From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Illiterate and poor 2 What do you mean shai POV? 3 WTF!?! 4 Problems?= 4.1 Biggest deficiencies 4.2 Wiki to begin obeying the Shariat? 4.3 article is not neutral 4.4 General thoughts about the article 4.5 The incongruities section 4.6 Razzia section 4.7 aims or claims 4.8 Muhammad 4.9 Caliphate Expansion 4.10 Religious neutrality 4.11 NPOV warnings 4.12 death 4.13 A more scholarly article? 4.14 Major revision 4.15 References 4.16 Broke up pro and con section, moved it to other parts of article 4.17 Question 4.18 OneGuy and his reverts 4.19 Fight on another page, please 4.20 Aisha's marriage and consumation 4.21 Aisha 4.22 Boys over 12 4.23 Ibn Hisam Puberty Quote 4.24 Anonymous deleter 4.25 Edit war in Muhammad as warrior 4.26 Created Muhammad as warrior page 4.27 The criticism sections 4.28 Rearranged per Mustafaa's suggestions 4.29 Islam before Muhammad 4.30 Timeline 4.31 Your restraint is appreciated, IFaqeer 4.32 Someone unclear on the concept put these here 4.33 Latest revisions 4.34 These latest additions about Ali are seriously biased 4.35 Death of Muhammad 4.36 Describing first revelation

Illiterate and poor

'About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.'

'He was illiterate his whole life...'

MY POINT (Not View): There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic] ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings. And this is one among many examples, he's stated events or geophysical/ scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good. He also spoke of the sea water with different temperatures not mixing, different densities not mixing, etc, etc, all from the Quran, and he was a man who lived his life in the arid desert of Arabia. The exact phenomenon that just got discovered in 1873 AD, by the British Marine Scientific Expedition of the Challenger Voyage. It was impossible for him to KNOW these things in the first place, much less to say it in contrast to the science then. If he really wanted to convince people, wouldn't he have given the accepted version of the time, 600 AD?). These examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not.

As regards being poor, yes, he was a very successful trader and this was because he was known to be truthful. He was popularly known as As-Saadiq, The Truthful One and Al-Amin, The Trustworthy One. He and Khadija were quite well-to-do, she had her own business and was richer than he. But that was before the age of 40, when he received the call of Prophethood, an event that turned the economic tide for him. In an effort to supress his views that 360 Meccan idols be banished and one God be worshipped, they refused to trade wtih him and ostracized him and his few, poor supporters. So yes, he was extremely poor from the time he began receiving the Quranic verses, and he was a well-to-do, but not rich, trader before this event.

Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG

What do you mean shai POV?

I cited mostly Bukhari and Muslim, how could that be Shia POV? Is everything Sunnis dont like a Shia POV? IF both Shia and Sunnis deem it as authetic, how could it NOT be NPOV?

Please tell me excatly where and MOST importatlý, WHERE its POV. --Striver 21:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guys, trust me, i do understand you. I would gues that you have'nt heard the Shia arguments and belive that the Sunni storry is NPOV. Well, you know what, the Sunnis version is NOT NPOV. The NPOV is what everyebody agree upon, and that is NOT that Ali didnt care for the Caliphat and that The Prophet didnt say "man kuntu mawla fa Alion Mawla" and Fatimah and Abu Bakr where best friend and that Ibn Abbas loved Umar. That is NOT the truth. And this is NOT Shia POV. This is the facts as reported in Sahi Muslim, Sahi Bukhari, Tafsir ibn Kathir and the rest of the enemys of Ahl ul-Bayt. Those are the truth, so obious that not even the most hardcore Salafi can deny they exist in ther own most trusted books. ITS THE NPOV TRUTH, its in ALL hadith collections and ALL over the place. Sunnis hate it Sunnis cant stand that Fatimah hated Abu Bakr and Sunnis cant stand that Aisha hates Ali. I Dont care for Sunni POV, The truth is THEIR book, i cited it and i gave reference to SUNNI SITES that confirmed it. ITS THE TRUTH. NOT POV.

--Striver 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WTF!?!

Dear God people, What is that piece of rubbish. Do my eyes decieve me? Ariel Sharon could not have written a More slanted hate-filled Version of the Life of the Final Muslim Prophet. NPOV my arse!

Here is a brief List,

• the year of mourning. This is one of the most important Features in early Islam. It shows how the prophet Suffered, was ostracised and saw his family and friends die. None of this is mentioned. All that is mentioned is that Khadijah and Abu Talib died. Why did they die? They died of starvation and Malnutrition. It is not mentioned that one Third of the early Muslims died in that year.

• His Egyptian slave-girl, Maryam, may also have been given her freedom and become one of his wives. The early Muslim biographies are not clear as to whether she lived with him as a free wife or as an enslaved concubine. - Bull! There are over a dozen Explicit Hadiths in Muslim, Ishaq and Bukhari that says she was freed! Furthermore, He freed over one hundred slaves but lets ignore that shall we. [Actually Ibn Ishaq's Sirat claims that Muhammad made an offer to Maryam to free her and make her his wife, but she apparently refused and prefered to remain as his concubine.]

• Muhammad as ‘president’ I understand why that is said, but in reality he was not like a President in the American sense. He did write the constitution, but he was only in charge of Muslims. He was a judge in Inter-religious Disputes, but he had no authority to wage war for all of Medina, or prevent other clans from doing this, na din reality the aws held most power (At that time).

• The Most Accepted figures for the fighting at Badr are 950 Meccans and 314 Muslims. I don't know where the 800 came from. - But this is really just pedanticism

• Before being killed Al Nadr Ibn al Harith cried "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?" Muhammad spat out "Hellfire" as the sword cut through his neck. - This is NPOV is it?

• Later commentators have claimed that the punishment of the Banu Qurayza was according to the dictates of the Hebrew Bible on warfare; however, the original sirah sources do not mention this. No, The Sira wouldn't, why would it. The Hadiths however do, and there are a lot of them.

And on the other side of things;

• In summary, Muhammad established the religion of Islam, practiced by circa one billion people today, and the first Islamic state, whose successors, whether unified or fractious, have had a major historical impact. For this reason, many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history. - What is this? That is Certainly not NPOV either.

Anyway, the article is rubbish.

=Muhammad's childhood I am currently a senior in high school and have completed my research paper. I found out that Muhammad's mother sent him to the bedouin desert, so I added it in.

Problems?=

There is a problem with saying that Muhammad was the founder of the first islamic caliphate; because the Arabic word "caliphate" means "successor", so the first caliphate was Abu Bakr, who became the successor of the prophet. It is widely acknowledged that the first caliphate was abu bakr, the second Omar, the Thir Othman, the fourth Ali. I have never heard of Muhammad being called a caliphate. The arabic word "caliphate" is short for "caliphate al-rasool" which means "successor to the prophet". It's like a chain of succession. It's also important to note that Muhammad didn't even nominate a successor, but it was left to the Muslims to choose their leader.

About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.

He was illiterate his whole life. He was poor when he was being persecuted, which was in fact most of the time that the Qur'an was being dictated.

       There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets,
from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much 

more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic]

ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew
many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as 

detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings.

And this is one among many examples where he stated events or geophysical/

scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good.) and all these examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not. Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG

“Say: Except! Lo! I am with you among the expectant.” While scholars may quibble over the meaning, I think one thing is clear: illiterate men ought not author scripture.

This word confounds linking, since there are more than four spelling variants and a large proportion of male Muslims have it as part of their own names -- Hagedis

I think he wasn't in fact poor or illiterate, but the Quran presents him as such. But I'm not positive. --AxelBoldt

By the way, even prosperity as a trader does not preclude illiteracy. I think the 'poverty' may be a reflection of his early life - he married well and prospered, but he was a poor orphan early on. --MichaelTinkler

Note that the article doesn't actually say that Muhammad was poor and illiterate, just that muslims believe he was. Perhaps even that isn't correct, but it was the best I could do at the time. Someone had inserted a lot of biased content under the pretext that an article about Muhammad ought to be written from the viewpoint of a believer, and I tried to NPOV it a bit, perhaps not very successfully. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 2

The statement about "Muslims believing" that is naturally interpreted as Muslims believing that he is the final prophet. The second part of the sentence does not connect to that in my understanding. ie - "Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet sent to humankind, the "seal of prophets", a poor and illiterate man who nonetheless delivered the miracle of the Qur'an. " The article doesn't mention that he was poor as a child, all it says (in my understanding) is 'despite the fact that he was poor and illeterate he nevertheless delivered the miracle. The semantics of the sentences are somewhat conflicting. - Methyl

---

AFAIK, founder of Islam is Abraham.

Historically, the founder of Islam was Muhammad. What you are talking about is not a historical claim, but rather was first an early medieval rewriting of the Bible, which was later incorporated into the Quran; this positin is a Muslim theological claim. In a similar fashion, a person can make their own religion today, and claim that both Abraham and Muhammad were the founders of this faith. But that revisionist claim would only be accepted by members of that religion. (Religions such as the Mormons and Bahai, in fact, have already done something much like this.) Nonetheless, such claims would not be accepted by the world at large as historical truth.

---

I understand your position, and would agree to it from historical perspective, but I am calling for fair treatment of all religions in our articles. We have two options - one of them is that Abraham is founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, or that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are founders of respective religions. Right now, we have article stating that Moses is prophet (it does not say that Jews believe that Moses is prohpet, and does not say that Moses invented Judaism, or was founder of Judaism), Jesus is central figure of Christianity (as he certainly is, but we do not claim he is founder or author of Christianity) - let's use same wording for Muhhamad as to not offend Muslims (I am not Muslim, but know very well that calling Muhammad founder of Islam is offensive to most of them).

Good point, and I agree. I guess that because I am Jewish, this process just bothers me. When Christianity first developed, they claimed that Abraham was really a Christian, and then the New Testament even stated that the Christians are the true Israelites. Then Islam came along and did much the same thing; then the Mormon religion came along and did precisely the same thing. Then the Christian Identity movement came along and did the same thing again. And let's not forget the Bahai and others. Everybody claims that only they are the real inheritors of the Biblical prophets. It is frustrating to see well over a dozen separate religions rewrite the Bible as their own, while the descendents of the authors are often persecuted by usurpers. :( RK

Actually, one could argue that Jews did the same thing also. The term jew refers to the tribe judah, which were descendants of a specific son of Jacob (Israel) who was a son of Isaac who was a son of Abraham. So there existed no such term as "jew" or "judaism" in Abrahams time. Thus it would seem that the muslim claim that Abraham didn't have a religion consisting of tribal names which came to be after Abrahams existance has some credibility. The Quranic claim that Abrahams religion could be best described as simply "submission unto God" (=translated into arabic="islam") and "one who turned away from idolatry" (=translated into arabic="hanif") is thus not as unreasonable as it might appear to some at a first glance.

Wrong. The Jews did not try to take over someone else's religion, ane claim it for themselves. The term "Jew" does not refer only to the tribe of Judah; that is a common misconception. Please read the Wikipedia article on Israelite for further discussion of this issue. The Jews of today, along with those who later joined through conversion, are continuous with the Israelites of the Kingdom of Judah. They are not some foreign group who took over the religious literature of the Judean kingdom and usurped them. Also, the Muslim claim is not as minimal as you think it is; Muslim religious literature in many places deligitimizes Jews and Judaism, and usurps the Jewish Biblical tradition for themselves. RK 21:09, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the term jew covers more than simply the tribe of judah, but this is clearly where this word historically originated.

I believe that we both agree that the term "jew" hence could not exist at Abrahams time. Claiming that Abraham was a "jew" would be an example of casting a historically modern term back in history! The very same thing muslims are accused of when claiming that Abraham was a muslim.

As for usurping history - Abraham was the father of both the arabs and the sephardic jews (whom I believe are of relatively unmixed descent - correct me if I'm mistaken here)... Thus it can hardly be claimed that the arabs were some "foreign group". Also bear in mind that the arabs had their own independant traditions of Abraham.

If the word "jew" is taken to be have a wider meaning, covering all present and past believers in the Abrahamic religion, then so just as easily can the term "muslim". Remember that unlike the term "jew" the term "muslim" does not have a tribal origin, and simply translates into "one who submits unto God".

I would like to emphasize that I'm not talking about jews usurping Abraham, they have of course just as must claim to him as the arabs!

One can always argue indefinatly what religion Abraham belonged to invoking historically later terms, but I believe that no jew, christian or muslim would disagree on Abraham being a person who turned away from idolatry and one who submitted unto God.

Peace

---

This article is simply not long or good enough. What little it contains is redundant with sira which is where the life of Muhammad as recorded by believers is already described under the word they themselves use for that.

This article, by contrast, should be about his historical significance, which is extreme. Arguably Muhammad is the most influential man in human history, and has been defined as such by many expert non-believers, and almost all believers. Unifying the Arabs politically to sweep across half the known world in thirty years, and founding a faith that a billion people adhere to, and which scares even G. W. Bush (who is too stupid to be scared by anything else, it seems)? That is an accomplishment.

Thus, the bio of Muhammad should be a masterwork of fairness and scholarship. We should put utmost effort ("ijtihad") into it, not let it rot like this.

A start. Review:

• sira and isnah to assure yourself that there is as much truth in the story of his life as humans can manage, despite the 'doubts' of AxelBoldt, a questionable source at best.
• everything in the list of Islamic terms in Arabic
• early Muslim philosophy of which Muhammad was of course the first figure.
• Islamic philosophy describing the encouter of this tradition with the older Christian and Greek traditions
• modern Islamic philosophy describing how it is still interacting today
• Islamist describing the political character of one such movement.
• Islamic World describing the geopolitics of the faith Muhammad founded
• alleged effects of invading Iraq, which interact with some of the above, and which motivate a deeper treatment at this time, if only to help those who come here expecting serious treatment of serious and current subjects.

(months later he writes) Good work! It is now pretty good.

---

Biggest deficiencies

Biggest deficiencies:

• nothing on the state of Arab societies when he arrived, e.g. the debased status of women - this is important for understanding why he might accept or even require vulnerable women into his household even if he had no intent of being a real "husband" to them
• nothing on his early devotion to charitable causes, e.g. for travellers, and the role played in settling disputes. He was well known as a civic figure before his revelation in the cave
  • There is now a bit on this in the summary that was added to the beginning. However this material needs to be integrated with what is below, as we don't want a summary of the whole article at the start. There is already an article on sira for "Muhammad as seen by Muslims".

• not enough quotes from historians, many of whom commented on the historical significance of Muhammad

Also referring to the Islamic Caliphate as the Islamic Empire makes little sense, as, the latter usually refers to the Umayyad dynasty founded not by Muhammad but by Muawiyah, who himself said "I am the first King in Islam." Thus that "first King" would not have been an earlier figure.

---

Wiki to begin obeying the Shariat?

It's entirely appropriate to add (PBUH) to any mention of Muhammad's name in a sentence THAT MAKES A RELIGIOUS CLAIM OR LINKS TO A CONCEPT THAT ONLY DEVOUT MUSLIMS ACCEPT. Out of respect for them, we should not include many such sentences. Even the sira article must take a secular point of view, those being the rules. So having it once or twice in sentences that links to sira here and there, and mentioning that a devout Muslim is obligated to respect the name, near the beginning, is fine. RK was right to remove the over-PBUH'ing but also to leave a couple. Also, "Peace Be Upon Him" is a very common English version, used by many Muslims in Britain, Canada, and America, possibly to make clear to Christians that the "Praise" is not as in "Praise to the Lord", Muhammad not being a diety. And, maybe this is also a modernist sentiment. Some note of that would be good.

Absolutely not. This encyclopedia is not a pro-Muslim religious piece. We do not folow Islamic law in referring to Muhammad, we do not follow Christian law in referring to Jesus, we do not follow Jewish law in referring to Moses. RK 11:56, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking, how about introducing the article with a paragraph stating that we will not be adding the SAW after his name, suggest Muslims to say it themselves. Thsi would be respectful to Muslims and educational for Non-Muslims... No?

I like that.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to quote the incident at Hudaibiya, where The Prophet (that form is accepted in English dictionaries as referring to Muhammad) himself erased "Prophet of Allah" after his name in an agreement being signed with people who did not believe.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

The following has been removed until it is overhauled "After several such revelations Muhammad met with Khadijah's Christian cousin Waraqah. Warqah told him : this is the angel of God and you are the prophet of all mankind so u shuld start gathered people from now on."

article is not neutral

The article, as of Oct 9/03 8:10am EST, is hostile and not neutral. Among what I noticed: The article questions whether Muhammad was really illiterate but this questioning takes the form of mere speculation and does not give any indication for this claim aside from pointing to the social status of his lineage - which does not establish literacy. The same goes with whether Muhammad was poor or not.

The article mentions the "massacre" of a Jewish tribe but does not give any details or any context. This kind of claim deserves atleast a Muslim counterpoint otherwise it makes the article one sided.

The word "razzias" - I have no idea what that is and the person who wrote it did not define it.

razzias? i think it's a race of some sort ... but i could be wrong reddi

razzia is an Italian word for raid, and I believe is common in historical writing in English, too. — Miguel 03:48, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Lastly, it includes a link to a strongly anti-Islam site. If this kind of link is to be included, at the very least, it needs to be mentioned that it is very anti-Islam.

Expect a major edit soon.

I agree, any serious claim as this needs in-depth detail and identification so it can be verified and studied for later contributors and benefit neutrality. I hope the contributor comes forth so we can research this alleged event. I have no idea what "razzias" is either.
Paragraph removed: Muhammad's participation in razzias and his execution of a Medinan Jewish clan are well established historical fact. We also know however that Muhammad was extremely courageous and resolute. He was thoughtful and prudent yet inspiring and charming.
The link for 'The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society ' (secularislam.org) is actually against an Islamic State and seems to promote the abandonment of Islam. I'll find suitable links for Muhammad and encourage others to aid in the neutralization of this article. Usedbook 12:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll be workin on a in-depth detail of historical portions of Muhammad (hopefully, as time permits) ... and more identification of the historical points (the religious points should be dealt with the same NPOV as the Christ article) ...

I hope more contributor comes forth so we all can research all of the alleged event in Muhammad's life.

I'm still looking into was "razzias" is ... from what i can find it's a race of some sort ... this though may be a later derived term (of a type of raid [as mentioned in the article] that arabs did in the 600s-700s) ...

More edits to come ... reddi 10:22, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The claim the article makes (15-22 wives) is completely false.

completely false? hmmm ... i'll look into this ...

I don't see any point in the Incongruities section where it talks about how strange it is for a 40 year old woman to have 6 children. I don't see anything strange about this at all.

40 year old woman to have 6 children? umm ... most women [IIRC] go through menopause and cannot bear children past the mid-30s ... so it's odd that a female out of child bearin years will have 6 kids. Giving the benefit of the doubt, that's make her around 46 @ the time of the last child (very very old to have kids [even today; not to mention back then]). Sincerely, reddi

Medicine says that menopause onset is from 45 to 50 years, not mid 30s at all. I personally know women who gave birth to healthy children when they were 44 years old. Also bear in mind that the Arabs used the lunar calendar, and not the solar one. This makes the 40 years 38 years or so. Also, many of his male children died in their first months, so there is ample time for 6 children for sure. -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

I am no medical expert but I think 40 is well within child bearing age. There are other problems too with the article and that is just two of them. For instance, the whole "Incongruities" section in general is poorly written and contains alot of speculation.

As I said before, expect a major edit.

One of my friends - girl - was born when her parents where about 45. If it helps you. She's rather clever :) ilya 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

It is generally accepted by Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not 'found' the Muslim religion. Muslims consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isa/Jesus (pbut)and earier prophets to have been Muslims. Rather, when mankind strayed from the path, Muhammad was sent as a messenger to correct their errors.

It may be that Muslims believe that Muhammad did not 'found' the Muslim religion, but it is believed by most non-muslim sources (as far as I can tell) that Muhammad did 'found' the Muslim religion.

What Muslims consider about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jesus and other prophets should be mentioned appropriately in the article (much like the views of Christians are seperate from other's views in the Jesus article) ... reddi

Like many religious and historical figures, there is much myth and disinformation about the life of Muhammad (pbuh). Is this article supposed to be a historical account of his actual life, or an account of what Muslims believe to have been his life? We may be stuck with the latter. The Hadiths are the main reliable source. Other sources tend to be heavily biased one way or the other (early Christian sources say Muhammad had horns!) and may be little better than political fiction. Anjouli 17:43, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Myth and disinformation about the life of Muhammad? yes ... there probably is ... but as you state, many religious and historical figures have this ...

I'd like to see the article be a historical account of his actual life and an account of what Muslims believe to have been his life. They can co-exist.

Stuck with the latter? not necessarily, there should be other reconciling facets in history to delineate Muhammad's life (non-religiously).

The Hadiths are the main reliable source? I would disagree as to being a "reliable" source [it was only finalized in the ninth century and then only accepted as reliable by Muslims ... also they varied in how authentic they are ... add to that that different schools within Islamic branches accept different hadith collections as genuine] ...

Other sources tend to be heavily biased? YMMV on that ... other sources give a balance to a Muslim POV and should be included [and marked appropriately, as well as should any muslim source be marked appropriately] ...

May be little better than political fiction? Again YMMV on that ... one's fiction is another's faith ....

Sincerely, reddi

General thoughts about the article

Though this article has in my opinion some flaws, I still think it is a good place to start.The article could need some expansion on:

• Islams contributions to social order: the poor, orphans, women, slaves, blacks etc. as compared to the pre-Islamic period of Jahilyya
• Information on some of the most important companions and their contributions to Muhammads prophetic mission.
• The pre-Hijra period e.g. the early years after proclaiming prophethood.
• Muhammads correspondance with contemporary rulers, eg. the Byzantine Emperor, the contact with the Negus of Abyssinia with the early muslims etc.

-- User:129.177.45.16

Those all sound like excellent suggestions. These might get done eventually, but it would be great if you made these improvements yourself (ideally you'd create an account here too, so folks can talk to you more easily). By the way, you'll notice that someone added your new addition Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon to the votes-for-deletion list. Please don't be upset :) As that article is essentially a copy of the Prophet's sermon, it belongs on the Wikisource site rather than the encyclopedia. You could, however, change that page to be a discussion and analysis of the sermon, and of its subsequent effects. That, I think, would be very interesting. -- Finlay McWalter 23:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion of expanding it into an article that discusses the sermon, maybe at a later time I might do so. For the time being a changed the link to wikisource, and I'll let the VfD process remove the page as it is for the time being... --- Regards

Now at Wikisource - Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon. Angela.

The incongruities section

The incongruities section has been the source of some dispute, with deletions and reverting. The section raises some interesting points, but presents them in a somewhat inflammatory way. I think is possible to resolve some of the issues by removing the section and re-entering the information in a more 'condensed' fashion into the main corpus of the text. The section contains the following information:

(1) The issue of Muhammads illiteracy

(2) The issue of only Khadija bearing Muhammads children

Who said that? His son Ibrahim was born by the Egyptian Coptic concubine Maria, who was given to him as a gift by the ruler of Egypt. -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

(3) Speculations regarding reasons of (2)

(4) Question regarding Muhammads intentions for Islam as an arabic or universal religion

I believe that point (3) can be removed alltogether because (a) its speculation (b) the speculations are somewhat inflammatory (c) the issue is not important enough to deserve such amount of text in a main text on Muhammads life. My suggestions for rewriting (1), (2) and (4) are as follows:

(1) Islamic history records that Muhammad was illiterate, though some scholars argue that Muhammad is likely to have recieved some form of education, and point to his successful career as a merchant.

(2) The sira records that Khadija bore Muhammad 6 children. Muhammad had no children with his later wives, the reasons are unclear.

Incorrect. See comment on point 2 above -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

(4) Both the Quran and Muhammads sayings indicate that Muhammad from an early stage viewed Islam as an universal religion and not merely restricted to the arab community.

Razzia section

I feel the following section contains POV:

"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out in normal Arab fashion on razzias ("raids") hoping to loot Mecca on their way to Syria."

For the following reasons:

a) The word "razzia" has negative connotations. Though it is true that it has origins in an arabic word "ghazwa" which the arabs themselves used to describe such attacks on caravans, the arabic word does not carry the negative connotations and can be used to describe military attacks.

b) The phrase "hoping to loot" in the section has negative connotations, implying thievery. The attacks on the Meccan caravans were of military nature, as the muslims were in a state of war with the Meccans who had persecuted them, hence attacks on their caravans and seizure of the goods is best described as military attacks and the taking of war booty.

c) "In normal Arab fashion on razzias" implies again that these were not attacks of military nature.

I believe that the section with which I have replaced it, contains all the information in the original section, as well all keeping a NPOV:

"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out on military attacks against Makkan caravans on their way to Syria, thus striking the Makkan economy."

---

While I think the article does a good job of rendering the spirit of Muhammad's character/sayings/teachings, considering the complexity and delicacy of the subject, I believe that some of the statements that are made are unwarranted. For example:

"render Muhammad arguably the most influential man in all history"

A very bold statement, don't you think? I think I know what you're getting at...but I also think it would benefit from being rephrased or restated. I don't think that it is very responsible to make that statment as it stands. I will leave it up to the author to do so.

-IR

Calling anyone the most influential man (or woman) in history is so hopelessly biased as to be unjustifiable in any encyclopedia. RK

---

shut it --212.23.3.155 12:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article definetly has a POV. It is extremely favorable if not an endorsement of Muhammad, who by many accounts was a sanguine warlord who himself had no strong religious or philosophical beleifs but was a politican. And like many powerful figures during the time after his military successes had scholars pay him tribute by creating stories of divine intervention to make his authority legitimate. Most of his lasting effects come from his ability to consolidate power (mostly through bloody military campaigns). I think it would serve better to take out the entire "assesment" part of this article and give a counter-view than the one espoused. GrazingshipIV 12:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. The assessment was probelmatic also because it contained off-topic discussions. Muhammad had nothing to do ith Muslim science, history, literary analysis, etc. RK 11:56, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

To the contrary - Muhammad certainly had something to do with all those things, although not perhaps as much as the previous version of this page claimed. Many Hadith directly promote the pursuit of knowledge, and the need to study the Sunna was a big influence in the development of history and sociology in the Islamic world. Those points don't need as much text as they had, but they should certainly not be neglected entirely. - Mustafaa 20:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And lest you think I'm being POV in saying "many have ranked him as among teh most influential in history", cf., for instance, Michael H. Hart's book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History[1] - Mustafaa 21:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence that "most scholars" accept the Muslim line on the composition of the Koran. Obviously, in the Islamic world they do (those few who have dissented have found themselves in trouble) but otherwise we need some evidence for such an assertion. Furthermore, I qualified the claim that the hadiths and Koran should not be considered on an equal footing; to those who regard the hadiths and Koran to be of equal - or no - divine inspiration, there seems no clear reason for a distinction to be made. The qualification could, I suppose, be removed if one were to explain a good NPOV reason for making the distinction. - Quodlibetarian 21:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Quran is far better attested historically than the Hadith, and is of a completely different character both in style and in content. More to the point, though, the fact that Muslims make the distinction is in itself a reason to distinguish between the two; it's the same reason people talk of "canonical" versus "apocryphal" gospels. As for the other point, I agree that I don't know about "most"; I'll make that "some" for and "some" against, because that I do know. - Mustafaa 22:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that reads better. I still think the entry as a whole could do with some more alternative views - it's a little hagiographic in tone, and there's hardly any deviation from the party line. If I have a bit more time later, I'll try to include some of the issues raised by Warraq et al. - Quodlibetarian 03:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

aims or claims

i did writed this : "It is remarkable that Muhammad married in its late times with many women, he married initially with khadija wiche was fourty years, and later with more than ten women,' even he married with Aisha (عائشة) when she was six years , whereas he (Muhammad) was approximately fifty-two years ,probable for Islamic "aims".

but i don't know if my translate machine do good work or not. it was "doel" in englysh , and it did give this in the translate machine "aims". but i'm not sure . is it aims or claims.Aziri 12:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not being a Dutch speaker, I'm not sure whether it's either. But I am sure that the story of his later marriages belongs much later in the article, each at its own date. - Mustafaa 22:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of references in the hadiths that prove that Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when consummated. Those who claim she was older are obviosly embarassed of this fact. Check the following hadith references: B.5.58.235, B.7.62.18, B.5.58.236, 7.62.64, 7.62.65, 7.62.88, B.8.73.151, 5.58.234, B.1.5.270, 3.28.36, 7.62.6, 3.31.148, 3.31.149, 3.31.150, 7.62.142.

Err, what hadiths are those from? Did you just copy and paste them? There are conflicts in the hadiths as to her age, but this we know, (1.) She was previously arranged to be married. (2.) She was very Young, 6 at the youngest, apparently 12 at the oldest (altough one hadith from Tabari says she was 21.. but Tabari is not really hadith, it's mostly gibberish) (3.) 3. It was wit she that he died. (4.) She became a great hadith Orater and early Islams most important woman.

do you think that i have a time to what you have the interisting ? i know that Muhammad did married with more than ten womens . and aisha was th women who Muhammad married whe she was six years , she played with her headstocks , and with shildren ... i know also that Muhammad did sex with aisha when she was neight years (but that is according to de islamic source ). why are you ashamed from what Muhammad did? Aziri 13:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To anon: "Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)" [2]. 6 is when she got engaged, according to teh Hadith; 9 is when she got married. Some have disputed this[3].

To Aziri: Aisha's age is already in the article. Read it first, and then edit - or on second thoughts, leave editing to someone who can speak English. - Mustafaa 02:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

How much more proof does one need? Just because some Muslims may be ashamed of this fact doesn't make it any less true.

(°-°) Aziri 14:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad

He was a camel driver employed by a merchant woman named Khadijah on account of his trustworthiness, he was not the rich trader, it was Khadijah whom he later married who was the rich person. Muhammad's and Khadijah's trading activities ended with the beginning of his ministry, so in essence, he was a poor man with no income, he shunned materialism to the extent that he had only one garment to wear and gave away whatever came in to his possession as an example to his community on charity. About historical evidence and such, most of it is written by muslims, the ministry of Muhammad was witnessed by arabs, and by the time of his death almost all arabs were muslims, so any early accounts of Muhammad's life will be from muslims, this does not make them unreliable tho, it is the same for Jesus, the New Testament and the Gospels in particular are the main sources on the historical figure and these pieces were authored by Christians

Islam – Submission to the Will of God. Muslim – One who submits to the Will of God. Linguistically these are accurate terms that may be applied to all Prophets, and if this is clarified then it should not be offensive to Christians and Jews. --Omar 15:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Caliphate Expansion

• It is also notable that the Muslim methods for expanding empires were vastly less brutal than those in use by contemporary civilizations, such as the Roman, Mongol and Chinese empires.

Is this really true? To my knowledge (and at the risk of oversimplifying), pretty much anything that was ever called an empire up until maybe 1800 AD was pretty much marching soldiers/cavalry/whatever in and claiming the place. For the record, I put in my original version of the text in response to the "war crimes" quip, as I havn't seen any comparisons of the actions of the Roman Empire with "war crimes." --Bletch 03:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if I should use this, it's not asolute proof, but;

This is a kids site.

Another reference states; Early Roman rulers were actually quite humane. Julius Caesar only tortured his conquered enemies as an example for other potential foes (Mannix 29). Eventually, however, things would change. Roman savagery is second to none in its public appeal and widespread usage. - http://www.augustana.edu/academ/history/witchcraft/tor2.htm

The Comparisons need be made, thus, between the Romans treatment of those of a different Religion, Such as Jews, Christians and Norse, and that of the Caliphates, which were a significant improvement. Granted, however, the Caliph did destroy the Idols on the Tmple Mount, which was not particularly Sensitive to those who believed in the Roman religion, but the idols were mainly put there to antagonise the local jews. The Most prominent Idol on Juadisms holiest place was of a Pig.

Thats the romans.

The Caliphate did not engage in Full scale slaughter of All those within a City. The Mongols did.

I'm not that well up on the Chinese epires, so in all honesty I cannot comment.

Until we have further information, I've removed mentions of the Romans and Chinese from that sentence. --Bletch 21:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What kind of Information are you after?

Religious neutrality

When last I checked in with this article, before the anonymous edits of October 10, there was no use of PBUH. I have returned it to that form, since PBUH represents a religious point of view, and the encyclopedia has none. I have read the comments above, but there is no way to use the epithet without being reverent — not respectful, but reverent. Please do not reinsert the phrase; the long explanation at the beginning is enough, but to use PBUH in earnest is wholly inappropriate. I have also carefully noted that Muhammad was the founder of Islam (which is the most important neutral fact about him), but that Muslims revere him not as the founder of their religion, but as their prophet. Ford 01:08, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I would also like to quote the incident at Hudaibiya, where The Prophet (that form is accepted in English dictionaries as referring to Muhammad) himself erased "Prophet of Allah" after his name in an agreement being signed with people who did not believe.

Maybe we should add a note to the main page requesting people that want to add that qualifier to first read this page—especially the request for Muslims to invoke blessings on their own and the reference ot Hudaibiya—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Talking about neutrality, has anyone realized that Muhammad is listed as a cult leader? Is it really NPOV to put the founder of the world's second largest religion in the same category as Charles Manson? They're both in the 'M' section of the Cult Leaders list. I don't see Jesus or Pat Robertson in this category.

NPOV warnings

I really don't understand how this article can be under total control of Islamic apologists. Whenever facts (as taken from the hadiths) are used that point Muhammad in a bad light, it is instantly removed. This article makes it look like Muhammad was some Robin Hood. This is the type of article that the PLO uses to teach Palestinian children.

Such as the line "Muhammad married approximately ten more women in his later years. Several of these women were widows who would have been left deserted and poverty stricken had they not been married to Muhammad." What it fails to mention, which was added but swiftly removed, was that several of these women were made into widows by Muhammad and his followers! Many of his wives who he "saved" had their husbands and fathers killed and were then taken as booty!

This is not true. Go to the botom and the biography of each wife is there. Safiyya bint Huyayy and Juwayriya bint al-Harith are two examples where that claim may apply. Your claim this happened several times is just a lie. And even in these two cases, what was wrong with marrying them (much higher status) then making them slaves (as was custom at that time)? OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, on the subject of Muhammad's child bride, Aisha. Quote: "Some Muslims question the authenticity of hadith relating to the age of Aisha.*". This replaced the true facts stating that Muhammad "married" her at the age of 6 and "consumated" her at the age of 9. It is in many hadith and Aisha herself said she was 6 when married and 9 when consumated. Why does Wikipedia allow this watered-down version to stand?

OK, then fix that part instead of adding NPOV. Moreover, it's just a fact that some Muslims question these hadith.OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further on in the Medina raid, the article states that the reason for the raid was to gain property that was taken from them in Mecca. If that was the case, why did he continue to do this during the dozens or so of other raids? Why were women and chilren taken as booty? Also, the caravans were unarmed civilian caravans, yet the word civilian is always removed after they are added.

Post evidence that there were raids on carvans not involving Mecca or a tribes not actively involved in the war, and then you can fix it OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we are to leave the article as it is, despite it being heavily biased, why can't we at least have a NPOV warning.

No, you cannot add NPOV without giving reasons and trying to fix the problem OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The anonymous vandal wants to insert unproven POV speculation about why Asiha couldn't have children. His other POV claim that all widows Muhammad married were made widows because of the battles initiated by Muhammad is provably false. See: Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya .. her husband was killed in Uhad, a battle clearly initiated by Meccans. OneGuy 11:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy, can you read and understand English? It was never said that ALL of Muhammad's widows were created such by Muhammad and his army of Muslims. It said some, which is correct. Several of his wives were "booty" after his raids. Please read, or have someone read to you, an article before you revert. Second, there is speculation on why Aisha couldn't have children and it was reported as speculation. Aisha was his favorite wife and had plenty of sex, and we definaly know Muhammad wasn't impotent.

I showed you above that "several" of his wives were booties is an exaggeration. What "several"? Also, you didn't answer what was wrong with marrying the two (not "several") -- with their consent -- instead of making them slaves?

As for Aisha, you inserted a speculation about why she didn't have children. We don't know why. We don't know whether she reached sexual maturity at that time. Even if she was nine, many nine years old girls can get pregnant. See * None of Muhammad's wife beside Khadija and Maria had children. OneGuy 10:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

death

Conquest of the Jewish oasis Khaybar and posison incident happened 629, and Muhammad died 632, three years latter. It's not known exactly how he died. What kind of poison takes three years to kill you? I would like to see proof that that was the cause of his death. OneGuy 09:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mention of the poisoning was only part of the contribution yet you reverted the entire thing. Why? Also, did you even read the contribution? It clearly said we do not know (read: DO NOT KNOW) what caused Muhammad's death. But the hadiths clearly report that he thought he dying from the poison. You, OneGuy, are the vandal.

Sign your post, dude. See this http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ulm/usenet/muhammad_poisoning.htm

It's not true that he died by the poison. Rewrite that to make it clear. Another problem was with you spelling the name "Muhammad" unlike the rest of the article. Rewrite it. OneGuy 09:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Funny that anonymous vandal removed that quote from Jewish woman about why she poisoned the goat. She said she did it to test if Muhammad was a true prophet. Guess what? Muhammad didn't swallow and spit out; the incident implies that he was true prophet. The anon recognized the problem and removed the quote he himself inserted  :)) OneGuy 11:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed it because I wasn't totally sure that quote was correct. Unlike Islamic apologists, I try to be neutral in my articles. Yes, he didn't swallow, but he did put it into his mouth and was sick because of it. That would imply that he is not a true prophet. There are many, many other things to prove he wasn't a true prophet, however. Jesu, for example, never led an army, had sex (rape?) a 9 year old girl, never killed anyone and said love thy neighbor. Muhammad said kill thy neighbor, take their belongings as booty, take their women and children for ransom or slavery. Well, he didn't say it in so many words, but that's pretty much how Islam spread.

LOL. If you believe the story is true, then you must believe that what she said is true too. She said that if Muhammad is killed by her then that would prove he isn't a true prophet. Muhammad didn't die. Latter he went on to conquer Mecca. Anti-Islamic bigot like you obviously couldn't swallow what her quote implied and so you removed the quote you yourself inserted. Jesus never lead an army because he didn't have an army. He was weak with very few followers. He was killed only three years after he started preaching, unlike Muhammad. How about comparing Muhammad with some Biblical prophets? David was ordered by Biblical god to slaughter Amalekites, including women (pregnant women too), children, babies, and even animals. Nothing Muhammad ever did can be compared to that. Can you explain that behavior by Biblical god? Only that incident proves your Biblical god doesn't exist OneGuy 12:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I for one would like more info on this controvercial subject. Did he really marry a 9yr old girl? (Bukhari, Vol 7, Bk. 62, Nos. 64-65) or is this just anti-muslim propaganda? I wanna see some balanced attacks and defence of this, though being an athiest who's totally against pedophilia I'd prefer the attacks. Down with kiddy fiddlers! User:Bitplane 8th Dec 2004

Bitplane, this is covered in the Aisha article. We've put a fair bit of the controversial stuff into break-out articles, so that the main article doesn't become way too long, and unreadable. In short, most Muslim commentators feel that they can't doubt the hadith that report Aisha herself saying that she was nine. Doubting the hadith, or Aisha's supposed word, would undermine a great deal of traditional Islamic law and scholarship. However, there are other early Islamic sources that indicate that she was older than nine. See the Aisha article. Zora 18:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the quote not because I did not think it was true, but rather because that quote was only found on so-called anti-islam sites. The rest of the article stands because it was verified in hadiths

No, the rest of story also comes from the same traditions where that quotes comes from. I am sure you know that. You removed it exactly for the reasons explained above OneGuy 12:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A more scholarly article?

When the article is open to editing again, I'd like to work on preparing a more scholarly article, one which contrasts the sira as accepted by Muslims with the much more limited information accepted by academics of revisionist bent, with pointers to the page on hadith where the various positions on the reliability of hadith can be laid out.

The biography of Muhammad doesn't come from hadith. It comes from sira, especially Ibn Hisham and Tabari. Sira and hadith are not the same OneGuy

The extremely learned academic work I'm reading right now uses hadith for any tradition that has a matn and an isnad, which includes sira, tafsir, fiqh, and sunna. If you want to say that hadith is limited to sunna, well, OK. But it still leaves the question of the reliability of the oral tradition in question. Zora 07:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, then this extrememly learned work got it's facts wrong. There is no isnad in sira. OneGuy 07:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, they aren't all that developed, because they're early, but just about every section in Ibn Ishaq is prefaced with something like:

"Ja'far b. 'Amr (220) told me on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Muslim the brother of Muhammad b. Muslim b. Shihab al-Zuhri from Anas b. Malik that the latter said ... "

Also, materials for the sira tend to overlap with hadith for the other categories, because tafsir would explain the occasion of revelation, which became part of the bio, and fiqh and sunna would cite the example of the prophet, which became part of the bio. Zora 09:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See the article on Sira. Hadith and Sira combined is Sunnah. Hadith are sayings of Muhammad, i.e., his words. Sira is biography and history of pagans and early Muslims OneGuy 10:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There could also be a pro-and-con section where we can see the charges and defenses laid out (pedophile, robber chief, etc.), instead of trying to erase them utterly from the article.

Charges and defenses? Do other Encyclopedias such as Encarta and Britannica engage in such a debate in their articles on Muhammad? Anyway, I don't have a problem with easily refuted polemics like these being debated in the article OneGuy 15:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If they did, we wouldn't need the Wikipedia—the main reason I associate myself with the Wikipedia is that I consider it a chance to receive and present a more complete picture of the world than I grew up having to read.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole section on the significance of Muhammad in history can be dropped. Wikipedia readers can make up their own mind on that, just as they can on every other historical figure who gets an article. Zora 04:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it can't be dropped. Other important historical figures have a section on historical significance or influence, for example Genghis Khan, Isaac Newton, Caesar Augustus, Martin Luther etc., but it should be removed from Muhammad article because an anti-Islamic anonymous vandal didn't like it? I don't think so. OneGuy 05:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, leave it then, but make it less fawning. Muhammad is not the most important man in history to anyone except a Muslim. However, anyone would agree that the religion and empire he initiated had a great effect on the world. (The Genghis Khan article needs to be edited, as I don't think anyone except a Mongolian nationalist would think Genghis Khan the most charismatic man in history. The Newton legacy statement is short and succinct, and the Caesar Augustus one has pro and con. Thanks for pointing those out, so we can see what to imitate and what to avoid.) Zora 07:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The section doesn't say that Muhammad is the most important man in history. The phrase that the anon removed was that many people see Muhammad as one of the most influential person. That statement is a fact, as can be seen in The 100. So Hart is at least one such person, making the statement true OneGuy 07:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One is not many and Hart is a bit of an oddball. Nonetheless, when we can actually write it, I'm sure we can bandy words about until we come up with something NPOV. Zora 09:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hart is of course not the only one. From Encyclopedia Encarta

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761553918

Muhammad (prophet) (570?-632), founder of Islam, whose prophetic teachings, encompassing political and social as well as religious principles, became the basis of Islamic civilization and have had a vast influence on world history.

Opps, "vast influence" now is that "weasel" phrase by Encarta? Anyway, this discussion moved here from Talk:Jesus suddenly. There I gave an example from Britannica about Genghis Khan that would qualify as "weasel" or POV. OneGuy 15:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not know what User:168.209.97.34's motivations were, but regardless of them, if the article it to look scholarly it should not use peacock and weasel terms - or redundant phrases. The phrase 'For this reason, many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history' is weasel and should remain removed as they are unnecessary (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). Also, since the article already makes clear that Muhammad has had a great influence on the world and on many people, we should also delete 'In summary, Muhammad established the religion of Islam, practiced by circa one billion people today, and the first Islamic state, whose successors, whether unified or fractious, have had a major historical impact.' It is unnecessary, it adds nothing, and the reader does not need reminding of it. jguk 12:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The motivation of 168.209.97.34 isn't anything other than anti-Islamic vandalism, as he did to my userpage and especially Jihad page.

Is it weasel word? If so, it can easily be made "not weasel" by changing it to, 'For this reason, Michael Hart saw him as one of the most influential people in history." There! The weasel word gone. Is it unnecessary? Does everyone know that fact about influencce? If not, then it's necessary. The historical significance of Muhammad or say Genghis Khan, Isaac Newton, Caesar Augustus, Martin Luther should be mentionedOneGuy 12:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explaining how Muhammad has influenced is the best way to avoid weasel terms. I wouldn't say Michael Hart's view is particularly important or interesting in the context of this article. Just carry on noting the influence Muhammad has had. The article largely already does this, but no doubt could be improved. Describe his followers, examples of where Muhammad is quoted, or cited, acts done in his name, the significance of the Muslim world and Muslims in secular cultures, how he is perceived by non-Muslims, etc. Maybe you want to describe more of his legacy if you think it's unclear from the current article what the extent of Muhammad's influence is, but just saying 'Muhammad was very influential' in any guise is neither scholarly nor interesting. jguk 13:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Major revision

I've spent several hours trimming and reconfiguring this article. I decided that the pro and con stuff would take lots of space, so I set up a link to a page that hasn't been created yet. That means it will be there, and can absorb all the debate about Aisha, Satanic verses, and whatnot, but it's not cluttering up the main article.

I haven't looked through all the links yet to make sure that they're the best possible and represent opinion on all points of the spectrum.

Phew! Zora 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. While the article certainly needed reconfiguring, I don't know that it needed such drastic shortening - and I really think having a "Muhammad Pro or Con" article is a terrible idea (guaranteed POVno matter what happens.) Much better to deal with such issues in the context of the main article. - Mustafaa 13:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The original version was clearly written by people who were immersed in the details, and took great pleasure in recounting them. The article was not only long (so much so that it was bumping the 32K ceiling) it was jumbled, long-winded, and unacceptably PIOUS. The revision at least gives two versions of the life of Muhammad, short and longer. The right level of detail for one article. If we want more detail, it can either go in sub-pages (Traditions of Muhammad's Childhood? Life in Muhammad's Household?) or better yet, be left for the external links.

As to including all the controversies in the main article -- I'm OK with putting a short list of them there for now, and perhaps spin off sub-pages for each controversy. But I have a strong feeling that the controversies will swamp the biographical material. Zora 20:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article needs major revision again. It confuses between hadith and sira and wrongly claims that there are major disagreement between shi'a and sunni traditions regarding the biography of Muhammad. There aren't OneGuy 13:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a shi'a biography of Muhammad

http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/

Except vilifying the first caliphs and glorifying Ali, the biography of Muhammad is almost exactly the same as Sunni biography. Zora has inserted a fabrication that each sect ended up with his own biography of Muhammad. She has once again confused sira and hadith, even after I told her here. Plus, a claim is inserted about "substantial group of skeptical scholars." What "substantial group"? Talk about not just weasel words but false assertions too. She complained about the weasel word that "many" consider Muhammad to be one of the most influential person in history (something that is true) but now she has inserted a weasel word "substantial group" of skeptics (something that is not true). Just a few nuts like Crone don't make "substantial group" OneGuy 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can't just declare one whole side of an on-going academic debate to be "nuts". Ad hominem attacks are not arguments.

I said "traditions" or "oral traditions". They are all one big soup! Some Companion telling stories about Muhammad didn't preface each anecdote with an announcement that "This is tafsir" or "This is sira". There were traditions, there were collectors with various ends in view! As for confusing sira and hadith -- I think that Muslims do that all the time in writing pious histories of the prophet. They don't just stick to Ibn Ishaq or Waqidi; they include details from all the traditions. Zora 20:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More errors: "Muslims believe that the prophet, for all that he was only a man, was yet divinely inspired in his actions"

Do many believe that Muhammad was divinely inspired in his actions? I don't think so. Even though Muslims believe that prophets are sinless, they don't claim that prophets cannot make mistakes. Only the Qur'an is supposedly divinely inspired, not every action of Muhammad. OneGuy 14:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then why the heck do Muslims appeal to the actions of Muhammad as recorded in various oral traditions as the examples to follow? I recall reading one story about a Companion who, before settling down at a certain oasis, roamed in circles for a while. Asked why he did it, he said that the prophet had done so when he stopped at the oasis and he was just following the example of the prophet, even though it made no sense to him. Now you may think this nuts, but there are some Muslims who do make exactly the same sort of arguments.

You are of course wrong. Even though Muslims try to appeal to the actions of Muhammad (especially in the manner he worshipped and understood the Qur'an) that doesn't mean that Muslims believe that every action of Muhammad was divinely inspired, at least not the majority of Muslims. Your knowledge of Islam is very sketchy and confused. There are Muslims who are reading this, such as Mustafa. Ask him if I am right or wrong (or he can reply himself) OneGuy 20:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even though I used the words "many Muslims" in an attempt to be accurate, you might think that this gives the wrong impression. So perhaps we need a sentence or two saying that Muslims debate which actions are to be imitated and which are appropriate for their time but not now, which were mere human mistakes, etc. Zora 20:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another false assertion in the article is that oral traditions regarding sira were written down hundred years after Muhammad's death. How does she know that? They might have been collected hundred years after his death in one volume, but where is her evidence that they were never written down before that? This is just a speculation and is refuted by scholars like Azami and Abbott. OneGuy 14:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy, Abbot can't have refuted people who wrote after she did!

Nor is Azami the last word in scholarship. You can't just point to the scholars that you like and dismiss everyone else as "kooks". How much of the recent scholarship have you read? Rippin? Berg? Motzki? Gilliot? Schoeler? Rahman? I haven't read them all (which would cost me hundreds or thousands of dollars, lacking a good Islamic studies library in Honolulu) but I'm doing what I can to get current in the field. What about you? I have the impression that you've done Islamic studies at a Muslim school that gave you a slanted view of current scholarship. You say that you're an atheist, but you still haven't let go of some of what your teachers said. IMHO <g>. I'm speculating here, and speculation is dangerous!

No, I never went to a "Muslim" school. I learned most of my skills by arguing on the internet. That's why I am so good at it, as you can see. What about Rippin, Berg, Motzki, Gilliot, Schoeler, and Rahman? I know for sure some (or most?) of them don't deny that traditions were written earlier like Abbott claimed (agreeing with Abbott). You are throwing names of scholars who don't even deny that. Nice try. Won't work with me though :)) Try again OneGuy 20:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if it's soc.religion.islam that explains some of your polemics. You seem to be treating this as some kind of ping-pong match, in which there are winners and losers. It is VERY HARD not to respond in kind and try to knock you down -- but really, it's about turning out a good and accurate article, not about winning. Couldn't you try looking for an acceptable compromise instead of going "Nyah nyah nyah you're wrong"?

I cited all those scholars as an examples of what's current, not necessarily as skeptics. My own position is something like Berg's description of an uneasy middle ground. I don't want to accept everything and I don't want to throw everything out. The problem is figuring out what stays and what goes. I'd be just as happy as you would be if someone dug up a student's history lecture notebook circa 710 C.E from the Cairo sands. At least that would give us something firmer than conjecture! Zora 21:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

soc.religion.islam is not the only place of course. There are many other forums -- and also email lists hosted by infidels.org. Anyway, we made some progress since the debates on Talk:Islam .. originally you seem to agree with Crone and Wansbrough when we started this discussion a few weeks ago. I never said anything about accepting all traditions blindly. Though absolute skepticism by people like Crone is "nuts." No doubt about that OneGuy 21:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for your assertion that the traditions "might" have been written down before they were collected, and demand that I prove that they weren't written down -- this is simply a misunderstanding of how scholarship works. Given that there's no evidence either way, it's up to you to prove that they were written down, not to me to prove that they weren't. You need some tattered parchments or papyri to back up your claim. All I need to do is to point to the current lack of such documents.

No, one who makes a positive assertion must prove it. You inserted a positive assertion in the article that tradition were written down several hundred years latter. How do you know that? You have made a positive assertion there. You need to prove it. You didn't. OneGuy 20:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And as for the hundred years/hundreds of years difference: Even though Ibn Ishaq is said to have written a hundred years after Muhammad's death, we only have those portions of his work which were edited and preserved AFTER the Abbasids came to power, by Ibn Hisham and Tabari. Since Ibn Hisham declares that he left out material that was scandalous we can only speculate as to what Ibn Ishaq's original version might have been. But I'm willing to elaborate on the problems with the dating of the earliest sira. Zora 20:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq wrote 140 years after the death of Muhammad? Even if he wrote it just before his death, that would be 136 years. Though it's safe to assume that he wrote several years before that. He probably started writing parts of it when he was still in Medina; that would make parts of it even earlier than 120 OneGuy 21:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I won't go back through this and try to reply in the appropriate places above, but:

• "Immersion in details" is exactly what we should be aiming for - comprehensive coverage. One of my main complaints about the article as it stood was that it wasn't nearly comprehensive enough. Some material can no doubt be handled in side articles (individual battles, say); but the goal should be to cover everything somewhere or other. "Unacceptable piety" is a matter of tone, not content.
• The Qur'an stipulates specifically that Muhammad was fallible; see surat Abasa[4] and its tafsir[5]. This is part of official Islamic dogma, despite the excessive veneration of a few heterodox Sufis.
• According to the preface of my Arabic edition of Ibn Ishaq, he was not the first person to write a sira, merely the first whose sira is preserved. It says that before him were several sira writers, including Urwah ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-Awwam (a descendant of Asma), who died in 92 AH and whom Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and at-Tabari all used as a source, and Abban ibn Uthman ibn Affan (d. 105 AH) and Wahb ibn Munabbih al-Yamani (d. 110 AH).
• I don't propose to make a section for the controversies at all. Each issue should be dealt with exclusively at the appropriate point in the narrative; that won't avoid all edit wars, but it should at least reduce the chances. - Mustafaa 23:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Mustafaa, it seems to me that you're infected with main-articalism -- that is, you want to shoehorn everything into one humongous article. That just makes articles unreadable and unusable. That's why there's a 32K limit on the size of an article. I have absolutely no objection to going into more detail as long as it's in sub-articles. That's also my objection to covering the Pro-Con matters in the main article. By the time the to-and-fro is finished, the main article is over 32K again, and lopsided.

I went looking at other biographical articles in Wikipedia -- specifically Queen Victoria and Julius Caesar. There's a great deal of documentation on both figures, and the articles could have been a great deal longer than they are. But both of them are about the same size as the current Muhammad article.

Is there more documentation on Julius Cesar than Muhammad? What happened to your "skepticism"? How many hundred years latter did Suetonius and Plutarch wrote their biography of Julius Cesar? Given the combined information about Muhammad from the Qu'ran, Sira, hadith and several other Islamic sources and documents, PLUS non-Islamic sources, is there more documentation on Julius Cesar than Muhammad? Can you explain how? OneGuy 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there's more documentation on Julius Caesar than there is on Muhammad. Basically there's enough surviving material earlier, contemporary, and later, that Suetonius and Plutarch can be cross-checked. See [6]. Not to mention copious coins, building inscriptions, etc.

You seem to feel that historians are picking on Muslim sources and ignoring Roman ones, that there's some sort of discrimination or racism going on. I don't think so. Historians can be indulgent with their sources when attempting to prove a pet theory, but Julius Caesar has been picked over by so many people, contemporary and later, many with diametrically opposing motives, that there's nothing much that hasn't been questioned yet. The problem with Muhammad is that he's at the start of a history, not in the middle of one. Zora 04:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't feel historians are "picking" on Muslims. A few skeptics (not historians) seems to be become ultra skeptics when they are dealing with religious personalities, regardless of religion, but they don't show the same skepticism when dealing with other historical personalities. Are these other sources (not exitinct ones) as detailed as Ibn Ishaq or hadith collection? (several volumes??) If we are just talking about sketchy (not detailed) sources, then you have the Qur'an, many other political treaties/documents and non-Islamic sources. OneGuy 10:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The historians have been working on non-Islamic sources lately, but the problem is that the contemporaries only noticed Islam when it was right on top of them (after Muhammad's death), and then the information that they give is sketchy and often highly biased. (Fiends from hell!) Though I'm not at all sure that the Syriac sources have been thoroughly combed, since it's never been a very prestigious academic specialty. There might be some interesting discoveries to be made there.

And yes, the Roman sources are voluminous. Livy and Cicero, for example. Useful correctives to Suetonius (who revels in scandal and lies) and Plutarch (who lets nothing get in the way of a good story). Even Roman history is not without its pitfalls and controversies. Not that it's my specialty. Mine is Tongan and Hawaiian history. Zora 10:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we're at odds on aims: we both want to make Wikipedia a useful tool for research and self-education. It's just a question of the best way to help the Wikipedia READERS. If we go to sub-articles, we'll have three levels of detail: summary (for the kid who just wants to know who Muhammad is and has no patience for details), the Life according to Sira, and then the sub-articles, to which people can click if they want more info. That allows readers to zoom in and out as they please. OK?

Oh, and a link to sira should take care of fine-grained detail like missing books used by later writers. A separate article re biographic controversies might also make sense. Zora 23:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - as long as the material's somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm fine with taking fine-grained issues into their own pages. But I think that principle should be applied to the "controversial" issues individually, not collectively; I still think a "pros and cons" article would inevitably be a permanent mess. - Mustafaa 23:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, Mustafaa, I've modified the pro and con section in the main article to point to four sub-articles: M. and charges of pedophilia, M. and charges of libertinism, M. and jihad, Satanic verses. Are those the major charges? Is that the best way to divide them up? I'd like to cover all charges, so that the defacers/bigots who keep trying to interpolate them in an offensive way will see that these matters aren't being censored, and leave the article alone. Or at least go trash the sub-articles instead. I'm quite open to correction and change on these matters. Zora 00:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Later -- it just struck me that you might have been right in your original argument that these matters should be treated in the course of the article, not in a separate pro and con section. When we agree on the charges and how they're to be presented/answered, then perhaps we can put them in the appropriate sections of the Life according to the Sira. Zora 00:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References

I checked all the links, deleted the dead ones, and added a few to round out the collection. I may not have gotten the best (in terms of representative, readable, comprehensive). Are there any directories with collections of links about Muhammad? A link to one of those would be ideal, as giving the largest collection of sources. Zora 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Broke up pro and con section, moved it to other parts of article

Since I decided that Mustafaa was right in wanting the criticisms to be put in their proper time and place, I broke up the section and moved all the bits to different places. It's big change and there's new material, so please look it over. Zora 21:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

"alas accused by some for allegedly violating Qur'anic verse of not marrying" .. :)) That was typo .. I meant "also" not "alas." OneGuy 10:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question

Were "all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza" killed by beheading? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zora here. That's what it says in Ibn Ishaq. Zora 12:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably .. I didn't have problem the that wording, until the guy as usual added other slants to articls with "incestous" .. the marriage to cousins is not considered "incestous" in many countries OneGuy 11:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that incestuos is inapropriate, also paedophilliac. To the anon, the word isn't needed, let the facts speak for themselves. Let readers use their own intelligence to decide whether the actions were morally acceptable or not. Adding value judgement words to the text will only slant it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy and his reverts

OneGuy, you are constantly reverting entire articles despite the fact that you only disagree with either wording or factual error. Please in the future could you just fix what you think is wrong or not appropriate rather than starting up a revert war.

Well, as you noticed I don't like you for your continuous agenda of adding nothing valuable other than anti-Islamic slants. Anyone who doen't know, this vandal added out of context verses to Jihad article and when I tried to add the context to the verses he inserted, the guy went into revert war OneGuy 11:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My agenda? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It is very very clear from your additions and removals from this article that you are on a godly mission to try to make Muhammad look like a flawless saint. You remove factual information if you are not comfortable with it. This article is NOT meant to be an endorsement of Muhammad and Islam and that is exactly what you are trying to make it to be. On the subject of being a vandal, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism before you accuse someone of being a vandal. That page clearly states that NPOV "violations" is NOT considered vandalism. Please read this several times if you have to. Also, it is interesting to note that you completely ignored my comment and suggestion regarding reverting entire articles despite the fact you only disagree with parts of it. And as your claim that the verses I used were out of context, why didn't you just put it in context rather than go into your usual revert-war.

Anyone can go to Jihad page and check .. I only added the context and you went into revert war. Unlike you, I have a history of contributing valuable information on Islamic pages (a topic I know a great deal about -- certainly more than you and most people here). Anyone can check that too. Your only contributions to these pages are adding "terrorist" (as you did to Allahu Akbar page), adding the words rape (as you did to Aisha page, and adding out of context verses to slant the page, as you did to Jihad page OneGuy 12:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy may be blowing his own horn, but his edit record earns him every right to do so. The anonymous guy's agenda is obvious. - Mustafaa 20:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm the one who started this bun-fight. I thought the article was too pious and tried to re-balance it. But that doesn't mean going to the opposite extreme, and turning it into a hatchet job -- which is what the anonymous defacer seems to be trying to do. For what it's worth, I've certainly had my problems with OneGuy, but he is accessible to reason, he argues for his edits, and he has a user name. He does not hide behind an IP. Zora 08:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fight on another page, please

Since the Banu Qurayza episode seems to be so controversial, with an anonymous defacer trying to make it sound terrible and OneGuy trying to make it sound benign, the best thing may be to move it off to another page where the combatants can go at it in detail.

defacer? Call me what you will, but that episode was not the most beautiful slaughter that took place. If you don't believe mass beheadings are terrible then I don't know what you would consider terrible anonymous defacer

Since you told me you are a Christian :)) Do you know your Biblical god ordered his prophet, not just to massacre adult men, but several thousand women, children, infants (specifically mentioned infants) and even animals ... because a "crime" their ancestors committed 300 years ago.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1amalk94.html

I wonder if you could explain that one OneGuy 12:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not the forum to explain it. We are talking about Muhammad.

Since I have debated this on several forums several times with far more informed apologists, I doubt you could tell me anything new on any forum .. anyway .. that was a side note OneGuy 13:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also took out the addition of the word "incestuous" to the family life section, as it's extremely POV. Argue that one out on the page devoted to that particular wife. Zora 11:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No need to .. I don't have any problem with the wording "beheading" ... Beheading must have been the least painful method available in the seventh century .. unless there was some other better way to execute criminals in the seventh century? OneGuy 12:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Yabbut -- it's very clear to me that the use of the word "beheading" is intentionally inflammatory, attempting to link Muhammad to the terrorists/rebels in Iraq. It may be the accepted tradition, but at the moment it's a little much. I agree that this was probably the most humane method at the time.

As to putting Biblical kings into the "criticism of family life" section -- I understand that it's a dig at Christian critics, who venerate David but get all huffy about Muhammad, but still ... David is not contemporary with Muhammad. The obvious comparison is with other Middle Eastern rulers of the time. A Persian king would be a better example.

Also, the bit about Aisha having reached puberty at 9 is just silly. The age of menarche in developed countries tends to be 12 to 14 or so, and it's higher in poorer countries. (See [7].) Better nutrition lowers the age of menarche. Menarche at 9 would be an indication of disease or hormonal imbalance. It's asking a bit much, asking people to believe that Aisha had a disease (conveniently) in order to save Muhammad's character.

Some people have come up with what seem to me to be plausible arguments that Aisha was in fact older than 9. The only problem with that is that if this is true, then either the hadith reporting her ages as 9 are WRONG, or Aisha was lying about her age (as women have been known to do). I can just see her, as a sharp-tongued old lady, boasting about what a tiny thing she was when she was married. But Muslim scholars don't have the option of disbelieving the hadith (since a huge edifice of scholarship rests on them) or of thinking that Aisha would lie (since so many isnads go back to her). Since I'm not a Muslim scholar <g> I can believe that Aisha would lie. Zora 12:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not lie, exaggerate or brag. In many narrations of Aisha, she is bragging about her importance, how Muhammad loved her more than other wives, how she was the most important wife, how young she was, how she was playing with her dolls when she was married, etc.

This doesn't mean the hadith are not authentic. Aisha probably said all these things. Latter Bukhari and Muslim (and many others) included narrations by Aisha in their collection. These scholars, however, were just examining the isnad and questioning the reliability of other narrators in the chain, but they didn't consider the possibility that Aisha herself would brag about her importance. That doesn't mean everything Aisha narrated is a lie or exaggeration, but in cases where she is talking about herself, there is strong possibility that she is bragging a lot, especially given other traditions contradict her age OneGuy 05:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there are many traditions that indicate she was older ... the clearest one is that says all of Abu Bakr children were born before Muhammad started preaching about Islam .. Since the marriage was consummated in Medina, and Hijra took place after 13 years of preaching in Mecca, that clearly contradicts the tradition of her being nine OneGuy 05:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha's marriage and consumation

Because of denials by certain people (read: Vandal OneGuy) who wish to rewrite history, here is some proof from hadiths that Aisha was 6 when she married and got porked by Muhammad at 9

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Of course... and there are several other traditions that contradict these hadits, implying that Aisha was just bragging about her age .. Since you brought this up, now I am going to fix the page on Aisha by citing these hadith that you cited and many other hadiths that contradict these hadits

Thank you very much OneGuy 14:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aisha

And done .... See Aisha now .. OneGuy 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boys over 12

"After the battle, all the adult males and boys over the age of twelve of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded" Was added with the edit summary that some boys were beheaded too. So which one is true - was it some or all? Was it decided by age or maturity (most boys are childlike at 12, but a few, who started puberty early might look much older) or was decided by some other means ? Also to the anon - can you provide a reference please. TIA Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Military-age males, huh? — Miguel 10:30, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

Also would people please read what they are reverting. I'm talking about the slavery reference. There is no reason to have it twice in the same sentance. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 13:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The hadith says, "boys who had reached puberty" go ahead locate it :)) OneGuy

I've added that, rather than a specific age, into the article. Is that acceptable? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ibn Hisam Puberty Quote

I just checked. There is no online hadith that says that boys who reached puberty were killed (at least I couldn't find it by searching online database). This comes from Ibn Hisham, "..all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded." In Aisha article Lothario kept deleting references from Ibn Hisham, Tabari, and others, so why did he insert them here? Moreover, the other claim he inserted about recently made widows probably comes from Ibn Hisham too (unless he can post online hadith as proof). Playing by the same rule like his, I am going to wait for his answer and proofs (online) before I start deleting this stuff that is not in online reference OneGuy 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) p

Anonymous deleter

Someone with just an IP address and no username removed an entire section (Muhammad as warrior) and the closing sentence of the historical significance section. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that these were deleted because they expressed doubt about Muhammad's character.

I'm certainly willing to consider changes if this person will get a username and come here to debate things with us. But I'm not happy about deleting all doubt and criticism. That's heading down the path towards the extremely "pious" article that existed here before.

Since I've been accused by some of being pro-Muslim in my edits, I'd like to make it clear that the "Muhammad as warrior" section is the strongest expression of MY own reservations about early Islamic history. As a Buddhist, I find it repugnant. Raids, seiges, captives, slaves, massacres, loot -- ugh. I know that every damn religion in the world has been used as a justification for war, but not every religion has a founder who engaged in it. At least Christians and Buddhists can claim that later rulers had misinterpreted the message.

OK, so it's possible that that section is biased in some way. But I don't think that just deleting it is the way to deal with it. Other parts of the article (Satanic verses, family life) seem to be specific and neutral enough that critics from both sides are leaving them up. Is there some way that we can edit this section so that it's more neutral?

Also, just deleting the last sentence of the historical significance section leaves the rest of it hanging without a good conclusion. I can try rewriting the whole thing if other people feel that it isn't a good summary. I thought it was a neat trick to end on a question, suggesting further thought on the matter, but maybe it doesn't work. Zora 08:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit war in Muhammad as warrior

Someone removes it. I revert it. Someone adds extraneous detail which, however likely to be true, is covered by the summary and is clearly motivated only by the desire to add something embarrassing to Muslims. I remove it. He reverts it. Alberuni deletes the whole section again.

It's the same people who have been at work in jihad, Aisha, etc. Aargh. There's no consensus seeking, no desire to turn out a useful article. It's just using Wikipedia as a venue for surrogate warfare.

I'm thinking that the best solution for this para is to replace it with something saying "this is controversial", as in the Criticism of Muhammad's family life section, and point to another page where the arguments have room to become a battle of duelling citations, which might actually be informational. Zora 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

134 is now posting stories from Tabari (who was quoting Ibn Ishaq apparently). The story is not in any online hadith collection, like 134 was asking me to cite. Anyway, does the story say that Safyia was his wife? If not, that was speculation by 134 then. Safyia was apparently the wive of Kinana ibn al-Rabia, but the name of the guy in the story is Kinana al-Rabi. "ibn" is missing here. If Safyia husband was really tortured, surely there would have been many more hadiths and sources about that? But there are none.

Anyway, this could still be a true story, or it is also possible that a strain of early Islamic story-teller wanted to make Muhammad into a mighty tough ruler. And this is one example of how they thought mighty rulers behaved. Also, I have been told that Ibn Ishaq doesn't cite his source in this story, unlike other stories. I am not sure if that's true though OneGuy 20:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please go to Moses, Jesus, and Buddha and ask yourself why Muhammad is not written in the same respectful NPOV style. There are no sections entitled "Criticism of Moses", "Jesus Killed by Jews", or "Allegations that Buddha was a Fraud". The answer isIslamophobia. --Alberuni 20:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same as respectful. If there's a controversy -- which there certainly is here -- then I believe the standard Wikipedia practice is to outline the arguments for each side (there may be more than two), add supporting evidence, and let the reader decide.

To pick an even more extreme example of a controversial religious figure, take L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists may respect him, but I can't think of anyone else who does. The Wikipedia article is actually a good NPOV treatment -- but it does mention lots of things I'm sure Scientologists would rather not be discussed. They would certainly desire a respectful treatment, but it would be a betrayal of the facts laid out in the article.

If you try to turn this article into a pious tract glorifying Muhammad, then it's going to be a scene of constant warfare, as non-Muslims try to introduce material you don't like and you delete it.

I think I'm going to try rewriting the section along the lines I suggested earlier, and move the debate to a page just for Muhammad as warrior where there is room for real argument. Zora 21:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That you compare Muhammad to L. Ron Hubbard and that you consider Islamophobic perspective a valid POV for inclusion shows the level of your consciousness. Why do you think Muhammad is more controversial than Jesus, Buddha or Moses? Because of Islamophobia, plain and simple. People hate Islam and Muslims and so they seek to attack Islam by attacking the Prophet Muhammad. NPOV does not call for including Islamophobic tracts any more than it calls for including Satanist tracts in the Jesus article or anti-Semitic tracts in the Moses article. --Alberuni 17:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Created Muhammad as warrior page

I reintroduced a para re Muhammad as warrior to the main page, but it is there mainly as a link to a new page I set up, Muhammad as warrior. I hope that the combatants will move there and instead of playing revert wars, will give each other room to lay out arguments and cite sources. Zora 08:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which Alberuni promptly deleted, claiming that -- if I recall the wording correctly -- it was Islamophobic Orientalist BS. NO hint that Muhammad might be criticized is to be tolerated? Oh dear. I reverted, but I dunno if the page will survive long. Zora 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No hint? I left the entire section on criticism of Muhamma'd personal life. That wasn't enough for you? OK, I will delete that too, then. The language used in these edits is highly offensive Islamophobic POV. Again, look at the articles on Jesus, Moses and Buddha and ask yourself why there are no sections entitled "Crriticism of Moses personal life" etc. You have not responded. You seem to think that Islamophobic criticism of Muhammad is a legitimate subject for the article on Muhammad. No, it belongs in the article on Islamophobia as examples. You should contribute your handiwork there. Section entitled "Criticisms of Muhammad's family life": " Some non-Muslims (who would those Islamophobes be? YOU?) question the character of Muhammad as revealed in the accepted traditions. They criticize his marriage to Aisha, as some traditions say that she was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated (see Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics (Again, who?) also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. ... Whether Muhammad is to be held accountable to different standards is a matter for debate. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages.

Section entitled, "Criticisms of Muhammad as warrior: ...Much criticism has been leveled at Muhammad (by who, Jerry Falwell?) for engaging in caravan raids and wars of conquest. Critics (again, nameless) say that his wars went well beyond self-defense (How do these hypocrites feel about Hiroshima, I wonder?). If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion? (Rhetorical Islamophobic POV editorializing)..." All deleted. Conduct your Daniel Pipes-style POV "scholarly critique" of Muhammad's life on the Islamophobia page, where it belongs. --Alberuni 18:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The criticism sections

It is not very nice to delete sections without making any effort to put the relevant portions of their contents somewhere else, or discuss doing so. Alberuni, you really need to work on cooperating with other editors sometimes; not everyone is out to get you! However, he does have a point as regards one thing: having separate "criticism" sections is pretty unusual in Wikipedia. Not even L. Ron Hubbard gets one of those, let alone Jesus; Moses kind of gets one, under the less inflammatory title "Ethical dilemmas". I still think my original idea of simply presenting any relevant information at the appropriate points in the bibliography makes more sense, though I can see the practical advantages of having a brief criticism section by way of preempting Islamophobes from attempting to bend the whole article to their paranoid agenda.

One obvious way to balance it would be to have a section on "Praise of Muhammad" as (whatever), which would be extremely easy to fill... Another would be to add criticism and praise sections to some other major religious leaders' articles (perhaps not a bad idea in any event.) A third would be to retitle the sections in ways analogous to Moses' "Ethical dilemmas". - Mustafaa 02:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sections Alberuni objects to are, in full:

Criticisms of Muhammad's family life

Some non-Muslims question the character of Muhammad as revealed in the accepted traditions. They criticize his marriage to Aisha, as some traditions say that she was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated (see Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. However, it must be said that Muhammad's behavior was in no way unusual for the time. Other contemporary rulers, like the kings of Persia, had many wives and concubines; Biblical kings, like David and Solomon, also had many wives. Early marriages were, and still are, acceptable in many countries. Whether Muhammad is to be held accountable to different standards is a matter for debate. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages.

Criticisms of Muhammad as warrior

For most of the 63 years of his life, Muhammad was a merchant, then a preacher. He took up the sword late in his life. He was a warrior for only ten years.

Much criticism has been leveled at Muhammad for engaging in caravan raids and wars of conquest. Critics say that his wars went well beyond self-defense. If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion? Muslim commentators, however, argue that he fought only to defend his community against the Meccans, and that he insisted on humane rules of warfare. For further discussion, see Muhammad as warrior.

One possibility I think might work is to retitle the latter section "Muhammad as warrior", and perhaps merge the former with "Muhammad's family and descendants". - Mustafaa 02:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the criticisms were attributed, my objections would be limited. Jerry Falwell Franklin Graham Jerry Vines - these are the sources for this hate speech camouflaged as encyclopedic entries. [8]. Show the sources and let people judge for themselves. Don't just spread their malicious smears under the weasel words, "Some people believe" and "Critics suggest". Some of the entries don't even bother to attribute the smears to a nameless critic. They are written as if they are Wikipedia's position, i.e. " If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion?" That's totally inappropriate. --Alberuni 02:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that I deleted "If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion?" As for the rest, it would certainly seem reasonable to give a sample of the critics' names; I suspect the early Orientalists are more what was intended than Jerry Falwell, though. - Mustafaa 02:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Actually, the critics I had most in mind in drafting those sections were the anti-Islam Christian websites and the people who feel that they tell the whole truth about Islam -- then come to Wikipedia to edit Islamic articles. Every issue discussed is one that has been raised by the um, more vociferous of the critics HERE. But it is also true that these criticisms have been leveled at Muhammad by centuries of scholars from other faiths (or no faith). It would take me a while, however, to assemble quotes.

The intent of the criticism sections WAS to divert the arguments out of the main article and into separate articles, as previously explained. To give free rein to the arguments would send the article over the 100K mark, and make it unreadable. This strategy may not have worked. Sending the argument elsewhere does seem to have worked with the Satanic verses and Aisha controversies. Perhaps because they weren't labeled as criticism?

The reference to the ethical dilemmas section in the Moses article was spot-on. Perhaps I can try to reframe some of these issues in that light.

And by the way, I've noticed that if I give a two-sentence summary of critical views, and preface the first sentence with "Critics charge that ... " other editors will leave the first sentence and delete the second as POV. It's as if they don't recognize that the second sentence follows onto the first, and contains the same implicit "critics say". It's as if people are reading sentence-by-sentence, rather than as a consecutive whole. This is hard for me to fathom. Zora 03:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need to attribute your sources to specific critics and stop using vague generalities as "Some critics say". And if you can't write clearly enough so that readers understand who is being quoted, don't blame the readers. Improve your writing. --Alberuni 03:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rearranged per Mustafaa's suggestions

I removed the headings of the disputed paras and sorted them into the rest of the text, per Mustafaa's suggestions. I hope that this will resolve some of the problems. Zora 05:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I did a little more rearrangement. I hope it flows better now. Zora 11:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'll see if I can't find a couple of critics to name myself - the Heikal biography should provide. - Mustafaa 01:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islam before Muhammad

The article says "Pious Muslims consider that his work merely clarified and finalized the true religion, building on the work of other prophets of monotheism in the Near East, and believe Islam to have existed before Muhammad. "

I'd never heard of this before. Could one of our Muslim editors provide me with some more information about this?--Josiah 03:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Like Christianity before it, Islam claims to be a continuation and, in this case, culmination, of the same sequence of guides (prophets and messengers) that the One and Only Creator has sent to mankind to keep them on the, shall we say, straight and narrow that the Jews believe in. Muslims believe that The Creator (who they call Allah, but who is understood as the same as the God of Abraham and Jesus) has sent messengers to "every peoples" (and other intelligent creatures, like the Jinn--Genies) through the ages. The Judeo-Christian sequence of people who have kept the faith since the days of Adam is seen as one such line leading through Isaac to David and Jesus and through Ishmael to Muhammad. Muhammad is seen as the final and best of them.

Jesus is seen as a precursor to Muhammad, much as Christians see John the Baptist as a precursor to Jesus. See Isa.

One more significant item: Muslims believe that Muhammad was the only messenger of The Creator to come with a ministry aimed at all mankind; that is, Islam is a religion for all humans, while Judaism, for example, was for one tribe/ethnic group (the Hebrews/Jews), and Jesus was sent, like all of the Hebraic Prophets from Abraham through Moses and down to John the Baptist, also as a Prophet to the Jews. In the Christian canon, too, it is only after his crucifiction that either a resurrected Jesus or Paul (depending on what your beliefs are) declares a ministry to the Gentiles. The Muslims, in short believe in Jesus as a Prophet, but not in his Universal Ministry.

As I said, see Isa. (The word is the Arabic form of the Hebraic "Yeshua" or Latin Iseus.)

Hope that helps.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

Has anybody else noticed that the two columns of the timeline seem to have somehow fallen out of sync? - Mustafaa 11:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your restraint is appreciated, IFaqeer

Anonymous vandal added critical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad to the bottom of the article; you deleted it and noted "Removed POV. I could have added my own. Should I?"

No, just removing it was the right thing to do. Anonymous vandal didn't bother to read the article and see that both his/her critical points were indeed already mentioned, and that there are separate articles in which to debate both. Zora 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Works cited

Someone unclear on the concept put these here

Abdalati, Hammudah. Islam In Focus. Saudi Arabia: Al-Jumah Press, 1993.

Almadhrahi, Ali and Mareb. Personal Interview. 16 Nov. 2004.

Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. United States of America: Random House

Inc., 2002.

Dunn, John. The Spread of Islam. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1996.

Ergun Mehmet and Emir Fethi Caner. Unveiling Islam. United States of America: Kregal

Publications, 2002.

Newby, Gordon D. A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Mitcham, UK. Bell and Bain Ltd., 2002.

Stewart, Desmond. “Early Islam.” Canada: time Inc, 1967.

Latest revisions

Small correction on "the prophet passes" I have changed it to "The Death of Muhammad." This article should remain religiously neutral. As an earlier poster put it, we should be respectful of the subjects we are writing about - not reverant. Further, this article describes Muhammad the founder of Islam, the only people he is a prophet to is muslims. To ascribe him with the title of 'prophet' with no explaination or even a nod to the fact it is a belief/opinion from a religious perspective violates neutrality.

Also, I removed the line "Who was now to lead the community? To head the new state? " from the same section, it was pointless fluff.

Hullo, anon. Take a username and sit down and work with us. As the author of the stuff you removed <g> -- well, I can see what you mean. The Prophet Passes was actually a recondite allusion to Browning's Pippa Passes, and the pointless fluff was rhetorical. Guess whimsy doesn't appeal, in an encyclopedia. Zora 18:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These latest additions about Ali are seriously biased

... and need to be discussed. (They are also riddled with typographical and style errors, which is reason enough for taking them off the page, in my opinion.)

I have already removed this text once, and it has been instantly reinserted without discussion. This is a problem that I hope others will take note of. BrandonYusufToropov 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Striver, since you have been unblocked for now because this was your first time, let me state clearly here the problem. This is not the place for Shi'a apologetics and propaganda. The article only describes what Shi'a and Sunni believe about one issue. It then doesn't go into detail to show which side is right. If you post any apologetical propaganda with the intention to show that Shi'a are right and Sunni are wrong, it will be deleted by other users. We don't care whether you are citing Sunni hadith to "show" (in your opinion) that Sunnis are wrong and Shi'as are right. The article only states what Shi'a and Sunni believe. That's it. It ends there. No apologetics (whether you think they are valid or not is irrelevant) will be allowed after that. OneGuy 00:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, i seriosly dont get it.

Is this an article describing what the Prophet (pbuh) did and sayd or not? My question is simple: Did he say and do that or no?

Neither i or you care for Shia or Sunni bias with regards to this article. Did the Prophet (pbuh)say "Quran and Ahl ul-Bayt" at ghadeer Kumm or no?

If yes, is it nor relevant for the topic to see what he declared that he left as a prophet?

Did Umar accuse him of delirium or not when the Prophet wanted to write his will in front of Umar?

If yes, then why is his last moments, when he wanted to write is will but was prevented irrelevant?

Dont give me Shia-Sunni POV, im not talking POV, im talking HISTORICAL FACTS. Did it happened or not? and so on for the rest of what i wrote.

--Striver 01:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the article is about Muhammad. On one issue, it simply states in few lines the difference between Shi'a and Sunni. That's the end of that part. There is no need to go into detail on that one issue just in order to push Shi'a POV. That is not what this article is about OneGuy 01:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Friend, im not talking about some uninportant event that might promote som sect's belif system, im talking about what the prophet of Islam said he would leave after him!

Now you tell me, what of this to is most relevant:

the existing:

"It was during this period that the episode known as The Satanic Verses may have happened. 
It is said that Muhammad was briefly tempted to relax his condemnation of Meccan polytheism 
and buy peace with his neighbors, but repented and recanted his words (see the article on 
The Satanic Verses). The incident is reported in only a few sources, and many Muslims do 
not accept it as fact."

or

One month before he died he collected 120 000 muslims in a place called Ghadeer Khumm and 
said that he was about to die and that he is leaving behind him "two weighty things", 
The Quran and his Ahl ul-Bayt

He then said: "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" 
- For whoever I am his mawlah, 'Ali is his mawlah.".

And then (according to ibn Kathir) verse 5:3 was revealed:
"...This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and 
chosen for you Islam as a religion..."

The above on the issue of the satanic verses or the prophets legacy, his telling that Ali became Mawla and the revelation of " perfected for you your religion"?

Both have roghly the same amont of text. Now, you tell me, which of those two carry most relevant information to this article?

take a look at the episode named "Companions of Muhammad". can you Honestly say that is has more relevant information than the Prophets last speech?

Can you honestly say that the latter is some biased Shia POV when its recorded in Sahi Muslim, all Sunnis agree to the fact that it was said "man kuntu mawla..." and Ibn Kathir says 5:3 was revealed then?

Is the Prophets (puh) last address to the Muslim nation uninportant biased Shia promoting POV?

C'mon...

In that case, could you wright "I, OneGuy, have the opinion that the Prophets last address to the Muslim nation is uninportant biased Shia promoting POV"?

Am i the only one not agreeing with OneGuy?

--Striver 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. BrandonYusufToropov 00:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is biased Shi'a POV pushing. I am well aware of the different contradictory versions of the last sermon and other contradictory hadith that Shi'a and Sunni use to justify their beliefs. These arguments do not belong in this article. The article simply describes in a few words both the Sunni and Shi'a belief, as it describes in a few words the Satanic Verses incidence. The stuff that you are trying to insert to push Shi'a POV doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to push Shi'a POV, apologetics, and propaganda OneGuy 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Death of Muhammad

I removed the whole excursus re "Muhammad was poisoned". It's extremely badly written and it doesn't add anything to the article.

There is so MUCH material re the life of Muhammad that if we tried to squeeze in every single bit, the article would be as long as a book. Furthermore, much of it is exaggerated or even mythical.

There is also a deplorable tendency for a community of editors to gather around a single high-profile article and fuss with it endlessly, adding and removing bits here and there, squabbling over words and sentences. That's a lot safer and easier than starting a new article on some neglected topic. Well, get out there and do Islamic history, guys. Someone start the Ridda Wars article. Zora 10:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely a man/prophet such as Muhammad deserves a more clear explanation regarding his death? I don't, of course, expect as much detail as in John the Baptist or Jesus but a little more detail is in order. If it's poorly written, then copyedit it. Why not just remove the entire "Death of Muhammad" section then? 168.209.97.34 06:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, and I agree the article works better without this material.BrandonYusufToropov 13:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying the less that is said about Muhammad's death, the better? Why? 168.209.97.34 06:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because a) it's historically uncertain, b) anytime you add anything you are very likely to attract a swarm of revisions that turn into expansions, and c) other great encyclopedias do it this way, presumably because of a) above. Columbia Encyclopedia says only that he died in Aisha's arms. BrandonYusufToropov 11:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What was said was that Muhammad *thought* he was poisoned while he was dying, an interesting point worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. It was mentioned in several hadiths and in the Sira. I guess Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't put any trust into the Hadiths and Sira. 168.209.97.34 13:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's just flat out a lie. There is just one hadith that says Muhammad thought his sickness at the time of his death was due to "poisoning" that happened three years ago during Khybar campaign. This nonsense in not found in any other Encyclopedia or biographies written by Muslims or not (other than anti-Islamic web sites) OneGuy 18:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh is it a flat out lie? Is it nonsense? Well done, you have just admitted that Sira Ibn Sa'd, Tabari and Bukhari's Hadith is a lie and nonsense. How ironic you believe so seeing how you are such a vocal Islamic Apologist who happens to be athiest (then again, aren't most islamic aplogists athiests??). The fact that it isn't listed in some encyclopedia isn't justification for leaving it out. Isn't the idea of wikipedia to be better and more complete than the others? If you are happy with existing encyclopedia's why bother wasting your time here? 168.209.97.34 07:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote above is correct. Even if Tabari reported the poisoning story that happened three years earlier, he did not say that when Muhammad got sick three years later he thought the sickness was due to poisoning. There is just one hadith about that. That's it. It's not in Tabari, nor in Ibn Ishaq (as you claimed above). No other Encyclopedia or credible biography makes that connection,, except anti-Islamic web sites that you tried to parrot here. OneGuy 07:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not in the Tabari? You must have missed (as you have missed my point in my previous edit): Tabari V8 p124 -- The messenger of God said during the illness from which he died - the mother of Bishr had come in to visit him - "Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar."

You say that I claimed it was in Ibn Ishaq. Uhm, I fail to see where I said that? Are you making up stuff as you go along again? 168.209.97.34 08:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anon -- Point remains that you are agitating for the inclusion of an account that is not settled history, and that previous encyclopedia entries have seen fit to pass by, no doubt after discussions like this one. BrandonYusufToropov 12:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If authentic Sira and Hadith quotes are not settled history than most of what is on the main article on Muhammad is not settled history. Very little is known about Muhammad beyond what was written in the Hadiths and Sira. I gave the references - Look them up. If they are invalid then the book itself is invalid. You can not just pick and choose certain parts of Hadiths and Sira and ignores others which are in the same book. Also, your arguement that other encyclopedias do not mention it is not justification for wikipedia not to have it. Wikipedia is hoped to be a better and more complete encyclopedia. If wikipedia shouldn't have stuff the other encyclopedias do not have then there is no purpose on creating wikipedia because we would then be reinventing the wheel. 168.209.97.34 13:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anon -- NASA in 2005 does not become a "better and more complete space agency" by resolutely ignoring safety and accuracy standards of all those who worked there prior to 2005. Wikipedia does not become a "better and more complete encyclopedia" by automatically venturing wherever other authors have considered going, and chosen not to go, on the argument we should, at all costs, "have stuff the other encyclopedias do not have."

Re -- "if it shows up anywhere in a hadith collection, it has to go in," this is not, I think, a standard I think you will see embraced by any responsible modern scholar of Muhammad's life.BrandonYusufToropov 15:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Describing first revelation

Under most recent revision (anonymous), we now have:

In 610, at about the age of 40, he had been visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.

Personally, I agree with this statement, but I don't think it's neutral.

After pondering this type of edit, which I think we can expect pretty regularly, my personal feeling is that this sentence would be better stated (and less biased toward Muslim viewpoint) as follows:

Early Muslim sources report that in 610, at about the age of 40, he experienced a vision. He described it to those close to him as a visit from the the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.

It's a critical sentence, one that has to address the facts clearly and not inspire reversion controversies. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with your rephrasing. I hadn't noticed the change. Please fix it! Zora 21:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)