Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

Prophet Mohammed is the God Of The Worlds in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Mention the Hinduism View of Phrophet Muhammed

Thats not fair, you put Christianity view of Muhammed and not Hinduism. Muhammed is a Hindu God.

If you can find reliable sources that attest to this fact, you are welcome to include such a section in the article. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

ok,. the following is some refernces i could get intouch with

  • There is a veda on Prophet Mohammed.

this link is an image of Prophet Muhammed in Hindu text from the holy veda.

http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/purana1%5B1%5D.gif

  • This link shows holy Priest/Pundits who are very well known in the field of research in India, and are amongst the Learned Religious Leaders

http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/prophet-hindu.html

  • Dr. Zakir Naik is a doctor/lecturer who talks to more than millions of millions of Hindus in India and explain Islam relations between the two religons. Dr Zakir Naik is also the president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJHbEWs-m_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ymeVe7Zdyw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMbJaXBPeGg << is in Hindu/Urdu


I will try to provide more. I will put in proper time and do proper research the following is just a bit i researched.

it should be mentioned because Christianity has no holy book on Mohammed nor Allah. Hinduism has holy vedas on the two of them. i will provide more within time. i am pretty busy sorry for the inconvience

Muslims have claimed that the NT Paraclete is Mohammed, and agree that the God of Jesus is Allah. I looked into the last geocities page and found some rebuttals to it, like as for the claim Mohammed and Kalki live on olives and dates, in fact in Kalki Purana Chapter III[17], Verse 43, Kalki and his wife is shown to have been feasting on rice, curd and other milk products. rebuttal. So each claim by Prof. Parkash should be verified in the primary Hindu source, and if there is contradiction then editors can deem it to be unreliable. Also his actual book on the subject, not a homepage about it, would be the source to use. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to study alittle bit harder to know that there is no relation between mohammad (gpbh) and hindosim, they believe what they want and muslims believe what they want. Symbolisim is not correct in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is Incorrect. See Al-Baqara page.

Please explain why does Hindi Language have many many words same in Arabic ??????? also when Prophet Muhammed went to India, a Veda was made on him during his Journey and ventures. In the Autar Purana it says when he was born and history of Prophet Muhammed. another Veda said that a God will be born reffering to Prophet Muhammad and how he was suppose to be born at this time and kill a specific number of people etc...

Sir

On the site http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wi kipedia more than 52,600 muslims have petitioned to remove this picture...

Please remove this picutre.. Regards Hussaine


[edit] Removal of offensive material

Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here every couple of weeks to demand that we should adhere to their religious taboos? Can we perhaps create a special page and automatically transfer all such demands to it, where they can stomp their feet as much as they like? Or instead maybe we should make some counter claims. Before they come here trying to tell us what to do, perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran. I am not a Christian I hasten to add - religion isn't compulsary in the West - but I merely suggest this in order to highlight a certain level of hypocrisy and double standards. TharkunColl (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As you can imagine Talk:evolution has a somewhat similar situation, you can see what they do - but in general, not exactly. I dunno, one might look at the Danzig vote ... Talk:Gdansk/Vote although personally I think the Danzig vote is about the stupidest thing ever done around here, it seems to have stuck. WilyD 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • We could create something similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which would contain all the arguments that have been made against the removal of the images. Anyone who complains could then be referred to the FAQ page unless they have some new point to make. Hut 8.5 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the FAQ is a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea! I've started it based on the Evolution FAQ. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"Perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran." That made me smirk, I have to admit.--C.Logan (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to quote locan when saying "offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran" and i just want to ask him/her from where you got this misleading information??? Jesus is a prophit acknowledged by all muslims and i challenge you to find any offensive references about him in the Quran; because actually one the pillars of being a good muslim is to believe in god, and all his prophits including jesus of course..... Anyway...i wonder what is the problem if you remove these pictures? untill now i was thinking of Wikipedia as one of the most successful examples of how a great website can be, but after finding out that the page is PROTECTED so that no one can remove these images, i believe that this is just CRAP...because there's nothing wrong in respecting other people's beliefs. Finally, i would like to say that it is forbidden to symbolize jesus or any other prophit in Islam, and not just the prophit Muhammed PBUH. So when we are asking to remove the pictures, i guess this request should be handled with enough respect and avoid getting wikipedia in these time wasting stupid debates; that won't do anything but giving a chance to more and more debates...

Creativecopywriter (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)creativecopywriterCreativecopywriter (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Koran claims, for example, that Jesus was not crucified and that another took his place. This is highly offensive to Christians. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have a zero-tolerance policy for this. If somebody brings this up again, we simply revert them and leave a warning on their talk page. It's quite clear that people wanting the images are not willing to debate the issue. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As annoying as it is, leaving a warning might be a bit bite-y. How about a friendly pointer to the FAQ page on their talk page, and a revert here? Most of the requests, while misguided, have been made in good faith. Lankiveil (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

The intent is to not have a picture or statue of Mohammed to worship as Christians may do with Jesus, unfortunately it's taken to extreme by many Muslims who don't understand this. There should be no real problem for Muslims there if they don't pray to it, and if it's not offensive otherwise. So while I understand the reasoning in asking for removal, I'm not real supportive of using Wikipedia to further reinforce misunderstanding of this religious principle. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually, honestly believe that we might be tempted to worship Muhammad? The mind boggles... TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm Muslim but I guess like, more of a freethinker you could say. The idea is for Muslims not to turn Mohammed into an idol like Christians did with Jesus. That rule isn't there because he is just so holy he can't be imaged, that one is reserved for God. But too bad, a lot of Muslims don't really know why they believe stuff, that's just what they are taught and they run with it. So I don't recommend humoring them since there's no real rule like that to start with. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in the respect point of view to remove this image from the web page. Mohammad (gpbh) is a holy thing for muslims, and it is forbidden in Islam to draw or symbolize him and so any symbolizm from any pary, even from those who claimed to be muslims at some time is not allowed, so please keep neutral, and try to keep the feelings of hunderades of millions by removing this aggrisive action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Christian iconoclasty is contemporary to Muhammad's time. It is not a moslem fashion. Ask the Christian historians or log on the iconoclast on Wikipedia and see. Iconoclasty is a famous chapter in the Christian history. The French Archaologists excavating in Jordan today found more historical churche sites in Jordan than in Palestine. The main feature of these findings is the iconoclasty phenomenon in the centuries prior to the birth of Islam. Noureddine (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 35,165++ users want the images to be removed ...

Sir , request you to remove this picutre as this hurts the sentiments of Muslims. We have great respect for Wikipedia, but this should not be abused in the name of freedom.

regards

Hussaine

Ok, please try voting here, it's only voting to say yes remove these pictures from Wikipeda, this vote for muslims only who want to remove these pictures, just if clicked here, this mean you are agree to remove the pictures. and this will increment a counter. for more transparency, please every muslim to vote once time.

Vote please here: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.9.86 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone could just reload that page all day and increase the count, so that vote doesn't really indicate anything valid. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So that, asking every muslim to vote once time. or suggest to embed a real voting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.135.9.86 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

so, if consensus and democracy mean anything, it should be ... http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-of-the-pics-of-muhammad-from-wikipedia


or are only opinions of westerners allowed to matter here? Aliibn (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC) — Aliibn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, and consensus does not work that way. To understand why such petitions make is essentially impossible to ever consider removing the images now, see WP:CANVASS. Cheers, WilyD 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of bullying in its most blatant form. Wikipedia editors are not at all likely to be impressed by such tactics. TharkunColl (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As others have already said, the petition is meaningless. For starters, it's easy for a handful of people to forge hundreds, if not thousands, of signatures. A simple can fill in the petition form for you with only a few random variables to make them appear different. This is especially relevant when you see that many of the so call "signatures" are exactly the same with only minor changes. This is why all online petitions are never taken seriously no mater who does the petition or why the petition was created.
Second, consensus must be formed on Wikipedia. It can't be created off-Wiki in a clearly bias venue and then brought here as if what goes on elsewhere applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has policies against sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Accounts with no edit history other then in a specific issue are often ignored for this particular reason.
Third, the petition is irrelevant as a poll as there are no other options to choose from. Either you agree and sign the petition or you don't and move one without the ability to voice your disagreement. Also, polls are only used to enhance a discussion about an issue; it is not a substitute for discussion. (see WP:POLLS
Fourth, the people who want the images removed do not understand Wikipedia's policies against censorship along with the content disclaimers. These actually forbid the removal of content because someone may/is offended by it. Just because there is a cultural taboo from one group doesn't mean that Wikipedia must oblige their taboo. --Farix (Talk) 18:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Farix. Snowolf How can I help? 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written from an outside perspective; it is not written for any specific audience, nor is it written from the perspective of a Muslim. As mentioned above, we do not vote or petition at Wikipedia; there are no referendums at Wikipedia. Things placed on Wikipedia are (ideally) factual, unbiased, uncensored, and informative, even if they are potentially offensive or hypersensitive. It is unfortunate that pictures of Muhammad have offended many Muslims, but this topic has already been discussed thoroughly and these threads are becoming redundant. It should be noted, however, that Shiites often times do, in fact, depict Muhammad and (more commonly) Imam Hussein. The view that Muhammad should be free of any depiction, thus, is a sectarian issue; it is not even a universal position throughout Islam. Even if it were, the fact of the matter still remains: Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia is not a democracy. I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? This is becoming nauseating. Regardless, the notion that we are going to adhere to Islamic taboos, as already mentioned, is out of the question. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus means consensus of editors on wiki. Anyway, millions of people might want the image kept, to some extent for all we know, they just haven't made a petition because it is being kept, and because they have great numbers but don't care enough. We went to war against some countries precisely to encourage democracy rather than a smaller but extremely irate group imposing their will and beliefs on others. Merkinsmum 19:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear, it is not a matter of democracy, it is a matter of respect, and love. as muslims we love him more than we love ourselves, and so we cannot accept any behaviour that is against his teachings. would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother. Neutrality of Wikipedia requires to be neutral, if we feel that it is against our religion we talk, otherwise nobody have the right to talk. Please show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what is with that all the power and control of the english wikipedia editors...just make a very simple vote and all of us will know what shuold be done 41.235.129.205 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) .


. What I fail to understand is why the writers of this article are making a fuss out of it all.Why cant you just refer the names of the books that contains the images and get it off your back.And write over there why the images were removed.Whoever is so adamant to see Muhammad's pictures would do it on his own damn self. Stop making more mess, as if we all are already not in a mess of dictating other peoples life and countries and now in this instance their religion.71.238.39.86 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== About the images attched here in this geat article, first, I need a proof that Al-Bīrūnī is the owner of the picture attached, I can't blieve that he draw it anyway.

I ask to remove these pictures anyway; because democracy dosn't mean anything here. we are Muslims all rejecting these pictures, we don't need it,

would it be democracy to put your naked mother image on wiki ? will you be happy ? this behaviour for muslims means the same of that behaviour to anybody who respects and loves his mother'.

To prove the democracy here, I agree with making a vote to remove these picture, in the condition that Muslims only who asked to vote...'''' ==


Wikipedia is not a democracy. Hut 8.5 17:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Exactly, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and neither a place for showing religious beliefs. It is a biographical article about a person, from an encyclopedic point of view. Mohamed 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I'm NOT a Muslim, i do not wish to share personal info so that should satisfy you for now.
  2. I respect all religions inlcuding Islam.
  3. I'm a proud editor of Wikipedia and i LOVE wikipedia!
  4. This is not a matter to be disputed in the first place! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... It contains, or should contain to be more techincal, ALL info on the subject whether you look at it from evolution's point of view or a religious one or even from a Denmark newspaper's point of view... If there's info out there, it should be added!! Discussing if the info is correct or not, that's not the point of discussion here and now!! But to remove any info what so ever, whether its in the form of pictures or in any other form, you offend Wikipedia that way!! so sorry, i am completely AGAINST removing the pics! KEEP Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] could someone who is good at archiving a heated page, please archive?

It's taking ages for letters to appear as you type in the edit window, because the page is overburdened. The top of the edit window suggests archiving. But I didn't like to go ahead and archive because I'm not an expert and wouldn't label what's in it well, etc. All archiving appreciated.:) Merkinsmum 19:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done I also straitened out the image archives a bit. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, this is much easier to parse through now. Thankyou! Lankiveil (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
Oh brill, thanks TheFarix, now I can write more easiily (poor you lot lol). Merkinsmum 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

I've attempted to answer two parts of the FAQ with arguments that are as much based in Wikipedia's policies as I could managed. The criticism section should be removed should itself be removed as there is no criticism section on the article. Recent trends have been to incorporate criticism throughout the entire article instead of segregating it into one section. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I put that stub there because of Talk:Muhammad#remove_the_critism_section and Talk:Muhammad#Criticism_section. The question seems to have popped up often in the archives as well. Frotz (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is no longer relevant, so why have it in the FAQ? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no criticism section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. Any criticism that is relevant and reliably sourced should be incorporated throughout the article. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't quite realize that it was gone. Frotz (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many leading thingies

Maybe I'm just being pendantic, but having all those disclaimers and other stuff at the top of this talk page makes an awful clutter. Frotz (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it might cut down on a tiny bit of the repetitive argument about the pics etc being brought up by newcomers. Merkinsmum 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this 'we' so many refer to here?

I think it interesting to see comments (like the one by User:TharkunColl above) that ask things like "Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here ...". I take it that most people here assume that "we" (meaning those contributing to wikipedia) and "believing Muslim" are mutually exclusive categories (or, at least those who insist on keeping pictures of Muhammad from long after his death, do so believe). This, to me, is rather instructive as to the self-imagined community of many wikipedians: by self-definition, exclusive of Muslims (and perhaps all non-western POVs?). Sad, very sad indeed. 68.215.218.14 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is interesting that you misrepresent TharkunColl's comments by cutting off the end of his statement, making it sound as though he simply wants to keep out all Muslims, when if one were to read his original comments, he was referring not to Muslims in general, but to those whose only activities on Wikipedia involve coming here and demanding that the pictures be removed. TharkunColl goes on in the post to offer a very sensible solution to a problem that arises every couple of days. As you can see from the above comments, there are several Muslims involved here who also believe in the principles of Wikipedia and the principles of a open and free press. If there is a we/them dynamic at work here, it is not Non-Muslim vs. Muslim, but rather editors who want to keep Wikipedia secular, informative and independent, vs. the fundamentalists who come here and demand that we adhere to a specific religion's wishes. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(I have re-added this section as it appears it was accidentally removed in a revert) Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and do not oppose the pictures of Muhammad. The pictures do not impede your ability to practice Islam as you wish to if one posts a picture of Muhammad here no more than it is an obstruction to your ability to practice if someone else has premarital sex or if someone else consumes alcohol. Do what is best for yourself, but this page should not be censored for all. This page is not written by Muslims for Muslims. Moreover, this page does mention the sensitivity associated with depictions of Muhammad, even if the page itself includes the pictures. Several views are represented in this article, including the Sunni view and Shi'a view. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

It looks like there is a conflict between those who want the picture in here and those who want it removed. Cant there be a compromise, like we keep the picture in there but it is hidden so that if you want to see it you click here but if you don't want to don't click here. --Hdt83 Chat 06:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Example:

Kind of like Mohammed playing peek-a-boo? Haha no I don't think it will help. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Its not a laughing matter... Its a lot better than having hordes of people editing the page everyday trying to remove the pictures. If you want to see it, click on the box, if you don't want to see it then don't click on it. We aren't censoring anything as the picture is still up but hidden from view. --Hdt83 Chat 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it really addresses the issue. They'll just then move to "It's already hidden, why not just remove it completely" because there issue is the use at all of such images. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Those who support the inclusion of the pictures would still argue that this is censorship, and those against the pictures would still argue that it is profane. Interesting idea, though. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was funny. Anyway I don't think it will pacify those who don't want it available at all, just have to deal with it like every other article that is vandalized often. The only way they are going to accept it is if they go study some more Islam to see that the picture isn't evil, but only worshiping it like Jesus is, as I said elsewhere.

Since Jesus is also an important prophet in Islam, I might be a lot more sympathetic if they protested the same way in the Jesus articles over his pictures since they are definitely used to worship him. In failing to do that they are being hypocritical and/or way off base in their priorities, in my opinion. -Bikinibomb (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To expand: the intent of the prohibition is so you don't have things to worship Mohammed by. But it's obvious some do worship him above other prophets since they don't raise the same fuss over Jesus, when in fact the Quran says all the prophets are the same, just servants of God and not to be worshiped. So they are actually destroying the meaning of the very ideal they claim to uphold. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This compromise would be satisfactory to me (as a "keep the pictures" person), but I doubt it will be acceptable to a lot of the Muslims making complaints. It seems the attitude is that the images must not be shown or used at all (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Lankiveil (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

That is exactly what has been done after a lengthy debate at Rorschach inkblot test, so there is precedent for it. I actually think it would make people be more aware that showing images of Muhammad is prohibited, when they might not already know that, so I'd have no problem with it. MilesAgain (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would object to doing it for that reason since it would be an editor created device used to teach Islam. A similar exercise would be to use lowercase for judaism and christianity throughout an article to teach that Islam is superior to those religions. The images should stay as regular thumbnails, as they are on every other Wikipedia article. Mob mentality can't be allowed to dictate policy and practice here. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison to capitalizing letters is like comparing apples to oranges. Hiding a couple of pictures doesn't "teach" a religion. It is simply respecting it. We capitalize names of religions because it is a proper noun, not because one is superior. Also, as shown by the Rorschach inkblot test, not every image is a thumbnail and exceptions to policy and practice can be made (see WP:IAR). --Hdt83 Chat 09:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that if your sole intent was to help teach people that Muslims don't like images, it would be the same as using lowercase to teach that other religions were inferior to Islam. You need a citation to say that Muslims don't like images, not a popup.
Rather than a sign of respect, I would probably take it to mean that you thought I was too stupid to know they were still there, if I was the type of Muslim who believed in that. A lot of things on Wikipedia offend, depending who you are. But try it if you want, when it doesn't work you'll just have some hidden pictures, then someone else will probably change them back later anyway. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This suggestion has been discussed before. It is still a form of censorship either way, makes the article more complicated to view, and makes the images less useful to the reader by restricting their immediate access. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer clearly states, "Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to."--Strothra (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A question for those dying to have a picture of the Prophet Mohammad here: Can you be certain that a certain picture is His? Obviously No - because no one has His picture, or can verify it. Thus it will be incorrect to post a picture here that you only 'think' is His. It would definately be equivalent to spreading false and unverifiable information. Personally I find it surprising why some people are bent upon having a picture here. Majority Muslims' point of view is to not have the picture and that I understand; but that of those demanding the picture, obviously mostly non-Mulsims, I don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.177.100 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are depictions of Mohammed, not a real picture. The artwork is generally understood to represent an artist interpretation. Like Jesus is probably not blond and blue-eyed. It's not like someone Photoshopped a real picture showing Mohammed in a compromising position, which is more what your argument would apply to. If you are worried about Mohammed's image, have you ever voiced the same concern for pictures of Jesus since he is a prophet equal to Mohammed? And worse, pictures of Jesus are actually used to worship him. If not, why not? I think the answer is, too many Muslims put Mohammed up on a pedestal above all other prophets in a form of man worship, which is exactly what the image prohibition is trying to prevent. So this motivation to enforce Muslim rule is actually violating the intention of the rule. Any Muslims here understanding that, or not? -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, I wonder how is it that making fun of other people's prophet is laughable in any way... Mohammed playing peek-a-boo??! what a silly comment. Unfortunately wikipedia has turned into a method for many editors to express their anti-Islam feelings (Imad marie (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Not actually Muhammad

The images a question aren't even very faithful depictions of Muhammad as he is described in hadith. They are, thus, quite useless in depicting Muhammad as a real person. Aliibn (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And the same would apply to pictures of almost any medieval figure. Would you wish to remove all of those from Wikipedia too? In which case I suggest you propose it as a general policy change. I strongly suspect you will not succeed, however. TharkunColl (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, yes. If a painting, sculpture, etc. of a pre-modern figure is known to be drawn from life (i.e., they actually posed for it or it was copied from something that was), I'd say keep it. Ancient and medieval coins, deathmasks, etc. have a fairly good likelihood of showing something like a 'real' person, but modern reconstructions (like the one on this page Zenobia ) are, frankly, useless if not misleading and of no particular use (unless in an article or section on 'modern depictions of x').
With these images of Muhammad, one can tell quickly that the artists didn't even bother to _attempt_ an honest depiction. Various hadith give fairly detailed descriptions of Muhammad's physical appearance; these hadith were not consulted.
Considering these _facts_ and the _fact_ that a great many people are irate about the inclusion of such material (and considering that wikipedia's administrators _do_ make strenuous efforts not to offend Jews, African-Americans, and other groups, a fact that demonstrates that the 'free speech' issue is a red herring), there seems no reason other than an actual desire to offend as many Muslims as possible for keeping them. Aliibn (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, a great many medieval figures are not drawn from life. Take the statues of Alfred the Great for example, who was known to not wear a beard. This is a complete red herring I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not bound by religious taboos of any sort. TharkunColl (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus not all Muslim even accept Hadith, some go by Quran only, so that description of him may be wrong too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
So, if I understand you two correctly, whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter. Offense must be given and facts be damned; the benighted Muslims are the enemy ...
Pathetic. Aliibn (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The enemy is religious dogma trying to impose its views on others. TharkunColl (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is that whatever Muslims say or think does not have more importance than what non-Muslims say or think. Pulling out the religious persecution card for this is laughable -86.141.103.218 (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you more concerned with resisting a Muslim "dogma" - or with your own wish to impose a Western i.e. Christian European convention on an encyclopedia that is meant for everyone?

Illustrations are meant to illustrate some point in an article (we do not add images solely because we happen to have them around). The question is, what would a portrait of Muhammed illustrate? I completely understand those people who think "It would illustrate what Muhammad looked like" or "It would illustrate what people thought Muhammad loked like." But does an article really need these kinds of illustrations? Some may take it for granted - it is obvious! I however do not. What people consider appropriate illstrations is not universal. Therefore what people consider appropriate illustrations is a matter of convention. I suspect that many people contributing to Wikipedia think that an article about someone should have a picture of that person, because they grew up in countries where there is a strong tradition of figurative art. Certainly, representations of Jesus and the saints have been central in the history of European art and culture, so long dominated by Christian practices. So it is a perfectly reasonable convention to people who grew up in a culture that was long dominated by Christianity to have the convention, that bigraphies should be illustrated by a portrait of the person.

But this is just a convention. There is not absolute or universal logic behind it.

Here is another way to think about the issue: followers of Muhammed have a strong tradition opposed to figurative art. Wouldn't the best - meaning the most appropriate illustration to accompany an article on Muhammed be something that illustrates this Muslim convention? Maybe the best illustration for this article would be an empty box with a caption stating that Muslims often oppose representations of Muhammed.

To do so would not be to "bow down to religious pressure." It would be to illustrate an article with an illustration that is appropriate to the article; something that actually illustrates an important point in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, is the short answer to that. An encyclopedia should describe dogma, but to be bound by it would compromise its independence. What else would people think we had missed out so as not to cause offense? Censorship compromises our credibility. TharkunColl (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. You are not responding to what I wrote. i never said Wikipedia should be bound by religious dogma. Never. I defy you to show me where I wrote that. I didn't write it because I do not believe it. What I did say is that what we think of as an illustration should not be dictated by a single (supposedly universal?) convention. Illustrations that accompany an article should actually "illustrate" the article, i.e. convey something meaningful that is in the article. In other words, the appropriateness of an illustration is relative to the article it is meant to illustrate. And I believe, firmly, that on these grounds alone (and not religious dogma) that a picture of Muhammed would be an illustration that "misses the point" and fails effectively to illustrate the article. An effective illustration might be an image of some text, or an empty box that illustrates a very important legacy of Muhammed, which was his influence on conventions of representation. That would be a meaningful illustration that would help educate people about Muhammed. I am opposed to your "one size fits all" approach to encyclopedia articles. It is very bad pedagogy. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein makes good points. As it is now, the first two illustrations that appear from the top of the page are not problematic for Muslims (a page of calligraphy and a veiled picture of Muhammad). No one, AFAIK, has asked that those be removed. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, in my humble opinion, the Dogma being demonstrated on this page is in the uncompromising attitude of militant Secular Humanism; and that is the one unwilling to compromise or 'play well with others'. Aliibn (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the encyclopedic value of Image:Maome.jpg?
It is only a representation of Muhammad; i.e. it’s not a photo, or a sketch or a painting that is true to life. It does nothing to illustrate any particular point brought up within the text. Why is it there? Censorship only comes into play if there is a genuine reason to include the material. If such a reason does not exist, then there is no censorship issue. If there is not censorship issue, then consensus should hold sway. See Wikipedia:Consensus Brimba (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No, censorship applies when someone tries to remove content on the grounds that they find it offensive. The image complies fully with Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. Hut 8.5 21:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Censorship also exists when, as in this case, a small coterie of devotees of one particular dogmatic sect -- in this case Atheism -- refuse on a priori grounds any divergence from their pre-conceptions and become bullheaded and belligerent in defending their personal belief, regardless of costs to intellectual honesty or credibility of the overall wikipedia project. Aliibn (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
For starters you are asserting that refusal to remove information from the public eye is censorship. Secondly, unless displaying pictures of religious figures became a core doctrine of Atheism recently I suspect these people just don't want to bow to pressure from a minority of vocal religious people who insist we abide by their traditions. Thirdly there are plenty of theists who have argued and continue to argue to keep the pictures. -86.141.103.218 (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide a cogent explanation for why the article must include a portrait of Muhammad? What is the point of adding such an illustration, and why is it an important point? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, what is the encyclopedic value of the picture? Or if you’re going to point me to policy instead of giving an answer, then how does it meet the “Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).”? Why should it not simply be copyedited off the page? Thanks for the above non-answer. Brimba (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been asking these questions for a long time and have never received a satisfactory answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently a page has been created to address these frequently asked questions. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You want someone to explain why we want a picture of the subject matter in the article? If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do. Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion but so far the majority opinion is the affirmative.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Muslims never bother arguing that the statue of Alfred the Great is inaccurate and should be removed, and similarly on countless thousands of other articles, proves that they don't really care about such things and are using those arguments tendentiously. The truth is that they are trying to force Wikipedia to adhere to their religious taboo. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. 84: Um, are you incabable of answering my question, or do you simply not want to? You write, "If there are no actual true to life portraits of him painted then the illustrations by Islamic scholars will have to do." Why? "Why do they have to do?" I do not see why they "have to do." You have not answered my question, why is it necessary toinclude an image of Muhammad? You write, "Whether they improve the article or not is a matter of opinion." Well, okay, you are of the opinion that it improves the article. Okay, but I asked you to explain to me why you think this. How does it improve the article_ Why? Please justify what you advocate. If you have no reason, your edit is irrational and can be discounted. TharkunColl continues to use a red'herring by playing some religion card. I am not Muslim and seek neither to adhere to nor enforce an Islamic taboo for religious reasons. What I want to know is, I repeat, why di you want to include a portrait of Muhammad to the article? What is your reason? Again, if you cannot provide a reason, you are being irrational. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The images illustrate the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find they don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, they do. Same as the statue of Alfred the Great. Not taken from life, but a representation of him nonetheless. TharkunColl (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The benefits illustrations provide to literature and learning are actively researched and well documented by educational psychologists.-86.141.103.218 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"The images express the subject matter of the article." How? It is not obvious to me so you need to explain it. The subject matter of the articl is a man who was a "statesman in Medina, a rebel in Mecca," a prophet an reformer ... how does a portrait of Muhammad illustrate this subject matter? I could see a map of battles, a chart of kinship alliances, a summary of his propohesies, as all illustrating the subject matter. but simply a picture of Muhammed? What pray tell content is being illustrated? The article says that people write his name with reverence - okay, I can see images of his name in writing illustrating the subject matter of the article. But an image of his face? Why? How? Can you explain it? And really, educational psychologists have demonstrated the benefits of providing an illustration of Muhammed´s face? PLEASE provide me with the citation to that study. The article already had plenty of illustrations, no one is arguing against illustrations in general. The question is, what is an appropriate illustration i.e. one that further conveys an important point in the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad. If it was an article about a battle then the battle chart would be approriate. It's not rocket science. Your point, I believe, is tendentious in the extreme. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not being tendentious - is this how you respond to anyone who asks you to justify your position? I iimagine you spend much of your time with people who think as you do so you never have to justify your views. Guess what: you have now encountered someone new, who does not accept unquestioningly your own beliefs. Pictures are not always appropriate. It depends on the subject matter. Itsmejudith provided a rational explanation for how o illustrate this article, So far you have not. Please, lket's be rational. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think the pictures and statues of Alfred "the Great" should be labelled to indicate when they were made. I wouldn't mind if all the silly romantic Victorian images of English kings were stripped from the encyclopedia. However, painting and statuary are within the English tradition of aesthetic representation. Muhammad is nearly always represented aesthetically by calligraphy. Therefore Muhammad's name in calligraphy is a more appropriate illustration than any portrayal on both aesthetic and informational grounds. Agree that illustration is good in principle. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation that makes sense to me, it is well-reasoned. Sounds good to me! Why is it that the people who disagree with you, Itsmejudith, cannot offer any rational explanations for their views? What is important here is to act rationally; thank you for presnting a rational proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And an example of calligraphy is already in the article. To exclude the pictures is not logical, since we can have both. TharkunColl (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The reasons we use the illustrations is because it aids the reader in identifying with the subject. Without an illustration, it is merely a name and not a person. A word description or calligraphy can't replace that. --Farix (Talk) 22:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Says you. For many people in the world pictures are irrelevant to portraying a person. A person is portrayed through stories about him or her. You have your won POV approach to what makes a name a person, and it is not shared by all. This is Wikipedia and you need to work within a framework where your own beliefs are not necesarily shared by others, and you need to be able to work with others who are different from you. You do not own this space. This means you must be held accountable. I have asked for a satisfying reason why a portrait of Muhammed is necessary and have yet to receive one. So far only Itsmejudith has provided a reational answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that no explanation would satisfy you as you have already made up your mind. To censor an image here would make people wonder what else we have censored to avoid offending Muslims. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You asked for an answer, several reasonable answers were given. The fact that you completely dismiss them out of hand indicates that you really have no interest in an answer. --Farix (Talk) 23:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this sort of reasoning places you. By the removal of images, you are again appeasing the viewpoint of only one particular group of people. It's nice that other cultures use verbal and written communication alone (as you claim; this is not, however, a universal Muslim belief by any means), and it is apparent that the article does quite enough in this respect as it is: the written aspect of conveying who the individual was has been satisfied to quite an extent. However, one must be mindful of the fact that the great majority of the world finds images to be an acceptable and useful tool by which one might express a person, an event, a location, and so on.
In Western culture, this is especially acceptable and it can be considered rather important (though it would be hard to find many cultures for which the depiction of human images is actually taboo, even in the most sacred representations). I understand why Slrubenstein might question the relevance of the image, but again, your logic here seems misplaced. One could follow it to find that we should remove all images of individuals because of the atrophic/taboo role of illustrative representation in a particular culture.
Once again, the image was created by a Muslim with the intention of representing Muhammad (specifically, it seems, by the request of a fellow Muslim). The usage here is relevant for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a historical representation of the subject. No illustrative representation can really be "accurate", so drawing lines here is splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned. There is also the issue itself concerning depiction- namely, that many Muslims find it taboo, while others do not see it as such. We include hagiographic images of Christian saints, and similarly, it is not rare within a Shi'ite household to find just such an hagiographic representation.
The image itself is relevant enough, as far as I am concerned, for what it is to begin with: a representation of an individual for whom many Muslims find representations to be taboo (many, again- not all). Again, this is a secular encyclopedia. I am a Christian, not an "atheist Islamophobe", so anyone bringing up that sort of nonsense is simply making themselves look silly. I do not believe in the censorship that some individuals are absurdly requesting, and I also disagree with Slrubenstein on the relevance of this image. I first found this image in a promotional story for an art exhibit which displayed the art and work of al-Biruni; as it was, and as it is, I find this image to be of great interest, and it is most obviously pertinent to the subject.
The reasons being given for the removal of images (in this particular topic), in all honesty, seem less like genuine and insightful reasons for removal, and more like red herrings being given in the interest of the appeasement of a group of individuals whose requests would otherwise seem plainly and clearly misguided and unconstructive (and additionally, prohibiting of information which others find to be of great interest and use). I'm not claiming that this is anyone's actual intention, because I certainly couldn't be certain of that; however, that is the outward appearance being given- the fervor in the matter by the typically more productive editor Slrubenstein is what puzzles me the most.--C.Logan (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
“The article is called "Muhammad" and there are pictures of Muhammad.” The point is, its not a picture of Muhammad, its only a representation, and a minority one at that. We do not know what Muhammad looked like, other than that he did not look as portrayed in the illustration. So why is it included within this encyclopedia? Brimba (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively. See Alfred the Great. TharkunColl (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
“Can you actually read? This has been covered exhaustively.” So no answer will be forthcoming. I see. I second Slrubenstein. Well stated. Brimba (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
How many times do I have to repeat myself? Muhammad is among countless medieval individuals for whom no contemporary likeness exists. Articles on these people contain later representations. TharkunColl (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You and Slrubenstein have continued to ignore any answer that doesnt support your position. The fact that illustrations improve readability is a basic and staple cornerstone of communication theory-86.141.103.218 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So several good reasons have been given and I just ignore them? Really? And what are these so-called reasons? So far I just see irrational dogmatism. So farf all he so-called reasons boil down to "qarticles about people must have pictures about people" but this is kind of circular reasoning that goes nowhere. And I am NLT closed minded. I will give you a good reason for including a picture of Muhammed: IF how he looked were of some importance historically or culturally that would justify including a potrait. But no one has argued this and I do not think it is the case. Anyway, get hysterical, obviously you are used to bulying yoru way and not used to having to justify yourselves. Sorry, hee you Do have to provide a rational explanation. It isn't even clear to me why you think this matters! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments apply equally to Alfred the Great and countless others. Why single Muhammad out for special treatment? TharkunColl (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a non'sequitor. But I will assume good faith that maybe you have a valid reaoson for asking. Is this your only objection to my postion? I won´t bother answering it unless I first know what difference if any my answer will make. I don´t feel like playing games. I want to know if this is a serious question and what the consequences of my answer could be. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't feel like playing games? In that case just answer the question. TharkunColl (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. I do not see how talking about Alfred the Great is necessary to improve this article, which is why I think your asking the question is playing a game. I admit I may be wrong! But I need you to explain it to me. How would discussing the Alfred the Great article help us improve this article? To be clear, what I mean is this: How would my answer to your question about Alfred the Great make any difference here? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said of figures as important to history as Jesus and Buddha. Jesus was Middle Eastern and Buddha was Indian, even though they are rarely ever portrayed as such. At least this argument is a bit more rationalized than the previous ones. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this page is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article. Not the Jesus or the Buddha article Slrubenstein | Talk 01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read, the objection to a drawing, painting, sculpture of Muhammad seems to be that there is no life image of him (please correct me if I'm wrong). The counter-argument seems to be that there are no, or few, life images of Jesus of Nazareth, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses or any of the other great figures of religion. But I suspect a religious motivation too, if I can read between the lines. Religious sentiment should not be a consideration. Now given Islamic tradition it would be small wonder that there wasn't a true image of the Prophet. So any full facial portraits of the prophet are going to be Western. So a case can be made for a traditional Islamic representation, just as images of Jesus are usually traditional Western images or images of Buddha are traditionally Asian images. Wasn't he traditionally portrayed in a veil or a halo? Perhaps such an image could be inserted?--Gazzster (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one strong argument against including images. However, I have a different argument. My argument is (1) that illustrations should illustrate important points made in an article, (2a) that the reflex to illustrate all biographies with images of the subject of the biography is purely a convention, one that represents a specifically Western tradition of representation, but a convention that ought not be followed blindly, (2b) that a biography be illustrated by a portrait of the subjct of the biography only when there is a compelling reason e.g. where an image of the person reveals important information about the person, or illustrates some important point about the person, and finally, in application to this article specifically, (3) that a portrait of Muhammed not only fails to illustrate any important point about Muhammed, it in fact muddles one very important point about Muhammed's legacy, which is the way he influenced a vibrant tradition of representation in the Muslim world that stands in marked contrast to the tradition of representation dominant in Christian Europe (or Hindu India ... anyway, the Caliphate's principal neighbors). Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. I have often thought that, in the West, convention is a sort of idol that stops people thinking outside the box. And convention is the god of Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is a tool to stop people thinking, not to encourage it. Why am I still here? I just love the stimulation, I guess. And yes, I agree-why should a western convention dominate an article about a non-Western figure? Thank you, I am learning a lot from our exchanges. I think I'd agree with you now. Tell me though, the veil and halo thing? What do you think of that?--Gazzster (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad my most recent comment more effectively explains my view! thank you! As for your veil and halo comment ... I am not the right person to respond. i am no expert in the history of representations of Muhammed, or Islamic art, and would have to defer to someone who is. My comment was based entirely on (1) a general view I have about illistrations and Wikipedia articles and (2) my reading of this article in particular. Beyond that I have no special knowledge of Muhammad or Islam. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) Among other reasons, illustrations can be used to illustrate an important point. That is not the only reason and others have been stated, such as readability and the beneficial effects images have on learning. (2a) On the same lines, given the discussion the inclusion of images has spawned I dont think that is a danger. Tradition and resistance to censorship are not the only reasons given for keeping the images. (2b) I dont remember that rule. Why should an illustration in a biography be included if and only if it illustrates an important point that text cannot convey? I realise doing otherwise might not be Islamic tradition but this is not an Islamic encylopedia, and that includes articles relating to Islamic topics. (3) There are various sections in the article pointing out that Muslims in general are not wildly keen on illustrations of Muhammad and a link to an article dedicated to the topic. I disagree that the inclusion of the images makes this point less clear. -AlexCatlin (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some ideologically based POVs more equal than others?

I must say that the above is very instructive. User:Slrubenstein and User:Itsmejudith make valid points and ask for reasons. None are given but are replied with vague sophistries, evasions, and ideological triumphalism. Allow me to make a couple of points: 1) There are two illustrations on the page that are completely unproblematic for many Muslims. One is calligraphy, the other is an illustration of Muhammad with his face veiled. So, the issue isn't for Muslims all illustrations but of specific ones. 2) The illustrations in question do not follow the descriptions of Muhammad in hadith nor do they date from any time remotely near his life. They thus add nothing to anyone's knowledge base. 3) The false issue that no one has any problem with using modern fantasy illustrations of medieval figures (such as Alfred the Great raised by User:TharkunColl is completely bogus. He raised it before; I answered him that, yes, those are problematic as they also do nothing for adding knowledge. I even attempted to add a tag to that article ... so his claim is utterly baseless and deceitful and he is fully aware of that. If one wishes to fix up the Alfred the Great article, why not add illustrations of the Alfred Jewel or of his coinage (like this http://www.pewterreplicas.co.uk/second%20site%20pictures/alfred%20the%20great%20coins.jpg )? 4) TharkunColl and other users on this page claim that removing the pictures of Muhammad that are problematic means giving in to a religious POV. Perhaps.

But ... LEAVING THEM UP DOES JUST THE SAME! There IS an ideology (as promoted by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens amongst others) that demands deliberately offending the religious (of all religions) as part of its own goals - a sort of militant Atheism, hostile to all theistic religions. And leaving up the pictures is very much Appeasement of that ideology. So, it's not a decision between 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' but between actual knowledge and working towards a global consensus on one side and a militant ideology trying to foment anger on the other. Aliibn (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you add a tag to all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles? The issue here is one of censorship in the name of religion and freedom of information. Pure and simple. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's one of pushing an ideology, militant Atheism and Islamophobia, over Facts or good-taste. The opposition to removing these couple of pictures will brook no compromise, reardless of how reasonable, but demands that its viewpoint be the only one allowed and all dissent be squashed. (And, by the way, I won't hold my breath to see if he Alfred Jewel or Alfred's coinage gets added to you to your precious King Alfred page; while it may seem a reach, I would venture you are more motivated by Anti-Islamic ideology than by any concern for truth). Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

whatever Muslims say or think or whatever the facts in the matter, it doesn't matter.

I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves. I might be more sympathetic to fellow Muslims if they had a valid point but they don't. So I for one wouldn't remove the pictures simply because it's only reinforcing bad theology. Aside from secular issues of censorship. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bikinibomb, the point is that many users want something and there interests are banned by people pushing a very harsh and militant Anti-Muslim agenda. Compromises are suggested, simple questions are asked, and no reasoning comes from them. Aliibn (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I said I would ban the request on religious principle alone, that the image prohibition is a corruption of the original command not to worship pictures. If I am going to respect a religious principle, it is going to at least be a valid one, not one based on fable and twisting by Muslims over the years. And also, based on man worship of Mohammed as being too "holy" when, who lifts a finger to protest pictures of other prophets equal to Mohammed? So I'm also not going to encourage things that go directly against Islam, lifting up one prophet over all the others. Go hang with the Jesus or Moses articles for a while protesting their images, then I'll see some consistency. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, when all else fails just play the "anti-Muslim" card. TharkunColl (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
When all else fails, the Right wing Pipesian bigot starts using standard talk radio speak. Funny how that comes out, no? Cheers, Munafiq! Aliibn (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. What's "Pipesian" for example? And what does "Munafiq" mean? TharkunColl (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Funny how this one [[User:TharkunColl}} refuses to answer any points raised by anyone but resorts to juvenile arguments. Should I wait for rationality from the Cult of Reason? Or stoop to their level of baiting? Aliibn (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have answered all the points, tendentious though most of them were. Now, what do "Pipesian" and "Munafiq" mean, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the ever wiser and most reasonable one in this discussion, as you've clearly demonstrated. Reason and logic are strong in you; they let you penetrate through the veils of simple minded illusions cast upon we lesser folk. And you are far better educated and capable of research than any of us simple-minded believers (especially those from lesser breeds) so, I'm sure you can decipher such on your own. Cheers!Aliibn (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia itself, Munafiq is a person who outwardly practices Islam but doesn't actually believe it. Muhammad says "hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them". What a nice man he was, that Muhammad! Not at all violent or vindictive or insane! By the way, I'm not a Muslim so I'm not a Munafiq, which means you're not allowed to stone me to death or whatever the punishment is. TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was quite possibly the most uncalled for thing I've ever seen on this site. Islam isn't the only religion with a hell. Zazaban (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Though he seems to be banned for the above comment, it would be important to point out that the term also means, more generally, "hypocrite".--C.Logan (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The matters of the images aside, that description of Muhammed was uncalled for, TharkunColl. Please try to respond in a civil fashion, even if you feel yourself that you are being attacked. I think a dose of assuming good faith on all sides of this argument would really help right now. Lankiveil (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
Firstly, he called me a hypocrite. And secondly, I said that Muhammad was not at all violent or vindictive or insane. TharkunColl (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not excusing his behaviour at all. And it might be possible to interpret your words as sarcasm, especially in light of your other contributions to the debate, so it might be best to think about how your words might be potentially misinterpreted before you hit the "Save Page" button. Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Is this conversation actually going anywhere? Look if you find the pictures offensive don't look at them but Wikipedia is for everyone so let us have access to the pictures. No one is being forced to look at this article after all. 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)

Probably not - the "these images are false" argument is a complete red herring - it has nothing to do with the issue at all, and wouldn't exist if not for the other complaint. WilyD 04:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The conversation appears to be going in circles with those against the images refusing to be willing to compromise or offer any alternative that maintains the free exchange of the image or the integrity of Wikipedia. They appear to only be interested in imposing their will, everyone else be damned. --Mhking (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Bikinibomb writes "I am Muslim, and I've already explained that the real prohibition is against worshiping pictures, not against pictures themselves." But I am not a Muslim, and have made it clear that I object to including a picture of Muhammad on non-religious grounds. Since we now have one Muslim who does not object, and a non-Muslim who does object, I think we can now safely abandon the claim that excluding an image of Muhammad is a form of dogmatic religious censorship!!! Abandoning that red-herring, maybe we can have a more reasonable discussion. That said, I have one other important and constructive suggestion: let us have an end with TharkunColl's arguments involving "all the countless thousands of other medieval person's articles." His/her comments - at least along this specific line - are examples of WP:DIS and [[WP:POINT] because the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvemenst to this article. Widening the discussion to "countless thousands of other ... articles" is an obvious disruption of this talk page. Not only is it simply inappropriate, it is obviously impractical - if we widen this discussion to include thousands of other articles we will never reach a resolution. We make improvements by focusing on the article we are trying to improve, not other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although TharkunColl is inarticulate, the point remains - what makes this different from how we'd treat any other historical subject of equivalent importance? (although on a List of people by historical significance, Muhammad might well be #1, and by some margin). Other such articles serve as an excellent "sanity check" in this case, I would suggest. The only real difference seems to be that some large number of Muslims have a religious and/or cultural objection to such depictions. WilyD 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to this article. It is not for discussing improvements to other articles. If you want to discuss an improvement to another article, we should do it on the talk page of the other article. And I repeat: My objection to the depiction is not based on my being muslim and it is neither religious nor cultural. But I have already explained my reasoning, at length, at leaast twice, above. We could discuss my objections to including an image, and reasons for including an image, in this article. But you and others repeatedly prefer to discuss other articles. this should a serious absense of good faith and disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that much is definitely true. We aren't writing an article on Muhammad in isolation - and the context of "how do we generally write articles about historic people" is important. We're all amateurs - at the very least, I'm not an historian, or a theologian or a professional encyclopaedia or biography writer. It's an important question to ask "What should or shouldn't an encyclopaedia article on an historic person contain?" in this context, because it's the central question we should be asking - "How do we write an encyclopaedia article about Muhammad?" requires knowledge of both encyclopaedia articles and Muhammad, and the "anti-image" people seem to have lost sight of the nature of encyclopaedia artices. I'm not sure how to response to the bit of personal attack at the end there, since I'm unsure where good faith is not being assumed, nor where editing is being disruptive ... Cheers anyhow, WilyD 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this talk page very long, but please allow me to comment. Now it is true that Islam has been one of the most misunderstood and maligned religions in the West for the past 1500 years. In a forum like this we ought to show respect for the religious sentiments of others. But as for encyclopedic content we conduct ourselves by academic standards. Religious sensitivities just don't come into it. The sentiments of those who profess one particular creed shouldn't be seen to be deserving of greater respect than those of other creeds. Now TharkunColl's comment was definitely out of line, and he has been blocked for it. But he might not have been given occasion to make it if editors hadn't made religion an issue in the first place.--Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this image has historical value and should be left in the article, if it is really the earliest to be had: Image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg The earliest surviving image of Muhammad from Rashid al-Din's Jami' al-Tawarikh, approximately 1315, depicting the episode of the Black Stone. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A wise, balanced comment Wily.--Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Gazzster responds to my comment, and it is clear that Gazzster did not read my comment. With respect, I ask that Gazzster read all my comments on this page (they are not many) before commenting on my views. It offends me when my views are misrepresented; from the beginning I have made it explicit that I am not primarilly motivated by religious sentiments, and while Gazzster is free to disagree with what I say, it is wrong for him/her to claim to disagree with me while misrepresenting what I have said. In fact, in a way I am trying to do just what Gazzster says, to conduct myself by academic standards. Specifically, I am following the example of anthropologist Michael taussig, in his essay "Maleficium: State Fetishism" in his book The Nervous System (Routledge).

To reply to WilyD, perhaps we have a misunderstanding. My accusation of a lack of good faith is explicitly aimed at those who have argued that we cannot decide this question concerning this article without considering "countless thouseands" of other articles, which is patently absurd and inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. I strongly object to a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to articles. But if I may assume good faith on your part, WilyD, I think you are now raising a slightly different issue which is that how we respolve questions concerning one encyclopedia article ought to be based on principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles. If this is what you mean to say I agree 100%. But I think there is a world of difference between sahying that we should apply principles that could apply to other encyclopedia articles, and saying that we should follow the exact same practice on all articles. Now, please do me the favor of reading my original comment in the section above. It is my first comment on this page, and my first comment on this topic. I believe that I framed my reasoning in a way that assumed or proposed a principle that could be applied to all encyclopedia articles. if this is not clear to you I would ask that you read my second comment. I sincerely hope my first and second comments make my position clear. I want to emphasize that while I oppose including an image of Muhammad here, it is based on a general principle I would apply to any Wikipedia article. I hope in this regard WilyD you and I can agree.

A final point: someone challenged my good faith and credibility by asserting that I would reject any argument for including an image of Muhammed. this was a scurilous accusation, in fact a pathetically defensive tactic since I was in fact asking people to provide rationales for including Muhammed's image, and no one could provide me with one. I can now say that C. Logan has provided what I consider a reasonable argument for including an image of Muhammed int he article and I thank him for it. I happen still to disagree, but people in good faith can disagree. At least he took the time to provide a reason. This shows more respect for Wikipedia and this article than some of the other people who have been commenting on this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, I think I referred to TharkenColl's posts as "inarticulate" - and it's no secret I've called him worse things in the past ... but I don't think my point was different, just better articulated. I've read your first post above, and seen that general argument articulated several times, but it just doesn't hold any water, for a couple of reasions:
  • Muhammad is enormously important outside of Islam. If not one Muslim walked the Earth, Muhammad might well be the tenth or so most important historical personality, rather than occupying his current position (which I, as a heathen person without formal religious affliation (although suspected theist), would reckon as first), but this remains true. Muhammad is not soley important is a "Muslim" context, he's also enormously important in an Asian, European and African context, and all their derivitives. We should be striving to represent all of these, not just the one that (and even this is arguable) is apparently considered firstmost. We do do this by including other "representative imagery" like the calligraphy.
  • Muslim & Islamic cultures are far from monolithic, and to represent "no imagery" as a uniform Muslim tradition is wrong. All the images that appear in this article are from Muslim cultures (although I've argued this unduely weighs the presentation towards a Muslim POV, it's not the end of the world) - indeed, I would expect that the Farsi Wikipedia would have mostly Muslim contributors, and they elect to display a (veiled) painting of Muhammad there.
  • Apart from "representing" Muhammad here, we're also writing to an audience which is first and foremost native English language speakers, and secondarily second (or further) English language speakers. To some extent we do need to "write for these two populations". This is a much smaller consideration, but remains real. How much weight we give to each of the two is debatable (english's Lingua franca status, and the higher level of completeness here than on other projects are major factors.
I'm not sure what else, but there certainly are other considerations, no doubt. The discussion is heading in unhelpful directions however (and the article remains in otherwise poor condition too, which should be of more concern) and I'd like to see it turned around, but I'm not even sure that's possible at this time. WilyD 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration of what I've written. We can obviously disagree, but hopefully in a manner befitting that of encyclopedia editors (as we could be called, anyway). It seemed apparent that the discussion was getting too fast and too simple, and many individuals were beginning to lose their composure, especially when non-AGF accusations started flying about.
Though I agree with the users who are in favor of maintaining the images, I felt as if no one was really stating their thoughts as to why (possibly supposing that the preceding discussions did that job well enough, which is true to an extent- although this discussion is ostensibly concerning a separate topic, it is easy enough to see why some would assume that the main issue is a motivating factor here as well). I hope that my own comment provided at least some of (what I see as) the obvious reasoning behind keeping pictures such as these.--C.Logan (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the earliest known image of Mohammed would have historical value? -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do think you raise an important point. However, I still don't support adding images here. What I would propose (though some Muslims may really object) would be an article specifically on figurative representations of Muhammed, and theological or legal debates over images of Muhammed. In the context of such an article the image to which you refer would be very importand indeed - part of the article would be art-historical, perhaps exploring how different images of Muhammed reflect changes in Islamic culture or views of Muhammed. I think this would be a very interesting article and yes, the earliest known image of Muhammed would indeed have great hiswtorical value. My point is, it would have value for an article on the history of images in Islam, not on the life and teachings of Muhammed, if this makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To Slrubenstein - I truly apologise that my comments appear to offend you. But they were not aimed at you, but to the discussion in general.--Gazzster (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I came about another encyclopedia-type website that even made two separate articles out of "Artistic depictions of Muhammad" alone, one which discussed the topic throughout history (sans images), and one with examples and specific details. I'm not saying that this is a way to go, but it's at least a working example of such an idea (not quite, however- the link to the non-image article simply redirects to the image-laden article, to the consternation of many, I'm sure). You are correct that the images would be more relevant there, but that certainly doesn't mean that their relevance here is in doubt; at least, not in my opinion. I would certainly support the inclusion of the images on such an article, for obvious reasons.--C.Logan (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - thank you! Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, there's Depictions of Muhammad.--Goon Noot (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I did not know about this. It is interesting, but underdeveloped - Bikinbomb, perhaps you would be well-suited to begin an improvement drive? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the mediation from a while back myself and some others basically argued that although a depiction may have been warranted, 4-5 was overkill, especially when having them positioned prominently in the article. I still think that. I think the aim of showing how tradition (although most, if not all it surrounds the Shi'ite Safawid era) has depicted Muhammad can be achieved through one or two such images, in a section such as Muhammad#Depictions_of_Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I say just keep the one claimed to be the oldest and ditch the rest, that at least shows compromise while still retaining historical value of an image which pertains directly to Mohammed and is appropriate for the article. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow

We're making headway on the "Story of the Cranes" material, which is great.

A question moving forward: Can I ask why you think it's important that we imply that works printed in 1996 and 1998 are not "modern"? BYT (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Muhammad was an apostle, orator, and physician"

If the concensus is to keep these POV's in the intro as it appears to be, they should be attributed and balanced as I have recently done. What are some opinions on the matter? I made mine clear when I removed the first attempts to add this material. In particular, what are some opinions of this edit by User:Bless sins? Arrow740 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Put simply, the statements you added do not follow the same metrics as the preceding statements; they are not opposing views of the same subject. This does not constitute an "opposing" point of view. What does Muhammad being an orator or messenger according to Muslims, for example, have to do with Islamic imperialism? The two ideas are not explicitly related and it would be an inappropriate addition, at least, under the guise of NPOV. Certainly I could see an inclusion of Islamic imperialism in this article, but the area in which you placed it in was completely irrelevant to that subject. There wouldn't be a counterargument to Islamic/Arab imperialism (because it is a historical reality), so placing it randomly next to sentences about Muhammad being a merchant and apostle would actually be a POV statement. You are essentially trying to place a negative statement next to any (apparently) sympathetic statement on Muhammad, even though the two statements have no relation to each other. That is why your statements should have been (and were) removed. On the topic of Bless sins's edit, if you can find a "counter view" to those statements, then by all means. Honestly, I don't think there is a counter view to Muhammad being an apostle according to Islam. That is a fundamental, defining characteristic of Muhammad that should be included in any lead that describes him. I suppose he should be able to find a better source than what he did for Muhammad being an orator, philosopher, etc. A "famous quote" from a French poet doesn't seem like a very good source for information on Muhammad. Perhaps his statements should be removed as well. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
These are not "POV"s but facts. Are there any sources that deny Muhammad was an apostle, an orator, a merchant, a general, a diplomat etc? If you can find some, then there would be a need for attribution.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
These sources are unacceptable, as I said in my edit summary when I removed this material. There's nothing in the body about him being an orator or physician. Arrow740 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins, your sources (quotes from a French poet) are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not they are "facts," they must still be sourced. With that said, Arrow's inclusion of Islam as a "conquering religion" was both irrelevant and would require a much more thorough debate than simply a one liner in the lead. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest also that this is unnecessary in the intro. An argument could be crafted for their incorporation into the views section.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If we deem it appropriate to use Alphonse de Lamartine (not in the lead, I think), his statements should be verified by a reliable source. If a source is to be opposed, it can be done without resorting to pointish attempts to include other unreliable material. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspersions aside, Trifkovic is a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree. Can you tell us all a little more about the publisher? ITAQALLAH 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about this book specifically. Despite your reluctancy, I think it's important to mention the publisher of this work, that is, Regina Orthodox Press. Do you think that this book, cited as an example of anti-Islam sentiment displayed by the conservatives of Eastern Orthodoxy ("No God in Common:" American Evangelical Discourse on Islam after 9/11, Cimino (2005), Review of Religious Research 4(2):162-174), is really a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. I don't deny that Trifkovic has critical views of Islam, as other qualified scholars do. He is still qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Trifkovic does seem to be a historian (I would be interested to see precisely what his specialisation is), although he appears to have been criticised by Sells. His views and the book in general does appear to be highly partisan and polemical, which is why I think it is published by a religious press, rather than an academic one. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike other editors in the Islam space, I do not spend my time POV mining, but fact mining. If I use Trifkovic for a POV it will only be done with restraint and regard for WP:NPOV. Arrow740 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to believe your first statement, but considering your string of edits on Islam, I don't think I can. Last I checked, multiple sections here were tagged with POV-sect... the last thing we need here is more POV. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but when biased language is added we should balance it as best we can. Arrow740 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Biased language should be tackled on its own, not "balanced" by adding more biased material. I think we are digressing. Trifkovic's polemical book seems to be published by a partisan press. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i think

We want to address issues in more civilized manner, no offensive opinions , we are all human beings love each others, but someone might be offended by some media materials published we shall look at this and solve, all media materials shall not be there for propose of offense others, and if it does we shall think about it.if lots of pepole does not like it just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.88.239 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am a Christian, but I recognise that Islam is a beautiful, loving religion. And we in the West might even learn some lessons from it.--Gazzster (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys,

By the way, to those who does not know, this image is exactly from the old days of islam, and it is from the 15th century, and it symbolizes the crist when he came to Mecca to do piligrimage in the old days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talk • contribs) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] neutral point of view

i read FAQ and so Wikimapia use false images.. Images are put to prove/clearify topics/articles not just DECORATIONS

so the images are not proved (cant be prove) to be Mohammed (pbuh) and there are alot of pictures that can be used instead instead(his grave picture,his cloth..ect)

Knowing its offensive is something to consider and that doesnt make you unprofessional if you remove the pics and put others pics proven/used

and if you really wants to mentain the neutral point of view then you should use the right pitures respecting all people .

i really hope you can be more open minded about it and use real pictures of current items(left) instead of some unknown drawings of unknown people..

Glassflowers (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are apparently no true to life pictures of Muhammad then depictions by Islamic scholars are the next best thing and will have to do. The images do improve and clarify the article, and offend a small enough minority of people that leaving the pictures in the article is worth it. -Wherethere (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as it can benefit neutral point of view to mention outside opinions of Muhammad, it can benefit NPOV to present outside depicitions of Muhammad (where such are noteworthy). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi... May I edit this article? There are some things left out. and can u contact me on my page so that I know when you do? Thx.--CherryBlossom93 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected - if you account is more than four days old, you should be able to edit. WilyD 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The only way acceptable to God"

This sentence is silly. What is it supposed to mean? Why was the proper word removed? Arrow740 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the footnote following it. To say it is the only religion accepted means Christians and Jews say go to hell which is not true: "Those who believe, and those who follow Jewish law, and [also] Christians and Sabeans, whoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day and does good deeds, they shall have their reward before their Lord, and there shall be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve."
But way is correct because according to Islam, submitting oneself to God is the only way to God. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm telling you that it doesn't make sense. It sounds incomplete. Also the verse you quote is likely "abrogated." Note S. 3:83-85: "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." S. 5:72-73 also says Christians will go to Hell, let alone the poor Hindus. Arrow740 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The verse you quoted does not contradict the one I mentioned, because "Islam" means surrender here. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell can not possibly be a matter of abrogation; practical laws may be. Aside from these, whoever does not receive the message in its correct form will not be questioned about it. As to the article, I think it is best to remove it altogether. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you addressed the verse. I assume "religion" is "deen;" in any case your argument falls completely flat. There should certainly be something regarding this aspect of Muhammad's message. Arrow740 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous opinions of theologians on the issue. According to some, it refers to those pre-Islamic Christians, and the Jews before them, who followed the prophets. According to others (and I think this is the majority), it includes the previous category, as well as monotheists from later ages who had not yet been exposed to Islam. It's not as relevant to this article as it would be to an article like Jannah. ITAQALLAH 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of the Name

Muhammad's name was unique in his time. One would say he was the first male to have this name. Its meaning is also unique but where does it come from? I like the wikipedian saying: "The name Muhammad literally means "Praiseworthy"". This is litterally true, as read in Arabic. However, some tribes in Arabia have their own dialects and their pronunciations and moods. These moods sometimes reveal the origins of the current meanings since Arabic is an evolving language. For example: the Caliph Omar once heard a Kuran reader pronouncing the term "Hatta" (Palatal sound) with a Ayn (guttural sound). The Caliph then had to stop the reader and correct him by asking him where he comes from. The caliph knew what tribe the reader was coming from because that tribe pronounces the Ha sound in a guttural manner.

Therefore, the name Muhammad could mean the "baptized" since the christian monks of Arabia were known for their blessings, and when they baptize, the blessing is made in a ritual gesture with water, and with the "palm" of the hand. The Palm of the hand means the number five, which leads to the term "Mukhammas". Arabian linguists cannot deny this permutation because it goes back to centuries before Islam and Jesus Christ. The term Mukhammas could also mean "Mughammas" - dipped- (in water of course).

Permutations in Arabic are common in history lest not forget the story of King Ahmos of the Egypt, the king who, in the Osiris scriptures was predicted to come in the future to free Egypt from the rule of the Hyksos: ".. and there will come a liberator with the name Ahmos to set you free from the...". Apparently the prophecy was held for generations after Ahmos freed Egypt in 1580 BC until the Old Testament mentioned an up-coming prophet <from among yourselves> by the name Mechammed, so tender and praiseworthy that you will follow him. No wonder that the name Muhammad had several equivalent names like Ahmad and Mahmoud.

Noureddine (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How To Get Wikipedia to remove the Pictures of Mohammed

The only way, to do this is a) write or contact heads of muslim countries requesting they block wikipedia as it contains offensive articles on the prophet Muhammed. This can easily be organised just through the muslims who have requested pictures removed from this article, after all they come from many countries b)Initiate a media campaign , saying Wikipedia deliberately insults Islam

I know many internet providers currently block offensive Wikipedia articles in various countries

Alternatively you can do your best to knock wikipedias article of Muhammed(pbuh) of the top spot in google searches by promoting the muslimwiki articles on Muhammed (pbuh)

Asking a US centric bunch of contributers to do you a favour is not going to happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.147 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" Wikipedia articles? How is this "offensive"? If anything, is not your attempts to censor the free exchange of ideas, images and other information as offensive, if not more so? --Mhking (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
US-centric? Now that is offensive. Lankiveil (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Removing the depiction of Mohammad

I hope the editors of wikipedia will delete that image because it does not illustrate anything in the article of Mohammad pbuh. If you really need to put an illustration , there are hundreds of useful illustrations that suit this article without offending Muslims all round the earth.

If you want to reply to me and claim that you have your own rules or regulations , then please have a look at this rule : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR

If you like us to provide the article with more info about our prophet mohammad, please let us know, and we will be happy to provide you with great more details about him. There are tens of certified resources about our lovely prophet Mohammad, regards, Ala' Alsallal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.241.173 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the presence of the Muhammad image. In my opinion, it should remain as a descriptive element of the article, despite your choosing to conveniently invoke WP:IAR, when the consensus dictates otherwise. --Mhking (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which is linked to at the top of the page. IAR does not mean we can ignore rules and regulations just because we feel like it. Hut 8.5 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Images can serve a historical importance and certain ones (e.g. the earliest recorded depiction) would be valuable to an article. However, as it stands, including 3-4+ images seems as though it is being done with the intent to spite Muslims, not because it necessarily contributes to the article, particularly since visuals of Muhammad have rarely been used to depict him in the first place. Including images that contribute nothing simply because that would be Wikipedian procedure comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism; there have been similar discussions about this on articles like Humanities, which fail to provide a worldwide view for that very reason. The Humanities article does not give a worldwide view because philosophies that pertain to Humanism and the divisions between the spiritual and the earthly are, in essence, a European phenomenon. Although India, the Middle East, and China all had complex civilizations which were, for most of history, equally, if not more technologically advanced than the West (pretty much until the end of the 16th century), the East never made a similar, lasting distinction between the Earth and the Heavens. For that reason, putting Sufi philosophy in an article on Humanities, for example, would be defining a non-Western phenomonenon in terms that are alien, if that makes sense. And as it has already been discussed there, it amounts to intellectual imperialism (meaning that Non-Western ways to classify things are intrinsically inferior, therefore they should be discarded and all articles, even if they are on non-Western thought, must conform to Western classifications and standards).

Similarly, an article on Muhammad should not necessarily be defined solely on Western terms; Muhammad is, after all, not a Westerner and those that documented most of his life rarely, if ever, depicted him. So with that said, I think one or two images could serve a purpose; I think placing images of him in this page for no reason other than to put them there is going to naturally come off as though these pictures are being added maliciously to spite Muslim sensitivities "because we can," whether or not it is true. Moreover, it appears as though there are more images of Muhammad than there are traditional Muslim forms of depiction, which then poses the question of undue weight and POV editing. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is this article defined on Western terms? It is a large article, and, as such, has a decent amount of images to help the flow of the article. Removing the images is itself conforming to a non-world view. Jmlk17 05:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my statement. I did not say all of the images should be removed; however, it is quite bizarre that an article on Muhammad would have more Western-oriented depictions than Middle Eastern ones. Arabesques, geometric art, and calligraphy have been the dominant art forms used within the Muslim world, particularly when it comes to depictions of Muhammad. While I don't necessarily think all of the images should go, it does seem like intellectual imperialism to make this article primarily Western oriented even though it is based on a non-Western man. The Humanities article, for example, also does not conform to a world view, since the Humanities are essentially a Western subject. Other cultures have had philosophy, science, and art, but they have never defined or classified them in the Western style. For that reason, they are not included in depth in that article. Similarly, Muhammad is traditionally not necessarily depicted in the way that Jesus is depicted in Europe or Buddha is depicted in East Asia; it seems odd to give undue weight to Western-oriented images that represent an overwhelming minority of the depictions available. Moreover, the article on Jesus does not include a single non-European depiction of Jesus (and the Jesus article is almost FA!). I didn't say all of the images should be removed; I simply think that it is odd for there to be almost as many, if not more, actual depictions than there are calligraphic images.

The long article needs images to "add flow" is a very weak argument, IMO. In the first six sections alone, for example, there are three images of Muhammad, and only one piece of calligraphic art. I could probably find at least 10-20 times as much calligraphy than I can actual depictions (since that is how he is depicted within every single mosque), so that certainly is undue weight for the Western perspective, and that is why I feel as though it looks like intellectual imperialism. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Which of the Muhammad images were made in the West? The mere depiction of Muhammad isn't universally rejected by Muslims, just like the rejection of music isn't either. Funkynusayri (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Music is only rejected by Wahhabis and Salafis. However, 85% of the current Muslim world is Sunni and, prior to the Safavid Empire, it was close to 100% of the Muslim world. Every major school of Sunni Islam is opposed to iconography. Yet, calligraphic images are underrepresented. Catering to a minority view by loading the page with nontraditional images is a POV edit, IMO. None of the images were made in the West, but they are nontraditional images that conform more so with Western religious art than traditional Muslim art. As I said, the fact that three out of the first four images of Muhammad are all nontraditional suggests that this article is biased against traditional Muslim depictions. Similar articles (e.g. Jesus) do not provide any nontraditional depictions whatsoever. Certainly one image, maybe two, could serve a purpose here. Adding them for the sake of adding them seems reckless; adding them for the sake of "avoiding censorship" is simply nonsense. -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two images showing his face, both of which were produced in a Muslim world/area before it became common practice to shield his face. I could agree if it was say a 20th or 29th century depiction, but one from the 16th century, and another from 1315 (which in itself is a notable thing) certainly are historical. Jmlk17 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My objection would be that they are placed so high on the page. They should rather be around some of the lower sections that are actually relevant to depictions and the view on Muhammad. Three images might also be a little over the top. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What does their current positioning have to do with it? Jmlk17 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, if placed next to the "depictions" section, they would actually be relevant. Also, location expresses significance. Funkynusayri (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that also. Most of the traditional art is at the very bottom of the page near references, whereas nontraditional art is bunched up at the top (three of the first four depictions of Muhammad are noncalligraphic). I agree that location does have an effect, especially if an image is completely disjointed from the content (e.g. an image of Muhammad preaching is right next to etymology for his name). -Rosywounds (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I support at least moving them around to sections where they are relevant, and maybe eliminating one of them completely, like the one on the right, which doesn't even have a caption in the article, and is of every bad quality. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It is quite normal to have these images placed highly and prominently in a biographical article. See James Garfield or John the Baptist for instance. --Strothra (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but on those pages, the images are relevant to the text next to them (picture as a youth next to the "early life" section, etc). The ones in this article aren't, they just seem to have been randomly thrown in there. They could of course be moved further down to fitting texts. I'll do it if no one minds. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

plz remove that picture from mohammed page or it add to the artist page.Emmanzur (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How about having a number of 'images' of Muhammed? A calligraphic image, which we already have. A traditional Islamic image, Persian, Ottoman, whatever, and a Western image? I think that could be quite enlightening to make a comparison.--Gazzster (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, such would be more fitting in the article depictions of Muhammad. I still think the pictures in this article that show specific events should be moved to fitting sections instead of just being at the top for the sake of it. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There should be a depiction displayed at the top of the article in place of the calligraphy as is standard in biographical articles. All depictions of the individual are relevant to a biography. The depictions of muhammad article serves moreso to explain the history of how such depictions are controversial yet have evolved over time. --Veritas (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet there is another image under the etymology section, which is irrelevant to the text next to it, and which furthermore screws up the layout. Such images should be moved down to the sections they actually illustrate, like on all other pages, see Jesus as example. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the image of Muhammad preaching in Mecca down to the "Mecca" section since it correlates better than up in the etymology section as suggested above. --Hdt83 Chat 04:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Open Editing

I Want Wikipedia to remove the protection from his page as this article has to be changed. there are many things in it that are wrong about Prophet Muhammad (P.H.B.H). So Therefore i request Wikipedia To Remove The Protection.Ahmedcena (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For example, Mohamed (PBUH) was the greatest pedophile and terrorist that ever walked the earth. He had more than 10 wives and he liked talking to "angels" deep inside caves. Malbari666 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Except adding that would be considered Original Research and is a POV. Zazaban (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember something about Moses and Abraham and other leaders venerated by Western tradition having multiple wives? Heck, Abraham talked to a bush. And didn't Jesus see an angel in the Garden of OLives?--Gazzster (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I was mainly talking about the first two charges. But yeah, I find it amazing that Muhammad for doing things that many biblical figures have done. It's a bit one-sided. Zazaban (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think... that you may have crossed a few wires with your recollection of Biblical stories.--C.Logan (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Solomon has 700 wives. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you responding to me? I don't understand how that's relevant to my reply to Gazzster, so I'm unsure.--C.Logan (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The full protection has been reduced to semi. Jmlk17 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the validation of the pictures.?!! if you cant validate then remove it..!!! as easy as that.

well, we all know that encylopedias must only include validated data, information, images, diagrams, etc.. but here on this "Encylopedia" they dont do that.. then how can we trust their articles and the data they provide on this website ?..

what wikipedia did is that they (those who run it) added a picture claiming that is belongs to the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, but where is there proof?! have they really seen him and validated it? what also puzzles me that they have two pictures claiming that they are of the prophet, but the funny thing is that they dont even match... so how can the same person have two different looks?!

what i want is that, they either validate the truthfullness of their information and validate it, so that its accurate. or simply dont add images, dates, diagrams that they cant be sure if its right or not...

if they fail to do that, and they still keep those images which i find is weird then how can we trust the other articles they have.. to support my point, i am studying in one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and when i prepare my reports the inctructors (non muslims), dont allow us to use wikipedia as a trusted source.

now, adding to that all the approved laws in the united states and the laws passed to organize the internet, prevent the release of contents that might be abusive to others, and this policey is maintained in all respected websites. so, all we are asking is to bind to the law, authenticate your data and remove any abusive content.

a person might argue that these pictures are not abusive. Well, as a reply to that, a person that is not a muslim might fail to see the harm of these pictures, but we cant rely his point of view because he simply doesnt know Islam and doesnt know what is abusive adn what is not to muslims, and their prophet. what must be done to know if these pictures are abusive to muslims or not, is to simply ask a muslim. To help wikipedia ask muslims, a petition was formed signed by 40 thousand muslims and adding agreeing that they find this picture is abusive to all muslims.

so, as these pictures remain on this website i come to two conclusions. 1) that Wikipedia cant be trusted as a real source of valid information or as an encylopedia because they have unvalid and wrong information in their articles. so as a user how can i know which article has good information and which dont.. simply i cant. 2) Wikipedia, doesnt bind to the law of united states, united nations and the laws passed to regulate the usage of the internet, as they are publishing on their website a content that is agreed by thousands of muslims as abusive to their religion and believes. in other words.

I hope this will change soon. and our points be taken into considerations.

just a last remark, someone might argue that this is a freedom of speech. But we all agree that a freedom of speech must not cause harm to a group of people.

THE IRONY, IS THAT AT THE BUTTON OF THIS PAGE, WIKIPEDIA OFFICIALS WRORTE "ENCYLOPEDIC CONTENT MUST BE VERIFIABLE". how did they verify that those images are really of the prophet Muhamad, keeping in mind that they are putting two different images of the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.53.178 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are verifiable, the artists who drew them did actually draw them. They are art, depictions of the subject matter. They dont have to look like the people depicted. Furthermore, no law of the united states or UN say you cant publish images which make certain Muslims angry, and any internet laws are valid on a country by country basis. This freedom of speech usage does not harm anyone either, if people protest about it and get killed as happened with the Denmark cartoons, that is their fault. In conclusion, you accuracy argument is invalid, your legal argument is false and your 'must do no harm' argument is both.--172.215.138.37 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The pictures are of Muhammad, they are easily verified and have been for hundreds of years. My question is, why would the images be removed? We are not censored, do not remove things that offend people, and never will. Wikipedia is about education and educating people, and by conforming to a minority, that would be detrimental to our very basis. Jmlk17 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no one has made the claim that they are the exact likeness of muhammad. However, they are depictions of muhammad important to the historical record. --Veritas (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear! Jmlk

i will give more explanations to my points... soon. 17 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better citation needed

Ottoman miniature. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b)]] This won't help with the depiction of Muhammad issues obviously, but the images and artwork should be cited properly, something like this. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's fine as it is. Jmlk17 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't receive full marks in a high school English class with the images cited the way they are now, so I'd say it isn't fine as it is.--24.57.157.81 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way to fix this is to register for an account, which has lots of benefits, but if you'd rather not, improvements can be suggested here, and if nobody objects, implemented. WilyD 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if not, this seems like a sensible idea. We just need an article on Nakkaş Osman, then! Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
Ask and thou shalt receive. WilyD 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I should ask more often! Fantastic work! Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Typo in the header

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.

The header has a typo int should be 'himself instead' not 'himself itself' I'd change it, but I cannot figure out how to do it myself. Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, posted at the wrong end of the talk page.

Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] لا يحل

لا يحل ولا يجوز وضع صور للنبي محمد نحن نعترض بشدة على هذا العمل الأخرق 82.201.162.74 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Does not solve may not put pictures of the Prophet Muhammad We strongly object to this senseless.
Reply: وأفهم انه لا يتعارض مع معتقدات المسلمين قد صور النبي محمد ، ولكن ، هو محايد ويكيبيديا الموسوعه ان لا يتقيد باي المعتقدات. مع الاحترام ، Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Translation of Reply: I understand that it does go against Muslim beliefs to have pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, however, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that does not adhere to any beliefs. Respectfully, Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And in the future, please post in English. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calling attention to the FAQ list

The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work. Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast. Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship? All three are covered in the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So the page is only editable by those in favour of upsetting Muslims..? If its been protected why hasnt a version that does not depict his picture be protected?

[edit] Reflist & Notes

Why can't we merge notes and references together? Or better yet, why can't we fit it into a box and attach a scrollbar on the notes section? It is easier to read that way. And the whole thing doesn't take a long time to come up. It does seem to have more references than any I have seen ever before... LOTRrules (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some articles use the scrollbar method but I think it is particularly ugly and makes it very difficult to browse citations. Hopefully in the future that will be an option in your CSS where you can change <references/> into being into a box or not.
As for merging the two--they provide difference purposes. You can have the first note give full bibliographic information and all of the subsequent just use the author but I find that makes it harder to compile a list of references. By separating them you allow for small notes and full references. One problem in this article is that we seem to use full bibliographic information in the notes for online references. gren グレン 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calling attention to the FAQ list

The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work. Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast. Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship? All three are covered in the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request to improve the text below images

The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.

Kind Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the FAQ

The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes. I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here. See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I copied the design of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More calligraphy please

The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me. I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article. Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving and Subpages (or, "Where is my conversation thread?")

If you are looking for the old conversation threads, they have been archived to Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22. If you wish to further discuss any issues from there, then open a new thread. On the other hand, all image related talk has been spun off to Talk:Muhammad/images, it is likely that any further discussions on this topic will also be moved to this subpage in order to reduce clutter. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Talk Page

Where are the talk page topics going? I know there has been a lot of activity here, and only a few of the resent talk page edits are in the archives. Have the rest been deleted? Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the activity is related to the depiction of images. There's a sub-page for that stuff. It's at the top of the page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
True, however it seems that some threads which are not related to the image controversy have also been moved there, e.g. this and the following two sections. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh... That looks like a negligent yank and paste. Somebody may have been a bit overzealous in a move. It belongs here.-MasonicDevice (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illiterate?

No offense to anyone but wasn't Muhammad illiterate? Shouldn't the article atleast mention this somewhere? JTBX (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

mmm, it is written in the Koran article ("The Quran states that Muhammad was ummi, interpreted as illiterate in Muslim tradition. According to Watt, the meaning of the qur'anic term ummi is unscriptured rather than illiterate as Muslim tradition has concluded. Watt argues that a certain amount of writing was necessary for Muhammad to perform his commercial duties though it seems certain that he had not read any scriptures."), but since most people were illiterate at that time I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be added here too. -- lucasbfr talk 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it relevent in that he preached from memory and rote? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really. It was actually incredibly common, and still is in many parts of the world. ( to know the entire <insert religious text here> by rote ) Quaru (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

he lived in 7th century Arabia: we can safely assume, that in his day, literacy was the exception. the relevance of discussing Muhammad's literacy would need to be established based on quotable sources. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, one is free to look for sources, but for a merchant to be literate doesn't seem particularly surprising. Either way, see WP:RS & WP:V for what we'd want to discuss it in the article. Cheers, WilyD 12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd think it deserves mention because illiteracy and memorization are two issues taken as important to show that Muhammad didn't just find Christian/Jewish scriptures and imitate them. It's generally considered rather important in contemporary Muslim biographies I've read. gren グレン 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence to you too mate, but in my opinion you are way wrong. The Prophet (SAWS) was not an illetrate. See i don't mean He had all the knowledge, but he had the BEST knowledge which is the Quran, and He was the first one to memorise the all 30 parts of Qur'an. He taught Islam to the muslims and other people and did whatever He could. Now certainly, an ill-literate can never do this. And one more thing, you also got to note that there were no schools, colleges and universities that time and world was not technologised and advanced as it is today. So literacy now and literacy then has got a high difference. And yeah mate, also remember that there were no engineers and scientists then. People were more into trade and agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveedahmedkhokhar (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate means he couldn't read. It doesn't mean he was stupid, or didn't have knowledge. Illiteracy then is the same as illiteracy now; either you can, or you can't read. --Haemo (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No engineers? I guess all of those Roman roads, aqueducts, stadia and planned cities must have built themselves. But I digress. Your argument from Muhammed's deeds doesn't really get at whether he was illiterate or not. Accepting the Koran, for which of these parts would literacy be necessary: Receiving the Word of God from his messanger Gabriel? Memorizing it? Telling others? The answer is none. All of these could be done by an illiterate man as they don't involve reading or writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that Muhammad was a literate because it would have been difficult for him to keep records as a merchant otherwise. He also came from one of the more noble of the Arab tribes. Illiteracy is a persistent myth. Also, there's no reason to turn this into some politicized issue. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how you define literacy. If I can do some calculation to keep my business account, does that make me literate?
Here is a quote from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, 'illiteracy' article that explains the concept of literacy at that time and whether Muhammad was illiterate or not:

The inability to read or write any language. This inability puts a person at a disadvantage and is regarded as a defect in societies where culture transmission and human communication occurs through writing. In considering the situation in Arabia at the time of the prophet Muḥammad (d. 632 c.e.), however, quite different categories have to be applied: the common cultural and historical property of the tribes — their knowledge, crystallized in Arabic poetry, genealogies, and stories of tribal battles — was retained almost exclusively in memory and transmitted orally. Writing and literacy played a minor role, even though the “art of writing” was already known among the Arabs and used, for example, by tradesmen and in cities. Yet the early Arabic sources on the history of Islam do provide some evidence that Muhammad, especially as a statesman in Medina, used scribes to correspond with the tribes. Likewise, though infrequently rather than constantly, he probably had them write down parts of the quranic revelation he had received. These would have been on separate pages, not yet in one single book (cf. the widespread hadith, according to which the Prophet dictated, amlā ʿalayhi, qurʾānic verses to Zayd b. Thābit, who is well known in the Islamic tradition for the significant role he later played in the recension of the Qurʾān).
Whether or not the Prophet was able to read or write cannot be established from these historical-biographical references. The qurʾānic evidence in this respect is also equivocal and unclear. There is, on the one hand, the divine declaration in q 29:47-8: “We have sent down to you the book (q.v.; kitāb)… Not before this did you recite any book, or inscribe it with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood would have doubted.” This would seem to indicate that Muhammad did not read or write any scripture “before” he received the revelation. On the other hand, q 25:5 points to attempts made by “unbelievers” (here polytheist Meccans) to discredit Muhammad by claiming that he was not receiving a divine revelation but simply “writings of the ancients” ( asāṭīr al-awwalīn,) which he had written down or which he had had written down (iktatabahā ) and which were dictated to him (tumlā ʿalayhi) at dawn and in the early evening. It is notable, even if this sentence refers to the opponents of the Prophet, that the medieval commentators understand asāṭīr al-awwalīn (which occurs nine times in the Qurʾān) to mean “writings” or “stories (taken from writings),” explaining them as “narratives that they (i.e., the ancients) used to write down in their books” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ix, 366).

--Be happy!! (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles in the Muslim biographies

I added the claim that Qur'an is the miracle of Muhammad (Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Isra and Mi'raj

Currently, the section (at least on my browser) is sandwiched between two images (Persian Miniature and the Mosque picture). Perhaps they should be moved slightly farther apart so they don't sandwich the text? I don't know if this is just my browser or not. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Marriages and children

Currently there is a statement on the page that says:

"In the Islamic prayer, Muslims end with the second tashahhud asking God to bless Muhammad and his descendants just as Abraham and his descendants were blessed."

I think that the above statement is referring to:

"..., Allahum salli 3ala sayedina Muhammad, wa ala aal sayedina Muhammad, ..."

Which literally translates to:

"God bless out leader/master/prophet Muhammad, and the family of our leader/master/prophet Muhammad."

I am not sure exactly how to state this, but by no means "aal" in Arabic means decedents. It means from my humble understanding to Arabic family or tribe.

I think the statement above should be rephrased to reflect the literal translation of the Arabic Muslim prayer, or if it does not serve the purpose of talking about prophet Muhammad's descendants, it might be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handooos (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] self reference

the silly "disclaimer" or whatever you want to call it sentence at the end of the intro should be removed imo, as per WP:SELF. It makes the article look pretty unprofessional - it should be taken as assumed that every image be used appropriately and in a way that is relevent to the article for *every* entry on the encyclopedia; we shouldn't have to state it for this article in particular. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it gives references and such. Jmlk17 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Wait, to what exactly is he referring? нмŵוτнτ 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach.

[edit] Spelling

Muhammad was spelled Muhammed under Children & Marriages

Fixed, thanks for notifying us. AecisBrievenbus 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence makes no sense

How can it use Gregorian month with Hijra year????--Goon Noot (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, all dates in the lead are on the Gregorian calendar. Can you be more specific? Resolute 05:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you please insert this book?

  • Fatema Mernissi: The Veil and the Male Elite A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam, [2]
Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.75 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The book does not appear to be directly related to Muhammad, so would not be appropriate on this article in a "further reading" section, and does not appear to have been used as a citation. Perhaps you might try looking at Criticisms of Islam? Resolute 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please look here: French (Original Edition) Le harem politique Le prophète et les femmes
German Der politische Harem Mohammed und die Frauen
Italian Donne del Profeta

Yes, the english title doesn't show that the book is about Muhammad, too. But from the title of the French, German and Italian editions you can see that it is. It is the same book in different languages, I think.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.49 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that in section See also there is a link to the film Mohammad, Messenger of God.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.49 (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


the date in footnote 52 is in the wrong format (year at end instead of at beginning)--207.181.234.158 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

This is my first time trying to use editprotected, so I dunno if I'm doing it right. Anyway, I spotted a couple of minor grammatical errors. This sentence, which is under "3.2.4 The rousing of the nomads":

One example is the assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a member of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir who had went to Mecca and written poems that had helped to rouse the Meccans to grief, anger and desire for revenge after the battle of Badr.

should be rephrased to ("went" -> "gone", and slightly rephrased the second half of the sentence):

One example is the assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a member of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir who had gone to Mecca and written poems that had helped rouse the Meccans' grief, anger and desire for revenge after the battle of Badr.

Hope this helps!

19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Perhaps we could try it again for awhile? See how it goes? :) Jmlk17 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you mean semi-protection or non-protection? This article hasn't been nonprotected in a long time, other than one or two accidents which were quickly undone. non-protection here is a nightmare. WilyD 14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Semi of course. :) Jmlk17 22:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't suggests that you make the document unprotected, mostly because of the sensitive nature of its contents. Regardless of how we feel about the topic, the topic should by all means contain the truth and the contents should respect the topic. That being said unfortunately there are many people that would edit the topic for amusement or to slander/aggravate Muslims, I would suggest that the topic remains protected but the contents go though a vigorous change by a small group of people that are intimately linked to the topic and would display the truth using the correct words and show respect for the topic. After all that is what Wikipedia is all about, sharing the truth and spreading respect and correct information to and for everyone.
To add to my suggestion I would say that the selected group should be of Muslims, that is because by the Law of Islam itself they are bound to tell the truth about Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) and will do so in a respectful manner, hence the truth is displayed without disrespect. User:MostWantedReign (contribs)
Sorry, but that would go against the very idea of wikipedia. Anyone is free to edit any unprotected article. Any editor who has registered three days ago can edit any semi-protected article. There are no cabals here. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put the protection down to semi... let's see how it goes! Jmlk17 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a semi-protected template at the top of the article? Rabascius (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's there... it was just a smaller lock icon in the upper right. I switched it back to a larger, more visible template at the top for the time being. Jmlk17 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

@Arrow740: If some body will forcibly wear you a skirt besides u are a man.so will u wear skirts all over ur life.how come you say many of them where converted forcibly.....You people only know how to critisize Islam..But GOD's Grace ISLAM is going to live for ever. You have jeliusy that how come muslims folllow their religion as it was.there is no change in our religion.unlike other religions which are changed day by day.Some of them release their new versions of their religion books... So please stop critisizing aur religion and do research ur own religion and you will find answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.97.158 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "capture" has a temporary connotation, like you're holding on to it for a while but will give it back or it could be captured back. I think conquer is the correct word and could be read as if "conquering the hearts of the audience". Victory is acquired, not just control. An army might capture a prisoner, but the fighting is over when the enemy force is conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.72.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I read here: "In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own.". Actualy in a lot of islam countries it is forbidden to practice other believes, or it forbidden to move to a different believe or no believe at all. Try to establish a church or a budhistic temple in those countries and speak of other believes, or as a christian consume alcholics it is simply not allowed. When one familiy member would change his belief, breaks tradition we read about it here in the news. The last couple of years several women and girls have been murdered because they supposedly had ‘stained’ the honour of their family. Also a few men were victim of honour killings. so think again its not that free, unless you believe thats all a kind of respectull freedom. As a side note, i'm not offensive and i'm not against muslims. just presenting some known old news fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's where you're reading too much into it. Which countries force people NOT to have any other belief except Islam? Saudi Arab? Lebanon? Egypt? Pakistan? Syria? Think again, my friend. Almost all Muslim countries have significant minorities that practice other religions beside Islam. Then again if there might be a society so hell-bent on eradicating all non-Muslims from among their ranks, you couldn't possibly tag them with the label of Islamic fundamentalism. It's like saying that the USA invaded Iraq just because Christianity teaches to spread bloodshed and gaining of material wealth through arm-twisting other people. It's wrong to attribute the doings of a people to a particular faith. And the "honor killing" term is a little over-ambitious and this is not really the page to discuss it. We could have a chat on our respective talk pages perhaps. uXuf (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally from what i have learned from sources is that no one was asked to leave and no one was killed in mecca. Also I assume this source is correct for he gave out a set of guidelines as to what the rules were for the bloodshed. There may be no way to know the truth for certain as the victor always makes history. However, the idea that Muhammed said that those who stood under the flag of bilal (a slave who Muhammed freed), those who stayed in their home, and those who stayed near a another object *slipped my mind, when i find the book i'll fix this*, would not be attacked. Since no one went against the muslims, there was no bloodshed, nor was there any form of an attack that was recorded. This sounds like the right idea, also i don't think that everyone converted in Mecca, for that was unlikely, sounds more like a generalization. Another fact is it is possible to conquer people without slaughtering thousands arrow, there is such a thing as losing a debate. Also did the prophet have 11 wives, I was told that he only had 7, and never more then 4 at a time. Ka$HisHere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Top posted comment

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I learned about Islam during 10 years and I never heard something like "They see him as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets of Islam.[8][9][10]". I agree for "the last" but I don't agree with "the greatest" what are your references for this term? Islam recognizes all prophets as “great”. 15 Februry 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeedine (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You quote the text with the footnotes included ("[8][9][10]")- I suspect that those are the sources in question. Islam does recognize all prophets as "great", but that doesn't equate to "greatest", which is something that- to me- seems to be a fairly ubiquitous belief amongst Muslims. No other prophet receives the same treatment in terms of emulation and reverence.--C.Logan (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[1] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.[2]

Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Some, particularly Iranian Shi'a scholars, accept respectful depictions, and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past.[3] However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[4]

[edit] Consistency (Bahá'u'lláh disclaimer)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editors who frequent this page have strong opinions about censorship & disclaimers. For this reasons, what are your opinions on the disclaimer used in the Bahá'u'lláh article? I feel that this article and that one should maintain the same policies & remain consistent, since it's the exact same issue. Also, note that on WP:NDA, it says that all disclaimers should be removed on sight, and consensus is to not have them. What should be done? Should we add a disclaimer here or remove the one form that article? нмŵוτнτ 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that they have it wrong in that article. I don't think the text used there is an out-and-out disclaimer though. I'm also really not enthusiastic about dragging that article into this argument either, it's already messy enough as it is. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
We should have both articles do the same thing though. I mean, shouldn't an encyclopedia be consistent? Let's come to a decision of what to do w/ both articles. нмŵוτнτ 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that in theory consistency is highly desirable, I just think it's going to be even harder to get a consensus from two groups of editors on a controversial topic, than just one group. (on an unrelated matter, are you aware User:hmwith that your signature in Opera sometimes causes a large grey bar to appear on the page which blocks out your comments?). Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
What? No, I've had this for a long, long time, and I've never heard that. Do you mind taking a screenshot? I have no idea why that would happen or how to avoid it, but I'd like to see the issue. Odd. нмŵוτнτ 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think that it's something that the community as a whole should discuss, rather than on the talk pages. This is a bigger issue than two individual articles. It's the idea of disclaimers & censorship as a whole. нмŵוτнτ 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The other article has changed, so this discussion no longer has value or relevance. нмŵוτнτ 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Commons link

Resolved.

There are relevant icons in the commons pages. Could the following be added under External Links?

{{commons|Muhammad}}

α 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


It's already there using {{sisterlinks|Muhammad}} - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical background

Scholars usually discuss the life of Muhammad in the context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Watt for example discusses the economic basis of Arabia, the Meccan politics and the social and moral background, and religous and intellectual background of the region. Anybody willing to pair up with me writing such a section as it seems to be too much for me alone doing it? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Shadow Article

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created another article, Muhammed (no images) which does not contain depictions of the prophet (pbuh) himself. There is now a link at the top of this article to find the article which does not contain images of offense to some Muslims, but is otherwise identical. All changes to either article must be made here. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't self-references supposed to be avoided? Also the notice is in sort of a random place within the intro. Oore (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not really a self-reference, it's a compromise and a transclusion. Everything in the shadow article is here, just a few images aren't copied over. And yes, maybe the notice could be in a better place, but I didn't do it randomly, I really did think that was as close to the top as I could put it, and I think it should be close to the top (but not AT the top). Franamax (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean isn't saying "This article contains depictions of Muhammad" a considered a self-reference here? I'm not really sure, so I might be wrong. Oore (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You might be right there, I'll fall back on WP:IAR. It's beneficial to those faithful who might wish to research the prophet's life without viewing images of that prophet. It's respectful, everyone has a way out of the argument, and it gets the job done. There are precedents elsewhere, we don't want too many, this is one. Fair enough? Franamax (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have clarified that I do support this compromise but I just wasn't sure if it followed all the rules. Also I wasn't aware of the ignore all rules thing. Thanks for pointing that out. Oore (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest putting it at the end of the lead section (so it appears just above the TOC). That way it doesn't interrupt the prose, also it's more prominent while not being right at the top. James086Talk | Email 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I picked that spot so it was visible on the first "page" of the browser, there's no chance of it being too obscure, it seemed like a reasonably good break spot in the prose. That said, I'm not married to it, compromise is compromise, the end of the lead does discuss the prohibition on depictions. Do what you think, just keep in mind the experience of the average user or newcomer to the wiki, some of whom are Muslim, whatever you think is right... Cheers! Franamax (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah... In my resolution I can see down to "3.1.5 Early years in Mecca". I'm not sure if it is average. If it wouldn't be on the first "page" of most people's browsers then perhaps leave it as is. I don't mind either way. James086Talk | Email 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - I can see down to "Family tree - In Mecca" under "Life" in the infobox and I thought I had a pretty good monitor, and it's at highest res. You're seeing 30% more than me, I sure hope you're not average. Doesn't matter, you'll be obsolete too in a few months :) The safe way to see the lowest-common-denominator for the world is probably 1024x768 or so. That's why I figured third paragraph would be good. Franamax (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be convenient for the majority of people so I retract my previous suggestion and now think it should be left where it is (or nearby if someone has a better suggestion). James086Talk | Email 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Make one shadow article, you'll wind up having to make thousands upon thousands. There will never be a shortage of articles that people are offended by. In the end, this might be more of a job for a site-fork than a page fork. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Events will quite likely prove you correct Alec. This is a case where we provide information to the entire world and it's not hard to be sensitive. Perhaps there will be a need for an islam:wiki; we're not there yet. And it's not really a fork, it's a subset. We can always say "no more" and we can always say "even less", but we don't have to do it today. Franamax (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly opposed to a shadow article and feel there should be some serious discussion before implementing one. This is a slippery slope and could be a back door for censorship. I agree with Alecmconroy. It could easily lead to every person with an axe to grind demanding a separate article with their version represented. With all due respect, and I understand your intentions are honorable, we need to think and discuss seriously a potential site fork before doing it. Quenn (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably the best place to raise those concerns would be at AN where the current action started. There are definitely some concerns with respect to site-wide policy, this is probably not the best page to talk about them. Franamax (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
absolute no chance this can be allowed to stand - where does it end? must be deleted. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
An Islamic point of view Mediawiki-based encyclopaedia project seems to already exist - http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page . But if this dealie will allow the issue to drop for a while, more power to it. The text of this article is what needs the attention, not the images. WilyD 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have AFD'd the article, I'm gobsmacked that someone thought that it would be a solution to this firestorm by creating such an article with virtually no discussion. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, more to the point, that this has been discussed, and rejected every single time. Judging by the early returns on the AfD, I doubt this POVFORK lasts the day. Resolute 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
lol I give it 'til 20:00 UTC. WP:SNOW and all that! At least I'll get points in multiple heavens for trying :) Franamax (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, heh. As Frederick stated in the AfD, the idea is noble, but the community has no appetite for such a fork. If nothing else, at least we proved that consensus on the inclusion of images in this article remains as strong as ever. FWIW, I've asked on WP:AN if an opt-out option could be created. I don't believe Wikipedia should be censored for everyone, but if there is a way for users to self-sensor based on a list of flagged images, that is then left to individual choice. Resolute 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted all my changes to this article. Franamax (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you be opposed if I deleted the shadow article? Especially seeing as how it now has the images as well? Resolute 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Franamax has already commented on the AfD that s/he has no objections to a WP:SNOW deletion. Hut 8.5 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Ending of first sentence...

"...is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله).[7]" Something seems to be messed up there. I don't know whether it's the reference or template but the Arabic text seems to be changing the order of the text following it. Oore (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the non-latin character. Is that ref really necessary? If not couldn't we just have a comment in the code which would avoid the formatting problem? James086Talk | Email 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

this is because '[' is a directionally ambiguous character. I'll try inserting an U+2060. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed {{Allah}} instead. I am a bit confused why {{rtl-lang}} should be necessary, since {{lang}} theoretically ought to be sufficient... dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any major event

If anybody knows of any major event that has not been included in this article, please let me know.I think the article can become GA once the section "The Arabian Background" gets completed. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aminz. I'll take a look through the article just to see if everything has been covered appropriately. While I do agree that providing some context for Muhammad's life by mention of the background is essential, I'm not sure as to how much depth is suitable here. I would advise against GA until the images controversy dies down a little bit and we settle on something that we can all agree on. ITAQALLAH 11:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The section "Arabia Background" requires some more work. For example addition of "Pre-Islamic monotheism" in Arabia which is very important. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the petition hubbub affects the article itself. It is blissfully free of dispute tags, and in terms of quality is easily a GA. Precisely because it will likely be the focus of wide attention in the near future it would be nice to get it to FA status as soon as possible. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the attempts of outside forces to force the hand of the community have nothing to do with the inherent quality of the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But we need to begin blocking the throwaway accounts on sight. Sane editing is becoming difficult. dab (𒁳) 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that new editors try to interfere with this article doesn't really prevent it from being well written; look at Barack Obama, Global Warming or Evolution. All are FA status articles, despite constant vandalism. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] towards GA?

The section titled "The Arabian Background" seems out of place. Has it been here for long? How shall we accommodate it within article structure? dab (𒁳) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That section seems like it could blend in with "Muhammad the Reformer", given that his role as reformer was driven by the environment he operated in. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the proper place is at the beginning of the article because 1. it explains how the Arabia look liked. How did Mecca and Medina look liked? How were the nomads. The rise of individualism is not per say something Muhammad did. It was a result of accumulation of capitalism. Muhammad's reform come within that context and come afterwards. So, I think we should keep it as it is. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The section is not yet complete. A new subsection on the monotheism elements in Arabia (together with scholarly view that it is an evolution out of polytheism; or the alternative Muslim view that they are reminiscent of the ancient monotheistic religion of Abraham in Arabia. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Researching the content of the infamous image, I came to note that neither the "the reformer" section, nor the Early reforms under Islam article mentions Muhammad's calendar reform. This is a giant hole in the article, Muhammad's role in the creation of the Islamic calendar is of the utmost importance. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I also think that the article itself is bulky in a few areas where we end up discussing too many opinions, or using needless attributions/quotes where concise narrative will suffice. The article size as it stands is ~117k, and compressing some passages may be beneficial. Despite this, there seems to be very little in terms of Muhammad's impact from an Islamic legal perspective in that his sunnah is one of the two textual sources considered, and the discussion of Muhammad from the Muslim perspective is also a bit patchy (i.e. little discussion about doctrine of ismah and the various views surrounding it, and other kinds of works about Muhammad such as Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa). Perhaps the latter half of the article could be better organised too. ITAQALLAH 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So, it shows that the article still requires much improvement :P --Be happy!! (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that the Islamic calendar starts from the year when Muhammed became a political/military leader? According to Robert Spencer, that's the case. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not referring to the calendar era, I am referring to the complete overthrow of the lunisolar calendar, the prohibition of intercalation, and the enforcement of a strictly lunar calendar, a step that is probably unique in world history (already because it isn't very intuitive. there were specific reasons why this seemed like a good idea at the time. these reasons need to be explained). dab (𒁳) 09:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab, here is a deal :) I type the relevant quote from a source and you please add it to an article in wikipedia because it usually takes me forever to summarize it (my english is bad and it takes much energy from me to do so)...
Quote from :William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, ch. "Reform of Social Structure", p.299-300:

"The abolition of intercalary months is a slight change introduced under Muhammad which has given a definite stamp to Islamic civilization. The pre-Islamic Arabs observed the lunar months but kept their calendar in line with the solar year by introducing intercalary months where necessary... [then the qur'anic verse comes]...The Qur'an implies that intercalation was in some respect a human activity infringing God's law, and contrasts the fixity of the latter with variability of human device. This makes it almost certain that, despite some of the accounts, the Arabs had no fixed system of intercalation. As reason for prohibition of intercalation there are two main possibilities. The method of settling when a month was to be intercalated may have been connected with paganism in some way of which we are not aware; it was certainly linked with the observance of sacred months. Or else there may have been a risk that the uncertainty about which months were sacred would cause dispute and endanger the Pax Islamica. Whatever the reason for it, this adoption of the lunar year shows again the non-agrarian character of Islam; Islam is often said to mould or influence every department of life; but it has not penetrated the agriculture life of the millions of peasants who are good Muslims. Their farming practices-and some of the religous ideas connected with them- continue in the traditional way regardless of Islam. A work like Georgics is inconceivable in any Islamic literature."

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bahira

This article should have a short section about Bahira. It doesn't have to be anything spectacular, but a short section about Bahira is of major importance to this article, seeing how he was a big influence on Muhammed. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I glanced over Bahira and your suggestion seems valid. Why don't you add a section about it? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
A sentence or two in one of the currently existing sections ("Childhood" or "Early years") is reasonable (not a whole section, though). I think you mean that Bahira's role in foretelling Muhammad's role as a prophet is of significance here - the claims of influence are usually dismissed as medieval polemic (cf "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam). ITAQALLAH 18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback. I just added a short section (Muhammed#Bahira), basically covering the key points (i.e., that he met him young, that he has been in religious polemics, and how he is perceived in Islamic traditions). I think that just about covers it. If you feel like I've missed something, feel free to expand the section at your disposal. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalary months

I suggest we move it further down the article to the Farewell Pilgrimage section because the prohibition happened at that time. The image is kind of odd, I should add, because it does not depict Muhammad in the scene of Pilgrimage. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And we should also move the picture of Muhammad with the Black Stone further up, right to the top, because this incident happened long before his career as a religious leader. TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That image is much more notable as the earliest surviving image. The story of Black Stone is not considered historical by many scholars nor is it significant in later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My opinion on how to improve this article

So I'm a casual philosopher, by no means an expert, and I'm consider myself neutral concerning matters of religious scholarship.... I'm sure that there are people who are going to read this who are experts, so please consider that I have one suggestion as a casual reader, and one suggestion as a wikipedian, in the spirit of hoping to improve the article.

The casual reader in me, would like to see the timeline of Muhammad's life sooner. I understand that this may not be possible with the current arrangement of images. But if I'm going to read a longer article, I would like to see a timeline, such as this, sooner. I think it would assist the casual reader in getting some contextual reference regarding what age he was, how long he stayed in any given location, and perhaps a synopsis of significant events.

My second point is criticism, one that I feel is significant, serious and should be addressed; especially considering the importance of this article.

This article references the works of scholar William Montgomery Watt extensively, almost to the point where the article violates WP:UNDUE. Doubtlessly Dr. Watt is an expert, but he's not the only one, and the level this article relies upon his references is unhealthy. The article is using his research as a crutch, and if it wasn't there, the article would topple.

Another criticism of William Montgomery Watt has nothing to do with him. But his own article. For a man of such scholarly accomplishment his own article is a joke. Barely more than a stub. If Dr. Watt is an expert concerning historical Islamic theology and it's people, his page should indicate the scope of his expertise... and it doesn't. For those of you who care about this article please pay a little respect to the giant you stand upon, and develop his article, whomever he may be.

My suggestion to the experts working on this page is too diversify references, fix citation style, link the references to Watt, and develop Watt's page to reflect his notoriety. Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. One reason that Watt is much used is that Watt's biography of Muhammad is the most comprehensive one (cf. Daniel W. Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, p.83). The guardian article about him [3] says:"Of his many publications, he is most famous for three books on the Prophet Muhammad, acknowledged by experts to be classics in the field."
Furthermore, many of the statements attributed to Watt are not controversial at all.
Another source that is used a lot is Welch's article in Encyclopedia of Islam. See reference number 18: "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam Online"
Lastly, I didn't understood what you meant by "Watt's page to reflect his notoriety"? He is a very respected scholar of the field.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No, don't get me wrong. I believe you, I think Watt's work is comprehensive, which is why his article William Montgomery Watt should be too. I attest that Watt is an expert and should be referenced.
Watt is an expert, a great thinker in his field, but his article is just a stub. Why doesn't his page look more like, Carl Sagan or Alan Turing who were also experts in their field. Sagan and Turing aren't any more important that Watt, they just work in different fields. If this page is going to rely on Watt and Welch heavily, then it's editors should make sure Watt and Welch's articles reflect who they are, their lives, their histories and they're credentials.
I recognize that their are other references that need attention too, such as Welch and possibly John Esposito. But this article needs to be comprehensive, not just in material, but in references as well. Just imagine what the page would look like if Watt, and Welch were taken off the page. This article needs to diversify it's sources.--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sparkygravity, I agree that we need to work more on Watt's article.
While it is true that each scholar does have his/her own interpretation and speculations based on the underlying facts, our effort has however been to avoid mentioning those interpretations and speculations but rather simply mention the underlying facts. It is of course true that the scholar's way of looking at things influences the credit he gives to certain reports. As such when a narrative had been rejected by some scholars, we simply say that some have rejected this without going into any further details in this article. The details usually are expected to be covered in main article.
Therefore many of the quotes attributed to Watt are simply narrating the story and his own interpretations and speculations of the narrated facts are usually excluded. In a few cases however different opinions are mentioned and contrasted with each other; in such cases, it has been tried to provide the range of scholarly views available though the article might be lacking in that respect. Having said all these, if one thinks that the narration of an incident involves Watt's own interpretation & that interpretation is not shared by others, we can either mention both or find the common part between the two, i.e. the underlying historical information.
The above mentioned approach is a necessity because all these incidents in Muhammad's life and the motif behind them, and their meaning varies greatly between when one listens to a secular historian or to a devote Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree which is why I believe the references should be diversified.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About The 100

Dear Aminz, I do have respect on you and your edit and given the fact that your significant contribution in different articles including Islam, I am not going to revert your edit once again instead I prefer to have a discussion about this issue.

  1. You wrote in your last revert that Exactly because we don't include "popular" books - the judgment is not scholarly - it is very personal- IMO the guy who invented agriculture was far more influential on human race. With due respect to your comment I have to say, who is the judge here over the judgment of this book? You ?
  2. This is a third party reference, a book written and reviewed in last thirty years.
  3. That specific section where I placed this information showed that as if Western has only negative opinion on Mohammad which is not true at all. This particular example shows that western is also providing positive opinion about Mohammad.
  4. If this information is not encyclopedic (you reverted my edit first time with this lame excuse), then could you please tell me how other opinions are encyclopedic? And what is your definition for a content to be encyclopedic?

Hope you'll response here very soon. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Niaz,
Thank you very much for your kind words.
Two points:
1.There is no reason to think that it can stand as a summary of what Modern West as a whole thinks about Muhammad.
2.
  • The author of the book is an astrophysicist not a historian.
  • Even if it were from a historian like Watt, we would not have included it because that's an interpretation of one author. Niaz, there are many authors around who interpret the facts in a quite wide way. In this article, we aim not to engage in any sort of interpretation. We rather try to explain the facts that have led scholars to the interpretations they make. Please check the 100 book and see what kind of notable evidences he is bringing up and see if everybody agrees with them, then we can discuss inclusion of those evidences to see if they were relatively significant in Muhammad's life. But I disagree with inclusion of the opinion of one person; the interpretation of one person based on facts. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's other roles: Lede worthy?

I noticed that the line regarding Muhammad as Diplomat, General, Merchant, etc. was removed [4], with the comment that it was tangential to Muhammad's role as prophet. I beg to differ. Were it not for his skill at those, it is unlikely that the faith he professed would have swayed his neighbors. Should the line go back in the summary as a great deal of the article has to do with the relatively secular acts of trading, conquering and cajoling? -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I just think it looks out of place. I didn't say they were tangential to his central role, I said they were generally secondary to it. IMO it unnecessarily distinguishes his role as a prophet from his activities as a general, orator, diplomat, and so on, when in many instances we see them inexorably connected. So I don't think it can be simplified so easily in this manner. Some of them don't fit well, like philosopher. Muhammad didn't engage in the Greek or Aristotelian dialectic you associate with philosophers from that era, it only entered Muslim thought some time afterwards. Apostle/Rasul needs not be listed again for obvious reasons. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "tangential" was the wrong word. I apologize. I did mean to quote, not paraphrase badly.
On the issue, I think most of the changes you made were good. They tightened up bits that were klunky and just didn't flow. However, because of the historical POV the article takes, it is important to note Muhammad's multifaceted skill set in the lede summary. After all, had he been a lousy general and gotten himself and his followers killed and his book destroyed, this article would be a lot smaller. ;-) -MasonicDevice (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
MasonicDevice, the purpose of that sentence was not to show the skills Muhammad had that helped him in his mission. And I am not sure if any such information should be added to this article because it becomes very subjective and personal. If being a good general was the key to his success, we should let the readers themselves to come up with that conclusion. We don't take any instance on that. If that sentence carries that kind of connotation, I think we should avoid it per neutrality policy. As an aside point, I think the Qur'an itself at one point mentions a reason of Muhammad's success (Qur'an 3:159):"Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust."--Be happy!! (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly call it subjective as half the article deals with military campaigns. Pray-tell though, what was the point of that sentence if not to show the skills that helped Muhammad on his mission. We cannot "let" readers "determine" what was important. If it isn't in the article, they won't "determine" anything at all because it's just not there.-MasonicDevice (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since half of the article deals with military campaigns, it is already shown that he was a good general. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's no reason to remove it from the summary. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
MasonicDevice, is there any reason not to add a summary of Muhammad#Modern_times to the intro? This seems to touch the issue of Muhammad's means of success as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Wha? I must say that you have me a bit baffled as to your point as it is a little bit red herring and a little bit distortion. It seems you picked a small, random section of the article to suggest that I am demanding that all sections be represented in the summary? Is this the case? If so, please understand that this is not what I am suggesting in the slightest, as there is a very big difference in size, scope, and historical importance between my examples and your counter-examples. I am merely suggesting that the summary and lede follow the style guideline WP:LEAD and accurately establish some of the many roles of Muhmmad. Perhaps the sentence in question shouldn't stand as a paragraph of it's own. It was a bit clunky that way, ugly to look at, and was set off as too important. Sticking it to the preceding paragraph would work wonders. Then, after reading how he is the last and greatest of the Prophets of Islam, a Prophet to the Druze, and manifestation of God to the Bahá'í, there follows a brief listing of the skills that allowed the man to get the job done. I think you might not be giving the readers enough credit. Write it well, and in the proper order, and they'll be able to figure out which is the most important. Please riddle me this: were Muhammad an unsuccessful diplomat/general, would his role as Prophet still be as important?-MasonicDevice (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
MasonicDevice, I would not personally revert if one makes that additions but I would not make it myself. One reason of avoiding such attitudes in reference to Muhammad is that in Muslim tradition he sometimes appears as God's channel; he is thus not an orator but reciter of what God has told him to say to people. To me however it is say fine to report Muhamamd's military strategies but to summarize it as Muhammad's own skills might be POV... Secular historians surely do that all the time... I dunno. I am also not sure about the reliability of the source used there to attribute those stuff to Muhamamd. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I dunno.... I think attributing Muhammad's millitary skills to divine intervention might be a little bit more POV than summarizing them as his own skills. The article touches on Muhammad's role in Muslim tradition as well as his historical role. I'm adding the sentence back in so that the summary doesn't ignore what is also an important attribute.-MasonicDevice (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
See, part of the problem I think lies in how it's being presented. You refer to some of them (i.e. diplomacy or military) as secular, whereas in many instances his activities in these fields had a distinctly religious motivation or foundation (letters to rulers, constitution of Medina; ghazwa/battle of Badr, and so on). I don't think it's accurate to necessarily "secularise" these qualities by presenting them as separate from his role as prophet. I think a better solution would be to just overview the diplomacy/military aspects (i.e. quickly summarising the battles and treaties/agreements/charters/letters etc.) and let readers judge for themselves. But I'll remove "philosopher" and "apostle" as per the reasons explained above. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the removals you mentioned. Those are obviously redundant. The rest, should stand, as they are not redundant to "prophet". While Muhammad's motivations may have been religous, the actions themselves, and skills demonstrated, are not. All the faith in the world won't help bad stratigic thinking or tactical generalship (Examples of bad tactics or strategy leading to defeat in spite of divine inspiration : Hirohito, David Koresh). While wars and battles may have religous motivation, solidering and generalship is a secular activity. Again I ask: Had Muhammad been a lousy general, would his role of prophet be important? I think that as the article stands now, a reader would be able to see that Muhammad combined a strong faith-based motivation with good tactics of his own creation. Much as we might like to invoke them, gods don't fight wars. Men (and women) do.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(un-indent)~Itaqallah - while the roles aren't "seperate", they are "distinct" and those of which his importance is substantial should probably be mentioned in the lead. That he was a merchant - maybe not, as historical merchants go, he's not terribly important. That he was a religious leader is - as historical religious leaders go, he is terribly important. I'll argue that as a political leader/general, he is historically important, but I'm not sure I can back it up without using my own perception. It's worth noting that the American Supreme Court's fresco of eighteen important historic lawmakers picks him as one of these eighteen, although it was carved in 1930s America (not exactly a hotbed of respect of Islamic culture or thinking). His roles as religious leader, political leader and lawmaker, while intertwined, all independantly make him a historically noteworthy person. They all should be acknowledged from the get-go. WilyD 17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see both of your (MasonicDevice and WilyD) points. I don't think it's much of a big deal really, perhaps I'm just being pedantic. I'm happy to let it stay though. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Muhammad probably wasn't even the best Arab general of his time period; Khalid ibn Walid is generally considered the greatest Arab general after his victories against the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire, with the Battle of Yarmouk, Battle of Walaja, and Battle of Firaz being perhaps his greatest victories. Muhammad wasn't a terrible general, but I don't see why this has been made into a big deal when it seems like a rather innocuous edit. Certainly he was a good general, but I'm not sure whether or not people here are pushing this for the sake of implying that Muhammad "spread his faith by the sword," which is just as POV as insisting divine intervention was the reason for his success. I would not care about this edit either way, IMO. With that said, Muhammad was a messenger before he was a general; that is probably how he saw himself, but without a doubt that is how his followers saw him. Secularizing Muhammad's history simply makes no sense. Muhammad was not a secularist. Secularism as an ideology did not exist in pre-modern society. Even when one looks at military campaigns, I believe the Qur'an discusses the Byzantine-Sassanid wars, and describes the Byzantine (Christian/Roman) victory in one of the later campaigns as a victory for believers, due to Islam's recognition of Christianity (there is a Hadith I believe that predicts the Byzantine victory, but I don't think its reliable). -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming he was the "best" general, as that's a judgement call that's not supported by included sources, and doesn't really matter to the scope of the article. It might matter in an artcle on Muslim conquests of Arabia. I'm only suggesting that the lead accurately reflect the rest of the article. You're right that "speading faith by his sword" is POV, but in the limited sense it's being used here, it is the POV supported by the evidence and the construction of the rest of the article. He's recognized as a skilled enough general and diplomat to not get himself and his follwers killed. He's recognized as a skilled enough legislator to earn a spot on the SCOTUS frieze. Whether he had religious motivations is really beside the point, because the role of Prophet and the role of General, Diplomat, or to a lesser degree, Legislator are distinct roles. And yes... while secularism as a concept may not have existed before the modern era, history critizies generals who ordered their troops slaughter, not the gods that inspire them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ' ` and ʿ

This article represents ʿayn in multiple ways. Can we agree that ʿ is the standardized form of this? ' is obviously a poor choice because it doesn't differentiate ʿayn from hamza (ʾ). I know Wikipedia is a rather hard place to standardize such issues but--let's get it straight on this article and try to keep it up. gren グレン 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Go for it! нмŵוτнτ 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
use ʿ . Anything else is just laziness. I do use ` sometimes, but only because I cannot always be bothered to dig for the proper character. Standardization cleanup work towards ʿ is always appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images on the Arabic Wikipedia

I have made some edits on the Arabic language Wikipedia, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images

One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.

White-crowned Sparrow
Pink pimelea (Pimelea spicata) is an endangered plant species native to New South Wales, Australia.


Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden. (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)


Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article. I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate. I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Wikipedia is not censored".

I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Wikipedia does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution. If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Wikipedia censored. Resolute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The only solution which has been offered upto this point was to not show any images at all. I like the opt-out solution, and I can agree that an opt-in solution would be objectionable to many. Could we define an additional skin, which has a class "sensitive visual material" to be used on each image, which in the normal skin is "collapsible" and in the additional skin is "collapsible collapsed"? Then a warning at the top of the article for users to select a different skin could do the trick. Or am I mistaken?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Qur'an was not authored by Muhammad

The Qur'an is not the sayings of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)as mentioned in the wikipedia article 'Muhammad'. The qur'an is the word of God and was revealed to Muhammad through angel Gabriel who delivered the divine inspiration to Moses, Jesus, etc. before Muhammad (PBUH).

Muhammad's sayings are called 'Hadiths' and they are extremely respected by Muslims and are considered the second source for the Islamic faith after the Qur'an. But unlike the Qur'an which is preserved from error and corruption by God Himself, some changes happened in some 'Hadiths' and these changes are known. There are sayings that are 'Sahih' completely accurate, 'Da'if' the source of narration is not very trusted, and 'mawdoo' which are completely false and were never told by Muhammad (PBUH).

The Qur'an contains 114 chapters. Although Muhammad was knows as the honest and the trustworthy even before the message of Islam was revealed to him and that he never committed major sins, Some verses of the chapters of the Qur'an contain admonition from God about the way Muhammad (PBUH) handled a certain situation.

If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?


Chapter(80.1-12)

"ABASA" (HE FROWNED)


'(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,

Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).

But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-

Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?

As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,

To him dost thou attend;

Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).

But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,

And with fear (in his heart),

Of him wast thou unmindful.

By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:

Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.'


These verses of this chapter treat a certain incident which took place in the early days of Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) was busy with a few dignatories of the tribe of Quraish, explaining to them the message of Islam, when Ibn Umm Maktoom, a poor blind man, interrupted him. Unaware that the Prophet was busy with those people, the blind man asked him repeatedly to teach him some verses of the Qur'an.

The Prophet (peace be on him) was not very pleased at this interruption. He frowned and turned away from Ibn Umm Maktoom.

This chapter opens by criticizing the Prophet's behaviour in this incident. It lays down clearly the values and principles upon which Islamic society is founded and states the true nature of the message of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashaanwar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?"
What? Don't Muslims have the concept of a tell-all auto-biography? I kid. But more seriously, I don't think we say that "Muhammad authored the Qur'an". What we do say is that "the relevations (or Ayats, lit. Signs of God), Muhammad reported recieving until his death, form the verses of the Qur'an." Is there something wrong with that, or something I'm missing? -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?

Is there any general agreement (for instance between islamic scholars) to how "consumation" (sp.?) of the marriage with then nine year old girl should be interpreted? I heard someone claim that it clearly means he had sex with her, but the person claiming this is strongly anti-islamic, so it would be interesting to know what other interpretations would be possible (if any) and how moslems (sp.?) would typically interpret it. / JBobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.62 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it honestly even really matter in the end? Time's were a lot different 1400 years ago in terms of taboo and sexual encounters with an age of consent. I can't find much information in either direction personally, and I doubt that anything could be added without sounding POV. Jmlk17 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The article discusses this topic. The article talk page is not the forum to raise such questions that do not deal specifically with article edits, adding, or removing information from the articles. See WP:NOT#FORUM. --Veritas (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about Muhammad, the person (and not a theological treatise). If he had sex with a nine-year-old girl it is most certainly worthy of note. And all the sources - including Aisha herself - say that he did. Do Muslims deny this? TharkunColl (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at the initial comment, and then look at what Veritas said. This is not a forum to discuss the general issue, nor whether or not Muslims deny it. ITAQALLAH 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary. This article is about Muhammad, and should give equal weight to those opinions that are against him as for him. He has been criticised for being a paedophile in many places, and the article should discuss this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can show us quality material from scholarly journals, textbooks where the matter is discussed - bring them to the table, in many places tell us nothing. what quality material specifically do you feel should be added to the article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Try these images - many of them play on Muhammad's paedophilia in some way. Incidentally, your insistence on only using academic sources is POV. An encyclopedia should address all relevant views of him. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I just used scholarly journals as a short-hand and you can present any quality sources you have - Is that website the idea of a quality source when dealing with one of the most studied men in history? a site that starts it's articles with titles like Where's this bitch? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It would come under "Muhammad in popular culture". Why doesn't this article have one of those? TharkunColl (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Because that is a quality notable site that we would report on in such a section? Is that your proposal? that's the source you want us to consider for inclusion in such a section? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, why isn't there such a section? Is this article already censored? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it's actually requires a separate article because of the length it would reach, feel free to start the section here or a new article on the matter. So, back to my question - is that site the sort of material you consider to be a quality source that should be included in an article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
and it seems the marriage issue is covered here --Fredrick day (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Fredrick, given this, it might be best to just not feed him. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was called a hypocrite by another user, and responded in kind. He didn't even have the honour to do so in English, but insread used an Arabic term that I had to look up. TharkunColl (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A primary source of opinion (such as the images on the website you linked) does not fall within the bounds of reliable sources, and so runs afoul of Wikipedia policies on original research and neutral point of view. If you really feel that those images have a place in this article, find a secondary source, i.e., one that discusses those images in a neutral context. In terms of "Muhammad in popular culture", you would still need secondary sources that establish the notability of those images in a popular culture context. You don't achieve entry into popular culture simply by doing something avant garde or anti-establishment - if something is truly a part of popular culture, then it will be popular enough to have ample secondary sources discussing it. --DachannienTalkContrib 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. I was already pretty sure that there'd be some really good reason why we shouldn't include such things. TharkunColl (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be trolling - you are a long-term editor, you know our policies on sources, you know how we write articles. So put up or shut up, you want to write such a section - you write a section and you provide RS for it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
{{trivia}} (Wikipedia:Trivia sections) says we discourage trivia ("in popular culture") sections. Nothing to do with censorship. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this really more than footnote worthy? It doesn't have much to do with Muhammad's role in history. It might fit in a section on his family/clan but anything more than a sentence on the subject is clearly pushing a POV.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It has more to do with Aisha than it does with Muhammad. Even so, it is rather irrelevant to Muhammad's importance in history. The Virgin Mary didn't exactly give birth to Jesus when she was 18+, did she? Let's be a little realistic, rather than politicizing this issue. Up until 19th century Europe, it was still commonplace for women to be married off "as minors." -Rosywounds (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


1400 years ago women were married once the entered puberty, and it was normal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.119.197 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The archives of Talk:Aisha are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the 7th century. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
the current mention of her age (" Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage...") is just fine (though perhaps requires a source in the sentence such as "accordig to the koran" or "according to muslim scholars"... i'm no expert on the mater. theres nothing "wrong" with this, according to some biblical traditions, Isaac's wife was only 3 years old when they married, this isn't mentioned in the article on Isaac, it probably should be. SJMNY (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's from the Aisha article. In any case, it's not a pressing issue on this article... especially as we provide no ages for any of the other wives. ITAQALLAH 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Arabian Background

In my opinion, this paragraph is really lengthy, and it's not strongly related to Muhammad, maybe it is more related to the Islam article? it discusses the spread of Islam in it's early days. Imad marie (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is lengthy but I think one needs to carefully summarize it. I think it is kind of relevant because it talks about the situation of pre-Islamic Arabia (background here is about the background of Arabia and not Muhammad's own background) which is setting the stage for the later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
How about renaming the section to "Muhammad 's character impact on Arabian Peninsula", or something like that. And the section discusses how Muhammad was able to influence the Arabian Peninsula, and turn its people from unorganized tribes to more organized people in the Islamic civilization. How does that sound? Imad marie (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Imad, the section is not about the impact of Muhammad's character but rather about the economic and social circumstances that favored (or caused according to Marxist historians) the rise of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But that wouldn't shorten the length of that para. What about making a new article for that and writing here a summary of that article? --SMS Talk 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends on the length of the content to be added. Do we have enough references to create a new article for it? Imad marie (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I did have the idea of creating another article in mind. But it may take sometime... But if one can make a fair summary of the current section, that would be appreciated. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the section. Hope it looks good now. Will create a main article for that as soon as I get enough material for that. Right now, it is here User:Aminz/Arabian_Context --Be happy!! (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for the FAQ

I've been reading the petition, and I've noticed that more and more people are asking why, with so many signatures to the petition, the images still haven't been removed. Should we add an explanation about this to the FAQ? And if so, what arguments should we use? I would recommend two: 1. Consensus on Wikipedia is formed through civil discussion on Wikipedia, not through outside petitioning and voting; 2. We have no way of verifying that the people who signed the petition are who they say they are. It is very well possible to create a bot to stuff the petition with fake signatures. AecisBrievenbus 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Second point, should we use the FAQ to address some of the arguments by the signatories? Arguments such as:
"This is not allowed in Islam"
Suggested reply along the lines of: "Whether this is allowed in Islam is a matter of debate, see our article Depictions of Muhammad. But even if it were not allowed in Islam, Wikipedia is not bound by the Islamic law."
"Islam should be respected."
Suggested reply along the lines of: "Wikipedia is not in the business of respecting or disrespecting Islam, or any other religion. We are an encyclopedia, and we strive to give a comprehensive and neutral description of any subject. But respecting a religion does not mean abiding by its rules. Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic law, or by the laws of any religion for that matter. Wikipedia may contain content that followers of a religion may find inadmissable. See for instance our article on Xenu."
Any thoughts? AecisBrievenbus 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that your first point is all you would need. This "2. We have no way of verifying that the people who signed the petition are who they say they are. It is very well possible to create a bot to stuff the petition with fake signatures." may encourage them to try and justify petition which is in fact irrelevant because of WP:DEMO.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to know how you get those pictures, because they are in farissi language, and they show some cartoons..... I think wikipedia has to show the real things. I know you dont have any pictures about the prophet mohammed. so you have to be sure of the origine of anything in your website.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisouad (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What petition? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Might not be a bad idea... with countless randoms or single-purpose accounts beating up on the page over it, it could help. Jmlk17 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This petition, which has been covered i.a. by the New York Times. AecisBrievenbus 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fix this typo

In the "Muhammad in Medina" section, subsection "Hijra to Medina" there is the following typographical error:

"Muhammad instructed his followers to emigrate to Medina until virtually all of his followers had left Mecca. Being alarmed at the departure of Muslims, according to the tradition, the Meccans plotted to assassin Muhammad." Of course this should read "assassinate." I would correct this myself, but this article is locked. Thank you.

Fixed. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider this external link

I came across this well written short biography of prophet Mohammed, it seems neutral, objective, and addresses some controversies in his history. http://www.islam4women.org/?page_id=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.178.49 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this article is not following NPOV guidelines

i think this article on wikipedia is not following the wikipedia guidelines on Neutral point of view, and only represent one sided view of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). we we should put a big warning label to show this to our readers.--78.149.98.252 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to take action without actionable feedback. Could you be more specific? Resolute 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I will gladly add the tag if you give sufficient reason that it needs to be there. I don't see it personally, but that's just me. Peter Deer (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any NPOV issues myself... Jmlk17 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I can not guess but maybe the IP is referring to over-emphasis of the historical aspects of Muhammad's life rather than his sayings. If so, there is a section on "mission" that summarizes the matter. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll add my 2 cents and say that some historical events like say how the battle of Badr was brought about; I've read versions of it which heavily differ from the one given in the article both in Muslim and non-Muslim authors books. But I see the "simple" problem with that is that if a user has a problem with something like that, its his duty to search the authors which say different and comment in the article on those differences or bring them to the talk first for discussion and addition. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. If you can cite reliable and credible sources on these differing accounts it would certainly help to balance out something in advance before it becomes an issue in itself. Peter Deer (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I might another time, maybe during spring break, but otherwise I was just citing an example of what he might have been talking about as well as a solution for him to work by if he sees it as a big issue. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jedi Master MIK, can you please clarify one big difference in the narrative presented here and the ones you have read.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine but like I said I was only making a personal observational example with what he might be talking about and I have no intention of changing anything w/o sources or debate. The citation by Rodinson states that the Muslims were already set up at Badr to sabotage the Meccan caravan w/ 300 strong. However, whenever I've read that accounts of the battle of Badr, they state there were Muslim scouts who gave away their position and Abu Sufyan looking out for the safe passage of the caravan sent ahead a messenger to send back an army and when Muhammad heard of that, then he sent 300 (313-315 in other accounts too) to Badr where they met and fought. There are also other accounts w/ small detail changes here and there but they don't ever make the Muslims look this belligerent and on top of everything.
On a side note, many of you might not agree and will probably consider this my POV and thats fine I'm not here today to change hearts and minds but I think Rodinsons as partial as Muir or Washington which judging from them not being used isn't much and if anyone's ever read his work and noted the tone, usage of words, etc., they might agree too. Also this isn't the only citation I see by him in the article I speculate. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps 78.149.98.252 is refering to the fact that, in line six of the article, the quote "The principal and most credible source of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an"[12][13], implys that any source cited in the remainder of the article, that is not in fact the Qur'an, is somehow unreliable, and in my opinion, refering to a religious text as "the most credible" in any way is a blatant use of Peacock terms, But then again I can't speak for 78.149.98.252 and perhaps that is not what he means at all.Pappin76 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course not everything that is written in the early Muslim writings is authentic. The earlier it is, the more reliable it is. Just as a 3th century book on Jesus is less reliable than a 1st century book. The Qur'an is most credible source because it is closest in time to the real incidents and has been faithfully transmitted to us. The traditions on the other hand while containing a lot of useful data, should be carefully analyzed sentence by sentence in a quest for historical Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The authenticity of the Quran is so widely accepted as to make it a reliable, if perhaps less than what some would call 'neutral,' source. The sayings within the Quran can be with little doubt attributed to Muhammad. As for the Quran as a source of historical records, really there aren't many historical records in the Quran, most in that regard are recorded in hadith. Peter Deer (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mighty powers of our world... the guy wrote something partial two days ago, barely making a statement, and didn't say anything else and now you guys have been trying to second guess what he is referring to... catch your breaths instead and just wait and see if he comes back to be just a tiiiiny little bit more specific ;-) PureRumble (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy has said nothing other than that the article was not neutral, and we are examining the neutrality of the article. There is nothing wrong with that. Peter Deer (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
May be this guy was saying was raising the same old pictures issue again. Because the petition has more then 400000 votes, that show drawing of Muhammad is one a word of extreme left, so by publishing these images Wikipedia is giving undo weight to these leftist peoples. --82.12.121.230 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, that petition in quite flawed and we don't have any cause to report to it. Jmlk17 23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if we were to take such petitions into consideration, the arguments there are seriously flawed. Please count the vote stuffing. I don't think it's very likely for people from three different countries to make the exact same comment with exactly the same typos and punctuation errors in about 10 seconds time. This happens very often in the petition. Then count the trolling, of people trying to insult the signatories. Then discard the threats that we will be killed, not a persuasive argument. My guesstimate is that about 150,000 to 200,000 of the signatures are valid. Then discard the vague signatures without comment. Then look at what remains. There are basically two arguments in the petition: 1. this is not allowed in Islam. Rebuttal is that Islamic laws and regulations don't apply to us; 2. these pictures are no accurate representation of Muhammad, we have no way of knowing what he looked like. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only valid and on-topic argument in the petition. But it has been established that these depictions were intended by the artists to depict Muhammad, which is sufficient. Whether these artists did a good job at it is irrelevant. AecisBrievenbus 09:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here, here! I think the above comment is one of the most intelligent bits of writing on the internet today. Well said Aecis! RaseaC (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note to the unwary

Do I detect some hysteria developing here ? Hysteria can often be more dangerous than the thing that generates it. The current concerns of image usage should be handled by standard Wikipedia procedures. In my opinion this article can achieve what Wikpedia does so well. It can educate people about why images of Muhammad have become to be frowned upon in the first place. This is why the wonderful geometric Islamic artwork was developed...because actual depictions of Muhammad were verboten. Maybe if more people can understand this then the dispute can be resolved. DJ Barney (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The article makes mention of these facts.-MasonicDevice (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Talk: Muhammad/FAQ

This is about the last section of the FAQ, where a bunch of disturbing and unpleasant images are listed, with the alleged purpose of convincing readers that Wikipedia is not censored.

I edited this:

  • Changed title from "Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?" to "Isn't censorship already employed in Wikipedia?"
("protect the masses" is a tongue-in-cheek title, IMO. Are we trying to give further offense?)
  • I expanded the explanation of why the images are listed there.
  • I added a fuller warning about the nature of the images.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Although what you say does have some merit I do agree with the editor that reverted your changes, frankly I don't see any need for them.
  • I'm not sure that protect the masses is tongue-in-cheek and so there is no reason to change the title.
  • I think the explanation already there is quite sufficient.
  • The warning seems a little OTT and, at the very least, poorly worded.
Until we have any major complaints about the FAQ I think it should stay as is.RaseaC (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

The first change is entirely appropriate. The line "Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?" is pretty well tongue in cheek, not to mention that it doesn't jive with the answer given, which is "No." There ARE quite a few countries (China springs to mind) where censorship IS used to "protect the masses." This FAQ isn't about protecting the masses; it's solely about Wikipedia policy. The second change is also a pretty good idea, in my opinion; it's a good clarification. The third change, on the other hand, is a bit much. The bright red warning is certainly attention-grabbing, but the section headings of each type of picture (blasphemous, racist, gruesome, pornographic) render it redundant.

Dr. eXtreme 20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a 3O, since I've edited this page before, but I agree with the changes as described (warning about the nature of the images, removal of "protect the masses" and developing the explanation of why any images are listed at all). It doesn't seem like a big deal, and unless there are substantive reasons not to do it (aside from it seeming unnecessary to some) it should remain or be put back. Avruch T 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The discussion seems to be about the content of another talk page. Is there an unresolved dispute? I will watchlist this page for replies; please respond here. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer third opinions if anyone's interested. Please inquire if so. BoL (Talk) 04:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Re third opinion. The discussion is about Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. That page is being used to provide supplementary information about the article Muhammad and is linked from the "important notice" template at the top of this page. (Since that page is being used as an information page, discussion about that page was put here. There is also some discussion in the edit summaries on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ)
The discussion is about the wording in the last section. The purpose of that section is to address the question of whether there is censorship in Wikipedia. The section asserts that there is not and goes on to illustrate that point by providing links to a number of images. The images have been selected to make the point "if there was censorship, these images probably would not be in Wikipedia, ergo, there is not censorship."
There's been more discussion since the 3rd opinion was requested so it is not now a 3rd opinion situation. More like a 5th. However, the discussion has not been totally conclusive. I believe further input would be helpful. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is your first time doing a 3O, the case will be on the IRC channel (Link). If you wish, the mediation may commence on 03:00 (UTC). BoL (Talk) 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm...mediation is not third opinion, and no informal mediation has been requested nor agreed to. "Third opinions" don't have "cases" - it's simply you give your opinion about how best to resolve the dispute. Daniel (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, all I know about this is about some image. I would say just...ahhh...damn. To be honest, I really don't know. I believe Daniel's a good mediator or...erm...yeah...bye. BoL (Talk) 03:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
and why would it occur off-wiki on an IRC channel? --Fredrick day 10:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not even really a dispute. Rather, more of an issue with an unusually large number of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED. Jmlk17 08:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmlk: As the person guilty of beginning this increasingly confusing conversation (with the section "re Talk: Muhammad/FAQ" just above), I have to say it is NOT about the "no censorship" policy. It is merely a discussion about the wording used in the last section of Talk: Muhammad/FAQ. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops, that's my bad there. :) Jmlk17 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Date of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH):

In all sources I have seen, the birth year of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is 571 instead of 570. The actual date is 20th of April 571, 20.04.571. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirfan (talk • contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica says he was born in 570.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If there an authoritative source that would indicate the alternate date then it should be considered, but Britannica is pretty hard to top, they tend to do things by the book as far as authentication. Peter Deer (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is the authorative source in this matter, not the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (they even refer to Karen Armstrong - that is definitely not a fitting source for that matter!). As Albrecht Noth points out the sources giving an exact birthdate of the prophet don't refer to any source. The fact is that we can't tell exactly when he was born.

From the Encyclopaedia of Islam (article "Muhammad"): The very first question a biographer has to ask, namely when the person was born, cannot be answered precisely for Muhammad. We have no certain chronological data for the Meccan period of his life. His activity in Medina covered approximately ten years, from the Hidjra ... in 622 A.D. until his death in 632. Most of the sources say his activity as a prophet in Mecca also lasted ten years, but there is considerable difference of opinion on this question. A statement in a poem ascribed sometimes to Abu Kays b. Abi Anas and sometimes to Hassan b. Thabit (ed. Hirschfeld, no. 19) says that his prophetic activity in Mecca lasted “ten and some years”. Muhammad's biographers usually make him 40 or sometimes 43 years old at the time of his call to be a prophet, which, taken with the statements on the length of the Meccan and Medinan periods of his prophetic activity and his age at the time of his death, would put the year of his birth at about 570 A.D. When, however, tradition says that he was born in the “Year of the Elephant” ... this cannot be accepted, since Abraha's attack on Mecca must have taken place considerably before 570. There is better reason to believe that he may have been born later in the 570s. Since the traditional accounts differ widely and also contain elements that are clearly based on later legend, it is best to leave open the question of the year of Muhammad's birth. For the period of his life before he came forth as a religious reformer the Kuran has only the indefinite expression umr, in sura X, 16: “I lived among you an umr before it”, where the term is usually interpreted “a lifetime” and could just as well mean 35 as 40 or 43 years. --Devotus (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Peter Deer (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a great great amount of uncertainty, Alford Welch, tells us. But...
But one has also take into account the fact that the academics have to publish papers in order to get a career and fame. In order to publish a nice paper, one needs to show others that "you were all wrong" or come up with a new theory. Islamic history is not something like science that new data would be created everyday. The original sources are all there. Academics are very fortunate though that for much of the history there is not enough sources (and it is the academics themselves who define "enough"). Here is what makes academics look innocent: if something happens today, witnesses after some time start saying different things; what can we then say about something that happened 1400 years ago. This sad truth has given the academics enough flexibility to create their own curious theories; to project their own cultural tendencies and secular views back into the history. What Moulavi (Jalaluddin Rumi) said in relation to the philosophers of his time can be more accurately applied to current academia:

"The rationalists' legs are wooden
Wooden legs are very fragile.

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That was rather eloquently put, Aminz. And yes, I certainly agree that both in the realms of science and religion human beings have a spectacular capacity to take a little thing and run with it completely away from the actuality of what it suggests.
I think, however, that's one of the interesting things about Wikipedia, is that baseless arguments and unverifiable claims have so much less weight than they do in IRL discussion, where people are able to excuse a lack of an individual encyclopedic memory of references and sources. But I digress quite a bit; indeed it has not been credibly proven that God's Messenger was born on a specific date, and to assert such a thing would be unencyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The solution may then to say that "According to the tradition, he was born in ..." - Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha

This wikipedia article states that Aisha was 6 when she was married to the prophet and 9 when that marriage was consumated. Many historical accounts including Ibn Hisham as well as Ibn Ishaq point to aisha as being at least 16 because she was allowed to fight in Battle of Uhud and Badr, which for women under the age of 15 was not allowed. This is also referenced in many Hadith in both Sunni as well as Shi'a literature. In conjuction, a reasonable assumption is that she was promised to the prophet at the age of nine (an age which is often referenced in hadith when talking about aisha and the prophet) and the marriage was not consumated until after puberty. This was a rule the Prophet proposed himself that women must be sexually mature before consumation of marriage, why would he violate his own laws? I completely dont understand why there is even a mention of her at age 6, the prophet did not meet her until she was nine. Furthermore, this article doesn't reference that claim..which is often disputed between muslims even today. Many muslims feel she was 14 when the prophet both married her and consummated the marriage others feel he married her at 9 but did not consumate the marriage until she as 14. Clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.42.63 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, above comment was made by me. forgot to sign in. --RafiMando (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, quite a difference. If you happen to have any good sources, that would help a lot. :) Jmlk17 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Yes Gladly. I do not have online texts of Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq located but when I do I shall reference the specific points I'm talking about. For now I will quote Maulana Ali who in the 19th century retraced Isnad of the hadith (he re-examined its authenticity) and upon doing so discovered accounts that were largely ignored when speaking of Aisha's age. The evidence shows she was 9 or 10 at betrothal and 14 or 15 at consumation. Here is the quote:

“A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

This excerpt was taken from Maulana Mohammad Ali, Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, 1992 U.S.A. edition, p. 30, note 40. Ali is well referenced by Islamic sources of both west, sunni, and shi'a origin as being of high academic quality.--RafiMando (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Caption

There's something that looks like a caption box midway down the page that looks wrong. It extends the entire width of the article and is occluded on the right hand side. From the text inside it looks like it has something to do the the image issue. I've not been a part of the argument, so I'm not sure if the consensus would be to reinsert the image or remove the now pointless box. I'd just like to bring it to the attention of those familiar with the article. It appears below the "Conquest of Arabia" heading and begins with "17th century Ottoman copy..."142.151.138.241 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks. RaseaC (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet Mohammed In Hindu Scriptures

Hello, I have been hearing a lot of talks on T.V , Mosques, Masjids, Religon Leader Speeches (even on T.V.), Schools etc ... That P.Mohammed is mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. I did some research and came up with some links perhaps you might want to go through.

Personally I believe Muhammad was mentioned in Hindu Scriptures because a Hindu could believe any religon like Christianity, Judaism or what ever a Hindu chooses (see [5]) and many Hindus that are followers of Christianity also have some kind of way relating back to Hinduism (which i will get into later). Further more, Prophet Mohammed made movements to Asia as well, and perhaps mentioned about Islam to Hindus and his position which gained trust and eventually became an book about him in Hinduism. Im not saying that Hindus are Muslims or we are followers of Islam, Hindus are Hindu and have their own way of beliefs and have over 1 billion prophets.

Prophet Mohammed is known to be the Kalki Avtar in Hindusim known as the God of the Worlds. The Kalki Avtar

The Bhavishya Purana is a Holy Book that contains prophets like Jesus, Mohammed etc.. further more Prohpet Muhammad is also metioned in the Bhavishya Purana (see [6]) - Image of PMuhammad in the Bhavishya Purana.

Here are some sources i gatherd from watching Religous T.V shows and browsing through Google:

There seems to be a lot of Refs and Videos (even Al Jazeera) and It also gets presented on local T.V. by Faith Channels.

So, if in this Muhammad article people can mention their views like (Christianity view of Mohammed) and (Jew view of Mohammed) i think a Hindu has a right to also create an article of their view of Prophet Muhammad and should also be mentioned on Muhammad Wiki page as well. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So can me and my team create the article ? and will it be added on the Muhammad page.? i mean if you can put (Christian view of Muhammad) and (Jew view of Muhammad) i think an Hindu has every right to add their prespective as well. so do we have permission ?--DWhiskaZ (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The things that need to be considered in this regard are neutrality, verifiability, notability, and a quality encyclopedic presentation. If you can provide these things then I see no reason why it could not or should not be included in wikipedia, and would in fact be a valuable resource of information for people seeking to better understand the relationship between Hinduism and Abrahamic religion. Peter Deer (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad is not the founder of Islam.

Hello there, This is my first comment on wikipedia and I think it deserves to be noted. Firstly, the article is a primary source for both non muslims and muslims from different parts of the world. In the introduction of this article, it claims that Muhammad is the founder of islam. In fact, this statement is shown in the first sentence.

"Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (Arabic: أبو القاسم محمّد; Transliteration: Abu l-Qāsim Muḥammad[2]; Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)[3][4][5] (c. 570 Mecca – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] was the founder of the world religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh)"

So, let us investigate how Muhammad is indeed NOT the founder of Islam. All the prophets before Muhammad: Abraham, Jesus, Moses, etc. were sent for one purpose- to make people know about God (or "Allah" which means God in arabic) and to make people worship only him. And, as the wikipedia article on Islam says:

The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God

So we can say that Islam has been taught by many other prophets; the outcomes of which are new religions.

In a Muslim's point of view, Islam is the same religion which has come forth from God and He uses the different prophets as guidance to Him.

However, I can see why the article has claimed this. All other religions have a name "christianity", "judaism", etc. and Islam has the name "Islam"; but this does not mean that muhammad is the founder of Islam. Islam already exsisted long before Muhammad was there, for example, Angles would be classified as Muslims, since they all submit to God:

"An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim, meaning "one who submits (to God)"."


Thanks for your understanding

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.234.252 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All new religions have claimed to be reformed versions of previous ones. Doesn't mean it's true. Wikipedia adheres to facts, not theology. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The claims of the religion are entirely pertinent to the article. The claims can be displayed in a factual form. Peter Deer (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If Islam, as a religion, existed before Mohammed, please provide a source demonstrating an example of the Muslim religion existing prior to Mohammed, either in name ("Muslim" or "Islam") or in its practices. Otherwise, I think this is just an attempt to add a Muslim POV to the article. fraggle (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

not again. This is an old discussion. It has been rehashed several times over. See the archives. We may need a FAQ for this. It boils down to this: it's a terminological problem. "Islam" in English is used for the religious institution, the Ummah, which was indeed established by Muhammad. Islam in Arabic means "piety" or similar. "Muhammad is the founder of piety" is, of course, not the intended reading of the statement. In English (unlike Arabic) Islam is not synonymous of piety. Islam is another term for the more old-fashioned Mohammedanism, viz., the religious tradition established by Muhammad. Saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam is pretty much a tautology because the English term "Islam" is so defined. This must be at least the fourth time I point this out here. Seriously, we need a FAQ page, this isn't "article improvement", it's just going round and round in circles. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Arabian Background (again)

I'm bringing this up again because I think this section needs to be extensively discussed. I think providing an introduction to the setting of 7th century Arabia is certainly important, but it must be brief. Ideally, I would like to see the Arabian Background section trimmed and moved into the Geneology section (which itelf can be renamed to background, as it too concerns setting the scene pre-Muhammad). Hence we can have the discussion of the Arabian context and Muhammad's lineage in ~3 paragraphs. If anyone has any other ideas please do share them. By compressing the text here, I don't mean to remove any important information, but I really think we can employ something more resembling summary style here and expound in greater detail in a daughter article. This is especially important if we're interested taking the article above and beyond GA status. Feedback? ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I however couldn't myself do it. Please do give it a try. Regarding the Genealogy section, I think there is no need to provide a detailed genealogy; simply saying that in X number generations Muhammad is traced back to Y who is believed to be a son of Ishmael son of Abraham. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historiography of the Prophet's life

I don't think this issue deserves to be in the lead. That is The principal and most credible source of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an.[12][13] Next in importance are the historical works by writers of third and fourth century of the Muslim era. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, per WP:Lead, the intro should contain something of each section. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This article and Imam Ali one has similar problem as User:John Carter told there. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem with it myself, as perhaps it's better to start off the article acknowledging the primary source and chief written account. But that's just my humble opinion, I do not object if you feel it needs changing. Peter Deer (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it does... it's important to know what sources are considered reliable... and universally the Qur'an is considered the source closest to contemporaneous to Muhammad. Followed by the hadith collections and other later sources. So, you don't seem to be arguing its accuracy. But why does illustrating what the primary sources of his life are not belong in the lead? gren グレン 07:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud123's edit

Mahmoud, the section "conflict with Mecca" is about "conflict with Mecca ". The material you are adding is copy/pasted from "Hijra to Medina" section and "The Arabian background" section. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Edit seems to be in place. --C149 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Mahmoud123, a new sockpuppet? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing the size of the article

I suggest we remove the "Companions" section. It is not directly relevant to the bio of the article. Any objection? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest removing the following paragraph:

According to the Muslim tradition the young Muhammad played a role in the restoration of the Kaaba after parts of it had been destroyed by one of Mecca's frequent flash floods.[56] When the reconstruction was almost done, disagreements arose as to who would have the honor of lifting the Black Stone into place and different clans were about to take up arms against each other. One of the elders suggested they take the advice of the first one who entered the gates of the Haram. This happened to be Muhammad. He spread out his cloak, put the stone in the middle and had members of the four major clans raise it to its destined position. The cloak became an important symbol for later poets and writers.[57]

This detail is discussed in Muhammad in Mecca --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The size of the article is now 99KB. I reduced it by at least 10KB. I think this can be a reasonable size for a good article (Jesus is 120KB). --Be happy!! (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think much of the Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina sections can be summarized, with the content moved to the prospective articles (Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina). Yahel Guhan 07:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected ?

Is the article really protected against unregistered or newly-registered users ? User:Police99 registered not more than 20 mins. ago and has made a substantial edit!!! MP (talk•contribs) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get 20 minutes ago from? The log says the account was created on 22 March 2008. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. The account was created 4 days ago, but User:Police99 has only made 3 edits, the first one of which was about 20 mins. ago when I wrote my first comment above. Still a rather new user. Police99 has made a major edit involving many references. Since I have been away from this article for a while, I want to know whether Police99's major edit is a useful addition to the article - the references have been changed quite a bit. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Itaqallah has just answered my last query (thanks Itaqallah!). QED. MP (talk•contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Police99 seems to have mass-reverted a lot of edits made over the past few days. We've been attempting to cut things down and make the prose more succinct in preparation for a possible GAN (see above). I don't understand why that was indiscriminately reverted, nor was any explanation for it given... ITAQALLAH 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Police99 seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Mahmoud123 and others as reported here. --SMS Talk 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he is. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References cleaned up

I have cleaned up the references. Some errors may have crept in during the process. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud123's edit (Again)

Mahmoud has taken the information from different parts of the article and added it to the "conflict with Mecca " together with his own WP:OR synthesis. This synthesis is in fact not comprehensible. The section is about military conflict with Mecca following the battle of Badr. Meccans were pagans and not Jew or Christian. The Jewish community were in Medina and that stuff is mentioned in the article in its own place.

Mahmoud has also taken a quote from the previous version of "The Arabian background" section that I had written sometime ago without any attention to what the section was saying. The type of conflict we were talking about there is part of the modern theories of materialistic interpretations of Islam and is somewhat Marxist in nature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the military conflicts. That type of conflict, if one accept it, did not began after migration to Medina. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats the correct place for that content. thats the way the article was a couple of months ago. Nothing is wrong by putting it back up and adjusting it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please substantiate your claims instead of saying they are correct. That piece was never in that place. Please provide the link to the version you are referring to.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats why the Expand Link is put up. You can expand it if you want, I think it seems to be in place just the way it is. If you want to get into more detail about how it happend or when they came this and that you can go on and expand it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody talked about "Expand Link"? Please substantiate your claims.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Muhammad talk page i noticed people brought up issues about the current article. The edit seems to be part of Muhammad in Medina section and that information was just cut and pasted in same section just couple of lines down and then linked with expand because it mentions about Mecca. Anyways, if you believe it should be put up higher by the Muhammad in Medina before (Hijra to Medina) section it can be twisted. I just think because it mentions Mecca and Muhammad along with associates and then leads about the war seems to be right on. If it was in the old area where it just talks about Jews and their ways behind Prophet Muhammads back doesnt make sense. So its a debate between Conflict with Mecca which is the main reason or Hijra to Medina that mentions Jews and their ways behind Muhammad back and just Quoted where nobody can see and know the truth. --Mohun (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud, a lot of things happened in the Medina period, but that does not mean that we should mention them in all places. The Jewish tribes of Medina were not directly involved in the battle of Uhud. There were some connections (Ka'ab going to Mecca and exciting people to attack) but these are mentioned in their own place. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

so mention them. So far the section seems to be alright however it can be more improved and more things could be mentioned and as well as in other articles relating. we should put more content into it and build it more stronger. just because of the article having to much information and had to be reduced thats why i believe that section should remain the way it is. --Mohun (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between Muslims and Jews looks irrelevant to Conflict with Mecca. I think there can be better place, if you insist on inserting it.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Mahmud, historically, the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews was not viewed as something significant. Muslim have been traditionally relaxed about it; it is only after the recent political developments that the Muhammad-Jews of Medina thing has become significant. But that is irrelevant to the conflict with Mecca section: yes, after sometime the Jewish communities and Muhammad were clearly enemies AND we have mentioned that "the Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him" in its own place --Be happy!! (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, The Muhammad article is all messed up with information here and some there and some in quotes and some hidden needs to be shaped up --Mohun (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Then lets make an new section containing Prophet Muhammads views and relations with other tribes and groups. Seems to be an positive resolution. --Mohun (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If such a section is to be created, I recommend drafting a list of the basic information such a section would contain on this talk page. Which are the relevant tribes and groups? How did Muhammad view them? How did people in later times perceive Muhammad's views? Sorting this out here would help prevent edit warring and improve sourcing of such a high-profile article right away. AecisBrievenbus 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok than whats an good name for the section, 'Muhammads view towards other religons' , 'Muhammads relations with others' or something ? --Mohun (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a correct style i wikipedia. I prefer "Relationship with Ahl al-Kitab" or "Relationship with Abrahamic religions"--Seyyed(t-c) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV check:Beginnings of the Qur'an

Few months ago Aminz asked me to tell Shia view about this part and I sent him some articles. What has written in this section is in accordance with Sunni histories and reports. But Shia has different view. You can find Shia view in Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims C.e. 570 to 661. There's an online version of the book. Razwi writes In their respective accounts of the reception by Muhammad of the First Revelation, the Sunni and the Shia Muslims are not in agreement. Then he explains the differences.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the sources in question are reliable. If the Shia view differs with the majority view (that is, the Sunni and academic perspectives), then mention of it should be minimal, if it's even at all significant. ITAQALLAH 17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only do Shias but Islamic philosophers have different idea. However I didn't mention them because they're explanation isn't relevant to historic context of the article, but in brief they think nobody else could be more certain about the prophecy but the prophet.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There're also another sources such as The Life and Religion of Mohammed as Contained in the Sheeah Traditions--Seyyed(t-c) 04:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I think the article is almost ready. Its size is less than other comparable GA articles (Jesus 125 KB). Any feedback? --Be happy!! (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's still a few things missing. There's no mention at all about Muhammad's legacy in the form of sunnah, its importance to Muslims and its role in legal theory. I'm going to go through the article and tighten up any language, and I'll quickly run through the bio and see if any key aspects are missing (I did note the absence of the fatra period a while ago, I'll include this if this hasn't been done yet). But overall it does seem to be shaping up nicely. I would have liked some information about Muhammad's companions to have been retained though. ITAQALLAH 15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I just thought putting a list of names of the companions when the reader is told nothing about them except their name is kind of unhelpful. But it is just me...--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we can make a "Legacy" section in which we can have the sub-headings about "Reforms," "Sunnah and Islamic law," and anything else which is pertinent. Also, we really need to reduce the number of inline and block quotes we ae using... if we can summarise them efficiently it will be much more succinct and encyclopedic. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to know whether it's completely necessary to have the timeline in the article because it takes up quite a bit of space and pushes down several images. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job summarizing the background section. IMHO, having a timeline is very helpful. but let's see what others think. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A better option might be to have two timelines, one for Mecca and one for Medina so that it does not pushe down the images that much? --Be happy!! (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Splitting the template up seems like a good idea. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about putting the timeline in a Template:Scroll box? Imad marie (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway the splitting of the timeline looks very good now. Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


  • I agree that the article is of a high enough quality to be a GA, but how do we plan to deal with attribute 5 of the good article criteria? Even though the controversy around this article thankfully seems to have died down, I'm sure that this will be brought up. Not saying I agree with that viewpoint, but we should be ready for it if it is raised. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
    • I think long-term stability should be a factor. If things can stay relatively quiet for a week or two more, then I think it's evidence that most of the furore has passed over. Obviously, the issue will be raised once in a while, but it shouldn't prevent the article from reaching a high standard and being recognised as such. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be improved more to reach good article criteria especially the 3rd and 4th ones.

  • In some cases such as "Siege of Medina" the text include too many details while in some others like "The Farewell Pilgrimage" it doesn't focus on the issue.
  • Some sections don't cover all of the viewpoints.
  • Some parts like "legacy" should be expanded.
  • There are disagreements about several issues and we should reach consensus before nomination.

--Seyyed(t-c) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghadir khum

Dear Itaqallah, Please explain why do you revert this issue.[7] You've told the last part of the bio is quite Shia-centric. this is not the place to implicitly assert one sect's claim over another. rm more tendentious aspects re: disputed quote. and there were many things discussed, can we please have a more rounded summary than menitoning only that of sectarian/polemical importance

I know this is not a place for sectarian issue. But neither does my source a sectarian one nor this issue. As Dakake shows in his book you can find the issue in Shia and Sunni sources. Furthermore I see it completely sectarian to omit the issue. I reverted your edition but hid it until we reach consensus here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seyed, in the farewell pilgrimage speech, other things happened as well: Muhammad also "abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. Chief among these was the nasīʾ, or intercalary month. From then on the Muslim community would operate on a strictly lunar calendar that would not be adjusted to bring it into alignment with the solar calendar. The Prophet abolished all old blood feuds, implying that the creation of the Islamic umma had made all disputes based on the former tribal system obsolete. In addition, all old pledges were to be returned, another indication of this new beginning. The Prophet informed his followers that they were entitled to discipline their wives but should do so with kindness. He commanded that one could not leave one's wealth to a testamentary heir; that one could not make false claims of paternity or of a client relationship. The tradition of holding four months of the year, Dhū l-Qaʿda, Dhū l-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram (months 11, 12, and 1) and Rajab (month 7) sacred was upheld at this time. This measure seems related to the Islamic adoption of the pilgrimage itself, along with the understanding that the shrine at Mecca lies on holy ground."
See, Itaqallah has a point. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should wrote a brief introduction here and complete detail in the main article. i.e. The Farewell Pilgrimage. But unfortunately you can't find nothing here as well as in the main article. We can write Prophet abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. and refer to the main article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Seyyed, I think the purpose of mentioning thaqalayn and mawla is primarily to forward the notion of Ali's superiority and make it a Shia-centric view of events. The mawla passage, in particular, is hardly a significant in the context of Muhammad's life, except as a device used by Shia to establish their particular perspectives. There's many things that were said at the farewell sermon and later, yet we focus on those aspects important to Shias. That's not a neutral or sensible handling of the biography. All the intricacies of the debate can be fleshed out at Succession to Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me how can judge that putting it is based on a sectarian tendency while omitting it is not. If The prophet really wanted to introduce somebody for his successorship, then wasn't it worthy enough to mention. Furthermore I don't want to write something which shows Shia viewpoint, but I do want to say something has happened which has been too important during Muslim history as well as today. However we can write the other side of the story in Aftermath.
We can write With Muhammad's death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad's intimate friend and collaborator. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor. .--Seyyed(t-c) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to allow brief discussion in the aftermath about the dispute over successorship because obviously the dispute was significant (but it should not overshadow all of the other things occuring at the time like the Ridda wars, campaigns against Byzantium and Persia, etc.), but saturating the farewell pilgrimage section with material designed to promote a particular perspective is something I don't think we should be doing. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand why we have focused on some less important issues such as the battles in details. We have described "Beginnings of armed conflict" in about 30 lines while neglected all of the important events of the last year. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I do think the article is oversized in many areas still, which is why I feel GAN should probably be held off until we achieve a near-perfect balance with regards to coverage. Ideally, each section should be ~ 2-3 concise paragraphs. This rests upon good copyediting, reducing usage of direct quotes, and leaving more aspects related to individual scholarly perspective aside. I've only managed to do this for a small part of the article, I intend to do the same for the rest of it. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reforms

Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortening the article

I think in some cases too many unnecessary information has put in the article. While the article is too long and some important issues and viewpoints haven't been mentioned. These are the cases which I propose to remove or summarize:

  • Sources for Muhammad's life:Do we need too many details while there are especial articles for this issue.
  • I think we are not providing too many details, are we? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Muhammad also adopted some features of the Jewish worship and customs such as fasting on the Yom Kippur day. According to Alford Welch, the Jewish practice of having three daily prayer rituals appears to have been a factor in the introduction of the Islamic midday prayer (previously Muhammad was keeping the morning and evening prayers).

We can replace it with a sentence which says According to ... the Prophet has derived or affected by some Jewish worship such as fasting while Muslim believe this is the case which ordered by God in all religions.

  • The reason for adoption of 3 daily prayer ritual bit is an opinion rather than a fact and hence can be covered in the articles on prayer and not here. The addition of "while Muslim believe this is the case which ordered by God in all religions.", while true, requires a source. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this a good source to show Muslim belief:Tafsir al_mizan,V.3--Seyyed(t-c) 07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Muhammad's decision was that those who were wealthy but did not ransom themselves should be killed. Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men without entertaining offers for their release. One of the men, Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt, had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an.

I think the introduction of Jihad as an Islamic duty is far more important than such details.

  • This can be summarized of course. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • During the Battle of the Trench, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza who were located at the south of Medina were charged with treachery. After the retreat of the coalition, Muslims besieged Banu Qurayza, the remaining major Jewish tribe in Medina. The Banu Qurayza surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women and children were enslaved.[114][115] In dealing with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina, aside from political explanations, Arab historians and biographers have explained it as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old."[116] F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God.[82] Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad.[117] Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina."[82] According to Welch, Muhammad's treatment of the three major Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing a community strictly on a religious basis. He adds that some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina.[15]

There are too many details about relationship with Jews while there are especial articles for these issues. We can summarize it and let who wants to know more refer to the sub-articles.

  • I'd like to see the summary first :) --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The benediction upon the Prophet punctuates daily Muslim life, and traditional Islamic life reminds one at every turn of his ubiquitous presence. He even plays a major role in dreams. There are many prayers recited in order to be able to have a dream of the Prophet, who promised that the Devil could never appear in a dream in the form of Muhammad. Not only for saints and mystics but also for many ordinary pious people, a simple dream of the Prophet has been able to transform a whole human life. One might say that the reality of the Prophet penetrates the life of Muslims on every level, from the external existence of the individual and of Islamic society as a whole to the life of the psyche and the soul and finally to the life of the spirit.

Can't we summarize this quotation.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is that details will be removed entirely from this article and not replaced anywhere else. If there are, for example, other articles about Muhammad adopting certain details from Jewish religious practices, then when those details are removed from this article, they should be replaced with a link to those other articles. If the details aren't yet in the other articles, they should be added there, of course. If you're moving material to a different article, please mention it in the edit log so we know what's going on. Thanks. --DachannienTalkContrib 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
At present you can find all of them in Muhammad in Medina.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification needed

Please check the qur'anic verses and the sourcing of "Muhammad subsequently delivered Qur'anic verses Qur'an 3:133-135 and Qur'an 3:160-162 indicating that the loss, however, was partly a punishment for disobedience and partly a test for steadfastness.<ref>Watt (1964) p. 144.</ref> " --Be happy!! (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see this:Tafsir; al-Mizan --Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's been taken from this section I wrote. I believe it's all verified, but I'll double check if you want. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Verses 3:133-135 AND 3:160-162 do not seem to refer to the battle of Uhud. The section Battle_of_Uhud#Muslim_reaction]] refers to 3:152 instead. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read Tafsir verses 130-138] in al-Mizan. Allama says The clause, "it is prepared for the pious ones"(133), paves the way for description of the characteristics of the pious ones which is given in the coming verses. The main idea is to describe those characteristics of the believers which are relevant to the present situation, i.e., after the battle of Uhud (when they had displayed, and suffered from, weakness and disobedience), because they were expected to participate in other similar battles and undergo similar situations, where they would be in great need of unity, harmony and solidarity. However the later verses looks more relevant.
He also says about verses 156-164 It is the continuation of the verses revealed especially about the battle of Uhud. It deals with another affair affecting them ...--Seyyed(t-c) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghadir khum

Dear Itaqallah, Please explain why do you revert this issue.[8] You've told the last part of the bio is quite Shia-centric. this is not the place to implicitly assert one sect's claim over another. rm more tendentious aspects re: disputed quote. and there were many things discussed, can we please have a more rounded summary than menitoning only that of sectarian/polemical importance

I know this is not a place for sectarian issue. But neither does my source a sectarian one nor this issue. As Dakake shows in his book you can find the issue in Shia and Sunni sources. Furthermore I see it completely sectarian to omit the issue. I reverted your edition but hid it until we reach consensus here.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

-

Seyed, in the farewell pilgrimage speech, other things happened as well: Muhammad also "abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. Chief among these was the nasīʾ, or intercalary month. From then on the Muslim community would operate on a strictly lunar calendar that would not be adjusted to bring it into alignment with the solar calendar. The Prophet abolished all old blood feuds, implying that the creation of the Islamic umma had made all disputes based on the former tribal system obsolete. In addition, all old pledges were to be returned, another indication of this new beginning. The Prophet informed his followers that they were entitled to discipline their wives but should do so with kindness. He commanded that one could not leave one's wealth to a testamentary heir; that one could not make false claims of paternity or of a client relationship. The tradition of holding four months of the year, Dhū l-Qaʿda, Dhū l-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram (months 11, 12, and 1) and Rajab (month 7) sacred was upheld at this time. This measure seems related to the Islamic adoption of the pilgrimage itself, along with the understanding that the shrine at Mecca lies on holy ground."
See, Itaqallah has a point. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should wrote a brief introduction here and complete detail in the main article. i.e. The Farewell Pilgrimage. But unfortunately you can't find nothing here as well as in the main article. We can write Prophet abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. and refer to the main article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Seyyed, I think the purpose of mentioning thaqalayn and mawla is primarily to forward the notion of Ali's superiority and make it a Shia-centric view of events. The mawla passage, in particular, is hardly a significant in the context of Muhammad's life, except as a device used by Shia to establish their particular perspectives. There's many things that were said at the farewell sermon and later, yet we focus on those aspects important to Shias. That's not a neutral or sensible handling of the biography. All the intricacies of the debate can be fleshed out at Succession to Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me how can judge that putting it is based on a sectarian tendency while omitting it is not. If The prophet really wanted to introduce somebody for his successorship, then wasn't it worthy enough to mention. Furthermore I don't want to write something which shows Shia viewpoint, but I do want to say something has happened which has been too important during Muslim history as well as today. However we can write the other side of the story in Aftermath.
We can write With Muhammad's death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad's intimate friend and collaborator. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor. .--Seyyed(t-c) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy to allow brief discussion in the aftermath about the dispute over successorship because obviously the dispute was significant (but it should not overshadow all of the other things occuring at the time like the Ridda wars, campaigns against Byzantium and Persia, etc.), but saturating the farewell pilgrimage section with material designed to promote a particular perspective is something I don't think we should be doing. ITAQALLAH 16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand why we have focused on some less important issues such as the battles in details. We have described "Beginnings of armed conflict" in about 30 lines while neglected all of the important events of the last year. --Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I do think the article is oversized in many areas still, which is why I feel GAN should probably be held off until we achieve a near-perfect balance with regards to coverage. Ideally, each section should be ~ 2-3 concise paragraphs. This rests upon good copyediting, reducing usage of direct quotes, and leaving more aspects related to individual scholarly perspective aside. I've only managed to do this for a small part of the article, I intend to do the same for the rest of it. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reforms

Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. --Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

In Aftermath: "While Ali and the rest of Muhammad's close family were washing his body for burial". Is this necessary? and is this agreed upon between resources? Imad marie (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem has been solved.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inheritance

Hi Seyed,

I am sorry but I reverted your edit not for sectarian reasons but because I think it misses the point and does injustice to the character of Ali (Ali for example said "Knowledge is inheritence of Prophets while wealth is inheritence of Pharohs"). Your edit for example does not explain the symbolic meaning of this particular inheritance at all and presents it as a fight over money. Not only that but the current presentation of dispute over Ali's successorship of Muhammad is completely inappropriate and stands in contrast with say the following Hadith:

Ibn Abbas says: "Once when I visited Imam Ali, he was mending his shoes. The Holy Imam asked me, 'What do you think will be the price of this shoe?' I said, 'It has no value at all'. The Holy Imam then said, 'By Allah! To my mind this torn shoe is more valuable than my ruling over the people provided I enforce the right and eradicate falsehood".

--Be happy!! (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what has been narrated by scholars such as Madelung should be narrated. I don't want to narrate interpretations, etc about it.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki1609's edit

Hi Wiki1609,

I changed your edit because we are writing here about western and European view as our main source for this section deals with it, not with those living in lands ruled by Muslims in Middle east in Syria in 634. There are more important works by Syrian writers such as the polemical work of John of Damascus. If there is one work to be mentioned by these writers, it is the treatise Epistola Saraceni or Rescriptum Christiani, the translation from Arabic of a polemic which is dated before the year 1000 and composed by an Oriental Christian; this work had considerable influence on later European Christians. In any case, I think we should keep with the general dominant view rather than mentioning one particular work or the other. To be sure, the main source for west about Muhammad was those transmitted by non-Muslim writers that had lived alongside Muslims. Also, this section is not about Jewish view and I don't think you are correct in characterizing the early Jewish and Christian attitude of Syrians toward Muhammad as one from whom nothing came except bloodshed. According to Bernard Lewis, "Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance." You might want to compare this with the view of your source "[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed". Please note that most of Syrians Christians were non-Orthodox and that's why they were under pressure from Byzantium empire. It seems your source is presenting a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong resources

i reviewed the mentioned resources about the illustrations in the article , like Al-Biruni's book "Al Athar Al Baqya" .. and there is no such illustrations .. and its clear and obvious to anyone saw the illustrations that they look like each other , means that the same artist .. but the article mentioned different resources , which drives us to the fact that there are fake and none - Muslim made vandalism, and wikipedia is putting them there without any accuracy of the resources .. so please check the mentioned resources . there is no such illustrations . Basem

Which illustrations, and which specific citations are you challenging? Beam 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] three Meccan goddesses

In the section “Opposition in Mecca” there is a sentence that states:

“The account holds that Muhammad pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, praising them, and appealing for their intercession.”

I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters and I am pretty sure that these are them. Yes? Or is this statement saying that Allah and the Arab moon god is the same god? If they are the daughters of Allah then who are they because I don’t remember Allah having any daughters. Thanks for your time. Bluetd (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Allah. There was never such a thing as "an Arab moon god". --Be happy!! (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow. What a Topic to discuss. See Islam for more details on the so called "moon god". Ignorance is a very foolish thing. Also Allah never had any daughters or family. LOTRrules (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Some would argue that arrogance is worse than ignorance. To what were you referring to as ignorant or as displaying ignorance? Beam 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


"I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters" - And I wasn't being arrogant. I provided the link to get him started and I was criticising the theory not him. Sorry if I came across that way! LOTRrules (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Goddesses in question are, Al-'Uzzā, Manāt and Allāt. When Islam was invented then these existing God would have more or less been subsumed. It does seem that their names were simply cobbled into the '99 names of God. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please remember not to make this a personal discussion. Unfortunate as it is, this 'moon god' theory has been widely promulgated, in particular by certain persons wishing to associate Islam with pagan religion to undermine its truthful claims of being worship of the same single omnipotent creator God of Christianity and Judaism. However, many persons have of no fault of their own come to be of the mistaken impression that this accusation is true, so I hope that all of you will remember to assume good faith and not be so quick to judge such persons, as we all have misunderstood something at some point in our lives. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captioning

Below are two image codes and their captions quoted from the article. (I removed the [[ ]] stuff so the images are not shown.)

The captions are correct that the face is veiled in the first and unveiled in the second.

The second caption seems to me wrong or at least confusing. "Muhammad's face is not veiled; there is no such image available with unveiled face in Islamic art from the 16th century onwards." This seems in effect to say "we are showing an image which is not available".  ???

Image:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg|thumb|right|Nakkaş Osman [c. 1595]. Prophet Muhammad at the Ka'ba, The Life of the Prophet Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b).

  • CAPTION: Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century.[3]]]

Image:Maome.jpg|thumb|right|Muhammad prohibits intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage . 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript (Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's al-Âthâr al-bâqiya.

  • CAPTION: Muhammad's face is not veiled; there is no such image available with unveiled face in Islamic art from the 16th century onwards.[3]]]

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How about
  • CAPTION: Muhammad's face unveiled; there are no known instances of Muhammad unveiled in Islamic art after the 16th century.[3]
I'm going to make the edit, and if you disagree simply state so in this section and we'll discuss it. Beam 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
These "captions" seem to me to be synthesis of information. The reference supplied also says that "As far as we know the Prophet was never depicted with an open face since the 16th Century". The reference is talking about a manuscript not this one picture. The caption should just contain the details about that picture not mix in some conjecture which is not referring explicitly to this image but all images related to a manuscript. Mixing information like that is WP:SYNTH. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
...in other words...I'm going to delete the captions unless they just refer to the image or the reference specifically refers to the image. Also this article has had some 'minor' edits done to it which are major and it has broken wikicode ! WTF is going on !?Ttiotsw (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali and Kalam

Kalam in Islamic discourse refers to Aristotelian dialectic adapted by Muslim philosophers, which occured probably sometime in the Abbasid period. Those who practiced this dialectic were known as mutakallimun, some of whom al-Ghazzali famously attacked in his tahafut al-falasifa. As this is something pretty well known in scholarship, this assertion about Ali founding Islamic theology/Kalam doesn't make sense at all. And if we're talking about `Aqidah, I don't think that was founded by Ali either. ITAQALLAH 12:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica says:

"Nevertheless, this discipline, usually translated in Western sources as scholastic theology—popularly held to have been founded by 'Ali—has its roots through 'Ali in some of Muhammad's teachings. At the same time, all schools of kalam address the question of revelation and the relation of the words of the Prophet to religious truth on the one hand and rational discourse on those truths on the other. Moreover, if theology is understood to be general religious thought, then Muhammad's teachings are even more central."

Does this fit the definition of "Aristotelian dialectic adapted by Muslim philosophers"? It seems that this is Kalam in its later stages, not a definition of Kalam. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That's strange. If you want an idea of what I'm talking about, read the first 7 pages of "The Physical Theory of Kalam", Alnoor Dhanani, Brill publishers. Essentially, it describes how Hellenistic intellectuallism influenced Muslim mutakallimun and philosophers in ~ 3rd century AH, forming a new dialectic tradition known as kalam. ITAQALLAH 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading it. According to this reading, Kalam seems to be a mixture of Islamic teaching and other things developed in a certain context for a certain purpose. The above quote seems to talk about a certain aspect of Kalam "the question of revelation and the relation of the words of the Prophet to religious truth on the one hand and rational discourse on those truths on the other"
Moving from Kalam to theology makes it a bit more precise but I dunno. What do you think?--Be happy!! (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kalam as it's traditionally understood in Islamic studies was the adaptation of rationalist logic in attempting to understand or establish the existence of God in greater detail. See: Kalam cosmological argument (not sure about its neutrality though. Also see Argument from contingency). So from that perspective, it'd be inaccurate to say that Ali founded Kalam. I think suggesting that Ali founded Islamic theology in general is also contentious, because the Islamic theology is already codified within the primary Islamic texts. Do you think we can do without this sentence for now? ITAQALLAH 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of definition. Of course we can do without the sentence. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Henry Corbin says After the Quran and the hadith of the Prophet, it is the most important work not just for the religious life of Shiism in general, but for its philosophical thought. Indeed, the Nahj al-balaghah may be regarded as one of the most important sources of the doctrines professed by Shiite thinkers, especially those of the fourth period. Its influence can be sensed in the logical co-ordination of terms, the deduction of correct conclusions, and the creation of certain technical terms in Arabic which possess both richness and beauty, and which in this way entered the literary and philosophical language independently of the translation into Arabic of Greek texts.
The theological sermons of Ali aren't restricted to Nahj al-Balagha. For example he says The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.
There are other books such as Al-Tawhid by Shaykh al-Saduq which have compiled them with Asnad before Sharif Razi. As Shia theologians and Philosophers believe, not only Ali begins description of these issues but his words are far more better than what anybody else have said. You can also refer to Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib: The First Intellectual Muslim--Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New change in WP:MOSISLAM

Three weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about two weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM [9]. Then I asked some wikipedians to tell me their ideas but nobody disagrees with me. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles. Now if you disagree with it, please write your idea [10].--Seyyed(t-c) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My only suggestion is that you tread lightly so as to apply it in a fashion that does not suggest a particular religious point of view, but then you knew that anyway. Also, I'm thinking that if the quote used the term that it should probably include specification to show that the assertion is that of the quote and not that of the article's writing itself. Example: In an address to the Hague, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is quoted as saying "The Prophet (Muhammad) has commanded..." But that's just my suggestion. I'm still not able to think off the top of my head of a place where "the Prophet" could be included in a way that won't step on toes though, so best to avoid it if at all possible. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add your comment [11]. Please remind that we don't discuss about quotations.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha's age

Is it necessary to include Aisha's age, at the time of her marriage to Muhammad? It doesn't matter to me personally; but avoiding the locking of the article (over edit warring) does. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be neutral, and must therefore include mention of Muhammad's marriage to a little girl because this has been a major criticism of him. This is not an exercise in Muslim apologetics. TharkunColl (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You need to explain the significance of Aisha's age a little more clearly. It's certainly not one of the most significant things about her. There seems to be little rationale behind singling her out whilst you apparently have no problem with "hiding" and suppressing" information about the other wives' ages. To rehash your final comment: this is not an exercise in recentist, anti-Islam polemic. ITAQALLAH 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And the major criticisms are indeed covered, as can be seen here. ITAQALLAH 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Off hand, I'd suggest that her age at the time they married is important. Her age at the time they consummated it seems superfluous. Resolute 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Jmlk17 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Why is this detail important? Aisha was supposed to marry someone else before Muhammad but that was changed at the suggestion of someone to Muhammad to marry Aisha. Why say is that detail less important? Why the consummation age not important? Where does the criteria comes from?
Such details are important in the criticism of Muhammad article because they appear frequently in polemics and that is indeed included in the criticism of Muhammad article as Itaqallah pointed out. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I think the rationale for inclusion needs elaboration: why is Aisha's age here significant? Is it one of the most important facts about her? Not really. Why is it more significant than say, Khadijah's age at marriage, or Sawdah's age at marriage, or Hafsa's age at marriage (none of which are mentioned)? ITAQALLAH 14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Aisha's age is more important than the others precisely because she was so young. I have heard the argument that this was not unusual for the time. Yet Muhammad was a great social reformer. He of all people was in a position to change the practice of child marriage, but evidently felt it didn't need changing. This says something important about Muhammad. TharkunColl (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not an argument as to why Aisha's age is significant, it's an argument as to why it's important to you. This wasn't seen as significant among Muhammad's contemporaries (and enemies), it's not been seen as significant in the centuries since, and it's still not seen as incredibly important in modern scholarship. Its only significant lies in recent anti-Islam polemic. ITAQALLAH 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I implied absolutely nothing about Muhammad. I stated quite clearly that he married a six year old girl. Has it come to such a point that stating fact is regarded as anti-Islamic polemic? TharkunColl (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked why her age in particular was uniquely significant, to which you explained what it apparently says about Muhammad. Hence my comment above, in which I said that it's actually not significant at all. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
To say it is not significant is just POV. All we can do is state the facts. The reader can then decide which are significant and which are not. But not to state the facts removes that choice. TharkunColl (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is written in summary style, hence we make content decisions about what's noteworthy by default. Thus, the question of whether this is actually significant is highly pertinent. Its inclusion here naturally implies that it's one of the most important things to be said about Aisha in the sentence she's allocated (and it's not). The "facts" are all available in the other articles (Aisha, Criticism of Muhammad), the issue here is therefore about which facts are most significant.
There are many facts available about Aisha, you need to explain why this one in particular is more significant than the others. To claim it's insiginificant isn't really a POV, as the basis for the claim is the lack of any evidence asserting genuine significance. The notion of insignificance is supported by the fact that it wasn't an issue in Muhammad's time, it wasn't an issue in the time since, until the past decade or so - and even then it's not really much of an issue in modern academic scholarship. So there needs to be some substantiation of why this fact should be mentioned over the many other more significant facts about Aisha, and why her age needs to be mentioned yet other wives' ages don't need to be. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If she hadn't been so young, and Muhammad so old, she would not have survived him by decades and the Hadith might never have come together. I think that's pretty significant. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
So what's the age of marriage and consummation got to do with the compilation of hadiths? They were only married for 9 or 10 years. Had she married him at age 18, 28, or even 38, she would still have lived for a lengthy time after his death. Why is Umm Salama's age at marriage not important? She married Muhammad too, narrated many hadiths, and she outlived both Muhammad and Aisha. While Aisha narrated many hadith, it wasn't as many as those like Abu Huraira. To clarify, she played no actual role in the compilation of hadith material. ITAQALLAH 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
She was also Muhammad's favourite wife, and probably the only one whose name would be even vaguely familiar to most non-Muslims, mainly through the heroine of the Rider Haggard novel (She) who was named after her. TharkunColl (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, she was indeed Muhammad's favourtie wife. How does it relate to the ages of marriage/consummation though? ITAQALLAH 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps he liked her so much because she was so young. Who knows? But we should let the reader decide, and not suppress this information. TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
<reset indent>But the whole premise is based upon original research. Why not just mention any random fact about Aisha alongside her status as a favourite wife, and let the reader 'decide'? Original research includes implying connections that aren't actually verified. ITAQALLAH 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just base the inclusion on what the majority of reliable sources on the subject say, being sure not to give undue weight to fringe sources. No need to argue, just go back to the basics of NPOV. (1 == 2)Until 14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here; the issue of Aisha's age stems from a decidedly Western-oriented, right-leaning agenda of painting Islam in general and Muhammad in particular in the worst light possible. That does not make it any less notable of course, which is why a section of the "Criticism of..." article is devoted to it, Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha. But placing it on this page serves no purpose other than to criticize, and that is quite inappropriate and out-of-place. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The elephant in the room is Muhammad's marriage to a six year old girl. TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Tomayto, tomahto, whatever. Bringing up her age is done with the intent to criticize, not to inform, and there is already a separate article for that. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you assuming bad faith on my part? My inclusion of it was intended to inform, and to attempt (unsuccessfully, it seems) to override religious censorship. TharkunColl (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comments suggest that you inserted the passage as a device to imply "something" about Muhammad. ITAQALLAH 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it was, then you just matched it with a bad-faith assumption of "religious censorship" regarding those that do not feel it belongs here, which would make us Even Steven. :) Tarc (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Having sex with a nine year old girl when you are 56 is inherently notable. Many commentators write about this and the effects it has on Islam. I see no reason to erase this fact other than religious censorship. Matamoros (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So that whole crazy NPOV idea I had is not getting much attention ehh? Nobody considering the idea of basing inclusion on what the majority of reliable sources on the subject say, being sure not to give undue weight to fringe sources? (1 == 2)Until 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a question of due weight... is this issue more significant than, say, other incidences that happened in her life like the story of Ifk, the story of the honey, or her later prominence as one of the greatest female Islamic scholars? Reliable sources mention her age at marriage, just like they would for any of the other wives. Is it given special significance? Not really. Does it outweigh the real controversies that happened in the time of Muhammad/Aisha? No. Compared with that, her age at marriage is pretty trivial. So it's a question of deciding what is most significant to mention in the summary-style coverage about Aisha. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You can't really hope to include everything reliable sources say about Muhammad in this single article - it'd be megabytes if not gigabytes of text, and entirely unreadable. WilyD 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Before the death of Muhammad's first wife, Aisha was already betrothed to a Muslim named Jubayr ibn Mut'im. After the death of Muhammad's first wife, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim that he should marry Aisha. Matamoros, this is not the kind of story you expect if Muhammad was breaking with the tradition of the time. The very fact that only very recently, some Muslims have looked again at the original sources trying to make a case for Aisha being much older shows that they did not find that particularly remarkable in the past. Also, put this fact together the raising of the minimum legal age of marriage in U.S. from 7-8 in 1880s.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's beyond patently absurd. We'll never know the names of most of the 50-something year olds who had sex with 9 year olds in 625, whether there were a mere ten thousand or a million. In context its an act so mundane that there's nothing said about it for centuries because its unremarkable. WilyD 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Including Aisha's age in this section would be WP:SYN. Imad marie (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note, if I may, that I get the impression that the dispute in regards to editing this article have been in part because of biases one way or the other in regards to Muhammad and Islam. From a neutral perspective, the unremarkable nature of the marriage at the time is a strong case for it not being a notable inclusion to the article, save in its inclusion in a separate article regarding the modern-day controversy over Mr. Vines' statements, which it already has. It's a hard subject to remain neutral on (I speak personally regarding this) but it's important that we put our individual considerations aside and consider the neutrality, notability, and verifiability of the information provided. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have two talk threads on "Aisha's age" on this page, so I would say this topic is very important to many of the editors here. I wish we could somehow merge the two, this is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

If the reverting back and forth continues I will either protect the page or start giving out blocks for edit warring. (1 == 2)Until 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just put in a 'Page protection request'. The edit warring seems to continue. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I have protected the page. Using the edit summary "per talk" does not mean you aren't edit warring unless a consensus has formed, which I do not yet see. The protection will last 2 days, in that time I suggest you seek a consensus on this matter. If a consensus forms before then let me know and I will lift the protection. (1 == 2)Until 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha's age important to Islamic theocracy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that Ayatollah Khomeini, after the Iranian Revolution, ruled that it was legal for a 9-year-old girl to marry, based off of Muhammed's marriage? I feel this would argue that the age is indeed notable, and not just from a negative anti-Muslim perspective. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of this but I'm not surprised. But then, that would go in an Islamic Theocracy article, then, wouldn't it? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the sunna section in the article, a lot of things in the Sunna set religious standards; there are thousands of them indeed; many these we have not even touched in this article. They should be covered in their own articles.
Regarding your point: the fact that Muhammad delayed the marriage to the onset of menses, did set a religious standard for the appropriate age for marriage of females just after the onset of menses. "Engagement or betrothal, however, often took place much earlier. This pattern of female marriage soon after reaching reproductive capability is typical of premodern societies in many parts of the world. In those settings, fertility is central to adult female identity; childhood ends and adult responsibility begins with physical maturity. When Arab nations emerged into statehood in the middle of the twentieth century, they often enshrined in law the low marriage ages allowable under Muslim Sharīʿa law. Thus, marriage is legal for females at age 11 in Sudan, 14 in Yemen, and 16 in Egypt. (But there are exceptions: Syria and Jordan set the legal age at 18, while it is 21 in Libya.) Meanwhile, understandings of what constitutes childhood and how children are to be protected have evolved rapidly in recent years. Countries such as Egypt have adopted comprehensive legislation to protect children and enforce their rights to such social benefits as education and health care. Governmental agencies now exist in nearly every Arab country to protect the interests of children, and girl children are often subject to special remedial programs and protections. Childhood in these recent legal codes is commonly defined as extending to the age of 18, following international United Nations standards."
Thus, as you can see Muslim nations are not in practice behind European ones. Until 1880s in the US, the minimum legal age of marriage was 7-8 years old.
Why such changes in the minimum legal age of marriage? I think Marx's theory of historical materialism may provide an answer to that. What is clear is that such global changes happened independent of religion.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is clear is that such global changes happened independent of religion." Agreed, but those groups who have not made such global changes have rationales dependent on Muhammed's life. My main point was that it's not just anti-Muslim Westerners who feel her age is significant. Your first point (and Peter Deer's) about the article not having everything that affected theology is compelling, of course, and I don't feel terribly strongly about this issue. However, in all our other biographical articles, this kind of thing is mentioned. FDR's article explains that he and his wife Eleanor were cousins, even though this was culturally irrelevant at the time. Joseph Smith's article has an entire section devoted to the ages of his wives. Could this issue be resolved similarly by listing all the ages of Muhammed's wives, so that it is not just Aisha being singled out? -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems that a few other articles following a theme that we're discussing as being inappropriate does not seem like an argument for making another article follow that theme. If it is felt that it is indeed a relevant and encyclopedic thing to include in biographical articles then perhaps a revision should be made to MOS:BIO on the matter to clear up further discussions of a similar nature. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
"those groups who have not made such global changes have rationales dependent on Muhammed's life" I think any system has some inertia which is not only dictated by cultural and religious concerns but also more importantly by the economic and social parameters. In west, people have now reached a relatively high living standards so they talk more about secondary issues like "something" rights. These are of course important but only after other concerns have been relieved. A few generations is enough for people to forget how they come to where they are. They then look at less developed countries and ask why they do not care much about such issues. Some honest and some politically-motivated people would then attribute everything to religious traditions but in my humble opinion, that answer is one-dimensional and simplistic. In any case, in my view this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and I personally do not think it would be a good time to make such judgements about the role religion has to play in it.
Regarding Joseph Smith, I think it is different since his polygomy in itself was against the social context of the time while for Muhammad, it was the converse and the ages in its context was not notable; look, I think by all means we should add that to article talking about Muhammad's wives or Criticism of Muhammad. I doubt anyone interested in Islam would miss them, believe me :) --Be happy!! (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Western societies have tended to regard paedophilia as a bad thing quite independently of their dislike for Islam. That it turns out that by modern Western standards Muhammad was a paedophile, is not a pre-arranged attack on Islam, but in fact is a product of the West's moral code. It is a very good example of how the West and Islam have different standards. Given that this article is not an Islamic tract, then we really should mention this, as it impacts quite greatly on Muhammad's legacy. TharkunColl (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pedophilia implies being a "sexual predator" because in the 19th century the minimum age of marriage was increased, and it is now illegal. Please avoid offensive language and see WP:CIVIL. And your concerns have been very well addressed in the above section.--Be happy!! (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No. You're wrong. Paedophilia is having sex with children. It is not offensive to state the facts. Just out of interest, do modern Muslims think it's okay to follow Muhammad's example and have sex with girls when they're nine? TharkunColl (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To call it paedophilia is to assume that the purpose for the marriage was to indulge a sexual preference which, if considering the age of Muhammad's first wife and the fact that the marriage to Aisha was suggested to Him, and considering that the marriage was a common practice not limited to persons of that particular sexuality, does not appear to be applicable. Such an assumption is not encyclopedic, and to draw that conclusion is not Wikipedia's job or territory. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, the "common practice" argument is tendentious, because Muhammad of all people, as a great social reformer, was in a unique position to change the custom - had he felt that it needed changing. That, on the contrary, he practiced it himself, is surely worth mentioning. Your non-paedophilia argument likewise holds no water I'm afraid, inasmuch as Muhammad could have married her and waited till she had grown up before consumating the marriage. That he instead only waited till she was nine is, again, highly significant. TharkunColl (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Very good, so you a criticism to make, you can add it to Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha, adding it elsewhere would be WP:SYN. Imad marie (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl, you're starting to border on trolling here with these paedophilia jibes. Please keep your personal views out of the discussion. ITAQALLAH 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aisha’s age at consummation of the marriage with Muhammad is hugely important not only for the reasons already listed here by others but also because the law in Islamic countries as to the earliest age a girl can get married is normally set by this consummation age, 9 years old. This has huge ramifications for women in the Islamic world who are forced into marriage at such early ages. A few countries also allow marriage at 6 years of age while others have no age limit at all, such as Yemen. Not including this information would be anti-women’s human rights. It is also very important to men who like to have sex with children. ref: 8-year-old girl asks for divorce Islamic marital jurisprudence Bluetd (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That might all be of primary relevance in Islamic marital jurisprudence, but it's not so in a section on Muhammad's family. ITAQALLAH 16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing this discussion when the protection expired instead of edit warring. This is a good sign, please continue. I know that controversial topics can lead to a slow consensus, but in time it will result in a better article. (1 == 2)Until 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Only two people ever knew for sure the age at which the marriage was consummated and neither of them are going to tell us. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well let's give up writing an encyclopedia and all go home then, shall we? By your reasoning we can never know anything that happened in the past or to other people. But in this particular case you're wrong, anyway. Aisha did tell us. That's how we know. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The subject matter already exists at Criticism_of_Muhammad#Aisha. You have yet to explain why this is insufficient, and why discussion of the controversy is needed in this article. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "After the death of Khadija, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim, that he should marry Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow, or Aisha." At this point, an unknowing reader might ask, "Who is Aisha?" Shouldn't there be some parallel against "Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow"? Some context on why Aisha was recommended? It wasn't because she was six years old. We don't have to present this as a criticism of Muhammed for marrying a young girl; in fact, it's been pointed out here before that he waited until she was older before consumating (an action no pedofiliac would do). The fact that he waited three years, AND the fact that none of his other wives were near this young age, would seem to verify that it was significant to his life. Do we actually believe that the very fact of Aisha's age constitutes criticism itself? Surely the Muslims on this site can't believe that there is no way to present this without it being an argument against Islam? -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note here it could read After the death of Khadija, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim, that he should marry Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow, or Aisha, the young daughter of Abu Bakr who's previous betrothal had not been honored. That would seem to provide the context requested, mention of her young age, and give mention of her notable family ties in an acceptable and encyclopedic manner. Does anyone object to this addition? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Other than a mere "whose", I think it's excellent. It also has the benefit of clarifying another dimension to Muhammad's relationship with Abu Bakr. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's something I can agree to, I've implemented the change along with the correction. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, twofold. "Whose", not "who's". Also, saying she's just "young" comes across as white-washing it. I see no shame in mentioning her age. Nobody's so squeamish about Zeus's many flings. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I kind of see what you're getting at, but it seemed preferable to the alternatives. If you were to say "Abu Bakr's approximately/allegedly 6 year old" or something like that it would seem like overemphasizing that aspect of it, but to not include it would seem to be omitting that aspect which is a note of interest and concern to people. To me it seems sufficient, but if the consensus is otherwise I won't belabor the point.
And yes I apologize about 'whose.' That was a mistake on my part. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No biggie with who's and whose =) As for the real issue... ideally, it'd say "the (x)-year-old daughter of Abu Bakr" and leave it at that. This would be a truly objective account, and any "judgementalness" would be in the reader's own neurosis. Of course, just like there'll be sensitive folk removing the pictures for years to come, there'll be enough of an outcry that either a mess of qualifying words will be added ("the daughter of Abu Bakr who, by most contemporary accounts, was (x) years old (although marriages of this sort were common at the time, and Muhammad did not sexually consummate this relationship until she was (y) years old)") or a string of citations ("the (x)-year-old [55][56][57][58] daughter of Abu Bakr"), either of which would only serve to draw more undue attention to this. I'm not fully sure what the best solution would be, myself. I'll mull it over for a bit. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The question is why the age is even significant at all, which is what's implied when you consider that none of the other wives' ages are noted. I thought that Peter's suggestion was a compromise, even though I still maintain that her youth has little do do with her primary significance as Muhammad's wife and as a prolific scholar. ITAQALLAH 17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Watch out for erased comments; the typo you mentioned is already addressed. As for your second concern; how specific do you expect the editors to get? I think mentioning the fact that she was young is plenty. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl, my point is a serious one. Some editors here are Muslims, others are not. Whatever, we must put aside our beliefs while editing and follow the standards of modern historiography. No recent historical account treats Aisha's age as simple fact. Historians point out that the account comes down through Islamic tradition without any corroborating evidence. Similiarly, we do not treat the statements of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as simple fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring again

If the edit warring continues I will give serious consideration to blocking the people edit warring instead of protecting the page. It is not fair that editing be prevented because people insist on arguing in the article itself instead of on this talk page. Consider this fair warning. (1 == 2)Until 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that might be the only way to stop the reverting frenzy. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it will likely have to head for some form of dispute resolution then, as the decidedly POV-centric push to make her age a central issue to this article shows no signs of letting up, and no signs of voluntary compromise either as the previous idea floated of using the term "young" was completely ignored. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think most editors have been inclined towards Peter Deer's proposal; those few who are still insistent on inserting Aisha's age have done a poor job of establishing why it's even remotely significant. Then we have Yahel Guhan/Sefringle, who has made not a single contribution to the discussion, but proceeds to revert and make accusations of censorship. ITAQALLAH 22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
On a sidenote, I maintain that the age is significant, but I was content with the compromise pointing out that she was "young". The main reason I was okay with this can actually be summarized by Badger Drink's comment above. If we put the actual age in the article, it'll get bogged down with disclaimers about how the exact age is only verified in ancient sources, and how that age was appropriate in the cultural context, and how Muhammad waited before consummating. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baron on this. Further, it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To the user who made the threats concerning blocking at the top: did you wait until there was a version that did not mention Aisha's age, or was it pure chance? TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it was pure chance; the current version was discussed here on the talk page. TharkunColl, you have a valid point that the age is significant when compared to that of Muhammed's other wives. But what do you think about how awkward the article would sound if we made a section talking about Aisha's exact age, why the age is disputed, the age of their consummation, and how this was the social norm at the time? That type of stuff is already on Aisha's page and on the criticisms of Islam page. Would you still prefer all that information here? -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl has been asked that question several times now, but has been either unable or unwilling to respond to it; what justifies its inclusion here ? It is a pretty simple situation ; there are those that are highly critical of Muhammad marrying such a young girl, and this criticism is is well-known and notable. That is why the controversy has its own section on an article on the Wikipedia, Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. There is simply no call or basis in rationality to do it all here, too. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is, she was young. Six years according to the hadith, and most reliable sources. This is well known, reguardless of whether or not it is technically "criticism." And I have no problem with recopying or summarizing that paragraph here, because it is important. Yahel Guhan 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Important to you, yea, we get that loud and clear. But your personal opinion doesn't override guidelines on undue weight, which is precisely what including this here runs afoul of. All it is is a pushing of the "Muhammad as pedophile" criticism, all of which is already duly noted into the aforementioned section. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the sinking feeling that the version I proposed as a compromise is actually causing further dissension. I know it's impossible to please everyone but can't we even come close? May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a fair compromise, honestly. A shame that others cannot bridge the gap to compromise from their end. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a fact criticism? Her age is a fact, not criticism. Bluetd (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fact. The age differs between the sources. Try reading a book - particularly, Spellberg's Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr. Another secondary source would be Goldschmidt's A Concise History of the Middle East which gives a different age entirely. You seem to be attempting to cite from Bukhari which is a primary source and crosses the line into original research because it requires the author(s) of the article to interpret the sources and pick and chose which ones are the best. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if her age isn't a criticism, shall we delete Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. ? Tarc (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
To include the age would need, to maintain neutrality, to include the other possible takes on the age insofar as the age isn't unanimously agreed upon. Frankly, this isn't the Aisha article, or the Criticism article, this is a passing reference to her approximated age in an article stating simply that the Prophet married this girl. It is rather debatable in itself whether or not a reference to her age is appropriate here at all, as previous discussions on this will attest. Nevertheless, I won't deny the current notability of her age insofar as it is a subject of controversy, though I highly suspect the main motivation for the support of its inclusion is to promote a misleading conclusion. But then, in order to assure my own neutrality on that matter, I cannot act upon what I worry people "might" think, only that the information provided is accurate and encyclopedic. Therefore, I remain firmly of the opinion that to state that she was "young" is more than sufficient for this article, and that further elaboration on her age would be better suited for either her article or the criticism article. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The existence of an article concerned with criticism of Muhammad does not mean that no criticism should be included here. On the contrary, since we are supposed to be objective, criticism of Muhammad must be included here. Please take a look at the article on Adolf Hitler for an example of a very fair article written in a neutral style but not failing to mention the bad things he did. As for the inclusion of Aisha's age being "misleading", in what way is it "misleading"? If Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and we state this, just who, precisely, is being misled? And if we don't state this, who then is being misled? TharkunColl (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The persons being misled are the persons presented this fact as if it were notable in itself and remarkable for the time. Furthermore, I don't recall there being reliable accounts of the consummation so the consummation itself and how it proceeded is purely speculative. My concern is not with having that information available, quite the contrary I think that all persons Muslim or otherwise should investigate that issue personally, but that there is undue pressure to indicate that Muhammad was a parallel to a modern sexual predator as opposed to engaging in a customary marriage common in His culture to the daughter of one of His disciples whose (got the 'whose' right this time) previous betrothal had not been honored, and that the notability and neutrality guidelines are being challenged in order to suggest that impression in an inappropriate place. Tell me, who is being mislead by calling her "young?" May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, as I have stated, the age is not unanimously agreed upon, so stating that particular age would be misleading in that it would suggest that account is verifiable in it's accuracy. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that all of these are wrong? They all say six years old. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64 7:62:65,7:62:88, Sahih Muslim 8:3309, 8:3310,8:3311,Sunnan Abu Dawud 41:4915, 41:4917 Bluetd (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple sources - not just the ones you are citing - that need to be taken into consideration. Further, you are simply citing primary sources that have been interpreted by scholars who have also weighed other primary sources. Note that the age of Aisha is a small part of a very large historiographical debate upon which few scholars agree. For us to accept one or the other as fact - or combination thereof - would be original research. Moreover, the bottom line is there is no agreed-upon age according to the sources available. For the inclusion of an exact age to be properly NPOV then we would need to include the entire context of the age debate which would be a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE in this article. There is however, no contest to calling her "young." --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling her "young" violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, in that it is deliberately designed to be ambiguous. "Young" is a relative term and anyone, no matter how old, can be young to someone or something. Since her age is almost universally agreed on, I don't see what's wrong with including it, but if it is deemed unacceptable then how about a term such as "prepubescent", or simply just "child"? These at least would state the facts without being specific about the age. TharkunColl (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Prepubescent is incorrect in itself, as the consummation took place after she entered puberty, and 'child' is just as relative, as our conceptions of childhood and adulthood are obviously different than sixth-century standards. As for "young" being a weasel word, the wikipedia article on "child" defines child as such "A child is a young human being, a boy or girl." So replacing the term "young person" with a term that means "young person" does not seem to be a great improvement to me. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't use terminology in one Wikipedia article to back up another. A child is indeed a yound person, but not all young people are children. For example, when John Major became prime minister everyone was going on about how young he was, which is true - he was indeed young for a prime minister. But he was not a child. Aisha was a child, and we need to say this. TharkunColl (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, if you're not satisfied with me using an article in discussion lets look at some dictionary definitions (taken from dictionary.com if you need to check for yourself)
  • a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.
  • a baby or infant.
  • a human fetus.
  • a person between birth and puberty.
  • a person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
  • one who is childish or immature.
  • a young person of either sex
If we examine these, the only ones that can be applied in this manner are the first one (a person between birth and full growth) which can apply to anyone under twenty-five, the sixth one (only in a subjective sense as it has been established that legally she was considered mature), the seventh one (also relative and subjective) and finally, the term "a young person" as stated before.
So no, I do not see any logic behind your insistence that the term "child" is required or even appropriate given the standards of childhood and adulthood at that period of history. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that it's okay, and therefore not worth commenting on, for men in their 50s to have sex with 9-year-old girls as long as they have begun menstruating? And please don't come out with the same tired old argument that it was normal in that culture. Muhammad, of all people, was in a position to change that custom (like he had changed many others), so he obviously didn't think it needed changing. And because of his example, Islamic countries still allow child marriage. TharkunColl (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And that is precisely why we have a "controversy" section devoted to this already. These circular arguments are getting rather tiring. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Tharkun seems to be the only one using circular arguments. Everytime it looks like progress is being made s/he brings it back to the beginning in a completely unproductive manner. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided multiple sources that she was six, but I haven't seen anyone provide sources that say she was older when she was married to him. Can someone provide them? If not, then we should let six stand. Bluetd (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I provided two above. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what if we keep the word "young" but put a footnote beside it that explains the age debate in the reference section of the article? This is similar to what was done to explain the controversy over the birthplace of Yasser Arafat. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Of course there should be a link to Aisha anyway, but I don't see any problem with adding a footnote that says that Aisha's age at marriage has been the subject of debate and referring readers to the relevant article(s). Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Judith. I figured this way we can avoid violating WP:UNDUE in the article body yet also explain the controversy. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the increase in the minimum age of marriage has occurred recently (1880s in US), some have looked into the sources again for other primary sources that would indicate an older age; this has been achieved by computing the age of Aisha through the age of his sister-to this is added reports of Aisha knowledge at the time of marriage; the proponents of a higher age use the widespread acceptance of age 9 at a certain period in the Muslim history to suggest that the Muslims at that period did not view it as inauspicious and so they would not have been adverse to inventing it. The earliest Muslim source that I could find and argues for Aisha being older dates back to around 1900.
Secular historians however argue that as much as one can give credit to the reliability of the primary sources, the primary sources say 9, and since it was not abnormal in that society, there is not enough reason to reject it. I only know one academic source that reports the existence of this dispute; age higher than 9 being supported by a non-conservative fraction of Muslims. All other secular sources I have seen simply narrate the traditional view. I however think this new view regarding the age of Aisha may gain support from some secular scholars if someone (with the honest (and not apologetic) conviction of the reported age being wrong) could show its actual utility to the jurists of the Muslim community (utility in sectarian, or gender-related contexts may not be enough); this is because the traditions touching legal matters were much more vulnerable to distortions.
--Be happy!! (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central human figure

Who put this line in? Because I'm afraid that it too violates Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. We need to tell our readers the truth, namely that Muhammad founded Islam. All they've got at the moment is "central human figure", followed by the assertion (twice) that Muslims think he's the last in a long line of prophets and didn't really found Islam - which is, of course, a description of Muslim theology rather than factual history. TharkunColl (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather POV assertion that the beliefs of Islam are not fact. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So we should write this article as if the beliefs of Islam are true? What an extraordinary thing to say. And are you trying to imply that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam? TharkunColl (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's common knowledge and a key part of Islamic theology that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, rather the religion is part of a longer continuum of religions. This is the same in Christianity where Jesus is not the founder of Christianity but one attempting to reform the Jewish faith. This concept is explained in that article as well. Note that the article on Jesus also calls him "the central figure of Christianity." The word "human" was omitted there because of the theological-secular debate over whether or not his nature was divine. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Tharkun please refrain from making this personal. Even though we may disagree it is important to be civil and discuss things rather than getting hostile. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Most Christians consider Jesus the founder of their religion as well as its central figure, as he expanded on Judaism to make it something new. I'd wager that omitting "founder" from his page is more to address both secularists and non-Christian religions who'd throw the blame on St. Paul. But, that's a different page. With Muhammad, it seems most Muslims feel that "founder" implies a religion is just made up on the spot. Even if Islam "originated with the teachings of" Muhammad (as the Islam article states), in Islam the big "F" word carries a negativity not shared by other religions—even the other ones started-up by human "prophets" who consider themselves restorers (e.g. Joseph Smith, Jr., Hong Xiuquan, Bahá'u'lláh). But there's no need to use "founder" on this page; I don't think anyone's going to read this article and think that the word "Islam" was floating around before Muhammad's life. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So we shouldn't use the word "founder" just because Muslims don't like it? And should we expect readers to plough through the article to discover that he did, in fact, found Islam? If so, why can't we write it in the lead? TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop baiting, you've been warned and blocked for that in the past. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you recommend the Jesus article say that Christians believe him to be a demigod (as suggested on the talk page), since, as son of a deity and a mortal, he fits the technical definition? No—sometimes even technically correct words have misleading connotations, and so they are avoided. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we do what we always do, and report who says what: something like "He is often called the founder of Islam although Islamic theology does not consider him to be that." DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"He is called the founder of Islam by non-Muslims while the Islamic theology does not consider him to be that" ? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. Maybe a qualifier such as often, sometimes etc. before 'founder'; or that too weaselly? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Always wise to add references: here are a few [12] [13] [14] [15] DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems like the same weasel problem again. If we're going to go with that, why bother changing it from 'central human figure' in the first place? If we're going to change it, lets change it in a way that fixes something. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link FA - Update

My bot just passed this page (and couldn't edit it, naturally). Thus, could somebody please add {{Link FA|uk}}? Thanks in advance --Guandalug (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible images

I see that this is fully protected these days, and I remember once upon a time someone suggesting opt-out type collapsible images you could click to make disappear (but so they appear by default), and others thinking this might be an acceptable compromise. I saw this sort of technique at another article where this was implemented to allow readers to hide a distracting animated image. What would people think of something like this? Mangostar (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Output from a shallow water equation model of water in a bathtub. The water experiences five splashes which generate surface gravity waves that propagate away from the splash locations and reflect off the bathtub walls.
By the way, I would have no problem with this solution being used more broadly, e.g. in medical articles where it is important to have images available but I find them horrible to look at and would rather not see them while I view the text. Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It could just be me, but I don't see the option to collapse the image. The sample is provided at Shallow water equations (I have tried the code in the sandbox, it seems to work fine, might be a factor of the talk page). This seems like a good compromise to the Muslim (Islamic?) viewers of the site. Biccat (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image discussions should be placed here Talk:Muhammad/images, however this has been discussed at length and is still considered censorship. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really appear that that page is being edited actively anymore, and I wanted to make sure that this proposal got more viewers. And I don't think this has ever been discussed at length; most proposals had to do with the default being hide. (If you want to convince me otherwise, point to the relevant archive page.) I actively monitored the discussion for some time and people seemed receptive to this idea, but no one knew of any code that would implement it. Mangostar (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The most recent discussion I could see is at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_9#Images on the Arabic Wikipedia, and I don't see a great deal of receptive responses. I would be highly opposed to this, for the record. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This discussion only addressed opt-in images, not opt-out images. Mangostar (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really relevant. The idea of collapsible images in general has been discussed, and declined. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
More recently this has been implemented and reverted at Rorschach inkblot test. Editors used code to hide the image unless clicked. Review the discussions and archives if you wish. It violates a number of policies which is why it may not be done here or anywhere else. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW Talk:Muhammad/images has had 5 edits within the last 2 days and watched by many. This discussion will be moved there inevitably. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I support this proposal so long as the default option is to show the images. I still don't believe this will be an acceptable compromise for the anons that come to the site and will likely continue to vandalize it in an attempt to censor the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A show of hands on who'd find this acceptable and finds the current situation unacceptable would be instructive. WilyD 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no reason why this is even an issue so long as the default still displays it normally. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as long as default is set to display rather than hide the pictures. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it would set a dangerous and harmful precedent, to allow religious predilections to dictate what appears or does not appear on a Wikipedia article. In my opinion, WP:CENSOR is the decider here, and if users are offended then they can follow the appropriate suggestions found in Wikipedia:Options to not see an image. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obviously I opposed this. The precedent would wreak havoc. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia should not censor minority views.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you meant to say "oppose." And honestly, if it doesn't prevent people from seeing it it's not censorship. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This matter has been long settled and the current state of the page's images reflects both consensus and policy. 1 != 2 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although it has little to do with WP:NOT censored if they default to show... but, it's overly cumbersome and solves very little in my opinion... gren グレン 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not so sure if this is even the right venue to suggest this, beyond a simple thread. This has the implications to rewrite Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be decided on an article talk page. Beyond the censorship and NPOV issues, this creates innumerable footnotes to countless Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This conversation should probably be at the village pump. Jmlk17 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say in comment to this thread is, I've never seen an image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him (that addition should place me religiously) before today, and it just literally blew my mind. I've been alive for 30 years and I've carried a ghost image of him in my mind for that entire time. Now my brain has just been given something it really can't process. If for that fact alone, I wouldn't want others to have to deal with similar psychological strife, and think a hide function would be ideal. Of course, it's my own fault for enlarging the image. Bozatlim (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over wording in article

I'm a little confused as to how to read this quote in the article in the ==Farewell Pilgrimage== section:

Analogizing the status of women in his society to that of powerless slaves

It reads as a POV that is in no way concurrent with the quote is is prefixing, yet it doesn't look like it was added to the article recently, so I wonder if I'm misreading it or if it's slipped through the cracks. Bozatlim (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only in the Arabian culture but also throughout history, women were treated unfavorably. This is a practical reality dictated by economic factors. To analogize the practical status of women with that of powerless slaves and thereby asking men to come to their senses and show kindness to women looks comprehensible to me. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So, in that quote, Muhammed is making an analogy to women as powerless slaves? How so?--24.57.150.2 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That was the practical situation that women were in, a result of the powerful economical forces. Women, like slaves and orphans, are recognized as important oppressed and weak classes of the pre-Islamic tribal society, the society the Qur'an emerged from and aimed to reform. Thus many of the Qur'anic references to slaves, women and orphans come together or in consecutive verses.
In any case, this is not the place to discuss the content of the article but rather its factuality. I don't think we should discuss interpretation of the text here.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't assume I disagree with that. Now, back to Muhammed's supposed analogy: where is he making that analogy in the quote? Where is the source that argues that he was? Consider
Analogizing the destruction of the Reichstag, Bush said "After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."
It's the same kind of original research. Where is Bush making that analogy? Where's the source that argues that he was?--24.57.150.2 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make that up. Here is what one of the two sources says:

Finally, in his famous last speech, Khutbat al-Wadaa’, the Prophet emphasized that all believers, whether free or enslaved, were siblings, and that no Arab was better than a non-Arab except to the extent of one’s piety. In the same speech, the Prophet analogized the status of women in his society to that of powerless slaves, and he beseeched his male audience to treat them kindly, saying: “Be good to women; for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You took them in God’s trust, and legitimated your sexual relations with the Word of God, so come to your senses people, and hear my words....”. He also admonished them: “Let not one of you whip his wife like a slave, then have sexual intercourse with her at the end of the day.

I don't think I misrepresented this. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You took out "..." the part of the quote that was the analogy! for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You can't take that part out otherwise it's not an analogy, so that part should go back in.
But really I think it should be reworded. I think people will misinterpret it and think Muhammed means "women should be slaves." Being "powerless" and being "captive" are seen as very negative things in Western society. Put them together and people think of actual slavery. I think the word "awan" is one of those words that is hard to translate. I will try to think of another way to word the sentence (not the quote, of course) to give it a more context. Maybe start it off with "Commenting on the vulnerability of women in 7th century Arabia, Muhammed advised..." --24.57.150.2 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I made the change you proposed. Hope you are happy now. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If women had it so bad before Islam then tell me why Muhammad's first wife was wealthy and independent before she met him. She could come and go as she pleased and marry whoever she wanted. Seems like Islam was a big step backwards for her and other women. Bluetd (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should reserve your own personal perspectives for a blog or a forum - something which Wikipedia is not. ITAQALLAH 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pronunciation

Hi, I have added the pronunciation of Muhammad in Standard Arabic in the intro line.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)