Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

need to add: "Year of Delegations"

almost all biographical works on Muhammad include the "year of delegations" where leaders from various tribes all around arabia came to convert or assumedly establish friendly relations (post conquest of Mecca i believe) ITAQALLAH 04:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

re: who is Forward?

this is from the back of his book (suprisingly there is no WP article on him):

Martin Forward has taught Islam at the Universities of Leicester, Bristol, and Cambridge. He is currently Senior Tutor and Lecturer in Pastoral and Systematic Theology, Wesley House, Cambridge and is a member of the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity endquote. ITAQALLAH 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job!

Keep it up :) --Striver 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Striver! Thanks for creating this. mstroeck 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
What about refering this article as featured article on wikipedia. TruthSpreaderTalk 00:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is very well written, and I think WP:PR followed by WP:FAC is the way to go. -- Samir धर्म 12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Great job Itaqallah. --Aminz 08:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

there are a few image issues to sort out. i was going to withold nomination till i get them fixed but: basically the taif image is unsourced, the guy who uploaded it is MIA and he didn't give a source. so it's probably going to be deleted. i found this very nice alternative but i haven't had a response from the rights owner about releasing it under GFDL yet. ITAQALLAH 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

GA comments

Nice article. However, prose of this article is needed to be improved to make a compelling story for a non-specialist reader. Prior of GA review, there are something I would like to comment:

  1. The lead section is quite good to summarize the whole article, but to make it perfect as what WP:LS describes, the first sentence should have boldface of the exact title. The context has already been given, that Muhammad is the prophet of Islam.
  2. There are some lines in the lead section that give facts but without source. I've put {{fact}} there, so please update them. Please do not answer that they are given in the text below, because a reader does not start from a specific section, but starting from lead section first.
  3. Image:Taif_1970_Saudi_Arabia.jpg has inproper tag. Please fix it.
  4. Image:MuhammadSeal.jpg is copyrighted and no fair use rationale is given. Please read WP:FAIR and fix the image.
  5. Could editors wikilink (or briefly explain) some terminologies, such as idol, abomination, chieftain, orchard, pilgrimage, etc.
  6. Paragraph 3, Section Journey to at-Ta'if, about meeting of Muhammad with angel Gabriel, it is a quotation from Hadith. To distance itself from historical study and to avoid being said as POV, I suggest to put it as a quotation.
  7. In the Section al-'Aqaba pledges, there is a sentence of several people from Medina went to Mecca for pilgrimage. This is not the same as Hajj, isn't it? Could editors introduce a little bit about this pilgrimage, otherwise it will be mixed with pilgrimage (Hajj) after Muhammad emigrated to Medina.
  8. I think editors also need to introduce in the Section al-'Aqaba pledges that Muhammad's ability to resolve peace have been spreading throghout the Arabian jazeera. The story is not smooth as a continuous from the previous section (journey to at-Ta'if). There is still something missing in between.
  9. In subsection Impact, the first paragraph is merely a story about Watt's findings, rather than the topic itself. Please rewrite the prose of this subsection to focus on the Medina constitution impact rather than a story about Watt.
  10. The section Events in Hudaibayya is chronologically not in the correct order after the story about Muhammad's impact in Medina and esp. there is a statement of Muhammad's death.
  11. Some sentences that need to be improved their prose, as their meanings are unclear to me or they are just too long and too complex to describe about something:
    • "The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the relative non-responsiveness of the people of Mecca to his message until then" — this statment is unclear. What does the relative non-responsiveness mean? Why is it so-called relative? What kind of response?
    • "In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad, the groups involved in meeting with Muhammad began to incite townfolk to pelt him with stones." — Which groups? What is the meaning of townfolk?
    • "Meeting him secretly by night, the group made what was known as the "Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba", or the "Pledge of War"." — Why should be at night?
    • "Conditions of the pledge, many of which similar to the first, included obedience to Muhammad, "enjoining good and forbidding evil" as well as responding to the call to arms when required." — prose can be improved as it is not a good sentence.
    • "This document attempted to regulate the matters of governance of the city, as well as the extent and nature of inter-community relations, and signatories to it included the Muslims, the Ansar and the various Jewish tribes of Medina." — please rephrase.
  12. There are many places that editors mixed historical story with opinion about it from a person. Some side stories or opinions are better to be placed as notes (footnotes), or just placed direct citation. Some of them are:
    • "The main dialogue during this visit is thought to have been the invitation by Muhammad for them to accept Islam, and Watt observes the plausibility of an additional discussion about wresting Ta'if trade routes from Meccan control." — Who is Watt? Did he met Muhammad during the dialogue?
    • This sentence: "Some western academics are noted to have questioned whether or not a second pledge had taken place, although Watt argues that there must have been several meetings between the pilgrims and Muhammad on which the basis of his move to Medina could be agreed upon." is suitable as a footnote, rather in the main text. Who are these some western academics?
    • "Lewis opines that Muhammad's assumption of the role of statesman was a means through which the objectives of prophethood could be achieved".
  13. A suggestion: could editors give a summary of important events in chronological order and in tabular form about Muhammad as a diplomat? Reading the whole story is not clear, because sometimes time order from one section to another is jumped back and not smoothly translated.
  14. Please check again grammars and prose for the remaining of the text, as the whole article should be read in a nice and compelling story.

I think this list is enough for editors to improve the article within 7 days. I'll put this article on hold in the WP:GAC. The above list does not mean that all WP:WIAGA criteria have been fulfilled. In the next assessment, a reviewer will judge this article based on items in WP:WIAGA. Happy editing and cheers. — Indon (reply) — 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

okay. thank you for this valuable input. i will get to work. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, here is a quick review of what has been done so far: 1) i have tried tweaking with the opening sentence, is that any better? 2) i am working on that currently; 3) yes, the uploader provided no source for this image. i am currently looking for a suitable alternative. the image itself has now been deleted, so that is no longer a concern; 4) FU rationale has been provided now; 6) the narrative is obtained from the other (secondary) source given (i.e. mubarakpuri).
the others i will work on in a while and comment here on them when i'm done. ITAQALLAH 13:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Indon

Indon, besides whatever other ways you may have felt this article fell short, and many myriad criticisms I could offer, its most egregious sin is its shameless and relentless deceptiveness. I will share only a few points here, for now:

It reads, "Muhammad's task would thus be to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements, not only as a religious preacher, but as a political and diplomatic leader who could help resolve the ongoing disputes." One would never guess from this statement that, of five native tribes, one would be beheaded by Muhammad and his followers, two exiled with their properties seized, one of these two pursued and beheaded like the first. This is mentioned nowhere, instead giving the entirely false impression that Muhammad succeeded in creating social harmony through diplomacy when in fact, according to Islamic scripture, he merely destroyed his opponents.

It states that Muhammad invited other states to accept Islam. But look closely at the wording: in fact Muhammad is saying, accept Islam or face attack. It's important, too, to recognize that "accepting Islam" meant, first, accepting Muhammad as the prophet, and most crucially paying tribute to Madina. All these really are is your classic demands of tribute from prosperous sedentary peoples to relatively well-armed, cash-starved pastoralists.

The leading image is dubious to say the least. There are several questionable sources - what is "Forward", for example? And Sealed Nectar is more the religious tract than a reliable scholarly source.

This article was created by, and solely editted by, editors who believe that its subject was the Prophet of God sent to guide all mankind towards perfect truth. That doesn't and shouldn't mean that they can't participate in its creation, but it should give you pause when considering the neutrality of the material herein. It would constitute apostasy for a believer to create material which casts the Prophet in anything but the softest and most glowing light, and it cannot reasonably be expected that they will produce NPOV material without check and balance from less invested parties.

I strongly recommend placing this good article nomination on indefinite hold.Proabivouac 09:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should better read the references to know that who is "Forward"! Secondly, Sealed Nector is one of the most famous book written on the life of Muhammad which has won many International awards. Thirdly, only "diplomatic" aspect of Muhammad's life is under discussion. Other discussions should be done under Muhammad as a general. And finally, you should Assume good faith. TruthSpreaderTalk 09:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Thirdly, only "diplomatic" aspect of Muhammad's life is under discussion. Other discussions should be done under Muhammad as a general." - It is an affront to the very concept of neutrality to hold that one may discuss here Muhammad the peacemaker's diplomatic arrangements in glorious terms without mentioning that several of the signatories were executed en masse soon thereafter by the subject of this article. One may as well entitle an article, Muhammad the peaceful man, such that any non-peaceful deed lies by definition outside the scope of the article. This leads me to question whether this article ought even exist. If a subject was not known particularly for his diplomacy, to entitle an article thusly and to restrict its subject matter accordingly may be inherently POV.Proabivouac 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We have assumed and there is no question of good faith. The assumption of earnestness does not entail the assessment of neutrality.

Apologies to Mr.Forward, I'd never heard of him.Proabivouac 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the very sentence you dispute :"Muhammad's task would thus be to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements, not only as a religious preacher, but as a political and diplomatic leader who could help resolve the ongoing disputes." is well-referenced. So, factual accuracy argument does not have support. If you dispute neutrality, please bring your academic source containing a POV not included in this article. --Aminz 09:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Citation is not incompatible with egregious omission. I am happy to bring several sources which attest to the exile and/or destruction of three of five Madinan tribes which has been very conspicuously omitted from this article, within the next several days.
In the meantime, what awards has the Sealed Nectar garnered? One from the Muslim World League. What else? Anything non-partisan and academic?Proabivouac 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As Aminz said, you need to bring another secondary source to counter this argument. The massacre thing will not work, as this article is related to diplomatic aspect of Muhammad's life. TruthSpreaderTalk 09:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Refer to my comments above: article titles may not be used an excuse to violate NPOV..Proabivouac 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You are challenging the authority of a reliable secondary source. There is no excuse whatsoever, to challenge that! If experts think that massacre by early Muslims can happen along with these actions, what kind of authority a wikipedian like you and me has? TruthSpreaderTalk 09:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And secondly, to make conclusions out of something without a secondary source saying what you are saying, amounts to Original Research. TruthSpreaderTalk 09:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course we know what happened to the Jewish tribes BUT you need to find a source that relates it to the section. Your claim is that Muhammad came to Medina in order to kill the Jews. The article says that Muhammad's task upon entering Medina was to form a united community. I would be happy to see your sources. The encyclopedia of Islam article say "Muhammad's task was to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements. The first problem to be tackled was how to procure the necessary means of subsistence for the Emigrants, who for the most part were without resources of their own..." --Aminz 09:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I will remove the tag until you can establish your claims using reliable sources. --Aminz 10:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the neutrality & factual accuracy tags are added to the whole article when you can show that the article is highly so. If only one section is disputed, you should add the tag to that particular section. --Aminz 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not claim that Muhammad came to Madina in order to kill the Jews, only that to discuss his treaty with them as a great diplomatic achievement without mentioning the fact that he soon thereafter exiled and/or beheaded them is an affront to the very concept of NPOV. Even if we're to hold Muhammad blameless, at the very least, the treaty didn't succeed in creating social harmony as this article quite falsely suggests.
Your reliable sources argument is wikilawyering in light of the fact that you are well aware of, and acknowledge, that the facts I've alleged are accurate and sourcable. The source policy is intended for quality control, not as an arbitrarily deployable delaying tactic. I asked for several days, and good faith asks that you accede to this reasonable timeframe.
Neutrality and fact-wise, I allege that the article as a whole is critically marred by the omissions to which I've spoken, omissions which rise beyind mere non-neutrality to the point of deception and factual inaccuracy.Proabivouac 10:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#1. The heading of that section is "Medina society prior Muslim migration". The section is finished by "Muhammad's task would thus be to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements". I haven't read the whole article but have read the section and don't see your point to be valid. #2. I guess you are a sockpuppet and can establish it. Why don't you edit with your original account? I'm sure you don't want to get into trouble, do you? #3. Again, 'Say (O Aminz): 'O editors of wikipedia! Come to a word common to you and us that we shall not argue except using reliable sources and real arguments' Peace be upon me :P --Aminz 10:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious :)) TruthSpreaderTalk 11:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would only be objective to assess this article, based on WP:WIAGA. I don't want to get involve to the troll talk. To anyone, esp. Proabivouac, if you have any arguments about a certain subject, support your arguments with reliable sources, not solely based on your opinion. — Indon (reply) — 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, Indon. As per the discussion above, I ask for several days to provide the sources the existence of which, if you read the discussion above, is not disputed.
It is not appropriate for you to write, "the troll talk," as there is no trolling occuring here, only serious and earnest debate.
And as you reference WP:WIAGA, note among its provisions, 1) NPOV, 2) WP:RS, 3) Images, three points which I've challenged above. NPOV, though, seems the biggest problem. As these are among the explicit provisions of WP:WIAGA, it is appropriate that you fairly consider objections after these criteria.Proabivouac 10:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to review it right now, as I have put notice of On Hold for 7 days. And I'm not going to get involved in this discussion, as I'm not an expert of this. Basically, supply your arguments with reliable sources. If you don't have it, then don't ask other people to find it, because it is started from your argument. All right, I stop here. I'll be back after the On Hold duration expires. — Indon (reply) — 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

dear Proabivouac, i am sorry that you do not find the article satisyfing. of course, if you have legitimate concerns, then bring forth some sources and help contribute to the article.

wrt "Muhammad's task would thus be to form a united community out of these heterogeneous elements, not only as a religious preacher, but as a political and diplomatic leader who could help resolve the ongoing disputes." this sentence structure and almost exact phrasing is taken from the enc. of Islam, which also happens to give him much praise for what they call his "brilliant political genius". whether they believe in him or not as a prophet, academic scholarship generally accepts that his political abilities were impressive. you cannot claim a violation of NPOV if you have no sources propagating the view which has been neglected.

re: sealed nectar, we had discussed this over, and over, and over, at Battle of Mu'tah. we opened an RFC about it, although opinion over it was still pretty divided. it has been endorsed by the islamic university of medina (only of the top islamic universities in the world, period), which specialises in a number of islamic sciences including islamic history, has been published in many languages by notable presses such as darussalam, and has received accolades due to its scholarly nature. what i argued previously was that western academia is not the only academia, there are many sources non-secular but scholarly and totally acceptable for use on WP such as the historical works of Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Qayyim. the book makes clear use of footnotes and sources almost everything it says from classical historians or primary sources. you only deem it a "religious tract" because of the POV of the author, although i may remind you that every author will have a POV, we had one user criticising the book as it had too many PBUH's! even then, i only used this source either to provide POV from islamic tradition or where the narrative would have no disagreement between western and non-western academia. i don't believe there is anything under WP:RS that prevents the use of this material on WP.

as for your claims of omissions here or there, then quite simply bring your comments on the subject out of the realm of speculation or accusation and provide some sources so you can help bring this article to GA. there is no point criticising it if all you want to do is rehash polemic on a talk page as a justification for why it is not neutral. provide some academic sources and we can work from there. everything that has been written is sourced to reputable or at least notable works. if you have any qualms, back them up with some sources at least. as for image issues: the first image is dubious? can you explain in what way it is dubious? ITAQALLAH 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"It would constitute apostasy for a believer to create material which casts the Prophet in anything but the softest and most glowing light, and it cannot reasonably be expected that they will produce NPOV material without check and balance from less invested parties." - alleging that Muslim editors inherently will be unable to abide to NPOV is thoroughly disgusting. not to mention what you have said is total misinformation aimed at driving an editor to reconsider the comments he has made. ITAQALLAH 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"I do not claim that Muhammad came to Madina in order to kill the Jews, only that to discuss his treaty with them as a great diplomatic achievement without mentioning the fact that he soon thereafter exiled and/or beheaded them is an affront to the very concept of NPOV"

the article mentions the constitution was broken soon afterwards, although not much has been said after that. if you had looked at the markup, you would have seen sight at the end of that section it says "<!--needs expansion-->". what happened with the Jews is already present in cat "Muhammad and the Jews" and "Muhammad as a general", as well as their own respective articles. that doesn't mean to say there can be no mention here, i already noted that this part would need elaboration.
as for the evaluation of this constitution, all of the comments are sourced. if you have any sources speaking poorly of the impact of the constitution, then please do share them

"I am happy to bring several sources which attest to the exile and/or destruction of three of five Madinan tribes which has been very conspicuously omitted from this article, within the next several days"

you may wish to read the relevant section again. in this instance, ditto to the above.

"It states that Muhammad invited other states to accept Islam. But look closely at the wording: in fact Muhammad is saying, accept Islam or face attack. It's important, too, to recognize that "accepting Islam" meant, first, accepting Muhammad as the prophet, and most crucially paying tribute to Madina. All these really are is your classic demands of tribute from prosperous sedentary peoples to relatively well-armed, cash-starved pastoralists."

this is original research until you provide some reliable sources. he did not attack anyone who rejected. look at the reaction of Chosroes for example. tribute? do you have any source explicitly stating that in this correspondence with the rulers that jizyaa was one of the pre-conditions to acceptance? it would indeed be OR to make a reference to khaybar and then super-impose it upon all incidences. ITAQALLAH 15:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Jizya was the tribute paid by Christians and Jews; Muslims paid zakat. Failure to pay zakat was considered grounds for attack from Madinan forces, see Ridda wars.Proabivouac 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
yes that is correct. the jizyaa however was initiated after khaybar, and required of people under islamic rule. there is no explicit mention of Muhammad requesting jizyaa as a condition from the rulers he wrote to. ITAQALLAH 21:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
To accept Muhammad's invitation would entail not only changing their current religion, but also accepting Muhammad as their ruler and paying taxes to Madina, something the average reader would likely fail to glean from the friendly phrase, "...calling them to accept Islam." Such a letter is most naturally taken as a threat, and hardly diplomatic. The article should make clear the nature and magnitude of what Muhammad was asking by adding, "...calling them to accept Islam, acknowledge Muhammad as their new leader and pay taxes to Madina."Proabivouac 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
there is nothing in any of the sources available to me even implying that the rulers would have to pay taxes within the context of the outcome of the correspondances. you will need to find some sources which explicitly state that. mentioning the acceptance of Muhammad as the leader is redundant as that is the direct connotation of accepting Islam, although if you mean leader in the sense of a state then i do believe in one of the letters it states that if they accept then they will not lose their position as leader (i did not include the text of every letter in the article for the sake of brevity), as happened with the Negus and possibly amongst those in Oman i believe. either way, mentioning acceptance of Muhammad as leader seems a little redundant to me, unless you have a source which explicitly states it as an extra condition. ITAQALLAH 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
To accept Muhammad's invitation may entail many things: for example, they need to put a ban on eating pork and probably lots of social and economical changes (some very good changes such as treating believers strictly equal and being kind to slaves). The points you mentioned may be are more significant ones, but, you need to find a source that explains it in details. Otherwise, honestly, I have no reason to believe your points are the most significant ones unless you support them using reliable sources. --Aminz 23:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Saw the request for comment, and after reading over the article and discussion, here are my thoughts:

Firstly, don't edit war over the NPOV dispute tag. The tag does not mean that the article VIOLATES the NPOV policy-- it just means that a discussion about the subject is on-going. This is clearly the case. Proabivouac, if your concerns are limited to only a few portions of the article, it might be helpful for you to replace the tag with section tags, but if it's an article-wide concern, just leave the current tag up.

Two, Proabivouac-- what exactly are some of the things you think are wrong with the page. You've indicated some, but it's sometimes hard to follow. You should state out what your objections are to the current page, keeping in mind that the identities and motivations of the authors of this page are irrelevant. You mention something about violence with the Jews in Medina, but as someone who knows very little about the life of Mohammed, it's hard to follow exactly what the situation is, and what changes you would want made.

Now, having said that-- I do find a few things that makes me suspect that the current article might have a few NPOV problems-- keeping in mind, of course, that I don't know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to the specific subject matter, so I really can only comment on NPOV language and NPOV organization-- not specific historical NPOV. In cases like this, I tend to ask myself "Can I deduce, on the basis of reading this article, what the author felt about the subject matter". If an article is truly NPOV, it should be very difficult for me to figure out the answer to that question. In this case, I don't see any egregious NPOV violations, but I do get the sense that the authors have a highly favorable opinion of the person being discussed.

For example, take the sentence in the lead section: "The arrival of Muhammad at Medina in 622 saw him altering the political and social landscape of a city that had been stricken by decades of tribal feuding". It just seems a little bit too glorifying of Muhammad-- saying in essents that "Muhammmad saved Medina from its horrible disease" rather than describing the events in a more historically neutral light.

Another 'hint' that there might be NPOV problems-- the text seems very narrative-like. What I mean by that is-- on any controversial subject, such as the founder of a major world religion, there are bound to be disputes cropping up everywhere. One sources say this, but other sources say that. Lots of people think this, but other people thing that. I don't see a lot of 'synthesis' in the text-- it seems much more like a cohesive narrative, as if it were taking from one source or a groups of sources that are all in agreement. I assume this is because the Islamic sources for the historical Muhammed are mostly in agreement but, I guess I'm left feeling I don't fully know what's universally agreed to be true, what's mostly agreed to be true, and what's hotly-debated about the subject. I just know that Muhammed, like every other religious figure in history, is a subject for much dispute and controversy-- and I don't really see much controversy or debate in this article. It mostly speaks as if it knows all the facts, as if the facts are not at all in debate-- and that makes me suspect it's speaking from one particular POV, rather than a NPOV. Does that make sense? I know that's not a very clear way to say it.

Lastly, I have to sort of question the focus of the whole page-- "Muhammed as a diplomat", "Muhammed as a general", and "Muhammed as a husband" seems a very odd way to break up the content. As Proabivouac alludes-- sometimes the role of diplomat and general are often inseperable. Since diplomatic negotion and military action are so closely linked, it seems very odd to split the two in this way. Furthermore, much of the content doesn't really relate to "Muhammed as a diplomat". For example, "Muslim migration to Abyssinia" doesn't really have much to do with Muhammed being a diplomat. Meanwhile, the correspondence section is certainly 'diplomatic', it seems very non-biographical and almost "tacked on". I would think you could break that off into an article called something like "extant correspondence involving Muhammed"

I'm also not fond of the title "Muhammed as a diplomat", since diplomat has such positive connotations that it essentially involves a value-judgement about Muhammed. I'm not saying that value judgement is necessarily wrong, I'm just saying we shouldn't necessarily be making it. If you don't think there's a value judgement involved, consider this-- Hitler certainly engaged in international negotation, he employed a diplomatic corp, and conducted treaty negotations with other leaders, etc. But would we ever allow an article entitled "Hitler as a diplomat"? No-- because we would regard that even if he technically engaged in diplomacy, the positive connotations of diplomat are too strong for us to use such a non-neutral term. Now, I'm not in any way saying that Muhammed is like Hitler mind you-- I'm just saying that having a "_____ as a diplomat" article automatically implies certain value-judgements, and we ought to try to find a more neutral title.

But, none of this is to imply any lack of good faith on the part of the editors here. Writing a really good article is really hard, and it takes a lot of voices and a lot of different editors to reach a good NPOV article. I'm not familiar with the history, but the language certainly doesn't imply any egregious overt promotion of a POV. Overall, I'd say it looks a fine start-- it's just a 'young' article that still has a lot way to go, but there's a lot of valuable information here, a lot of cited sources, and nothing that jumps out at me as being a glaringly obvious problem. If I were more familiar with the Good Article criteria and the subject matter, I would be inclined to deny GA status right now, but I'm out of my element in both cases, so I'll leave it up to the GA people to make that call. But keep working at it, and I thank everyone who's helped make Wikipedia a better place by contributing to this.

My suggestions for improving the article:

  • Merge "Muhammed as a Diplomat" and "Muhammed as a general" together to create something like "Muhammed as a political leader" or "Muhammed as a ruler" or something like that.
  • Break off the correspondence section into its own article. The biographical summary and the letters are sufficiently different that a summary of the letters can stand on its own.
  • Expand alternative views-- include critical views, debates within Islam, views of other religions, etc to try to create a more comprehensive article
  • Scrutinize the article for statements which have wordings that are inherently demeaning, glorifying, or otherwise value-laden. If there's a more-neutral, more "just the facts" way to say something, use that way. Go sentence by sentence and ask "Is this wording too exciting/positive/negative/etc?" Silly as it sounds, ask "Is there a more boring way to say this?"
  • Ya'll might want to get rid of the pic of the modern at-Ta'if. Call me silly for even worrying about this possibility, but, it might confuse someone about what era Muhammed lived in. But in any case, it doesn't add much to the current article.

Hope that helps! --Alecmconroy 13:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

As per the new instructions concerning WP:GA/R, (Which can change of course) I am notifying the editors of this article and all whom may be concerned that a dispute has been opened concerning this article's GA status, so feel free to chime in. Homestarmy 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Primary sources, Sealed Nectar

User:Truthspreader writes, "As Aminz said, you need to bring another secondary source to counter this argument," and "And secondly, to make conclusions out of something without a secondary source saying what you are saying, amounts to Original Research."

Itaqallah, however, used primary sources in the creation of this article[1] , for example in the following passage which is sourced to Bukhari as well as to Sealed Nectar: "Asked by Heraclius about the man claiming to be a prophet, Abu Sufyan responded, speaking favorably of Muhammad's character and lineage and outlining some directives of Islam. Heraclius was seemingly impressed by what he was told of Muhammad, and felt that Muhammad's claim to prophethood was valid. Despite this incident, it seems that Heraclius was more concerned with the current rift between the various Christian churches within his empire, and as a result did not convert to Islam."

Sealed Nectar is not a reliable scholarly source, and I question whether its writers have done anything but reiterate Bukhari's narrative as fact. The result is that Wikipedia presents transparent propaganda as fact: Heraclius realized the truth of Islam, but failed to convert for purely political reasons.

The problem with Sealed Nectar is precisely that it presumes the truth of the Islamic narrative, which, like any other sweeping presupposition, is incompatable with objective historical inquiry. This is exactly why it received awards from Islamic groups rather than from respected secular scholarly institutions. All material based upon Sealed Nectar ought be removed from this article.

If primary sources are unacceptable, why are so many of them cited in this article? If Itaqallah thinks them acceptable, as he must considering that he used them himself, why did he not take issue with User:TruthSspreader's comments to the contrary?

Assuming User:Truthspreader's comments to have proceded from principle rather than partisanship, I expect that he will join me in removing material sourced to Bukhari, Ibn Hisham, Al Tabari etc. from this article.Proabivouac 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, you would be much better off addressing the responses to your earlier qualms first before repeating them or highlighting new perceived problems.
firstly, you should note when primary sources are acceptable for use, such as quoting them en verbatim in an article, as has been done here, or when stating something which is explicit and explicitly mentioned in that manner in the primary text. do understand the distiction. the rest of your comments are based upon this faulty premise, that primary sources in any instance are not acceptable. secondary sources are required for narrative, interpretation, analysis, conclusion, argument, reasoning, and so on, and the narrative of the article should be based upon that.
as for your statements about the sealed nectar, judging from your comments i don't believe you have studied the book closely enough. "presumes the truth of islamic narrative" - what are you talking about? the classical books and primary sources contain various and often conflicting narratives. it has already been stated that the work has been peer-reviewed by islamic scholars and has also been endorsed by the Islamic University of Medina, where mubarakpuri worked in the seerah department of the university in helping to collate all authentic reports about the prophetic biography. you should understand, that secular academia is not the only academia, and nowhere does WP request that we make use of only secular sources. the sealed nectar may not be to your liking, but it is at the very least notable for presenting the islamic/muslim POV, and so deserves inclusion in this article as well as other relevant ones. if you have a problem with the narrative of that particular passage you quoted, it should not be used to poison the well and demand an entirely legitimate source be removed from wikipedia. and as we have said for every point you have previously contended on, if you find the passage to be false, then tell us what Heraclius did do and source it so we can include that opinion in the article.
as for ibn hisham, ibn al-qayyim et al. then these are all historians who analysed the primary sources, conciliating conflicting ones and assessing the strengths of the individual reports in order to build a narrative. i would consider them secondary sources. bukhaari and tabari, yes i would agree that they are most probably primary sources, and they have not been used outside of their permitted application. ITAQALLAH 02:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That's correct, Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet has been "peer-reviewed by islamic scholars and has also been endorsed by the Islamic University of Medina."
Perhaps it is "notable for presenting the islamic/muslim POV", but that is not how it's been used here; rather, you've taken it to establish historical fact. There is a dubious (to put it mildly) hadith which reflects very favorably upon Muhammad and very poorly upon Heraclius. An Islamic scholar in an Islamic university takes it at face value and includes it in the book, Islamic scholars review it, and it receives a prize from the Muslim World League. Now suddenly the saying is credible because it's in a "secondary source"?
For those who might be reading this who are unfamiliar with this work of unrelenting piety, consider the very first sentence:
"Beyond a shadow of doubt, the biography of Prophet Muhammad manifestedly represents an exhaustive embodiment of the sublime Divine Message that he communicated in order to deliver the human race from the swamp of darkness and polytheism to the paradise of light and monotheism."
A scientific finding were there ever one!
Where its conclusions (if they can be called that) are motivated by neutral scholarship rather than by religious fervor, they should also be found in the writings of mainstream academic scholars. The significance of these events, if they occured, cannot be overstated; they are not likely to have been overlooked.
"...then tell us what Heraclius did do and source it so we can include that opinion in the article."
I do not know that Heraclius did anything, or that the events referred to in the hadith occured in any semblance. Sayings collected by Bukhari are not necessarily reliable, as I'm sure you'd concur; we need not accept Mr. al-Mubarakpuri’s blatantly partisan judgement as to which are or aren't.
In addition to other problems which I've identified, which received some measure of endorsement from an uninvolved editor responding to the RfC and which require further labor to address, this article cannot be considered any kind of "good article" so long as it relies so intimately upon Sealed Nectar.Proabivouac 03:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so you have no idea what Heraclius said or did, but you still believe that whatever is attributed must be false because of the source?? the other uninvolved editor articulated none of your objections, except that certain wordings may need to be revised. he certainly said nothing about "primary sources" or "the sealed nectar", which has seemingly been the foundation of your objection. he did mention perhaps adjusting the title, which we are yet to properly discuss. i have addressed other concerns in more detail below. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper, "Sealed Nectar" is a secondary notable Muslim biography of Muhammad. Lewis V. Baldwin in his book "Between Cross & Crescent" Published by University Press of Florida, p.433 lists Sealed Nectar as a biography on Muhammad.

Mamarinta P Mababaya in his book "International Business Success in a Strange Cultural Environment", where the authors says is the cultural aspect of his PhD thesis carried out at the University of Westminster, quotes "Sealed Nectar" as a biography on Muhammad p.338.

Among Muslim writers, Mashhad Al-`Allaf (in his book "Mirror of Realization: God Is a Percept - The Universe Is a Concept") for example quotes "Sealed Nectar" on pages 96, 165, 320.

Furthermore, This book was awarded the first prize by the Muslim world league at worldwide competition on the biography of Muhammad held at Mecca in 1979. So, it is a notable source and represents the Muslim POV. cf. Al-`Allaf p.320

So, there is no problem with using "Sealed Nectar" if the quotes are attributed to the sources whenever necessary. --Aminz 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it is fine to quote Bukhari as long as another secondary source show that there is no other Hadith collections or Biographies that contradicts or gives a different narrations than that of Bukhari. So, it is enough for another source to say: Find the letter in Bukhari XX. --Aminz 07:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but I'm not User:Nodekeeper. Was there any point to your edit besides that?Proabivouac 07:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it is painful for you to see that some academic sources list "Sealed Nectar" as a bio on Muhammad. But it was a good try on your part to stain the source. --Aminz 07:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sealed Nectar isn't just sort of unreliable. It's blatantly, outrageously, laughably and unequivocally ridiculous, as anyone besides the most incurable partisans of the deeply unscientific POV it advocates will immediately see. I shall bring to the attention of other respected editors, and, if necessary, further up the chain. Editors who insist upon adding such sources ought to re-read WP:NPOV and WP:RS alike, and ask themselves why they are here.
The ancestery of Arabs according to the Sealed Nectar:
"The Arabized Arabs go back in ancestry to their great grandfather Abraham - Peace be upon him - from a town called "Ar" near Kufa on the west bank of the Euphrates in Iraq. Excavations brought to light great details of the town, Abraham’s family, and the prevalent religions and social circumstances."
"It is known that Abraham - Peace be upon him - left Ar for Harran and then for Palestine, which he made headquarters for his Message. He wandered all over the area. When he went to Egypt, the Pharaoh tried to do evil to his wife Sarah, but Allâh saved her and the Pharaoh’s wicked scheme recoiled on him. He thus came to realize her strong attachment to Allâh, and, in acknowledgment of her grace, the Pharaoh rendered his daughter Hagar at Sarah’s service, but Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham as a wife."
"Abraham returned to Palestine where Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. Sarah became so jealous of Hagar that she forced Abraham to send Hagar and her baby away to a plantless valley on a small hill in Hijaz, by the Sacred House, exposed to the wearing of floods coming right and left. He chose for them a place under a lofty tree above Zamzam near the upper side of the Mosque in Makkah where neither people nor water was available, and went back to Palestine leaving with his wife and baby a leather case with some dates and a pot of water. Not before long, they ran out of both food and water, but thanks to Allâh’s favour water gushed forth to sustain them for sometime. The whole story of Zamzam spring is already known to everybody."
That is not just bad, it is junk of the lowest order.Proabivouac 07:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my sincere advice to you is that you don't pile up negative records. Next, the book has a P.O.V, based on Muslim oral and written traditions. I hope you understand it. I have seen far more laughably and unequivocally ridiculous POVs in the Bible but it is a POV. Period. --Aminz 07:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible yes, that's exactly what Sealed Nectar is like, a religious screed. There's no negative record here. Purging Wikipedia of junk sources is a good deed, not a bad one.Proabivouac 08:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your attempts at poisoning the well are, although rather entertaining, totally unfounded. you cannot seem to be able to criticise anything about the book except by finding portents you find questionable in order to dismiss the whole book. please be aware that your attempt to purge a legitimate source is seen as vandalism. this kind of flawed reasoning can be applied to any author, you could start trying to purge Watt from the wiki because he tends to accept much of the primary sources and generally speaks favourably of Muhammad, in some works accepting him as a prophet. Aminz above had already listed some notable sources which list the sealed nectar as a notable book. please start being productive to the project and implement some sources instead of trigger-happily deleting others you believe need censoring. sealed nectar employs a scholarly methodology, we have already noted that. you believe he just bases his narrative on bukhaari, which demonstrates precisely why it is difficult to take your opposition seriously, as you seem to know very little about the book itself and the researching behind it, as has been noted by the university of medina (a recognised instituion which hands out recognised qualifications per its BA, Masters and Doctorate degrees available). he uses a plethora of sources, some of which are not totally authentic, which is why researching and compilation of authentic material. instead of doing what i believe may be filibustering, please provide some legitimate opposition to the book. if you find a sourced statement in the article questionable, please don't resort to vandalism, but instead challenge it with your own sources. this is how NPOV is achieved. ITAQALLAH 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

also, you may wish to study WP:OR to understand when primary sources are of use. you clearly did not understand (or maybe ignored) what i stated earlier about using primary sources and proceeded to remove legitimate sources such as ibn hisham (which could be argued to be a secondary source in fact). that you fail to understand policies such as NPOV and OR but are still insistent on eliminating valid material regardless is something i find troubling. ITAQALLAH 13:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

finally, i believe that your misrepresentation of the issue at the RFC (re: sealed nectar) page is extremely disappointing, and unfortunately this is not the first time. the sources use as an independantly factual reference is debatable, its notability however is not. to imply that the user above who made some rfc comments questioned passages relating to this source is inaccurate, not once does he mention the sealed nectar or a passage cited by it. the actual passage he does mention is one where the general wording has been taken directly from EoI, and the editor also said he wasn't in a position to necessarily comment on matters of historical POV. i already stated that i only used the source in more agreeable and simple matters. NPOV is achieved by providing all notable opinions on a specific matter where there is divergence. this has been done in the article, numerous times. when there is something in islamic tradition or muslim narrative not found in secular works, the prose says "According to Islamic tradition", as it should. please do proceed to provide some sources opposing the objectionable material, as Aminz has done, which allows us to work collegially instead of constantly demanding that you back up your concerns with sources and not conviction. ITAQALLAH 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am currently gathering sources to support the breakdown of the Madinan treaty, the expulsion of two of five tribes and the beheading and enslavement of a third. As you are fully aware that this occured - it is discussed, for example, in Watt (1974) which was used in this article - it seems rather dishonest for you to attribute my concerns to mere "conviction."
"you cannot seem to be able to criticise anything about the book except by finding portents you find questionable in order to dismiss the whole book."
Are we pretending that, after a few nods to piety, the book then becomes a regular academic narrative? There is no portion of this book that is not drenched in religious language and presumption.Proabivouac 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
did you miss what i wrote above? your concerns have generally been extremely vague, you have dismissed a notable and arguably reliable source because you disagree with the author's POV and conclusions. all authors have a POV, it is not a requirement of works that they adhere to wiki NPOV policy. the qualm should be with the methodology of sourcing and citation, the notability of the author, the endorsement and the presses of the book. not simply, "the book has a religious POV, so we can't use it". your main concern has been the use of certain sources, and yes as you have raised no reasonable objection as to why it cannot be used then i do believe it is more conviction than substance. there has never been any objection to you including more information about occurances post-constitution (or wherever you deem more information is needed), in fact, the expansion of that part was requested before you ever raised any concern and before you created your account. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, there was such an objection, that subsequent military conflict could not be included because the article is about only Muhammad as a diplomat. If this line of reasoning has been dropped, then I'll not belabor the point, as we're in agreement that this is important.
For now, note that Lewis/Jews of Islam p.10 mentions the collapse of the treaty nearly immediately after Muhammad took power, and the excecution of the Banu Qurayza, while Watt/Prophet&Statesman discusses the expulsion of the Banu Qaynuqa pp. 130-131, of the Banu Nadir pp. 148-150, in he first instance going so far as to suggest that Muhammad broke the treaty because the Jews were not prepared to convert to Islam, and was influenced by the desire of the emigrants to seize control of trade, which thitherto had been dominated by the Qaynuqa, for themselves. These points underscore the fundamental inaccuracy behind the current formulation of Muhammad as Madinan peacemaker, suggesting as it does that he solved chronic problems peacably and to the benefit of all parties.Proabivouac 01:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
inclusion of the subsequent military conflict is fine and encouraged. it should be a brief overview however, as other articles deal with this in more detail.
the Lewis passage i will study in a while after some sleep or maybe Aminz can comment upon that. it is in fact Watt who discusses the precedence set by the act of forming a constitution. the expulsions and conflicts with the jewish tribes did not happen immediately, with banu qurayza being punished as late as the battle of confederates. so that is not really relevant upon the actual impact of the constitution upon the society and how the social structure changed post arrival of Muhammad. can you confirm that Watt speaks of the instances of conflict with the Jewish tribes within the context of the impact of the constitution upon Medinan society? ITAQALLAH 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Proabivouac, I don't think it is necessary to bring the Sealed Nectar issue again. It is already established that this is a source for Muslim POV and is a notable one. Some university press published books do list it as a bio on Muhammad. So, if attributed correctly, this source could be used. This source is mostly used in the "Correspondence with other leaders" section where it is not the only source used and furthermore an academic source states that "the formulation and the wordings of different sources are very close and the differences are ones of detail: They concern the date on which the letter was sent and its exact phrasing." I'll even try to find more academic sources on the very same passages (as I did for the Letter to Heraclius) since it is easy to do and not because it is necessary to do so.

Next, this article is not closer to the 'Muhammad as a general' article than it is to the Muhammad article itself, or to the Islam article. But as Itaqallah said, inclusion of a brief overview is fine.

I second Itaqallah's comment. The relevance of the quotes with the issue we are discussing should be pointed out by the source. Regarding the Lewis quote: You wrote: Lewis/Jews of Islam p.10 mentions the collapse of the treaty nearly immediately after Muhammad took power.: Lewis exactly says that "at an early stage in his career as ruler of Medina, the prophet came into conflict with the three Jewish tribe of Medina." and then continues that what happened according to Muslim tradition. As to the Banu Qurayza, I have been able to find are three different academic POVs (here) one of them denying the massacre. --Aminz 05:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Of five images in this article, the authenticity of two, the letters, are disputed. Is it correct to say that the seals are based upon these letters? If so, then these, too, may be inauthentic. Finally, there is a map of Abyssinia from an entirely different period than that discussed in the article. Is there a reason why these images have been included, other than to meet the images criterion for Good Article status?Proabivouac 00:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

to suggest that the seals may be inauthentic because the texts of some of the correspondances are considered by some to be inauthentic is OR. i don't know of any sources criticising the seal. wrt Abyssinia, having a picture of that general area is notable to illustrate the rough distance of migration as well as the required journey across sea (the edge of the arab peninsula is at the top right), and also to give an idea of the territory that Abyssinia covered as opposed to ethiopia. unfortunately, 1890 is the earliest free pic i could find on the commons (more medieval ones may exist elsewhere on the web), although i think for the most part that the boundaries of abyssinia are not noted to have changed as far as i know up until the early 20th century (although i may be wrong, i'm currently checking the abyssinia article itself). if you could find a better free picture, we could always consider that. ITAQALLAH 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the NPOV tag since there is no active discussion of it

Of course, if you disagree, tell me right here and if I'm convinced I'll put it back ;) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Please read the sections above. I feel this article, in its current form, to be palpably and substantially non-neutral, and have written upon this at some length. I posted an RfC, and the one editor who responded agreed that the article is not neutral. I would like and will solicit further comment, ideally from editors who spend their time with subjects unrelated to religion.Proabivouac 04:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read it, and all I don't see why it the tag should be kept. The RfC states that it should be merged. Yet there is no merger tag! Most of the allegations of POV are that the article is written in a far too positive tone. LOL? I mean look at the guy that RfC'd this:

* Scrutinize the article for statements which have wordings that are inherently demeaning, glorifying, or otherwise value-laden. If there's a more-neutral, more "just the facts" way to say something, use that way. Go sentence by sentence and ask "Is this wording too exciting/positive/negative/etc?" Silly as it sounds, ask "Is there a more boring way to say this?"


What kind of suggestion is that? Since when is making an article boring an official WP policy? If someone truly thinks that parts of this article are biased, then put the NPOV tag on those parts, not at the beginning of the article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say that every section of this article contains palpably POV language, all from the same direction. Shall I list all it below?
Every change I've made has been reverted. Now I put one tag up - one instead of one for each section including the intro - and it, too, is reverted under the ludicrous pretense that "there's no active discussion of it," by someone who's not himself been involved in the discussion.Proabivouac 07:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
looking at the edit history it is clear that you are the only one that has been putting up the POV tag and you've been reverted for the same reason I brought up; is that there is no discussion on the talk page. Again I state, you're missing the point of the POV tag. You don't put it up and then just leave it, you have to do something about it! So what if you did a RfC, nobody even asked you to do it, and I found no reason for it whatsoever. And again, it seems like you are the only person who wants that tag up. So if you have a problem, please state it here. This is the talk page for crying out loud. So begin discussing what you think is POV language. I'm waiting. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"...that there is no discussion on the talk page."
Have you read the talk page? There is a ton of discussion. And as I've stated, I did attempt to "do something about some of it", it's been reverted. Please respond to the points I've made above, a.k.a. discussion.Proabivouac 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the points are already responded. --Aminz 07:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, there's a difference between discussion and relevant discussion. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirbytime, it's your discussion which has been wholly unspecific and hence irrelevant. Why not respond to the points I've made and at least maintain the pretense of explaining why they're irrelevant?Proabivouac 07:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, for the n*th* time, Sealed Nectar could be used in wikipedia when its quotes are properly attributed to its authors(if necessary). Also, inclusion of a brief overview of the 'Muhammad the general' in this article, when the sources establish such connection, is fine and even encouraged. Aminz 07:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"when its quotes are properly attributed to its authors" - Then attribute them explicitly in all cases, and do not present their legends as facts, even "it is said that" type facts. This source is far worse than merely bad, it has not even the smallest pretense of objective scholarship. I am quite confident that if we could get the broader community to take a look at it, an easy majority will feel the same way. Tell me honestly, how many non-Muslim westerners do you think will take a look at Sealed Nectar and say, oh, this looks pretty good to me?Proabivouac 08:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done so. I added "The account as transmitted by Muslim historians reads as follows" at the beginning of all subsections under the "Correspondence with other leaders" section. --Aminz 08:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And you think that one change justifies the reversion of the POV tag? Anyone can see people are just counting heads and their reverts. The culture of this page is outrageously cliquish, uncollaborative, confrontational and, frankly, insincere.Proabivouac 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But it is you who don't want to accept that "Sealed Nectar" could be used in wikipedia. We provided university press books that list this book as a bio on Muhammad. We provided evidences showing its notability. But you don't want to accept. What more do you want? Yes, I also call it uncollaborative, confrontational and, frankly, insincere but on your part. I think at the moment, there is merely one problem with the article and that is its intro. Although "The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature (1984) states that the recent research has established the authenticity of Muhammad’s letters to the rulers and monarchs", but the intro should touch this controversy as well. I will add this to the intro soon. --Aminz 08:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well of course it is a biography of Muhammad. A religiously-motivated hagiographic blatantly unscientific one. Surely you can see the difference between this and either Lewis or Watt.Proabivouac 08:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, you are writing as if the article is based on this source. We have included this POV as well. The only valid objection you could have is the addition of "according to Muslim tradition, " to sentences quoted from this source, if you feel it is necessary. But I have tried to do this before. --Aminz 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Some earlier changes were good, but not sufficient. I'll look again. In the meantime, might you answer, "Surely you can see the difference between this and either Lewis or Watt?" Yes or no? Some other editors to this page are just pretending they can't see what I'm talking about. For a non-Muslim academic, it's as if one has stepped onto another planet.Proabivouac 08:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, I'll answer to your question if you tell us whose sockpuppet you are? Nodekeeper? Editorious? Pecher? Timothy Usher? Netscott? :P --Aminz 08:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, regardless of wether it is different or similar or not, the Sealed Nectar is as valid a source for this article as Watt or Lewis. You are welcome to be constructive by bringing in sources to balance any POV that you perceive. The "legends" of the Sealed Nectar are based on the same source as the "theorizations" of Watt and Lewis. Remember, Western degrees or Phd.s are also seen as being insufficient superficial introductions, have the same equal non-validity on the other side of the fence as the one you are attempting to impose here. They all try to fit things into their conceptions of the world, and are reading either is like stepping into another planet for both. The plot is the same, it's the narrative that is different. Do not fall into the trap of limiting your vision to a western world view. Remember social beleifs and even legends are information that is within wikipedia's purpose to disseminate as an encylopedia.--Tigeroo 09:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Proabivouac, regardless of wether it is different or similar or not, the Sealed Nectar is as valid a source for this article as Watt or Lewis."
Ridiculous. Once again here is The Sealed Nectar which is being said to be equivalent per WP:RS to Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt. That is a religious tract, not a reliable source of any kind.Proabivouac 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Review WP:RS. Your argument is both invalid and in violation of WP:NPOV, for reasons stated in my earlier explanation.--Tigeroo 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Proabivouac, you have not yet identified where you believe the specific problems lie, but you are adamant that there must be problems. there are a large number of editors who have seen nothing wrong with it, and even when it went through peer review there were no concerns raised about the article tone. you have not justified why the sealed nectar must be expunged when at the very least it is notable to provide the Muslim narrative when other sources neglect it. you feel the article assumes an unfairly "positive tone", yet you refuse to provide sources which will help correct this. much of the foundation of the article is based upon secular narrative but it seems that even this you are finding problematic. all of your concerns have been addressed above, many of the responses you have simply decided not to reply to, so it is not upon us to continually explain things to you if you're not properly addressing the responses. some people may regard this as filibustering. we would ardently like you to help contribute positively to the article (and that excludes removing legitimate sources and material) instead of running around in circles on the talk page. ITAQALLAH 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Mashhad Al-`Allaf, a prof. of Philosophy, writes in Mirror of Realization: God Is a Percept - The Universe Is a Concept, p.96, IIC Classic Series, December 2003, ISBN 0972272224 :
“ This short biography (Seerah) of the prophet is the most authentic. It is derived from many traditional sources that are very well known of their importance and reliablity in this field. The authors of some of these sources are: ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn al-Qayyem, Sahih Bukhari, and Saheeh Muslim. Since all these sources with different narrations being nicely implemented in a great book in this regard call Al-Raheeq al-makhtoom (The Sealed Nectar) by Safyy al-Rahaman al-Mubarakpuri, Dar al-wafaa', Egypt, 1420 /2000 A.D. Thus I decided to make a very condensed summary of the seerah of the prophet based on his book. ”

--TruthSpreaderTalk 17:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

in the interests of dispute resolution..

... and to cease this totally needless dragging on of a stagnating discussion i would request that Proabivouac organise all of his qualms with the article as follows. perferably, answer within this section.

Content, tone

  • note every instance where you believe the content or tone is inappropriate, or where there is a factual error. this includes the following:
  1. specifying the exact passage, and to whom it has been sourced;
  2. stating why it is not correct. where relevant, provide an opposing source which is directly relevant to the context of the paragraph/passage.

Source issues

  • organise your arguments as to why the sealed nectar may not be used here or anywhere else. there have been numerous evidences provided above as to why it is notable and usable, and so you are expected to argue why in the light of this it cannot be used. also, please do reply to other editors' (as well as mine) responses (some of which you have not replied to) to your concerns so that we can move forward instead of having to repeat the same points.

if you could do the above so we can bring this dispute to an end, then i think that would be in everyone's interests. thanks. ITAQALLAH 21:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

On Hold status expires. As of 30 September 2006, per WP:WIAGA, here's my assessment:

1. It is well written.

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers → pass
It's a nicely written article. It is not really hard for non-specialist readers to understand the subject. Perhaps some improvements are still needed to make it brilliant. There are some orphan paragraphs that consist only 1 or 2 lines and it should be merged with others. There is also one suggestion from me above to make a summary of chrolonological events, where Muhammad conducted diplomacy. Here, readers will be more understand of the time axis between events. This summary can be written in tabular form.
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles) → weak pass
Hierarchically, the structure is quite logical. Since the subject describes about history, I'd suggest editors to include timeline in each headline. For example, Muslim Migration to Abyssinia (615), Journey to at-Ta'if (619), etc.
The lead section is quite good now, following WP:LS. There is one [citation needed] tag that I've put, but editors didn't update it. I'd like editors to update the tag with one of the references list available.
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style → pass
No visible WP:MOS violation.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided → pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material → pass
References are given and sources are used for the subject.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required → can't comment
There's ongoing heated debate in the Wikiproject Good Article communities about this criterion, whether inline should be required or not. Assume that inline citation is required, this article does not have any problem with it. Inline citations are given in appropriate places.
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources → pass
I would like to comment more about this criterion, as some editors are objecting to one or two sources given in this article.
Questioned sources:
  1. Martin Forwards' book: "Muhammad: A Short Biography". Martin Forward is a non Muslim and he has written a lot of books about religions, including "Jesus: A Short Biography" and "Inter-Religious Dialogue". He is a professor of religious studies. Thus, I think no one should doubt his expertise in Islamic study.
  2. The Sealed Nectar or al-Raheeq al-Makhtoom (ISBN 1591440718). It is a book about Muhammad biography, authored by a Muslim scholar Saif-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, from Islamic University of Medina. Some editors dissaprove that this is reliable, with their arguments that the author is a Muslim scholar (partisan) and published from Islamic institution, thus it is a religious trait. One of the editor even said "It's blatantly, outrageously, laughably and unequivocally ridiculous, as anyone besides the most incurable partisans of the deeply unscientific POV it advocates will immediately see.". Unfortunately, (s)he didn't give any academic sources to justify this comment.
The Sealed Nectar is a legitimate primary source secondary source, accessible to public and according to WP:RS, it can be used as reliable source in WP. Identity and origin of the author is irrelevant. Should reliable source be always from Western scholars? Why can't Muslim or Hindus or Africans or Chinese scholars be reliable? Is it POV? Of course. And so does Pius X's pontificate that serves as the basis of Catholic Encyclopedia. That's why we need other secondary source or tertiary source, which provides commentary, analysis and criticism.
Should an editor raising doubt about The Sealed Nectar, (s)he may bring another source saying that it is unreliable. This has been asked by other editors of this article, but it remains unfulfilled. I've tried to search over the internet, as my source is limited in this subject, and I can't find one. In fact, I've found the opposite situation, where The Sealed Nectar has been awarded and also used as references in many studies. One editor even listed from a thread above:
  • "Lewis V. Baldwin in his book "Between Cross & Crescent" Published by University Press of Florida, p.433 lists Sealed Nectar as a biography on Muhammad."
  • "Mamarinta P Mababaya in his book "International Business Success in a Strange Cultural Environment", where the authors says is the cultural aspect of his PhD thesis carried out at the University of Westminster, quotes "Sealed Nectar" as a biography on Muhammad p.338."
Both of studies above, correct me if I'm wrong, have non Muslim names, and thus they are non-partisan.
(d) it contains no elements of original research → pass
It's a history about Muhammad as a diplomat. However, I would tend to agree with the RFC commentator to rename this page into Muslim Diplomacy under Muhammad, for example.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed) → pass
I don't see any other missing aspects of Muhammad during his lifetime to conduct diplomacy to spread Islam.
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia) → pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias → weak pass
I agree with the RFC commentator above. There is no major WP:NPOV violations in this article. This article only presents historical view of Muhammad when conducting diplomacy. Again, I would like to re-iterate the RFC commentator said that identity and origin of the editors are irrelevant. Everybody in Wikipedia is anonymous and can edit any page. The only thing that editors should bring here is that every statements (s)he writes, they should be able to be verified, and this has been given by the editors of this page. All sources are given and they are all good sources, not only just webpages (I've seen worse than this).
There are some minor NPOV statements that should be fixed. For example, in the statement "The signing of the constitution itself displayed a degree of diplomatic skill by Muhammad, as although he envisioned a society eventually based upon a religious outlook, practical consideration was needed to be inclusive instead of exclusive of the varying social elements." I would eliminate the part to show a degree of diplomatic skill. Let the reader concludes by him/herself how is the diplomatic skill of Muhammad by reading the article.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic → pass
Controversies among academic scholars about the authenticity of the letter to Heraclius have been given properly. This is a good example that editors of this article are willing to include criticism about historical facts, whenever academic sources are available.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. → failed

This is my main concern about this article for GA status. As soon as this article was put On Hold, one of the editor contacted me. Before I could answer his message, a lengthly discussion had already taken place and edit war started. I've been watching this page history and I have to fail this article for GA because of instability.
To all editors of this article, please be constructive and always assume good faith to each other. Let us make Wikipedia a better place, unless if you have an intention to disrupt this article and to block it for being a good article. If this is the case, then I should congratulate you.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions → pass
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status → not relevant

Conclusion: fail for GA status for this moment because of criterion (5). If you disagree with my review, then you can always submit this article for re-reviewing. When all matters above are resolved, esp. the ongoing edit war, this article can be renominated again. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree that the article currently fails GA criterion per the stability issue (although disappointingly specific issues have to date not been raised). we are currently attempting to resolve the issue and hope to re-submit afterwards. regarding sealed nectar as a primary source, i understand it is a secondary source as it bases its narrative upon the analysis and evaluation of the primary sources such as bukhari/muslim and the compendiums of tabari, ibn sa'd and others. you can verify this if you check this[2] version of the book online (which includes the footnotes) or if you check out the book on amazon[3], as well as through the quote given above. i will try to expound upon this in the near future. ITAQALLAH 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. then you're right. I should say Hadith is the primary source and The Sealed Nectar is secondary. — Indon (reply) — 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the review. The Sealed Nectar is secondary source. — Indon (reply) — 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses

NPOV tag

First up, I'm going to put up the NPOV tag again. In general, it's bad form to edit war over it when there's still a discussion on-going. It seems like a lot of the people here have found that there is at least some work that needs to be done to improve the POV of the article, and at least one editor (Proabivouac) feels the article has major POV problems. There's an RFC up on this artilce (maybe two), so, there is a major discussion on-going.

But, the NPOV tag isn't a big deal, ya know. It just alerts readers that there's a discussion on-going and that we could use their opinions. It doesn't say the article ISN'T NPOV, it doesn't say the article is bad, it just is a little advertisement alerting people that there's a debate on-going, and we could use their help if they are willing to provide it. It also cautions them to just be aware that they should read a tad more carefully than they would normally, and be a little bit more of a critical thinker than usual. But, it's really not a black mark on the article. It's more of a "Help Wanted" sign than anything else.

It's also not a black mark on the editors here. I think this article has some problems, but the problems are hard to see because there has been a systematic campaign to disguise the POV that is behind the article. And there is only one possible explanation for how such a campaign could be undertaken-- namely, a good faith attempt to write NPOVly. :). The article is very careful not to egregiously violate NPOV, and that's because people are working hard at not doing that. It's just a hard thing to do. I often wonder whether ANY one editor or group of editors can actually write NPOV about a subject like this I know I have had occasions where I've written a page, all the while working as hard and as sincerely as possible to NOT inject any POV into the article. I've looked over the article, I've said "Okay-- i've got it-- this is perfect. THIS is NPOV", and then, other editors who have different POVs have been able to point out, correctly, ways in which is wasn't NPOV. And I had tried REALLY, REALLY hard to make it NPOV.

So, don't stress about the NPOV tag. it's no biggie. It doesn't mean the article's bad, it doesn't mean the editors are bad-- it just means we need some work still on assessing the POV of the article.

Boring down a narrative

I see Kirbytime above questioned my advice that the article be "more boring". I admit, that's kinda odd advice. Let me explain what I mean by that: right now, the article very subtly reads a little bit like an wonderful adventure story, where Muhammad is the hero. It's a straightforward narrative-- not a synthesis. It "tells a story", rather than "talks about a subject". So yeah, BORING isn't exactly the best word, but 'much less like a narrative' is hard to say.

Take for example this paragraph from the Journey to at-Ta'if section:

The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then. In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad, the groups involved in meeting with Muhammad began to incite townfolk to pelt him with stones.[3] Having been beset and pursued out of at-Ta'if, Muhammad, who at one stage was bleeding profusely, sought refuge in a nearby orchard. It is here that he invoked Allah, seeking comfort and protection.

Now, I have to say, I doubt very seriously every word of that is a fact. It speculates about Muhammad's motives and the motives of the groups meeting with Muhammad. It talks about how much Muhammad was bleeding, and even describes the location of where he rested. In talking about this, it describes it as if these things were universally agreed facts which are just as historically agreed upon as, saying "Abraham Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater". I suspect, though I'm no expert, that we really don't have a level of detail sufficient to say with near-certainly that Muhammad rested in, say, an orchard. The article presents this as an indisputed fact, but I doubt it truly is one. I suspect that it's a story that's been handed down through oral and written traditions, that many people believe it to be "completely accurate", many people believe it to be "mostly accurate", and some people believe it to be "very historically inaccurate". That's just the way things go with things that are so far back in history-- usually that level of detail simply isn't preserved-- at least not with certainty. So while everyone might agree that Muhammad lived in the 7th century, the idea that "Muhammad, bleeding profusely, took refuge in an orchard" probably isn't a universally agreed-upon fact, even though the article currently presents it as such.

And the important thing is-- this is true of the article as a whole. It's not just the "bleeding in the orchard" at issue-- pretty much the whole article conveys "The Story of Muhammed" as if it's a cohesive narrative, written by an eye-witness. The problem with this article is, reading over it, I don't know what parts to believe. I don't know WHO says these things are true, how universally agreed upon they are, etc. Some things probably are univerally acknowledge to be true (The Conquest of Mecca). Other things it's probably hard to say ("Rested in an orchard"). Some things are probably unknowable (people's thoughts are conveyed, for example). All these different types of info are fine, but here, I have no idea where one type ends and the other begins. They're all mixed in, and I don't know what's what. So-- what can we do about this:

The Scholarly/Historical Solution

Now, one solution would be to insert a lot more differing viewpoints throughout the article-- at way more criticism. Cut out many of the details that are from only one or two sources, or else RIGIDLY attribute them to speciifc sources whenever you discuss them. If there are conflicting views, or people who doubt a sentence is true, you have to actively work on including those dissenting views.

You'd also have to work hard to describe things neutrally. The current article isn't just "about Muhammad", it's actually "from Muhammad's point of view"-- notice in the example above, that "The people of at-Ta'if reject Muhammad's message" and "Muhammad's enemies incite the townspeople to stone him" is from Muhammad's POV. A similarly POV statement taking the townfolks POV might be "Mohammad's words, deemed as heretical by the townspeople, incited them to pelt him with stones".

You see what I mean? this tells A story and A POV, as it should, but it's just one side of a story for which there are many many sides. And one way to solve this problem is to massively cut back the disputed material and add in a lot of other voices.

===The "According to" Solution

But on the other hand, it seems like the current text DOES do a good job of telling part of the story of muhammad, as presented by some sources. If aren't we really missing the point if we start trying to hold this article up to the level of modern historical scholarship (debating, for example, whether we really know Mohammad was bleeding profusely, or whether we can really be sure that he took refuge in an orchard). This story does a good job of telling ONE point of view-- possibly the only surviving point of view (for example-- do we have any sources about what the people of at-Ta'if thought about their encounter with Muhammad?). If we start inserting all these conflicting viewpoints into the text, maybe we're taking something that does a good job to telling a story and instead turn it into something that doesn't tell that story nearly as well, because it's diluted and interrupted by criticism and debate and etc.

So, the other solution, which I'm actually starting to think might be really useful here, would be to to specify an article wide source, and call it "Muslim Views of Diplomacy under Muhammad" or something like that. This would allow us to essentially saying upfront: "This is the way its presented in many of the sources, and these are the sources we're going to be using in writing this article, so that we can summarize for the reader the CONTENT of those sources, without having to incessantly introduced debates about the validity of that content".

I've had a lot of luck using this approach in summarizing biblical content (see Herod_the_Great#Herod_in_the_New_Testament and Acts_of_the_Apostles#Summary). There, you specify upfront the source, and the straightforwardly convey that source, and possibly briefly summarize other views about the source as a whole, or highlight some of the other views about the material conveyed in the source.

If we do something like that, all our NPOV problems instantly disappear, because we upfront say we're presenting on POV, and now we just have to NPOVly present THAT one POV.

--Alecmconroy 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much Alecmconroy for your analysis, but what should we do with the sources which claim these incidents. Secondly, criticism to many opinions is already provided in the article, e.g. in the narration of Ta'if, it is first told that Watt observes the plausibility of an additional discussion about wresting Ta'if trade routes from Meccan control, and so on. TruthSpreaderTalk 18:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Ta'if section, I think the only issue with the section is that it doesn't explicitly say which parts of the story are accepted by academic scholars. One can see this from the source used, but I would like to see two versions of the same story. One detailed account from the Muslim tradition and the other from academic scholars who do not necessarily accept the accounts or at least parts of it. --Aminz 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, Aminz took the words out of my mouth. Here's what I was going to write:
I'm not sure which sources you mean, but I'm guessing you mean "sources that refer to things like the orchard". Such sources-- the oral traditions, Muslim POV, etc-- they definitely have a place. It's not that they should be removed as much as the reader should be able to have a sense of what text comes from what (sources). Now, I don't mean through the use of footnotes-- those are good too, but the organization and text itself should provide cues as to the sources for the information. This is already done to some extent in the article-- I note for example that whenever a miraculous event is discussed, the sentence is properly sourced to "according to islamic tradition". this sort of thing is perfect. The trick is how to remind people what source provides what info, while at the same time not driving the reader crazy with "According to ____," every other sentence.
The easiest solution is to take all the material from one source and put it in one section or one article. An "According to ___" article. The upside of this is that it's completely clear who is the source, you don't bug the reader with constant "according to" statements. Here, you can tell the story in a continuous fashion.
The altenative is to split the text up by subject matter rather than by source-- conveying "this source said this, but this source said that" topic by topic. Much harder to do, but probably results in a more comprehenive, scholarly article.
In response to your second point-- yes, there's definitely been an effort to include some opposing viewpoints here. It's obvious people have worked hard to improve the article. Ther's just room for more, if you're going to go the scholarly/comprehensive synthesis route.
--Alecmconroy 21:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

once again, these are very constructive comments offered by Alec. i am sorry, i have had literally *no* time over the past few days but tomorrow i hope to comment more wholly on the feedback given as well as study it more closely. i will briefly comment on a few things now though. taking a look at the passage again, specifically the last two sentences of the second para of the ta'if section, i do think it needs some work. the statement re: why Muhammad went to ta'if i.e. not much success in Mecca, this was taken from EoI and from what i gauge it seems to be the pretty much common opinion (meaning, i haven't come across sources yet stating another specific reason). the other statements about rejection (mainly from Watt, i provided them basically how they are mentioned in the respective sources, i didn't concentrate much on switching the perspective because the biographies are naturally written with Muhammad as the protagonist. the last sentences of the para i will look at again and double check the sources used for those tomorrow hopefully. i think the balance lies in having a uniform and free flowing prose acceptable to scholarly standards while at the same time mentioning the perspective when relevant, especially when there are disputations of fact and/or where events mentioned in islamic traditions are notable. i will comment on this more soon. thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Itaqallah, I've been preoccupied over the past few days. Briefly, let us observe that it's no accident the "orchard" section stuck out - the source is the Sunni religious tract The Sealed Nectar. Itaqallah's invited me to lay out my objections in one well-organized section. Unfortunately, I've not yet had a chance to do it, but appreciate the invitation, and will do so soon.Proabivouac 04:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
the orchard passage is not just found in muslim historical works. this is from Muir's work, whose biography of Muhammad is one of the more critical. speaking of the townfolk of Ta'if and their perception of Muhammad, he says:

But the treatment he was receiving at the hands of their Chiefs, and the disproportion to the outward eye between the magnitude of his claims and his solitary helpless condition, turned fear into contempt. They were stirred up to hasten the departure of the unwelcome visitor. They hooted him in the streets; they pelted him with stones; and at last they obliged him to flee out of their city, pursued by a relentless rabble. Blood flowed from wounds in both his legs; and Zeid, endeavouring to shield him, received a" severe injury in his head. The mob did not desist until they had chased him two or three miles across the sandy plain to the foot of the hills that surround the city. There, wearied and mortified, he took refuge in one of the numerous orchards, and rested under a vine.

so yes, the current passage is deemed noteworthy and according to Muir (at least) historically sound. some biographies mention it, some don't. none however dismiss it as far as i know. i rephrased the bleeding profusely part and tried to make it sound less "epic" so to speak. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
But it doesn't say anything about him "invok[ing] Allah, seeking comfort and protection," does it? You can't seriously expect unbelievers to accept such a narrative as neutral, can you? Perhaps he invoked Satan whom he believed to be Allah, started hallucinating as usual or was just afraid of the people with the rocks? Neither you or I can claim to know, and it's not Wikipedia's task to speculate. If a religious tract has done so, that is its shortcoming; it shouldn't be ours.Proabivouac 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's exactly this sort of thing that makes me look to the making this a subpage of Islamic views of Muhammad. It's not that the orchard story isn't worthy of being in an encyclopedic, and it's not that Muhammad's invocation of Allah isn't worth mentioning-- we just need to clearly attribute the belief in these events, so that someone other than Wikipedia is doing the believing. --Alecmconroy 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
err... Proabivouac, yes actually he does mention that and i cited where he does in the article. on page 202 of Muir's work:

After a little, composed and re-assured, he betook himself to prayer, and the following touching and plaintive petitions are still preserved as those in which his burdened soul gave vent to its distress

he then goes on to mention the text of the prayer, although in a footnote he says that "much confidence" cannot be placed in the traditions handing down the exact text of the prayer. even then, the fact that a general prayer was made is accepted by Muir. ITAQALLAH 14:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Itaqallah. P.S. I think User: Proabivouac may get into trouble if he continues writing sentences like "started hallucinating as usual". So, Proabivouac, consider this as a friendly advice. --Aminz 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
His point is that from a disinterested point of view, both stories are just as likely. Arrow740 08:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)