Talk:Muhammad/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 MAHOMET 2 Quotation from the Pope 3 Muhammad was not a pedophile. 4 Polemics are not permitted 5 Baphomet 6 Gagging threat 7 re: use of the term "idols" and User:Opiner's related edits 8 What a mess 9 Images 10 Historians' views 11 Problems with Introduction - Weasel Words 12 Clarification on Mecca invasion 13 Mahomet 14 Footnotes 15 Main Sources 16 Caliphate picture 17 Real world or piety land? 18 Verifiability 19 Intro 20 Adolf Hitler 21 Aiden, you make me feel ... 22 List of founders of world religions 23 Opiner "claim" that there is a POV pushing on Revelations 24 Asking again is Qur'an really a major source for Muhammads life? 25 The First Sentence 26 God & Allah 27 Introduction proposal 28 Opiner changes 29 Islam, Muslims 30 Coherence? 31 Slavery

MAHOMET

I think the spelling Mahomet is much more impressive, is it possible to change the article accordingly? Lapinmies 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad" is a far more accurate and superior rendering of the arabic (per WP:AMOS). on what basis do you believe the rendering "Mahomet" to be "much more impressive"? ITAQALLAH 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whilst alternative names may deserve a mention, an article's name should be the common spelling used within the english speaking part of the community in question. Hence muhammad stays. LinaMishima 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not English speaking community but even in Pakistan "Muhammad" is offical spelling of Muhammad. It also sound good as well as I can tell. --- ابراهيم 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia should tell the truth. Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is last prophet leading all people to truth. If unbelief included then encylopedia isnot telling truth only helping cover it. Like the article on mathematic saying some people say two and two together equal four but maybe they are equal five, maybe four, maybe five. No.

Wikipedia is not censored, and it is understanding to all beliefs, not just those of a single religion. Muhammad is only the last prophet leading people to truth in the eyes of the religion of Islam. Christians most certainly do not believe this, nor do buhdists or atheists. We must represent all view points fairly, giving none undue weight. Please seeWP:NPOV. As such, the addition of (pbuh) after his name is also discouraged, as this is a distinct POV towards needing to venerate him. We ask that personal religious views be set aside in the name of a fair and even documentation. LinaMishima 01:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Is not personal b elief but Allah's belief. But okay I see what your saying. First part of article should be what Islam says then a place at the bottom called, what unbelief says, or maybe better in a different article ncalled, what unbelief says about prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) Then they can write whatebver they want in that place and no more arguing.

WIkipedia does not have POV splits for articles. All articles are written as if from the perspecitive of someone who has no prior knowledge of a subject at all and is looking to see what everyone believes. Please stop performing POV edits. LinaMishima 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries LinaMishima, I guess he is new here. He will learn with the passage of time. Remember do not bite? LionofTruth, we should try to develop article which are acceptable for all believes of people. I think it is possible but yes difficult. --- ابراهيم 02:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there picture of prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in this article! How we should take it out NOW? No one has real picture of prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) or can be drawing them

By street_scholar

The article i would say is misleading because it continously refers to secular scholars and no muslim scholars so the view point is unbalanced. the scholars mentoined state on many occasions ulterior motives for muhammad to have done certain actions, e.g the scholars agree that the quran was taken from the biblical apocrypha however they fail to explain how an illiterate man (muhammad was illiterate) copied text from 1 book and put it into the quran which is of the highest literary standard and quality. It is unsurpassed to this day in any language and the arabs of muhammad's time were exceptionally proud and gifted when it came to producing arabic poetry. By continously hinting that muhammad was not sincere it causes one to be more confused than not if we conclude that muhammad was lieing it raises more questions than otherwise further more the evidence is overwhelming that muhammad was indeed sincere and not only that but unique to the point of being heralded by many western scholars as being the most influential man in history (read 100 most influential people by micheal hart)i find it galling that these self proclaiming scholars and historians mentioned in your article can overlook the most obvious and elemntary articles of muhammad's character a more balanced and unbiased view is needed, it is not to say that every aspect of the history of muhammad should be accepted or proclaimed as being fact but more respect and facts need to be shown by these scholars and historians before passing judgment on the life of such a man, not mere conjecture. i would rate this article as being not very trustworthy at all because of the agenda the producers of this article obviously have.

Quotation from the Pope

Should we include this? After all, the Pope is a hugely respected and influential religious leader, and this article is supposed to be objective. TharkunColl 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, the context of the speech and the formulation is such that it can't be attributed as his views.--Tigeroo 10:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The pope's terrible mistake, he insulted Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) and Muslim wont forget this. It needs an own article saying, the MIstake of the Pope saying also what will happen to the pope for this after life because he says that. You can have freedom in speach but not for iunsult of Islam or prophets ofr muslims. for this article Islam should come first then a place for unbelief, but not insults from pope please, that should be in Mistake of the Pope. LionofTruth˜˜˜˜

And if this article is a place for the absolute truth, should we also make it clear that Mohammed was a peadophile, for having sex with a nine-year-old child? Just because everyone else was doing it at that time in Arabia doesn't make it right. Oh, and talking about what the Pope said, in what way was he wrong? Throughout history Islam has used force and violence to impose its will on others, and nothing has changed in that respect. TharkunColl 11:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Both are bad but think, what is worse. to do force and violence against unbelief or to *insult a prophet*? Allah made it easy what is the answer to this! What needs to happen is for to respect Muslim and prophets, then there swhould be no problems. Problems are only because unbelief is using words and pictures to attacking the Muslims. LionofTruth˜˜˜˜

Are you serious? Do you really think it is worse to insult a prophet that to commit violence against those who disagree? With an attitude like that, is it any wonder that Islam is hated around the world? Well, in my opinion Mohammed displayed all the classic tendencies of schizophrenia - hearing voices, talking to angels and being told what to do by them, ruthless violence, unbridled ambition, overwheening self-importance, and rampant paranoia. Anyone who reads that incoherent jumble of disorganised rants called the Koran will gain an insight into Mohammed's true mental state. TharkunColl 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

please review the etiquettes of using an article talk page, WP is NOT a soapbox. if you want to advocate your personal convictions, i insist that such be done through an appropriate medium, like a forum or a blog. thank you. ITAQALLAH 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, it is not just my opinion. Here, for example, is what Winston Churchill says:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Surely this must, in all fairness, be placed in the main article, rather than relegated to a sub-page. Churchill was a great man who cared deeply about human progress and freedom from tyranny, and his views carry enormous weight. I must ask that all our Muslim contributors here bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for religious propaganda, and must always be objective in its reporting. TharkunColl 16:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here here, I have too agree with TharkunColl, that Muslim users of this page are using it as a platform to spray out religious beliefs. The pope, and Churchill fot that matter,have moth made sophisticated arguments against the violence and anochy accosiated with elements of extream Islam. They have a right to do so, Muslims should think up counter arguments rarther than shouting 'racist' and burning embassys. I hope we can provide just critisism of some of Muhammads actions, which where unquestionably disgusting, rarther than surrender to a pathetic political correctness. --La France 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl....This is not a place for you to discuss your lies and opinions on Islam....This is a place for facts....and the facts are that the Prophet Muhammad was not a pedophile....Women are not considered such until puberty and only at that time would anything have occurred between him and his wife. Just because she was young does not make him a pedophile. Many boys and girls were considered kings and queens, and looked at as adults at young ages throughout history. In fact the Prophet brought great justice to that part of the world by ending the burial of new-born baby girls as was a practice at the time by Arabs in the region, as well freeing slaves, and spreading peace. Your lies can hold no ground here. The Prophet took Mecca peacefully....Salahadin took Jerusalem without the bloodshed the Crusaders displayed when they took the city from Muslim hands previously.....These are the true facts in history of Islam. Not the lies you intend to spread. Take them somewhere else.

The Crusades would never had taken place had not the Muslims conquered vast tracts of territory in the Eastern Mediterranean that hitherto belonged to Western Civilisation. As for Muhammad not being a paedophile, Aisha was nine when he had sex with her. Make of that what you will. And whereas Muhammad might well have improved the lot of women and slaves, that was 1400 years ago, and nothing has moved on since then. I do not take kindly to being called a liar when all I am stating are historical facts. You are the one repeating lies, lies originating with and emanating from Muhammad himself. TharkunColl 16:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So the Muslims conqured somewhere. almost every civilization in history has conqured somewhere. you can't single out Muslims actions just because you don't like them.

There is much evedence that Alishia was wrong about her age and was in her mid teens when she had sex. unless you think she converted before she was born. Zazaban 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say or imply that the Muslims were the only people to have indulged in conquest. I merely stated that this was the reason for the Crusades - to regain lost territory. As for Aisha, the point is really that many Muslims accept her age as being nine - yet still try and defend Muhammad's actions. They say it was common practice amongst Arabs at the time. Maybe so, but Muhammad was in a position to change things, but he didn't. TharkunColl 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All 'conquerings in the name of religion' are inherently wrong and accordingly their perpetrators are inhereantly wrong, having sinned in direct defiance of God's will. I find it difficult to believe that God emplored one of his prophets to take up the sword and have him smote his political enemies --- in His name, no less!. It is especially hard to believe since he just got through sending His only Son to redeem us all. What a system of belief! Accordingly, Mohammed is viewed by many as a war prophet -eer.~!~~

Well you made it sound as if you where singling out their actions. Then it's very sad that they believe this because historical evedence says that she was in her mid to late teens. Zazaban 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

~~Zazaban is right. She got married when she was 15. It says so in teh Quran and in many hadiths it states things like: " aisha oh.... at such a young age of 15...was a political leader of islam. Every muslim I know knows that she was 15.MOI 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was not a pedophile.

There is evedence that his then wife (forgot her name) did not remember her age. there is substantial proof that she was at least 15 . Zazaban 18:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes he was, just read the comments in the Muhammad a pedophile section. --La France 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been talk and I have read "evidence" that Muhammad was a pedophile who especially liked to have sex with boys. As a homosexual Muslim myself, I find allegations such as these to be VERY offensive to the homosexual community. People always think that homosexuals must also be pedophiles and this is yet another instance of this erroneous thinking and I, for one, believe it should stop.--User:Rainbowjoe

I have seen no real evidence that Mohammed himself was an active homosexual, though he certainly included statements in the Koran to encourage homosexuals to join Islam - whether this was cynicism on his part we simply cannot tell. He was most certainly a paedophile, however - he married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. True, all Arabs were doing this sort of thing at the time - that doesn't make it right of course. And as a leader, Mohammed was in a position to change things. That he chose not to speaks volumes. TharkunColl 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, the ;TRUTH'/'FALSE' bit in the middle is ludicrous. This is one of Wikipedia's worst big entries. The constant PBUH'ing and the railroading into one direction or another is preposterous.

MOITHis is just disgusting. why on earth..!!!! how on earth did you get ahold of such a freakishly disgusting theory??!! There is no evidence of anything like that. He was married to Aisha. I have never read anything that states that he encouraged homos to come into Islam, because no offense to anyone you are supposed to have only opposite gender marriages. Even if he did it is because he is a good man to invite people of all kinds to join Islam. Oh my Lord! I think this is one the most unconstructive subjects ever. If this matter has been resolved may i get permission to delete this topic in teh talk page? I feel so sick... MOI 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)#REDIRECT [[1]]

It's extrapolation based on Aisha's statements that she was 6 at the time of marriage and 9 at the time of the consummation of her marriage, which would indicate that he had sex with what we, today, would consider a child. By many definitions, that would place him within the category of "pedophile," though not under all definitions. The majority of early Muslim sources have the earlier age; a minority of sources suggest a later age. There's a link from the main article that explains the matter in more depth. Whether you choose to believe the later date or the earlier date is up to you; however, it goes a great deal toward a consideration of Muhammad's credibility, and reasonable people do believe that Muhammad was tainted morally by that early marriage. As for removing it from the talk page, that generally isn't a good idea; it'll go into an archive the next time the talk page gets too big, which will probably be in the next few weeks. Captainktainer * Talk 19:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Aisha got married to him at age 15. It states so in the Quran. If you read my note in the above category, you will see so. I am goign to look for a link for that hadith now.MOI 22:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Polemics are not permitted

Any attempt at polemicizing and (esp. inflamatory) off-topic comments are a misuse of this talk page, and will be subject to censur. Please ensure that this talk page usage is limited to practical suggestions on how to improve the article. Thanks. El_C 08:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Baphomet

We should certainly mention that the Knights Templar worshipped an image of Mohammed (under the corrupted name of Baphomet) as part of their ceremonies, which also involved them kissing each other on the anus and spitting on the cross to repudiate Christianity. An image of Baphomet is on the right.

The point I'm trying to make is a very simple one - Muslims do not have a monopoly on Mohammed, and many other groups and sects have held him in esteem or, in the case of the Templars, actually worshipped him. And their interpretations of Mohammed and his role might be very different to that of the Muslims. TharkunColl 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thats interesting and could go under a new section Muhammad, but I think it fits more neatly into non-islamic views of Muhammad because as it stands however the article on Baphomet seems to imply that was a contrived defamation rather than establised fact vis-a-vis the Knights Templars by trying to brand them closet muslims. Other religious tradition don't really deviate too much from the Muslim account, merely in their conception of him and that could probably be incorporated into a section as seems common practice on other similar pages.--Tigeroo 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did somebody remove the image of Baphomet? Are we to have the talk page censored now, as well as the article itself? I've restored it. This was an image of Mohammed (called by them Mahomet or Baphomet) that was woshipped by the Knights Templar. Not all followers of Mohammed are Muslims. TharkunColl 23:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not neccesarily Prophet Muhammad (p). Baphomet#Etymology_of_the_name_.22Baphomet.22. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus is that it is indeed Mohammed. Here is a citation from The Worship of the Generative Powers: During the Middle Ages of Western Europe by Thomas Wright, J.E. Tennent, and George Witt [2].

Another piece of information relating to this "idol," which has been the subject of considerable discussion among modern writers, was elicited from the examination of some knights from the south. Gauserand de Montpesant, a knight of Provence, said that their superior showed him an idol made in the form of Baffomet; another, named Raymond Rubei, described it as a wooden head, on which the figure of Baphomet was painted, and adds, "that he worshipped it by kissing its feet, and exclaiming, 'Yalla,' which was," he says, "verbum Saracenorum," a word taken from the Saracens. 94 A templar of Florence declared that, in the secret chapters of the order, one brother said to the other, showing the idol, "Adore this head--this head is your god and your Mahomet."

So, as we can see from these direct quotes taken from the Templars themselves, to them the words Baffomet, Baphomet, and Mahomet were merely variations of the same name. Furthermore, they worshipped this idol by kissing its feet and exclaiming "Yalla" - a word that they were fully aware came from the Saracens (i.e. Muslims). "Yalla", of course, is Allah.

Can anyone doubt that these Templars worshipped Mohammed? In the interests of historical accuracy, we must include something about this in the article. Unless I hear any cogent and logical reasons why I shouldn't, I'm going to add a section to the article about the Templars and their worship of Mohammed. And, since they obviously had no objection whatsoever to images of him (indeed, they worshipped such images), I'm also going to include the picture of Baphomet. TharkunColl 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

straight after what you quoted:

The word Mahomet was used commonly in the middle ages as a general term for an idol or false god; but some writers have suggested that Baphomet is itself a mere corruption of Mahomet, and suppose that the templars had secretly embraced Mahometanism. A much more remarkable explanation of this word has, however, been proposed, which is, at the least, worthy of very great consideration, especially as it comes from so distinguished an orientalist and scholar as the late baron Joseph von Hammer-Pürgstall. It arose partly from the comparison of a number of objects of art, ornamented with figures, and belonging apparently to the thirteenth century. These objects consist chiefly of small images, or statuettes, coffers, and cups.

"Yalla" is an arabic word, existing even before the muslims. to imply that the word "Mahomet" in the passage connotes "Muhammad" is merely a misuse of the source. ITAQALLAH 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The section I am going to write will be fair, and will certainly point out that some scholars dispute the etymology. TharkunColl 12:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

you have not yet produced any significant corpus of objective scholarly opinion which believes baphomet = Muhammad. neither have you substantiated this statement: "The scholarly consensus is that it is indeed Mohammed." ITAQALLAH 12:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reality check. It's utterly irrelevant to the article, even if it's true. Who cares what these people did? It has nothing to do with Muhammad or Islam. J. Edgar Hoover supposedly masturbated onto a Bible while in drag. Would a photograph of him doing so belong at Bible? This is vandalism sprayed lightly with eau de history. BYT 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I must note that you are missing a very important point here. Idries Shah noted the following: "Probably relying on contemporary Eastern sources, Western scholars have recently supposed that 'Bafomet' has no connection with Mohammed, but could well be a corruption of the Arabic "Abufihamat" (pronounced in the Moorish Spanish similar to bufihamat). The word means 'father of understanding'. In Arabic, 'father' is taken to mean 'source, chief seat of,' and so on. In Sufi terminology, ras el-fahmat (head of knowledge) means the mentation of man after undergoing refinement- the transmuted consciousness." source. One more thing is that in the "Etymology of the name "Baphomet"" section, there is no clear indication that Baphomet refers to Muhammad. --The Woman Who Sold The World 12:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

another interesting quote from that source (after a lengthy analysis of Von Hammer's reasoning) provided by TharkunColl:

There is no such word in Arabic as mete, and Von Hammer considers it to be simply the Greek word μῆτις, wisdom, a personification in what we may perhaps call the Gnostic mythology answering to the Sophia of the Ophianites. He considers that the name Baphomet is derived from the Greek words Βαφη μητοες, i. e. the baptism of Metis, and that in its application it is equivalent with the name Mete itself. He has further shown, we think conclusively, that Baphomet, instead of being a corruption of Mahomet, was a name known among the Gnostic sects in the East. Zonar is not an Arabic word, and is perhaps only a corruption or error of the sculptor, but Von Hammer thought it meant a girdle, and that it alluded to the mysterious girdle of the templars, of which so much is said in their examinations. The letter B is supposed by Von Hammer to stand here for the name Baphomet, or for that of Barbalo, one of the most important personages in the Gnostic mythology. Mounkir is the Arabic word for a person who denies the orthodox faith. The rest of the formula is given on the other side of the figure, but as the inscription here presents several corruptions, we will give Von Hammer's translation (in Latin) of the more correct copy of the formula inscribed on the bowl or goblet preserved in the museum at Vienna. In the Vienna bowl, the formula of faith is written on a sort of large placard, which is held up to view by a figure apparently intended for another representation of Mete or Baphomet.

-- ITAQALLAH 12:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have already stated, the section I shall write will include the fact that some scholars dispute the etymology. Yet the fact is that out of all the fancy etymologies advanced by certain people, only the equation with Mahomet is supported by the original sources. This in itself is reason enough for the section to be written. TharkunColl 14:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The original source uses the word "Mahomet" - it does not specify that it is referring to prophet of Islam. The only people making that claim are "some writers", according to the page cited (the exact line being "The word Mahomet was used commonly in the middle ages as a general term for an idol or false god; but some writers have suggested that Baphomet is itself a mere corruption of Mahomet"). While this may have a place in the Knights Templar article (why haven't you put it there, incidentally?) it has no justification here. Valarauka 15:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

it suggests there may be an alleged link between mahomet and baphomet. the same writers may define "mahomet" in this context the same way in which this source does i.e. general term for an idol. to find one source which says "mahomet may equal muhammad" and another which says "baphomet may equal mahomet" to press the claim that "baphomet may equal muhammad" is OR as described in the link below. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

you have thus far provided no reliable source nor scholarly analysis equating baphomet with Muhammad. until you do, such will be considered original research (more specifically WP:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position), and in my view a misuse of the source provided. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's there in black and white, from the Templar's own testimony. They used Baphomet interchangeably with Mahomet, and said that they'd got it from the Saracens (i.e. Muslims), along with the word Yalla. TharkunColl 15:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

please review the link provided for you and WP:OR in general. thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have known that a few mere facts would not be enough to convince the thought-police. This is not a synthesis of different sources - it's going back to the Templar's statements themselves. They used the words Mahomet and Baphomet for the same thing, which they said they had got from the Saracens, along with the word Yalla.TharkunColl 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the statements forced out of them through torture?

My main issues with the section you are attempting to insert are:

1. They don't belong in this article. They belong in articles related to the Knights Templar and in the article(s) about non-Islamic views of Muhammad. I also note that this *is* already mentioned in the article about the history of the Knights Templar.

2. They are poorly sourced. You have attempted to add a non-trivial amount of material to this article and provided only one source. --ElKevbo 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Itaqallah here. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reason why the section on Baphomet is not welcome in this article is because it represents a totally different interpretation of Mohammed and his religious significance than that found in Islam. And yet the Templars were sincere in their beliefs - hundreds of them died at the hands of the Christian church for them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - this article is about Mohammed, not Islam. If the Templars worshipped Mohammed, that fact deserves a place here. And according to their own testimony, quoted above, they did worship Mohammed.

And furthermore, it's really interesting. I suspect that very few Muslims, or indeed many other people, will have even heard of this before. Shouldn't they be given a chance to find out? TharkunColl 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

you have not yet provided a cited opinion held by scholars that baphomet was thought to be a representation of Muhammad. the links you are trying to draw are original research. the very link you provided tells us how the word "mahomet" within that specific context is to be understood. the basis for any inclusion equating Muhammad with baphomet is currently very weak. yes, as you said, this is an encyclopaedia. and almost definitely, not a compilation of original research (such as [3]). and yes, it may be "really interesting", but it is seemingly not notable, and not an established opinion. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, TharkunColl, your source doesn't say what you're claiming it does. In fact, it asserts the exact opposite. From further on in that same article: "He has further shown, we think conclusively, that Baphomet, instead of being a corruption of Mahomet, was a name known among the Gnostic sects in the East." Note 'we think conclusively - i.e. the authors of the source conclusively think that Baphomet is not in fact a corruption of Mahomet. Also, you might want to check on the History of the Knights Templar, particularly the charges of heresy section, before blithely saying they were sincere in their beliefs.

In any case, BYT's "Reality check" is still the most valid point here. Valarauka 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly understand why the Muslims get annoyed when a totally separate group of people, such as the Templars, decide to include Mohammed in their religious beliefs whilst at the same time promulgating their own views about his significance, divinity, role, etc. But surely this is exactly what the Muslims themselves have done with Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and the like. You can't have it both ways. TharkunColl 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do Muhammad itself or Islam. Feel free to add it at the end or close to end of the in the "see also" section. --Aminz 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, I have already added it at the very end of the article, but it was deleted within minutes. And, by the way, it has a great deal to do with Mohammed - if people worshipped him as a god and kissed the feet of his image, then this should be reported. TharkunColl 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Common. They were not Muslims in anyway. Baphomet is not Muhammad. --Aminz 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But Baphomet is Mahomet, that's the whole point! You are basing your assertion on Muslim doctrine, whereas Muslims have no monopoly on Mohammed. The Templars worshipped him as a god and kissed the feet of his idol - who on earth can say that they were wrong in this? TharkunColl 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding a line (but no more) to the "Muhammad in related religious traditions" section. Make sure you reference it to scholarly sources. Cheers, --Aminz 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "Muhammad in other religious traditions" to pave the way for your quote. --Aminz 23:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"But Baphomet is Mahomet, that's the whole point!" -- Did you even read what I wrote above? Your own source's authors are conclusivley convinced that Baphomet is not a reference to Muhammad. You cannot simply take some medieval text and claim it means something - that there's known as original research. Valarauka 00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"You cannot simply take some medieval text and claim it means something" - you mean like the Koran? Just to make it crystal clear, I am not using Wright himself as the primary source - I am using the medieval Templars whom he quotes. TharkunColl 08:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl, you need to provide some authoritative sources saying Baphomet = Muhammad, and unfortunately it seems that many of the sources conclusively establish that Baphomet != Muhammad. the general opinion of the editors seems to be against the inclusion of this on the basis that it is currently OR and has a very shaky foundation. i suspect you wouldn't get very far continuing to articulate your point without providing some sources. ITAQALLAH 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous references. Here is just a random selection from the Internet: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. What all of these show is that the equation Baphomet=Mahomet=Muhammad is a perfectly respectable scholarly position, even though other scholars have proposed different origins. It is not our job here on Wikipedia to choose between the different theories, merely to report them. TharkunColl 10:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The one thing in common about all of those sources is they invariably state that the etymology of Baphomet is dubious; any that mention the Templars also say the Baphomet worship was an accusation, and not proven. In any case, using these sources to say Baphomet=Muhammad and combining with the Templar statement to 'prove' they revered him is original research. In fact, using the Templars' statements directly in any fashion is contrary to WP:RS, since they are primary sources. The secondary source in which those statements appear itself contradicts your claim. In any case, stop changing your arguments every time they're disproved - you introduced the Wright reference with "The scholarly consensus is that it is indeed Mohammed. Here is a citation (...)". That particular scholarly consensus is that it is indeed not Muhammad. You've lost this one, let it go already. - Valarauka(T/C) 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the accusation against the Templars was proven is not the point - its mere existence is worthy of note. That the Templars worshipped Muhammad is a well-known theory amongst Templar historians, a fact that editors of this page may not be aware of. It is certainly not the only theory, but it is a genuine, scholarly opinion held by some. It is not I who am changing my arguments (and in any case, the arguments themselves should stand in their own right regardless of who is saying them) - the only ones changing their positions are those who are determined that no reference to the Templars will be allowed in this article under any circumstances. TharkunColl 10:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, instead of accusing others of censorship, reflect on the fact that you're the only one who is determined to insert a reference to the Templars into this article. Then, I suggest you go read the History of the Knights Templar from the Charges of heresy section to the end. The Templars were accused of worshipping Baphomet along with various other heresies in the 1300s by King Philip, who was jealous of them. They have since been absolved: "In 2002, Dr. Barbara Frale found a copy of the Chinon Parchment in the Vatican Secret Archives, a document which indicated that Pope Clement V secretly absolved the leaders of the Order in 1308. She published her findings in the Journal of Medieval History in 2004". Hence, the Templars didn't worship Baphomet, they were absolved, problem solved. - Valarauka(T/C) 11:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So who's doing original research now, eh? You are dismissing hundreds of years of historical research in a few trite words. The fact is that many scholars have proposed that the Templars worshipped Muhammad. It is this that deserves mention. TharkunColl 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing original research, that's from the wikipedia article, which is cited. The fact is that you haven't yet listed any citations for these 'many scholars' - the one scholarly citation you had was saying the exact opposite of what you're trying to say. The fact is that it still wouldn't belong in this article, per the undue weight criterion. The fact is that you need to let this go already. I'm going to stop discussing this now, it's clearly pointless. - Valarauka(T/C) 11:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight criterion? Now who's changing the goalposts, eh? So even if it were true, it shouldn't go in, right? I refer you back to my previous statement about editorial censorship. TharkunColl 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Valarauka's point regarding undue weight is entirely valid. nobody ever said that OR was the only reason why it does not merit inclusion. even then, the link you have attempted to draw is still OR at this moment, you have not produced one scholarly work saying Baphomet equals Muhammad. you have merely provided a barrage references which either do not explicitly state that baphomet = muhammad, or are unreliable, non-scholarly and unpublished sources (some of which are identical replicas of each other), or even both. as i have stated before, the current consensus seems to be against inclusion. you will need to start producing more authoritative sources instead of repeating the same argument ad nauseum, because it is quite frankly wasting other editors' time. ITAQALLAH 11:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As for undue weight, worship of Baphomet survived the fall of the Templars and is very widespread even today within Satanism and the Occult. This is surely worthy of note. I strongly suspect, however, that no matter how many scholarly opinions I could cite equating Baphomet with Muhammad, other editors would still find, or invent, reasons not to include it. This article should not be a vehicle for a single POV, that of Muslim theology. But that's exactly what it is. TharkunColl 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is going nowhere. IMHO, the rigth place to talk about this issue is Non-Islamic views of Muhammad. Were the Templars Muslims? No. Were they believing in/worshiping Muhammad? Maybe. The important thing is that all this should be put in there. Note that we also have Non-Islamic views of Muhammad#Christian portrayals in the Middle Ages there. -- Szvest 13:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

This addition should be locked, its irrevelent and has no point in improving anything here

Gagging threat

To whom it may concern: I received a warning by Ibrahimfaisal to stop reverting the sporadic deletions of a picture on the article page, otherwise facing a banning. Since I consider the argument a mere pretext to promote a personal agenda on this article, I'd like to document the threat here; comments or ideas are welcome. Thanks.--The Hungry Hun 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(Original message)3RR violation WARNING for Muhammad article

You have already violate 3RR. Be aware that you could be banned if you continue to do that. Hence stop reverting -- ابراهيم 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(My reply)Re your 3RR warning

Hi, thanks for your message.

I consider my contributions to be covered by the "Reverting_vandalism" exception to 3RR:

My reverts were solely focused on restoration of one (occasionally two) image(s), which had repeatedly been deleted from the article, without reason or explanation by the deleting person. Hence, my actions were merely reverts to acts of vandalism.

In addition, your threat to block me strikes me not only as rather unfriendly but possibly as the expression of a personal bias from your side: You are personally and emotionally involved re the aforementioned picture and now try to push this personal agenda forward. This possibility is corroborated by the fact that you demand the development of a "consensus" before inserting the picture, yet you do not answer to a single point I made on the discussion page, even though I invited you to do so almost three weeks ago. I cannot avoid the impression that you're not interested in a consensus but hoping to let the whole matter just fade away. Your answer is welcome!

--The Hungry Hun 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: As your warning is directly connected to the dispute itself, I'll mirror your message and my reply to the article's discussion page if you don't mind. --The Hungry Hun 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot block you as I am not an admit. But yes I can certainly report you. I will leave on admins to decide if they really think it was a "reverting_vandalism" or not.

Right, that's what I meant - not tha you'll ban me, but that you'll seek to have me banned. --The Hungry Hun 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are inserting a picture and many people are reverting back. No one else has violate WP:3RR while reverting your change except you. You had even violated 5RR rule (if that really exist). See that Wikipedia is a community. It means that what majority want will stay in the article hence either one has to convince the majority to his side by using talk-page or accept their decision. Looks like in your case majority do not want that picture in the article. You are not able to convince people. Once again I will report you if you continue with reverting contents. --- ابراهيم 23:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, first of all, let's get the heat out of the discussion. The same argument of yours could be applied vice-versa: Several people (not just me!) protect the pictures in the article, but you (plus a few other users, plus a few IPs) keep deleting it. As explained, reverting the ungrounded and unexplained deletion of article parts does not constitute a 3RR violation, as it is covered by the revert vandalism exemption. Random erasures are not the same as a lack of consensus.

You still have not raised any objection as regards content - three weeks after I asked you to do so! My impression is quite clearly that you do not question the picture's quality or its added value for the article or whatever, but the simple fact of its existence.

This personal resentment, however, while perfectly understandable as a private opinion, cannot be the basis of Wikipedia's standards. Please accept this.

--The Hungry Hun 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

this discussion does not really belong here. to report a perceived 3RR violation please go to WP:AN3. editors may have reasonable justification for thinking that a particular image or text is inappropriate, and the talk page should be used to articulate this. it may be a bit of bad faith to presume removal of a piece of material equates to "censorship" or vandalism. the constant reversions may or may not consist of breaking the 3RR limit, the relevant place for discussing that is not here. ITAQALLAH 08:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

re: use of the term "idols" and User:Opiner's related edits

idols being used in the context of the article is not a pejorative term, simply because all idols were destroyed regardless of whether they were dedicated to Allah or not. the proposal suggested by User:Opiner is unnecessarily verbose and implies that statues/idols dedicated to Allah were retained, although no evidence for this has been produced. idols, meaning statuettes or images created and used for worship, is far more succint. ITAQALLAH 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Idols is inherently a negative word. It would be more NPOV to speak of cult figures or religious objects or religious statues, etc. I have noticed that many Muslims, when describing Muhammad's opponents, give free rein to epithets such as "polytheist" and "idolator," or speak of "idols" in an disapproving manner. I don't think this is fair to Muhammad's opponents. They had their traditional religion, which they believed themselves to be defending. WP can't take the Muslim POV, which is that their religion was worthless. They are gone, they can't speak for themselves, so it's up to other people to insist that WP be neutral in judging religions. Zora 08:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

i am struggling to find an alternative mono-word equivalent to objects which are the focus of worship. i was considering something like religious objects, but the same connotation of actually making the object the recipient or a focus of worship doesn't seem to be there in my opinion. there are many religious objects for example which are not necessarily the focus of worship. ITAQALLAH 08:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora is right on all points. Itaqallah, you're right that religious objects aren't necessarily the focus of worship. The crucifix comes to mind. This morning, I read someone calling Christians 'worshippers of the cross.' To an outsider, it might look like Muslims worship the Kaaba or something hidden inside it. Hindus disagree with being called idol worshippers, but I think many Muslims call them that anyway. We don't really know what Meccan religion was like, only that Muhammad considered it idolatry. 'Cult figures' is pejorative, but 'religious objects' or 'religious images' is fine. Mentioning that Muhammad considered them idols is accurate and neutral, but the article shouldn't take a position. It would be interesting to hear something more specific about what these idols really were like, anyone know?

Good to see compromise on revelations, but 'reportedly' is vague. 'Muhammad said' is direct. Did anyone else besides Muhammad witness and report these visits from Gabriel?

The passage, "after the first revelation. This silence worried him, until he received" presumes the reality of divine revelation. If skeptics wrote it it might say "after his first stories about the Gabriel thing. This writer's block worried him, until after many failed attempts he composed." Besides the bias, it's unsourced and doesn't add much to the article.Opiner 22:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

wrt crucifix et al. i think that's a very interesting point. when the term mushrikeen is used, by the very definition of the word it isn't necessarily exclusive to conventional "idol worshipping", it encompasses a wide range of things. but this is a different discussion. regarding the Meccan religion, we do know per EoI that they were pagans who believed in multiple gods (in its "Makka" article) and it also says (in the "Muhammad" article):

About Muhammad's milieu, Arabia, the following information was after all available: a lack of political structures; warlike, predatory activities considered characteristic for the way of life; a manifold idolatry as religious expression (i.e. the essential marks of Arabian tribalism); and also the settlement of Christian and Jewish groups in Arabia.

the cambridge history of islam goes on about the establishment of a triad of goddesses, a "significant feature" of what it calls "idolatry and polytheism" in Mecca at the time. also the EoI does not seem to have any qualm with using the word "idol" and "idolatry" when discussing the idols of Mecca. others who employ use of the word idol(s) or idolatry (you can check on google books) are Esposito, Watt, Muir and others. on that basis, i do not think that "idols" or "idolatry" are terms necessarily pejorative, and academics seem to have been able to use the word without much dilemna. i am certainly leaning towards this word, as it is succinct and accurately depicts the situation of Mecca.

about the word reportedly, i think it is a more subtle word which allows for both views without making the divergence as explicit. wrt your question, it is documented in hadeeth literature that others saw Gabriel with Muhammad.

wrt the other passage which you feel presumes divine revelation, not necessarily. critics have many opinions about Muhammad. some believe he was sincere but revelation was a product of his sub-conscious, or that he had some kind of psychological issue (wa 'iyaadhubillah). the fatra ("pause" of revelation), as well as Muhammad's worry concerning it, are both well documented in western academia however. perhaps we could tweak slightly with the sentence? ITAQALLAH 07:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said they saw Gabriel chatting with Muhammad? Which hadith?

Esposito, Watt and Muir don't have to be neutral. Also, Esposito and Watt are serious Christians, not being Muslim doesn't make them neutral towards traditional Arabian religion. The point of all my edits was just, the article shouldn't make it sound like Muhammad's stories about Gabriel were real (or unreal) and shouldn't make it sound like there was anything wrong (or right) with pre-Muslim religion. Can you agree with that in principle?Opiner 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

try the first few hadeeth of saheeh muslim[11]. there are other instances also, such as aa'ishah following Muhammad out at night and seeing him with someone, learning later that it was Gabriel (related in bukhaari i think).

wrt idols, the point being that if major academics in the field of islamic study can use the word idols and idolatry to describe what was going on in Arabia, including works like encyclopaedia of islam and the cambridge history of islam, then there is considerable reason for its use. of course, as per NPOV, we cannot push one viewpoint as true or base a narrative on a premise that others may not accept. i don't believe however that when the aforementioned works used the word idol they were doing it with a strong bias behind it. ITAQALLAH 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If we want to keep their wording we should use quotes. There is definite bias here but not the kind you are used to looking for. It just happens to be an issue where Jews, Christians and agnostics of the west agree completely with Islam, polytheism is ridiculous and idols are just superstition. Someone like Watt will find common ground and say, look here is something on which all reasonable people can agree, whether Christian or Muslim. But okay by Christians plus okay by Muslims doesn't equal NPOV. Also, there is the political goal of having major religions get along. If that makes a conquered dead religion look bad, who cares? That's practical but it's not NPOV. Or informative. We should be specific about what these idols were, what was their religious function and why Muhammad didn't like it. Or that we don't know, all we know is what Muhammad said about them. Were there other gods involved besides Allah's three daughters? Saying the Kaaba was full of idols is like saying an alleged brothel is a house of filth without telling people what goes on there.

Same with the hadith. I'll go through them, thanks. If someone else saw Gabriel with Muhammad, we should say who and when with a reference.Opiner 06:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That old gem about Muhammad saying some fellow on the road was Gabriel? No one's witnessing a revelation here. Are they? We can say, Umar said that Muhammad later said that a man they'd passed on the road who'd asked Muhammad some questions was Gabriel. Let's add it to the article. Anything else? Did anyone besides Muhammad witness revelations underway? if not we should write, 'Muhammad said,' not 'reported.'Opiner 09:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

i don't think it is plausible or appropriate to disregard the work of an authoritative academic on the basis that they are Christian. it does not work like that on WP. how then will you attempt to explain the usage of the word by the other sources i have mentioned? wrt idols, a spade is a spade is a spade. if the academics are calling it a spade, there's no reason why wikipedia cannot. there is no point in using quotes, the fact that idols were there is well known. it doesn't matter if it was Muhammad who said there were idols or if it was someone else who said it. it is the job of the experts and historians to ascertain whether idols were there or not: and they have done that. there were three main demi-gods amongst a host of numerous minor ones from what i know, in the form of idols. if you object to the term "idol", then produce a suggestion which is equal in meaning which you believe is "non-POV" which gives the same meaning, and a source confirming it. if you are disputing that they actually worshipped idols, then you will need to review the sources and provide a citation for that.

wrt Gabriel, isn't it easier to just say that it is reported? why overcomplicate the issue when both interpretations become equally plausible through the use of one subtle word which does not change the tone of the sentence? your analysis is rather superficial, this hadeeth in particular is mass transmitted amongst different narrators. it would not be appropriate to conclude from your own research whether others had or had not seen Gabriel during actual revelation. i see no valid basis on change from "reportedly" to "Muhammad said". alternatively the narrative in this instance can be changed to "According to Islamic tradition, ...". there is no need to document who saw what, where, how, why and when, because (aside from the fact it is mass-transmitted) the narrative should be based on good secondary sources like Schimmel or Watt or Muir or another RS, and good tertiary sources like the encyclopaedia of islam. ITAQALLAH 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are evading all of my points. No one is saying ignore Christians, only give Meccan religion the benefit of NPOV. A spade is a spade: religious objects dedicated to gods other than AllAh. I'm saying be more specific, not less. And I already have suggested a replacement which you reverted: religious objects dedicated to gods other than Allah.

So, there are after all no hadith saying that anyone ewlse saw these revelations. Why can't we just say Muhammad said? No one else reported it. That's obvious from your response. Muhammad reported it, and we either believe him or not. That's why it's so important we tell people he's al amin, right? If Muhammad is honest, then 'Muhammad said' should be worth a lot more than "reportedly', not less. What do the secondary sources say, that Gabriel told Muhammad this and that? I don't think so.Opiner

actually, i don't believe that i am evading any of your points. you are dismissing academics on the basis of their religion, which has no basis in any wikipedia policy. even then, you have not yet justified why other non-Christian sources should also be dismissed, like EoI and Cambridge history of Islam. "religious objects dedicated to gods other than allah" is verbose, confusing and not entirely correct (as i explained above): were the "religious objects" dedicated to allah kept? no, the sources say all idols were destroyed. not: all "religious objects dedicated to gods beside allah" were destroyed. there is no justifiable reason to sacrifice conciseness here. the sources unanimously say "idols", and that's exactly what they were.

as i said before, you are in no position to conclude whether or not any other hadeeth exist about people seeing Gabriel. to say there are no hadeeth is plain old original research. "reportedly" includes the possibility of both "Muhammad said" and "Muhammad and others said", as well as being concise and subtle. ITAQALLAH 12:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

err.. wait a second. looking at the sentence again it starts with the condition "Muslims believe...". no need for "reportedly" then i guess. ITAQALLAH 12:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss them as academic sources, only saying that they’re not necessarily neutral and unlike us don't have to be. If the sources said they worshipped 'evil things' without saying what they were, are we going to write that in the article? Figuring out what wording is neutral is our job not theirs. What were these 'idols' besides just a negative word? If no one knows, how did these sources decide that they were idols? If someone does know, let's write in the article what they were.

For Hadith I didn’t suggest writing in the article that there are no hadith saying that, only that we should use 'Muhammad said' instead of weasel word 'reportedly' when Muhammad is the only known witness. You were the one that first brought this up when you said that hadith document other people seeing the revelations in order to justify 'reportedly,' was that original research? Then when I read your hadith and notice that it doesn't really say that, you call it original research. Do you have a secondary source which says that others saw the revelations?

That sentence doesn't start out with Muslims believe. You must be looking at the sentence before it. Either way this article is called Muhammad, not What Muslims believe about Muhammad. We know that Muhammad claimed these things in his lifetime, it's not just Muslims making it up later. The fact that Muslims believed him is explained when further down in the article it says that some people believed his message. As you know, not everyone believed him, so can we write that 'it was reported' that Muhammad made it all up? Same logic.Opiner 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed idols to 'pre-Muslim religious objects, which they considered idols.' That presents the Muslim view without saying they were right or wrong. Unlike 'objects dedicated to gods other than Allah' doesn't sound like there were idols to Allah which were allowed to stay. Does that work for you?Opiner 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Idols is used to refer to statuary or objects of veneration were representations of gods, so its not objects dedicated to, such as even animals or people could be, but rather specific. The mention of these statues and representations of god are clearly mentioned in numerous historical accounts, unlike the vagueness that comes across in terms such as "religious objects". If you think idols is POV use the Idol disambiguation page for alternative terms. It appears that cult images is commonly used as a neutral term, and is quite specific in its implication.--Tigeroo 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? You say it's specific, and I agree it should be. Can we be specific about what they physically were, and of/to which gods? I keep asking this and it looks like no one knows. you seem SO sure that they are bad idols, but can you describe them? If not, you are just repeating something someone told you, and we're in no position to call them anything.

There's your challenge. Describe them. Give us whatever you have. Whatever specifics you can substantiate, however damning to the Meccans, let's put them in the article. If there's nothing beyond the epithet 'idol,' then let's admit we don't know what we are/Muhammad was talking about and stop blowing smoke.Opiner 07:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

wrt the current passage on the visitation, i think what you have changed it to is an improvement from your earlier suggestion. however, i would want to point out that i only said that there were hadeeth when you asked:"", and i gave one example although there were other examples i said i may have given, as well as hadeeth i may not have been aware of. that you can conclude that no hadeeth exists in the entire corpus of hadeeth literature is original research. saying "reportedly" is not a weasel word when you cannot conclude whether it was just him, or others who may have seen on an occasion with him. other hadeeth note how companions actually witnessed revelation upon Muhammad, although there is no explicit mention of Gabriel. regardless, i am willing to accept the current formulation as long as the "he said" in the next sentence is removed. i don't know if he ever claimed to receive revelation for twenty three years, regardless it is accepted as fact.

that leaves us only the idols issue. NPOV is achieved when you include the divergence of sourced scholarly opinion. you are claiming that we only know they are idols due to Muslims claiming it, and subsequently that this was the only factor in influencing the choice of words by christian and non-christian scholars alike. not necessarily, as there is plenty of archeological evidence and possible other sources showing that polytheism and "religious-object-worship" (how tedious does that sound!?). scholarly sources generally need to pass peer review before being published, and moreso with tertiary sources like EoI where a group of editors choose and compile the best available articles. from that perspective, we can say that the term "idol" is factual. negative? maybe, maybe not. but then we need to work on coming up with something that conveys the same factual implication without the perceived negative meaning, if you are insistent that the word "idol" simply cannot be tolerated in an encyclopaedia (which i still think is totally absurd). "religious object" is just too vague, and the current proposal in the article is not acceptable. something is required which implies a) multiple gods and; b) worshipping representations of these gods in the form of statues, statuettes and so on. if you have a problem with a) or b), then your objection is based upon whether or not they actually did do what is historically recorded of them, which is a different thing to opposing the word "idol" due to the negativity apparently attached to it. ITAQALLAH 06:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on reportedly at all. If we know of sources that say, X said, and no sources which say someone else said it, we shouldn't say 'reportedly' just because we haven't scoured every human testimony to see if someone else has corroberated it. You're turning verifiability on its head by saying we have to assume something is out there unless we've checked absolutely everything and can say for sure that it's not. Saying there are other hadith isn't enough. They're all online. Present them.

I don't think polytheism has anything to do with the meaning of 'idol' in English. This is mixing the idea of shirk with that of graven images, maybe both are bad but that's the only connection. If I have thirteen gods I worship in my head, and you have one represented by a ten foot golden frog with glowing emerald eyes and crocodile teeth, you're the one with the idol even if you are the monotheist. And yeah it's still an epithet. You say 'religious object' is too vague, but there's still no evidence that you know or anyone else knows anything more specific. If you/they do, describe it and we can include it in the article. All I hear is, there were religous objects and they were BAD BAD BAD. If they were statues, then let's call them statues. And, statues of WHOM. But, I'm thinking we don't really know, do we?Opiner 07:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the second 'he said' is awkward and for that reason sounds too skeptical. I'm trying to think of way to say that on a frequent basis he claimed to receive revelations, the same thing the original wording said, but not stated as fact.Opiner 07:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"They're all online" are they? or is this just an assumption? regardless, there is no use in debating this when i have already stated that the current formulation is acceptable on the minor condition i presented above.

"I don't think polytheism has anything to do with the meaning of 'idol' in English". it does have something to do with independant idols. suffice to say we have authoritative sources saying polytheism and idolatry.

"You say 'religious object' is too vague, but there's still no evidence that you know or anyone else knows anything more specific." ...idols is specific. did you read the overview i gave above.. with EoI stating that polytheism and idolatry was rampant? and i already stated, according to cambridge history and EoI, that there were three main idol demi-goddesses among a number of smaller lesser-deity idols. "religious objects" does not connote that they were worshipped, which is precisely why it is vague. unfortunately, you are currently providing no basis why the factual and academically acceptable word "idol" should not be used except that some may perceive it as "negative". ITAQALLAH 07:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not required to do research! Infact Original research is clear grouds for removal of material from the wiki. We are only to report published peer-reviewed articles, you are claiming that they were not idols or their equivalent, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate such a claim, as various sources clearly can be easily cited that state they were infact idols. If you are saying the term is Idol is POV we can work on that but please define the problem here, is it of factually accuracy or is it of POV.--Tigeroo 07:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Online, I'm pretty sure that they are.As we discussed, i'll be thinking about how to reword the second he said. To Tigeroo, no I'm not claiming they weren;'t idols, it's you who's aying they were. I'm saying, it looksd to me like no one really knows what they were, all we know is that Muhammad called them idols. And I'm a native English speaker but I'm still not sure what is meant by 'idol.' Giant crocodile-toothed demon frog? Cricifix? Pic of Muhammad?

What we really need is a source that's ABOUT pre-Muslim Arabian religion. As you say there are three daughters of Allah who were worshipped. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? 'Idols' sounds like the giamnt demon frog, but if we're really talking about the daughters of Allah, let's say that specifically. That reduces it to the theological dispute, does Allah have daughters who can intervene? Not rampant polytheism as it goes. Some Muslims say that martyrs can intervene on behalf of 72 relatives, is that polytheism? A number of smaller lesser deity idols? Okay, who? i still haven't heard of anyone but the daughters of Allah. And p.s. according to Islamic sources Muhammad also gave them a good word before he took it back. We should discuss this along with the 'idols' issue. Eveything in this discussion helps convince me that it really all comes down to the three daughters of Allah.Opiner 07:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

please do not confuse the issue. the issue is about the suitability of the term "idol". other descriptors can be discussed independantly of this discussion. we already stated that there were many idols according to the authoritative sources and three more-important ones. of course they can be mentioned. that does not stop them from being what they are, and what they should be described as: idols. your own personal conclusions do not constitute as a reliable source, unfortunately. also, i think the second "he said" merits removal, it is redundant, as is any equivalent. there is no need to fill the article with "Muhammad/he said"'s or its equivalent. ITAQALLAH 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article would only be filled with 'Muhammad said' if it was just a list of things that Muhammad said that no one else saw. Most of the article is thing that very many people saw. It's only the revelations which were private. Since Muhammad is the honest one, saying that he said something is far more powerful than saying something is generally believed.

You say nothing can stop them from being what they were, idols, but still won't tell me exactly what they were beyond that epithet. It's not about my personal conclusion, or yours. It seems that 'idols' is being used to give the illusion of a finding when really we don't know what was going on except that it was BAD because Muhammad said it was BAD. For all we know it was Buddhism 2.1 snuffed in the cradle by dogmatists who were stressing on a couple incidental image…kind of like on this article. If they were statues of Allah's daughters, then lets call them statues of Allah's daughters. That doesn't sound nearly as bad as idols, does it? Many readers will say, well, what is so bad about statues of Allah's daughters? Myself I'd have to see them before judging. Please help, anyone, who knows something about these 'idols.' Toothy frogs or hot Allah daughters?Opiner 09:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"It seems that 'idols' is being used to give the illusion of a finding when really we don't know what was going on except that it was BAD because Muhammad said it was BAD" . thankfully, wikipedia does not rely on the original research of its editors. the academic sources, which you have continuously tried to dismiss, use the term idol. that is sufficient for wikipedia. your own speculation on the reasoning behind it, is not. ITAQALLAH 09:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, we don't have to follow their terminology when its not neutral. Youd probably be the first to say this if we were taking wording from Muir. We can reference their facts, but what IS the fact? No one can tell me anything except they were 'idols.' That's a word not a fact. If you want to use their words, quote them.Opiner 10:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC

Cult images is the wikipedia use common equivalent, its on the idol disambiguation, if POV is the issue. For definitions you can visit the links idols and [[cult images]--Tigeroo 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You know we can't use other wikipedia articles for references, and idolatry is a great example of why not. Just because someone writes a bunch of unreferenced POV bull on another page doesn't mean anything. Since you want to talk policy, that's policy.Opiner 10:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

of course, we look at what all of the academics have said on this matter, all of the authoritative sources i have referenced use the word "idol", "idolatry". are you accusing them all (EoI, cambridge history of islam, Watt, Muir etc. etc.) of being "non neutral"? they are all athoritative sources. you are not in a position to argue with even one of them, yet you dismiss all of them, without any of your own sources! and then you claim, without any basis, that it is "Muslim POV"?? sorry, that's simply not good enough for WP. the fact is, idols were there. NPOV is not about giving equal validity to varying viewpoints. we can discuss added descriptions later.. first, let's deal with the term "idol". if "not neutral" is your only qualm, simply provide some authoritative sources which articulate "idols" "neutrally". ITAQALLAH 10:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hae no problem with saying what was there, actually I want to go into more detail if we can. Saying idols is a judgement without evidence. I tell you agian, it's like saying, it was a house of filth! Bad things happened there! Please share with us the quotes from your sources, and their references to their sources, so we can know just what they are saying and why. My guess is that they are not making any findings, only using words that have hung about the discourse without reflection. If you have a source saying they were idols, saying what this means (I still don't know) and why they deserve this description, then we can include your source and quote. Just finding the word 'idol' in a source doesn't address my objectionsOpiner 11:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

per your request, i tried to compile a list of quotes[12] from eoi, cambridge history, and muir. it is by no means comprehensive, especially as there are probably more articles i could have referenced from EoI. i didn't include Watt and Esposito as my google viewing limit has been reached (and i'm tired from having to type out all those Muir quotes), so you can search the books of watt and esposito for yourself at books dot google dot com using the terms "idol", "idols", "idolatry" and so on. the aim of providing the quotes is to conclusively show that the sources had no problem with using the word idols or describing the practice as "idolatry". sure we can go into more detail about the idols there, this does not necessitate removal of the term "idol" however. ITAQALLAH 13:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What can be wrong with the wording now? Is it un-neutral or un-accurate? I'm asking again, if Meccan religion and Islam wind up sounding equally valid in this article, is that okay with you in principle? Because that's NPOV. It can't be., Muhammad stopped this ridiculous superstitious stuff from going on, even if you, me and Watt would agree on that.Opiner 10:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It.s fine however change objects to images or icons, thats more accurate descriptor of what they were described as, and the term shirk for the Muslim concept of idolatory that they represented, whic was also the significance of their removal.--Tigeroo 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find a better and more accurate word to describe, then you should leave it in or a cite a source for the meaning implied by your change. Others aren't really here to find quotes and stuff for you, the onus is one you as the editor, especially of cited work. The concept relates to images or statues, and Arabic accounts such as those of Ibn Hisham appear to mention over 360 such images of dieties existed, and is mentioned in most historical books that narrate this too. When used in the context of the quotes, this is what it refers to, all such were smashed in accordance to demonstrate the singularity and non-representationability of god, there is no confusion. Suggest a more appropiate exact replacement, ofcourse if it is from a peer-reveiwed source all the better.--Tigeroo 11:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess

What a mess of an article poor grammar, inconsistent use of diferent spellings for the same word. I will put a clean up tag on it. Appalling article. 86.137.231.53 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Women's rights

If women had no property or inheritance rights before Mohammad's reforms, where did he find a rich widow to marry?

I dunno. Maybe she was an exception. send an email to the scholars who claimed that and ask them about it. --Aminz 22:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored to match a particular religion's views of what should or should not be included. As for claims that this image should be removed because there is no way of proving that the image is actually from where the contributor said it was: that is the point of the reference, and that reference is relatively easy to check, as I did here. Bear in mind that those images shouldn't be under copyright; scans of works with expired copyrights that are not further modified (such as with a watermark) are, by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., not protectable under United States copyright law. Captainktainer * Talk 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not-censored mean you can add images, just for the sake of adding images? For example the image currently exist in the article says "Muhammad re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba after the conquest of Mecca.
This illustration from the year 1315 was made in Tabriz, Persia and can be found in the Jami' al-Tavarikh ("The Universal History" or "Compendium of Chronicles", written by Rashid Al-Din). This very copy of the manuscript is located in the library of the University of Edinburgh". Most Muslims know that the image has nothing to do with "Conquest of Mecca". It describes an event taken place even decades before Conquest of Mecca. But the person who want to add this image in not interested in the historical fact. He just want to add the image. Wikipedia is also not for useless-stuff that do not add anything significant in the article. I will remove that useless image (that has nothing to do with conquest-of-meccan) soon. ---- ابراهيم 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Which event is, according to your source, depicted, then? And which source is it? This sounds rather vague to me, I never heard that claim before. --The Hungry Hun 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Adding of the Stone to the Kabaa is known in Muslim history to have happened before the first revealation to Muhammad. Linking it to the Conquest of Mecca shows ignorance, I'm surprised I missed that, how long was it there for? --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, nobody claimed it showing the Adding of the Black Stone, but the cleaning and re-dedication, what was actually carried out by Muhammad according to Islamic mythology. What makes you believe it shows the Adding? --The Hungry Hun 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hungry Hun you have no idea which event it is? Still you insist to add the image, by your dozen of reverts. Tell me WHY? --- ابراهيم 15:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know what I'm saying: The depicted scene does show the re-dedication by Muhammad IMO. If you're denying this, you should

1. do it substantially (what scene do you believe to be depicted),
2. state your source,
3. make an educated guess, why on earth it should be described as "Re-dedication after conquest of Mecca" by Rashid al-Din in his Jami' al-Tavarikh.

--The Hungry Hun 15:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I added this above in the "should we place a picture(..)", the discussion seems to have shifted here so replicating. Relevant guideline: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

It is already evident from the above discussion that the inclusion will be considered offensive by a lot of people, so the question becomes whether leaving it out would cause the article to become 'less informative, relevant, or accurate'. While I agree that the image might be a valid embellishment to the article, I don't see it as reducing the informativeness, relevance or accuracy in any way if it were left out. An article on the Jyllands-Pollen cartoon controversy, for example, would clearly lose relevance and informativeness if the cartoons themselves weren't displayed; over here, however, an image serves a purely illustrative purpose and hence should not be included. 'If and only if' is a very strong conditional. - Valarauka(T/C) 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the topic has been brought up before & it looks like we're concentrating the dispute here, I'll paste my statements from above:

1. As far as I can tell after a quick glance in the archives & researching the internet, different schools of Islam have different interpretations of the picture ban (actually, right now, there are Muhammad icons being sold in Iran to believers - with full face and everything). If Muslim law were applied to Wikipedia (to which I strongly object, since Wikipedia is not a religious project), why should it be the strictest interpretation which is being adopted. not only banning derogatory, but any pictures of Muhammad?
2. The latter is probably the more important point, too: An encyclopedia is by definition a project in the spirit of enlightenment - knowledge being collected, edited and published in absence of restricting or censoring powers, be they of religious, governmental or whatever else nature. I can imagine that you feel embarrassed by something that you consider a violation of your beliefs. But actually, those beliefs are not the standard to apply here - Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic or any other religious law.
   Christianity, for example, has a similar ban on pictures, the Second Commandment. Yet, if some hard-core evangelical zealots demanded enforcement of this Commandment in Wikipedia, nobody would even consider it seriously for a second. Why should other beliefs be granted a preferential treatment?
3. I, too, find a lot of things rude, especially on Wikipedia. What do we need an article on butt plugs for? What gain of insight does it deliver? How does it help us understand our world in a better way? Actually, I consider that article gross, perverted and dispensable. Yet, the object undeniably exists, and it wouldn’t go away if the article was scrapped. So, if some perverts want to describe their favorite toys, well, have fun.

And on a final notice: If someone wishes to delete the picture, they should do so after a consensus on deletion is reached. This is the due process on whole articles and there’s no reason to change this course for constructive additions to an article! I invested some time, both for research and integration into Wikipedia. Negating these efforts by deleting my contributions without comment and without discussion is, all arguments of the contents aside, simply a sign of bad manners to me.

--The Hungry Hun 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User:The Hungry Hun, the incentive would be upon you to provide the evidence that it is a picture of the so-called "re-dedication after conquest". it is not upon us to prove you wrong. contrary to what is being asserted, here is a quote (from EoI) apparently showing it has nothing to do with the conquest of Mecca:

The old Ka`ba is said to have been only of the height of a man and to have had no roof. The threshold is said to have been on the level of the ground so that the water had an easy entrance in the frequent floods (sayl). The Ka`ba was then built of alternate layers of stone and wood, its height was doubled and a roof covered it. The door was placed above the level of the ground so that whoever wished to enter had to use a ladder. Unwelcome visitors were tumbled down from the high threshold. When the Black Stone was to be put in its place, the Meccans quarrelled among themselves as to who should have the honour. They had just decided that the first comer should be given the task when Muhammad (who had been engaged in helping to carry the stones) came past. With grave authority he is said to have placed the precious object in a cloak—or in his cloak—and to have ordered the heads of tribes each to take an end. He himself then took out the stone and placed it in position.

At the conquest of Mecca in 8/629, Muhammad left the Ka`ba as a building unaltered. But according to tradition, he later said that only the very recent conversion of the Meccans prevented him from instituting all kinds of innovations. These real or alleged intentions of Muhammad were brought to realization in 64/683 by `Abd Allah b. al-Zubayr [q.v.]. As anti- caliph he was besieged by al-Husayn b. Numayr [q.v.] in Mecca. [...]

on what basis is it described as you have described it? ITAQALLAH 16:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely - this is rabulistic... A common sense approach would be falsification: First, I make my thesis - the proof being the picture, its content, its context, its origin and its prevalent scholarly classification. Second, you may disprove it: State facts, indications, any sources you stumble upon, that you consider fit for use here. If you feel like, visit the University of Edinburgh and study the text by yourself.

But please, do not make unfounded statements and demand others to rebut them. That's surely not the way to go.

--The Hungry Hun 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Valarauka I really appreciate you views. Let me hug you for them. :) There are some people who have NO idea that what the picture tells but still they want to add it. They know it will offend Muslims (and will not add anything useful in the article) but still they insist. --- ابراهيم 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, this is lovely: If you do not believe this picture to show Muhammed, then why should Muslims feel offended by it?

I appreciate your forthrightness, though: It seems to boil down to a vague, religiously grounded sense of "offense". While I completely understand that no-one would like to see derogatory depictions of an object of veneration, I disapprove the idea that the specific rules of a specific school of a specific belief be the measure of what is acceptable in Wikipedia and what isn't. This is an article on Islam, not for or by it. With the same right, you could ban all secular views of Muhammad in the text, since it contradicts Muslims' beliefs and would utlimately offend them.

Sadly, your arguments rmeind me of Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi, who said "The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah." I don't want to start a discussion on whether this is healthy for Muslim societies, but it is not a healthy idea for Wikipedia. Again, an encyclopedia is by definition a project of enlightment: What you call "offense", Western tradition calls "freedom of speech". A historic (!) picture of islamic (!!) origin should not be deemed forbidden due to such dubious reasons.

--The Hungry Hun 18:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

what..? i requested you to provide the basis (i.e. evidence) on which you state this picture is what it is (and when it is). where did you obtain the caption description from? do you have a source? ITAQALLAH 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah, assuming good faith is getting a little hard right now. I decided to put together the history of attacks on this picture, and unfortunately it shows quite clearly the objectors' very selfish intentions:

1. First, the picture is deemed useless (whatever that means) and therefore unworthy keeping.
2. After some to and fro, the picture is considered to have no consensus - the see-saw itself used to prove the lack of consensus before any discussion took place!
3. Next, the image is attacked as not showing the real Muhammad - an almost funny argument, considering the lack of high-gloss photography in the 14th century.
4. Then, I'm accused of wikilawyering and deliberately trying to intimidate other users with nominally legal behavior.
5. Following, the depiction is feared to induce an impeding edit war.
6. In addition, editors might be discouraged and forced out of Wikipedia due to the picture.
7. After that, word is that no pictures as all should be used, as they could be considered offensive by some users.
8. And finally, Ibrahimfaisal tells us that "most Muslims know that the image has nothing to do with 'Conquest of Mecca'.. It describes an event taken place even decades before Conquest of Mecca ." Funny enough, neither Ibrahimfaisal nor any other participant in this dispute presented this knowledge of theirs (that "most Muslims" supposedly share) for more than three weeks, neither did any of them explain how the picture can be offensive to a Muslim if it doesn't even depict Muhammad.
9. Sad enough, 'finally' was way too early, since new arguments keep popping up: The latest idea is calling the picture imaginary - surprisingly, no such objections are raised re another picture of the same person (but veiled) riding on a mythical human-headed steed towards heaven and hell.
10. Another way of POV-Pushing, this one visible from a mile away: Over several days, new pictures get uploaded (e.g. of the sword that Muhammad didn't spread his religion with), then pictures are declared sufficient - apparently a good reason for deletion not of the oldest or the newest images, but - coincidence? - of those that the deleting user tries to get rid of all the time.

Conclusio: The opponents do not oppose the picture for its veracity but for its existence. Refuting a claim is useless since it won't be addressed anymore but simply be replaced by some other argument.

And to return to your concrete question, I'll state it once and for all: My source for the caption is a) the picture itself, b) the manuscript it's depicted in, c) its classification in the library of the University of Edinburgh; the exact wording is mine and has been inspired by an internet site I found the picture on. If you want to challenge my claim concerning the picture's meaning, put up a serious, concrete, founded and referenced alternative explanation. But spare us all anymore pretexting. It's annoying and unworthy.

--The Hungry Hun 23:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am copying my comment from above image discussion since it seems many editors prefer to ignore all comments but their own and the ones they agree with.

Looking at this from the guideline perspective, clearly this is aimed torward obscenities and vulgar references in the Western sense. The picture that has been the subject of much reverting is neither obscene or profane. Nor is it defamatory. That leaves the question of whether it is offensive. While this may seem subjective, it is really is not. The only way this picture is offensive is from a religious standpoint. Which is making a lot of liars out of those people who delete this picture for this reason but yet lie in their edit summary. This is another matter that needs addressing, but I digress.

Since the servers for wikipedia are located in Florida, they fall under the protection of US Federal law. Clearly this picture is considered 'blasphemous' in a few Islamic circles. So if it was blasphemous, no blasphemy law could be enforced as the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held that a New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

So that leaves Wikipedia's policy. Clearly this policy was written for a modern sensibility of what we consider obscene or vulgar (whatever moving target that may be), not for a fifteenth century scrawl of a guy on some steps preaching to his cohorts.

So that leaves the last and only consideration. Should we censor this image because it might offend some Muslims someplace? Well, that question should be answered rhetorically. Should the article on evolution be cut out because it offends the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians someplace? Should the picture of Charles Darwin be removed because some fundamentalist Christians hate it and it is nothing more than an 'embellishment'? Does it really matter that we know what Charles Darwin looked like? If it doesn't, why is the picture there? How about that cartoon picture of part Darwin part ape animal? Isn't that offensive to scientist's sensibilities?

Which brings me to that last point. Pictures have value because they give us a sense of historicity, even if the picture may be inaccurate. It tells us what people of another era were thinking about historical figures. Which is very valuable in itself. It helps our mind by giving us 'context' for the surrounding text. It gives us a perspective that this person was even thought about enough that they took the trouble to make a picture of him, and the setting that they imagined Muhammad in. Even if it was another culture that didn't know that it was wrong to draw pictures of Muhammad.

If you are going to be worrying about offending this group or that group for whatever reason, you might as well shut down Wikipedia today. I think that people who are fortunate by living in democracies can understand these principles, and why nothing happened anywhere when the president of Iran said that Israel should be wiped off the map. But yet when a quote from the pope was misunderstood churches were firebombed and a nun was shot. Now that's what I consider truly offensive. The picture should stay. Nodekeeper 06:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The stuff shown in the picture happened when Muhammad was a youth, not after the conquest of Mecca. Its in the right section now.Opiner 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

THH, i have previously not articulated my objection to this picture so i am not sure on what basis my objection is being lumped with the others. if you have already answered other objections, then you only need to link people to the specific discussion when they repeat that objection. "the exact wording is mine and has been inspired by an internet site I found the picture on." - okay. this is what i wanted to know. can you please link us to the website? re: your claim, i have already put up a source claiming the event as depicted in the picture occurred at a different time, not on the conquest of Mecca, when the ka'ba remained untouched, except for the removal of those religious-objects [ ;) ] as alluded to in the "Ka'ba" and "Makka" articles of EoI. ITAQALLAH 06:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not positively sure about the website, but it's most probably the Zombietime page that has been quoted several times lately. --The Hungry Hun 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NodeKeeper please avoid using words like "Liars". Do not give political examples too because what is happening in the world we could also give you much better examples then yours. Trust me. Please concentrate on the topic while being remain civil. Most authors does not imagine about Muhammad by creating a picture and 1000s of books have no picture at all. Then if minority of books have pictures then why you think it is important to give picture for presenting thoughts of minority and rejecting thoughts of majority? --- ابراهيم 13:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, people who are not truthful are called 'liars' in my culture. And I think others would agree with me that the pictures are being deleted with untruthful edit summaries. You're right, politics should not be discussed on the 'Muhammad-talk' page. But I mentioned that for a sense of cultural perspective. One culture believes in freedom of speech and thought, and the free flowing of ideas, on which wikipedia is based. Another culture believes in something else. Unfortunately, people are bringing that 'something else' with them when they edit wikipedia.

I'm sorry that where you are at, their are no pictures. That truly is sad and what I call 'intellectual poverty'. I went to the the library yesterday and found numerous pictures. But thankfully maybe through the efforts of wikipedians people will be able to have access to pictures. Nodekeeper 22:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --- ابراهيم 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When I made the above comment please note that I did not mention any specific user. But it's clear you have sensitivity to this issue.

In your last edit for deleting a picture your edit said "Useless imaginary picture. There are much more historically correct pictures than this one." Through my university collection I have confirmed the authenticity of this picture that you repeatedly delete, through the various books on Rashid al-Din. I have add this bibliographic data to the picture. This picture comes from an historically important manuscript, as as described here, as it comes from an early Islamic artist. So the statement that it is "useless" as it does depict an actual event in the article subject's life is false. The statement that it is "imaginary" is also false, as it's authenticity and existence has been verified. The statement that "There are more historically correct pictures than this one." is also false, as it accurately depicts this event in Muhummad's life.

So your edit summary for the deletion of this picture is FALSE.

I have posted and expanded this comment on your 3RR violation report page Nodekeeper 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Historians' views

The views of historians re Mhmd ought not be lumped in with the views of other religions as "non-Muslim views". This is supposed to be a somewhat scholarly article & the views of scholars (many of whom might NOT actually be non-Muslim) deserve a prominent place in the article - a section of its own near the top. --JimWae 05:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits made about an hour ago have made the entire first half of the article indistinguishable from a Muslim tract - not NPOV--JimWae 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, BUT I dunno what to do.... I feel that the academic POV should flow together with the Muslim POV and not mentioned at the end of the article. --Aminz 08:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Introduction - Weasel Words

The problem with the introduction is that as one anonymous user put very well, historical fact, which is studied by historians, needs no qualifications with the words "from the standpoint of the science of religion". The problems with this statement are many. First, the phrase "science of religion" is never used in this sense, and I have never seen it used at all in my university years, let alone in this manner. I suppose it's a clever way of disguising 'according to religion' or more accurately 'according to some peoples belief'. Both which would be inaccurate. So not only is it bad (actually horrendous) english but it makes that phrase fall under Wikipedia's Weasel Words policy. The statement that "Muhammad is the founder of the Islamic religion' doesn't need to be complicaticated with extraneous, useless words whose only purpose it is to censor the truth. Secondly, as anyone knows, this would not fall under the 'science of religion' anyway, but the study of history. But even saying that is unecessary verbal baggage that an simple introduction does not need.

For those of you that are new to the talk page (as everyone else on here has been through this argument three times), this is the introduction that another editor made before this crippled version was put back in it's place, which I consider fair, succinct, and clear;

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants),^[1] 570-632 AD,^[2] is an influential historical figure, known primarily for establishing the Islamic religion. He is, within Islam, the pre-eminent prophet and messenger to whom the Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be the 'word of God', was divinely revealed.

It is also clear that english is a second language for many editors here making these clumsy, inaccurate, and purposefully misleading edits in order to push their religious POV.Nodekeeper 15:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why is is "weasel word"ed? The life of Muhammad does, and this seems obvious, fall under religious studies. As does the life of many religious figures. I am surprised that you would think it didn't. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While the study of what Muhammad taught would fall under into 'religious studies', the purpose of this encyclopedic article is not to provide religious studies, or a religious viewpoint, but the purpose of this is to provide an accurate and unbiased historical biography of Muhammad. I suppose that two articles might be written with a disambiguation page. "Historical Muhammad" and "Muhammad as seen by Muslims".Nodekeeper 16:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The life of Muhammad, not just what he taught, is an essential part of any religious study concerning Islam. Without context concerning the life of Muhammad any religious study concerning Islam would have severe defficincies. What religious studies programme, if any, includes studies on Islam but not the life of Muhammad? Religious science records Islam as being founded by Muhammad. The langage used in the Hadiths suggests the term was applied previously to Monotheistic Jews and Christians. These texts indicate a pre-established community using the term Islam, though perhaps not calling their religion Islam (though, that is speculation). Muhammad, essentially, took what these people had been doing previously, changed it, and said, if effect, ‘You thought you sumbitted (islam) to God before, but, you had corrupted the faith, now this is submitting (Islam) to God’. The accuracy of the hadiths concerning the terminology of the Pre-Muhammad tribes in the area is obvioulsy in doubt, but there are inscriptions in various areas, most notably Moreys inscriptions in Oman, which suggest the term Islam as a religious idea was in use in Isa worshipping areas prior to Muhammad. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom - It's not the purpose of the first sentence of a biography to introduce religious studies, the 'science of religion standpoint' or provide context, be comprehensive, or provide analysis, in-depth account of what Muhammad did, indicate a pre-established community, or a religious studies programme (which this is not) but to introduce the subject of THIS biography which would be Muhummad, primarily known for establishing Islam. The things that you mention would belong in an article about Islam. Even then please note the second sentence that is there that briefly covers the very things you are talking about;

Within Islamic theology, he is not considered a founder but merely the last and most important prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was divinely revealed.

You really should play close attention to the posts I have made in this section. Are you bothering to read and follow along with them? So tell me, what part are you unable to read and understand?Nodekeeper 17:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to say that he's an influential figure - that's pretty much taken for granted since he's got a Wikipedia article.

Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, Mahomet, and other variants),^[3] 570-632 AD,^[4] is the founder of Islam. Within that religion he is regarded as the pre-eminent prophet and messenger to whom the Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be the 'word of God', was divinely revealed.

This is a straightforward, factual paragraph. TharkunColl 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You would be in good company. The encyclopedia Britannica cuts right to the chase too. I like the phrase "known primarily for establishing the Islamic religion" because it does a couple of things. It softens the concept of 'founder' that many Muslims don't want to wrap their brain around or bother recognizing that using the word is a neutral expression of fact. Also, 'established' says the same thing, but avoids the whole 'Muhummad was just an agent not founder' argument that is burned into their brains while not adversely affecting the meaning that we are trying to say in an unbiased NPOV manner. I'm quite disappointed that others can't see this as a workable, though not perfect (for anyone), solution to 250 kbytes of talk page strife. Also, it alludes that the rest of the article might present complete and clear fact and presenting it with a degree of validity (one can always hope). So they really are shooting themselves in the foot here with any of the versions that they keep trying to force as it's completely obvious to most of the english speaking world. But as you can see, many users with a brain cell will see through it. It appears to me that the consequences of what their actions may be bring forth is completely lost to Muslim users making edits based on their religion Nodekeeper 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Nodekeeper and TharkunColl. Unless you are a Muslim (or other smaller religions such as Baha'i), you do not believe he restored the "true religion". Thus, by default nearly 5- of the world's 6 billion people believe he founded a new religion. It is not only inaccurate, it is misleading to state that he is only considered the founder within a specific field of study. —Aiden 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To nodekeeper:

Encyclopedia of Islam (EoI), an academic source writes :"Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research. For instance, in traditional Muslim belief Muhammad is the “last and greatest of the prophets ” , a concept that is most likely based on a later interpretation of the expression “ seal of the prophets ” ( khatam al-nabiyyin) that is applied to Muhammad in sura XXXIII, 40. Also, he is regarded not as a “ founder ” but as one who confirmed and restored the true, ancient monotheist faith that was established by the prophet Abraham. It should not be surprising that it was at the very time when these concepts were being proclaimed by the Qur'an, during the early years after the Hijra, that historians see the emergence of a new religious community and tradition founded by Muhammad, a man of extraordinary perception and skills."

Please refrain from making the article POV by avoiding the distinction that not this source but I can show you many other sources clearly, flatly, unambiguously ... make. Also, please do NOT summerize Islam in what happened during the early years after the Hijra. At least please have the attitude of the historians who: "Nor will he be satisfied with a purely supernatural explanation, whether it postulates aid of divine of diabolical origin; rather, like Gibbon, will he seek 'with becoming submission, to ask not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth' of the new faith" --Aminz 02:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel word?? "The statement that "Muhammad is the founder of the Islamic religion' doesn't need to be complicaticated with extraneous, useless words whose only purpose it is to censor the truth."? Please don't use ambigious words such as *truth*. Which truth? where? "the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research" is that a new religious community and traditions founded by Muhammad emerged during the early years after the Hijra. Welch sees the formation of theological formulations of Islam to have been occured in the very same time and in parallel. So, what do you mean by Truth and covering it? --Aminz 05:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you read the article linked you will notice the study of religion is a study from a secular perspective focusing on historic events and social political developments divested of theological considerations. It thereby correctly attributes the issue. Also WP:Weasel applies to unattributed statements, so if you make a statement you need to be specific, terms such as they most etc. are what make it a problem, and under WP:NPOV its clear that many do not regard disagree with his charecterization as a founder. The entire problem stems from people inability to grasp the concept that being the usage of the term last of prophet of Islam is synonymous with its association with founder, in the way proponents of founder want to use it, much as those opposed to founder can't wrap themselves around the fact that it does not negate their conceptualization either. Anyrate the flag weasel does not apply to this article in that context, and I have NPOV'd it by mentioning both concepts after giving up on making anyone see sense that there is no NPOV in either.--Tigeroo 06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper, it was me, a non-Muslim and an atheist, who introduced the expression "science of religion" here, which is the literal English translation of the German "Religionswissenschaft". In Germany Religionswissenschaft is a regular academic subject taught at the universities (http://www.religionswissenschaft.de). It is an interdisciplinary field mainly comprising the history of religion, the sociology of religion, and the psychology of religion. What is important is that Religionswissenschaft (= science of religion) is not committed to any religious faith! Furthermore, in the English-speaking world "science of religion" may be used less frequently than "Religionswissenschaft" in the German-speaking part of Europe, but this doesn't mean at all that the former is "bad" or even "horrendous" English. And it isn't a weasel phrase either. For example, it is used in the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry "religion, study of" (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9109466/religion,-study-of). — Editorius 17:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wissenschaft is a compound word in German - roughly the stem of knowledge. Usage of the translation into English as "science" in this context is presumptive that there is some field of study commonly called 'science of religion (whereas many would contend there is very little science involved at all in this area). Using religious studies is more in keeping with whatever academic fields exist in English-speaking universities. Let's try wording more in line with "among non-Muslims, he is regarded as the founder of Islam, though Muslims consider his contribution was the re-establishment of the ancient religion of Abraham". He is also well-known by non-Muslims as a political and military leader, and I have seen this aspect is repeatedly minimized. A complete article needs to deal openly with this latter view also. --JimWae 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I see something like I suggested has already been done. I also see that "not a founder is repeated in 2 consecutive sentences - that's a problem. I also see that the introduction no longer introduces us to the historical analysis that is in the article. I also see that the importance of the Q'ran as a source - for both history and religion has been lost --JimWae 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Wae, you are wrong, because "Wissenschaft" is not a noun like e.g. "Wissenschaftszweig" (=engl. "branch of science"). The suffix "-schaft", like the English "-hood", is grammatically used for the formation of nouns, within which it has no independent meaning, irrespective of there being the independent nouns "Schaft" in German and "hood" in English. To translate "Wissenschaft" as "stem of knowledge" is linguistic nonsense. — Editorius 19:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is still no good reason to use the word science here. In English, religious studies is the common name of the discipline --JimWae 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Wae, for example, in America there is an organization called "Society for the Scientific Study of Religion" (http://www.sssrweb.org). The crucial word is "scientific", for there is a difference between a scientific and a theological approach to the study of religion. — Editorius 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I conjecture that one reason why "science of religion" is less frequently used than "religious studies" is that in the Anglo-American world "science" is stronger associated with "natural science" than "Wissenschaft" is associated with "Naturwissenschaft" in the German-speaking countries. On the other hand, "social science" is a common expression in the English-speaking world. — Editorius 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• My same conjecture. Nevertheless, in English religious studies is the common name of the discipline - AND the name of the linked wiki article --JimWae 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I dont' want to deny this fact. Anyway, "M. is, from a scientific perspective, the founder of Islam" appears to be a better formulation than "M. is, from the standpoint of the science of religion, the founder of Islam". What really matters is to emphasize the difference between the scientific and the theological/mythological approach to Islam and its history. — Editorius 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this does seem to be a more NPOV way of resolving the conflict on this issue. But I think it's better to stick with the disicpline name, rather than the nebulous scientific perspective Referring to an academic discipline emphasizes that this is not necessarily the religious perspective --JimWae 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that many Muslims are likely to read "study of religion" or "religious studies" as "theology", which is a plain misreading. And, by the way, the difference between the scientific perspective and the theological one is not nebulous. — Editorius 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• But scientific perspective is problematic - it is itself nebulous & many will take exception to implication that Islam is non-scientific (though i may not). Perhaps we need to present it as the outsider (non-Muslim) view, or the predominant academic view. I find very little science and much more critical historical perspective (with lots of acceptance of likelihoods) in religious studies. If Muslims see a statment that he IS the founder, they will certainly not think that religious studies means their theology. If they misread it that way, at least it is their lack of understanding, and not the fault of the LINKED text. --JimWae 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the following formulation can hardly be improved upon:

"Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, and other variants),[1] [2] 570-632 CE,[3] is, from a non-theological perspective, the founder of Islam. In Islamic theology, Muhammad is regarded, not as the founder of a new religion, but rather as God's last and most important prophet, who reestablished and perfected the primeval monotheistic faith of Abraham and Adam."

Editorius 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Islam, i.e. Islamic theology, is certainly unscientific. As regards its theoretical part, it is pure metaphysics, pure philosophical speculation. As I already stated elsewhere: There impossibly is any such thing as a science of God! — Editorius 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be improved by saying Muhammad founded the religion known as Islam and the Arab empire known as the Caliphate, and leaving the rest out of the introduction. Under Muhammad's teachings it should say that he claimed to be restoring the religion of other prophets in its true form. That he said that IS a fact about his life. What Abraham did or didn't actually believe has nothing to do with Muhammad's life, and what Muslims believe Abraham believed is even more off topic. The article already says Muhammad had followers who believed his teachings which IS something that happened in his life. One of those teachings was that earlier prophets were Muslims. These things can and should still come up, but it should be in the strict framework of what Muhammad did and said. Later views and analysis of his life, some Christians think he's an imposter, Muslims think he is the last propeht, belongs in the views section unless we can make it part of the story of his life, as in Muhammad told his followers he was the last prophet.Opiner 21:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my primary concern with this article. It gets off topic and complicates things by delving into the theology of Muhammad's life. What's more, others are trying to cram it all into a 'comprehensive' introduction paragraph which is bad prose (if that's even a consideration for this page). I don't have a problem with discussing the theology surrounding Muhammad, but that it should be in a different section or a different article, not intertwined and woven into a supposed historical article. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether this article should be 'Muhammad - theology' and there should be a different article called 'Historical Muhammad'. Aka we take all of our marbles and play somewhere else. That way this page could be turned into a 'religious studies' page all together and we wouldn't have deal with all the reverts, bad english, and ill-will. There's only a few of us here versus what seems to be a coordinated effort to undo everything the moment we turn our back. Really not in the spirit of wikipedia. Email me if you think this is viable. Maybe the notion of 'aggressive editing' or POV pushing by some individuals needs to be addressed. Maybe this article needs to be locked to non-registered users like the front page.

Editorius' current version of the intro is acceptable as it offer's a balanced view, versus saying it happens to be the study of some (whatever) field, which by istelf is nonsensical in the english sense. JimWae is right-on. Nodekeeper 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The template saying the article is about the Islamic Prophet Muhammad doesn't help, or the one saying it's part of a series on Islam.Opiner 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion is clear, you cannot discriminate between theology and "scientific and historic" accounts. As a religious figure it is ludicrous to sideline or trivialize the whole religious conceptions and narrative that make up his importance.--Tigeroo 11:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Mecca invasion

While a lot of the information I've read up to this point seems to be accurate, I would like to clarify that when the Prophet Muhammad "attacked" Mecca after many years of being attacked in Medina, they did not shed a single drop of blood. It is one out of a handful of the only times in history an entire city/town was taken over with no violence involved. I think this fact should be recorded instead of just saying he attacked the city, for no attacking actually took place. He simply assumed command of the city, but noone was harmed or killed in the process. This is one of the things that makes Islam so great and refutes much of how people say "Islam is spread by the sword through history." This as well as the takeover by Salahadin of Jerusalem which was also done peacefully and other occasions like it are the true marks in history that Islam should be recognized for, so I believe it is important for these facts to be noted.

Mahomet

Re edit by Aminz: rv vandalism; Mahomet is the scottish form of Mahound meaning "the prince of darkness", a term used in the past by Christian authors to villify Muhammad. It has no place here). Really? Can this be verified, I can't find anything verifying that this is simply a term for vilification. --144.131.66.58 07:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Rod)

Yes, I'll add references to this in a minute. --Aminz 08:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the ref. I think this term was not always used for vilifying Muhammad though. --Aminz 09:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These terms are discussed in the main articles Mahound, non-islamic view of muhammad etc.--Tigeroo 10:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahound==redlink, where is it discussed? Why is this information not included in the Mahomet article which simply states that it is "A Medieval Latin and French spelling of Muhammad", is Mahomet really a problem word to be removed? --144.131.66.58 11:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Rod)

Footnotes

The first footnote is about "Western conceptions..." This is appropriate in the later section, but INappropriate & irrelevant in the intro. It is immediately combative with "the West" --JimWae 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the footnote, which I have removed as being off-topic:

<r e f>Mahomet cf. Annemarie Schimmel states that “The medieval European image of Islam and its Prophet, Muhammad, is a thoroughly distorted one. The distortion reached such absurdities as to consider Muhammad, usually called Mahomet (hence the Scottish Mahound for "devil"), to be a kind of "supreme god" and to speak of the adoration of his golden statues.” Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, 1992</r e f>

I just meant the "Mahomet (hence the Scottish Mahound for "devil")" part. I'll summerize it and add it to the article. --Aminz 23:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Main Sources

It's not true that the Qur'an is the main source of information on Muhammad's life. If you only had the Qur'an it'd be next to impossible to figure out what went on. The sira and hadith are the main sources. Who made this change and why?Opiner 22:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Caliphate picture

Zazaban says he honestly doesn't see why we need a picture of the caliphate. Hmm, could it be because Muhammad founded the Caliphate? Is that a good answer?Opiner 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Then put in somewhere down the page. It's not the most important thing muhammad did. The fact that he founded the Calphate is disputed by Shia muslims anyhow. Zazaban 23:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Only now we can say it wasn't the most important thing, because the Caliphate didn't last but Islam did. But Islam only spread because of the Caliphate. If Islam hadn't lasted, Muhammad would still be remembered as the founder of the Arab empire. If we can find a picture of Islam, put it above the Caliphate. This is the closest thing to a picture of Islam's spread we have. Maybe it would be better if we retitle it, Spread of Islam under Muhammad and his sucessors?Opiner 23:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Islam spread beyond the edge of the caliphate to places like Indonesia. It also seems like you are trying to suggest that Muhammad has a primarily Political agenda. Muhammad was primaily a religous founder and it's best we don't make an article about what perhaps could have happened. Zazaban 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Did Muhammad see a difference between politics and religion. Islam meant an Islamic state led by the prophet. How can you say that's religious but not political? It's both combined.Opiner 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ibrahimfaisal, the Caliphate was an Arab empire because it was run by Arabs and people paid tribute to Arabia. See Roman Empire, Persian Empire, British Empire and so on. It doesnt mean everyone in it is an Arab/Roman/Persian/British. Why does everything have to be so hard around here?Opiner 01:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Any one Arab or non-Arab could be Caliph. If in the beginning that was Arab then so what? Islam do not differentiate between Arab and non-Arab (according to Muhammad teaching -- see Muhammad last Haj address). --- ابراهيم 01:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali. That's not just the beginning but the whole thing. Five arabs, no non-Arabs, even though Arabs were a small minority of the empire's population by the end. Then Umayyads, no non-Arabs there either. In fact they weren't just Arabs but all from the same region. In fact they weren't just from the same region but were also related. Are you saying the office was open to all and this pattern, the same found in so many other empires, is just coincidence?Opiner 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali were early Muslims (earlies people converted to Islam) and most respacted people around. Uttomans were non-Arab and as such there is no rule prohibting non-Arab to be caliphate. ---- ابراهيم 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just like Bashar Al Assad became President of Syria because he is the most repsected person around. That he is Alawite is coincidence, that he is the son of the last president, double coincidence.

The Ottomans were not a continuation of the first Caliphate like the Umayyads were. They just declared themselves the new caliphate and no one was in a position to argue. Or maybe they were just the most respected people around?Opiner 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Who say that Umayyads were consider continuation of previous calipahte?? The true calipate end at Ali, after that only the stronger become the Calip. However, Muslims do not divide people on race. It is the golden rule of my religion, so anyone can be a potential Caliph (of any race). See my User page, it start with Muhammad's most important address to Ummah at his last Haj before death. --- ابراهيم 01:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not a continuation because they established a hereditary system of succession instead of the previous system of rivarly between relations by marriage decided by assasination, and because they moved the capital to damascus. Still this is more of a continuation than the Romans and the Byzantines because at least you dont also have a change of main language. The main story is continued Arab domination of the middle east which before Muhammad was unheard of, and continued justification of rule by appealing to the new religion which had been imposed on the conquered peoples. Like the Ottomans they called themselves the Caliphate and a had a much better claim to it. A successor is just someone who rules after someone else through the same apparatus of the state which is true with Umayyads but not with the Ottomans. Whether you or todays Muslims think they were rightly guided or not has nothing to do with it.Opiner 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, Thats a bizarre take on history. The primary method of deciding the Rashidun was through Shura, whereas after the Caliphate of Ali it was decided on by chance of birth. Further, the new religion was not "imposed" on the people of Damascus, or other areas in the Middle East, indeed, it took over three hundred years before Islam was established in the region as the religion of the majority. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

err, a picture of the territory of the caliphate in so-and-so year is not primarily relevant to the life of Muhammad. events of primacy would be those important things happening during his life. maybe it belongs elsewhere in the article like in a legacy section or something, but as the lead picture? ridiculous! ITAQALLAH 09:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Shura? It doesn't matter what you call it. All the people chosen were related to Muhammad by marriage. Thats not a coincidence is it? Three of four were assassinated. you can call that Shura too if you want. Or coincidence, hey its only three of four. whatever consultation went on with Abu Bakr didn't work very well considering it caused the split with Shia and general rebellion. Face it this 'system' couldn't have been all that 'consultative' and didnt work. If it worked there wouldnt have been any Umayyads! In the real world that is. In piety land though its a great system everyone agrees on a leader and is happy. Thats the only land where criticizing Umayyad succession makes sense.

Yes, Shura, If you didn't know that most basic of things you should not be editing here. Two of the last three U.S presidents were related by blood, does that make the US less democratic? Yes, the Shura concil decided on electing people close to Muhammad, presumeably because they, being closer, had a better knowledge of the Sunnah, whatever their reasons, it was still a Shura council!

I know exactly what you mean by Shura and Im saying you are candy-coating it. Consultation here is among a small clique of insiders certainly not all arabia or why immediate rebellion if they were such a part of the process? Even among just the insiders if there was so much cooperation and agreement why did the party of Ali feel dissed from the beginning and why were the last three assasinated? It really means no system and like other places where theres no system in practice it means intrigue and strife. "If you dont know that most basic of things you should not nbe editing here". Sunni like to hold this period up as a model so have to overlook all these inconveniences.Opiner 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) It took three hundred years. Well it took hundreds of years for european settlers to displace native Americans from coast to coast. That is proof that they gave up their land gradually and voluntarily becoming Americans only after it was explained to them why this was a good idea and given time to make a decision. If America was imposed by force it would have happened instantly. Obviously.

There was no Ethnic displacement of the Syrian people, or any other people under the Caliphs. The white Europeans who commited the genocide of the Native Americans did not rule over the native Population in one swift period of time, the way Umar and the Rashidun did. Had the white Europeans been as powerfull as Umar you would, no doubt, have had your swift massacre. The spread of Islam through the Rashidun where not out of a desire to conquer the world. They were primarilly political, and primarily aimed at the Byzantines and the Persians.

My point is you cant just say it took centuries for conversion so Islam must not have not imposed. Asking for tribute is one thing, conversion another. Subjugated peoples agreed to pay tribute but to ask for more would mean revolt AND less revenue. They did what they could in stages. Even if majority is non-muslim if there is dhimma reliation that is imposing Islam because the other religions and only approved ones have to operate in a framework of Islamic law and polity. Islam provides for exactly that relationship. Muslims became the ruling elites and that is a first stage in the spread of Islam.Opiner 20:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The map distinguishes territory Muhammad conquered in his lifetime from places conquered by his successors. A map of Muhammads empire its very relevant. Now you have a map of todays Muslims 1400 years later and thats relevant? But a map from Muhammads own lifetime is not. What youre really saying is that this article should be about religion and ignore political and military history right?Opiner 13:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad is venerated as the last Prophet of Allah by the worlds Muslims all over the world. That new map shows the how far around the world the teachings of Muhammad has spread. Most notably, it includes the worlds largest Muslim nations, Indonesia, Bangla Desh and Pakistan, which the previous map did not. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have map from Muhammad own life? No. Stop giving "immediate successor" POV thing. Either you mention Muhammad own life map or you mention map of current Muslim states. --- ابراهيم 14:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes the map shows the territory of muhammad's own conquests in the darkest green. itd be even better though to find one with just this in its own stage first Medina then Khaybar Mecca etc. Ill try to find one soo we can leave the successors out of it. A map of todays Islam is more on topic at Islam though. Im trying to say and I think Jim agrees with me that this article should be mainly about Muhammads life, and what people think of that life whether Muslim or not only second.Opiner 19:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Real world or piety land?

Aminz, you say that Shia believe the Khalifata were Muhammad and 12 of his descendants. But that doesn't change the fact that there was an Empire known as the Caliphate does it? Just because you don't think they deserved to succeed MUhammad as the rulers doesn't change that they were in fact the rulers. Please let's keep this in the real world.

You say I am mistaking this article for Historical Muhammad. Well this article like other biographies should be Historical Muhammad. There shouldn't be a seperate article for historical. Maybe you're mistaking this article for Islamic views of Muhammad?

That's the problem here in a nutshellm we can't even decide what the article is about, real Muhammad in the real world or fantasy Muhammad in piety land. In the real world Muhammad founded a religion and an empire. In piety land the religion was already there and taking over the whole middle east is just a minor thing we shouldn't focus on. In the real world there were successors called the Caliphs. In piety world (Shia version at least) they're not REALLY the successors because you use the term successors to mean people who weren't actually the rulers.

Is there any room for reality? Oh yeah, you answered that, Historical Muhammad. No reality in main articles, please.

Now Ibrahimfaisal is censoringmention of the minor trivia that the empire Muhammad founded took over the Middle East. More important to say, Qur'an announces that Islam is the religion of Abraham! But we have no idea what Abraham believed. In the real world, that is. Most people would think that the rhetoric of the Qur'an is actually very unimportant compared to real-world facts. Not on this page.

I want a vote so I can decide whether or not to waste any more time here. Should this article called Muhammad focus first on the historical facts about Muhammad's life, or on what Muslims believe about Muhammad?Opiner 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

bemusing that you are talking about "historical fact" when you had been vehemently opposing using the word "idols"! the narrative of the article should be based upon what is verifiable, and be subject to the constraints of NPOV in terms of proportionalisation and expression. muslim documentation on the biography of Muhammad is certainly notable and relevant in this article, and if islamic tradition includes something which secular narrative may not include then of course we can mention both in an acceptable manner. similarly, when narrative in classical/contemporary muslim biographies clashes with the western academic understanding then it is NPOV to mention the divergence and its nature. there are very simple methodologies whereby we can include all notable perspectives. that is how we establish a verifiable article agreeable to most if not all. setting up a "vote" is pointless and divisive, and if it is intended by this to exclude notable, verifiable material, then yes i would think you are probably wasting your time. ITAQALLAH 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah your sources also said statues of other gods which is more specific and less pejorative than idols but you wont allow thaat change. You are picking and choosing from sources which are right in front of you because making Meccan religion sound bad makes Muhammad look good. The first thing Muhammad does in Mecca is probihit freedom to follow traditional Meccan religion. To use those words is true and verifiable but POV. Same with idols but in the other direction.Opiner 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

you are opposing the use of the word "idols" or idolatry, replacing it with inane verbose descriptions. of course, we can dedicate a portion of the article to pre-islamic arabia describing all the nuances of pagan religion. but any attempt to sweep the word "idols" under the carpet is definitely against the historical facts, and is not going to work. you must understand, it would only be a one-sided "POV" if there is a substantial/notable published view suggesting opposition to the term or reality of "idols", not just if your personal conviction opposes it. and thus far you have refused to produce even one source, while dismissing my sources and continuing to make the same wholesale, unfounded changes to other articles. ITAQALLAH 09:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We all know why is being said 'idols', only to make Meccan religion look worse than Islam which banned it and destroyed its sacred objects. Its not my personal conviction since I dont believe in Meccan religion and if I had a choice between this and Islam would probably choose Islam. Its more about NPOV. Its just not right that the extermination of someone elses religion is being presented as obviously a good thing because they were worshipping filthy IDOLS.Opiner 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

i can see what you are saying, although i don't agree that the term idols is being used in this context, and i don't believe the tone of the article alludes to how you have interpreted it. ITAQALLAH 10:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical facts:

• Opiner 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• --JimWae 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC) All wikipedia articles should present the scholarly view and be NPOV. Specifically Muslim details belong in the Muhammad#Islamic views of Muhammad - which should really be Muhammad#Muslim views of Muhammad section since religions do not have views, especially not religions w/o a central authority. This does not preclude some inclusion of Muslim viewpoints throughout this article, however, provided it is labelled as such & relevant. I do agree that saying "Muslims believe..." sometimes overlooks the REASON they believe that - viz the words of Mhmd

Muslim beliefs:

Can we use "statues of Arabian gods" or Icons of Arabian gods, that can address Opiners POV concern and be factually accurate. Just for Opiner's information, the religion was not banned, nor was it particular to Mecca. Nor were the gods housed in Kaaba reported to be merely Meccan gods, but were collected from all over Arabia. The pilgramage to the Kaaba by pagans from all over arabia was important to Mecca, so the gods are more rightly Arabian rather than meccan.--Tigeroo 10:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that works, thank you! SOurces you showed supported statues which beats religious objects cause its more specific. Arabian gods maybe more accurate than Meccan. The readers will learn more this way.Opiner 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Aminz and other users, can you please start providing exact information, such as page numbers, authorship information, etc. on your sources? Using "Encyclopedia of Islam" as a source is not acceptable as it is not verifiable. —Aiden 02:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do it soon. --Aminz 02:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Aminz 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Aiden 03:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Whats wrong with the Encyclopedia of Islam? --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I say there was anything wrong with the Encyclopedia of Islam? No, I simply asked that specific pages be provided in references. —Aiden 21:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro

[My edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=77108201&oldid=77108138] was removed on the basis that we should not quote anybody in the intro. WP:LEAD doesn't say anything of this sort. Anyhow, it is a guildline and not a policy. Lewis is making those comments from the perspective of a historian. I see people are asking for the increase in the historical POV. So, I added that quote. Feel free to improve the intro, but there is no point in removing that quote. --Aminz 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind neutral point of view. Your Lewis quote, saying that Islam is 'on an incomparably higher level' than paganism, isn't neutral. How come we can't just say that he unified Arabia and founded the Caliphate? It's like everyone around here seems very insecure that if the article states facts directly it won't look good enough. If he was so great all we have to do is neutrally say what he did right?Opiner 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Opiner, we should report what historians say. Please read the books of Lewis, and Esposito and others with an open mind. Please note that my sources are peer reviewed academic sources (published by university presses) by renowned academic scholar in the field of Islam. These sources all satisfy WP:RS. --Aminz 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But your use of Lewis in the introduction doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV. Lewis gives facts and also his own opinions. His opinion is notable but its not a fact that Islam is better than paganism, only his opinion, so should belong in views of Muhammad. Or you can say it is a learned analysis. The introduction should be about the main facts of his life not what Lewis, Muir, today's Muslims or anyone else thinks about or how they analyze these facts.

Just like Muslims believe he's the last prophet. What is a fact about Muhammad is that he said he was the last prophet. That is a big deal and should be in the introduction. But what todays Muslims think is also a view of Muhammad, a fact about the lives of Muslims, not a fact about Muhammad's life. What Muslims think about Islam in the scheme of all history is even more off topic. No ones subjective views or derivative analyses belong in the introduction.Opiner 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I understand your point but the neutrality in wikipedia is gained by presenting the views of different scholars, not removing the view of existing ones. If there is a consensus among the *renowned* academic scholar (not pseudo-scholars or polemics who do not publish their works in academic presses), then that consensus should be reflected in wikipedia. That would be the POV of historians. Now, of course others also have POV. I do have a POV. But since I am no academic, my POV will not be presented in wikipedia. You can also add information from *university press* published books by *academic* scholars. Cheers, --Aminz 04:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

But if we included every notable academic view, including things Lewis said that arent very nice, the introduction would be several pages long. They belong in a views section or in a subarticle. What's non-neutral isnt the including of the material itself but what you chose to include and where.Opiner 04:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am kind of confused. Why do you think Muhammad's uniting the tribes of Arabia was important, that"Under the rule of his immediate successors, Arabia conquered most of the Middle East including the Sassanid (Persian) Empire, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant." is important but Islam's ethical doctrines are not. Lewis, in the quote I added talks about establishing a well organized, powerful, prestigous, and armed state. But the intro was lacking any mention of the Islamic doctorines.

Opiner, that quote of Lewis was kind of summerizing what Muhammad did. Saying Muhammad founded Islam was along also those lines. So, I don't think the quote was misplaced. --Aminz 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reached consensus? --Aminz 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think if Islam (Muhammad's teaching) is the reason for conquering vast majority of land, is presented in the article, then other aspects of his teachings should also be there. Everything is relative in this world and if the new theology, which Muhammad brought, is superior, which I think all notable scholars would agree to some extent, it should be in the article. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WELL SAID. Now, the intro looks like as if Muhammad was only a military leader. --Aminz 07:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler (help·info) (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was the saviour of the human race from the twin evils of International Jewry and Soviet Bolshevism. He was Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and Führer (Leader) of Germany from 1934 until his final betrayal and heroic suicide in 1945... [etc.].

Can anyone spot what is wrong with this, and more importantly, why? TharkunColl 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is a view that is not cited, nor attributed to those that who hold it. If it held to be notable view of him then it contains many facts that deserve mention. Ofcourse if someone disagrees, the same conditions apply to them. Its basic wikipedia, if you need some help click on the box in the nagivation bar and follow the link to community portal for guidlines etc, as well as the help link and featured articles link to help you understand how to contribute well to wikipedia.--Tigeroo 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It is a view of Hitler held only by his followers, which contradicts what historians know to be the truth. If you look at the article on Adolf Hitler you will find that in reality it doesn't start like that at all, and quite rightly so. TharkunColl 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not lead with "Muhammad, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam, was the mercy for all nations, the unifier the warring Arab tribes and the final the Prophet of God; He orated the word of God, and was a perfect example of how to live your life." - Instead it gives a NPOV entry. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll, if thats what you believe then you need to review WP:NPOV in a little more than cursory fashion.--Tigeroo 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it gives a sad whitewash of an intro by using weasel words and other nonsense such as describing what was historically an empire as a "a well organized and armed state". JimWae's version was perfectly neutral and acceptable, but like always a small cabal seems set on misrepresenting and underrepresenting historical fact. —Aiden 20:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden the empire came after, during Muhammads time it was at best a Medinan alliance vs. Meccan alliance, the capture of Mecca resulted in nothing that could be described as a state, that only emerged under Umar and Abu Bakr. Also review the NPOV section on religion, the earlier versions were entire sidelining of Muslims conceptions of Muhammad, and inclusion of some bad factoids.--Tigeroo 22:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo Why is it okay with you when Aminz wrote the stuff about a well-organized state but when Aiden quotes it suddenly becomes wrong?Opiner 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because the version that existed prior to change already had the quote removed, I didn't see any issue with it either being or not being there so I worked of the fact that it was not there. Nothin nefarious--Tigeroo 08:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you make me feel ...

Would you please read my edit summaries. You come back after awhile and revert everything back to your own version. This way, there will be absolutely no progress. First, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) says that we should not use "Allah". Secondly, I have shown you 5 sources which clearly and non-ambiguously states that 'In Islam Muhammad IS NOT CONSIDERED the founder at all'. A source says that it is so from a historical and sociological perspective. Therefore it is well established that saying "Muhammad is the founder of Islam" without any qualification violates NPOV policy. 3. You haven't read my edit summery on your sentence: "The content of these revelations was memorized by his followers and, after his death, recorded in what is known as the Qur'an." To let you know, the word Qur'an is first used in Qur'an itself. This word didn't exist among Arabs. Also, Qur'an itself uses this term. They didn't name the scripture Qur'an later. Fourth, if you care to read the sources I mentioned, they stress on the point that the Qur'an declares that "Islam is the religion of Abraham". Your removal of the word "Abraham" is not scholarly at all. Please leave it to the Muslim editors to write what Muslims believe. Fourth, "Muhammad remains the last and most important prophet in Islam, which is based upon the Qur'an and on Muhammad's deeds and sayings as recounted by Islamic biographers and his contemporaries." The Qur'an does decline to distinguish among the prophet but in one place single outs Muhammad as the seal of prophets. "Muhammad remains the last and most important prophet in Islam" is no better than "Muslim believe Muhammad to be the last and most important prophet in Islam". I don't get your based upon thing. The Qur'an and Hadith are not supposed to prove that Muhammad is the most important prophet of God. They are Muslim sources. Again, please read my edit summaries. Lastly, you yet have to prove to me that we can not quote an scholar in the intro. --Aminz 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Aminz. I have tried to help initiate a compromise between your version and the versions of others. On your issues: 1) Did anyone say Muhammad was considered the founder "in Islam"? No. The version I and several other editors have been advocating is one that makes note of the undisputed historical fact that Muhammad founded Islam. Nobody is saying the intro has to say Muhammad founded Islam "according to Islam". My version certainly didn't say that, so in effect you are setting up a straw man. What must be made note of is the fact that 5- of the worlds 6-billion people do in fact believe Muhammad created a new religion. Saying that Muhammad is the founder only within a specific and narrow field of scientific study is not only inaccurate, it is misleading. 2) About "Allah", that's fine, and it’s a simple change from "Allah" to "God"--not one that requires you to continually reinstate your entire theologically-biased version over a simple point of contention. 3) I did not remove Abraham; I simply returned the entire paragraph to JimWae's version. Keep in mind, Muslims also believe Adam was a Muslim and thus it was not Abraham who invented "Islam", nor Muhammad. "Original monotheistic faith" is much more inclusive and accurate. 4) If you have a grievance with "most important" in relation to Muhammad, again, feel free to modify, but removing an entire introduction other editors have worked on over such a small issue is quite unproductive. Muhammad is the 'most important' from the standpoint that he restored God's "true religion". As he is the seal of the prophets and the final prophet, it is pretty much without debate that he is also the most important. But if that is also a point of contention, it can be removed. 5) Quoting a scholar in the introduction is bad style. If you see WP:LEAD, you will see that the introduction is meant to be a summary of the article's content, not content itself. Having a huge block quote not only looks ugly, it moves important information from the body to the intro, where it should rather be summarized. —Aiden 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On point 1) Saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam, period, violates POV policy. Saying Muhammad from a social or historical perspective is the founder of Islam is a POV. The other POV is that in Muslim theological formulations, Muhammad is NOT the founder of Islam and the article should say "NOT the founder of Islam" explicitly. If the intro touches these two points it becomes NPOV. Now, getting back to your reply: saying "X is so" without any specification implies that it is so in all views. Therefore my answer to you question 'Did anyone say Muhammad was considered the founder "in Islam"'? is positive. In reply to your statement that most people are not Muslims, yes, but Muslims are a significant majority and according to the policies, their POV should be mentioned. You wrote :"Saying that Muhammad is the founder only within a specific and narrow field of scientific study is not only inaccurate, it is misleading.": Muhammad is historically and socialogically the founder of Islam, that is what my sources say. Do you have any other sources to add? If not, it would be an original research on your part. 2) As to the God-Allah thing, I stated it clearly in my edit summary that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) says so. But you reverted this change back to yours afterwards. 3)Re: "Keep in mind, Muslims also believe Adam was a Muslim and thus it was not Abraham who invented "Islam", nor Muhammad. "Original monotheistic faith" is much more inclusive and accurate." May I ask you to bring your sources. I have 5 sources who don't even mention Adam. It is all your original research. Not saying Adam was not a prophet in Islam, but the Qur'an announces Islam as the "religion of Abraham" and stresses on Abraham. So does my sources. What is your sources? 4)"Muhammad is the 'most important' from the standpoint that he restored God's "true religion"." ANOTHER ORIGINAL RESEARCH. All the prophets preached the same message and restored God's true religion. Muhammad being the last and most important prophet is Muslim belief, but that's not all the story. The Qur'an in many places declines to distinguish between the prophets, in one place singles out Muhammad. THAT IS WHAT MY ACADEMIC SOURCES SAYS. And lastly, Bernard Lewis was summerizing Muhammad's achievements. Lead section is also supposed to be a summary. Details can go into the article. There is no policy saying that we can not "quote" scholars in the intro. --Aminz 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden tried a compromise but Tigeroo just reverted him.

'Muhammad remains' is MUCH better than 'Muslims believe' because the subject of this article is supposed to be MUHAMMAD, not What Muslims Believe. Why is this so hard to understand? Or dont you agree? Like I said before the real problem here that we dont even agree what the article should be ABOUT.

Leave it to the Muslim editors to write what Muslims believe? Theres an article called Islam which is all about what Muslims believe. Unlike Muhammad Islam isnt anything EXCEPT what Muslims believe. Qur'an saying Islam is religion of Abraham has nothing to do with Muhammad, the subject of this article, except that was one of his teachings. It doesnt matter who does or doesnt believe it because its still something he said. We shouldnt say Muslims and Bahais believe this but Christians and Jews reject it because it has nothing to do with his life. But if we DO say Muslims believe than we should include beliefs of others too.

Neutrality and ON TOPIC is, Muhammad founded Islam. He claimed to be restoring original monotheistic religion which had been corrupted. Muhammad did this. Muhammad said that. Not Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that. That belongs in Islam or Muslim articles. we are not talking about Hanuman or something where the only reality or even main reality is what some people believe.Opiner 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I introduced many points: the phrasing of the sentence wasn't much important to me. What Muslims believe or what Qur'an says is connected to Muhammad's teaching. In any case, I find it strange to argue with a Christian on what a Muslim believes (i.e. the interpretation of what Muhammad taught). Tigeroo did a good job. I find it surprising that you guys on one hand want the view of academics to be projected there and on the other hand censor the views of academics claiming that they are not neutral. --Aminz 23:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, simply because I am not an adherent doesn't make me an enemy nor does it make me disinterested. Frankly I find it alarming that you are looking at this entire issue in terms of "us vs. them". All Wikipedia editors should strive to make the article as informative and neutral as possible. I think I have done that here and in every other article I've been involved in. I've again tried to combine your version with that of JimWae, addressing your complaints with the previous version. Please let me know what you think. —Aiden 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, no, simply because you are not an adherent, means that you should support your edits by peer-reviewed university press (e.g. Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) published books by renowned academic scholars such as Bernard Lewis, Watt, Espisoto. I am both culturally familiar with Islam and have based my edits on Academic sources. Encyclopedia is supposed to be an scholarly work. The scholarly works are neither shy to mention that Muhammad improved things a lot nor to make theories of how Muhammad added some traditions from the Bible and included in the Qur’an in order to win over followers from Christianity and Judaism. Just please put yourself in my shoes: I find 5 sources for a claim, write it down and then tomorrow see it has been changed to something else and funny enough, the new claim has been attributed to the very same sources. --Aminz 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad being beleived as the last prophet of Islam is an IMPORTANT fact, and well I have argued and detailed why it is equialent to founder, however since we can't agree to that I have compromised and left the mention in since you beleive they are POVs the last prophet must be attributed to Muslim beleif and founder to historical and social developmental concepts to get over NPOV. The caliphates were his successors and based of an entirely different political model because the dynamic that existed during muhammads time was not there anymore, the only he acheived was set up a a concept of a unified community which was then turned into an oligarchy state by his successors and then into a dynastic empire. Please review the NPOV for Religion policy where it clearly states that you cannot discriminate against theological positions or arguments on the basis of NPOV. Especially when they can be cited, and be verified widely as well. I have made it clear that all Muslim beleifs are carefully attributed to them.--Tigeroo 08:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo, "la nofareqoo bayna ahaden men rosooleh..." sure, but again we should be precise as to what it means that Muhammad is the most important prophet. happy ramdan by the way. --Aminz 10:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats true I didn't have the energy to take on that aspect as well, it will probably take up an entire article on its own dealing with the disagrements or even the validity of that statement!!--Tigeroo 10:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The caliphates were his successors and based of an entirely different political model because the dynamic that existed during muhammads time was not there anymore, the only he acheived was set up a a concept of a unified community which was then turned into an oligarchy state by his successors and then into a dynastic empire…

This sounds like original research.

Please review the NPOV for Religion policy where it clearly states that you cannot discriminate against theological positions or arguments on the basis of NPOV…

Wait, so NEUTRALITY is discriminating againt you and against Islam?Opiner 08:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats why i didn't write it into the article. I didn't follow the second half of your comments--Tigeroo 10:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Golden Nuggets for Thought

Oxford English Dictionary: Muhummad: The name of the founder of Islam.

From the Encyclopedia of Islam that Aminz likes to post all over the place says; Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. After a short paragraph about the belief of Muhummad as 'Messenger of God' and at the 'heart of the Muslim faith', has this to say in the second of paragraph;

"That Muhammad was one of the greatest persons in world history in terms of the global impact of the movement he founded (emphasis mine) cannot seriously be questioned. How did his extraordinary success occur? One answer is theological: God chose as His Prophet and was directly responsible for his triumph over polytheism and evil. Another is based on historical and other evidence: Muhummad had strong leadership skills......and was able to atttract other strong leaders that were firmly committed to him, and together they were responsible for the for the early success of the Muslim community." Page 160. No POV here.

The piece de resistance comes from the Comptom's Encyclopedia;

Muhammad: "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah." This is the fundamental statement of faith in Islam, and it declares that Muhammad is the founder of one of the world's major religions. He was also the founder of a state by his unification of Arabia. Within decades after his death his followers sent out armies that conquered the whole Middle East, North Africa, and Spain. This vast territory was unified, at least temporarily, in an Islamic empire (see Caliphate)...The Byzantine Empire, too fell to Islam. The religion Muhammad founded became one of the most potent cultural forces in the world, and it plays a decisisve role in the politics of the Middle East." Page 646.

So, what is it we are arguing about? Nodekeeper 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to see somebody eventually chose the right way of dealing with the intro. Yes, I like EoI except for one of its article which I won't tell you guys about and I know is harshly POV.

Here is another text from EoI: "Still Muhammad was not thinking any more than before of founding a new religion, but only of restoring the true religion proclaimed by the prophets from the beginning. On this point a distinction needs to be made between religious beliefs and later theological formulations on the one hand, and the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research.".

The four other sources I've found explicitly say that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam (do books.google.com "Muhammad Founder Esposito".

Evidences so far:

1. The academic sources write: "Muhammad founded Islam" or "Muhammad is the founder of Islam"

2. The academic sources write that "Muhammad is not the founder of Islam according to the Muslim theological formulations"

3. There is an academic source who says that "the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research is that Muhammad founded Islam"

4. Academic sources (well, more precisely EoI article at least) flatly mentions that it wants to deal with the historical Muhammad. It notes that this is not supposed to be contradictory with Muslim theological picture of Muhammad

Conclusion

When academic sources write "Muhammad founded Islam", they make an assumption. Q. What is this assumption: Evidence 3 says: "the conclusions reached by modern historical and sociological research is that Muhammad founded Islam". Q. Does that mean that it is NPOV to say: Muhammad is the founder of Islam: For an article on "Historical Muhammad" yes but for "Muhammad" NO. If Muhammad being founder of Islam is a true statement under some considerations, what are them: EoI says: historical and sociological perspective. So, we should write: Muhammad, from a historical and sociological perspective, is the founder of Islam. End of my comment. --Aminz 11:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

List of founders of world religions

In deference to the Muslim editors, I have removed Muhammad from the article List of founders of world religions. He doesn't deserve to be there. TharkunColl 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have actually read the article before making such a change:

This list should not be construed as anything more than a list of suggestions for further reading and research. Wikipedia takes no position on whether or not these figures existed or "founded" a tradition, or which constitutes a separate religion or tradition. Most of the terms in the title of the article are disputed by one or more of the groups listed. The term "founder" would be rejected by Muslims, who believe that the first prophet of Islam was the first man, Adam. Founder is also considered an inappropriate term for Jesus, Mahavira, etc.

The article is meant to be a list of people regarded as founders, hence the presence of other debatable 'founders' such as Jesus. —Aiden 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we create a new list with the title "Non-founders of a world religion" and include Muhammad there. — Editorius 14:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner "claim" that there is a POV pushing on Revelations

Ibrahimfaisal says now that its obvious that Muhammad had revelations. Nope. ITs only obvious that he claimed to. Many Non-muslims who are the worlds majority think he made it up. Neutral point of view means we cant take a position. But I guess no one will stop you so hey why not?Opiner 23:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with Ibrahimfaisal's removal of "claimed" for one reason: the section all of this content is in is "Life based on Islamic traditions". Thus, it is implied that everything within this section is according to Islamic belief. Therefore it is not necessary to qualify every single statement of faith, much the same as it is not necessary to title the section "Possible" or "Claimed" Ascension in the Jesus article. —Aiden 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do because its not neutral. If the Jesus article isnt neutral thats its own problem not an excuse to be not neutral here. Muhammad said he had revelations. Thats neutral and accurate. If claim sounds too skeptical than make it said.Opiner 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner you are just trying to tease me or you really do not understand why I removed "claim"? I never said it is obvious that Muhammad had revelations. I said it is obvious without saying that it is claim. Hence "claim or not claim" sentence gives same meaning and claim sentence is very bad to read. --- ابراهيم 00:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No its not obvious its only claimed without saying it, because for all readers know this happened in front of a bunch of witnesses. Or there is some other way we can be sure its true. WE know better but readers might not. The mirror image of whats there now is Muhammad made up stories about revelations. Thats not neutral and neither is saying he had them. Muhammad said he had revelations. Why is it very bad to read? If you dont believe Muhammad maybe saying he had them is bad to read. So lets be neutral instead.Opiner 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole article have 100s of such places. Will you put "claim" in front of everyone? The article will become claim .. claim. Just like the title of this section (above) was obvious and right before I change it heading to "Opiner "claim" that there is a POV pushing on Revelations", similarly leave other obvious things unmentioned. Those who can use computer and read English will have enough sence to know those obvious things. ---- ابراهيم 00:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "According to Islamic tradition ..." ? Seems like a fairly NPOV way of putting it; clarifies the point, while avoiding the implied skepticism of "claimed". - Valarauka(T/C) 01:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Because even according to tradition he claimed it. I asked earlier if someone else was supposed to see this but it seems like no one else did EVEN according to tradition. The only thing Islamic tradition adds to 'Muhammad said' is, 'and we believe him.' Claimed does sound a little skeptical but said is almost 'invisible.' Plus according to Islamic tradition will be even more cluttersome which is what Ibrahim claims, er says,:) he doesnt like.Opiner 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the intro, it is necessary to say Muhammad "claimed" to have revelations, as flat-out saying "Muhammad had revelations" establishes that as if it were fact. However, in the section titled "Life based on Islamic traditions", everything listed is by default as is believed in Islamic traditions. Thus, it is not only not necessary, it is quite redundant to add "According to Islamic tradition..." or "claimed" in every sentence. The entire section is according to Islamic tradition. That is not a violation of NPOV. It is just like having 'pro' and 'con' sections; each section will represent its respective POV, but the article as a whole will remain neutral. —Aiden 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think articles are suppossed to have POV sections like that where nothing has to be qualified. Otherwise we need another section right below it that says according to Jewish and Christian beliefs, then retells the whole story but saying he made it up. That doesnt sound right to me.Opiner 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with qualifying it. Still, Opiner, what you don't seem to realize is that most of what we know about Muhammad is from Islamic traditions, according to which he did receive revelations. Adding 'claimed' to that is an interpretation of tradition, obviously by someone who is skeptical. Islamic tradition doesn't say "Muhammad said he had revelations and we believe him" - Islamic tradition just says "Muhammad had revelations". And yes, according to tradition his revelations were witnessed, on occasion, by his companions and/or wives. - Valarauka(T/C) 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I see why people think 'claim' sounds too skeptical so we should stick with said. I asked earlier who supposedly witnessed the revelations, but the only answer I got was a hadith where Muhammad told people that a guy who asked him questions on the road was actually Gabriel. After he'd left naturally. But that wasn't supposed to be a Qur'anic revelation. So Im still asking because Ive never heard of that. There are a lot of hadith though so maybe.Opiner 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Something as "supernatural" as a revelation (or a resurrection) needs to be qalified no matter what section it is in. That he went to Mecca in the year so & so is not as incredible a statement, but if there is a wikipedia sentence that says "he had revelations", it would appear as though Wikipedia were taking a position on religion. "Said" will suffice.
• "According to Islamic tradition" is unnecessarily vague if the tradition exists because that is what M actually said he did. He SAID he had revelations & said that he had seen an angel. If HE said he was the last prophet, that says something about him that "Muslims believe he was the last prophet" does NOT say. This is, after all, an article about him, not just what his followers believe about him. An alternative would be "He said, and Muslims believe, he was the last prophet"--JimWae 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're not getting it. You cannot separate 'what Muslims say he said' from 'what he actually said' - the record of that is Islamic tradition (hadith). Nobody was following him around with a videocamera. From a purely objective, historical point of view, it's not that 'tradition exists because he said (x)', it's that 'we know he said (x) because tradition says so'. See the difference? Hence, saying that 'according to tradition, he had revelations' is a correct, verifiable, NPOV statement, while the statement 'he said he had revelations' is unsourced. Similarly for your last sentence - "He said, and Muslims believe..." - how do you know what he said? Because Muslims say so!

Look, if the main sources about his life are from what Muslims say, you're necessarily going to have to have a lot of "Muslims say such and such" in the article. See the Jesus article, most of the statements about his life begin: "According to (x) Gospel, ...", which is both necessary and correct. - Valarauka(T/C) 05:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So then "Muslims say he said A" is still more informative than "Muslims believe A". What is "according to the Koran" and what is "according to tradition" are important distinctions for those trying to figure out what's what in Islam. What Jesus or Mohammed is reported as actually saying is given more weight than simple traditions --JimWae 05:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify - when I say "(Islamic) tradition", I'm specifically referring to the hadith, the recordings of what Muhammad said and did. Hence, the tradition I'm referring to is what Muhammad is reported as actually having said or done. It's not 'simple traditions'. "According to tradition(hadith)" is a much more accurate statement than "Muslims say" or "Muslims believe"; it's a reference to a specific source. - Valarauka(T/C) 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not how non-Muslims will read it. The article should be fully comprehensible to non-Muslims --JimWae 07:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For everyones easy reference explanation of NPOV, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Religion

Religion

Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from a non-historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z.

It's quite clear that stating what Muslim beleive is acceptable and is not a contradiction of NPOV, because it is clear as to who beleives this, and implies that others do not. If some one beleives differently, mention it.--Tigeroo 08:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the link also makes it clear that other views are to be presented too. Previously the article had practically nothing but what "Muslims believe X... Muslims believe Y" - and that does violate NPOV. "Muslims believe Z" is also sometimes less informative than "Muslims believe Muhammad said Z" or "according to the Q'ran, Muhammed said Z" --JimWae 08:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If this relates to this section, the importance of using words like "claimed" or "according to" are emphasized in the link you provided --JimWae 08:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

According to is easily verifable and citable in this context. You cannot use claim, when you refer to Musim beleif as this implies a possible doubt. But yes, I have consolidated the entire version into a singular paragraph as well as esnuring that it is all only about Muslim view that it is clear that it is "according to" X.--Tigeroo 08:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo so we cannot use claim when referring to Muslim belief because this implies possible doubt? For other beliefs possible doubt is okay, but not Muslim beliefs! Well at least youve put it right out in the open. Look, NPOV means POSSIBLE DOUBT. If that option isnt there, especially when were talking about revelations from God and angels, then were not doing our job as per NPOV. I guess Im wasting my breath by this time? It sounds again like youre saying that neutrality isnt neutral!Opiner 09:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are just misreading my comments. The sense I am mentioning it in is that it would ascribe doubt on the part of Muslims in this regard, which is factually inaccurate. As mentioned in the FAQ as well, it is important to explain the beleifs around this personality. Those are intrinsic in his importance as a historical figure. Remember doing so does not contradict NPOV.--Tigeroo 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims beleive that for the last 23 years of his life, Muhammad received revelations from God (Allah) delivered through the angel Gabriel." is INADEQUATE because it does not give as much information as it could: that "According to Muslim belief, M SAID he received revelations" or "M taught (or told) his followers that he had received revelations..." Direct teachings carry more weight than what followers believe. Jesus never said he was part of a Trinity, but Xns believe it anyway. It is an imposrtant distinction. The Gospels never even have him unambiguosuly saying he is God. --JimWae 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"According to Muslim belief, M SAID he received revelations" --> "M SAID he received revelations" --Aminz 09:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it there are some things (some) Muslims believe about Muhammad that he never taught - such as his existing from the time of the creation --JimWae 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, though do I not understand what M said adds to that particular sentence there beyond clunkiness. At anyrate I am sure some decent formulation to the same can be found that reads better, no real opposition in principle just not very happy with the particular offerring. It could possibly be fleshed out and easily detailed and clarified in the section dealing with the first revelations where even he is reported in Muslim accouts as doubting it's reality and being shaken by the event. Also Yes, there are many things where there are differring opinion/ reports and as seperate conceptions need to be laid out as seperate POVs and attributed. Those who beleive that soul idea beleive refer to the Quran/God, as the source if you are a Muslim and if you don't beleive that then it would be muhammad himself.--Tigeroo 09:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Tigeroo w.r.t. clunkiness. Also, adding "M said" is misleading because it implies there were no witnesses to his revelations, which is not true. If there hadn't been witnessed revelations, and all Muslims simply took it on faith that he had them because he said so, then "M said" would be justified. As it is, there are hadith related by various companions which state that they saw him receiving revelations. So it's more than just believing he said he had them - it's believing he had them, period. And you still don't seem to appreciate the difference between "Muslims say"/"Muslims believe" and "According to hadith" - hadith are a source. "Muslims believe" is a vague statement that could encompass any number of things. - Valarauka(T/C) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy is that "clunkiness" is preferable to POVs. Perhaps I would appreciate the "difference" better if the article stated some sources for particular beliefs rather than repeatedly simplistic "Muslims believe X1", "Muslims believe X2", "Muslims believe X3", etc. I realize this is particularly problematic when the historical source of everything about M, about Islam, and the sacred text itself is all one: M - but some clarifications need to be made wherever possible. --JimWae 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Does the article state anywhere that acc to Qran there were witnesses to the visions/revelations. Were the witnesses simply present or did they hear/see Gabriel too? --JimWae 19:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how some want a super-clunky introduction but now claim, erm, say that theyre against clunkiness here as matter of stylistic principl? Arguments keep changing even self contradicting but POV stays the same.

Still no one has said what hadith have anyone seeing revelations, only trust me they exist. Not good enough. If they exist theyre not many and they should be presented, since they are the only evidence besides Muhammads word its a pretty big deal. Change idol to religious object with same meaning and we need SOURCES SOURCES, but on trifling matter of revelations well TRRUST US sources exist and lets not make it clunky!

On top of that the three-revert violations which admin friendly to POV decided not to enforce, the discussion entries look like formal touches to an edit war. ITs hard to keep assuming good faith in this environment.Opiner 20:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

JimWae: I myself am arguing for a certain amount of clunkiness - that of "according to hadith", which, like I said, is factual and NPOV. I agree that "Muslims believe" is problematic and unenlightening. Without either of those assertions, the statement becomes unsourced. However, once "according to hadith" has been stated, "he had revelations" is more concise and correct than "he said he had revelations", for reasons already stated above. As for your second question, I'm not sure how 'According to the Qur'an' would even work, considering the Qur'an is the revelation. For an example source for the revelations statement, see below. - Valarauka(T/C) 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner: Please don't conflate my actions or arguments with those of all of the others on this page. I haven't pushed for a super-clunky intro, nor have I objected to religious object vs idol (either one's fine by me), and I certainly haven't been edit-warring on the article itself. I'd like it if you could maintain your assumption of my good faith.

About your statement "the only evidence besides Muhammads word" - again, you seem to not realize that the only evidence we have of Muhammad's word is the hadith in the first place. You can't say "Muhammad said (x)" without providing a source - who heard him say that, who did they tell, and so on - that's what a hadith *is*!

As for a specific example, here's one narrated by Aisha, from the Sahih Bukhari: "Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over)." - Valarauka(T/C) 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking again is Qur'an really a major source for Muhammads life?

Originally this sentence said that Islam is based on the Qur'an and in Muhammad's life as recounted in sira and hadith which is true. Since then its been changed to, the main sources for Muhammad's life are Qur'an sira and hadith. Qur'an doesn't say much about Muhammad's life though does it? I asked this before and no one said anything but I thought Id ask again before correcting it.Opiner 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a major source, afaik; the earlier sentence seems fine. - Valarauka(T/C) 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

YES, Encyclopedia of Islam article says so. It is the most important source on the Muhammad's life as it reports many things happened to Muhammad. --Aminz 08:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The First Sentence

Obviously, some fellows here fail to grasp what an entry's introductory statement is meant to be:

"The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context. Rather than being typically technical, it should be a concise, conceptually sound, characterization driven, encyclopedic definition. It should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#The_first_sentence)

Why don't we simply get back to the following formulation:

"Muḥammad (Arabic: محمد‎; also Mohammed, and other variants), 570-632 CE, is, from a non-theological perspective, the founder of Islam. In Islamic theology, Muhammad is not regarded as the founder of a new religion but rather as God's last and most important prophet, who reestablished and perfected the primeval monotheistic faith of Adam and Abraham."

There is no rational reason for a Muslim or a non-Muslim to reject this. — Editorius 14:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorius I think above formation is totally acceptable to me, even being a Muslim. I also agreed that introduction should be small as above. But few people want to tell that "Islam spread by sword". Hence they want to mention many other things in the introduction, some of those things even happened after Muhammad death. --- ابراهيم 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree.It is a very neutral opening sentence MOI 19:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think both viewpoints on the founder issue must be presented early in the intro. I do have trouble with, and I am sure others will wonder about having, theology brought into this - this is not really very much about God, but about humans. Theology, whatever our article might say, has a specific meaning within religious studies as being the study of God - and not being "everything about religion". It would be very odd to talk about Buddhist theology, and the theology article says that within Islam theology is a somewhat derogatory term. We have 2 views clearly demarcated as Muslim & non-Muslim, (or somewhat less clearly: sectarian & non-sectarian). We could just use such a plain demarcation --JimWae 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC) --"according to a historical perspective, the founder..." would work fine --JimWae 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, I *think* theology is the study of a religion and events, not on a secular basis, but under the worldview shaped by presense of God. Editorius version seems good to me. --Aminz 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I couldn't find the theology article saying that within Islam theology is a somewhat derogatory term. Would you please point me to it. Thanks --Aminz 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Theology_and_religions_other_than_Christianity Kalam --JimWae 20:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorus version is good first two sentences, but tohe second sentence should ened with 'prophet'. Dont need to mention Adam in the intro. There is link to Islam where people can learn non-Muhammad-related doctrines.

For next sentence...spread by sword? Ibrahim you sound a little defensive here. Yeah we do need to say Muhammad unified Arabia under his rule and founded the Islamic empire known as Caliphate. Its a really big real world accomplishment enough to give him an article even if there was no religion and it should share top billing with the religion. I wrote it before trying to merge these two ideas instead of making it sound like he is prophet who just happens to be a warlord in his spare time. Conquering Arabia and instituting the Islamic law was thde second main part of his prophet mission after Qur'an. Why do we want to suppress this?Opiner 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I can not agree with you Opiner. The second sentence shouldn't be ended with prophet, simply because it is an explanation of why Muhammad is not regarded as the founder of a new religion. As to Muhammad's unifying the Arabia, I won't object with mentioning this, BUT as long as the significant ethical and moral teachings that Muhammad brought to Arabia would also be mentioned in parrallel. Something along the lines of saying that egalitarian nature of Islamic doctrine "represented a very considerable advance on the practice of both the Greco-Roman and the ancient Iranian world. Islam from the first denounced aristocratic privilege, rejected hierarchy, and adopted a formula of the career open to the talents", or his creation of a "new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before", or "bringing two major changes to ancient slavery which were to have far-reaching effects" and causing "enormously improvement" in the position of the Arabian slave. --Aminz 20:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, Islam might have been spread by the conquests, BUT there were rarely forced conversions (at least among Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians who were Dhimmis). The conversions were mostly voluntary. I happened to sit in a university class talking about spread of Islam in India. The teacher stated Sufism missionaries were the important factor. So was also in Malaysia I believe. Lewis says that the charge usually brought against Islam was not that its doctorines are forced but that they were wrong cf. Jews of Islam, p.1, 2 or 3 I think. --Aminz 20:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a place to bargain between 2 people about what to include. M's political achievements are well-known & cannot be omitted from the intro. Some of his other major teachings, accomplishments should also be included in intro - but not with all the "enormous improvement" commentary --JimWae 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is definitely not POV. Check with other sources and if you found a contradiction, let me know. Even regarding Muhammad's political achievement scholars are amazed. Why should we hide this amazement? Christian priest and orientalist David Samuel Margoliouth states: "I regard Mohammed as a great man, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty,-the construction of a state and an empire out of the Arab tribes. I have endeavored, in recounting the mode in which he accomplished this, to do justice to his intellectual ability and to observe towards him the respectful attitude which his greatness deserves." Being NPOV doesn't mean censoring views of orientalists but rather including the view of all of them. --Aminz 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant ethical and moral teachings that Muhammad brought to Arabia would also be mentioned in parrallel, thats way too defensive! Sounds uncomfortable that facts might be taken 'wrong way' if said without special explanations. Sounds like big apology, not needed in neutral article.

No need to going into detail in introduction about how empire was ruled or about what Islam says. Just founded/was prophet of Islam, founded empire. Details later in article, and in Islam and other articles.

India there were also HUGE massacres by Timurlane and other rulers. Thats off topic here though. In Arabia and Middle East Islam spread bby conquest, youre right that doesnt mean forced conversions only imposition of Muslim elite and institution of Islamic law. other religgions still there but under dhimma provision of Islamic law. Thats off topic here too. Conquered these territories and spread to them Islam doesnt worry about these details. Remember this is only introduction.Opiner 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Massacre in india might have happened, I dunno. I do however know that "The conquerer Muhammad Ibn Al Qasem gave both Hindus and Buddhists the same status as the Christians, Jews and Sabaeans in the Middle east". They were all "dhimmi" ('protected people')" cf Annemarie Schimmel (2004), p.107

We should check whether Muhammad Ibn Al Qasem was before Timurlane or after him.

Anyways, as you said, Introduction is supposed to be the summary of the section. We do have a section titled "Muhammad the reformer". I plan to add a section on "Muhammad's personal qualifications": the "extraordinary skills", Encyclopedia of Islam is talking about. Afterwards, the intro should also touch on this as well. --Aminz 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to state - I'm fine with Editorius' proposal for the opening sentence. - Valarauka(T/C) 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Jim Wae, the very simple reason why it would be very odd to talk about a "Buddhist theology" is that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion. Buddhism is a religious philosophy but not a theology. Only within theism there are various theologies (Christian th., Islamic th., Jewish th., etc.). — Editorius 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly - theology is about god/s, not about the history of a religion --JimWae 01:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Theology is also about the historical relationship between God and Man. — Editorius 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not the way theology is understood in every relgion --JimWae 01:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"The themes of theology are God, man, the world, salvation, and eschatology."

(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9072034/theology)

Editorius 01:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

But etymologically speaking, and in a great many works - it is primarily about "theos". Do you have a problem with "historical"? --JimWae 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Britannica also says: discipline of religious thought that is restricted in its narrower sense, because of its origination and format, to Christianity but that may be applied in a broader sense, because of its themes, to other religions --JimWae 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there actually is a theological subfield called "historical theology" (See e.g. http://www.vor.org/truth/rbst/hist-theology-001.html). — Editorius 01:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The decisive line of demarcation runs between the theological view on the history of Islam and the non-theological view on it. — Editorius 01:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Every theistic religion has its theology. — Editorius 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unconvinced. Historical theology could just as well mean the history of ideas about gods. Do you have a problem with "historical"? People who know practically nothing about theology, but with a historical perspective, would consider Islam to have been founded by M --JimWae 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We have three choices: 1. Saying non-theological 2. historical 3. historical and sociological.

#3 is more complete than #2 but i like #1 most. --Aminz 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the central subject of theology is the god. But there are other subjects related to it.

I do have a problem with "historical" because it is underdetermined: it may mean "historical from the theological perspective on history" or "historical from the non-theological (scientific) perspective on history".

The pair "theological" vs. "non-theological" renders the crucial perspectival distinction sufficiently unequivocal. — Editorius 02:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Editorius. Precisely, "The pair "theological" vs. "non-theological" renders the crucial perspectival distinction sufficiently unequivocal"--Aminz 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"islamic theology", as JimWae has pointed out, is almost exclusively regarded to be the science of kalam. of course, wrt "Christian theology" or other religious theologies the definitions may vary. as far as i know however, the term "islamic theology" tends to be very specific in its connotation. ITAQALLAH 02:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We all know that Islamic theology (like Christian or Jewish th.) comprises several schools, i.e. different religious theories of Islam. These are all part of the whole called "Islamic theology". Terms such as "theology" or "sociology" do not mean that there is only one theological or sociological theory. — Editorius 02:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

there would be branches in the science of kalam, although the only difference would be in methodology rather than subject (which as i understand focuses on codifying the existence and understanding of the nature of the diety). even so, i think your formulation is currently the most appropriate here. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The symmetry non-theology vs. theology here is kinda misleading. Dont have to believe anything special to think Muhammad was founder, dont need to be a Non-Theologist or Historian. Only if you have ONE particular ideology do you think that and even then as Tigeroo said its not necessarily contradicting to say founder. Must Muslim also see he founded Islam from the secular perspective. Theological is a problem because its not all theology only Islamic theology that thinks that and Im not sure thats even the right word, prexisted Islam isnt about THEOLOGY but about Qur'anic myth of PREHISTORY. Either way its not neutral to make belief of one particular religion equal to belief of everyone else from ANY other religion or non religion. First should come normal way of looking at it, then special way which needs special doctrinating to see. Maybe secular vs. Islamic religious perspective is most accurate.Opiner 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, I deny that anybody is likely to be misled by the perspectival contrast "theological vs. non-theological". — Editorius 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I still have not seen a single reason given not to use "historical perspective" --JimWae 02:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does the un-doctrinated view needs qualifying at all? He DID found the religion called Islam and Muslims BELIEVE he restored the original religion. No contradicting there and both are easy to source.Opiner 02:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot appear to take a position that the Islamic view is wrong. NPOV --JimWae 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

God & Allah

Once again, Allah appears only once in the article & not until nearly the end -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=77461795#Depictions_of_Muhammad This cannot stay this way --JimWae 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The See Also in the first paragraph breaks up the sentence. Where in the MoS is there any such policy re the need to have this this?--JimWae 02:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction proposal

The introduction now is really weird how it has two ideas going side by side. Not like a regular encyclopedia at all! But as JimWae said we need NPOV. So I thought about how to write an introduction that tells the facts without getting into who believes what.

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, and other variants) ^[5] 570-632 CE,^[6] was a Arab religious and political leader who preached a religion he called Islam. He united the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula under a state governed by Islamic law with its capital in Madina. By 750, his successors had conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa and Iberia and introduced Islam to the newly acquired territories.

Muhammad told his followers, known as Muslims, that he was the last prophet of God (Allah) sent to restore the ancient monotheistic religion of Adam, Abraham and other prophets, including Jesus, from human corruption.^{[7] [8] [9] [10]} For the last twenty-three years of his life, Muhammad claimed to be receiving revelations from God delivered through the angel Gabriel. The content of these revelations was memorized by his followers and, after his death, was written down to form the Qur'an. The Qur'an, along with the details of Muhammad’s life as recounted by his biographers and his contemporaries, forms the basis of Islamic doctrine.

See whats NOT here. No founded, no historical perspective, no what Muslims believe, INSTEAD Muhammad did Muhammad said and explaining why it had an impact. Trying to avoid the giant debate by keeping it on topic. We will never agree what he IS but might agree what he DID and SAID. What do you guys think?Opiner 05:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The general format of this looks good to me. Thanks for suggestion. Still, I think Muhammad's role as a social reformer is belittled here. No matter one believes Muhammad was a real prophet or not, I believe it is fair to say that Muhammad served humanity in many ways. It is so sad to see that people like Pope, in their ignorance, belittle Muhammad's contributions to humanity (not to asking how much Pope himself has served the humanity). How many historians and scholars are needed to tell the people that "Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad"? Thus, I am more than before inspired to do research on Muhammad's service to humanity. If the intro of the article is supposed to summerize the text, then it should touch Muhammad's contributions as well.--Aminz 06:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As the introduction stands now, this "encyclopedia" fails to be able to do what all the other encyclopedia books are able to accomplish. I.e. say that Muhammad either 'founded' or 'established' the religion Islam. If he was 'just another prophet teaching' and 'just another social reformer', why even bother have this article at all? Why not just delete it all together? Even the Encyclopedia of Islam that I quoted above gets around to saying Muhammad founded Islam. Why is this even a 'big' debate in the first place when all the books at the library can say it, but we can't say it here without watering it down with qualifications, weasel words, or skipping it all together. Why do we have to have religious censorship of a basic fact so we don't offend, when clearly wikipedia says that some people will be offended]. The fact is, muslim fundamentalists are either going to write this article, or be offended by it. Nodekeeper 07:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper you ought to know Im not censoring it! Only writing it in a away thats accurate without presuming. To presume will mean argument between Muslims say, non-Muslims say or vice versa, making the article look and sound really lame. If we could have only he founded that'd be great but the price is going to and fro between normal view and religious view.

This version says things that if you believe Muhammad's spiel about being the prophet restoring original religion, he didn't found Islam, if you don't believe him he obviously did. Without making this decision for the reader. Founder of Islam or maybe last pprophet are both very un-neutral compared to Arab religious and political leader, no? And He told his followers, known as Muslims, that he was the last prophet of God is a FACT. Not depending on what Muslims or non-Muslims BELIEVE. Trying to 'Muhammadize' this article, make it ABOUT Muhammad and his life instead of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Maybe youre right about fundamentalists and being offended it seems pretty crazy to me but even if there was no censorship here I STILL think its much better to report the facts of his life rather than the META-facts as being interpreted in a bigger framwork, Islamic or non-Islamic. Since there are what wed consider fundamentalists here and since we cant wish them to the cornfields, and since we'll obviously never agree on everything, to limit whats being debated is the only way. Lets stick to what Muhammad did and what Muhammad said and leave what we today believe out of it! Thats my idea for now at least. If it doesnt work than it doesnt.Opiner 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper, this is your last warning. If you comment on editors rather than their comments again, you will be reported. Keep your conspiracy theories and your "facts" for yourself. Thanks --Aminz 07:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not being able to say unequivocally Muhammad is the name of the founder of Islam or Muhammad established Islam (by whoever edits it or whatever way it occurs) in this article is a form of religious censorship. Other editors have put in an intro like this, only to be reverted daily (by whoever) to something else. Report me. Nodekeeper 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are still two or three more paragraphs can be included in the introduction. We should think what these should be. One on reforms is good. Think not just what was better but what was DIFFERENT. Including no worship of other Gods, only God-based religions tolerated, because that was part of the reform. Also the command to spread Islam. Modern perspective says, he was a reformer but also a suppressor? He was a religious leader but also a military leader, converted by preaching but also by war? And we get confused and debate between things that arent really contradicting. To Muhammad these were all parts of the SAME thing, Islam. It was not one or the other but BOTH. The bad things in society were EXACTLY relating to the bad religion, the bad statues, the bad rulers and the bad laws.Opiner 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No Opiner. First general comment: Mark Cohen states that it seems that all the monotheistic religions in power throughout the history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. cf. Cohen (1995) Princeton University Press p. xix

So, it is not something particular to Islam.

Second comment: Michael Sells states that "The plaintiffs boast that Jesus never commanded his followers to kill the unbelievers but told them to leave punishment for the afterlife. But scriptures relate to violence in complex ways. During the Inquisition, killing a heretic was considered to be more compassionate than allowing him to lead others to damnation. Gospel passages that have helped inspire compassion have also been used to justify persecution of Jews. The Koran is read by the Taliban and by the Muslims who were persecuted by the Taliban. Verses that inspired Gandhi are cited by those who recently massacred unarmed Muslims in India."

Third comment: Change in our standards: Lewis and Cohen point out that until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers, at least as it is understood in west after John Locke, was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslims and Christians.

Fourth comment: There is a consensus among scholars that "in most respects" the position of non-Muslims under Muslim lands "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe" cf. Lewis (1984) p. 62, Cohen (1995) p. xvii

Fifth comment: Lewis states that it seems that the change from Byzantine to Arab rule was welcomed by many among the Dhimmis who found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters. Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egpyt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines cf. Lewis (2002) p.57 --Aminz 07:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said it was particular to Islam? You sound again defensive worried about and fighting against things that arent said. What does Sells Lewis and Cohen's comments have to do witht his? Trying to analyze it and fit it into a bigger intellectual framework whether history comparative religion or Islam is whats making this article impossible! No ISLAM defending or on trial. No judgments, justifications or condemnations and please no off topics. Comparing Islam to Europe is totally off topcic. Just stick what Muhammad said and did.Opiner 08:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But we should only use reliable WP:RS sources. Also, if these sources interpret the bare facts, those interpretations are also relevant to the article. --Aminz 08:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure but by picking out some off topic quotes BUT leaving others out we might mistaken introduce the POV because we like and remember the quotes who match it. More we stick to the facts about Muhammad's life instead of its bigger meaning, less there is to be POV about. Think whats NOT disputed, he is born in Hejaz. The more we can make other thing like born in Hejaz, the less there is to fight about. He told his followers he was last prophet to restore the old religion. Not he was the founder or he was not. Just he said this thing with no judgement. Every judgement will mean someone says, you are leaving out my judgement! Then its some people think, other people think and the article becomes what do WE editors think? About US instead of Muhammad.Opiner 09:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing we can do is to say source X says A, source B says B, etc. etc. --Aminz 09:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely omitting the historically-based account, held by the vast majority of the world, is not going to accomplish neutrality. If anything, this type of ambiguous wording skirts the issue at the cost of information to the reader. The fair thing to do is to say that historically, Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Theologically, he is not. Both POVs are accounted for and neither is favored. That is what Wikipedia is all about. —Aiden 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But there are more POVs then 'both'! There is Christian and Jewish POV which isnt just he founded Islam but he is an imposter! That is a different idea. There is Bahai POV which says he was prophet but not the last and teachings are not perfected. Its not that I think what others think shouldnt be here anywhere. BUT its a VIEW of Muhammad. Im saying start with the faacts everyone can agree on and THEN get to the views. Everyone agrees he told his followers he wwas the prophet of GOd. Eveyrone agrees that he SAID his religion was not new but just perfection of ancient monotheism from corruption. Saying from historical/non-Muslim or Muslim perspective is not about what MUHAMMAD did and said but about whether WE believe him! And I apply that both to Muslims and non-Muslims. Its very strange to have that come before saying anything about what he accomplished and taught. Like starting George Bush saying, from a Democrat perspective he is the worst president who came into office on fraud. Republicans believe he is a legitimate preseident whos doing a good job and only saying who he is! Except much worse because this is people arguing over it manmy centuries later! For most of this article people believing Muhamamd or not should only matters where it is part of his life.

Revelations issue is really the same. When article says, Muslims believe he got revelations from God, whats the right way to NPOV? your way would be add a sentence, non-Muslims believe he wrote these himself. There are many places where we could do that and it will look very odd when were done. The right way to NPOV is to say, Muhammad SAID he was receiving revelations. Make it about what Muhammad did and said instead of about what Muslims or non-Muslims think of it.Opiner 16:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner changes

The is doing three main changes.

1. . Taking out Moses from the article. (why?)
2. . Puting "SAID/CLAIM" thing everywhere in "Islamic traditions" section.
3. . Replacing "idols" with "gods" everywhere.

He is doing those same changes again and again. --- ابراهيم 08:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Moses is back. Thanks for pointing out this oversight, No thanks for your anti-Semitic insinuating comment on my talk page.
2. 'Said' is NPOV. Cant say revelations happened or not! Other editors have agreed in discussions above maybe not happily but they saw my point.
3. Idols was NOT replaced with gods with statues of Meccan gods which is what the sources say. Small g god doesnt say thes gods are real! One idols was left as idols because it was already explained what these are. Other editors saw what I was objecting about and suggested changes objects to statues and Meccan to Arabian WHICH I DID. You didnt participating in discussions but now are reverting AGAIN! PLease stop edit warring.Opiner 08:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam, Muslims

Islam and Muslims are the terms most used today. Muhammad thought that he was teaching iman, faith, and called his followers mu'min, believers. Islam and Muslim mean submission and submitters, and narrowly interpreted, they are the people who gave their bay'ah, submission, to the new faith -- but not necessarily their heart. See the article on Muslim, with the Carl Ernst quote. Furthermore, Muhammad believed that he was teaching the true iman that was at the heart of all religions -- the mysterium tremendum, the perennial philosophy, the dharma, etc. He didn't see himself as a creator, but as a restorer. He did not call his "religion" Islam. The first para as it stands is a gross misuse of history and misunderstanding of what many Muslims believe. I say this from a non-Muslim, nit-picking academic perspective. I wish the crusading anti-Muslim editors would actually read some academic works on the subject. Zora 08:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OKay but how can we make thes corrections without getting into founder dispute again? If he called his religion Iman, Im not sure about that, but if he did, lets say 'which he called Iman and which today is called Islam'. Why do you make it a crusading? I do understand what he was saying and you are nit picking it which is fine but whats not fine is youre doing it from adversary perspective. Remember we had an old introduction which was a big edit war. Theres no way it couldnt nbe cause even if the language of each sentence was agreed itd still be fighting over the order of the two sentences! Saying what Muslims vs. non-Muslims think is sure unstable failure. Please do correct what mUhammad said and did but please NOT make it what people TODAY believe, its off topic and as history of article PROVES guarantees more of the edit wars.Opiner 09:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora to equating Islam with DHARMA is pretty darned POV dont you think? Thats projection not anything Muhammad would have said. Buddhism la illaha without illa Allah is atheism and Muhammad plus most Muslims would reject completely! Perenial philosophy? Muhammad followed GOD! You are making it what its not, probably because it has an easy place in your existed paradigm. But forget about Islam. The subject here is Muhammad's life and teachings and of course that's very related to WHAT ISLAM IS but it helps to make it more specific in our minds. If there's a improvement to whats there please make it specific thing about MUhammad instead of about Muslims or non-Muslims. Or uh Buddha.Opiner 09:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Muhammad of Mecca tried to combine all three religions that he knew (Judaism, Christianity, the traditional Meccan religion) into one whole that would absorb the best of all of them. The Meccan suras speak of thousands of prophets, sent to each human society to bring iman, faith. That's a fair approximation to Hindu and Buddhist views (we're all doing the same thing, but giving it different names) and a continuation of a long Mediterranean and Middle Eastern tradition of seeing various gods as different versions of the "same thing." (Even Paul of Tarsus spoke approvingly of the Greek altar to the unknown god.) Some Muslims believe that Muhammad would have named more religions as forms of the true faith had he but known of them.

I don't think the distinction you're making between theism and atheism makes sense when you're talking about religious experience. Many saints and mystics have described "god" in terms of negative theology -- so infinitely beyond what humans can comprehend that seeing him/her/it as an old man with a white beard is a gross misapprehension. Many Muslims have taken this tack. Christians and Buddhists can agree that ultimately, they're talking about the same "thing." Muslims could too. (In fact, we had a Sufi in our zendo for a while.)

Of course there are millions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus who would not agree with this. That's fine. Those of us who are willing to talk to each other will carry on doing so. Zora 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with you COMPLETELY but that's called, the original research! We can only go on what Muhammad SAID which isn't as, erm, Catholic as you think his experience should have been. 'Many Muslims' may well taken the tack, BUT not Muhammad, he was pretty clear there is God a being if not describable who is the source of Qur'an. IT's not the Tao Book-o-Groovy-Changes so lets not force it to the model. Let's stick to the LITTLE facts about what Muhammad did and said in his life. If he called religion he preched 'IMan' instead of 'Islam' then we say that. Not make it so complicated that there can be no stablity and no answer.Opiner 10:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though he didn't intend to establish the "religion" Islam, as a direct result of his actions that's what occured. Now, from an academic perspective, how would you say that in a couple of sentences? Nodekeeper 09:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We dont have to say it. Keep it about his life and impact only secondary. He preached a religion and had followers. They spread the religion and today its called Islam. That completely evades establishing Islam by making it ABOUT Muhammad instead of Islam. It says what you want to say with establishing without contradiction of Muslim view since it also says he told his followers he was last prophet of original religion. Muhammad said he restored old religion and his followers called Muslims believed him and spread this religion. This is the way to say Muslims believe this without making the article about todays Muslims or non-Muslims and debates. We dont need to judge whether his religion is new. He said it wasnt and that cuts both ways, we dont challenge it or impose a 'historical view' which should make Muslims happy, and we dont put what 'Muslims believe' which should make you happy. Both these views are off-topic. What's real and the real historical view is Muhammad was a religious leader who told his followers these things, and he was a political leader who spread these ideas in this way. Everyone please, step outside the debate box and just tell story of Muhammad the man. Historical view not by saying, this is the historical view but by BEING it sentence by sentence.Opiner 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say and do, and I have been trying to wrap my brain around a similar concept. But as an introduction we need to "capsulate" what this article is about in two - three sentences. Also, we need to remember who we are writing this for. People come to this article to learn about Muhammed (as I did) and will find the first paragraph nonsense. How do we tell people that Muhammad was (whether directly or indirectly) responsible for one of the world's major religions? For a while it read "Muhummad is the most pre-eminent prophet of Islam, leader of the community Ummah" which makes perfect sense to the muslim, but confuses other people and makes them wonder if he's dead or not. It will insult others because they know that Muhummad is primarily known as being responsible for Islam. No introduction is going to be perfect, and it's already longer than what it needs to be as it's discussing theology. That's why I keep tossing around the idea of a "Muhummad theological" page and a separate "Historical Muhummad" page.Nodekeeper 10:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora for clarification. I myself learned from your comment and from Ernst's quote. Cheers, --Aminz 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... A clarification for OpinerOpiner. Prophet Muhammad didn't name the religion is Iman. Iman means belief, Mu`min is the believers. Islam is the religion, Muslim is a person whose religion is Islam. All Mu`min is Muslims, but not all Muslim is Mu`min. Do you understand? Marhadiasa 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC+7)

Thats exctly what I thought. but Zora then said its he called religion Iman and followers Mumin. Then said it was a gross misunderstanding and anti-Muslim crusading to use the terms Islam and Muslim. So thank you very much for clarifying.Opiner 16:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Coherence?

So BrandonYusufToropov MAKES the introduction incoherent with an incoherent objection and change, then Ibrahimfaisal and Itaqallah say, it's incoherent, and Itaqallah reverts to the PRE-BYT VERSION. Like Congress using amendment to kill bill not to improve it. No discussion only reverts.Opiner 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BYT's contribution was factual, accurate and neutral, so it was retained and inserted into the previous version which is quite honestly far superior to what it replaced. i see no consensus for the changes you introduced, and frankly i find them rather illegible and quite visibly skewed. ITAQALLAH 11:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we're discussing incoherence…ineligible for what? (NOTE Itaqallah has changed his language since this edit [13]) Your approval? I'd love to hear your answer.

my mistake: illegible ITAQALLAH 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Still your mistake! Do you know what illegible means? Put it this way, BY DEFINITION I can't recreate it with my keyboard, only with a pencil on paper. I think you want unintelligible, a word which applies only to your edits in this section and to BYT's edits to the article, NOT mine.Opiner 12:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No you did NOT restore the BYT edits, they are exactly what Ibrahimfaisal complained about in this page's history BEFORE withdrawing his comments, probably because he realized his harsh comments had been unintentionally aimed at an ally. The more I hang around this page, the more I see its not about the edits but who makes them.Opiner 12:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You HAVEN'T restored BYT's 'factual accurate and neutral' contribution, have you? Why did you say you did?Opiner 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

incivil conspiracy theories aside, the change i retained was the change described in BYT's edit summary. perhaps you should review WP:AGF, WP:TPG, WP:WQT and cease this incessant trolling. ITAQALLAH 12:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Um trolling. Yeah. Who's calling whose edits 'ineligible', um 'illegible', um…well you've given that up and are now on trolling. Incessant, that's a good word you use a lot, maybe too much. Check extinct creature called within science is regarded by scientists as being a THESAURUS and mix it up a bit. From historical perspective, it's a book with giving synonyms for other words. Point being if you go around insulting peoples edits without justice, wrongly calling them ineliwhateverigable due to soomeone else's further edits to them, which were quoted and criticized by Ibrahimfaisal in this discussion page history before he realized he was criticizing a fellow, M...erm...ally, dont be too surprised if the editor you criticized puts your contributions under the language microscope and finds them wanting! Cheers.Opiner 12:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you do not understand the difference between necessary criticism of a contribution in the article, which is legitimate and required, and criticising someone's contribution on a talk page, which as above constitutes a personal attack. i am sorry if you find critique of your article edits to be insulting to you, but article edits are open to close scrutiny. to needlessly scrutinize somebody's non-article related edits in the manner you are doing is just trolling, and i would advise you to stop. thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't have " from a historical perspective, the founder of the religion of Islam. ", since that implies that history has a non-Muslim view, hence it is non-Muslim pov. --Striver 13:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all -- there is no consensus whatsoever for this:

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد; also Mohammed, and other variants) 570-632 CE, is, from a historical perspective, the founder of the religion of Islam. BYT 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

get rid of "is, from a historical perspective, the founder of the religion of Islam.". --Striver 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

well done guys (not). after eons of discussion, we have

M was an Arab religious and political leader who preached a religion he called Islam

whoever came up with this: you cannot be serious. is this "reduce to debility"? this used to be a literate sentence, now it reads like straight from simple:. People started nitpicking about the "founder" thing, a complete red herring stemming from a semantic confusion, and after much effort, we are reduced to this. Not even the DIN transliteration survived, what's up with that? Seriously, I will avoid wasting another minute with this intro, great example of wiki-paralyzation. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab sorry if I made the language too simple for you. But yeah I'm serious. In the real world this is an exactly accurate statement. You can make it more complicated if you waant. My main goal is that what he taught is more on-topic than whether we believe him and should at least come before the VIEWS about it.Opiner 17:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

it isn't. So Muhammad is a religious leader who preached a religion. And then he went and called it Islam? hm. This can be attacked on several levels, and is certainly inferior to the simple "founder of Islam". As I said, I believe time invested in improving this will be wasted so I won't spell this out for you. You may or may not be aware of the archived discussions on the "founder" bit where I explain it all. Even if we do not attack it as factually flawed, come on. How about "Muhammad was an Arab. He liked to lead people and preach all day, and he was very much into what he liked to call 'Islam'." -- is that real-world exactly-accurate for you, then? Can we get the DIN transliteration back btw? dab (ᛏ) 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So you write a parody and attack it? A straw man! The problem with your parody version actually isnt that its simple, but that its vague. My version had many specific facts, some which werent there before such as uniting Arabia and founding an empire. Pretty important stuff that had been overlooked. I made my point which is stick to what Muhammad taught and accomplished, but youre not addressing that idea.

Well how about, Muhammad is regarded by Muslims (that is HORRIBLE writing) as the final prophet of God, to whom the Qur'an was revealed (more HORRIBLE writing). From a historical perspective, he is considered the founder of Islam, and the poet who wrote the Qur'an. He is also thought by Bahais to be a prophet, but to be followed and superceded by Baha'ullah. Muslims believe Gods original monotheistic religion, taught by Adam, Abraham and other prophets of Islam, had been corrupted over time and Muhammad was sent to restore and perfect it. From the standpoint of Judaism and Christianity, Muhammad as an imposter who appropriated and falsely claimed to continue their traditions.

That is also a parody.Which continues in the same ideas as the other version. Everything that can be wrong is wrong, and backwards. Starting with opinions and debates, then getting to facts. Everybody fighting over the order naturally. Giving religions and historical perspectives opinions, making them instead of Muhammad the subjects of the article, hiding this by using a passive voice, 'Muhammad is regarded by'. Going off topic into theology.

Maybe you have a much better idea than any of this, please propose it.

I didnt mean to undo any transliterations. Theres lots of edit warring in the past couple days. Are you sure it was me?Opiner 17:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab is absolutely correct. "Who preached a religion he called Islam"? This wouldn't happen to be the very same religion we call Islam today, would it?

And what's this nonsense about excessive perspiration on cool days?216.100.224.252 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

The following paragraph: "Criticisms include the permissibility of a slave owner to have sexual intercourse with female slaves outside of marriage (^{[Qur'an 23:5-6]}, ^{[Qur'an 70:29-30]}). Muhammad himself received as a gift from Muqawqis, a Byzantine official, a female slave named Maria al-Qibtiyya.^[11]" has the following problems:

• It is unsourced. It may be a criticism from a "Christian" perspective. Such marriage is not considered "sinful" according to the Islamic law. Islam has got its own laws and Judaism has got its own. The law is supposed to give us the consciousness of what sin is.
• It is irrelevant to the section (Muhammad the reformer). We have an article on criticism of Islam which contains these criticisms. As the criticism of Islam article has inherently POV, this section is inherently POV because of its heading.
• Ibn Ishaq is not the only bio of Muhammad. Other sources have disputed whether Muhammad married Maria or not. Please don’t state it as it is a fact.
• Ibn Ishaq is not a secondary source, so it can not be quoted directly in wikipedia.

--Aminz 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Theres no reason to have criticism section of slaves because article is about what happened in Muhammads life. Muhamamad had slaves is fact. If someone criticized this in his life, then okay but I don't think this happened. Please no defenses OR criticisms! Just the facts.Opiner 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That Muhammad wrote in the Qur'an that Muslim men could have sex with their female slaves is certainly relevant to the section on Slavery. And it is not unsourced--see the sirahs. Perhaps stating it is a criticism is, but the fact of the sentence is sourced and documented, as is Muhammad's perpetuation of slavery by owning a slave. Both again, very relevant. —Aiden 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ibn Ishaq is not a secondary source, so please replace it with a secondary one. Next, this couldn't be included in this section if its relevance to "Muhammad the reformer" isn't established. This can of-course be included to the Islam and Slavery article again, once you could find a secondary source that mentions it. --Aminz 05:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How is Ibn Ishaq not a sufficient source? It is the same sourced used to back-up the claim in the article on Maria. —Aiden 05:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you need to find an academic secondary source who quotes Ibn Ishaq. Technically, using the Ibn Ishaq, which is an original source on the life of Muhammad, is considered original research which is supposed to have been done by academics. I am saying this because I guess with high probability that the case of Maria is disputed by other sources. But aside from these, the relevance of the quote to "Muhammad the reformer" section isn't established.--Aminz 06:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mizan says under the section "Polygamy" in the explanation of verses ^{[Qur'an 33:50]}:

“

The statutes on which this group of directives is based are: Firstly, after contracting marriage with Zaynab (rta), the Prophet (sws) could marry further for the following objectives: To honor free women who were caught as captives in some military campaign. To show kindheartedness to women who wanted to marry him just for the sake of associating themselves to him, and for this they were ready to gift themselves to him. To console and sympathize with his maternal or paternal cousin sisters who had migrated with him from Makkah and left their houses and relatives merely to support and back him. Second, since these marriages of the Prophet (sws) were to be contracted only to fulfill certain religious obligations, he was not required to deal equally between the wives. Third, except for the women specified, he was prohibited to marry any other lady;[Consequently, because of these restrictions, the Prophet (sws) could not marry Mariyah (rta) and she remained in his house as a slave lady. ] he could also not divorce any of his wives nor bring a new one in her place however much he liked her. Consequently, the Prophet (sws) married Jawayriyyah (rta) for the first objective outlined above, Maymunah (rta) for the second and Ummi Habibah (rta) for the third.

”

--TruthSpreader^Talk 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Similary, Understanding-islam.com says:

As far as the slave girl Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) is concerned, the Prophet (pbuh) kept her as a slave girl because he was barred from marrying those slave girls who were not part of the booty of war, in the same verse that governed his marriage regulations. Hadhrat Maria Qibtia (ra) was presented to the Prophet (pbuh) by the ruler of Egypt. He loved her very much and treated her very well, in order to set an example for the Muslims in treatment of their slaves. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So he just slept with her and didn't add her to his wife collection. Oh that's great, very honorable. You know that what you believe is wrong, you just can't accept it because it's your identity, and that's fine. Just keep in mind that you may be wasting your life.

Fine, but still I remember I have read somewhere that Muhammad might have married Maria according to some traditions. That is why I asked for secondary sources. --Aminz 06:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:TruthSpreader, where on Earth are you getting all this from? Your explanations have no basis in scripture that I know of. The Qur'an does exempt Muhammad from treating his wives equally, and from the four-wife limit, among other things, but does not include the elaborate rationalizations you offer here. Who told you all this, that you might speak with such authority? And why are you using Wikipedia for what amounts to proselytizing?69.228.171.190 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an definitely exempts prophet Muhammad from certain restrictions. You better read verse ^{[Qur'an 33:50]} and then you will understand the above mentioned point, as this very verse only allowed him to marry slave girls who were part of the booty of war. Secondly, prophet Muhammad's biographies suggest the same thing. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You realize what you just said? Muhammad went to war, captured girls who he subsequently owned, and had sex with them. Well I can see why you would want to keep that a secret. If you really want to spread the truth tell THAT, and that Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old girl, said that Muslims should not be friends with Christians and Jews, said to behead unbelievers, killed lots of people, etc. Now I can see someone in some village in the Middle East thinking all of those things are moral, and maybe that's you.