Talk:Muhammad/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

I missed some serious distortions of the summary

Somewhere in all the vandalism and revert wars, pious hands were editing the summary. I just now noticed that it had become extremely POV -- and incoherent in places, probably as a result of multiple, overlapping edits. I revised the summary. It may not be the consensus version that stayed stable for so long, but I can't find the point at which the POV edits started. Zora 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Link formating

Hi Reddi (JDR). Nice effort on the external links, however I think for clarity the links should be kept in non bibliographic style. Also most of the links are not specific articles, but rather websites, so article citation style is not necessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The information (author, publisher, etc., ...) adds clarity to what the link is .... JDR 21:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, however that is not the link style. That is newspaper linking style or other specific article citations. See Jesus article for examples. Such extra info only obscures the links themselves. Informative links do not need publisher, author, etc. However, if this was for "further reading" resources or article reference then that can be used. . Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please continue discussion if you have any concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The Jesus article need to be raised to a higher standard ... the deficient in one article does not mean that other should suffer too. The exact formating could be changed ... but the content should stay. The info add clarity and helps the reader ... it also comments about the site and the ISBN (if applicable). AND external links/articles are damn well a hodgepod of 'other references' and 'further reading' ... otherwise why are they there? Sincerely, JDR 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
But nowhere in the guidelines does it state that external links should follow this format. All other articles in wikipedia do not follow this format. The info added beside each link is so much that is obscures the meaning. External links are meant as a quick reference, not bibliographic essay citation like for a newspaper article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't state that the external links should follow this format ... but as a defualt 'other references' and 'further reading', it should provide the info to add clarity of the link and help wikipedia attain a higher standard. The link isn't obscured ... the link itself is on the title .... and the bibliographic citation help the reader on who wrote the article (an article in the general sense). JDR 21:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
But the further reading and other references already have that format. External links should not have such a format for any article. Just the link and, in some cases, a brief description. Of course most of the external links on wiki articles are to entire websites and not specific articles. If need be, the external link can be accessed for publisher, date and author information. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1st there is no further reading ... the external articles provide this function .... 2nd ... the reference definitely mus have this format ....
also ... the external article links should have such a format for all article, primarily to raise the standard of Wikipeida.
As to the "external link can be accessed" thing, that is not necessarily true .... as the links may disappear ... and the only way to refind it is to have the bibliographic info ... this has happened to me before (and it would have been easier to refind the swords link in this article if so ...) JDR 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Reddi, the ref is already in this format, but referencing the external links with author, date, publisher, editor, etc. will not help raise standards, simply because it makes the links hard to read and hard to see. A basic list format is the standard for external links. It would be greatly appreciated if this article was also kept at that standard. I think a proposed change like this to all wikipedia articles' external links should be discussed with the wider wiki community rather than just on this article. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Out of all the pages I have edited ... this is the 1st time someone has complained that this "will not help raise standards".
The external links are essential as a "futher reading" (the majority of the articles are biographies). If yo uwant to propose that all wikipedia articles' external links shouldhave this foirmat ... do it ... but this article should use this fromat in the external articles ... or the headers should change to a "futher reading" as that is what the links are .... JDR 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., I changed the header to "==Further reading and external articles==")

Lol. :) Well even if it's a first, these are there as external links, not further reading simply because they are online pages. Also please don't start with this page to make a point about this being done to external links, start at the village pump or propose your ideas to the greater wiki community. To the regular editors, this will seem very odd and, I'm afraid, not standard raising. The header change doesn't help either because the links are primarily that which are websites, not books. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1st ... This is not the "start" of this nor is this "making a point".... I have been around for some time doing this ...
2nd ... links are websites of books and essays. This is a standard way to link to them ...
Sincerely, JDR 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How about you add the ones that are specifically of books to further reading and change back all the ones that link to encyclopedia's, etc. ? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A long bibliography about each link is not helpful to the user and will not attract readers who will think it is nothing but a long list of references, much like one's used in an essay. Reddi, how about you wait till others have expressed some opinion also on this topic? Until then, I think that pending consensus, these edits should be reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

AOL -- that is, I agree with Anonymous Editor. I find the changes from the standard link format extremely distracting. This does not make Wikipedia easier to use. Reddi, you're going to have to convince everyone else, preferably at the Village Pump, that your proposed changes (which would affect ALL of Wikipedia) are necessary. I don't think you're going to succeed. In the meantime, please stop reverting this article. Zora 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely there should be some mention of the Satanic verses here? --Zeeshanhasan 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

User: Questor2

I would like to insert this image of the Prophet Mohammed. I have read the previous discussion of this issue. I appreciate that civility to a cultural taboo is the basis upon which the decision to remove depictions of the Prophet Mohammed has been taken, but I disagree with it.

If you are to remove material which offends the sensibilities of some adherents to a particular belief system, then you will denude Wikipedia of its content.

At the risk of being rhetorical, what's next? The deletion of the entry on theory of evolution?

I have told you, insert something like {{linkimage|Mohammed_picture.JPG|A European Depiction of Muhammad}} near the end of the article. If the other editors still don't like it, then leave the article alone.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a problem with the whole picture thing, the fact being that a picture of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) does not exist. I would also like to add in that other articles have had material removed from them for being offensive, i.e. Uwe Boll. What makes Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) any different.

The difference is that pictures of Muhammed are only disturbing people entertaining a certain belief system. To the rest those pictures are about as offensive as a picture of an orange. Anonymous is right, to people of many belief system the theory of evolution is extremely offensive. What makes us keep that article and scrap the pictures of Muhammed? The answer is scary. -- PEZ 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

the image

The reason why this image won't be on this article is not that we do not allow images of Muhammad by some principle. We do, in fact, have one already, the Persian Miraj one. The point is that it is completely irrelevant, being a European print of a cliched "Easterner", without any connection to any tradition linking it to Muhammad, to the contrary, it is a production hostile to Islam. If at all, it may be admissible on Criticism of Islam. After all, we don't begin George Bush's article with an image of some effigy of him being carried by angry protesters. dab (ᛏ) 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes we shouldn't insert something that is offensive to begin with. This user seems to be the same one that was here before trying to insert this picture. We have seen it before and this time that picture is just modified by graphics program. The only reason to add it is to offend Muslims. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we have some pretty picture though (even if its something with letters)? It helps an article get Featured Article status. --Victim of signature fascism Join SIIEG and teach them NPOV 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that this article should have an image. The concensus reached on the article about Bahá'u'lláh was that the image should be at the bottom of the page where believers could avoid it and that the summary at the begining would state that the image was at the bottom with the dual purpose of "warming" those who do not want to see the image and informing people who are curious as to why the image does not appear in the top right. Again, all of this has been discussed in depth at that article, but the basic point is that wikipedia is not censored and that images of historical figures should be included in encycolpedias. If you consider the previous image offensive, feel free to suggest a different one. Masterdebater 22:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how easy it is to find an accurate picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) not only because there was no photography in the seventh century but also because he spent the majority of his time in the company of pious Muslims who would not draw a picture of him for fear of shirk. And no, I'm not going to go search for one. The Bahá'u'lláh precendent seems to warrant in this article, but in either article, the picture provides no new information. That would especially be true in this article where even the most accurate drawing couldn't live up to the value of an actual photograph. If, as -Ril- (15-Dec-05) suggested, we put a "pretty picture", we could put the Arabic caligraphy in a more prominent location. joturner 23:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I respect your concerns but wikipedia does not follow Sharia law. Almost universally articles about people contain images even if that person predates photography. Indeed, images are often less than "accurate" but informative and encyclopedic. For example, the image you dbachmann kept removing, although it was painted by a European hardly constitutes an effigy. I have no problem with noting in the caption the ethnicity/nationality of the author of an image. However, I believe that you will have to compromise and add an image composed by a non-muslim (or at least a relatively secular one) because images of Muhammad tend to be produced only by them. I disagree that the "only reason" to add am image to is to offend Muslims. We could place it at the bottom of the article as was done with Bahá'u'lláh. Masterdebater 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe we have.--Tznkai 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
You believe we have what? No one has responded to the obvious image deficit of this article!
we have a bleeding image of Muhammad. Why does everybody ignore that? We have lots of them, painted by Muslims: Image:Muhammad_on_Mount_Hira.jpg Image:Muhammad_at_the_Kaba_to_remove_a_dragon.jpg Image:Muhammad_advancing_on_Mecca.jpg Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba.jpg Image:Miraj.jpg Image:Prophet_on_rug_large.jpg. I support the addition of any of these, or cropped details of these. Any of these should be sufficient for FA requirements. If people insist on adding Image:Mahomet.jpg instead, I claim their only objective is to annoy Muslims. If Muslim editors object even to the Persian images being in the intro (the Miraj one has been further down in the article for ages, and nobody objected, so stop all this Sharia talk already) -- I argue the burden is on them to produce some nice calligraphy instead that can grace the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Dbachmann, thanks for tracking down those images of Muhammad. However, I think that to be NPOV would mean including both images of Muhammad created by both Muslims and non-Muslims. Depictions of Muhammad from other parts of the world are notable. The fact that some extremely observant Muslims detest those images makes them even more notable. I would have no problem with noting in the image caption that the image was created by a non-muslim, etc. Calligraphy is hardly a substitute as far as the intro image goes. Masterdebater 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
of course it can be. We definitely need more examples of calligraphies centering on Muhammad. If you can provide artists' impressions of Muhammad that are in some way notable, and more at home here than at Criticism of Islam (which is where, if anywhere, I would argue Image:Mahomet.jpg belongs), well, bring them on. My entire point is: stop moaning about there being no images when we do have them. dab (ᛏ) 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As a Scandinavian, I have found the debate over these images and charicatures of Muhammad (pbuh) from Jyllandposten hard to avoid. In that context, someone noted that there are (Shia) facial illustrations of Muhammad from Iran: (illustrated article in Norwegian). Might not those Iranian images serve the function of illustration without causing offense where none needs to be caused? Solan 13:37, 23. January 2006 (GMT)

Is there a firm wikipedia policy on inserting religiously offensive material solely for the reason of annoying others? If so, could someone point me to it so I could bring up the point at a Mormon article where people do the same thing?--Gillespee 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there a form wikipedia policy on censoring an article by removing relevant material - despite that some regard as religously offensive?:

FYI: There are lots of historic images of Muhammad here. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it prohibited?

It might be just me not finding it, but I can't find info on why depicting Muhammed is considered harmful by lots of Muslim people. Is it the Qu'aran or hadith or some other tradition that prohibits it? -- PEZ 16:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's prohibited as Muslims consider any image of Muhammad as possibly leading to a means of worshipping him (instead of Allah). The reason that images of Allah prohibited is deeper: firstly, Allah is, according to Islam, impossible to depict physically; secondly, any depiction of Allah will possibly lead to ascribing physical characteristics to Allah (this violating Islamic beliefs). Hope that helps in answering your question. Cheers. MP (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel quite a bit more informed now. But what I really wanted to know was from what source this prohibition is coming. I mean like "Murder is considered a sin since it is prohibited by the ten laws Moses brought down from the mountain." -- PEZ 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no verse in the Qur'an or hadith directly prohibiting the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As I believe it states somewhere in this article, Shi'a Muslims have at times portrayed the Prophet as a sign of devotion. However, rulings by clerics after the time of the Prophet have ruled that depicting any of the Prophets is against Islam in accordance with the ideas MP discussed. joturner 21:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I think the article should contain some info about the roots of the prohibition along with the rationale. As it is now it seems hanging in the air. Surely someone knows what clerics banned it or at least at what time, yes? Since people are getting killed and others are under death threats for the offense as we speak the issue seems important enough. -- PEZ

Overloading intro para with detail

Right now, we've got two levels of detail in the life of Muhammad: the summary, which is everything that even extreme skeptics would admit to be true, as well as a good overview, and the bio according to sira, which is much much more detailed. Now we're loading detail into yet a THIRD place, the opening paras. If Muhammad's parents' names are given later, we don't need to give them in the intro. The confused reader who just wants to know who Muhammad is doesn't CARE what his parents were named, or what his name means. That's stuff for later. We just need to establish why he's notable (religious and political figure, check), and where and when he lived (Arabia, 6th and 7th centuries CE, check).

This is not the stuff of religous controversy, this is just a matter of clarity and style.

I have noticed, over the years I worked on this article, that some people don't read very far before staring to edit. They read the summary and say to themselves, "Hey, that's not all!" and start adding stuff to the summary as fast as they can. They haven't even read the later, more detailed, sections. I don't think we should allow stray details in the first paras, or some editors are going to say, "Hey, they've got his parents' names, but they don't have his CLAN. I'd better add his clan!" And the cruft will start piling up.

Let's just be sure that parent's names and meaning of his name ARE in the later sections. I agree that this could be useful info. Zora 03:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, it's not that important. You could only have replaced it somewhere. I reverted because of that fact that you didn't care if that info is relevant to readers or not. From my side, it was not because of the intro. Please do whatever you see ok except throwing it to the bin. Still, the info about the meaning of the name is relevant to the intro, I believe. The name of the parents can be put wherever you want. Cheers -- Svest 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Edits by anons

I reverted a bunch of edits by anons. They were either edits that munged the prose (I think these might have been editors who spoke English as a second language) or moved the article in more overtly pious direction, or added a level of detail that makes it difficult for readers. I don't think I removed anything crucial.

However, I did make one change. I had thought that "sahih" meant reliable. D'oh. I'm reading a history of Shi'a Islam that says "sahih" just means "the works of". So Sahih Bukhari is "The works of Bukhari". I'm trusting this is true and changed one sentence that used "sahih" mistakenly. If the book I'm reading was wrong, please let me know. Dang, I really should learn Arabic. Zora 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You were right the first time. According to The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, SaHiiH (adjective, under the root SaHHa) means: "healthy, well, sound, healthful; complete, integral, perfect; whole, entire, undivided; right, correct, proper; true, veritable, actual, real; authentic, genuine, truthful, reliable, credible, believable; valid, legally valid, legal, lawful, rightful..." For more information on why this term is used, read this page and/or this page. Kitabparast 06:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's children

According to Ar-Raheeq Al-Maktoom, arguably the most complete biography of Muhammad in the English language, cites that Muhammad had three sons. In addition to Qasim, as this article states, he also had children named Abdullah (who was known as Taiyib) and Tahir. Both of these were mothered by Khadija, making the total seven (and not five like the article states). Beyond this references, I have always been taught that their were three sons. However, my knowledge should not be considered with any weight.

Thanks! I'm sure someone will look at it soon. I should, but ... stuff to do. Zora 04:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

"Non-Muslims generally consider him the founder of Islam."

Are there any non-Muslims who don't consider him the founder of Islam? For that matter, are there any Muslims who don't consider him the founder of Islam? The sentence makes it seem like it's debatable whether or not he founded Islam. I would think a much better opener would be Muhammad ... was the founder of Islam, and is believed by Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. Binabik80 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't been here for all the anguished discussions re the use of the term "founder". Most Muslims believe that Muhammad was only the LAST prophet of Islam, and that he was preceded by prophets like Moses and Jesus, whose teachings have been distorted by followers. Hence saying that Muslims regard Muhammad as a founder is false. Zora 01:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand what the statement is saying, but I also understand your problem with it. What the statement is trying to say is that Muhammad (peace be upon him), contrary to what many non-Muslims (and even Muslims) believe, was not the first Muslim. The term founder can potentially lead to confusion. By defintion, a founder is "one who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" (The American Heritage Dictionaries). I think we can all agree that without Muhammad (pbuh), Islam would not exist in its current form. Whether that would qualify him as the founder of Islam is debatable. Therefore, I'm going to avoid that debate by changing the opening paragraph so it says "first Muslim" instead of "founder of Islam". I especially don't believe we should say "founder of Islam" and "final Prophet" in the same sentence because the latter implies that there were others before him while the former implies there weren't. joturner 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Joturner, the Muslim article says that prophets before Muhammad were considered Muslims, because they submitted to God. You're contradicting that. Seems like we need some cites to confirm the matter -- or to confirm that Muslims don't agree. Zora 01:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Islam (Muslims) consider Adam to be the first prophet and the first Muslim. There's no need to change that Jot. Cheers -- Svest 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Yeah I think intro is fine as is. No need for change since this shows both views. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you both completely. Look at the change I made to the opening sentence. To me, the sentence was stating a common misconception, not a fact. If it's stating a common misconception, then to add that non-Muslims generally consider him the first Muslim would be an appropriate statement. It's false, but it states a common misconception.
If, on the other hand, the purpose of that sentence is to state a conception of non-Muslims that is true, it should not be presented in a manner that implies that non-Muslims are wrong. It should simply be stated that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the founder of Islam. joturner 01:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the change is correct. It presents both views explicitly better now. Cheers -- Svest 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Ok, I understand but I disagree about the addition since I think that "founder" already implies that he is the first Muslim for the non-Muslim view, so saying the "first Muslim" might seem confusing to a reader because it makes the wonder now what Muslims believe about first Muslims. So I think it isn't really needed since founder already seems to say it. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Lol. Well now it does remove the confusion of "first Muslim", but it takes away from the main subject of the article. I really think that the intro was fine since founder means that he was the first Muslim. But good try Joturner. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I won't change it back, but I believe there may still be some confusion among some readers. I will leave other editors to fix that. joturner 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Just glancing over, you guys are confusing something here. Muslim means one who submits (to God) as I recall. It is also the name for believers in the relgion of Islam. The religion of islam, as a forumlated belief, is not a question of ultimate religious truth, but of social scientific determination. In that sense, Muhammed is indeed the founder of Islam--Tznkai 00:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalizing prophet

The Wikipedia: Manual of Style explicity says "Deities begin with a capital letter: God, Allah, Freya, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah. The same is true when referring to Muhammad as the Prophet." It also says "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): 'President Nixon', not 'president Nixon'." Now just as Nixon may not be viewed as the president for citizens of other countries, it is still written President Nixon. Now analagously, Muhammad may not be viewed as the prophet for other religions, yet it should be written Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the history of the Manual of Style, it seems that the line about capitalizing Prophet came in at 24 November 2004. Prior to the 24th, and as far back as May 5th of 2004, there was a policy to capitalize the 'm' in the Messiah, which, in terms of some editors POV complaint, is a similar term. Pepsidrinka 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then we need to change the Manual of Style. I refuse to type Prophet Muhammad, as I do not recognize him as MY prophet. I'm perfectly OK with "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" or even "the prophet", as that is a neutral reference to his role in the community. We had a consensus here that we wouldn't use caps. Please don't revive the controversy. Zora 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not reviving anything as I didn't write the style guide. But until you show me where the consensus was reached and until you get a consensus to change the style guide, I am going to revert to Prophet. I don't want a revert war, as I am waiting for your response to this message. However, I am acting per the style guide as opposed to you acting on your whims. Pepsidrinka 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe the style guide trumps local consensus, however, how recent is that addition to the style guide?--Tznkai 02:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If your referring to the "the Prophet", it was added Nov 24, 2004. Pepsidrinka 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't known about that. I always thought that it is a general stuff for all Pprophets! Zora, you say that I refuse to type Prophet Muhammad, as I do not recognize him as MY prophet. Fair enough. However, I presume Queen Elizabeth, President Putin, Comandante Castro, Emperor Hirohito, Captain Star Trek aren't ours, for all of us in this discussion! Capitalizing the letter doesn't make him my, your or our man. And I believe that wikipedia didn't invent that guideline but just followed what is done in academic circles. I am sorry that the consensus was made because there was no further explanation except it is not mine. I've all the time agreed but now I have something on paper. Most of the time I found your logic well constructed and with a good reasoning but I am afraid I don't see it re this point. Cheers -- Szvest 03:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
I'm a believer that when push comes to shove, accuracy ever so slightly more important then neutrality (cue the sharks). There may be an implied POV, but Prophet in this case is used similar to Caliph. or the Prophet Joseph Smith, or the Lord Jesus Christ (not that which he is to all, but that it is what he is called. I'm inclined to gather support first however, so we avoid an edit war--Tznkai 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion re "prophet" was conducted at the policy forum of the Village Pump, months ago. Unfortunately, they don't archive the discussions. There's no way I can look it up. There are references to the dispute over the use of "prophet" at an archive of Babajobu's talk page, at [1], and also at my talk archive [2]. Please, let's change the Manual of Style -- don't insist on the caps and ignite the whole dang controversy again. There is an organized group of anti-Muslim editors who will take great offense at Prophet. Frankly, it bothers me too. I do not accept Muhammad as my prophet! You folks know that I try to be as neutral, objective, and respectful as I can, but I am not a Muslim, and I don't want to be forced to write as if I were. Zora 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I hear your reasoning. What I said above about Queen, President, Emperor, Captain, Lieutenant applies to Prophets. Same idea is explained by Tznkai. I am not asking for an exclusive treatement, at the opposite I am asking for consistency. If all academic references and writings have, through centuries, capitalized titles, in almost all societies, languages and alphabets, than why do you have to change the manual of style of Wikipedia?! Why not change our attitudes instead of blaming dead academics for letting us know about capitalizing titles is almost a rule of writing all over the world?
I think thats exclusive to the european family of language but, pretty much--Tznkai 03:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, capitalizing someone doesn't mean he/she is yours!!! From where we got this logic? Can you tell me that if you capitalize the P in pPresident Chirac, that would mean he is your President? I am totally against exclusive treatment. And I hope you hear my reasons. Cheers -- Szvest 03:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Similarly, one may not recognize Taiwan as a nation and subsequently not recognizing the President of Taiwan as a President. Nonetheless, do you suggest we not capitalize the President of Taiwan as well? Pepsidrinka 03:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think anything else needs to be said. I understand that saying "the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)" is point of view, but saying the Prophet Muhammad is just giving him a title. joturner 03:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the style guide is really offensive—to everyone— in implying Muhammad is a diety. It's sort of appalling it's survived in this form for a month, and it really needs to be fixed. - Nunh-huh 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between political titles (which can be controversial, but have a much more limited application) and religious titles, which are used constantly. I'd have just as much problem with Lord Jesus Christ as I would with Prophet Muhammad. I don't give either of those guys those titles. Nor would I refer to the Prophet Moses, for that matter. He's a prophet, not a Prophet. Please show a little respect for MY religious feelings. Zora 03:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I can give you a better example. Father Matteo Ricci, S.J. Not the collection of capitals. Bishop. Elder. Rabbi. All comparable titles.--Tznkai 03:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The difference with the Queen/President/Emperor examples given above and the Prophet being discussed is that the other titles are objective statements of political fact: Queen Elizabeth is the queen of England, whether you like the monarchy or not. But calling somebody a "prophet" is an implicit, subjective approval of the claims that person made. Put another way, if I declared myself the King of England, it would be foolish to insist that people call me King Jbull; if they did, it would equal implicit recognition of my claim.
None of the religious examples involve implicit agreement with claimed divine revelation.--Jbull 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
as a scholar of religion I can tell you you're very wrong. Priests require ordination through priesthood, a soley religious concept (supposedly) from an altar call, or divine relvalation. Furthermore, prophethood is recognized just like politics, because everyone chooses to agree with it. If people, en masse decided to call you King Jbull, you would be so. People, en masse specificly historical and religious scholars call Muhammed Prophet--Tznkai 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As a scholar of religion, Tznkai, you are undoubtedly aware that priestly ordination does not carry with it a claim of direct divine revelation, as "Prophet" does. Further, while prophethood may be deconstructed by sceptical scholars to "popular acceptance of claims of divine revelation," most people take it more seriously. Finally, even if I effectively became "King Jbull" by popular acclamation, this political reality is more concrete--and far different--from claimed communication with God.--Jbull 04:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, althoug hi dsagree with it. I compare it directly with the term Father. It attains a new meaning related to its original, but not synomous. Also, if you were king by popular acclimation, that is the political reality. But thats seperate and unimportant to my main argument.--Tznkai 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Jbull, what about God? But all kings are Kings!
Zora is totally right about PBUH as she is totally wrong re the Prophet. In academics, there is no such difference as you state, for controversial stuff, if only Muhammad is the only controversial man! We got Pope(s), Bishop(s) and plenty of other religious titles. We even got the Fuhrer (who never was my man, neither yours)! Nobody feels anything neither in writing nor in reading. I assume it's a personal phobia. A Prophet is a title as Queen, Princess, General, Lord, etc... When we capitalize P in Prophet we don't do it for respect of Muhammad but because it is a guideline of writing here or wherever you go. I hope I am reasonable enough. Cheers -- Szvest 03:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
FayssalF--You are totally reasonable. If, instead of Prophet, Muhammed was called something non-loaded-with-meaning, there would be no problem. But Pope, Bishop, etc. do not imply that the men called by those titles spoke to God, as Prophet does. (I think that part of the problem may be that many people are so used to the phrase "the Prophet Muhammed" that they are unaware of how jarring it reads to others, while those jarred by its usage are unaware of its usual usage for others). If the only reason we use a capital P is because of a "guideline," I would hope that the guideline would be changed. --Jbull 04:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you say and that's why I said it is not for the respect or the aknowledgement of (if you want Muhammad's claims). But who is aknowledging what you say about many people are so used...unaware of its usual usage for others? Is it a standard, a doctrine, a universal guideline? No, it is just as explained to Zora, it is called a Phobia. Cheers - Szvest 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Perhaps I was unclear. I was trying to be conciliatory about mutual cultural insensitivity. If you are trying to ascribe psychological problems to those of us who would rather not call Muhammad a prophet, then reasonable discussion is no longer possible. Cheers.--Jbull 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. Prophet may be more obvious than comparable religious titles, but it is no less ladden with meaning. Messiah is supposed to be a divine figure who has come to save us all from... well, what ever we need saving from! Il Papa is father, not in a famial sense, but a stand in for God the Father sense!--Tznkai 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Messiah is an excellent example. Forcing every editor to call Muhammed the Prophet Muhammed is equivalent to forcing them to call Jesus the Messiah; it is an implicit endorsement of an explicit religious claim.
Yes, "Pope" means father, but it is not the stand in for "God the Father." It is instead a terrestrial term of respect.--Jbull 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I just did an unofficial survey of the stacks of Islam-related academic books next to my desk. Donner, Crone, Hinds, Rodinson, Watt, Shaban, and Wansbrough use simply Muhammad; Bell, Madelung, Berkey, and Hawting use mostly Muhammad and sometimes "the Prophet" -- but not "the Prophet Muhammad". Lings and Zacharia, both Muslims, prefer "the Prophet" to the use of Muhammad's name. Strangely enough, in my quick survey of the last two books, I didn't find any instances of "the Prophet Muhammad".

We've seven academics to four as to the use of plain "Muhammad". We've got no uses, that I saw, of "Prophet Muhammad".

I would again beg our Muslim co-editors to be sensitive to their non-Muslim co-editors, and refrain from insisting on a usage of honorifics that seems to us to express sentiments that we don't feel. Zora 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The obvious solution to me is to refer to Muhammad usually, as we normally would as Muhammad and when he is being refered to or acting in the office of the Prophet of Islam, to refer to him as the Prophet.--Tznkai 07:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Zora, you seem very attached to the sensitivity side of the problem than the objective one. I am not gonna repeat this again as I see you are begging Muslim co-editors for some things. For what? I am talking about the capitalization of the term Prophet and I am not a partizan of having The Prophet Muhammad all along the article. I say simply that Muhammad is considered by Muslims as the last Prophet (and not prophet) - same rule applies to other Prophets as it is mentioned clearly in the manual. Alas, all Prophets in wikipedia are called prophets. Why? Sensitive stuff? Wrong reason!
It is not a question of respect but a question of manual style of editing. For your information, nobody is getting sensitive about Naming conventions (Mormonism) (including the capitalization of the honorific title of Joseph Smith) [3]). Not to mention the Dalai Lama (including Gyawa Rinpoche and Yeshe Norbu), etc... And God indeed! According to the logic above, would that be sensetive to atheists? I recon not. If something got to be changed, it should concern all articles about Prophets in Wikipedia, of all beliefs.
Some academics using the caps:
I hope this suggestion will be accepted:
- State in the intro the following: Muhammad is considered a Prophet (or a prophet until wikipedia can agree about that) in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.
- Refrain from using The Prophet Muhammad within the article. Cheers -- Szvest 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Zora's unofficial survey of books at hand prompted me to do an unofficial survey of my own. I searched law review journals, not because I hold them as any authority, but rather just to get another view on this from the world of academia.
  • 8 Yale H.R. & Dev. L.J. 67 - PM and tP
  • 44 J. Cath. Leg. Stud. 143 - PM and tP
  • 38 Cornell Int'l L.J. 413 - pM and tP
  • 53 Drake L. Rev. 851 - pm
  • 3 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 627 - PM and tP
  • 18 Transnat'l Law. 417 - pM
  • 5 Tribal L.J. 3 - PM
  • 27 Whittier L. Rev. 3 - PM and tP
  • 30 Yale J. Int'l L. 375 - PM and tP
I wrote them using the law citations and these are only instances where "Prophet Muhammad" (disregarding case) were found in law reviews as per LexisNexis within the past six months. Incidently, the Seattle Journal for Social Justice used "the Prophet Muhammad" but in reference to Elijah, used "the prophet Elijah." Similarly, the Whittier Law Review refers to Moses as "the prophet." Nonetheless, in reference to Muhammad, all the applicable reviews (six of them) referred to him as "the Prophet" and 6 of the 9 used "the Prophet Muhammad". Pepsidrinka 19:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think then the Prophet Muhammad's use is to be depressed, and the use of the Prophet or Muhammad is considered good? Objections?--Tznkai 00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I raised this issue at the Village Pump (policy) and got some interesting responses [4]. One contributor said that the standard re the use of honorifics is evolving and under consideration. Another said that he found "Prophet" POV and that "prophet" was preferable. Another said that while the current guidelines might allow "Prophet", they do not mandate it. Zora 07:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we altleast use the above as working internal policy? Objections?--Tznkai 07:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NO! I OBJECT! and I think there are a great many other people who would object, if they knew about this dialogue. I simply won't call Muhammad the Prophet, and I'm not the only one who would find that repugnant. Nor would I call Jesus "Christ". Or Joseph Smith a "Prophet". Don't ask me to make reverent gestures if I don't feel reverence. Zora 07:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection received. Now, You tell us that there are a great many other people who would object and I think about the ones who would not! You tell us that YOU won't call him P than I say you are free of course! Also you tell us that you won't call Jesus "Christ" or JS a P and I tell you that Wikipedia call them that way and the majority of humans around the world have no objections or such feelings! One thing, Zora, if you want the caps off from this article than I want to see you asking about the same in all articles related to divinity! Starting from [[God]]. Cheers -- Szvest 08:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
+1 Jwissick(t)(c) 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a delectate way to put this: Your books say the title "Prophet" is used to refering to "Muhammed" within the office/title/position of islamic prophethood.
I think you've overlooked the part where the MAJORITY of the academic works didn't use "the Prophet". Some do; more didn't. Zora 07:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I count 7/6 on your list, and a host of discussion and some law books that change that a bit.--Tznkai 08:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough. The works by Lings and Zacharia are devotional and not academic works. They don't count in a discussion of academic usage. Zora 08:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
USC and Princeton certainly do. My own college is less snazy, but we do it there.--Tznkai 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Several editors have said the same. If you have an intense problem with it based on personal moral qualms, simply don't do it. No one is forcing you to type. Type as you would, but don't object ot the changes as they are made.--Tznkai 07:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Zora, I've always thought that you are so objective until discussing this issue. I don't know what would make you feel bothered if it is capitalized or even if you'd call someone a Prophet. Don't we call Tenzin G. the Dalai Lama? It is a title!!! Could you please click on this Jesus Christ? Doesn't that hurt you?! It doesn't hurt me as it is a title, be it divine or not! I challenge your logic and ask you to call God, god! I presented my suggestions above but you turned your back away, not even a comment and come back to tell us about the same; being hurt as he is not my prophet. Is God your god? People went and did some surveys and presented some interesting data for us but you still talk about feelings! Cheers -- Szvest 08:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Buddhists don't believe in "God", so you can remove all the caps you want. The Gautama Buddha article is rife with caps and piety and I don't approve of that either, even though I'm a Buddhist. I'll rewrite it when I have time. Or you can. Zora 10:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Asking me to remove things that I have had no objection ever with?!! I simply call this a False dichotomy while I am applying Reductio ad absurdum. Again, Zora, they say "do your homework first before asking others to do their homework and/or yours". Buddhists don't believe in "God" as Christians don't believe "Dalai Lama" doesn't make your case valid. It has nothing to do with caps!!! John Lennon sang: God is a concept (sic?!). Cheers -- Szvest 11:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Addendum - A simple homework for you Zora (not for me as it doesn't bother me). It takes only two clicks; remove the redirect of Jesus Christ to Jesus. I don't advice you to do that because it's foolish! Cheers -- Szvest 11:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Wiki redirects are to help users find articles, using common related terms. The actual article on Jesus does not refer to him as "Jesus Christ," just as Jesus. If we force editors to refer to Muhammed as the Prophet Muhammed, I suggest we also force editors to refer to Jesus as Jesus Christ, a very common title of long-standing use--Jbull 15:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is quickly bordering on incivility. Lets start of please?

Suggestions

Issue at hand: What should be the article standard for the capitlization of Prophet?: 1. Per current style guide reccomendation (capitilized) EX: "As the Prophet, Muhammed led the muslims into Medina"

Support: Several academic publications which use the title, Universal application and accuracy concerns

2. Without capitalization EX as the last prophet of the Islamic faith...

Support: Several academic publications omit the title, WP:NPOV concerns
Thats my breif summary, and I tried to be sympathetic to both sides of the argument. There is a wealth of support in academic disiplines and we need to agree on what standard we find best.--Tznkai 18:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that it is appropriate to note the common usage of "The Prophet Muhammed," but that exclusive use in an objective article is not appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that, at the beginning of the article, it be noted that Muslims refer to Muhammed as "The Prophet Muhammed." Then, for the rest of the article, he be referred to as Muhammed.--Jbull 18:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with that being there are times when we need to prefer to the office of Prophethood. (yes, I know its technically not an office in a governmental sense, but its the best anology I can muster). I agree however that the Prophet Muhammed doesn't sound very neutral or professional--Tznkai 18:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Jbull. Wasn't it the same and exact suggestion I made yesterday above which nobody cared to comment about it?
I hope this suggestion will be accepted:
- State in the intro the following: Muhammad is considered a Prophet (or a prophet until wikipedia can agree about that) in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.
- Refrain from using The Prophet Muhammad within the article. Cheers -- Szvest 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Btw, I couldn't understand your response to Jesus Christ. I was wondering if it could look different that The Prophet Muhammad. Aren't there Muslim readers who would look for that? Cheers -- Szvest 18:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
I just created a hard redirect there, FYI. Anyway lets focus on the point. Whats both Neutral and Accurate?--Tznkai 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
FayssalF--Gosh, I didn't see your suggestion above before making my own. I guess great minds think alike.
Tznkai--I see nothing in the article on Muhammed that would require any title at all, and no reference to an "office of Prophethood." Am I missing something? Otherwise, FayssalF's disclaimer looks good to me, with Muhammed referred to as "Muhammed" in the body of the article.--Jbull 19:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll get a few examples of where I think it would be pertinent (bolded)
  • "Muhammad (570-632 CE) listen ▶(?) Arabic: محمد (also transliterated Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, and sometimes Mahomet (Latin Mahometus), following the Latin or Turkish), is believed by Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam."
--"Prophet" is explained as a pious usage. This is fine.--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Appears as Prophet of Islam: Mecca"
--Could be rewritten as "Takes message to Mecca."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some time in 620, the prophet Muhammad told his followers that he had experienced the Isra and Miraj, a miraculous journey said to have been accomplished in one night. In the first part of the journey, the Isra, he is said to have travelled from Mecca to Jerusalem. In the second part, the Miraj, Muhammad is said to have toured Heaven and Hell, and spoken with earlier prophets [this is an example of good lowercase usage], such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.
--I would remove "prophet" before Muhammed. It is not needed. I would also remove "earlier prophets" from before Abraham, Moses and Jesus. If needed, it could be rewritten as "such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, who Muhammed said were earlier prophets of Islam."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Muhammad had hoped that they would recognize him as a prophet the final Prophet, but they did not do so
--I don't see the need to capitalize.--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "To the Muslims, the victory in Badr appeared as a divine authentication of Muhammad's prophethood, and he and all the Muslims rejoiced greatly. Following this victory, after clashes, and the breaking of a treaty that risked the security of the city state, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa. Virtually all the remaining Medinans converted, and Muhammad became ruler of the city." (not totally sure on this one, but this is Prophet as leader of islam, not just random prophet number 264)
--I would change "prophethood" to "message."--Jbull 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if my markup was clear, but I think yo ucan get what I'm driving at.--Tznkai 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we are all colored in this debate by our prior beliefs. I personally don't care about 'Prophet' or 'prophet' in personal terms only which is better encyclopedically. However, I'm not sure why we would need to use "the Prophet" very often when Muhammad seems to be a widely accepted norm. (I would hope no one is offended by Muhammad meaning "highly praised") I would like to see how Maxime Rodinson styled Muhammad (being a Marxist). I think we will find examples for all sides. Pious writers using the Prophet out of faith. Academics using the Prophet out of apathy (or respect for religious figure). Academics using the prophet out of concern for aggrandizing the subject (or respect for adherents of other religions). I understand Zora's point but I'm not sure how well it scales. "Jesus christ"? Would that be the proper way to do it? There are so many titles that are capitalized and so widely known that way that I'm not sure we could agree to remove them or that they would. It's a sticky situation when you look across the board of religious articles on wikipedia. The "Greek god" v. "Christian God" debate seems pretty biased but it's a standard that I don't think can really be changed. I ask for ambivalence in this discussion and not trying to push your view as 'right' since both sides obviously have somewhat legitimate claims. gren グレン 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good comments! Let us be reasonable:
1-The intro should clarify the point: Muhammad is considered a prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith. This is the same scenario as in Jesus.
2- No such The Prophet Muhammad or prophet within the article in the same way there's no such Lord, Son of God or God inside the article of Jesus
3- Keep Muhammad as a redirect of The Prophet Muhammad in the same way Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus.
Personally, I believe the above as non offending, realistic and neutral. Cheers -- Szvest 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
My only concern is that of academic accuracy, as I pointed out above, and as I recall, Muhammad was, in his own time refered to as the Prophet, or the Final Prophet or what have you, and held in higher esteem and the leader of that religion.--Tznkai 19:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah Tzk. You can still say Muhammad is considered a final prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith.. It's still NPOV as only Muslims believe in that he was the final prophet. Szvest 19:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me slightly. Its impossible to go through the entire article and replace every incident of "prophet" with "Muhammad", and there are times when he is not a prophet of God but the Prophet (of Islam).
I see what you mean now. IMHO, keep it simple! Usually, the reader starts reading from the intro. If the intro is explicit enough there no need to complicate things. The only exception would be the quotes from the Qur'an. Cheers --  Wiki me up™
Religion is never simple ^_^. In all seriousness, I think reducing the incidents of prophet so it refers to the Title/Office of Prophet, the idea of prophetic revelation, and never as a replacement for "Muhammad" will eliminate all the problems.--Tznkai 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes but this is what we are saying. Say it once and the reader will understand everything according to the context. The intro is the key and then leave the reader alone by himself. I don't see any other point. Cheers -- Szvest 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™
Er. I guess we'll just try it and see then, as I'm not sure if and where we disagree anymore ^_^; I'd like to hear Zora's response first though as he's the one who brought on the objection
 ;) I don't see where we disagree as well. Well, I think the 3 most points are very clear to you, Jbull (as per below) and me. We'll be waiting for Zora's opinion and of course yourself if you can summarize your point. Cheers --  Wiki me up™
In breif? There are times when Prophet should still be used when refering to the office itself. (Speaking as the Prophet of Islam) but in general we should refer to Muhammad as Muhammad, and not the Prophet. (Muhammad, speaking as the Prophet as opposed to Muhammad, speaking as Muhammad, or Muhammad, speaking as the prophet" Other than that I agree.--Tznkai 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with all three suggestions.--Jbull 19:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I just don't see any reason to change what we've been doing for months, which is using prophet without caps. I've been writing articles using "Muhammad", "the prophet", "the prophet Muhammad", "the Islamic prophet", "the Islamic prophet Muhammad" -- have I missed any variations? -- which seems to me to be a useful range of alternatives, allowing for a varied prose style. The cap would be added purely as a sign of respect, which I don't feel, and don't want to be obligated to pretend. So far as I can tell, the only argument for the cap is that it is supposed to indicate Muhammad's official position in the Muslim community. But it's a strange official position that exists for only twenty years and is never held by anyone else. He didn't hold an "official", bureaucratic, routinized position, like a pope; he was a charismatic total leader -- general, prophet, judge, etc. Giving prophet the cap doesn't indicate an official position, it indicates that Muhammad is supreme among prophets, an Islamic belief that I do not accept. If people want to call him "the prophet", I have no objections. I do object to "the Prophet". Zora 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

...My resposne to the "I feel" is the same as I previously mentioned. Write how you want, and we'll clean up after you. We've given you plenty of reasons, and I assume you've understood them and considered them. The position is a position like any other. It has a charter (a holy text), and popular acclaim, and is called such by plenty of scholars on religion accross the world. Its certainly accurate, its plenty rare, and the prophet Muhammed is uneeded compared to "Muhammed" or "Muhammed, as the Prophet" or what have you at the moment. I'm really rather perplex to how obstinant you are on this point and I'm looking for grounds to comrpomise here.--Tznkai 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You know very well (pretending not) that We don't ask for the usage of all what you stated above! I am sorry Zora but your basis is based upon personal experiences and not about consistency in Wikipedia. The 3 suggestions are legit and do not look at personal experiences. We should treat all articles alike! I protest more than you do because it is not fair! The difference between your reasons and Jbull are clear! Jbull understood the paradigm while you have been sticking to your point of he is not yours! If you have any objections, please use them on the basis of these suggestions:
1-The intro should clarify the point: Muhammad is considered a prophet in Islam and referred to as The Prophet within the faith. This is the same scenario as in Jesus.
2- No such The Prophet Muhammad or prophet within the article in the same way there's no such Lord, Son of God or God inside the article of Jesus
3- Keep Muhammad as a redirect of The Prophet Muhammad in the same way Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus.
Again, Giving prophet the cap doesn't indicate an official position, it indicates that Muhammad is supreme among prophets, an Islamic belief that I do not accept. is wrong and my first suggestion explains that your idea is wrong! Cheers -- Szvest 07:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™
FayssalF--In the absence of disagreement, would you like to make the changes to the article consistent with your 3 sensible suggestions?--Jbull 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please check if I missed something. Cheers -- Szvest 14:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Organization of links

I reverted Mistress Kyle's re-org of the links. Something can be secular without being critical, so changing the title is not OK. Nor is it necessarily BAD to come last. Some people consider that as "having the last word" and being a favored position. Zora 20:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Stability pact

Hello guys, fellows, sis, fellas, ikhwa, bros, etc... As of January, 2006, i got to note that the article is getting more and more stable. This is due to all contributors' participation especially in the talk page. Thanks all! However, i'd ask every contributor to discuss any further major edit to discuss their issues here before any other thing. It's a call for everybody, including myself. Cheers -- Szvest 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Clarification RE: the Governing Structure of Mecca

I'm seeing some unclarities regarding the governing structure of Mecca by the time Muhammad came around. I am seeing sentences that variously refer to "leaders" and "rulers" of Mecca. One sentence even refers to Ibn Sufyan as a "general."

As I understand it, Mecca was governed by a loose confederation of clan leaders, with no discernable governing structure, so these descriptions do not seem accurate. Saltyseaweed 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Titles of veneration

I think the way Muhammad's prophethood is dealt with in this article, comes very close to a neutral point of view. I'd like to compliment the various contributors for that.

Lately, I have been making some effort myself to make articles concerning religions and religious figures comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. For example, I've changed "Holy Bible" to "Bible", "Holy Qur'an" to "Qur'an", and "Lord Krishna" to "Krishna". I have received some criticism for that, I was at one point accused of engaging in a "crusade" against the word "holy". At this moment, I have a hard time editing Hinduism/Vedas-related articles, because my removals of the term "Lord" are not appreciated. But that was to be expected, I'm not complaining ... ;-)

I believe it's necessary to formulate some general guidelines for addressing religious figures, books, etc., but have only found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles). As I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I wouldn't know where to place my appeal for such a set of guidelines, but since a (in my opinion) reasonable, and workable solution appears to have been achieved on this talk page, I place it here. Please feel free to move it to an appropriate page, and let me know where you left it. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

We have been skirmishing over this for years. Benne, I'm a Buddhist, and the article on the Buddha embarrasses me. I can't criticize Muslims for insisting that we all venerate Muhammad if the Buddha article reeks of piety. Can you start on a cleanup? I may not be the best person for this, because I'm USED to pious Buddhist language. Zora 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad was a merchant, then a prophet"

It comes very close to NPOV, I just said, but we're never done finetuning, I guess. I don't want to be too nit-picky, but the sentence "For most of the sixty-three years of his life, Muhammad was a merchant, then a prophet." could (and should, in my opinion) still be improved. Would "(...) acted as a prophet." be appropriate? Or would "(...) worked as a prophet." be better, perhaps? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of the article, and I remember the first part of the sentence. Someone added "then a prophet", which does make a hash of the sentence. It should be amended to something like "Only in the last twenty years of his life was he a prophet", as a following sentence. That's a guess. I haven't looked at it in context.
We have lots of people copyediting whose English is substandard. Zora 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It's more the copula that I have a problem with. That he was a merchant is not disputed, I suppose, but his prophethood is something people disagree upon. That's why I would like to use a different verb indicating his (claimed) prophethood. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point. How about "religious leader" instead of "prophet"? Zora 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
"Religious leader" works for me.--Jbull 16:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
via edit conflict:You are a merchant if people buy from you. You are a prophet if people follow your prophecies. It is uncontroversial that Muhammad was accepted as both a merchant and a prophet by some of his contemporaries. If you think "prophet" implies being a "real prophet" in some sense, the term is empty in the view of atheists at least. This is a bit like "Saint". We use Saint if someone was formally canonized by the Church, and using the title does not imply that Wikipedia actually believes that these people are sitting on clouds playing the lyre :) being celebrated as "Prophet" by a major world religion is about as close to "NPOV prophethood" as you get. We would have to go about and strip the Nevi'im of their titles, changing "Jeremiah is a prophet of the Old Testament" to "Jeremiah is touted as a prophet in the Old Testament" and the like. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As Dbachmann said, we refer to other religious figures as saints (see Saint Patrick). We don't need to change the name of the article to Prophet Muhammad, but the use of the word prophet does not violate the standards set by other religous (and yes, non-Islamic) articles. joturner 13:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Survival or choice

I'm not sure it's fair to say that the Muslims had a whole lot of choice re the raiding. Understand that Medina is an oasis in the middle of lava fields, in the middle of desert. Arable land was limited and so far as we know, it was all being used when the Muslim refugees arrived. Charity and wage labor would both have been very limited. I'm not a Muslim, not a Muslim apologist, and don't like the way some Muslims try to restate early Islamic history, so that the Muslims ALWAYS fought in self-defense, they were poor, innocent, persecuted people. That being said -- we have to be fair in describing the situation faced by the refugees. Whether they could have taken another course is a matter for debate. Zora 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Zora--I've followed your edits, and I recognize your fair-mindedness and good faith. I am sure that caravan raiding was a very common, very rational practice in 7th Century Arabia, and I in no way intend to portray the Muslim refugees in a worse light than their contemporaries. But saying that the robbing of travelling merchants was purely "a matter of survival" strikes me as unnecessarially apologetic and dramatic when alternatives existed. I am, of course, open to suggestions.--Jbull 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so agreeable. We just need the right wording then. Praps say something about limited arable land, economic privations, belief that Meccans were their enemies and raiding enemies was permissible under Arab custom. It's late and I'm tired; perhaps you can work on the wording? Zora 10:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think something as simple as "economic survival" would do it. Any disagreements?--Jbull 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

I don't understand the reversion of the link to this article in the "See Also" section. The cartoon article deals with the aspects of depicting Muhammad in imagery, which is directly assosicated with the article about the man himself. Relating to the Piss Christ article not being on Jesus is not helpful or particualry relevant. Wikipedia is not censored to protect religious viewpoints. Astrotrain 20:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. Both are the same situations with censorship. I would like to see whether you would do that on the Jesus article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged this article POV since certain people insist on removing valid links to other Muhammad related articles. Astrotrain 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, the link was added without any context. I've restored it but in an appropriate context and section. -- ChrisO 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Astrotrain 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this while the picture dispute is going on. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was heard that the Prophet Muhammad was said as a violent and ruthless person on that acrticle's talk page, can anyone explain that is the opinion is true or not since I'm not fillmiliar with the Prophet.

No Muhammad was not in the Muslim perspective. In fact if you read the hadith and the Qur'an you will see that Muhammad tolerated all peoples even those who wanted to harm him. He was very much like Jesus and the other prophets of Islam. The talk page of the cartoon article is chaotic, incorrect, and childish. People have used the article to be as racist as possible. The page is a very bad article to use as an example of Muhammad. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonym is a Muslim editor giving a Muslim POV. Other people have disagreed. Myself, I do not believe that it was right to raid and kill people that the Muslims defined as polytheists, or, indeed, that the Jews of Medina were treated fairly. However, we have generally tried to keep dispute re Muhammad's character and actions out of this article and put it into breakout articles, where it can discussed at length. It is simply a matter of controlling the length of an article that is already too long. Please look at those associated articles for a view of the full range of POVs. Zora 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That is true I should have made it clear that in the Muslim perspective and I was well aware that it was. However, for an editor first learning about this you should note that there are controversies with arguments from both sides but first read the stories of his life and the conditions he lived in. I stand by saying that the talk page of that article is not the best place to gain information.
So the answer to your question in the Muslim perspective he was not and some critics will argue that he was in certain cases, but most not as a far as to say that he was a ruthless person. And again, talk page of the cartoon article is not good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
According to my understanding of Islam, human beings are not to be depicted because it may lead people to equate these humans being depicted with Allah (see Idolatry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry; and Anacrosnism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism). So, according to my understadning, the original reason for not depicting Muhammad would have to be in order not to equate him with Allah. (Muhammad was a human being, see Muhammad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad.) But since the purpose of the cartoons in question was not to glorify Muhammad in any way, the danger of having people equate him with Allah would reasonably be non-existent. Thus, it is hard to see how these cartoons could be regarded as idolatry/aniconism. Furthermore, some Muslims believe that no human beings at all are to be depicted. According to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons Controversy Sunni Muslims believe so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy). But according to the article Islamic Art, "...only the most orthodox Muslims oppose protraiture." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_art). Thus, by allowing the depiction of human beings and not Muhammad seems to me to be to put him in the same category as Allah, which would be idolatry/aniconism and blasphemy according to Islam. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? PJ 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Your logic, if I understand correctly, assumes because Muslims put Muhamamd and Allah in the same category, in regards to depiction, it is tantamount to idolatry and blaspemy. If that is indeed your argument, then would saying that I am compassionate, and saying God is compassionate, would that be blaspehmous as well because I am categorizing God and a human being in the same category (i.e. Compassioniate beings)? Surely you don't think that holds. Similarly, just because someone argues that depicting Muhammad is not allowed, and depicting God is not allowed, that doesn't mean the reasoning for not depicting the two are the same. And since they are not the same, it is not fair to assume that they are therefore equal, as I'm inclined to believe your implied. Please correct me if I assumed something that you didn't imply. Pepsidrinka 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you are entertaining the idea that perhaps there are two separate reasons why the depiction of Allah is forbidden and why the depiction of Muhammad is forbidden. This is definitely possible, but I have not come across any text suggesting that this is the case. (If you know of any such text, please let me know, for I am interested to learn.) In absence of such text, I go on assuming that the reason why the depiction of Allah and Muhammad are forbidden is one and the same. Regarding your counter-example: I imagine someone could respond by saying that some features are exclusive to Allah, and for that reason forbidden to take on. Whereas compassion would not be an exclusive feature, being the object of worship is. Thus, a person may very well be compassionate without being blasphemous, but can not to be worshiped or worship someone other than Allah without being blasphemous. PJ 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Remove all Pictures of People! We Pennsylvania Dutch plain folk don't like pictures of people! So please respect Amish Ordnung, you racist amishophobic English. You're freedom of speech must respect our right not to be insulted by your graven images. You are doing this because you hate us ! Just Kidding. long live free speech and the right to critique. Stettler 01:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Curious about Spelling

I'm assuming there's a justification for selecting the spelling 'Muhammad' in preference over others, but wanted to ask about it, since it struck me as odd that the most common version seems to be 'Mohammed'. 'Beijing', for instance, yields 60 million hits on the internet, compared to 4 million for 'Peking', so it is clear which spelling is accepted. However, if you google Mohammed you get 15,8 million hits, compared to 13,4 million for Muhammad, and in a Yahoo news search, Mohammed yields 15,000 hits compared to less than 5,000 for Muhammad.

Obviously, in many cases names and words get butchered in transliteration, but since both versions seem like they would be pronounced the same way in English, is there a reason Wikipedia uses a less common (and therefore more obscure) spelling?

Checking through the article history, this [5] was the earliest revision. Its dated Dec 2001, and the original editor used Muhammad. And just to comment on your findings, your google search revealed that about 45% of the pages had Muhammad, hardly obscure. Pepsidrinka 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

-

I'm not really pressing for anything to be changed or trying to say that 'Muhammad' is an obscure spelling - in reality there are many other common spellings and therefore it represents much less than 45% of the total, but is nonetheless one of the most common - what I'm curious about is why that spelling was chosen over one that is more widespread. I was wondering if anyone can shed light on this issue for the sake of my personal edification (and perhaps adding something about spelling to the article would be good as well, since it definitely seems to be an issue, both between English speakers and between English and other languages).

Name

At the top of the page it says 'Muhammad' is a common Muslim male name. While it is true that many Muslims are named Muhammad, the name existed 'pre-Islam' and is also given to non-Muslim Arabs. I think the phrase should be changed to say 'Arab' instead of 'Muslim', as the name is not limited to followers of the religion. Sicarii 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the same argument, the name is not limited to Arabs. Muslim converts will take the name, as well as Muslims from the Indian subcontinent. Pepsidrinka 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Every Muslim male has the name "Mohammad" and every Muslim female has the name "Fatima" by default. At the time of birth, it is common to say " your baby is Muhammad/ Fatima" depending on gender. Most muslims don't both to use the default name in common usage since they will also be given some other name usually. At the time of conversion, it is normal to add the name Md/ Fatima depending on gender again. Vetinarih 22:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)vetinarih

The picture belongs to a Persian Cleric!

Is this a joke? There was no photography in 7th century. Please remove the picture, as it belongs to somebody else (Mirza Hosseinali Noori, a 19th century Persian Mulla). Heja Helweda 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The picture has since been delete. Pepsidrinka 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Example of unintentionally offensive dipliction of Mumammad in Serbian Wikipedian article on Muhammad that you all may find interesting:

[6]--Greasysteve13 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's incredibly surprising that such a picture exists. joturner 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu has told me "That image is from Iran. As I've said above, Shi'ites have produced those sorts of images over time, their attitude to religious iconography is different from that of Sunnis. Thanks for the link." --Greasysteve13 03:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No it's not surprising at all. We have the right to depict who the hell we want to. This only proves that Serbians have more moral courage that other people. - Martin W. 4 Feb 2006
That stuff is even in the Persian Wikipedia: [7] so we should have no problem with it here.--Greasysteve13 07:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Caption on Miraj picture

Dbachmann changed the caption to say that flames were more typical than veils. I did some googling on buraq, which produces numerous depictions of Muhammad. A few had full facial features; some had veils; some had featureless blanks radiating light. (I think the flames represent light, Noor, which has a theological significance.) So I put all three in the caption. Zora 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Springcleaning article again

The cartoon controversy has attracted many new editors to Wikipedia, a fair number of whom seem to have decided to visit the Muhammad page and "fix" it. In the constant churn, lots of dubious edits have crept in. The gross anti-Muslim vandalism seems to have been removed, but Muslim piety crept in. I removed huge swathes of hadith quotes (not necessary) and various sentences here and there. Frex, right after a sentence that said Muhammad had ten or eleven wives when he died, someone had inserted a sentence claiming that he never had more than four wives at a time!

I do wish that this article could be semi-protected, so that complete newbies, who had never edited and never read the talk page, couldn't just jump into the article and make a hash of things. Their edits are 99% sure to make things worse. Zora 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no peity there unless you can name it. You just removed a lot of information in the summary section which is factual and not biased in any direction. And you even removed important material from the timeline making this seem a lot like a revert. I am reverting this until you can give reasons for each massive section of information you just deleted. In fact you even deleted things that you had no objections to for the months that they remained there including being here during the times when you made major edits to the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
We have been through this earlier. If I just check the latest diffs, the article drifts into Muslim piety. I don't always read the whole article every day, so it takes me a while to note the drift. I try to wrench it back to less pious version, and you protest, AE, on the grounds that it's been there for a long time, so it's not OK to delete it. I'm one of the few secular editors who have "hung in there"; please believe me when I say that some edits are too pious.
I think the one thing that I deleted this time that I'd left in earlier versions was the claim that Muhammad had conquered the whole Arabian peninsula. Donner (who has read every early account of every early battle) says that this is exaggeration, and that the conquest wasn't really complete until after Abu Bakr and the Ridda Wars. So I've learned something and I'm applying it to the article. Zora 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not protesting on the grounds that is has been there for a long time and I am especially NOT deleting anything. I want to hear your reasons about why you think each part should be removed instead of you just going right out and doing it. I don't like the fact that massive parts of something I have worked on is just going to be deleted because you feel that you've learned something or think that the article requires "spring cleaning". --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I've put a range block on the vandal of this article. DJ Clayworth 22:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The range block seems to have done the trick. It may be OK to take the protection off this article and Muslim and Islam. DJ Clayworth 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, bit by bit

Summary bit

Someone, at some point in the recent past, added that bit re the hanifs (the word wasn't used, but I believe that that is what the writer meant) who were monotheists. It was phrased in an unacceptably pious way (assuming the Muslim beliefs re the history of the Kaaba). Moreover, I don't believe that it is accepted by all Muslim scholars, and it is certainly not accepted by non-Muslim academics. The whole question of what exactly pre-Islamic Arabia, and pre-Islamic religion, were like, is a matter for debate. If someone wants to research and write an article on it, fine. But it shouldn't just be thrown into this article as if everyone accepted it. Zora 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay allow enough discussion to occur before you go to the next bit by bit bit and don't delete before you discuss it because I know what you are talking about if you just name the bit. This might take a couple of days. I am adding headers to all the bits (eg summary bit). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually I added that summary part and I got much of it from PBS's timeline of Muhammad's life which is a secular source as you know. Now that summary part is accepted by Muslims and isn't contested that followers of Ibrahim went to the caves to follow their monotheistic religion. Do you have any sources which say it isn't true? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I just checked -- it's not there. I don't think it's up to me to prove that it isn't true -- it's up to you to prove that it is.
Watt, in his 1953 Muhammad at Mecca, devotes two pages to the hanif issue (162-164) and says, "So much ink as been lavished on this controversy from Sprenger onwards that it is impossible even here to summarize the various views ...."
Watt says that identification of some pre-Islamic Arabs as hanifs is an attempt to find people who would fit the description of hanif in the Qur'an and does not necessarily mean that there WAS any group of monotheists. He himself guesses that the word refers to followers of the old Syro-Nabatean religion.
I've been unable to access any more recent scholarly works on hanifiyya -- not in my Questia account, and everything I can find through Google Scholar is pay-only. There's not much listed on the web in any case. But I think that Watt is enough to prove that there is no academic consensus on hanifiyya. Zora 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It is generally accepted that there was a monotheist minority in Mecca who were followers of Ibrahim at the time and that is not generally contested. Even most secular sources would agree if Watt doesn't and even Watt doesn't completely deny it; he takes a guess. This is an accepted view so I don't know what other reasons you would give me for Muhammad having going to a mountain cave if it wasn't for the hanifs retreating there. Also here is the PBS link that you couldn't find [8] which might help about Muhammad retreating to a cave. Can you please provide some Islamic sources which say otherwise? Since the summary section itself is about what "Muslims believe" we don't have to remove this view entirely. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for persecution, Hijra, war

Someone had added the sentence that the leaders of Mecca resented the Muslims because their power was threatened. I removed that, as it was only a partial truth. It's a Muslim view of things. If you look at it from the POV of the Meccans, there's a guy telling you that God is angry at you, you're going to burn in hell, and you have to do what he says. If I did that to you, wouldn't you resent it? Especially if doing what he said threatened your entire livelihood (pilgrimage and the accompanying trade). That sentence was a bit of historical interpretation that is not accepted by all scholars and should not be allowed to stand as the consensus view.

Changing that sentence meant changing the following sentences, so that they would flow more easily.

Someone had phrased it as "war between factions in Mecca and Medina". I suppose that was there, in place of the original "war between Mecca and Medina", because there were people in Mecca who didn't line up behind Abu Sufyan (including Muslims who didn't do hijra) and tribes in Medina who did not accept Muhammad's leadership and were eventually killed or expelled. But "faction" doesn't really express the political reality on the ground. You have "factions" in a unified government -- but neither Mecca nor Medina had anything that we would recognize as a government. I changed it to "war between the Meccan leaders and the Muslim community", which I think makes it clear that not all Meccans and Medinans supported Abu Sufyan or Muhammad. Zora 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It was very true that the Meccans were angry that Muhammad was receiving popularity and more authority than their leaders. Which scholars deny this? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but putting it there as the ONLY reason is a distortion. We don't have room to discuss the first ten years of Islam in great detail, and going into ALL the reasons would take a lot of space. You've put up a "reason" that makes the Meccans look like jealous power-hungry people -- not the other reasons that might make their reaction seem more reasonable. That's a POV edit. This is supposed to be a version that presents the material that Muslim scholars (not the Muslim man-on-the-street) and the more traditionalist Western scholars would accept. Not the highly-colored emotive version. Zora 02:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with POV here. The reason is simple, they did not like that Muhammad took away authority. There is only so much we can put in a summary and the fact that authority was disputed should be stated. Which scholars can point out reasoning that contradicts this is any way? And still in any case, it would still be the Islamic view which is what the summary section is about. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That's YOUR POV, AE, that the challenge to authority was the main thing. You can't enshrine it in the article and dismiss all the other reasons. If there's not room to be fair, then don't give a reason. Zora 07:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way -- the short version is just what the minimalists would accept. People like Patricia Crone who think that most hadith are later inventions simply do not believe many of the more detailed traditional interpretations. On the other hand, you have the mainstream Islamic scholars and the Western scholars like Watt, who had a greater trust in the earliest historical materials. So we give a very conservative account from that standpoint. If we're going to go beyond material that people like Watt, Donner, and Crone accept, then I think it has to be labeled as a specifically Muslim view -- and not only that, labeled as to WHICH Muslim view it is, since the Shi'a and the various currents of Sunnis do see matters differently in many cases. I don't think that there's ANY specific section in the article that you could label as the "Islamic view" -- just a bunch of Islamic "views" in the longer section. Zora 08:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It could still be added as a Muslim view even if secular scholars don't accept it especially since that whole section is based on what Muslims have to say about Muhammad. Which should make sense since in an article about Hinduism for example you would hear what the Hindus had to say first. Also I don't think the Shi'a say differently. I don't think they disagree with the persecution bit. Do you know if it is different? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You are ONE Muslim. You do not represent all Muslims. Nor are the various Muslim versions of Muhammad's biography privileged here. The second, longer version of the bio is based on sira, as it says in the title, but it is based on sira as analyzed by scholars like Watt. Zora 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah Zora I was actually agreeing with you in my last message where you said that the Muslim view can be given. --a.n.o.n.y.m <sup> t 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the subtitlte "Muhammad's rule consolidated", there is a mention on the victors expelling the local Jewish tribe of Bani Qaynuqa. Can someone please put the reason to this? Muhammad doesn't just DO things... If you read Martin Lings' "Muhammad", you'll find that the Muslims had a defensive pact with the tribe which says that if Medina is to be at war with anybody, Bani Qaynuqa will help the Muslims and the Muslims will help Bani Qaynuqa. Apparently before the battle occured, Bani Qaynuqa sees that the Muslims will be defeated and sided with the Meccans, and that brakes the pact. In the end the Muslims won, and therefore Bani Qaynuqa had to be expelled for becoming the "enemy in the city".

It is not the purpose of this article to present extended apologia for all of Muhammad's actions -- nor is there room to do so. Is there already an article on the Bani Qaynuqa? That's where criticisms, arguments, and apologia belong. Zora 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not important for apologia for Muhammad's actions or for the tribes either but when people visit the Muhammad article, they usually want to read the Islamic view on Muhammad's life and not what views secular or skeptic scholars held. It's the same with any other article about a religious person. People on the Buddha article don't want to know in detail what a western scholar thought about Buddha but want to hear what Buddhism views him as. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NO. Buddhists do not "own" the Buddha article and Muslims do not "own" the Muhammad article. For one thing, there are so many different Islamic versions of Muhammad's biography and beliefs re his nature and position that any attempt to canonize one particular version as "the version accepted by all Muslims" is going to go down in flames.
If you want to start a series of articles on Islamic theology and its treatment of Muhammad (was he perfect or humanly fallible? does his noor pervade the universe or is he dead and gone?), please do. That would be extremely informative. Zora 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said about anyone "OWNING" anything. I was saying that when people visit the Muhammad article, they usually want to read the Islamic view on Muhammad's life and not so much detail about what views secular or skeptic scholars held. For one thing skeptical scholars views on Islamic belief about Muhammad and other theology has its own article.
Secular scholars however can be discussed and they are, however Muslim views that are held generally by most Muslims like this particular bit about persecution and hijra must be clearly discussed in the article and given more importance in the article since these are the people who believe Muhammad to be a religious figure. If you are claiming that Sunni and Shi'a Muslims have a different perspective on this bit then please provide an example of the difference. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about who wants to read whose POV the most. It is to remain NPOV, and you could ensure that by just giving a reference. Or just say 'according to the muslim view', which should be correct enough to not to offend anyone.SYS64738 19:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture of the Prophet

Why is there a picture of the Prophet showing up in the article? The proposal to put a picture into the article has come up several times, with the end result being that a picture is not necessary. Because the portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is blasphemous in Islam and because no portrayal of the Prophet is accurate, there is no reason to put a portrayal of the Prophet into this article except to offend Muslims. See Talk:Muhammad#the_image, Talk:Muhammad/archive 3#I'd like to call a Vote on a picture of Mohammed, Talk:Muhammad/archive_2#Pictures_and_WP:Civility. Because of this precedent, with none of them (especially the most recent Talk:Muhammad#the_image) in favor of having an unveiled picture of the Prophet, I am removing the picture. joturner 13:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The discussion about a picture Mohamed is totally misses the point that we are writing articles for an Ecyclopedia. Not allowing a picture or Mohammed in an Encylopedia is a total shame for the freedom of intellect. Especially in a Encylopedia we should feature eveything. May I remind you that The New York Public Library has for example something as extreme as childpronography in it's acrhives for the sake of documentation and that they are at the edge of the law with doing so. The library has chosen to document and archive it - despite the fact that 99% of the population is against it an that the law probably prohibits it. Getting back to the picture of Mohammed: I really think we should allow nobody to tell us to not publish something on Wikipedia for religious reasons. The picture I added is totally relevant, especially in the context of Wikipedia after the recent events in the Middle-East. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Europimp (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

No picture of the Prophet is accurate. The Bahá'u'lláh article has a photograph of him and thus it is accurate. The New York Public Library may have child pornography, but that's exactly what it is. But we don't have photographs of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); we only have conjectures through artwork. If we need/want to demonstrate artists' depictions of the Prophet, we already have a piece of artwork with him veiled. To add another piece of artwork, with the Prophet unveiled, would serve no purpose but to offend. The conjecture would provide no information about what the Prophet really looked like. joturner 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Something that is only an artist's depiction is not necessary especially if it is offensive. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Joturner, that is quite a controversial statement "to add another piece of artwork, with the Prophet unveiled, would serve no purpose but to offend.". You are completely skipping the point. Are you basically saying that my point about the core function of a encyclopedia is to document and gather information? You seem to think encyclopedia have to be pollitical correct. Well, that is not the case. The picture I added is exactly what it is: an ancient image of Mohammed. You are on purpose removing relevant information from Wikipedia for political correct reasons, not intellectual reasons. -Europimp:::
There are no photographs of Jesus either, but the Jesus page includes artists' renderings of him. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely unacceptable to censor Wikipedia just because something is offensive to a religious group. Ramanpotential 09:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If there was a well known or regonisable image of Mohammed I would support its inclusion. However due to tradition there isn't, therefore it is not necessary to have one. I think the policy of not disrupting the Wiki to make a point applies here. Astrotrain 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If people walk away from this article thinking that Muslims have condemned pictorial representations of Muhammad, at all times, we have not done our jobs. The images on fa: are acceptable, if they are put in context. Persian and Ottoman Muslims did depict Muhammad, and if other Muslims have a problem with that, that's just a schism within Islam and Wikipedia is not to take a position on that. Similarly, these images [9] [10] [11] [12]. These images are pious artwork and represent an artistic tradition just like the images on Jesus. This article is not Muslim owned, and much less is it Sunni owned. It is about the Muhammad of 16th century Iran just as much as the Muhammad of contemporary zealots. dab (ᛏ) 13:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no attempt here to censor information or make this a Sunni-owned article. My point here is that we should not be offensive if we don't need to. We can mention the uncommon depiction of the Prophet if you want, but there is no need for a picture. Putting a picture in the article will do more to offend users far more than to help users learn accurate information about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). joturner 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I put it to you that this article is more likely to be read by people who know little or nothing about Muhammad and want to find out (ie non-Muslims). Not that that should matter either way. Simple fact is, depictions of Muhammad have existed for centuries and there is something of a consistency and consensus about his physical appearence. Just as all Wikipedia articles should ideally be illustrated, a picture of him should be here. Ramanpotential 06:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the mayhem and deaths associated with the current backlash against the Danish cartoons (and, more importantly, their provocative reprinting), I think we can safely deduce that such depictions (of created things, but particularly of Muhammad) are seriously offensive to many mainstream Muslims — as offensive as, say, images of paedophilia. Thus, it seems reasonable to decide that the definitive wikipedia article about the prophet of Islam need not include an image of him, out of respect for the heart-felt beliefs of members of the second largest religion in the world. This is not censorship, it is consensus-building respectfulness. That said, I'd personally welcome (as I've said before) a page linked from here discussing the depiction of The Prophet, which could very reasonably include images like the beautiful Persian and Turkish art linked above, with appropriate content warnings. Just not on this page. — JEREMY 07:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We've got one picture; it's small; it's a piece of Muslim religious art; the face of Muhammad is veiled. I see no reason to remove it. I see people LOOKING for a fight here. We had that picture up for a long time. Then the cartoon controversy, and now we have people roaming Wikipedia looking for "disrespect". Zora 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of seeing WP censored because someone thinks a image of the Quran with a woman next to it is offensive or a painting of some prophet as blasphemy. There are plenty of images on WP that I think we could do with out... So my bottomline is this.. If you think an image is offensive, DON'T LOOK AT IT!! If you feel compelled to look at it and don't want to see it, TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER! Enough of this people. Grow the hell up. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
there is no reason why we should show a qur'an with a tourist next to it. The simple reason for not showing that image is that it is sub-standard, not censorship. In all these discussions about censorship, people tend to forget that we don't show images simply because they're offensive, they need to have some notability or informational value. For this reason, I certainly support the inclusion of Persian/Ottoman images, but I certainly oppose inclusion of Chick publication images on this article. The Muslims rioting right now are just going through the trauma the Catholic Church experienced 300 years ago. It's about bloody time too. Now, the Catholic Church is happy to deliver a dignified note of protest in cases like Piss Christ, because they know better than try to silence caricature: attempts at censorship simply results in more people seeing the pictures; I would never have seen them and people would never have reprinted them if there hadn't been such a fuss. And needless to say, we will certainly not change our policy because of these riots. dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Including an image of Muhammad in an encyclopedic entry on Muhammad seems completely natural to me. The argument from religion shouldn't be of relevance for the discussion, in my opinion. (As a side note, there's are images of "God" in the God entry and images of Jesus in the Jesus entry, although the Hebrew/Christian Bible also include a prohibition of images of God. Although the prohibitions in bible as well as those in the Koran are ambiguous.) PJ 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the Quran. There is no reason not to have a picture. 141.211.120.34 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the article is currenlt locked to prevent new users from including an image, I request someone include this image until a better, more accurate one can be found. 141.211.120.34 02:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If the article is currently blocked (albeit for new users), there is no need to potentially cause more disputes by requesting that someone else include an image. What makes you think that all regular editors of this article are totally unbiased in their approach over the issue of the picture ? A discussion regarding the whole issue of including/not including the picture should come to some consensus - only then should we be requesting what type of picture should be included. MP (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The article is currently blocked because of vandalism, not because of a controversey or objectional material. Wikipedia does not censor itself for a creed, religion, or cause. Leaving a picture out of a biography of a person, when there are many avaliable, does an injustice to the article. Wikipedia is not run by Muslims, nor does it have to follow the wishes of Muslims. Wikipedia has many things on it critical of Islam, shall we censor them too, so as to not anger any Muslims? Also, Anonymous editor, don't delete the stuff I write. It is a sad day for Wikipedia when an editor deletes a picture I put on the talk page. 141.211.210.42 18:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
All you are doing is making it worse. The picture is just so ridiculous that it won't be added so why keep it here? The picture is not suitable for any article and just makes the argument against it. The article would be kept locked because of that. You are clearly not a new editor and probably the same one who tried this before, so stop making things worse and stop disrupting wikipedia if you know better. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to use that picture, and as I said, in my original posting, it should be used until a more suitable one can be found. This site has several images we can use but I am not knowledgeable in the area of the copyright of photos. I rather like the first one on this page 141.211.212.35 21:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Question from a newcomer

I hope you don't mind me interrupting but I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure where is the best place to ask my question. I have arrived at this part of the site because you are discussing the prophet Muhhamad (pbuh)and my question concerns him.

I have copied and pasted my original entry here which I hope is OK. Many thanks, Carlyt --Carlyt 19:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just returned from a trip to the wonderful former Mosque of Cordoba. A travel guide website (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/spain/cordoba-mezquita.htm) states that:

"Under Abd ar-Rahman II (822-52), the Mezquita held an original copy of the Koran {Qur'an} and an arm bone of the prophet Mohammed. It became a Muslim pilgrimage site second only to Mecca in importance."

This is the only reference to such a phenomenon that I have found despite searches on Google.

Can anyone shed any light on this for me? __Carlyt 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I have never heard of this but you are right the webstite does say that. But to answer a question of holy places in Islam if you are interested, the next most holiest place in Islam is Medina and that is where the Prophet Muhammad is buried. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It is possible that the mosque may have held a copy of one of Uthman's original copies (he had four made, according to legend, and sent them in four directions); it is also possible that it was merely an old Qur'an. Experts don't believe that any of the four copies still exist today. As for an arm bone ... that has got to be a grotesque mistake. Christians venerate the bones of saints, but I don't think that Muslims do. That would mean that the body of Muhammad had been dug up, which seems unlikely -- the mosque in Medina where he was buried has been in daily use up to this very day. Zora 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora

Among other things I gave Waraqah's full name and linked him to his Wiki article. I can't imagine how that edit can be the slightest bit controversial. You reversed this, and many other edits, some fully cited, wholesale. Can you explain your behaviour please?Bdell555 09:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a MUSLIM-owned article

AE, the bit re the hanif is not accepted by non-Muslim scholars, it cannot be sourced to PBS, it is not needed to explain Muhammad's life. Write an article about Pre-Islamic Arabia and its religion if you want to discuss hanif!

As for the newer editor, who keeps inserting the long hadith, the reference from tafsir, etc. -- this article is already too long, and it is not an opportunity to preach Islam to the infidels. We are trying to give a Muslim/non-Muslim consensus version here. Or two versions -- the short one, that even sceptical non-Muslim scholars, like Patricia Crone, would accept, and the long one, that scholars like Watt, who are more willing to trust the early sources, would accept. Whenever the academic version diverges from Muslim belief, that is noted. BUT there is not room here to include everything that could possibly be said about Muhammad, or to argue it. Watt's biography of Muhammad runs to 600 pages!

The solution is breakout articles. Instead of trying to pack everything into THIS article, link to articles on narrower topics, where there's room to expand on things. We already did that with topics like Aisha and the Banu Qurayza, and that took a lot of controversy out of this article. Zora 09:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You are much more likely to get a response here if you in turn respond to others, I would think.Bdell555 10:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So, what are your reasons for continuing to insert that long hadith? If we inserted every hadith bearing on the life of Muhammad, the article would be unreadable -- if only because academic historians don't necessarily accept the hadith, and because Muslims themselves don't agree as to which hadith are sound or weak. So every hadith would be the nucleus of an argument. You haven't been arguing for your edits, you've just been inserting bits of pious lore here and there. Zora 10:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not inserting any "hadith". If you would revert the particular edit that did, instead of reverting that and a whole bunch of edits by other people besides, you wouldn't have people complaining here! You haven't been arguing for your reverts. You still haven't answered me as for why Waraqah should not be linked to his own page, for example. Finally, this is not immediately relevant but what Muslims, or anyone else, believes is not the issue for an encyclopedia. Would an article on the Earth avoid any hint that it might be round because some people people might believe that it is flat and one wouldn't want to start an argument or offend them?Bdell555 13:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dang hadith

That hadith is not needed. It is too long and too pious in tone. Please stop re-inserting it. We have covered the event in several summarizing sentences.

Shame on all the supposed Muslims editing this article for not immediately removing the claim that Muhammad had only four wives at a time. That is completely false. Even Muslim scholars agree that he had nine or ten wives living at the time of his death [13]. 04:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, see this edit. That was one of your edits less than 48 hours ago. Now, you edited the page, and you didn't remove the contents about the four wives at a time. Just as its quite possible, and highly plausible that you didn't see it when you were reverting other stuff, it is quite possible, and also highly plausible that "the supposed Muslims" didn't see it when we were reverting the other various "claims" inserted into this and the other high profile Islamic articles. As you mentioned the other day on a talk page, you don't read the entire article every day. Similarly, neither do I nor do I think anyone does so. Pepsidrinka 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Pepsidrinka, and I'm wrong. Sorry for being so tetchy. I'm just tired. Zora 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic Arabia, hanif

AE, I'm glad that you're willing to compromise on the hanif issue. I have a suggestion -- how about an article on Arabia before Islam? The hanif issue could feature prominently there, as could other discussions re conditions at the time of Muhammad (Meccan trade, status of Kaaba, pre-Islamic religion, etc.). This would take the pressure off the biographical article(s).

I don't REALLY have time for this, but I'm willing to try to set up a stub in the next few days. Once we have a framework, I think we can detail the controversies and give all views enough space for real fairness. Zora 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I set up a stub for Pre-Islamic Arabia. It is an extremely stubby stub. But at least there are slots into which we can shovel material. Zora 02:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

This is incredibly unrepresented on this page. A section should be devoted to discussing this. KI 01:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teacup and it will blow over soon. We link to the cartoon article (towards the bottom) and that seems to me to be enough. Zora 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
With 1,400 years of tradition related ot the man the last 4 months (to be generous) is nothing. It also is not a study of Muhammad himself, but views on him. I think we could make a decent article called Contemporary views on Muhammad or somesuch. But even that shouldn't be dominated by the cartoon issue. It's big now, but small in history. gren グレン ? 04:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news ticker. dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical link

Anonymous editor, please explain why you continue to censor links listed in the "Critical perspectives" section. You've deleted several times now the link to http://www.answering-islam.org on the grounds that it is listed in the Islam article. I have clarified the link to the section of the site devoted to criticism of Muhammad (http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/index.html) yet you continue to remove it. Please explain why you will not allow true criticism in the article. —Aiden 19:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a link farm, that site is critical of all of the religion and belongs in the Dmoz for the main Islam page. Saying "True criticism"? Wouldn't that be POV? In the same way calling the link an "Encyclopedic site critical of Muhammad" is also POV. That site criticizes a lot of things about Islam so it's better to leave it as a link on the Islam page. Would you call an anti-Christian site an encyclopedic site critical of Jesus?
No one continues to "censor" links and it's always this same argument by the way; I have only removed it once now. Also on this page we have decided to keep only select links so that it doesn't become a link farm. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A third link suddenly constitutes a link farm? You have 8 links to pro-Islamic articles on Muhammad, but the presence of one critical site with a large section critical of Muhammad is not allowed? The link you insist on removing has an exhaustive list of criticisms and is clearly relevant to this article. As I said above, I modified the link to direct specifically to the said section. —Aiden 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read my objections and also know that the eight links you mention are biographies of Muhammad. Now, the site you added is critical of all of the religion and is present as a Dmoz on the main Islam page. Calling the link an "Encyclopedic site critical of Muhammad" is POV. That site criticizes a lot of things about Islam so isn't it better to leave it as a link on the Islam page as part of Dmoz? Would you call any anti-Christian site an "encyclopedic site" critical of Jesus? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, answeringIslam is site that presents Islam in a totally negative picture, and does a bad job a arguing. I think you should find a site that says that it doesn't belive Muhammad is a prophet, and this is why. the site should not be devoted to criticizing Islam, but criticizing persons of all religions thtroughout history. ANyways, I am reomving the word "encyclopedic". Bless sins 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the name of the link is POV, thus I have modified it "Answering Islam's critical analysis of Muhammad." However, the link is completely relevant to the article as the linked section is devoted entirely to Muhammad. Yes it is good to have the site itself as part of Dmoz; but the section in discussion is not on Islam itself, but Muhammad. —Aiden 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with bless sins but my question is if you would object to me adding a completely anti-Christian, but pro-Islamic site as a critical analysis on Jesus or an anti-Judaism site as a critical analysis of Moses? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering there are four paragraphs on the Islamic view of Jesus in said article, I don't think it's at all inappropriate to have a link to a critical--in this case Christian--view of Muhammad. Perhaps if views of other religions--though not necessarily "official" views due to the appearance of the Qur'an much later than other sacred texts--were present in the article, such a link would not be needed. —Aiden 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

about the sections Muslims veneration of Muhammad.

I have two suggestions: (i) First, I think this should be in paragraph rather than point form. Is ee no reason whatsoever that this should be in point form (as the rest of the article is in paragraph form). If u guyz want, I can begin to put it in paragraph form. (ii) This should also mention the views of those (Muslims) who say that Muhammad should not be venerated too much. Bless sins 20:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I put it in point form because it was more readable that way. I tried it the other way and it was very dense. Any list-like material is better as a bulleted list.
The "don't venerate Muhammad" is covered in the main article, on Islam and veneration of Muhammad (I forget the exact title). At least I think it is. If not, it should be. But there's no need to go into all that in this article, which is already much too long. Zora 08:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo of Muhammad's tomb

Someone added that old photo. It was uploaded without any copyright info, so it's going away in a week. I gave it a caption and moved it right, but I'm neutral on whether or not it should be kept for the seven days of grace. Whoever uploaded it should add the copyright info if he/she wants it kept. Zora 08:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)