 37). on pages 140 and onwards, which the article cites, Erickson is providing an overview of the narrative in Rushdie's book - he makes no assertions in confirming or denying the historicity itself. in fact, the whole scope of Erickson's book is about literary pieces and their impact, not historical analyses.(-5) i'll be sure to check up on those other books too. ITAQALLAH 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
On page 140 he asserts the historicity: "The verses that have come to be known historically in the West as the satanic verses, originally revealed to Muhammad, followed the present verses 19-20 of Sura LIII (The Star) of the Qur'an." He's not talking about Rushdie. Arrow740 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
if you read onwards (p. 141 etc), as well as the preface, it is clear he is discussing Rushdie's book. that comment follows a direct quote of the narrative from Rushdie. it's providing an overview of the incident and describing verses in question (not asserting it actually happened), or do you think he truly believes they were "originally revealed to Muhammad"? i think it's clear from his comment on p. 37 that he's not asserting authenticity. ITAQALLAH 18:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On page 140 he asserts the historicity: "The verses that have come to be known historically in the West as the satanic verses, originally revealed to Muhammad, followed the present verses 19-20 of Sura LIII (The Star) of the Qur'an." He's not talking about Rushdie. He then discusses Rodinson's opinion of the incident (not the book). This is obvious. Arrow740 19:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
i've already responded to this. see above. ITAQALLAH 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that later Islamic writers came to doubt the incident, but attributing Ibn Ishaq material to "Some early biographies," as Aminz did, is like attributing Qur'anic verses to "some early Islamic tracts."Proabivouac 04:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Proab, EoI quotes the story from Tabari and continues that: "This curious story, which is also found in Ibn Sad but not in Ibn Hisham and presumably not in Ibn Ishaq, is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention..."
Please explain why you object to saying that "some early biographies"? --Aminz 04:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand on what basis he presumes it wasn't in Ibn Ishaq - even so, Tabari's is hardly just "an early biography." That language seriously downplays its significance, as you can only be aware.Proabivouac 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All we have of Ibn Ishaq is through Ibn Hisham. Ibn Hisham gathered and edited Ibn Ishaq. We don't have the original text available. That's why he presumes it wasn't in Ibn Ishaq.
If you would like, we can mention that Ibn Sa'd and Tabari mention it but Ibn Hisham does not. If you are okay with that and if that's the only reason you completely reverted me here [10], please mention the names. --Aminz 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's unorthodox to mention who doesn't say something. Stating who does is usually thought enough, we don't follow with, "however, others say nothing like this." I also question that "Most Muslims reject this story…" Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "later Islamic scholars"? This is hardly a pillar of faith; I'd be surprised if most followers of any religion had any particular opinion about this.
"All we have of Ibn Ishaq is through Ibn Hisham."
All we have of Ibn Ishaq is through Ibn Hisham, Tabari or both.Proabivouac 06:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure who al-Waqidi is, but it is in some early work of his as well. It is actually in many places, as the EoQ extract says. Guillaume says it was in Ibn Ishaq. We will say it (i.e. something) happened as that's what mainstream scholars say. Arrow740 07:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Arrow, when you write things like this ("We will say it (i.e., something) happened as that's what mainstream scholars say") you incinerate good will with fellow editors of this article and make it impossible to work collaboratively with you.
  • I have been at pains to get you to acknowledge that the position you are battling for is not, for instance, what Burton says. Hawting seems dubious of the whole enterprise. Haykal dismisses the whole account as a fraud.
  • And yes, scholars who happen to be Muslim, and who disagree with you, are indeed worth noting. (In fact, incorporating their viewpoint would seem to me to be a basic component of writing "from the other side," which is a basic principle of objective content creation here.)
  • There is a persistent effort on your part to present unanimity on this issue that simply does not exist.
  • If you are seriously proposing that "mainstream" must be understood as "inclined at all times to believe the worst about Muhammad," I suggest you transfer your labors to a forum more suitable to your preconceptions. Faithfreedom.org comes to mind. BYT 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Biblical reference of Mohammed

I wish to propose inclusion of a link to page Biblical reference of Prophet Mohammed into See also list of items on Prophet Mohammed's page. This is useful link which refers instances where Prophet Jesus hints in Bible about Prophet Mohammed. Shalom04 11:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be ok; it will make an interesting addition. MP (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it would be an interesting addition. M2k41 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For obvious reasons, Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible.Proabivouac 04:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Its a good idea to have the Biblical prophecies related to Muhammad - as per muslim/non-muslim scholars. ~atif - 05:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Atif nazir, there are no Biblical prophecies related to Muhammad.Proabivouac 06:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should tell us: whom was Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) refering to (the comforter, the spirit of truth etc.) in the following quotes of the bible:
quackish quote-dump redacted.[11]Proabivouac 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is he in these verses of Bible? Thanks for your reply.Shalom04 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the first link says "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost," Arrow740 08:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(John 14:26) "he shall teach you all things" - based on Quran Muhammed did preach people;
(John 16:7-8) "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ... he will reprove the world of sin" - Muhammed did come c.a. 600 yrs after Jesus & there was no prophet coming between Jesus & Muhammed [12];
(John 14:12) "and greater [works] than these shall he do" - Islam spread because of Muhammed
(John 15:26) "he shall testify of me." - we all know Muhammed did testify Jesus as one of the mightiest messengers;
(Deu 18:18-19) "And the Lord said unto me, I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren" - we know Muhammed was raised from the tribes who were against him.
I dont think a Holy Ghost is doing this Shalom04 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a point of religious belief, not a point of fact. Christians see in the Old Testament passages that they say predict the coming of Jesus. It is not surprising that Muslims can find in the bible references to the coming of a later prophet. It may be relevant for the article but should obviously not be given the status of fact. Needs a reliable secondary source. Itsmejudith 09:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's plumb crazy, pure hallucination. I understand Tom harrison and ScienceApologist completely. At a certain point one says, what the heck am I doing arguing this? Is there actually any good reason why outright cranks are invited to contribute? Is there some benefit to be gained from revisiting this ridiculous argument? This isn't www.ZakirNaik.comProabivouac 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is only matter of belief, some cranks do and some dont. Also I don't find why not to include in the article as it 'seem' according to some that it may be true (as Quran recognises & supports some of the verses from Bible). Since the statements are notable it should be given a fair thought Shalom04 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. All religious beliefs are ridiculous if you don't believe them. Non-believers tend to think the virgin birth is "plumb crazy, pure hallucination" but it is a tenet of both Christianity and Islam. Itsmejudith 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is upto an individuals to set belief, no compulsions. Nevertheless when some statements are made "with" suitable quotes humans should ponder & think over it. Blind faith in any religion is not correct, including Islam. God has given intelligence (thinking power) and that differentiate humans from animals Shalom04 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Itsmejudith, that was unduly harsh of me. At the core of several major faiths are some very tendentious claims. What distinguishes this one is that (to the best of my knowledge) it is neither mainstream nor traditional. Were this a longstanding pillar of the Islamic faith, then we'd be obliged to present it very prominently. The only time I've ever heard this is in the comparative dawah of Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik and websites such as answering-christianity. Also, Islamic view of the Bible gives this cite.[13]Proabivouac 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank for giving it a thought. Appreciated. I suggest that I rework the contents on Islamic view of the Bible a bit making it encyclopedic and bring in more clarity with proper notations. ok? Shalom04 09:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I am not sure but it might be appropriate to provide a link to the arguments provided by various sides regarding the story of the so-called satanic verses incident. The link should include the arguments of made in favor (e.g. it is unthinkable to be a forgery) and against (the story contains elements that belong not to Meccan but Medinian period, its chain of transmission, possible motivations for forgery etc etc ) the historicity. On the other hand, this is a minor point for this article, and i don't think much details should be given. --Aminz 07:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They can go to the main article. There are many more arguments, by the way. The mainstream scholars say it happened, so we say it happened. All the early Muslims thought it was historical, as well. It was only rejected when new doctrines developed. You should read the EoQ article on it. Arrow740 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Arrow, when you write things like this ("The mainstream scholars say it happened") you incinerate good will with fellow editors of this article and make it impossible to work collaboratively with you.
  • I have been at pains to get you to acknowledge that the position you are battling for is not, for instance, what Burton says. Hawting seems dubious of the whole enterprise. Haykal dismisses the whole account as a fraud.
  • And yes, scholars who happen to be Muslim, and who disagree with you, are indeed worth noting. (In fact, incorporating their viewpoint would seem to me to be a basic component of writing "from the other side," which is a basic principle of objective content creation here.)
  • There is a persistent effort on your part to present unanimity on this issue that simply does not exist.
  • If you are seriously proposing that "mainstream" must be understood as "inclined at all times to believe the worst about Muhammad," I suggest you transfer your labors to a forum more suitable to your preconceptions. Faithfreedom.org comes to mind. BYT 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT, there's nothing obviously wrong with Meccan polytheism. I don't see how one can see Muhammad's acknowledgment of its validity as meaning we "believe the worst about Muhammad" I wouldn't call those verses "Satanic" myself: what's so bad about trying to find some common ground?Proabivouac 10:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
they are referred to as 'Satanic' because tradition relates that the verses were inspired from Satan and then retracted when Muhammad became aware of what had occured. ITAQALLAH 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I was aware of that, but thank you. I suppose I meant to say that this is only "believing the worst of Muhammad" from a worldview in which Muhammad is the perfect model of ideological consistency, oblivious to any other practical considerations, in a way that almost no other historical figure has ever been. Non-Muslim biographers tend to search for humanity beneath the hagiography and attempt to reframe the heroic narrative as a naturalistic one. The notion that he might have tried to placate the Meccans isn't evil except from the assumption that there is no greater evil (for Muhammad, at least) than shirk. Non-Muslims are not likely to see anything sinister in this: the word "interfaith" comes to mind, and we do it all the time.Proabivouac 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Have the grownups arrived? Let's get down to brass tacks, then. A responsible summary of this historical brouhaha does belong in here. It needs to accommodate the following points:

  • (1) The account is and has been controversial.
  • (2) It is and has been a signal dividing-point between Orientalist and Islamic conceptions of the biography of Muhammad. If you or others believe (2) is unworthy of mention here, please check which dimension you are occupying.
  • (3) Orientalists (with some exceptions) tend to believe yada yada yada. Here are their good reasons for doing so. Exceptions to this viewpoint include A, B, and C.
  • (4) Islamic scholars (with some exceptions) tend to believe yada yada yada. Here are their good reasons for doing so. Exceptions to this viewpoint include A, B, and C.
  • (5) Like many flashpoints, the name itself is controversial. "Satanic Verses" is a Western coinage, and one fraught with emotion; Muslims have referred to the same events as the "Story of the Cranes."

N.B.: We should not lead with the words "Satanic Verses," or reference it, unless we give the alternate name "Story of the Cranes" or its Arabic equivalent.

N.B.: Number (4) should include reference to the story's postmodernist :) minglings of Meccan and Medinan elements; to the strength [or lack thereof] of the isnad (and perhaps an explanation of why such a concern is important); and to possible hidden agendas for creating and circulating the story in the first place.

N.B.: Number (3) (the outline of which I leave to you and your friends -- note the presumably non-royal "we" in your message above) should be roughly the same length as (4).

Pro, I know you had talked about this being a few sentences in total, but the matter is important enough to get right, and important enough to address responsibly. Thanks to Rushdie (whose picture I expect to be proposed for inclusion at the head of this article any day now), everyone will be interested in getting a clearer sense of what all the fuss is about. It's a question we are indeed obliged to answer. Responsibly and objectively.

Care to take a crack at a draft of this? BYT 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You incinerate what credibility you have with fellow editors of this article when you continue to mention the opinion of a known apologist (Haykal) as significant and imply that I am somehow not "grown up." All I see from you here is polemic with no sources to back it up. Here's what Hawting has to say about your extreme minority token, Burton: "His solution to the problem has not been widely accepted. That is partly due to the extreme complexity of his argument. Mainly, though, it is because a story in which Satan casts things on the tongue of the Prophet, and God then intervenes to restore the true revelation, does not really serve to justify or exemplify a theory that God reveals something and later replaces it Himself with another true revelation." Page 135. The (Muslim) Fazlur Rahman says it happened. The (presumably Muslim) Shahab Ahmed has this to say in the EoQ: "The satanic verses incident is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qurʾān commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra." He also says, "The satanic verses incident is not carried by isnāds that are complete and sound (ṣaḥīḥ); at best, some of the isnāds are ṣaḥīḥ mursal, meaning that while the transmitters are bona fide, the chains are incomplete and do not go back to an eyewitness.." Other sources say that the versions of the story found in the exegetic sources are "mostly mursal." One version of the satanic verses "is remarkable because it also appears as a Companion isnad ending with Ibn 'Abbas, who is quoted by Ibn Jubayr." Page 162. He notes that "the muttasil form continues to Ibn 'Abbas, but only survives in a few sources." He notes some more details then says "In conclusion, the name of Ibn 'Abbas must have been part of the original isnad." page 256. Al-Waqidi also quotes a companion to the effect that "the state of isolation made Muhammad wish that God would send down to him milder revelations that would draw Quraysh closer to him." Rubin page 161. The story of the polytheists performing sujud with the Muslims has complete isnads and is in Bukhari. Rubin says "the only reasonable explanation for these versions is that they contain traces of the story of the satanic verses." Page 166. That's how they all refer to it, by the way. Hawting doesn't take a stand on the historicity. He seems to doubt the reliability of any early Islamic sources ala Wansborough. Arrow740 08:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT, I agree that "Story of the Cranes" is a much less prejudicial (as well as more descriptive) moniker. If some sources use this, we should, too, with "Satanic verses" in parentheses.Proabivouac 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I did some work on it. Feedback appreciated. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Or just revert it. Either way. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My bat sense tells me that back and forth reverting without dialogue is unlikely to continue. WilyD 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think add it in Quran article and not in Muhammad. Otherwise, there are many other verses to talk about. Will I be allowed to add many other such verses with events behind them. --- A. L. M. 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, it is about Muhammad and Quran and should be present in both articles, at the least. Please revert your change and add the section to Qur'an. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There are already several such verses, A.L.M. This one has received more attention that most because of its significance to the biography.Proabivouac 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It cannot be stated as an undisputed fact when a significant view point exists that opposes it. It does not feature in the hadith, it does not feature in the Quran even unlike abrogated verses which are still part of the text. Not mentioning the fact that the veracity of the account is doubted would be a gross oversight on the part of any encyclopedia. Mark it up as such a simple controversial would allow the reader to look up the details of it in the appropiate article.--213.42.21.59 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

How was my suggested version:

Many early biographies of Muhammad report that in the late Meccan period, Satan casted two verses on Muhammad's tongue that recognized three Meccan pagan goddesses, but they were repudiated by Muhammad later at the behest of the angel Gabriel. Later Muslims scholars raised strong objections to the historicity of the story and its chain of transmission. Most European biographers, however, accept the historicity of the incident. [1] [2]

Does this sounds good? --Aminz 03:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so your suggestion is: state something mainstream scholars view to be historical as merely reported. Then, given biased scholarship and mainstream scholarship equal mention. Also, we mention the arguments of the biased scholars and call them "strong" while ignoring the objective analysis. Why waste our time with this suggestion? Arrow740 07:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We absolutely must not imply that the intervention of the Angel Gabriel is historic fact. The previous attempts, claimed so forcefully to reflect objective history, were also open to this objection. Some grammar tweaks would be needed and a rethink of the word "strong" to qualify "objections". I do hope that we are now debating sensibly. Itsmejudith 07:47, 26 MaJuly 2007 (UTC)
Can't say I've had time to think about all of this too deeeply, but "raised strong objections to" should certainly read "rejected."
Another thing: I doubt too many "European biographers" would agree that Satan cast anything or that Gabriel corrected anything here.(edit conflict) per IMJ. The more common assumption is that Muhammad really said these verses, and then took them back for whatever reason. That's a much more interesting story.Proabivouac 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

EoQ said "strong objections"; I didn't add it on my own. Anyways, instead we can say "rejecting the incident became the sole orthodox position". Either way is fine with me.

So, here is another version:

Many early biographies of Muhammad report that in the late Meccan period, Satan casted two verses on Muhammad's tongue that recognized three Meccan pagan goddesses, but they were repudiated by Muhammad later at the behest of the angel Gabriel. Later Muslims scholars raised objections to the historicity of the story and its chain of transmission to the extent that rejecting the story became the only orthodox position. Most European biographers, however, accept the historicity of the incident. [3] [4]

--Aminz 08:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tangential cherry-picking. The following needs to be stated for the record. Hawting says that another argument for authenticity is "that there is a sufficiently large number of versions of the story, preceded by different statements about the authorities and transmitters of the reports, to make one believe that there must be some basis in fact for them" (page 134). We can't obscure facts like the following: " Those scholars who acknowledged the historicity of the incident apparently had a different method for the assessment of reports than that which has become standard Islamic methodology. For example, Ibn Taymiyya took the position that since tafsīr and sīra-maghāzī reports were commonly transmitted by incomplete isnāds, these reports should not be assessed according to the completeness of the chains but rather on the basis of recurrent transmission of common meaning between reports (al-tawātur bi-l-maʿnā; Ahmed, Ibn Taymiyyah)" by only giving the current orthodox position. --Arrow740 08:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The source says it "Strong objections" were made upto the point that "the rejection of the historicity of the incident eventually became the only acceptable orthodox position"
I've added eventually:

Many early biographies of Muhammad report that in the late Meccan period, Satan casted two verses on Muhammad's tongue that recognized three Meccan pagan goddesses, but they were repudiated by Muhammad later at the behest of the angel Gabriel. Later Muslims scholars raised objections to the historicity of the story and its chain of transmission to the extent that rejection of the story eventually became the only orthodox position. Most European biographers, however, accept the historicity of the incident. [5] [6]

--Aminz 08:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why mention their arguments and not the arguments made by authoritative scholars? It's in all the early biographies except Ibn Hisham, which is just an edited version of Ibn Ishaq, it occurs in all the early exegetical material, it meets the reliability criteria the compilers of the sira used and has a complete isnad in some places (having lost it elsewhere after doctrines developed that contradicted it as Rubin says must be the case), still survives in sahih hadith as the stories of pagans worshiping with Muslims, and was as much a part of the story of Muhammad as anything else in the first two centuries of Islam. Mainstream scholars say it happened for good reasons. We'll do what we do, follow the reliable secondary sources, and say it happened. Arrow740 08:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be undue weight to go into details and mention the arguments. The details can go to the main article. --Aminz 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow - this is an instant classic, Aminz. Arrow740 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
actually, we can just relate things how Welch does. no amount of source mining or belittling of opposition arguments will change the fact that it is an area of dispute. i am not sure how much trust we can put in these sweeping declarations of consensus, it's already known above that you've attributed positions to scholars for which there is no supportive evidence. it may also be pertinent to support the Welch assertion about disagreement with this extract from Text and Trauma: An East-West Primer by I.R. Netton (Routledge, p. 86): "Yet the story of the Satanic Verses has by no means been accepted uncritically down the ages, either in past or in the present, M.M Ahsan provides us with a list of very distinguished Muslim writers who "have all rejected the story as preposterous and without foundation"..."; he then goes on to describe the arguments of MM Ahsan (who has previously written in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient), Caetani and Burton in reasonable detail. that, along with Welch's denial of the general historicity and substantial rejection by much of Muslim scholarship (conveniently denounced as "biased scholarship"), suggests that we can cease this needless debate and relate that the incident is disputed, which it is. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"it's already known above that you've attributed positions to scholars for which there is no supportive evidence." Which? Stop with the red herring. This is the sixth time I've told you. We're not relating the story from Tabari, but the story from Lewis, which is he gave the henotheistic verses then retracted them. Arrow740 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile this wholly banal, uninteresting and palpably unencyclopedic text

Muhammad grew more and more hopeless at this time. The Qur'an consoles him, saying "if it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! " and "(Allah has knowledge) of the (Prophet's) cry, "O my Lord! Truly these are people who will not believe! But turn away from them, and say "Peace!" But soon shall they know!"

goes uncontested.Proabivouac 09:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the focus needs to stay on Muhammad and his life. The incident is worth mentioning here in the context of what exactly? His efforts to work out a way to get along with his fellow-tribesmen? I think we need to make more clear why this is relevant, mentioning the incident in no more detail than necessary to support that relevance. And by the way, the phrase It is claimed that... should almost never appear in this encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think add that in criticism of Muhammad or Quran. Not here. It is not much relevant and a controversy to begin with. However, I know that we have more controversy team here and they will force it on us just like images. -- A. L. M. 13:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we have both viewpoints and leave all this bickering behind us, let's keep it NPOV. Mention both Islamic and western viewpoints with regards to the "Satanic verses", why is it supported and why is it seen as a fabrication? Give both sides their evidence and reasoning and let the reader decide for themself? Let's not take it as fact, but let's explain why it exists in history as well. Thoughts? M2k41 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight. Arrow740 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's two unnecessary extra lines explaining the controversy which make the event more important that it has been. Solution is just mention that the story has a controversial or disputed aspect and leave it to the article to exhaustively deal with that aspect. "In a controversial account known as the "Story of the Cranes," some of the earliest extant biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses." Is the only line required in that paragraph that sums the issue, leaves a link for its exploration and avoid giving the issue more weight that it takes up.--Tigeroo 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Re "controversial": 1) that it appears in the earliest biographies isn't controversial 2) that later Islamic scholars came to reject it isn't controversial. Is there something else?Proabivouac 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1) Muslim scholars reject the Story of the Cranes isn't disputed 2) Cook believes it played a part in hostility with the tribe but clearly not everyone follows 3) Chronological development is too much unnecessary detail.--Tigeroo 22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1) Right, that's what I'm saying. Islamic scholars reject it; that's not controversial. 2) Solution: attribute this to Cook, as I'd done earlier. 3) It's vital to say that it was rejected later, because earlier Islamic scholars didn't reject it, but are the source of the narrative. "Later" isn't much detail anyhow. Arrow740 specified "starting in the tenth century", which seems to have inspired a counterpoint that the earliest extant records date from the ninth. It's become less and less clear what we are arguing about.Proabivouac 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't know about earlier Islamic scholars stand. It was noted in Tabaris account which was not exclusively about the prophet, the account was not mentioned in the Sira. We do know they discussed it and considered it's plausibility to varying degrees and that it became a consensus to reject it later. It did not even make it to the hadith collection which occur well before the date offered for a consensus rejection as well. If you start putting some information here, then it must be balanced by the addition of even more information. Too little space for that, just mention a divergence of views and let the details go to article page.--Tigeroo 23:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"the account was not mentioned in the Sira" are you joking? Read the EoQ extract I provided above. Arrow740 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, re your recent edit:[14]

  • "Two of the earliest biographies of Muhammad (Tabari, Ibn Sa'ad)" - one of these may represent the very earliest (and by far most important) biography, Ibn Ishaq's, and even if you don't consider that to count, due to Ibn Hisham, we're still looking at two of the three earliest surviving biographies of Muhammad. We could just as easily say, "All but one of…"
  • "say that Muhammad at this time delivering" is ungrammatical.
  • "delivering (what Muslims have called "Story of the cranes"" - false, Muhammad did not deliver what is called the "Story of the Cranes", the bios did - the story is the story about Muhammad delivering the verses which Western scholars call the Satanic Verses. If there is an Islamic name for these, we should state it.
  • How on earth do you consider the fact that these goddesses were considered to be the daughters of Allah - indeed, one was thought to be Allah's wife as well - to be anything but central?
  • "post 19-th century western scholars" - yet this detail is somehow central. What did western scholars call it before the 19th century?Proabivouac 07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • We don't have Ibn Ishaq and scholars guess how it should have been (e.g. Welch guesses it wasn't there and probably you can find another scholar who guesses it was there). So, let's only report facts. Let's put that aside. I am personally fine with "All but one of…" though Welch in EoI specifically names the two against Ibn Hisham. I wouldn't personally object to either your way or Welch's way.
  • The name "Satanic Verses" is dubbed by Muir and is a recent one. "Story of the Cranes" is the traditional name and is more established. Maybe saying "Muslims have traditionally called "Story of the cranes" solve the problem.
  • It is not central that they were daughters of Allah. It is centeral that they were important goddesses to Meccans not per say that they were daughters of Allah. Plus, according to Watt, "the phrase banāt Allāh may originally have meant no more than “celestial beings” (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, 106)"(cf. al- ʿUzzā- EoI)
  • I think I've answered this above; if it is not clear, please let me know to clarify. --Aminz 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, if Watt states that "the phrase banāt Allāh may originally have meant no more than "celestial beings"" - well, no, actually, it means no more than "daughters of God." Nothing about "celestial," and nothing about "beings" (except by implication, if something is a daughter, it is also, trivially, a being.) This establishes that Watt is a poor translator indeed, perhaps even a dishonest one. See Waardenburg (2002: 25) - there are many celestial beings, but only these three in this category, and they are above all others in the pre-Islamic Arabian religion except Allah. This is particularly obviously in the case of Allāt, whose name means "Godette," and as mentioned was also Allah's wife - not some random "celestial being" at all.
On "Story of the Cranes," you're missing my point. "Story of the Cranes" is the story that Muhammad said these words; "Satanic Verses" are the words themselves. "Story of the Cranes" is a better name, but for a different thing.Proabivouac 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
EoQ says: "The satanic verses incident is reported in the tafsīr (qurʾānic exegesis; see exegesis of the qurʾān: classical and medieval ) and the sīra-maghāzī literature (epic prophetic biography; see sīra and the qurʾān ) dating from the first two centuries of Islam. While the numerous reports on the incident differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, they may be broadly collated as follows." also, "The satanic verses incident is reported in the respective tafsīr corpuses transmitted from almost every Qurʾān commentator of note in the first two centuries of the hijra "The incident also appears in the respective sīra-maghāzī works transmitted in the first two centuries from ʿUrwa b. al-Zubayr (d. 94/713), Muḥammad b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī (d. 124/742), Mūsā b. ʿUqba (d. 141/748), Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 150/767), Abū Maʿshar al-Sindī (d. 170/786) and Muḥammad b. ʿUmar al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823). Thus, the satanic verses incident seems to have constituted a standard element in the memory of the early Muslim community about the life of Muḥammad (q.v.). The incident continued to be cited and its historicity accepted by ¶ several Qurʾān commentators and authors of sīra-maghāzī works throughout the classical period, including authors of important commentaries, such as Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Abū Isḥāq al-Thaʿlabī (d. 427/1035), Abū l-Ḥasan al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), al-Wāḥidī al-Nīsābūrī (d. 468/1076), al-Ḥusayn b. al-Farrāʾ al-Baghawī (d. 516/1122), Jār Allāh al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī (d. 864/1459) and others. Further, Rubin says that versions of the story were circulated by ibn Ishaq and Musa ibn 'Uqba (page 161). It was all over the place in the early literature; in some places it has a companion isnad ending with Ibn 'Abbas. Arrow740 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Guillaume, Rubin, and EoQ say it was in Ibn Ishaq. Tabari said he got it via ibn ishaq. Rubin says ibn ishaq circulated versions of the story. Ibn ishaq appears in some isnads. Welch's "presumably" doesn't match up to this evidence. But we should say "early Muslim literature" because according to EoQ, it was everywhere in the early literature. Arrow740 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Re Proab's comment: Well, It is beyond my competence to judge the case or to comment on your evluation of Watt. I quoted Encyclopedia of Islam. Maybe I should quote more from EoI and add my own conjecture:"However, the phrase banāt Allāh may originally have meant no more than “celestial beings” (Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, 106) and is paralleled in the 1st century A.D. by a Palmyrene votive text to the bnt ʾl (Ḵh̲. al-Asʿad and J. Teixidor, in CRAI [1985], 286-93) and probably even earlier by Qatabanic and Sabaic dedications to the bnty ʾl (i.e. the dual) and bnt ʾl (pl.), with in no case any indication as to the identity of these beings (Ryckmans, in JSS, xxv [1980] 200-3)."
I'd like to add that there has been attempts to identify al-Uzza with "venus". In any case, I have to stay agnostic on this issue and I hope you understand my position.
In any case, I don't think this particular detail is relevant to our own story here.
Re: "Satanic verses" and "Story of the Cranes" bit. I don't have any problem mentioning that that recent westerners have dubbed the term "Satanic verses", but if we are going to mention details such as those names, I think mentioning "Story of the Cranes" seems more justified and should proceed, as it is better established and has been around for a much longer time. --Aminz 08:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You included a late Muslim argument against historicity. Then I showed you the more compelling arguments for historicity, from Western scholars and early Muslims, and you responded with "It would be undue weight to go into details and mention the arguments." Then today you added an argument back in. What's going on? Arrow740 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Arrow. I didn't include any "argument" in any detail, I included what the arguments are about. I was simply reporting the reasons those scholars rejected the story without providing any evaluation of the validity of their argument. You quoted for an scholar who disagreed and I added the word eventually to make my sentence accurate. I don't think it is necessary to evaluate the arguments, just to report how they are made. Details can go to the mother article. --Aminz 08:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"with in no case any indication as to the identity of these beings" - there is a very direct indication of the purported identity of these beings in their title, "daughters of God."Proabivouac 08:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather stay agnostic in such matters of scholarly disagreements.But anyways, I feel this is hardly relevant to our story here. --Aminz 08:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, there is no "scholarly disagreement": that banāt Allāh means "daughters of God" isn't opinion, but fact nearly as transparent and tautological as that "daughters of God" means "daughters of God."
"Re: "Satanic verses" and "Story of the Cranes" bit. I don't have any problem mentioning that that recent westerners have dubbed the term "Satanic verses", but if we are going to mention details such as those names, I think mentioning "Story of the Cranes" seems more justified and should proceed, as it is better established and has been around for a much longer time."
Are you actually reading what is posted here? "Satanic Verses" are what Western scholars call the verses Muhammad supposedly delivered, "The Story of the Cranes" is the story that he delivered them. The verses themselves aren't a "story" at all, but a statement of religious dogma. I would completely agree with you, except that the terms refer to different things: that Muhammad delivered the "Satanic verses" is part of the "Story of the Cranes."Proabivouac 09:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That they were worshiped as "daughters of God" can be an opinion. If true, the Qur'an's intent and rthoric for using this phrase might be understood from its neighboring verses. In any case, I am really fine if you feel Watt has made a grave mistake in adding such a case and EoI has made a bigger mistake in not correcting him. Anyways, let's move on as I don't think this deserves more discussion in this article's talk page.
Re: "Satanic verses" and "Story of the Cranes" bit, yes, I well understood your point. I meant that we can rewrite the story in a way that we mention "The Story of the Cranes" first and "Satanic Verses" later. We can in fact qualify "Western scholars" with "recent Western scholars" to make that accurate. --Aminz 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Satanic verses"/"Story of the Cranes" - sure, let's mention both. That's what I'd done. I don't see how it matters which is mentioned first: they're not in competition.Proabivouac 09:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What we really need here is a sentence fixing the place of this purported incident in the biography. According to these accounts, Muhammad was dejected because the Meccan pagans were rejecting his message. We had a cite to that effect earlier on - I deleted it, because it had no context besides some generic-sounding Qur'anic quotes, but we might restore it. These accounts tell that Muhammad, the Muslims and the Meccan pagans alike prostrated themselves after the delivery of this verse, to which the Meccan pagans reacted with delight. Whether or not one accepts the authenticity of the narrative, certainly these details help illustrate the significance and meaning of this incident, if it happened: it is about Muhammad attempting to solve a political problem at a critical stage in his career.Proabivouac 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of mentioning this particular detail (prostration) if we would like to mention one; because the "prostration", according to EoI, was not a Meccan element (but rather a Medinian one). This is one of the "weak" parts of the narrative. --Aminz 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever that person's opinion, multiple people have commented that the fact that we have this incident in the sahih collections is strong evidence for the historicity of the satanic verses episode. Arrow740 09:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What would you say instead of "prostrate?"Proabivouac 09:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Aminz is merely engaing in original research aimed at casting doubt on the story. Beit Or 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No one denies that some details of the story are false. Even the EoI notes that and then proposes a theory of the historicity of the basic narrative, which is what we're discussing here. The ahistorical nature of certain details has been used as a red herring here by Aminz and Itaqallah over and over again. Here is what Hawting says is one argument put forth for historicity: "There is a sufficiently large number of different versions of the story, preceeded by different statements about the authorities and transmitters of the reports, to make one believe that there must be some basis in fact for them." The issue here is not the exact details of ibn Ishaq's account but the core narrative of the henotheistic verses delivered then retracted. Arrow740 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"Even the EoI notes that and then proposes a theory of the historicity of the basic narrative" - actually, Welch makes a complete denial of the story as found in the primary sources (Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, Waqidi). then, he states that this does not discount the possibility of some historical kernel therein, and proposes - as an example- an alternate possibility; he certainly doesn't endorse it as what he believes occured, and nowhere does he specify that the verses in question form part of that possibility. in truth, much of this debate belongs over at Talk:Satanic Verses. we're looking at one or two sentences describing what is reported, while making clear that the topic is disputed, and certainly not forwarding any analyses on the presumption of authenticity (Cook). as long as we can all agree that - in principle - this is the way forward (which unfortunately doesn't seem likely), then we may proceed in setting the needless and tangental arguments for/against authenticity and work on a version that is accurate and acceptable to all involved. ITAQALLAH 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"Welch makes a complete denial of the story as found in the primary sources (Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, Waqidi). then, he states that this does not discount the possibility of some historical kernel therein." If he denies the story completely, then he cannot countenance the possibility of any truth therein. You've pushed your red herring to the limit here. By the way, there are other primary sources and other versions of the story. Arrow740 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
actually, there is no contradiction between him denying the general story and while stipulating that not everything within it may be false. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've proved my point. However, we can go back and forth for as long as you feel compelled to do so. Arrow740 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"…and certainly not forwarding any analyses on the presumption of authenticity (Cook)"
I disagree with that. If accounts of incident are credited widely enough to merit inclusion - as they are - some comment/context re their significance to the biography is appropriate. It would be perverse, as some have suggested, to devote more space to detailing disagreements about the historicity of the account than to describing the account itself, which is more than Muhammad delivering the verse. Currently missing are why he should have been moved to do so and the immediate effect of its delivery, both of which are described quite specifically in al-Tabari's account (at least.)Proabivouac 02:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
i don't believe specific arguments about the historicity are necessary here whatsoever, all that's needed is to relate what is reported in a non-commital manner, and to note that it's disputed. the context that you allude to which surrounds the incident (i.e. increased hostility/difficulty) merits mention even in the absence of this particular passage. much of the opposition is due to the argument that the incident shouldn't be expressed as historical fact, so to declare (or present an opinion) that Muhammad reverted is tantamount to asserting the factuality of the incident. ITAQALLAH 02:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hence, we've insisted that the account be attributed to the biographies, and that the following analysis be attributed to Cook. It's hardly the only thing in this article to which one might object on this ground, and far from the most inherently unlikely: this just happens to be one of the few examples from the traditions where (most) Western academic scholars believe it occurred, but (most) Islamic scholars don't, rather than vice-versa.Proabivouac 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
looking at the current Cook attribution, it seems that part of the original passage (which was more opinionated) has been removed. the retraction is actually part of the story, so it could be mentioned within the previous sentence. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The current version acknowledges that Muslim scholars began to deny it. Mainstream scholars include this event as part of their treatments of Muhammads life (including Cook, whose biography is brief) because it is significant in understanding his life and career. That's why we should include it. Discussions of shifting opinions of this event are tangential. You keep harping on Welch as part of your red herring. You should know that Welch believes that Sura 53 has been revised and contains later interpolations. From my reading of Hawting's discussion of Welch's work, it seems that Welch doesn't put any great faith in any of the Islamic sources. As such his discussion is highly abstract and borders on literary criticism. He is not the best source for use in a biography, and something like this should be expressed in the satanic verses article so that his position can best be understood. Arrow740 05:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
i think we agree that the incident should be mentioned. i'll suggest a few tweaks which i think could help settle the dispute. a lot of scholars maintain a lot of peculiar stances on particular issues. speaking of red herrings... Welch doesn't need to believe in the preservation of the Qur'an to write a bio on Muhammad, and his EoI account bases itself quite frequently on the primary sources - even his discussion of the primary sources in his introduction doesn't cast doubt over their general use. most Modern academics are quite cautious when using the primary sources anyway- that includes Watt et al., so there's nothing unique in what you're attributing to him. ITAQALLAH 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re BYT edits

Re BYT's recent edits:[15]

  • "In a controversial account…"
The central facts aren't controversial 1) it appears in the earliest biographies 2) it was (and still is) rejected by later Islamic scholars. There is a difference of opinion in academic scholarship, but I see no evidence that it this any more "controversial" than any other disagreement. If there is any controversy, it is related to the Rushdie novel, not to anything we're discussing here.
  • "…they are seen by most, but not all, Western scholars as historical…"
I do not think we need to mention that most Western scholars assume the account to be historical because it appears in the biographies. Stating that it appears in the biographies is enough for this main article. Additionally, "but not all" is redundant.
  • "According to this version of events…"
"This version of events" is palpably and unduly skeptical, and fundamentally inaccurate: there is no other version of these events, which doubters deny occurred at all.
  • "…they are also seen as recognizing the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah."
Besides being seen as poor writing, and also being seen as weasel words, it's also completely unnecessary: few dispute that this is what the verse would mean, were it delivered. This is al-Tabari's interpretation as well, and, according to al-Tabari, was the interpretation of the Meccans who heard it, and of Gabriel, who repudiated it.
  • This is a poor source; we can do better.Proabivouac 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RfM

  • There is a pending request for an RFM on this matter here.

... please respond. If you feel the dispute has not been adequately described, please use the talk page there so we can develop a fair and workable description of it, and then move forward. BYT 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How can we be sure we need mediation without knowing what we're mediating? Whatever it is, we should first attempt to resolve it here on the talk page, wouldn't you agree?Proabivouac 20:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Proabivouac

  • Now you want to get some back and forth going on the talk page about how to actually edit the article? How about when I asked you to work with me there collaboratively to develop a draft? Silence.
  • As to you not really being a party to this dispute, note how this diff shows you a) deleting precisely the same source Arrow deleted, b) treating Muhammad as the "author" of the Qur'an ("in which he recognized the validity...") and c) acting as though all early biographies give the "Story of the Cranes" account. Orchestrated button-pushing, by the looks of it, button-pushing of the kind no discussion or appeal on the talk page, apparently, will quell. Button-pushing of which I've had my fill, especially when you, an editor with a clearly functioning brain, do not respond to talk-page requests to work constructively on the text in question.
  • I've had quite enough of the Gang-Up Revert-o-Mat, thanks. Please see Daniel's note here, with my response, and please indicate your response to the RFM here.
  • If you feel the terms of the dispute should be rephrased, please let me know, so we can work together to rephrase it in a fair and neutral way, Pro.
  • This is an important issue that deserves to be resolved definitively. BYT 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it relates solely to this article, I've moved the preceding comment from my talk page.Proabivouac 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, this is ridiculous. You removed all mention of the incident, then prefaced it with all sorts of weasel words and purposefully put the opinions of western scholarship in a box you feel comfortable with, then repeatedly spewed propaganda from a religious source after being asked to stop. You even removed the phrase "satanic verses." Arrow740 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT's comments may be related to the article, but they sound more like a personal attack. Beit Or 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT, there's an entire conversation going on in the section above, including a discussion of the edit you've just repeated, which is waiting for you to rejoin. To the extent that any "button-pushing" has been "orchestrated," you'll see it happening there. You're welcome to stop by my user talk, but that's not the best place to discuss the article, because everyone is already gathered here.
"this diff shows you a) deleting precisely the same source Arrow deleted, b) treating Muhammad as the "author" of the Qur'an ("in which he recognized the validity...") and c) acting as though all early biographies give the "Story of the Cranes" account."
a) Who is Abbas Bahmanpour? The only ghits I get are for that page and for this very article:[16] As I stated above (awaiting your reply,) surely we can do better than this for such an important point.
b) "treating Muhammad as the "author" of the Qur'an" - Um, this verse isn't part of the Qur'an. The latter-day Islamic position isn't that Gabriel or Allah wrote it, but that it didn't occur, while the earlier versions attribute it to Satan, who was responding to Muhammad's internal desire for reconciliation with his people. This sort of objection makes it sound like you've gone through a generic checklist of things in Islam-related articles to be offended by without thinking to whether it really applies.
c) "acting as though all early biographies give the "Story of the Cranes" account." - This has been addressed above. My earlier version attributed this directly to al-Tabari, but this somewhat understated it - it's also in al-Waqidi, and al-Tabari attributes it to Ibn-Ishaq.Proabivouac 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arabic

Maybe it's just my computer, but the Arabic for Muhammad's name seems to be screwed up. It's in the middle of the list of variations for his name. --MosheA 01:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Satanic Verses (new section)

Why is the account of this 'incident' written as though it actually happened !? If Rushdie had not written his book, would this actually be treated this way ?! Is this article about Muhammad the Prophet or about theories about Muhammad ?! Mention it if you like, and mention that this is considered apocryphal by the majority too. Don't state it as fact.
Who said: "It probably is a fact that it did happen". Probably, eh? So what is the probability ?! Authors who note this incident disagree on: The time, the place, the witnesses, the cause, etc. etc. At best, this is a controversial issue that was brought into light by Rushdie's book, and the ruckus that followed. Note: There are some verses in Quran that became obsolete. but remain in the Quran. See: Alcohol. This 'incident' is not in the Quran. Unflavoured 07:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Why is the account of this 'incident' written as though it actually happened… Is this article about Muhammad the Prophet or about theories about Muhammad?"
Unflavoured, the irony of these juxtaposed questions is impossible to let pass without comment. You are probably aware that most people do not accept that Muhammad was a prophet, having received revelations from the angel Gabriel - and that is hardly the only debatable or most improbable assertion in this article - yet we present these remarkable claims "as if they actually happened," with attribution. Here we have the rare case of disagreement where the majority of academic scholars agree with the Islamic biographies, and Islamic scholars don't. The solution is the same: attribute the claim, describe it without endorsement or undue skepticism - a.k.a. with a straight face - and move on.Proabivouac 07:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a single person has any opposition to that: attribute the claim, describe without endorsement or "undue skepticism. Don't state it as fact when it is a claim. Don't write arguments for and forget to include arguments against.
Note: You may not be aware, but most people do accept that Muhammad was a Prophet. I did not check them all, but most publications (Eastern or Western) about Muhammad write: he was the Prophet of Islam. Wake up. Unflavoured 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Muslims who use this phrase don't generally mean it in the way you'd have them mean it. For most, it is only a figure of speech meaning founder/central figure.
In any case, we do not currently include any "arguments for" the "Satanic verses" having occured - all that is stated (last I checked) is that the earliest biographies describe this, which is completely undisputed. The academic arguments for it having occurred (and there are many) are not presented. Even in the lead, we find "According to Islamic tradition, [series of improbable events]…" without contest: for there is no contest that Islamic tradition says just that. Yet here "According to the earliest biographies, [series of recognizably human and perfectly understandable events]…" is not enough: we have to make it clear how very very improbable this is to have occurred. According to whom, and compared to what?Proabivouac 08:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You do accept that the source for all analysis regarding revelation is the Quran ?! Now tell me, is this story in the Quran ?! The Quran is a stronger and more creditable and without a doubt much earlier source.
"Non-Muslims who use this phrase don't generally mean it in the way you'd have them mean it. For most, it is only a figure of speech meaning founder/central figure." So you admit they say he is the Prophet of Islam but somehow they don't mean what they say ?! This, too, would be impossible to let pass without comment, no !? But this does not help the article, so I am willing to drop it. Unflavoured 08:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the conflict

Arrow, who are the editors that have formed the consensus you are refering to here [17]? --Aminz 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one insisting on this. No one else has reverted for you. You have yet to respond to the fact that an "act of war" starts a war, Watt says Muhammad was being the aggressor, and Cook implies that the war was Muhammad's responsibility (by saying he had taken on more than he could handle). It is irresponsible to ignore these points and revert war to maintain a misleading line. Arrow740 07:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've asked you an specific question for now: You said there was a consensus on your side. Please show me the diffs to the comments made by those editors who have agreed with you. A very simple request. I am still waiting. --Aminz 07:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the only person supporting your strange edit. If someone else had, they would have supported you, but that has not happened. As there have been multiple chances for all involved to indicate their support in this way, I have concluded that you have no support. You have yet to respond to the fact that an "act of war" starts a war, Watt says Muhammad was being the aggressor, and Cook implies that the war was Muhammad's responsibility (by saying he had taken on more than he could handle). It is irresponsible to ignore these points and revert war to maintain a misleading line. Arrow740 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, why aren't you answering my question? You claimed there was a consensus on your side. Please show me the diffs to the comments made by those editors who have agreed with you. You claim that I didn't have any support on the addition. Wrong! The summary:"Medina and Mecca were at war, and raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war." was made by User:Itsmejudith and not me here [18]. See how easy it is to provide evidences. --Aminz 07:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That was not entirely unreasonable... a month ago when she did it. I have provided lots more "evidences" since then, which you continue to ignore, very tellingly. Arrow740 08:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You did not answer to my question (i.e. showing diffs showing that there was a consensus on your side) and I assume you have no answer for it. Arrow, in the future, you should not make claims about consensus when there is none. You are free to talk about yourself but not on the behalf of others. I too can make my edits appear more legitimate to ordinary editors by using terms like "consensus" term in my edit summaries.
User:Itsmejudith at that time helped with summerizing Lewis's saying:"The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." And nothing you've found contradicts Lewis. --Aminz 08:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Subsection II - details

Lewis is very clear here:"The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." and your removal of Lewis and Watt's comment here is clearly unjustified [19]. --Aminz 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong diff, I didn't remove anything. What is an "act of war," Aminz? What do Watt and Cook have to say on the subject? Please answer these two questions that you have been ignoring for days. Arrow740 07:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did someone say pre-menarcheal? Let's keep the discussion focused.

I think this would go better in 'Last years in Mecca':

This persecution was comparatively mild,<ref>Maxime Rodinson, ''Muhammad,'' page 109.</ref> and only began after Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers.<ref>F.E. Peters, ''Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.'' State University of New York Press, 1993, page 169.</ref> Before this they had tolerated him, even saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven."<ref>Peters, page 168.</ref>

I do not have a huge problem with this material, though I would qualify it. I partly agree with Aminz that it is certain about the reason to a greater extent than is the extract of the source that I read. The source seems to say there were religious and economic reasons for the enmity. Something like "perhaps partly because...religion...commerce..." might help. I would have put it up in 'Last years in Mecca' myself, but I don't know enough about it to be able to stitch it into the rest. Maybe we can work out a compromise wording Tom Harrison Talk 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i'm having quite a few problems with the current material. it currently reads like "Muhammad and his followers only got persecuted because because he challenged their idols and forefathers - but hey, it wasn't really that bad!" of course, the text sourced to Peters is currently inappropriate: it is the interpretation of a primary source (that Peters is quoting) from a Meccan-defensive viewpoint - a notion supported by the positioning of the text. even then, Peters quotes Tabari on the same page who says that the Meccans were:

"... almost won over until he mentioned their idols. Then there came from Ta'if certain of the Quraysh who owned property there, and hotly argued with him in their disapproval of his message and they stirred up against him those who had followed him. Thus most of the people turned back away from him and deserted him, except those of them whom God kept safe, who were few in number. Things remained like that for such time as God determined they should so remain. Then their leaders took counsel how they might seduce from the religion of God those of their sons and brothers and fellow-clansmen who had followed him [that is, Muhammad]. This was a time of extreme trial and upheaval for the people of Islam who followed the Messenger of God--God bless him and preserve him. Some were seduced but God kept safe whom He would."

thus, the persecution commenced upon the leaders' solicitation to "seduce" Muslims from Muhammad, not merely because of the denounciations by Muhammad, which, as Tabari writes had stood for sometime without active hostility. whatever the case, to add one's own spin to primary sources and then assert Peters endorses it is something we can do without. it is quite strange why Rodinson was selected for the apologetic "comparatively mild" caveat (the interpretation of which appears to be disputed - "comparatively mild" compared to what, by the way?), when it would have sufficed to stick with Peters, who says (pp. 172-173): "A simple turning away no longer satisfied the frayed sensibilities of the Quraysh. If they could not get at Muhammad, who stood under family protection, they found more accessible targets among his less fortunate followers. [primary source] At this point the persecution became not only overt but violent... [primary source] Social pressure, economic boycott, and physical force were all invoked against the new believers... [primary source]" ITAQALLAH 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the persecution commenced when "he mentioned their idols." Peters and Rodinson both say it. Rubin also says that a tradition of al-Zuhri quoted in al-Waqidi states: "When he began to revile their idols in public, and stated that their fathers had died as infidels and were condemned to Hell, the Meccans resented this and persecuted him." Page 156. If you want to argue that Peters is merely relating the primary sources and giving no hint of his analysis (that is false), we can quote Rodinson. Arrow740 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I realize there are more points than just this, but I completely agree that we shouldn't be saying that the persecution was "comparatively mild" - per Itaqallah, "compared to what?" is the obvious question. No doubt, there are many things compared to which it was mild, but they are presumably not topical to this article.
As for the issue of what inspired the persecution, I see no contradiction between the asserting that the leaders ordered the persecution and that they did so because of Muhammad's denunciation of the Meccan idols.Proabivouac 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's presentation of Peters

The source says:

F.E.Peters says on page 168:

"We obviously do not have the whole story, but on purely "spritual" grounds, the eventually violent Meccan rejection of Muhammad remains as mysterious as the kind of oppostion that led to the execution of Jesus. Other less spritual motives have been advanced, however, why the Quraysh might have objected swo strenously to the message of the fellow Meccan. Some have argued that it was the fear that Muhammad would overrun the prevailing combination of piety and commerce that constituted the Hajj... We can not tell if those anxieties were religous or commercial, but Meccan polytheism and its cultus seem to have been the issue in Muhammad's preaching and the Quraysh reception of it. These two early reports seems to confirm it:

The messenger of God- God bless him and preserve him-summoned to Islam secretly and openly, and there responded to God whom he would of the young men and weak people, so that those who believed in him [or "Him"] were numerious and the unbelieving Quraysh did not criticize what he said. When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who... (goes to page 169)

Arrow summerizes this in "[the persecution] only began after Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers. Before this they had tolerated him, even saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven."

This appears to me as a misrepresentation of Peters. --Aminz 08:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is quite bad, Aminz. It continues:

...speaks (things) from heaven." This lasted until God (in the Quran) spoke shamefully of the idols they worshiped other than Himself and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief. At that they came to hate the Messenger of God - God bless him and preserve him - and to be hostile to him. (Ibn Sa'd I/1, p. 133)."

The language is such that Peters seems to be endorsing Ibn Sa'd here. Rodinson also makes statements to the same effect on page 108; the comparatively mild but negative treatment by the Quraysh only started when Muhammad started acting offensively to them. Arrow740 08:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
books.google.com had it up to page 169 so I was able to quote it to that page. Arrow, your misreprentation of Peters is amazing. Please don't waste my time here. Okay? Peters is more than clear that the eventually violent Meccan rejection of Muhammad remains as a mystery. You claim it was because "Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers.". Don't play games. Okay? --Aminz 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What does pre-menarcheal mean again, Aminz? Ibn Sa'd says it, Peters says it "seems" true. If you prefer you can change it to Rodinson who is more explicit, saying that when Muhammad recanted the Satanic verses and replaced them with the anti-Meccan ones, he was attacking their idols and "consigning the Meccans' pious ancestors and relatives to hell fire." After this discussion he states: "They responded to the break by counterattacking fiercely." By "fiercely" he is not referring to physical ferocity, for he also notes that the persecution was comparatively mild.
For you to say that something which is found in a primary source at the location I specified, and is given a partial endorsement by a secondary source is an amazing misrepresentation shows that you seem to have a little extra time on your hands tonight. Get the whole source before you attack me next time. What is an "act of war?" What are the positions of Watt and Cook on the raids? Arrow740 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are amazing in certain aspect Arrow. Indeed Amazing. --Aminz 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's presentation of Robinson

Arrow, after the sentence "the emigrants from Mecca who believed to have been mistreated by Meccans" added a sentence saying:"his persecution was comparatively mild" sourced to Robinson. Of course Meccan persecution of Muslims should be included in another section but let's evaluate the way Arrow represents sources. Arrow's aim for taking that sentence out of context is clear. Let's read what Robinson says:

At all events, they responded to the break by counter-attacking fiercely. One apparently reliable source even says that the persecution of the members of the sect started "when Muhammad mentioned their idols". It goes on to say, and interesting detail which somehow rings true, that: "Qurayshite landowners from Ta'if came and reproached him for this; they behaved violently towards him and showed their dislike of what he said and so roused up those who served them... the people abandoned Muhammad, except those whom Allah preserved, and they were not many. Matters rested in this state for as long as Allah willed it. Then their leaders conspired together to draw their sons, their brothers, and members of their tribes who were among his followers, and turn them from their belief in Allah. It was a very great ordeal for the Muslims who followed the Messenger of God.... The actual persecution was on the whole comparatively mild. Ibn Ishaq sums it up quite well in the few line he devotes to the activities of one branded in Muslim accounts among Prophet's fiercest opponents.

It was the villain Abu Jahl who roused the men of Quraysh against them. Whenever he heard and honorable man, with a host of supporters, had been converted to Islam he would berate him soundly so as to shame him...'We will show that you have acted like a fool and lack judgment. We will ruin your reputation.' If the man were a merchant, he would tell him: "By Allah, We will boycott your business so that you will lose all you have.' If he was a person of no influence, he beat him and turned people against him.


Robinson mentions a report and then says that "The actual persecution was on the whole comparatively mild" and then mentions that the treatment of honorable man, with a host of supporters; merchants and a person of no influence were different."

Now, Arrow summerizes all these in saying:"his persecution was comparatively mild" after "the emigrants from Mecca who believed to have been mistreated by Meccans". He is using Robinson to weaken the sentence stating the belief of ill-treatment by emigrants from Mecca. Robinson is doing something else. Arrow continues from Robinson to Peters and misrepresents him too (as I've shown above) "[the persecution] only began after Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers. Before this they had tolerated him, even saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven."

--Aminz 09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You must have wasted ten minutes typing this up... in an attempt to show that a direct quote is a misrepresentation. Arrow740 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue of where this material should be aside, I don't understand why you're saying that Arrow740 is misrepresenting our sources. These excerpts, at least,

…This lasted until God (in the Quran) spoke shamefully of the idols they worshiped other than Himself and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief. At that they came to hate the Messenger of God - God bless him and preserve him - and to be hostile to him. (Ibn Sa'd I/1, p. 133)."

One apparently reliable source even says that the persecution of the members of the sect started "when Muhammad mentioned their idols".

appear to state pretty much what he says they do. I hadn't realized there was any debate about this actually.Proabivouac 09:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the quotes I've provided Proabivouac? This is clear misreprentation of source. Peters makes his case quite clear that We can not tell what were the reasons for opposition to Muhammad. One theory he suggest that seem to have been the issue he says were Meccan polytheism and its cultus and he says two early reports seems to confirm this view. Arrow chose a sentence from one of the reports and used it to generalize and put that in the mouth of Peters as the reasons for persecution. This is so obvious.
The second misreprentation is also very clear. --Aminz 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging from these excerpts, Peters is saying we don't understand the whole story, particularly the "spiritual" aspect of it (which obviously cannot be understood, as the Meccan religion was entirely erased.) However, it began when, etc. It seems to me that you're the one who is cherry picking here by taking "remains as mysterious" to negate everything that follows.
Keep in mind that, by contemporary (off-wiki) standards, Muhammad isn't doing anything wrong here: denying the validity of other religions (as Islam did and does) is part of one's own freedom of religion; the Meccans denied him that freedom of conscience.Proabivouac 10:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Now, I am cherry picking. I didn't take anything to negate anything else nor did I use this text to update the article. I am saying that Peters's language is clear that there are uncertainties there and that Arrow misrepresnted the source. Even you yourself said that"Peters is saying we don't understand the whole story, particularly the "spiritual" aspect of it" which contradicts Arrow's summary of Peters. It is obvious to me that Arrow misrepresented both of those sources. And it is clear to me that you are denying this truth and accusing me of cherry picking in order to support Arrow. --Aminz 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's right, I'm Arrow740's meatpuppet: I deny truths and accuse you of cherry picking in order to support him.Proabivouac 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's representation of Lewis

Lewis says:

"The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war."

This is quite clear that the state of war provided the occasion for the excersise of Raids on merchant carvans something that was seen as a "natural and legitimate act of war". And we know that Muhammad was taking the initiative in this "natural and legitimate act of war".

Arrow writes it in this way:"Muhammad the religious leader was thus engaging in offensive war; as a result of this Medina and Mecca were in the state of war; raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war."

This is reversing the whole process. In Arrow's edition, the excersise of arms produces the state of war, while Lewis says "the state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise."--Aminz 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Did someone say pre-menarcheal? Let's keep the discussion focused.

I think this would go better in 'Last years in Mecca':

This persecution was comparatively mild,<ref>Maxime Rodinson, ''Muhammad,'' page 109.</ref> and only began after Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers.<ref>F.E. Peters, ''Muhammad and the Origins of Islam.'' State University of New York Press, 1993, page 169.</ref> Before this they had tolerated him, even saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven."<ref>Peters, page 168.</ref>

I do not have a huge problem with this material, though I would qualify it. I partly agree with Aminz that it is certain about the reason to a greater extent than is the extract of the source that I read. The source seems to say there were religious and economic reasons for the enmity. Something like "perhaps partly because...religion...commerce..." might help. I would have put it up in 'Last years in Mecca' myself, but I don't know enough about it to be able to stitch it into the rest. Maybe we can work out a compromise wording Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What is an "act of war," Aminz? What do Watt and Cook have to say? Actually, "Muhammad the religious leader was thus engaging in offensive war" is from Watt, hence the ref. An "act of war" starts a war. Lewis is being purposefully vague here. I agree, Tom. Aminz wanted to add that the Muslims thought they had been mistreated in this section to lessen the fact that the Muslims started the war. It doesn't belong here. If he insists on keeping it here, then the clarifying details I added will also have to stay. Both should be moved. Arrow740 13:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think an "act of war" by definition starts a war. Different definitions exist:
Babylon.com [20]says:
action which leads to a war, aggressive act which starts a war
while US Code [21]says:
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin
So maybe the definition of "act of war" isn't as clear cut.... just my two cents. Iafrate 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
that's true, Iafrate. IMO, there's no difficulty in understanding what Lewis says, so i don't see how he's being "purposefully vague." the quote says "The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." - the "state of war between Medina and Mecca" served as the pretext for the raids. simple. ITAQALLAH 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the second dictionary is the best way to find out what Lewis meant. He is not a lawyer, and that seems to be a dictionary of terms used in the US Code only. Itaqallah, according to Lewis, what started the war? Let us temporarily accept that it is not the "act of war." What started it? If he does not answer that question, then we have to go with Watt and Cook who do. Why are you ignoring Watt and Cook? Please answer this question. Arrow740 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com only has the one definition: [22]. Arrow740 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com is wrong.Proabivouac 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Iafrate is correct; "act of war" doesn't mean that the act starts the war, though it certainly can, it's not only or even mostly used in that context. E.g., "Austria considered Serbia's harboring of the anti-royalist militants to be an act of war (starting a war)" vs. The committee determined that the unit's actions weren't murder, but acts of war.", In the case of "seen as a natural and legitimate act of war," the second reading is obviously the natural one.
However - and this is something which has been bothering me for awhile now - were Mecca and Medina indeed already at war? Parsing the hidden meanings of these texts isn't a very principled way to answer this question.Proabivouac 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the towns were not at war. In Medina, Muhammad held sway only over a small group of his followers who were in conflict with the Quraysh of Mecca. Anyhow, I'm not sure why this merits a discussion. Let's just state the facts and move on. Beit Or 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The sources make it clear that the Muslims escalated the violence to the level of killing. If the Meccans had wanted to kill the Muslims they would have done so in Mecca. Arrow740 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"Let's just state the facts and move on."
I completely agree. The reason this is being discussed is because certain editors insist that to observe that the Muslims began raiding Meccan caravans needs "context" to justify their actions, lest the reader get the "wrong impression." To this end, a number of sentences had been added stating that these were seen (by whom?) as legitimate acts of war or even were a sort of harmless Arabian "national sport," the raiders had been oppressed earlier by the Meccans (true, but this should be dealt with in an earlier section), etc. Instead of merely continuing the long edit-war to remove these unnecessary justifications, Arrow740 has begun adding material emphasizing that these were aggressive actions taken upon Muhammad's own initiative - true, but this should be obvious enough if we merely state the facts. The underlying trouble is that merely stating the facts is precisely what some have long insisted we must not do, as if the facts, in the absence of extraneous spin, were themselves POV.Proabivouac 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say above, the source seems to say there were plausible religious and economic reasons for the enmity. Tom Harrison Talk 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's addition

Re Arrow's addition [23]:

The source says:

Muhammad, with power now in his hands, set his community onto the path of aggressive political violence, a course urged and underlined in the Qur'an: Permission is given to those who fight because they have suffered wrong-truly God is most powerful in their aid-and those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, only because they have said "Our Lord is God".

Putting aside that Arrow copy/pastes the source word by word without using quotation marks, this quote is explaining the reason for fight. Further, the words "set his community onto the path of aggressive political violence" is Peter's choice and is POV. Violence has a negative connotation. one dictionary defines it as "Abusive or unjust exercise of power."

Now, my question is that what information did this edit [24] added to the article? --Aminz 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What do Watt and Cook have to say on who was the aggressor? What does Lewis (1993) say started the war? Aggressive: fact. Political (to achieve political goals): fact. Violence: fact. No POV here. This doesn't even include the assassinations, and this omission is a glaring flaw of this article. Arrow740 21:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, we should definitely not be utilizing direct quotes without quotation marks.
Aminz, I am puzzled that any dictionary would define violence as "Abusive or unjust exercise of power." If so, that dictionary is misinforming you.Proabivouac 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
i don't see the value of this insertion. of the whole paragraph Peters discusses Muhammad's raiding and the motives for it, it seems that this part was chosen because of its loaded language. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if I have this wrong, Arrow740, but I suspect there is an attempt to demonstrate to Aminz the shortcomings of his approach by doing the same in return.Proabivouac 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, you seem can't remain civil. --Aminz 23:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
If Aminz includes on including this sentence, I will include the equivalent sentences of Cook, Peters, and Watt in the same place. If there can be no compromise, we have to include everything. Arrow740 04:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you call misrepresenting sources as adding equivalents? --Aminz 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
see WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Aminz, it was somewhat uncivil of me to suggest that Arrow740 might be engaged in a sort of point violation. Please see above where you assert that I deny truths and insincerely accuse you of cherry picking in order to help Arrow740. It doesn't bother me all that much, but this kind of paranoia gives you an excuse not to listen to what others are saying. We've discussed on many occasions this issue of you feeling the need to add "context" - invariably mitigating - to any potentially controversial fact; do you think me insincere always, or just this one time?Proabivouac 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To learn what? That I am cherry picking of the source I never used in the article; I merely quoted that paragraph at length and I think the evidences I provided were enough to make my case(i.e. that the sources were not presented properly) and that was exactly what I intended; nothing more. And now you are saying: Arrow has just now become like to you. Yes, please keep a level of decency and civility. --Aminz 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
i think some of Aminz' concerns about misrepresentation are quite right, but with regard to civility/other issued: please let's all try to focus on the content. ITAQALLAH 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Peters states... Lewis states... Watt states... - can we avoid this kind of thing? There is a footnote after every sentence already, and that should let the reader know who states. Tom Harrison Talk 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

it's unfortunately the product of inserting material that verges on opinionated, where we have different scholars giving their take on event X. i don't see any particular need for switching between authors for each sentence; i would prefer we stick to something like the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Islam article on Muhammad. Lewis, for one, is extremely brief in his coverage; Peters mainly lets the primary source extracts do the talking (so there is sometimes little in depth discussion by him). there are, of course, bound to be academic disagreements of a strictly factual nature on the article, and it's in that scenario where attribution is best employed. ITAQALLAH 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that you and Aminz are seeing a disagreement where there is none. Lewis doesn't say how the war started, the others do. It's that simple. Arrow740 18:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some recent removal of sourced facts by itaqallah

Regarding [25]:

1. Itaqallah says "per Watt, attacks went both ways." I have looked through this section of Watt's book, and he does not say that the Meccans attacked until Uhud, the subject of this paragraph. (After this post I found more detail in Watt's older book and added it. "attacks went both ways" is a little bit of a stretch)

  • see pp. 132—135 of Watt (1964). Abu Sufyan himself led a post-Badr raid with 200 men upon Medina. as far as i can remember, he also rallied nomadic tribes against Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have added the incident to the article. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Itaqallah also removed the sourced fact that the battle of Badr was a Muslim ambush.

  • see Battle of Badr. the events of Badr were initiated by the attempted ambush of a caravan, and escalated into a face-to-face confrontation between two armies. the battle itself wasn't really an ambush, and is an irrelevant factoid in any case. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not irrelevant, and it is perfectly accurate to say "their defeat following the Meccan ambush at Badr." Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The Ambush at Badr never happened. The Quraysh spotted the army and brought their troops in. The Muslims spotted them and decided to stick it out and fight. Two armies marched at each other expecting a fight. The surprise raid of the caravan never happened, and the battle was definitely not am ambush so calling it one is incorrect.--90.192.126.152 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding: [26]:

3. He adds "and their prestige." Watt says that the need to restore prestige was because they could not trade without it:

The prosperity of Mecca depended on its prestige. To maintain their far-spread commercial operations the Meccans must make it clear to all their neighbours that this was only a temporary lapse, that they were still stronger than Medina and at they were capable of removing this threat to their trade.

However, itaqallah separates prestige from trade, even removing the "to their trade" in the phrase "the Meccans had to make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade."

  • the sentence still links prestige to their commerce. this edit was part of a series to relieve the undue weight being given to one reason of the Meccan attack over another. additionally, the preceding text reads "Consolidation of his position in Medina, however, was only one of Muḥammad's tasks. Another and even more urgent one was to get ready for the Meccan riposte that was now inevitable. The prosperity of Mecca depended on its prestige..." -- the prestige of Mecca had been just lost at Badr, which justifies why Watt claims that the Meccan riposte was inevitable. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it links prestige to commerce. The motive you are opposing to protecting trade is the desire for revenge: the passage you just quoted, however, says "prosperity of Mecca depended on its prestige" and continues as above. You also admitted that defending commerce was the primary motive, so hopefully we won't have any more disagreements about this. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • please represent others' positions faithfully. i didn't "admit" anything. i have maintained, since the beginning of the dispute, that two main motives are mentioned (vengeance and commerce). you conflate Watt and Lewis - though despite the fact they both mention the need to protect commerce, they mention significantly different pretexts. for Watt, it is the loss at Badr which was the perceived threat to their prestige, and thus their commerce. for Lewis, it was the continued attacks upon the caravans, and apparently nothing to do with what happened at Badr. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Your diff speaks for itself. We agree that the primary motive was protecting commerce. Arrow740 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

4. He removed the sourced (Lewis says this) "to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage" without a note about it.

  • we have already previously determined that descriptors like "brigandage" aren't ideal. also, it erroneously ascribes only one of the two apparent reasons for the Meccan invasion. one reason was for the protection of their commerce; either due to the lost prestige from Badr,(Watt) or because of continued Medinan attacks.(Lewis) the other (and more apparent) reason was that they wanted to avenge their humiliation at Badr (which is linked to the previous point on prestige). see below for the extracts. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Your extracts do not say that explicitly. You are spinning them in a tendentious and single-minded manner. Rodinson states about the brigandage that "according to our modern norms, we can hardly call it anything else." It is not a loaded word, but an accurate description. Is this really the place for euphemistic language? Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • "Your extracts do not say that explicitly" - actually, they do. Watt and the EoI articles say it explicitly. the Peters quote is quite loaded, which is why i suspect it was chosen. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • We have different interpretations of the one EoI extract, then. 1) How is "aggressive political violence" loaded? 2) Just what do you mean by "loaded?" Arrow740 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

5. Watt and Lewis make it clear that the reason the Meccans responded was to the "threat of brigandage" (Lewis) or to protect their trade (Watt). The two quotes itaqallah provided on his talk page do not explicitly state a motive, yet he has manufactured one to oppose to the motive Watt and Lewis clearly state.

  • the "two quotes" Arrow alludes to are:

"Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and incited not only by tribesmen and tribeswomen who had lost relations at Badr (e.g. his wife Hind b. ʿUtba), but also by those whose goods had been plundered, the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat. A large force (often numbered at 3,000 horsemen) was assembled... [narrative continues into the events of the battle]" (Uhud, Encyclopedia of Islam)

"In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr." (Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam)

as is explicitly apparent, one of the reasons for the Meccan attack was revenge for Badr. i don't understand what isn't clear about these quotes. Watt himself writes: "This aim they completely failed to achieve. They had indeed killed about seventy-five Muslims for the loss of twenty-seven of their own men, and thus more or less avenged the blood shed at Badr (though according to some versions there would still be an excess of Meccan dead). But they had boasted that they would make the Muslims pay several times over for Badr, and now they had at most taken a life for a life" (p. 140). i don't need to "manufacture" anything (and nor would i): the sources are crystal clear. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As were you when you admitted that protecting their economic interests was the primary motive. Here, again, is the diff: [27]. The language I inserted mentions the secondary motive while making it clear which motive you, I, Lewis, and Watt agree was primary. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • again, please represent others' positions faithfully. division of motives into "secondary" and "primary" is your own personal original research. the EoI Uhud article for one, mentions revenge as the only motive. ITAQALLAH 12:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
        • No, it is clear. You agreed in fact. Others can read what you wrote. Arrow740 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding [28]:

5.He removes the direct quoted and attributed "Muhammad, with power now in his hands, set his community onto the path of aggressive political violence." He said "rm as per talk, loaded language and quite unnecessary." I have not read an argument from him to remove this. The words after the colon seem to only indicate to me that he does not like this material, which is not a valid reason for removal.

  • this was discussed already.[29] please see above. you don't believe "loaded language and quite unnecessary" is an argument for removal? ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • "i don't see the value of this insertion. of the whole paragraph Peters discusses Muhammad's raiding and the motives for it, it seems that this part was chosen because of its loaded language" In fact, it is a very compact description of Muhammad's course of action from an eminent scholar of Islam. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the right place to note that the Lewis quote, which is now almost verbatim, adds nothing to the article. It does not indicate anything other that there was a state of war between Mecca and Medina, and the Muslim raided caravans during that time. That is true. It does not say how the war started or why it did. Nor does it say that there had been a state of war, pre-existing, when the emigrants arrived.

Watt (in Muhammad at Medina) entitles the relevant chapter "The Provocation of the Quraysh," and says "the chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive" (page 2).

The Lewis quote has been given prominence by itaqallah and Aminz specifically because it is vague. That is no way to write an encyclopedia. Arrow740 20:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

  • again, we have discussed the interpretation of Lewis, please see above. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The whole problem is that you are interpreting it to mean that there was a pre-existing war, something you know is false, and something it does not say. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, there's a lot here to discuss, but to begin with, I completely agree with you that the Lewis quote in question (which, as you observe, is nearly verbatim) adds nothing to the article besides misunderstanding. I also agree with Itaqallah that the Peters "aggressive political violence" quote, while literally accurate, uses emotionally loaded language (can there be any question that Peters thinks this a bad thing?) and similarly adds nothing to the article. The solution, as Beit Or suggests above, is to state the facts and allow the reader to consider this "aggressive political violence", or "natural and legitimate act of war" or both. Accordingly, I shall remove both sentences, and leave the citations for whoever wants to follow up on the raids.
Per my comment to User talk:Itaqallah, and the excerpt provided above, it seems clear that Watt includes revenge and prestige among the motives for the Meccan counterattack, as well as protecting trade: I can see no problem with presenting both of these, which are both reasonable and natural on their face, and do not need attribution, as there does not appear to be any real scholarly dispute here.Proabivouac 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Watt clearly states that protecting trade was the primary motive, and even states that the need to regain prestige was predicated by the need to protect trade. Regarding the Peters and Lewis quotes, just stating the facts would of course be best. That's what I've been trying to do all along. The facts are that Muhammad was the aggressor, period. Arrow740 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Per the handy rule, show it, don't tell it. If Muhammad is the aggressor, this should be entirely clear by merely stating what happened. The only calculus by which he wasn't the aggressor is if one considers the raids to be the Meccans' just desserts for having persecuted the Muslims, in which case the solution is the same: just tell what happened in Mecca in the appropriate section, without adding a special reminder here. Readers make their own connections and judgments far more easily if the narrative is uncluttered by our editorial quips pulling in all directions.Proabivouac 04:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro's latest version

The beginnings of conflict section needs a linking word ("thus" beginning armed conflict, "and in doing so" beginning armed conflict). Further, the battle of Uhud section now has the relationship reversed, saying that in order to restore their prestige, they had to prove they could protect their trade, when it has been established (and this is not one of the points itaqallah has disputed) that they needed to establish their prestige in order to protect their trade. Otherwise I can live with Pro's excessively understated language. Arrow740 04:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we're making more of the "prestige" chicken/egg issue than is really there (are we to assume that they didn't care about their prestige except for its commercial value?), but I'll take another look.Proabivouac 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
We have

The Quraysh were anxious to avenge their defeat there. To maintain their commercial operations, the Meccans had to restore their prestige, and make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade.

The first sentence uses slightly loaded language, thus conveying the desire for revenge (this motive has not been explicitly stated in any of the material presented here, so this is a good distillation). To prove this parenthetical point, here are itaqallah's extracts again:

"Under the leadership of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and incited not only by tribesmen and tribeswomen who had lost relations at Badr (e.g. his wife Hind b. ʿUtba), but also by those whose goods had been plundered, the Meccans resolved to avenge their defeat. A large force (often numbered at 3,000 horsemen) was assembled... [narrative continues into the events of the battle]" (Uhud, Encyclopedia of Islam) "In the year 3/624-5 Muhammad continued his attacks on the Meccan caravans so that the Kuraysh finally saw the necessity of taking more vigorous measures and revenging themselves for Badr." (Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam)

In the first sentence it says they "resolved to avenge their defeat." In the second, the Meccans see the need for revenging themselves for Badr as a result of Muhammad's continued attacks.
The second sentence we have in the article now mentions the need to restore prestige, and subordinates it to the need to protect trade - just as Watt does. Arrow740 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This series of edits from Aminz is inexcusable. The disingenuous edit summaries, pretextual, knee-jerk removal of sourced information presented in all the biographies, and blatant disregard for Pro's recent success in collating the material in the beginnings of conflict section can only provoke edit warring. Arrow740 06:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This is replacement of sourced fact with low-brow POV. Arrow740 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. On the bright side, perhaps we won't be hearing him protest that his cherry-picked spinning is sourced anymore.Proabivouac 06:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why he only reverted your collation and half of the data I added. He seems to have decided what sourced, topical facts to remove arbitrarily. Arrow740 06:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit, the fact that the caravan was a merchant caravan is removed without mention, and the Meccans, who were attacked, are transformed into aggressors who want to "teach the Muslims a lesson." Arrow740 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not bad, though a completely honest presentation of the religious view of the battle would mention the invisible angels. Arrow740 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The only specific point I can see you've pointed out here is the way the conflict of Badr happened. As I've written, the Caravan passed but the supportive force sent by Mecca didn't retreat and instead decided to teach Muslims a lesson. --Aminz 07:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to summerize persecution by Meccans, it shouldn't go to the *last years* of Mecca section. As a comperhensive summary the quote Robinson provides from Ibn Ishaq may work. Robinson said: "Ibn Ishq sums it up quite well in the few line he devotes to the activities of one branded in Muslim accounts among Prophet's fiercest opponents: "It was the villain Abu Jahl who roused the men of Quraysh against them. Whenever he heard and honorable man, with a host of supporters, had been converted to Islam he would berate him soundly so as to shame him...'We will show that you have acted like a fool and lack judgment. We will ruin your reputation.' If the man were a merchant, he would tell him: "By Allah, We will boycott your business so that you will lose all you have.' If he was a person of no influence, he beat him and turned people against him." --Aminz 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the exact nature of the persecution is not mentioned is failing of this article, I agree. That is a different subject from what caused it, obviously. Arrow740 07:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, this shortcoming should be addressed. Show, don't tell is violated at every turn.Proabivouac 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think if you would like to mention the cause of persecution, it should go under a different heading (not last years in Mecca because persecution didn't started in the last years). And if we would like to mention its cause, we should present all the factors and use various sources. --Aminz 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
After we pointed out to you the nature of your edits, you reverted them back. I'm done talking to you for a while, because it doesn't work. I will say that your assertions about history in this post are as wrong as when you stated that Mecca and Medina were at war when Muhammad arrived in Medina, and I will point out other mistakes where I find them. Arrow740 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I only read parts of your comments that are related to content dispute. Lewis's quote is clear and I am happy with quoting him word by word. --Aminz 07:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, quoting Lewis in such a way as to convey an untruth is not using his work but abusing it, and abusing him. Simple question: were or were not Mecca and Medina at war before the Hijra?Proabivouac 07:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit confused as to what the real issue is (i.e. do you imply that Lewis is mistaken?). Mecca and Medina were not at war before Hijra. In Mecca, Muslims were persecuted but the Qur'an did not give the permission of fighting not because there weren't any justification available for that (in fact, Meccan had killed some of weak Muslims). This state of hostility remained of course when Muslims moved to Medina. But after migration Muslims formed a political unity and the Qur'an did give the permission of fighting on the basis of previous ill-treatment of Meccans with the now-political-unity of Muslims. --Aminz 08:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
So, "no." Good. Arrow740 09:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The correct interpretation is the Meccans were in conflict with the Muslims and the Medinans allied themselves to the Muslims joining the fight. The election of Abu Lahab intensified persecution of the Muslims making them go seek allies beyond Mecca. By granting refuge to the Muslims, thereby challenging the Quraish power they became embroiled in the conflict by their alliance, particularly through their pledge of military strength through both the Pledges of Aqaba and the Constitution of Medina. Ensuing Meccan embassies to Medinan tribes following the Hijrah protested the Medinan decision to get involved. So yes, by pledging allegiance to the Muslim cause before the Hijrah the Medinans had made themselves party to the conflict before the first caravan raids went out. Also note how this ties into the fight narrative, permission to fightback had been granted to the Muslims prior to the Hijrah, the Medinan alliance provided them with the ability they had begun seeking.--90.192.126.152 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be Integrated

I agree to the Insan El-Kamil piece being integrated into the Muhammad article. It's interesting to know but nowhere near enough to be considered a feasible stand-alone article. Actually it should be put somewhere near the beginning, as it's sort of a description.

Hawting cite

BYT, neutrality problems with your recent edits aside (these can be fixed, some of it looks fine,) and putting aside the question of undue weight, you added:

Gerald R. Hawting [7] holds that the verses in questions are primarily about cranes and have only a "possible conceptual link" with the angels worshipped by the Meccans.

Would you be willing to share the passage in question? Considering that the verses are prefaced by "Have you considered Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt, the third, the other?", followed by "These are the high-flying cranes whose intercession is desirable," I am baffled as to how anyone could arrive at the conclusion that the cranes are anything other than the aforementioned Meccan goddesses.Proabivouac 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering your spotty (at best) record of responding to direct requests for help in drafting this passage, your recent silent treatment in response to my attempt to resolve this matter through mediation, and your persistent refusal to address direct questions about this passage, I'd appreciate it if you left judgments on what "looks fine" and what presents "neutrality problems" to other editors.
Other editors: The passage in question reads: "... the most obvious sense is that of 'cranes' or some other sort of long-necked water fowl such as storks, herons, or even swans. There is a possible conceptual link with angels: apart from traditional angelic imagery, such birds may have a role in popular belief as messengers of God or the gods just as an angel is the messenger of God." [[30]] BYT 02:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, you were the one who gave the "silent treatment" when you repeatedly refused to specify the dispute which was to be mediated. I find your dialog here quite presumptious: it is not up to you whether I'm allowed to comment on your edits, or ask after your sources. In this case, I'm glad that I did, as, judging from the excerpt you've presented here, it's evident that Hawting says nothing at all like what you've attributed to him.Proabivouac 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

muhammad lineage

this muhammad lineage http://muhammad.net/images/Muhammad_tree.JPG

Begining of conflict section

Regarding the edit of mine [31], one sentence that I think needs an explanation is "Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war". This sentence pins down the type of Raid (The Raid) Muhammad was involved in. The general meaning of the word "raid" has a broader, less specific meaning. If an Arab from 1400 years ago were to read a translation of the text there wouldn't have been any problem. --Aminz 04:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, ghazw just means "raid [for plunder]" - the discussion found at User talk:Proabivouac#Raids vs Razzis shows that you have imagined a distinction which doesn't exist. If there is anything which "raid" doesn't capture, it's that that the immediate goal here is to seize property, while raid is often used for strictly military ventures: pretty much the opposite of the discussion we've been having.Proabivouac 05:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is missed here. I am not talking about "ghazw". What is a "ghazw"? What is a "raid"? In order to understand the meaning of a word, one needs to see the meaning intended from the usage of the term. The words do not have anything on their own.
The term "god" may mean one thing to a monotheist but it may mean something else to a polytheist. They both use the same term.
In order to understand the meaning of a term, we need to see how people thought of its concept. Lewis says "Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war" - Watt explains more that the Raids were a normal feature of the desert life and also a kind of sport.
In the discussion you've referenced to, my point was not addressed. The discussion diverged from its main point. --Aminz 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Your point is very elegantly addressed when its shown that you don't even know what Arabic word you're presuming to define. Picking out random phrases from Watt and Lewis to piece together in a collage of apology is not a principled basis from which to argue the meaning of Arabic words.Proabivouac 06:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
My discussion here is not about Arabic language to be sure. It is a universal point about our usage of language. Re the rest of your comment, I am more than happy with quoting Lewis word by word here (in a blockquote):""The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise. Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war."--Aminz 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
To call raids for plunder a "sport" is shallow and flippant. These were armed operations undertaken with gravity and seriousness of purpose. Certainly, they were a normal feature of life, just as many other modes of violence. It is indeed quite normal for folk of the hinterlands to raid more prosperous communities; this tends to persist until roads are well-patrolled and the hinterlands are subjugated. That doesn't make it some kind of game. Anyhow, you're contradicting yourself: if its an act of war, natural and legitimate or otherwise, it can't be just a "sport, can it? It seems you want to make this anything other - even several mutually-contradictory things other - than what it is: an armed band supporting itself through economic predation. And yes, that is completely normal. If you feel the need to search for a mitigating factor, find it in the way the Muslims were treated in Mecca, the fact (apparently) that many of them had lost their properties, and the fact that the Muslims may not have had many other options.Proabivouac 07:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not think we are supposed to discuss the validity of Watt's statement here though I can defend it. The word "sport" as we use it today may not be a proper word but that's again diverging from my point. Lewis is clear that when there were hostility between two parties, to raid the caravan's of the other one was a legitimate (and natural) thing to do. That belonged to the common sense of people of the time when they were doing it and this is a pure piece of information. --Aminz 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
IMO, we don't particularly need this extract from Lewis, just as we don't need judgements or evaluations of such raids which are of the opposite flavour. while the ghazawat may have very well been perceived as what academics relate (or not), the best place to discuss how raids were considered, their role in Arab life etc. would be at Ghazw itself, and not here. ITAQALLAH 13:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Please clarify what part of this quote is judgmental? Let me provide an example: Suppose that Two countries are allied to each other; if a third country attacks one of the two, is it legitimate for the other country to get in the dispute? It all depends on the nature of the contracts. It is neither judgmental nor evaluational. It is the question of legitimacy. It is a question about the customs and the norms.
A better example would be this: Is using chemical weapons a legitimate and normal act of war? - Well NO! But why? Because of the accepted rules of warfare. Now, Lewis says "Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war"- I wonder what does this have to do with being judgmental or evaluational.
I agree that we should not use "interpretive" quotes but this is not one. --Aminz 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
well, let's say we're discussing an article about a battle where chemical weapons were used. if we follow an incidence of usage with a statement "Dr. X claims that it is considered entirely normal in international law for chemical weapons to be used." -- this can appear to justify or validate the use of chemical weapons. the larger problem is, however, that the passage sounds like an apology. it gives the impression that there's something not right about its usage, thus necessitating the subsequent apologetic reassurance to our readers that it is.
the impression i get, and the impression other readers may get, is that this note implies that something might have been wrong with these particular actions in the first place, for us to have to reassure readers that it was justified (or a common feature of society). now, we're not in the business of saying what was right or wrong; or saying whether it was justified/explicable or not. scholars are entitled to put their own opinions about morality etc. in their accounts, but if we follow that cue we risk entering a slippery slope where every incidence contains a justification (X says that this act was commonplace in medieval Arab society) or thinly veiled attack (Y says that this violated customs in medieval Arab society). this doesn't mean to say, however, that we cannot express the status of ghazawat as an Arab custom - and i will try to incorporate something to that effect (i think the whole paragraph needs to be addressed actually) - it's just the sentence as it stands seems a bit extraneous, and i think it sets a bad precedent. ITAQALLAH 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this quote from EoQ:"Pre-Islamic rules of warfare involved small raiding parties rather than full-scale battles. This practice was well-known to Muhammad who used such raids to great effect in his campaigns against the Meccans after his emigration to Medina"; it doesn't seem apologetic like Lewis's statement:"Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war".
Another option is to leave it as it is. --Aminz 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
the EoQ extract looks better, IMO. something to that effect as a brief clause within the current passage may work. ITAQALLAH 00:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

The article currently says "Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms" as the only reasons for the raids against Meccan caravans. I think this is not all the story. The Qur'an explains this in verses [Qur'an 22:39]. Here is my suggestion:

Economically uprooted and with no available profession besides that of arms, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca. The Qur'an in verses [Qur'an 22:39] gave the permission for warfare. These attacks provoked and pressured Mecca by interfering with trade, and allowed the Muslims to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working toward their ultimate goal of inducing Mecca's submission to the new faith.

--Aminz 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Gwen, the Qur'an doesn't do anything…but if Muhammad delivered Qur'anic verses which gave the go ahead, that is certainly topical and interesting: it's his bio, after all. If we have a good source, let's add it.Proabivouac 07:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is the first Qur'anic verse talking about the issue. --Aminz 07:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Proab, re [32], I think a link to the qur'anic verse itself would be informative (as it explains the reasons for permission that Lewis doesn't say). As it is now, it just says there is a qur'anic verse in the Qur'an about this. --Aminz 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the link; it's still there in the first reference appended to the sentence.Proabivouac 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
But it is in the reference section now. Can we please write it like (See ...) --Aminz 07:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
People who are interested will click the links, wouldn't you imagine?Proabivouac 07:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I'd like to include it because that quote is adding to the reasons. Apparently Lewis is only interested in economic justifications of actions. --Aminz 07:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It is included. If you are saying you want a full quote, that's one thing, but if it's just a link it should be a ref to the primary source. Not that I'd revert you - it's just housekeeping, really; sort of surprised this has become an issue.Proabivouac 10:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel an active link in the page would be best as it is something between full-quote and mentioning it in references. --Aminz 11:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Source requested

Re:"but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed" I couldn't find it in Watt or Robinson (Watt is silent on this but it seems to me that he is implying the opposite: "Muhammad may also have been beginning to realize that one day it would be important for him to win Meccans to his side"). Please provide sources for this. --Aminz 08:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove this for now until the sources are provided. --Aminz 11:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's on page 167 where I said it was. Further such requests will be ignored. Arrow740 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Robinson says:"Umar wanted them all slaughtered, but Muhammad decided that ransoms should be demanded first, after which they could kill any for whom no one was prepared to pay. He even went so far as to release two of them on the spot. On the other hand he gave free rein to his anger against two men who had attacked him on an intellectual level..."
He doesn't say "after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed" meaning in the later battles he killed those who went unransomed. These are quite different. --Aminz 09:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? Arrow740 17:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Prisoner

Watt has two point in this section: "The common attitude was that a man might do what he liked with his prisoner...(continues citing an example) Such excesses Muhammad put a stop to. Yet even he had two prisoners executed." I think it is fair to mention both points if we are about to write about prisoners of Badr. --Aminz 08:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it seems to me that the space we have given to prisoners of war is almost the same as the space given to the Battle itself ?!?!? I think we should reduce this considerablly. --Aminz 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad's execution of prisoners of war is critical to the understanding of the latter phases of the war between him and the Quryash, so it should stay. Beit Or 10:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say we should remove this. Would you please explain how it was relevant to the latter phases of the war between him and the Quryash? Thanks --Aminz 10:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As always, can we just state what happened? This hand-wringing continues to be of zero interest to me, and useless to readers. If we have a Qur'anic verse that is delivered, that is something that happened and a rightful part of the narrative. These latter-day moralistic commentaries are not.Proabivouac 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can state what happened. To put it simply: A common practice(attitude) was condemned by Muhammad. That's it. --Aminz 10:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? What common practice, and when?Proabivouac 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is how Watt puts it. He says that the common attitude was that a man might do what he liked with his prisoner. He quotes of one prisoners of Badr being killed because the captor particularly hated him. Watt says Muhammad put an stop to such excesses. But even then he order those two to be executed. --Aminz 11:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The significance of Badr

I think this subsection needs balance. It quotes Lewis who seems to justify everything through changes in economical/political situation of Muslims. I think this subsection should be balanced out with Watt (p.124-126) and others. Further, there seems to be some overlap with the Jewish tribes issue and it further seems that Lewis views it completely from an economical point of view. So, that also needs to be NPOVed. One last thing: statements like "Islam began to change" are interpretive; instead the underlying point he may refer to should be mentioned. --Aminz 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nice of you to first start a subsection and then admit it needs balance. Beit Or 10:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, please read my edit summaries regarding your revert. The family stuff should be placed in family section not beginning of conflicts. And more importantly, it is unsourced. Similarly, please check my edit summaries regarding other edits. --Aminz 10:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll move the material related to "The significance of Badr" here as they need to be balanced and we can discuss it here and add it to the article. --Aminz 11:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with Mecca section

I'll edit the section per Watt 132-135. There were 3 expeditions by Muhammad against certain tribes, one razzis against Medina by Meccans and one by Medina against Meccans (+other events). These happened before battle of Uhud but the current section doesn't seem to cover these. --Aminz 11:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


The pictures should be deleted

Everybody knows that it's forbidden in Islam to picture any prophet the article contains imaginary pictures for prophet Muhammad "peace be upon him", so I think respecting others' beliefs is more important than adding unnecessary pictures so I am asking the administrative users to delete them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs)

No. Wikipedia is not subject to the religious taboos of Islam or any other religion. TharkunColl 09:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's subject is to give knowledge, and the four pictures are not giving any related knowledge about the subject since we all know that they are not true pictures of the prophet Muhammad. So as long as the four pictures are not real, no extra knowledge is expected to be provided and they would be considered as an insult to others' beliefs. So it is better to delete the pictures of:- 1."The 16th century Persian miniature painting celebrating Muhammad's ascent into the Heavens" 2. "depicting the episode of the Black Stone". 3. 16th century Ottoman illustration depicting Muhammad at the Kaaba. Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century 4.15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca.

ibrahim999

No, because you would then have to delete the pictures of almost every historical figure for exactly the same reason - namely, that the pictures are not contemporary. Muhammad should not be singled out for special treatment. TharkunColl 10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
They are real depictions of Muhammad, actually.Proabivouac 10:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No they are actually not so Proabivouac, Unless you are 1500 years oldibrahim999

No one said they were living portraits of Muhammad.Proabivouac 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So why to add them? They are not true & it is against a religion, what is the reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 20:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

They're not against any religion at all. At most, your religion is against them, but that's not a good reason to remove anything from Wikipedia, anymore than my religion would be. See WP:NOT, WP:NPOVProabivouac 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't completely made up my mind (still reading) but there are philosophers such as Joel Feinberg who maintain that preventing shock, disgust, or revulsion is always a morally relevant reason for legal prohibitions. How much his arguments are relevant here is a matter I need to try to understand better in order to be able to say anything. --Aminz 10:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Aisha

Some mention should be made of Muhammad's favorite (and youngest) wife. His life wasn't all about war. Arrow740 09:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is already there in the family section. --Aminz 10:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The story of cranes

I think it would be undue weight to give more space to this alleged incident than about say Battle of Trench or other notable incidents. I'll try to summerize it in a line. --Aminz 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestion for a short summary? --Aminz 10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This alleged incident was allegedly shorter before BYT expanded its verbiage. The trouble here is that hand-wringing takes space.Proabivouac 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposal

Here is my proposal:

According to a tradition whose historicity is controversial, Muhammad at this time delivered verses recognizing three Meccan goddesses but later nullified them (see Satanic_verses#Tabari's account).

By controversial, we are saying its historicity is controversial (disagreement between western /muslim scholars). I think we should not give much space to this incident. The article at the moment doesn't even mention more important incidents (e.g. Boycott of Banu Hashim) that happened around the same time. --Aminz 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like brevity, but this is too short. I though we had a neutral version already.
"According to a tradition whose historicity is controversial" is quite prejudicial, and weasel worded. What tradition? Controversial to whom? It's also not just a disagreement between Islamic scholars and academics, but between later Islamic scholars and the earliest ones. As no one denies that this material appears in early works, that would seem the best place to start, even if we were to mention nothing about the later disagreements. I do agree with BYT, and I believe Arrow740 does to, that it's important to state that later Islamic scholars rejected it.Proabivouac 21:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
How about this one:

According to a tradition whose historicity is controversial(with earliest Muslim biographies and most western scholars accepting it but later Muslim scholars rejecting it), Muhammad at this time delivered verses recognizing three Meccan goddesses but later nullified them (see Satanic_verses#Tabari's account).

--Aminz 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Any feedback regaring th above proposal would be appreciated. --Aminz 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that later Islamic scholars came to reject it is most of the controversy, isn't it?Proabivouac 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the usage of the words. controversy says "A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate."
We can avoid using the word.

According to a tradition whose historicity is accepted by the earliest Muslim biographies and most western scholars but rejected by later Muslim scholars, Muhammad at this time delivered verses recognizing three Meccan goddesses but later nullified them (see Satanic_verses#Tabarī's account).

--Aminz 22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, assuming "the earliest Muslim biographies" doesn't mean "all of the earliest biographies" --Aminz 22:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't want to frontload the sentence with the list of disputers. Think of it as a narrative: According to the earliest biographies, so-and-so happened. Later Islamic scholars rejected this because so-and-so. There's your controversy. I'm not opposed to presenting academic opinion per se, but it's somewhat superfluous as they're just following the bios.Proabivouac 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we can write it as you said. Let's hear other people's opinion. We might want to write it as "the earliest surviving Muslim biographies" because Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography much later than the time the actual events happened. --Aminz 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a good way forward. → AA (talk) — 07:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Arrow740, you are now reinserting your POV to a disputed passage you have refused to enter mediation on

Either stop disrupting this page or agree to enter mediation. BYT 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, RfM was premature, because no one was sure exactly what the dispute was. I don't believe I'd seen the current text prior the request, for example, or had a chance to discuss it with you. Since we're both on talk now, we can do that. Certainly, we can't be using the existence of a defective RfM as a reason for Arrow740 not to be allowed to edit, anymore than it would mean you couldn't edit. It doesn't make these edits disruptive.
The following text is palpably skeptical in tone:

Some early accounts of Muhammad's life describe an episode known as "The Story of the Cranes," according to which Muhammad is said to have delivered what Western scholars later dubbed the "satanic verses." The verses supposedly made enigmatic references to high-flying beings that some associated with goddesses considered by Meccan polytheists to be the daughters of Allah.

  • "Some" horribly understates the matter: Al-Tabari and Al-Waqidi aren't just "some early accounts," and Arrow740 had earlier listed a number of others. My first crack at it read, "according to Tabari," but that understated it too.
  • "Is said to" is by this time wholly redundant: we've already called it "an account and a story, according to which…" The only purpose of this is to assume a doubtful tone.
  • "supposedly" - see WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported, which addresses not just this word in particular, but the overall tone of your writing.
  • "enigmatic references to high-flying beings that some associated with" - here your skepticism plainly misrepresents the traditional narrative, which is enitrely clear that these gharaniq are supposed to be the Meccan goddesses mentioned in the Qur'anic verse which preceded them. "some associated with" is wholly unnecessary, while "enigmatic"…well, it's like the whole thing: are we trying to clarify the matter for readers, or obscure it? Does it impart any useful information?
The story isn't that complicated, actually. If you believe, as an item of faith, reason or both, that it didn't happen, that's one thing, but that's no excuse for this kind of writing. Many people do write this way, but there's a broad community consensus that we're not supposed to.
I also invite you to change the title of this thread to something less personalized and confrontational.Proabivouac 20:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a need for us to discuss the "Story of Crane" part in details and come up with a short summary that is completely factual. I am thinking of adding an external link to the text for Tabari's version of the story plus simply saying it is controversial. But aside from that part, I think Arrow is restoring other parts containing personal opinions and/or loaded language. I look forward to hear comments about other parts. --Aminz 21:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In the process, you wrote that Islamic scholars reject the story, but at the same time, you excluded the opinions of Western scholars. This is completely unacceptable. Beit Or 08:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see discussion above "Story of crane" section. --Aminz 08:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That particular thing may be my fault: read the above. I don't think the cites should be removed; at the very least they are sources confirming the meaning of what is said in the traditional account. Other information was removed as well.Proabivouac 08:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent disputes

I'd like some delineation of the particular issues involved in this change:[33]Proabivouac 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Addition of Abu Talib being the head of the clan of Banu Hashim is relevant because he was Muhammad's protector from direct attacks(as mentioned a few paragraphs above it).
  2. As far as I know, Quraysh is a tribe not a clan. Banu Hashim was a clan of Quraysh.
  3. The summary of "Story of the crane" was discussed above in "story of crane" section. We need to keep it short as argued above and this does. It is also meaningless to list over ten different sources saying the samething. We probably have to discuss this in a different place.
  4. re "After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims.[8] Before this they had tolerated him, even reportedly saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven."[9] These Muslims would later raid Meccan caravans partly because they believed they had been treated badly.[10]" What does this has to with last years in Mecca? Nor are reason for persecution the specific one taken among all other things.
  5. "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom" --> "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom." This is how the source puts it and is more accurate. Re: but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed. I've discussed it in "sources requested" section.
  6. "Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men who had attacked him on an intellectual and literary level in Mecca without entertaining offers for their release. One of the men had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an. Muhammad was especially sensitive to attacks of this kind throughout his career, and considered them an unforgivable sin." --> "Two men were not given the option of being ransomed and were immediately killed: one of which had written verses about Muhammad and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an." - This the factual statement of what happened. We mention what those two persons had done as facts. The rest are interpretive and extra sentences which could be all concluded from what happened.
  7. From this period on, the Medinan verses of the Qur'an are very different from those of Mecca, dealing with practical problems of government, the distribution of booty, and other temporal matters. - First, Lewis says verses increasingly started to discuss dealing with practical problems of government and the distribution of booty. "other temporal matters" is Arrow's own addition and may change the meaning. We are here dealing with the historical narration of the events and I am not sure if this particular point is relevant here.
  8. The victory also made possible a reaction against the Jews and Christians, who were accused of falsifying their scriptures in order to conceal prophecies about Muhammad. Islam began to change; the new religion became more strictly Arab, and the conquest of Mecca became a religious duty. Different scholars have different view as to what were all the reasons for attack on Banu Qaynuq (if we would like to touch upon the reasons). The summary "Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa" would suffice. Details can go to the main article.
  9. Islam began to change; the new religion became more strictly Arab, and the conquest of Mecca became a religious duty - This is cited as a consequence of the battle of Badr and as usual is quite interpretive with its loaded language "Islam began to change". The underlying facts are the change in the direction of "qibla" towards Kaaba and some other points. The rest is Lewis's interpretation. This is quite anti-Islamic "Islam began to change". Let's write down the facts.
  10. Muhammad also moved against critics in Medina, ordering the assassination of first the poetess Asma bint Marwan, then the poet Abu Afak."After these events we may assume that there was little overt opposition to Muhammad among the pagans," Watt states. - Muhammad didn't "order" anything and there is no reason to assume he was aware of the plan but he later didn't punish those who killed the two poets. To call this "moving against critics in Medina" is again interpretive and exaggeration. And I don't think this is relevant and significant. Plus, what are the "events" and who are "the pagans" Watt is talking about. Arrow might want to give us a fuller quote of Lewis.
  11. "Subsequently, the Meccans sent out a caravan by a route well east of Medina, but Muhammad found out and raided it. A few days later in the year 625, the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage." I changed this to "In November 624, a party sent by Muhammad led a successful raid on a Meccan caravan by a route well east of Medina.[11] In March 625, the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men." First of all, if I hadn't make any mistake, from November 624 to March 625 is not a "few days". Plus, there is nothing in Arrow's writing except biased and loaded language.
  12. "Muhammad beseiged the Banu Qaynuqa and forced their surrender. He wanted to put all the men to death, but was convinced not to do so by Abdullah ibn Ubayy, who was an old ally of the Qaynuqa. Instead, he expelled them from Medina with their families and possessions. After Uhud, he did the same to the Banu Nadir." First of all, this is conjectural. Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions and that Ibn Ubay argued that presense of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help Medina against Meccans. Plus, there is no reason to get into details of what Ibn Ubayy did in this article. I think we should just state what eventually happened to them.

One last point, there was no "original" consensus version that we have to commit ourselves to it until changes are approved. --Aminz 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't come up with much, did he? Arrow740 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the recently added 10, Muhammad said "who will take care of X for me," Watt and Rodinson call the resulting murders assassination, and Watt says he moved against his critics, as anyone can see that assassination is. Arrow740 10:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As the first two points seem uncontroversial, I restored your changes (though without parenthetical comments such as these, which are bad in mainspace.)Proabivouac 09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Though the first point is already mentioned in Muhammad#Childhood and Muhammad#Opposition in Mecca.Proabivouac 09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to remind the significance of his uncle. --Aminz 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, is your preference for "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom." over "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom" driven by the absence of the word "Muslims" in the former sentence? Beit Or 09:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Who else's captives would they be? There would seem to be no substance to this point of dispute.Proabivouac 09:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from extra usage of the word, I prefer "captives who were not wealthy" rather than "captives of little value". --Aminz 09:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Those are actually different: the less ambiguous equivalent of "captives who were no wealthy" is "captives of little wealth."Proabivouac 09:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Watt says "sufficiently wealthy". We can also write "captives of little wealth" --Aminz 09:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
On point six, I tend to agree that we don't need quips about what Muhammad did through his whole career: if there are other examples, let's make sure they're included. However, if Muhammad ordered this to happen, we should say make this clear.Proabivouac 09:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
In a short biography like this one, historians' descriptions of tendencies evidenced over his entire life are appropriate when including all instances would not be. Arrow740 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The basic facts are the same but people interpret it differently. Plus the term "intellectual" is too broad in its meaning. --Aminz 09:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
One difference I do notice between these versions

"Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom, but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed. Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men who had attacked him on an intellectual and literary level in Mecca without entertaining offers for their release."

"Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Two men were not given the option of being ransomed and were immediately killed"

is that the second doesn't mention Muhammad.Proabivouac 09:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point. Yes, we can include the name of Muhammad there. --Aminz 09:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I eventually found the quote from Robinson[34]. It doesn't say "after this battle, Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed" meaning that in later battles he "decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed". --Aminz 09:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You have just demonstrated that you should not quibble over semantics. Arrow740 10:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a minor difference here - one suggests he did it (immediately) after the battle, while the other leaves the precise time of the change of heart unspecified…but why not just correct it?Proabivouac 07:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, please write a reponse to each of the points mentioned below. It is your turn. --Aminz 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You have not acted in good faith recently. For one example, see Talk:Muhammad#Source_requested, where you used the fact that I had been away for a few days to claim that a quote was not in the source I said it was. When I came back and again said "it's where I said it was," you somehow managed to find it. The additions you are trying to remove speak for themselves, and others working on this article will not be swayed from supporting them by your list. Arrow740 17:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The page was not accessable in books.google.com and I couldn't see anything from my search there. And further the meaning I understood from your writing was quite different. I was looking for something different that it was a decision made for later battles. If somebody had the money but didn't want to pay, he was killed. Simple as it is.
Please write a reponse to each of the points mentioned below. It is your turn. --Aminz 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not my fault you can't understand something so clear. I think it is possible that you claimed to not be able to understand it so that you could remove it. Arrow740 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, please do not reduce the discussion to petty bickering. Beit Or 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's point to point response

Please write in the below a point to point response to the above 12 points I've raised. In my next turn, I'll comment on them and we can continue. If you agree with a change, there is no need to discuss it. --Aminz 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that would serve no purpose. Arrow740 00:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to join the discussion, that's another issue. --Aminz 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
See Beit Or's response to you above, and do not remove sourced material (even if you don't have access to it, can't understand it, or don't like it). Arrow740 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please write a point-to-point response. --Aminz 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or's response was not helpful. unwillingness to discuss the issues at hand only stymies any attempt at dispute resolution. ITAQALLAH 03:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The path suggested may be unduly laborious - I myself haven't had time to take too close a look - but the alternative is yet more edit warring.Proabivouac 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. It was already mentioned above.
  2. Fine, I'll incorporate that if it comes up.
  3. There is a meaning in listing various places where the story is confirmed. Regarding keeping it short, it already is too generous because we mention that the story is rejected, when that rejection is clearly based primarily on emotion.
  4. Cook and Rodinson say that this was a turning point and that the satanic verses were delivered during this period. That's what it has to do with this period. Following that is when he became really offensive to the Meccans and they started persecuting him, and this was the last stage of his career in Mecca. I only included the victimhood nonsense to avoid conflict, I can happily remove it. In the future, if you think that something is one section above where it should be, note that that is a bad excuse for removing it altogether.
  5. I've responded. Don't remove something you cannot access.
  6. If you'd like, we can include all instances of Muhammad killing people who insulted him, and there are quite a few. Instead, we can keep this mild, uncontested analysis sourced to the apologist Watt.
  7. Your "argument" is not clear. Other temporal matters is quite appropriate, I'm sure you can consult resources to find out the meaning. You can include "increasingly" if you wish. If I had done so I would have been reverted with the excuse being "copy and paste job," this is a catch-22.
  8. I'm not sure why you wrote "Banu Qaynuq," as Lewis doesn't mention them here.
  9. Your "anti-Islamic" reaction is not helpful. Lewis describes the situation quite accurately. If you want to go into details about the change in the religion we can (you wouldn't like it). This sourced summary from Lewis is quite appropriate.
  10. About your first sentence, I have responed on your talk. Your second sentence is better ignored. Your opinion in the third is simply wrong; Watt says the assassinations ended the opposition from the pagans, and Rodinson also stresses their importance. Richard Gabriel in a book I will hopefully soon have also notes how effectively Muhammad used political assassinations. The "plus" doesn't make any sense, this sentence seems to have been written for the sake of writing something. I don't know what Lewis has to do with this.
  11. How is a dry statement of fact biased? Is reality biased? Better get to work on that. Your sentence was wrong, implying that the significance of the route somehow had to do with Muhammad's planning, when in fact the Meccans were trying to avoid getting robbed and they picked the route. The token raid sent out by the Meccans was 10 weeks after Badr.
  12. "First of all, this is conjectural." This is original research at best. You have said elsewhere that this is not your personal reading of Ibn Ishaq (Guillaume's English translation, I assume). Your opinion is not relevant. The material is sourced to a reliable source. Watt doesn't address the issue of a possible execution, except with a hint about the "other conditions." The point here is that it is sourced and your OR doesn't matter. There is a reason to go into it because Ibn Ubayy played a huge role with respect to Muhammad's rise to power. Arrow740 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz point-to-point response

3. "There is a meaning in listing various places where the story is confirmed." Would you like to share its meaning? One source says that most western scholars agree with its historicity. I can list many sources saying no.

4. If you agree with removal of this, then we don't need to continue anymore. But otherwise I'll provide an answer: You wrote: "After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims"When did this happen? In the last years of Mecca? You say: The satanic verses incident was a turning point. What does this have to do with what you've written in the article.

5. Where did you answer to my comment: "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom" --> "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom." This is how the source puts it and is more accurate. Now, regarding the second part of your writing "Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom, but after this battle Muhammad decided that anyone who went unransomed would be killed.", Robinson only says those who were wealthy or influential but were not ransomed were killed and nothing more. Are you happy with :"In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Those who were wealthy but did not ransomed themselves were killed."

6. We should mention what factually happened since there are various of different interpretations of what happened that we can not get into in the main article. If we are going to mention anything, we should mention anything of equal importance. And lastly, Watt is not an apologist.

7. Arrow, thanks for addressing some of my points. But you have not addressed all of them, i.e. that we are here dealing with the historical narration of the events and I am not sure if this particular point is relevant here. If we are going to include it, here is my suggestion: "Following the Battle of Badr, the Qur'anic verses, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty."

8. Muhammad expelled Banu Qaynuqa a few weeks after the Battle of Badr and I have seen some other scholars making the same point. The victory that Lewis is talking about is that of Badr.

9. My point is quite different. We should say the underlying facts and then afterwards present various views. See WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. The underlying fact is the change of the qibla. That's the bit of information. Muslims have their own interpretation of it. Lewis has his own and others theirs. As of now, we have nothing but a loaded meaningless sentence: "Islam began to change."

10. To be completed

11. You have not answered my point. Plus, how in your mind, 10 weeks is a few days? November 624 to March 625 is accurate.

12. Watt says Muhammad was insisting that the Qaynuqa must leave but was prepared to be linient about other conditions. Ibn Ishaq doesn't say anything on what Muhammad thought. Watt and Robinson are making their own conclusions. It is quite unneccessary to write such details in the main article. we need to just report basic facts rather than getting into controversial personal readings of the details.

--Aminz 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please make this the last round

3. What your problem with this? I don't understand why multiple citations is at all an issue. Is there some wikipolicy you're thinking of?

4. You didn't read the whole response, it seems. The complete break with the Meccans was after the satanic verses incident.

5. Please edit this response to make it intelligible. I'm representing Rodinson completely accurately. You're proposing something unreadable in exchange for something which clearly represents the sources Watt and Rodinson (the Watt material is from itaqallah, by the way).

6. Please be clear. You are saying we should include every assassination ordered by Muhammad? That is unreasonable. A summary by the most sympathetic serious historian should suffice for you.

7. Islam is more than the Qur'an. I don't even understand your problem with this sourced statement. Include "increasingly" if you wish.

8. I do not agree with your interpretation of Lewis. Muhammad assassinated a prominent Jew during this time period as well, and there were no doubt political machinations as well. Your interpretation is not relevant as the material is a faithful account of what Lewis (the secondary source, let's not forget) says. If there are other sources talking about the same issue and they will improve the article, include them.

9. It's not loaded, and it's not meaningless. It is a statement of fact. Do you even disagree with it? Again, this is what Lewis says so your agreement doesn't matter. Arrow740 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to merge the "opposition in" and "last years in" Mecca sections since the division between them seems to be arbitrary. Arrow740 06:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So your response to my response to your frivolous arguments is to put up tags. I'm removing them per these inescapable arguments for this sourced material. Arrow740 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, regarding the subsection:"Please make this the last round": I think we need to continue this discussion until either the disputes on each point are resolved, or we agree that we disagree on that point. Then we should probably go for a mediation or something else. This does not mean that your version or my version will stand during all these times, in reality it may become a mixture of both or so, but the POV tags will remain until the end. They are there for a different reason. --Aminz 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a leg to stand on, and I won't let you deface the article. Arrow740 00:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aminz point to point response

3. Simply because it is excessive and it makes the footnotes look ugly. The same reason we don't do this with other statements. One source says that most academic scholars who mention it accept its historicity. That covers all those special cases.

4. I can not see the direct relevance of the complete break with "After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims" When did this happen? Of course every two statements in this article are relevant simply because they are about Muhammad. But that doesn't mean we can put them together. Aside from these, coming back to the "complete break": Can you please provide the citations.

5. "captives who were not wealthy" is different than "captives of little value". Please see the comment at 09:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) and its preceding discussion. - Also, you didn't mention your problem with "In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Those who were wealthy but did not ransomed themselves were killed."

small point, but Rodinson is sourced for the sentence that the unransomed prisoners were killed, while Watt indicates otherwise, and there is no mention of any killings in the EoI article. the Battle of Badr article notes that most prisoners were spared instead of being killed. can the relevant passage from Rodinson be provided? ITAQALLAH 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Saying those certain people were excluded because they did so gives the raw data very clearly to the reader. How to interpret it depends on the writer. The main article is not a place for writing opinions.

7. I can not understand how your statement is an answer to my comment. You wrote:"From this period on, the Medinan verses of the Qur'an are very different from those of Mecca, dealing with practical problems of government, the distribution of booty, and other temporal matters." - I argued it should be replaced with "Following the Battle of Badr, the Qur'anic verses, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty." if we are going to have it in an article on Muhammad's biography.

8. Please let me know if the Jews Lewis refering to includes Banu Qaynuqa or not.

9. The underlying fact is that say qibla changed towards Kabaa. Lewis takes this (as his opinion) that Islam changed. What we need less is opinions here.

I am waiting for your response to other points I've raised so that I can answer them. --Aminz 23:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is neither excessive nor ugly. Look at the source cited. We're not mentioning the "complete break" in the article as following directly the satanic verses incident, even though we should because that's what the sources say. I'm sacrificing encyclopedicity in order to reduce edit warring. Arrow740 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, I assume this is answer to point number 3 regarding the list of the sources re story of the cranes. If so, please move it to the following section under point #3. --Aminz 00:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's pro forma response

11. Uhuh was a few days after the raid. I suppose you failed to comprehend that from the reading, casting yet more doubt on your future reading of sources.

12. You have not provided anything from a reliable source contradicting Rodinson. That's all there is to it. Note: in Ibn Ishaq, ibn Ubayy is reported to have said "what, you will kill them all in one day?"

4. No, look at it yourself. I'm not using that in the article.

5. Aminz, you can take up the representation of the Watt material up with Itaqallah. Watt does not indicate otherwise. Rodinson says:

The prisoners were herded together. Umar wanted them all slaughtered, but Muhammad decided that ransoms should be demanded first, after which they would kill any for whom no one was prepared to pay.

6. Are you saying that we should include every instance of a critic of Muhammad killed with Muhammad's approval or request? That is unreasonable in an article of this size. We will include this short summary from the most sympathetic serious scholar.

7. Lewis' wording is clearer than yours.

8. No, I don't think I will. This is not relevant. His statement is clear. If you find an RS disagreeing, present it, otherwise do not post.

9. Your OR is often faulty, this may be the case here.

3. Do not remove sourced material based on your personal ideas of esthetics. Arrow740 05:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, your comments are becoming less and less helpful. --Aminz 09:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop pretending that there's a neutrality dispute. You're disputing what historians say, and that's not how wikipedia works. Arrow740 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest IA edits

Looking at these, first I've addressed the issue of the tags above. There is apparently no response to my defense of the material sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Now the issue of the "response to brigandage" (regarding "brigandage, that is Lewis' word, and Rodinson says we can "hardly call it anything else"). Itaqallah said that defending trade was the primary motive for the response. Read this here. Now, at the same time, the Meccans wanted revenge. I'll expand the revenge aspect while retaining the content sourced to Lewis.

Regarding the interpretion of Uhud:

The Jews, pagans and non-believers were pointing out unkindly that if Muhammad had hailed the victory at Badr as proof of the genuineness of his mission, it was only logical to deduce from his present defeat a sign of the vanity of his claims. If Allah was now on the side of the Qurayshites, it meant that Muhamad could not be accepted as a prophet. Who had ever heard of a prophet who had heaven on his side being so humiliatingly worsted?

So my summary was already quite dry, and your does not include the vindictiveness of the historical event. We can go with "vanity of his claims" or something else closer to Rodinson if you insists on changing it again. Arrow740 21:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

both 1) revenge and 2) defending trade -either due to a) prestige, as Watt says (which itself connects with the theme of revenge), or b) continued attacks, as Lewis says - are significant reasons for the Battle of Uhud. that is palpable from my comments in the discussion you link to. you are giving undue weight towards reason 2b. what do you mean by "vindictiveness of the historical event"? as for shallow threats on more tendentious wording if i copyedit the passage, see WP:POINT. ITAQALLAH 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
So you couldn't understand my post, despite the fact that it was "shallow?" Read it again. Here is another wikipedia editor admitting that defending trade was the primary reason for the counterattack. Arrow740 05:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
if you didn't understand my above post, Arrow, then please ask for clarification. otherwise, please address the points raised therein. ITAQALLAH 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying the same thing over and over again, despite the fact that Watt and Lewis are quite clear. You find revenge mentioned in the EoI and try to trumpet it as an equal motivator, no doubt to portray the Meccans in a negative light. The sources don't share your POV. We will portray it as they do; defending trade was the primary motive. You said this yourself here. We're mentioning revenge excessively as it is. Arrow740 19:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
please stop your bad faith attacks, which have been increasing in frequency of late. you misrepresent Watt by generalising his point to make it appear that he agrees with Lewis, and don't appreciate the stark differences in their points, nor the fact that revenge ties in quite well with regaining prestige. you need to let go of this obsession with my one single comment which you again clearly misunderstood - and take a look at the discussion as a whole. please address what i asked about Rodinson. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't misunderstand anything, and you haven't even tried to explain your admission away. If you're saying I misunderstood this diff, then explain yourself. Anyone else reading here can see what you said. Watt states that they needed to restore their prestige in order to protect their trade. They needed to show their trading partners they needed to remove this threat to their trade. I think referring to the Muslims as a "threat to trade" is what is bother you about this, that's the only explanation I can come up with. Do not try to tie things in, let's just say what the sources say. You will not be able to censor this material. You didn't ask anything about Rodinson here. What are you talking about? Arrow740 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
i will have to ask again, please stop making bad faith attacks. also, i don't think unfounded and mistaken "explanation"s as to other editors' actions are needed here. you have misinterpreted my comments, and you keep linking to it (at least half a dozen times already) to perpetuate your misunderstanding. please either request clarification of my position, or stop linking to it to advance pointless arguments. "Do not try to tie things in" - that is exactly what you are unsuccessfully trying to do with Watt and Lewis. returning to the issue, i asked for you to elaborate on what you meant by "vindictiveness of the historical event." ITAQALLAH 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple here

The "Story of the Cranes"/"Satanic Verses" passage is under dispute.

There has been an RFC.

There was a request for mediation.

The mediation was refused.

If you are hot under the collar about this and want to enter mediation, leave a note on my talk page, and we'll get right to work. BYT 10:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BYT, if you have anything new to say on this issue, please use this talk page. We need no additional forums. Beit Or 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
BYT, I'm trying to talk to you about the article in the thread you titled Talk:Muhammad#User:Arrow740, you are now reinserting your POV to a disputed passage you have refused to enter mediation on.Proabivouac 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry wikipedia

this article is just offensive from people who hate Islam there is no info about Muhammad here no biography just a war. i suggest to rename the article to "Muhammad (Western Point of View)" .more details replace Western with Judaism. sorry Jewish but there is a group that applied the Arab-Israeli conflict here but with help. LOL (Muslim love Wikipedia - 86.108.94.25 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I'am with u Smart_Viral 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why telling people about Muhammad's life is offensive. What's your problem with the story of his life? Arrow740 23:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You must be talking about another article. This article contains reliable biographical data. If the data is wrong then fix it. That it lists war/conflicts e.g. with Mecca etc is because those were important events with respect to progress of Islam and the amalgamation of Arab tribal structures under Islam. The problem overall I feel is probably due to the lack of contemporaneous records. Though Ibn Ishaq obviously has provided biographical details - there is no original records either from the time of Muhammad or even from Ibn Ishaq (funny enough no one doubts Muhammad actually lived whereas Jesus ? - well there are no records at all on him from when he lived !). You're going to have to provide a bit more detail on where the view is biased rather rambling on about Palestine. Ttiotsw 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Mohammad

Please try this website Mohammad.islamway.com. 1 book author isn't a reference but this is really large group. <<Smart_Viral 18:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Nicely presented site but what it says is unreliable as it is unsourced - I can't see any references in the text that allow anyone to verify what was said. Interesting backstory though with the reference back to Sumer and Ur, but again unverifiable and probably fictional. See WP:RS for what are reliable sources. Ttiotsw 07:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

About Prophet Muhammad "Peace Be Upon Him" being the founder of Islam

At the introduction of the article the writer mentioned the following statement was the founder of Islam about the Prophet Muhammad "PBUH". I believe this statement is totally wrong, some of the reasons are:-

1) All – or at least most- of the sources that the article relied on believe that Prophet Muhammad "PBUH" is the prophet of God, even the non-Muslims writers like Watt. So Why this contradiction with the article's resources.

2) Beginning the article by this statement makes me wonder if the writer is influencing the reader from the beginning by his own point of view.

3) In the article of the Prophet Moses"PBUH" at the introduction of the article it is mentioned about him "was an early Biblical Hebrew religious leader, lawgiver, prophet, and military leader". I believe that all prophets must be described as prophets not as founders —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 20:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Ibrahim999, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion
"Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?"Proabivouac 03:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hijra or Migration

Hijra is seem to be confused in Wikipedia English.Why can't replaced with Migration to Medina. <<Smart_Viral 05:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Change the link to this: [[Hijra_(Islam)|hijra]]. Arrow740 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The age of the prophet Muhammad "Peace Be Upon Him" when he married Khadija

The age of the prophet Muhammad "Peace Be Upon Him" when he married Khadija was 25 not 26, according to " Alseera Alnabawaya li ibin Hisham" Prophetic Biography for Ibin Hisham" page 198. Also according to Alseera Alnabawaya li Mustafa Alseba'i Prophetic Biography for the Professor. Mustafa Alseba'i page 33. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 20:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Muhammad's images

Would someone please provide a link to the summary of arguments made in favor and against Muhammad's images (if someone has made the summary). If not, would someone please provide a link to the discussions so that I can read them as I wasn't following those discussions. I've been reading articles on issues like Freedom of speech, Pornography etc etc from some Encyclopedia of philosophies. I was wondering if the views of philosophers such as Joel Feinberg who maintain that preventing shock, disgust, or revulsion is always a morally relevant reason for legal prohibitions, has been discussed before. Feinberg, for example, suggests the "offense principle" and holds that a variety of factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether speech can be limited by the offense principle and these include the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large. So, I think the following question should be answered:

1. The number of images and their informative value
2. The ease with which the images can be avoided
3. The motives for adding the images (related to number 1)
4. The number of people offended
5. The intensity of offense
6. The general interest of the community at large.

Re 1, we need to find the informative value of showing the pictures instead of saying such images exist. The answers to 2, 4,5 are strightforward. (6) is open to discussion. The answer to (3) depends on (1), so the starting point can be (1). Let's discuss (1) or if we have already discussed this, a link would be enough for me to read it. --Aminz 10:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering if people have discussed this issue from a Utilitarianism point of view. --Aminz 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find a reliable source indicating that Joel Feinberg's opinion is relevant to this discussion. Arrow740 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Joel Feinberg is proposing the "Offense principle" much like the "Harm principle" (that one is free to do something as long as he does not harm others). These principles can be applied to any specific applications e.g. pornography, hate speech, etc etc. --Aminz 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Why should we care about his theories? Application of his ideas to this issue is synthesis, and original research. Arrow740 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
All discussions in this regard were/are Original research. Do you have a reliable source saying we can/cannot use image of Muhammad in wikipedia? --Aminz 21:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was the conclusion of the mediation. Arrow740 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, why don't you write an essay on this? You could probably do better than the last one.Proabivouac 21:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Before that I need to know a summary of previous arguments made for/against having the pictures. A link to previous discussion would be appreciated.--Aminz 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The links to the mediation are on the upper right beneath the talk archives.Proabivouac 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks --Aminz 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no informative value from presnting these pictures, these 4 pictures are untrue, and an insult to poeple who are Muslims... so the disadvatages are many... the question Aminz is : what is more important for wikipedia, Respecting others religouse values by avoiding adding such pictures or adding pictures just for adding pictures in spite of others' values... one of the wikipedia's guidlines is to be polite... why not to begin by respecting others values...Ibrahim999 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a holy text. Removing the pictures would be censorship, plain and simple. Also, the pictures are just as informative as any pictures of Jesus, or any other prophets from any other religion. Fuzzform 18:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad. Fuzzform 18:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

no body will listen to you whetever you do as it is an open Propaganda against islam & muslims and dont you worry for the FAKE images it will not change islam people are doing so many things against islam for many years to demolish it but it is rising and rising and it will rise. dont worry, let them to post any thing they want to post as they say it is a freedom of speach we respect their ethics but unfortunately they never care for ours.--Kashi. 08:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Last years in Mecca

i notice a mistake in last revision "Muhammad ... in which he recognized the validity of three Meccan" but Islam is monotheistic religion. <<Smart_Viral 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>

So if your personal views conflict with history, then history is false. That is a terrible paradigm for someone editing an encyclopedia. Arrow740 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not a mistake, SmartViral: that's exactly what the story in Al-Tabari, following Ibn Ishaq (the earliest biography of Muhammad) claims occurred. You're absolutely right that it's a departure from Islamic principles - according to this same story, Gabriel subsequently corrected Muhammad, attributing these verses to Satan. No one is claiming that it's part of Islam.Proabivouac 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
listen Proabivouac
  • Al-Tabari is just a collection of notes.
  • after about 120 years from Muhammad death Ibn Ishaq began his work to collect a spoken-facts from people.(not from records or documents)
  • he doesn't prove any of his notes using Science of hadith or any other methods. <<Smart_Viral 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)>>
The article didn't say it happened, only that the earliest biographies describe it happening, which is true. It's up to you if you want to believe the story or not - I'm skeptical of several elements of it myself - but this article isn't here to conform to your personal point of view. The article said that later Islamic scholars came to reject it, which is also true. You agree with them. What's more to discuss?Proabivouac 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Cut it out SV. Take it up with the reliable secondary sources we're quoting. You're presenting irrelevant original research (that is wrong, the story is included in basically all early Muslim texts). Arrow740 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
just unreliable reference you have to explain this ... also move it to another article the text will become so large & unreadable. <Smart_Viral 22:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)>

article separation

this article seems huge contains lots of info references & notes must be split into small articles this will make the maintenance easier & the discussion useful. <<Smart_Viral 23:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Muslim views of Muhammad

Why isn't there an article with this title? There is, after all, an article called Christian views of Jesus. The advantage would be that we could stick all the Muslim theology and special pleading into the new article, and report the actual historical truth in this one, hopefully free of Muslim vandals and would-be censors. Such a hope, I accept, is forlorn, however. TharkunColl 23:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone has now created a link from the above title to Islamic views of Muhammad. Fair enough. I'm glad to report that I was able to correct a few lies in it. TharkunColl 23:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

There is not only discussions on many past dispute going on but Arrow has recently added more problematic statements. Particularly this one: "His son-in-law Ali made a disparaging remark about Aisha. She never forgave him, and his remark led to his assassination twenty years later.": To single out Ali's remark as the reason leading to his assassination twenty years later is really strange (and indeed laughable) for an scholar of Islam (though assuming that Robinson has ever said that). Aside from these, even if Robinson ever said this, this would be no more than one opinion among others. And as in some previous cases, this has nothing to do with Muhammad article. --Aminz 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, there are many speculated opinions as to why Ali was assassinated, and opinions is something this article needs less of. ITAQALLAH 01:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree too. ~atif msg me - 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
You are opposing your original research with a clear statement about history by a historian. Arrow740 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
what are you talking about? in what way is the fact that there are different opinions forwarded for Ali's assassination (a common view being that he was killed by a disenchanted Kharijite for making a truce with Mu'awiya) tantamount to original research? ITAQALLAH 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the story I've usually heard, that Kharijites sent assassins after both Mu'awiya and Ali, but only the latter succeeded. Not that I necessarily believe this, even less that a single disparaging remark were the main reason, but this dispute lies outside the scope of the biography, and should be covered elsewhere.Proabivouac 09:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have heard more details from some sources. Aside from those motivations, a beautiful girl (who specially hated Ali) had also given a marriage promise to the person who killed Ali. --Aminz 09:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If Arrow makes these kind of edits as he did for Ali's assasination, then we should consider re-looking at all his edits especially to Islam related articles ~atif msg me - 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's contested, it's somewhat off-topic, so we remove it. No big deal.Proabivouac 00:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I put more weight with Rodinson's statements than with the editors on wikipedia. Provide reliable sources disagreeing, and we can attribute it or remove it. It's that simple. Arrow740 05:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what happened twenty years later anyhow, does it?Proabivouac 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to mention details like Ali's suggestion in the first place here. The details should go to Aisha article, not here. We can briefly mention the story in two sentences. --Aminz 09:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's relevant. Ali was a huge figure in continuing the religion Muhammad started. If you can find an RS saying that this didn't lead to his assassination then we will change it. As long as it's just your opinion, we won't remove this sourced history. That's how wikipedia works. Arrow740 09:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
as other editors have mentioned, it is a) irrelevant to this article, and b) one of a multitude of suggested reasons (if you would but widen your reading). that your knowledge of Ali's assassination is restricted to Rodinson's speculation (which you still amusingly tout as 'sourced history') doesn't stop you from taking a minute to refer to some better sources (e.g. Cambridge History of Islam, p. 72). ITAQALLAH 18:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Provide the source, then we can attribute this information. It's not a big issue to me. And regarding the first snide comment, I'm not worried that my knowledge of all the gory details of early Islamic history is incomplete. Arrow740 20:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, various speculations about the reasons for assassination of Ali is irrelevant to this article. You justifed this saying "Ali was a huge figure in continuing the religion Muhammad started": Kabaa is Islam's most sacred site and you can easily connect it to Muhammad, but this doesn't mean we should include details about its size here. Furthermore, if you argue for inclusion of Ali's reasons for assassination here, you should also include equally important events of Ali's life as well.
Rodinson has written one whole book on Muhammad, we are writing a short article. To say that Rodinson mentions something doesn't mean it is significant enough to be mentioned here. It is you, not Rodinson, that decide what to pick and write here. But that's original research. You should establish that the event is significant enough to be mentioned here. Just saying Rodinson says that it is not enough. --Aminz 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Arrow740 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I am pretty sure what Arrow740's agenda looks like...216.99.60.106 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Aisha II

Just to add another point. Arrow has written the following regarding those who accused Aisha of adultery :"and stated that those who had falsely accused her would receive eighty lashes."

Robinson says "The reprimands were followed by rules for the future. Aisha case was to act as a precedent. Accusations of adultery and fornication must in future be supported by four witnesses. If the accusation were shown to be true the guilty party were each to recieve a hundred lashes. But if the accusers could not bring four witnesses, they were to be regarded as bearing false witness and themseleves punished with eighty lashes"

I can not see where Robinson says the accusers in this case were punished by 80 lashes. --Aminz 00:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, that's Rodinson.
That's sort of a strange use of "precedent": how can the Aisha case act as a precedent if that's not what was done? Is there more to this passage, or is this it? Because though it suggests that they were given eighty lashes, it doesn't outright state this.Proabivouac 00:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks re Rodinson. That's all the passage says. The sentence was sourced to page 203 but in page 204 it says the chief scandal-mongers were meted out but Ibn Ubay was probably spared because of his age. --Aminz 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
"Aisha's case was to act as a precedent." Do not question my reading comprehension, Aminz. Arrow740 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
So we agree that there's no misrepresentation here, and change the cite from "203" to "203-204."Proabivouac 05:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, I have not addressed the question of relevance of such details. At the surface level, Arrow has written: "Chief among her accusers was Muhammad's rival Ibn Ubayy... Muhammad eventually revealed which exonerated Aisha, and stated that those who had falsely accused her would receive eighty lashes. This completed Ibn Ubayy's loss of political influence; he had been losing stature for some time."
Doesn't this imply that Ibn Ubayy recieved lashes? Doesn't this imply that all who had falsely accused her, not just the three chief scandal-mongers recieved lashes. Aside from these, the informative way to present this is to explain the whole story:"Accusations of adultery and fornication must in future be supported by four witnesses. If the accusation were shown to be true the guilty party were each to recieve a hundred lashes."
And another excessive detail is "This completed Ibn Ubayy's loss of political influence; he had been losing stature for some time." as he is not directly relevant to the focus of this article. --Aminz 09:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Ibn Ubayy was his chief rival, and with this Muhammad completely neutralized him. Stop trying to argue with Rodinson. Arrow740 09:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
With eighty lashes that he didn't recieve? The Muslim Ibn Ubayy was not the chief rival of prophet Muhammad. Before hijra, Ibn Ubayy was the one who was supposed to settle down the disputes in Medina before Muhammad's arrival if you'd like to call him Muhammad's "rival". --Aminz 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Stop arguing with Rodinson. Most of your unsourced statements recently have been proven wrong. You can add that Ibn Ubayy didn't receive the lashes if you want, but the main point here is as Rodinson says, this was a rebuke from Allah that put an end to Ibn Ubayy's influence. Arrow740 09:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you stop pushing your anti-islamic agenda. Try to add positive information to Islam-related articles for a change you...(Censored) 216.99.60.106 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

according to the bible (To Moses) I will raise up for them a Prophet like you among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My name, I will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18:17–9) According to some scholars what is meant by “a Prophet like you among their brothers” is a Prophet who will come from the line of Ishmael, since Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, who is the forefather of the Children of Israel. The only Prophet who came after Moses and resembled him in many ways, for example, in the bringing of new laws and the waging of war on his enemies, was the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Qur’an points to the same fact, We have sent to you a Messenger as a witness over you, even as we sent to Pharaoh a Messenger.( (Al-Muzzammil 73:15) Ibrahim999 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

a lot of this probably doesn't merit mention here, but the discussion of the word paraclete, and its relevance to Muhammad, is somewhat present in academic circles. there is some discussion of this in the Jesus article of Encyclopedia of Islam (some chars haven't come out correctly):

According to the Muslim commentators, who base themselves on LXI, 6, Jesus announced the coming of one who would come after him. According to the recension of Ubayy, this was “ the seal of the Prophets ” and of the messengers; in the Vulgate, it is “ a Messenger ” named Ahmad. On the meaning of the variant of Ubayy, cf. Blachère, tr. 909. Islam recognizes Muhammad in Ahmad, both names deriving from the root h.m.d. In St. John's Gospel Jesus announces the sending of the Paraclete (XIV, 16; XIV, 26; XVI, 7). The main early versions of the Gospels have merely transcribed the term without translating it: parakletos has given f§raÎlÊt.

Sale, in his Preliminary Discourse, 1877, iv, 53 (quoted by H. A. Walter, The AhmadÊya Movement , 30), following up a suggestion of Marracci, suggests that the Gospel text on which these are based had something like periklutÚw , meaning famed, illustrious, and rendered in Arabic by Ahmad. The same explanation is found in C. F. Gerock, 109 and Zwemer, The Moslem Christ, 139, n. 1: the Muslim commentators accuse the Christians of having substituted parãmlhtow for perimlutÚw which stood in the original. Cf. Michaud, 36-7; Henninger, 313; Parrinder, 96-100; L. Bevan- Jones in Muslim World, x, 112 ff.; A. Guthrie and E. F. F. Bishop, ibid., xli, 251 ff.; M. Watt, His Name is Ahmad , ibid., xliii, 110 ff.; J. Schacht, in EI 2 , s.v. ahmad .

so maybe something in the section concerning `Islamic views on Muhammad` is warranted, if not already present. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How it can be added to the article?213.6.240.72 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

it might be a good idea to propose whatever insertion is intended here first, as the article is currently protected. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page given all the back and forth reverts over the last couple days. This is a discussion page, please discuss your disagreement. WilyD 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call 216.99.60.106 01:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740's comments

[35]

You turned

  • "Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."

into

  • "while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions."

Rodinson says the former, and you removed the key fact, that Muhammad was telling people that their fathers were suffering eternal torment. You have no excuse for this removal of sourced content.

so what exactly is wrong with the latter passage other than it not mentioning the condemnation of their forefathers who were pagans? how does "... while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his condemnation of their pagan forefathers and denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions." sound? the aim of this edit was to remove the implicit POV about the how Quraysh had "even" tolerated him, as well as the primary source extract from Peters aiming to depict the Qurayshites in a particular light (it would also be improper to provide other primary sources on these very pages of Peters' showing that the Meccan leaders conspired to persecute). you also removed the sourced information: "Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. This protection did not extend to much of his followers, who were subsequently persecuted by the Meccans." without explanation. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Arrow has written: "Starting in the tenth century, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."
I can not see the link between these two sentences. Further, what does this have to do with "the last years in Mecca" section? The persecution is already covered in opposition in Mecca section. Aside from these, there were economical motivation for persecution of Muslims, not just because of their idols. --Aminz 09:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom"

became

  • "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom"

The "sufficiently" is bad writing.

then fix it seperately instead of mass-reverting. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The source says "captives who were not wealthy" not "captives of little value". Proab suggested "captives who were no wealthy" or "captives of little wealth." Either of these works. --Aminz 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed

  • "Muhammad was especially sensitive to attacks of this kind throughout his career, and considered them an unforgivable sin,"

an almost direct quote. You have no excuse, and have given none.

this is an opinionated analyses from Watt, i had already explained that on your talk page. we can stick to stating historical events, an opinion on Muhammad's psychology at the time is not necessary. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah said it well. (P.S. there is only one unforgivable sin in Islam) --Aminz 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

  • "From this period on, the Medinan verses of the Qur'an are very different from those of Mecca, increasingly dealing with practical problems of government, the distribution of booty, and other temporal matters."

to

  • "The Qur'anic verses of this period, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty."

...but that's not what Lewis says.

please explain. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sourced

  • "and make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade"
and i changed it to "which had been lost at Badr." as per pages 124 onwards in Watt. see my talk page for a portion of that passage. the preceding sentence in the article read: "To maintain their economic prosperity after the battle of Badr, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige," - thus the connection with recovering prestige for trade had already been established - the fragment above was therefore irrelevant; it was more appopriate to discuss what had happened to their prestige (i.e. it had been lost at Badr). ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

and the sourced

  • "to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage"
we have discussed this at length. the sentence in your version read "A few days later in the year 625, the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage." - that sentence contradicts what is present in the Muhammad and Uhud articles of EoI, as well as in Watt, and serves as undue weight towards Lewis' (seemingly unshared) opinion about the cause of Uhud by placing it in a key sentence. the reinserted clause is also tendentiously worded. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
As explained before, Lewis has revised this in the new edition of the book. This doesn't appear in the new versions. --Aminz 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

  • "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission as Muhammad had declared, then the defeat at Uhud must be taken as a sign that his claims were false"

to

  • "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission, then the defeat at Uhud was to be taken as a sign of the opposite"

By removing the agent from the sentence (Muhammad had declared) and using the strangely vague "was to be taken" you used bad style. Why? Further, "of the opposite" is far from the sense of Rodinson's description of the opposition I provided for you on the talk.

"as Muhammad had declared" is redundant, "as a sign of the opposite" is a clinical and dry way to express the claims of detractors in relation to Muhammad's claim. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

  • "Abu Sufyan realized the nature of the threat represented by Medina and the Muslims, and tried to assemble a larger army to destroy this threat. He attempted to make"

to

  • "In attempting to quash the opposition of the Muslims in Medina, Abu Sufyan established"

Now, this is very transparent. Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan "realized the nature of the threat." You removed "threat" so as to not portray the Meccans as the offended party in any way. Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful, aggressive party, which is false. Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this.

the change was concise and removed the POV and style problems such as continued use of the word threat. this is a bias frequently present in your contributions, one side is referred to as the "danger" and "threat" (x2, in the same sentence!), conducting "brigandage" and "aggressive political violence" (a loaded phrase you were unsuccessful in retaining), while the Meccans are portrayed as "realiz[ing]" this "danger", emphasis placed on the reported extent of their tolerance, or the notion that their campaigns were all in self defence by shoehorning any motive of avenging Badr (this being the most prominent motive in the sources however). these are, of course, only the most recent examples of such kind of editing.
"Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful" - the Meccans were more powerful (they had just defeated the Muslims at Uhud). "Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this." - no, i didn't. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

  • "Muhammad eventually revealed"

to

Removing the agent again, this is bad writing.

ambiguity is necessary to maintain neutrality in instances of "revelation." ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You further added the unsourced

  • "The status of several of Muhammad's wives is disputed by scholars."
it's not a factually disputed sentence, is it? leave [citation needed] to give time for others to source it. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So in fact, all your "productive copyedits" are purposeful distortion of sourced material, and in one case insertion of unsourced nonsense.

In the future do not remove the subject of a verb or add ambiguity in any other fashion. Arrow740 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. i don't believe you have proven a single instance of "purposeful distortion of sourced material," and i am sure the discussion would proceed more smoothly in the absense of this kind of rhetoric. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nerikes-Allehanda Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hello everyone, I need some help on this article, pronto. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:39 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)