Talk:Muhammad as a general

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This page was created to take some of the pressure off the main Muhammad article, and to give the combatants room to spread out and make extended arguments with citations. As it stands, it is only a sketch. Zora 08:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt this statement.

Muslim commentator Ismail Patel summarized modern historical research suggesting that the total casualties in the Arabian peninsula during the period of Muhammad's ten-year career as a warrior could be estimated at 216.

How did he get that number? If you accept Banu Quariza incident, just that number alone will exceed 216. I haven't checked the number of reported causalities for Badar and Uhad yet, but I seriously doubt the credibility of this figure. The source "Ismail Patel" is not neutral. Also, Ramakrishna Rao wrote a very pro-Islamic biography of Muhammad. Credibility of that is also doubtful OneGuy 07:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted it. It sounds like you, like me, have not yet found a credible non-Muslim researcher willing to estimate a specific casualty figure. I don't want to use bad numbers, so let's just keep our eyes open for a credible non-Muslim estimate of this number.BrandonYusufToropov 11:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Muslim source can be credible if he is a well known scholar or cites his references. This guy's numbness just don't seem right, especially if you accept Banu Quraiza incident as historical OneGuy 19:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Casualty est -- let's replace or substitute

Hi there -- I've been out of circulation for a while and am just re-entering the atmosphere here.

This was deleted:

By consulting the sirah, or biographical work, of early writers such as Ibn Hisham, it is possible to reconstruct an casualty figure of well under one thousand persons during the campaigns of Muhammad. Of these, something like 600 were the men of a Jewish tribe, the Bani Quraiza, whose case is a special one. They had agreed to, and violated, a treaty of alliance with the Muslims, who then met them in battle. When the Quraiza surrendered to Muhammad, they agreed that their fate should be decided by Sa'd bin Mu'adh, a former ally of theirs. Sa'd thereupon considered the case and held that the men of the Bani Quraiza should be put to death.

Now, I went to some trouble to get an informal but reliable consensus on this from folks I considered to be trustworthy sirah-heads. If the figure I offered is not credible, my question is -- Compared to what other figure does its credibility suffer?

We really should make an effort to identify some casualty total here.

  • If we think <1000 is incorrect, what specifically makes us think that this number is incorrect?
  • Are we doing the reader a service by not specifying any figure at all?
  • Are we doing the reader a service by omitting the details of the Bani Quraiza incident? No matter what the number is, this business of Muhammad murdering hundreds of Jews has been oversimplified to make him look a) more responsible for the decision of execution than he was and b) like an anti-Semite.

Key point we are now overlooking: From everything I can make out, the advent of Muhammad (p) came about with an astonishingly low casualty rate, and this astonishingly low casualty rate was the RESULT of his (new) way of thinking about military conflict.

Now, as unlikely as this way of thinking about war may appear, even to a modern reader, surely it is even MORE unlikely that it actually, you know, worked!

Can we picture the American, or French, or Russian Revolutions proceeding under the injunction to spare life whenever possible, encourage personal repentance before God, and forgive enemies? Can we picture them succeeding in these goals while holding casualties to microscopic levels? (Understand: He berated one of his own men for killing an opponent who professed Islam -- conveniently -- on the battlefield, with the conflict raging, and when it was quite obvious that there was no other option for survival.)

This <1000 figure, or some other comprehensible measure, needs to show up in the article, I think. If it's off, can you share by how much you think it's off?

If you're going to delete this estimate, can you take responsibility for providing a better estimate for the reader?

For some reason this subject of the specific level of casualties keeps getting passed over in summaries of his military career.

The result is people assume Muhammad (p) was a blood-drenched military figure in the model of Alexander the Great or Hitler, which is manifestly not the case.

We should rectify this misimpression by getting specific with some kind of casualty figure. BrandonYusufToropov 14:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Considered to be final prophet, or IS final prophet?

Anonymous editor, to you, as a Muslim, it seems obvious and factual that Muhammad is the final prophet. However, there are many millions of people who would deny that Muhammad is a prophet at all, and millions of Baha'i who would deny that Muhammad is the LAST prophet. We can't state debatable matters of belief as if they were generally accepted matters of fact. That's NPOV. Zora 21:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but "final prophet of Islam" is what I said. What Muslims "consider" is what Islam as a religion states. But its no big deal, if you want to keep it this way, it is fine with me. --Anonymous editor 21:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banu Quraiza

Zora -- I understand what you're going for in your most recent edit here, but as it stands it looks very much like what is controversial was why they were executed. That's actually not too complicated. Most of the controversy I've seen stems from disagreement about who was responsible for the execution.

Might it not be worthwhile to include the facts of the case here briefly? If we have some back-and-forth about the matter from other editors, so be it. I thought this article was meant to keep distractions and controversy away from the article Muhammad. Doesn't that mean we are willing to discuss details here?

Right now, it looks like Muhammad killed them (not true) and wasn't able to offer a consistent explanatio for doing so (also not true). That's problemetic, I think. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

After reading Banu Qurayza, I realize I was in error -- he did apparently do the killing, though he did not pass sentence. My apologies. Still think the current draft is an improvement, though if we want to specify this detail too, it is certainly germane. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

[edit] Article has morphed

Somehow -- I'm not sure when -- people started adding hadith and Qur'anic verses re war to the article.

I don't think they belong here. This is not the jihad article. This article was merely intended to provided a place for the charges and counter-charges re Muhammad and warfare that kept erupting in the Muhammad article. It should send people onwards to the jihad article, rather than duplicating the jihad article.

Starting to add hadith is particularily dicey, as there are probably hundreds of hadith that have some relation to warfare, and it takes some judgment to discriminate between strong and weak hadith. If we say we're only going to add strong hadith ... well, who gets to say what is weak and what is strong?

Perhaps it would be possible to move these lists into new articles? Qur'anic references to war and Hadith regarding war? That might be useful, for this article AND for other articles relating to jihad. Zora 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is my edits reverted?

I made some changes to the article, and added some more relevant Koran quotes. Another change was that I used the Yusuf Ali translation instead.

The anon that has reverted my changes, has told me on my talkpage that he prefer the other translation. However, he has failed to explain to me why he believe it is wrong to use the translation by Yusuf Ali.

Irishpunktom haven't so far explained his reasons for reverting my edits.

-- Karl Meier 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain, karl, why your edits should be included?--Irishpunktom\talk 09:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It is you that insist that my changes should not be included, so it is you that has something to explain. It should be a simple question, why did you choose to revert my changes to the article? -- Karl Meier 15:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my two cents would be that you don't state any reason for changing the translation to another source, one that is renowned for: "Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf ‘Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews." (According to Middle East Quarterly, [1]). The work is also renowned for not being the standard translation used by anyone anymore. While I don't mind that you add extra quotes, I do mind that a version of the Qu'ran deemed to be one of the most anti-semitic translations ever written is your choice of source. --Jakob mark 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Karl, if you want to change the source material to another version, you need to tell why. However your previous edit history allows one to presume it suits your POV. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

This article is a disappointment. I think I started it more than a year ago, as just a sketch. I fondly imagined that the anti-Muslim critics and the Muslim defenders would soon fill it up with referenced information. But all that happened was that the Muslim defenders filled it up with Qur'an and hadith quotes, as if that was all there needed to be said about warfare.

There is already an article on rules of warfare in Islam, where all that belongs. I removed it. This article is about a specific person at a specific time. I therefore added a great more detail about the actual battles. I haven't yet had time to google for info on the critics and defenders, so that section is still deficient.

I have to go back and add references, I just realized.

I still haven't said all that could be said about Muhammad's career as warrior. I should add Ibn Ishaq's list of the twenty-seven or twenty-six engagements in which he participated or fought. I need to do a lot more wikifying. It would of course be nice if other editors joined the effort. Zora 21:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates contradict

If he died in 632, then how can "613 to 622" be "his last ten years"? --71.132.153.146 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Several editors attempted to move this page to "Muhammad as a general", but that title makes no sense because Muhammad never had any military rank, let alone "general". Something along the lines "Muhammad as a war commander" could be considered, though, taking into account that Muhammad indeed never fought himself. Pecher Talk 09:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the article name does make sense:
  1. Dictionaries and the english languages allows for the usage of the term General as a term of reference for denoting the roles in a military heirarchy by equivalent roles and IS NOT LIMITED to just officially commisioned ranks.
  2. It conveys the sense of the article succintly and more comprehensibly than other convuluted or less elegant phrases. Readability is also an issue, and this version improves it without misrepresenting facts (see above).
  3. The article covers articles that he both fought in and did not by capturing his level of involvement.
  4. His actual title Rasul Allah also encapsulated his military rank as well, afterall until he did not give receive and pass on the revelation permitting the muslims to fight they were restrained from doing so. In this case we do not have a exact term and can only use analogouse terminology for the concept being described and general is better for the reasons mentioned above.--Tigeroo 10:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry on "general (noun)": "Rank in the army and air force that is higher than colonel or brigadier, and is usually the highest rank group next to commander in chief, except in countries that use the rank of field marshal."[2]. The definition is thus limited to the commissioned ranks. The other three points are non sequitur. Pecher Talk 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From [Oxford English Dictionary] (emphasis mine)
• noun 1 a commander of an army, OR an army officer ranking above lieutenant general. 2 short for LIEUTENANT GENERAL or MAJOR GENERAL.
From [[3]](emphasis mine):

n.

a )Abbr. GEN or Gen or Gen. A commissioned rank in the U.S. Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps that is above lieutenant general.
b) One who holds this rank or a similar rank in another military organization
I think we can safely say there is sufficient leeway in the usage for its applicability when not referring to the US Army to convey the concept the title is attempting to convey via analogy--Tigeroo 12:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad as a general" is the correct name of this article, he did very little fighting of his own, and i have read that he only killed one single man in combat. --Striver 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Muhammad as a general" works for me as well. Anything else is going to be pedantic and long. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
agree per above. general is succint and its non-specific usage is synonymous with "military commander". ITAQALLAH 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad as a warmonger

I would suggest that an appropriate and succinct title as described in the header. 71.61.180.31 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Property in Mecca

It is obvious that the pagans did not steal the property of the Muslims left in Mecca. It is made clear by no less than four hadith in the Sahih Bukhari alone. To quote just one:

"Volume 5, Book 59, Number 572:
Narrated 'Ali:
Allah's Apostle sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad saying, "Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh where there is a lady carrying a letter, and take that (letter) from her." So we proceeded on our way with our horses galloping till we reached the Rawda, and there we found the lady and said to her, "Take out the letter." She said, "I have no letter." We said, "Take out the letter, or else we will take off your clothes." So she took it out of her braid, and we brought the letter to Allah's Apostle . The letter was addressed from Hatib, bin Abi Balta'a to some pagans of Mecca, telling them about what Allah's Apostle intended to do. Allah's Apostle said, "O Hatib! What is this?" Hatib replied, "O Allah's Apostle! Do not make a hasty decision about me. I was a person not belonging to Quraish but I was an ally to them from outside and had no blood relation with them, and all the Emigrants who were with you, have got their kinsmen (in Mecca) who can protect their families and properties. So I liked to do them a favor so that they might protect my relatives as I have no blood relation with them. I did not do this to renegade from my religion (i.e. Islam) nor did I do it to choose Heathenism after Islam." Allah's Apostle said to his companions." As regards him, he (i.e. Hatib) has told you the truth." 'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite!" The Prophet said, "He (i.e. Hatib) has witnessed the Badr battle (i.e. fought in it) and what could tell you, perhaps Allah looked at those who witnessed Badr and said, "O the people of Badr (i.e. Badr Muslim warriors), do what you like, for I have forgiven you. "Then Allah revealed the Sura:--
"O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you ....(to the end of Verse)....(And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray (away) from the Straight Path." "

So every single one of the Muslims in Medina had kin to protect their property and kin in Mecca except this one man. Notice that this is after the Battle of Badr as well. So the claim is simply modern Muslim apologetics. Lao Wai 11:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against because they have been wronged -truly Allah has the power to come to their support- those who were expelled from their homes without any right, merely for saying, 'Our Lord is Allah'..." (Qur'an, 22:39-40)

That was the ayah that granted permission, numerous accounts exist of people asking for permission to fight, and just because some of the more powerful emigrants could rely on family ties does not mean that it worked or that all did. Permission was asked on multiple occassions by those wronged who were just advised to be patient before finally being given, did you wonder why people were asking for the permission to fight the Meccans? Thats why secondary sources are more important than primary sources, because they contextualize and evaluate primary sources in the light of all other primary sources, that can at times be conflicting. It's not just simply modern muslim apologeticism. Read this page which is an extract although slightly POV from a book which details some of the lead up and captures the contexts.--Tigeroo 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that just the more powerful ones could. It says that every single one of them but one could. Do you have a primary source that would contradict the aHadith or explain why they are wrong? I do not know why they were asking for permission, but it is clear at first they were not given it - thus proving the Meccans had not stolen their property. No secondary sources are not more important than primary sources. That is a-historic and un-encyclopedic. There is no question here of "contextualizing" anything (and by that I assume you mean apologism). What other primary material suggests that the aHadith are wrong? You point me to a Muslim dawa site as evidence? Come on. There is no context here to capture. The claim that the Meccans took their property is utterly unsourced and probably not true. The claim that the kin of every single Muslim but one protected their property is not only sourced, it is sourced four times and in the most authentic Islamic literature available. So it is four excellent sources for my claim. Nothing for yours. Why should your version prevail? Lao Wai 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
poor secondary sources are far superior to unfounded, erroneous and "un-encyclopedic" original research. to further tigeroo's claim cf. raheeq al-makhtoom, (based on the sira of ibn hisham), page 251, or alternatively here[4]. please find a decent secondary source for your claims before continuously reverting. thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am doing no original research whatsoever. I am asserting what the primary evidence says. It is neither unfounded or erroneous - or at least you have not shown it to be so. Explain to me what you think Bukhari got it wrong. Again you point me towards a Dawa site and a Dawa book - neither of which, as far as I can see, provides a single piece of proof whatsoever. Primary sources are always better than secondary sources. I know of no primary material that makes your claim whatsoever. You simply have no evidence that the property was seized, you have no argument, and Wikipedia needs to be right. If you provide an argument or some evidence I would be happy to listen. But you have not even bothered to explain to me why Ali and three other narrators and Bukhari were wrong. Why do you think they were? Lao Wai 14:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
i think you should go back and review some basic WP policies, such as WP:OR. what you are trying to deduce is your own (inaccurate, might i say, one example being that it says ".. kinsmen who can protect ...", not necessarily that they did) original research. your own personal findings are simply not good enough for WP. you cannot dismiss a notable, peer-reviewed, scholarly book published by recognised institutions as a mere "Dawa book". find a secondary source which supports your claim, it shouldn't be too difficult if your view is plausible. ITAQALLAH 14:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just done so and I am still not doing Original Research. To quote
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say.
Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.
I have cited my source - the Sahih Bukhari. It is reliable - unless of course you think it is not in which case could you please say so? It is directly related to the topic at hand. I have adhered absolutely to the source material adding not one word. I am utterly neutral in my point of view. It is utterly verifiable - you must have a copy of the Sahih Bukhari. Pick it up.
You are not going to quibble over that "can" are you? Four hadiths mention this in the Sahih Bukhari alone. The other three are,
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 251: I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property.
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 314: (The reason for writing this letter was) that there is none of your companions but has relatives in Mecca who look after their families and property, while I have nobody there,
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 412: I am an Ansari man and do not belong to them (Quraish infidels) while the emigrants who were with you had their relatives who used to protect their families and properties at Mecca.
In other words their relatives did or the entire Hadith fails to make sense. I am doing no Original Research whatsoever. I am quoting a primary source. Nothing more. It is not my personal finding. Which book is "a notable, peer-reviewed, scholarly book published by recognised institutions"? All you have quoted me is some obscure book published by an Islamic religious organisation in Pakistan - you have not even given me a page number. Give me a proper reference and I'll look it up - but I need page numbers. Secondary sources are not as good as primary ones. I have all the primary sources cited here. You have none. I do not see the need to look anything up. You should provide a shred of primary material that supports your case or a credible reason why Bukhari was wrong. We both know Bukhari cannot be wrong so please humor me and explain to me why he is this time. Lao Wai 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sahih Bukhari is a primary source, even Muslim theologians do not ascribe to the concept that all his reports are sounds and correct, with validating them. See thats the problem with primary sources, you don't relly know what historians have said or how they have dealth with them. The book is an online version, and has been peer-revied by Anne-Marie Schimmel who is not some obscure but a rather prominent person. Regardles i did mention it is a bit biased, however the point was to illustrate, it was the only one i could find at short notice discussing in greater detail the whole prelude to the permission to war.--Tigeroo 21:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What Muslim theologians think of Bukhari is irrelevant although it would be an interesting discussion to work out just what they think is Sahih and what is not. What is relevant is that no one I know thinks that any piece of secondary literature out of some obscure Pakistani Madrassa is anywhere near as credible as Bukahri. The reason primary sources are primary is precisely because historians have not distorted them. I am pleased that Dr Schimmel has read it, but primary materials in an encyclopedia takes precedence over secondary. How is it biased? If you have no evidence for your claim why did you revert my changes - prejudice? Lao Wai 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Bro, I am more credible than Bukhari, and that says more about Bukhari than about me.--Striver 00:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Apart from 1300 years of Shia scholarship, what do you have to back up that claim about Bukhari? There is a lot of criticism of aHadith in the West, although I would guess you do not agree with that, but it is not important. Why would Bukhari include this if he did not think it was true and at least plausible? Lao Wai 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What i meant is that i view al-Bukhari as totaly biased and wholy unreliable in maters of differentiating a Sahih from a fabricated hadith. I just said that since you implied that all Muslims accept Bukharis work.

The hadith quoted probably refered some having tribal protection and thus having their belonging protected.

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 412: I am an Ansari man and do not belong to them (Quraish infidels) while the emigrants who were with you had their relatives who used to protect their families and properties at Mecca.

Futher, keep in mind that Shi'a do not accept any hadith as authentic just cuz al-Bukhari said so. --Striver 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Man, what i wrote did no sense... forget what i just wrote... --Striver 03:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to ignore that if you want. I will not even point out what Ansari means. Lao Wai 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets put it this way: If Muhammad (pbuh) had to fleed do to a conspiracy on his life, i have a hard time beliving that they respected his belongings, specialy considering that they physicaly attacked them before the migration to Medina. --Striver 03:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If. It may be the case that the only problem that the Meccans had was with Muhammed. So what happened to his belongings, if he had any at that time, is one thing. The other Muslims would still have had clans men and for thirteen years Muhammed's clansmen protected him even though he insulted their gods. I do not have a hard time imagining that the clan protected their own even if they had become Muslims. Why else would Bukhari say it? Four times. Lao Wai 21:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if you were right, that most surely changed when they started killing eachother at Badr. --Striver 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about this before but I gotta say Lao Wai has a good point here.Opiner 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

To reply to two in one: Oh go on, you know you want to say it! Deep down. I'm flattered in an odd but genuine sort of way. You would think that would have changed after Badr - although these aHadith say not - but that is not the point. By then they were fighting. That does not say why the fighting started. Lao Wai 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Could it not just as well mean that their larger families, such as grandparents and cousins were protected by the non-Muslim people in Mecca, obviously all of them non-Muslim and not threatened by Meccans, while the Muslims privat properties had already been confiscated by either the hostily Meccans or their clan whom they left? I mean, the guy that said that line risked being caught with high treason, and i have a hard beliving he risk it to secure privat property he once decided to abandon. Comments? --Striver 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, if you don't understand that Bukhari collated reports 150 years after the fact, in a at attempt to protect the traditional reports from forgeries you are missing the boat. A lot of people spent a lot of time both today and way back when sorting and sifting through it. It is not modern scholars who have worked over Bukhari either, That is is the entire basis of the difference between schools of though within islam, wether they are Sunni or shia, and is dates back to before bukhari began his compilations. Read up on the history of the hadith and even the article primary sources to understand why primary sources have problems. Making inferences from primary sources is also original research.
As for the other event, the hijrah was not the first migration from persecution, there were earlier ones by weaker sections of society earlier as well, this one is special because this was when the prophet migrated. If you think protection made you immune, read up on the Year of sorrow and the death of his Uncle, while they were relative "safe" earlier, the migration was triggered because they were no longer "as" safe, and lots of other things are occuring both in the background and the moment. Jus read through any of the books listed in the references below atleast, they belong to some white guys sitting somewhere in some university somewhere.--Tigeroo 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
And it is some how better to collate reports 1400 years after the fact? I am not making any inferences from primary material. I am quoting it. Directly. This is what the primary material says. In the absence of any primary material that says otherwise I think you'll need more than a few white guys to help your argument. Do you have any primary material? How do they know that the property was taken? Lao Wai 14:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You are not quoting it in the article you are making inferences and analysing and then extrapolating what it means. Mr. Madrasa was doing the same from the primary sources he quoted. Except he is allowed to in his book, you are not allowed to in wikipedia but may in a book of your own. Bukhair himself is a secondary source, and there are numerous contemporaries who peer reviewed him and he did not pass unschated. Technically Bukhari is not a primary source but a secondary one. Today historians generally analyse his reports in light of the comments and categories that his historical contemporaries annotated to his text after a critical analysis. Do you know why he made it a point to record the entire chain of narration for each report? The chain is meaningless to us today, but it meant something during his era and detailed commentaries exist on those, does your version even have the chain of narration that he attached to his reports?? You are better off leaving the analysis to people who know a lot more about the source before they use it, and stick to sourcing analyses and interpertations of information from peer-reviewed sources. Pick up a newspaper and see how many nuances are missed from any report. Read also WP:OR to understand better why wikipedia chooses to go this route.--Tigeroo 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I am happy to quote it directly. I am making no inference whatsoever and I challenge you to point out one. It simply says what it says and I say no more. How do you know what Mr Madrassa did? What were his primary sources? Actually it is debateable whether Bukhari is a primary or secondary source, but let's avoid that argument and agree he is a lot more credible than some guy in a Madrassa. He has come off fairly unscathed by that criticism. I admit the Shia were not happy with him, but acceptance of the entire Sahih Bukhari has long been a mark of Sunni scholarship. I agree that Western scholars are inclined to criticise him and Muslims of various stripes do as well. But in the utter and total absense of any other primary materials that would even suggest he was wrong about this, on what grounds can you reject it? The isnad is not meaningless to a lot of people today as dubious as some of them are. You are welcome to look it up if you like - the fact that it is in the Sahih Bukhari suggests it is Sahih don't you think? I am still not doing any OR whatever. Lao Wai 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Uh he did not come off unscathed, thats why scholars of his time did not just pick up anything in his book and use it as fact. It is a basic disclaimer that has come with the book from way back when. It is not a just a Sunni, Shia thing, shia reject it because of the methodology employed in its compilation i.e criteria for rejecting accounts as well as their disbeleif in a POV rendition of accounts by some of the sources included. Sunni's have themselves classified his various of accounts ranging from ranging from forgeries to strong.-Tigeroo 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I tend to think that is just what Muslims have traditionally done - whatever Bukhari has said has been taken as a cornerstone of Islamic law. Of course Bukhari did not talk to God, but his work is hardly challenged in the Sunni tradition. Shia have reason to reject Bukhari of course. All Hadith get so classified, but there is no reason to think anyone could do a better job than Bukhari although, of course, the isnad is criticised over time and improved. Given the utter lack of any other primary material there is no reason to revert that change. Lao Wai 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Be surprised then because that is not so, the whole point of the classification is to evaluate their worthiness, especially when it comes to making such important deductions as in Islamic theology. --Tigeroo 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bukhari did not even make the assumptions that you are doing from his accounts so can't quote thats what he did, look at the name and grouping those are attached with, that was not even what he was arranging them topically by, so if you say are inferring from those that all the emigrees had property protected you are doing OR. It is called Sahih, Mr. Madrassa has quoted the hadith he is referring to as well. Anyway about the edits: -Tigeroo 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you know what Bukhari did? Quote him to that effect. I am not infering anything. I am quoting the aHadith which say, openly and clearly, all but one man had their property protected. No OR involved. Which Hadith did Mr Madrassa quote? What is his evidence? Lao Wai 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Volume 6 Book 60 Number 412: The Ansar is arguing that he was spying on Muhammad to gain protection for his family / relatives there. Notice he speaks in the past tense in this translation and not the present in yours. When referring to Muhammads and his emigrees protection, "..while the emigrants who were with you had their relatives who used to protect their families and properties at Mecca. So, to compensate for not having blood relation with them."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 251: I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property.

Two out of those three references have him speaking in the past tense, referral to himself also in the past tense shows his actions began at some point in the past to avail his own dependents some protection as well. Nothing in it implies anything about the effectiveness of such protection or necessarily mean all had access to such protection either, the ambiguity in his defensive statement for it's exactness is also clear if you just look at Bilal who was also an emigree and an ex-slave, who had no kin who were able to protect him. If you had powerful kin, it is probable your property was safe, except for the fact that you had to have had abandoned it and lived on the charity and good-will of the Ansar. (Foster-brothers, foster homes), but if you were not powerful your kin could have also appropiated it. Too many possibile vagaries, you cannot draw the inference you have done in light of the change that necessitated a migration itself, the concept there was required a permission to fight, which gives a context of conflict and dispossession, then there are the quotes in Mr. Bawas book.--Tigeroo 20:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


1)The text referred to says they were seeking permission to war in the face of provocations. 2)They in the first sentence of a paragraph?? 3)See 1 for the quote referenced for the taken, I don't see any reference that disputes that, if you have one note it also. 4)raiding for profit, left it as fact tagged until sourced, it is a well known enough fact to have one, plus read the books before making edits that remove referenced material. 5)Battle of the Trench, fixing sentences to flow from one to the other 6)See 4, why did you change it to relatively large, can you source that? My contemporary standards all these battles were puny, and even by arab standards of previous battles, the hudaybah force was small. --Tigeroo 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well by the standards of previous battles, 1600 is huge. Arabia had really only seen camel raids before that. Lao Wai 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Tigeroo watching you I notice when a very well known fact, like Qur'an tells Muhammad alone he can have unlimited wives which you obviously know, you revert it and say, the original research. Even though its true and we agree its true you say, too bad you need a source. But when someone disputes thing you like in the article you say 'everyone knows this!' even though its being disputed and fight to keep it or say now, 'leave it with fact tag.' It makes it harder to assume youre arguing in good faith!Opiner 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bring it up on the appropiate talk page, and I will address you there. For Lao, At any rate here is an example of OR [5] it's acceptable for ones personal page that someone else has carried. He can't input stuff like that here however.--Tigeroo 13:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am still not doing any OR whatsoever and no matter how many times you attempt to smear what I have done, it will not become any more Original or any more Research. Lao Wai 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo is trying to use www.witness-pioneer.org for source.Opiner 20:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo your source calls Muhammad The prophet(pbuh), cant possibly be considered reliable scholarly source!Opiner 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not using the site, just a reference to an online version of a book already in print for quick reference, the book is mentioned at the bottom of the article. The sources don't have to neutral, even all the hadith use honorifics in respect to Muhammad, NPOV does not even require neutrality, just representation of all POVs. Please re-read wiki policy Wikipedia:Notability (books). All books are by nature angled at a certain POV. You are welcome to add POVs to restore balance to the article if you think it is leaning too much to one side. Scholary is not limited to western academic. I do however realize the slant of the book and that is a fact reflected in my usage of it in the wiki.--Tigeroo 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No its not limited to western academic but academic would be good. Instead of religious tracts which begin with unalterable conviction then explain away inconvenient facts which seem to contradict it, instead of discover a truth wherever it takes them. If youre not using the site then why are we linking to it? This site shouldnt be in article.Opiner 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

From 'Islamic prophet' on this article is a hatchet job against Jews and Meccans.Opiner 10:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Got any specific instances to begin working on? Or citations for a different POV so we can fix it, the article has a fair few flaws as it stands.--Tigeroo 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure a minor one to start, the alleged offenses againsst the Muslims. Sources are Islamic and tell only one side of the story, so are probably not neutral. Even best systems of justice sometimes get innocent people for different reasons. To say all that wouldd be original research but we should still have a little skepticalism toward one-sided source even if it seem a little arbitrary like allegedly.

Examplle, and this really happen in many places, group of natives are decimated by European colonials, life culture or both. Source says, we did this because they were savages who kept attacking us for no reason and raping and cannibalizing our babies. Even though source says, raped and cannibalized babies, without allegedly, we still should say allegedly. Because we know its onlyy one side of story and we KNOW people arent usually neutral when justifying their owwn actions. Who knows what Meccans would say, maybe VERY different. I dont think that counts as original research, the source is alleging it and thats verifiable.Opiner 20:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok find a source that presents that end and we can quote it as well.--Tigeroo 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

another example, Uhud was a battle started purely by the Meccans for retaliation to their military loss in Badr. ??? Sounds pretty POV to me! If you can tell which side article takes, its not neutral! And no sources!Opiner 01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't read any of the books that form the reference material from which this article was primarily derived.--Tigeroo 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

INtroduction says Muhammad is prophet of Islam! Most people do NOT believe Muhammad was prophet or theyd be Muslims right? Many people think Muhammad was the creator and founder of Islam. Calling him prophet is Muslim POV.Opiner 01:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Right thats why he was a prophet Islam and not of other people, only those who follow Islam call him their prophet. President of Country X etc is not POV it's an informative stated fact.--Tigeroo 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No because many people dont think he was prophet at all nnot even Islamic prophet, only very poetic ideologue. Some people dont think there is even such thing as a prophet who gets words from God. Muhammad said he was prophet, fact. Muslims believe him, fact. IS prophet of anything? POV. Or Muhammad creator of Islam. That's POV? Same reason.Opiner 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" equates belonging to or of the religion of Islam, religions are by definition sets of beleifs. Islamic prophet means simply that he is a prophet in the beleif system of Islam. That is also his primary identifier, titular authority, role or whatever that lends him ability to become what he is. It is attributed POV, that is acceptable. Basically even a king just a human being, etc. but because he is a king is a notable fact it is mentioned, ofcourse there are many kings so you must identify of what. Creator is also a POV, synthesiser is also a POV, borrower is also a POV, but what is the purpose of these do they highlight under what context he was was important or had historical influence?--Tigeroo 12:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It is acceptable if you say he is a prophet to Muslims or Muslims think he is a prophet. It is obviously POV to claim he is a prophet. Lao Wai 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Tigeroo sure they highlight it, but from a different POV. Muhammad, 'founder of Islam', isnt less but much MORE clear than 'prophet of Islam' on his importance and historical impact. Noah was prophet of Islam too right? Its just that you wont like its POV. You are putting up your own POV, prophet of Islam, now rationalizing it as to why its okay or maybe even not POV.
King is a false analogy, everyone believes there are kings and except for disputes of rightful succession there is no debate who is really the king of a place, whether or not you like him. Please stop arguing like a lawyer to keep your POV. It will help if you can admit that you have one and accept that other people have different ones which have to be considered. Then compromise for neutral language instead of edit warring. Every page I go to you are always there reverting everything which isnt Muslim POV with allo kinds of reasons.Opiner 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry his official title was "Rasulallah" used on seals and what he was addressed by. Meaning "messenger of god" or also translated as prophet. It was a theocracy, what do you except the titular heads to be but religious terms.--Tigeroo 21:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Good, now we are rooting in in real world. How about Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic state or 'messenger of God', ? Thats fact that they called him that.Opiner 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow that at all there are numerous instances of him being called the prophet of Islam or Islamic in the real world and "scholarly" sources. Sure he was a lot of thins, but all that only flowed from theocratic authority, if you have to identify him with one item out of 5, use the root. As you can see from the dictionary definition below there is no contradiction between founder and prophet, prophet gives you the nuance of his authority that founder does not, founders don't have to prophets they could term be gods. Remember the term prophet by definition needs to be qualified by a frame of reference, aka of what religion.

prophet [6]

noun (fem. prophetess) 1 an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God. 2 a person who predicts the future. 3 a person who advocates a new belief or theory.

--Tigeroo 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Look at first definition. Thats the main one and also one which is coincidentally your POV. Last is only metaphor.Opiner 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary doesn't write it as a metaphor but as a definition based on a common usage.--Tigeroo 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Do we know how many people did Muhawmud kill? Kill directly by his own sword? Kill as a general in military conquest? Kill by decree? We could use some statistics, I think. Opinions?DocEss 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Less than either of the George Bush's and always just as idelogically charged, both populations and military forces were generally small during his time they became larger later also it's much harder to make such estimates on historical events though it would probably be a better informed on than say something like the Sassanid Hepthalite war a even a century earlier.--Tigeroo 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I thank you for your response, even though I don't really understand what you're getting at. It's just a math question, so I don't require any editorial commentary. I really wanted some numbers --- how many deprated souls are on Mohammed's account? DocEss 21:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It depends, first on what you attribute to his accout, what events you accept as historical and what numbers you accept from the narrations. Numbers range from single digits to billions through the ages, there are plenty of polemical sites from both fringes exploring those numbers across the net.--Tigeroo 23:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The total number of casualties in all of Muhammd's wars, including the Jewish tribes, is less than 1600. I don't remeber the source. --Striver 12:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
As I ponder these responses whilst I scratch my head, I wonder if anyone else can offer up an answer. Let's face it: "billions through the ages" is as silly response as "1600 but I have no source." What I want to know is: how many people did Mohamud kill? Kill directly by his own sword? Kill as a general in military conquest? Kill by decree? In other words, while he was alive and directly attibutable to him.DocEss 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Kill directly by his own sword: one. Kill as a general in military conquest: more than 1000, less than 2000. Kill by decree: less than 20, if im not wrong, and then add Banu Quraiza. Don't take my word for granted, its all from the top of my head. --Striver 15:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword

How did the person who added the sword to the article reach the conclusion that the sword is Muhammad's? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

dunno.. the image is currently unsourced and so there is no way we can certify that the image is truly licensed under GFDL.. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sealed Nonsense

This book is not a work of history nor is it written by a historian. It must be excised. The tag will stay until this is accomplished. Arrow740 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that such a reason warrants such a tag, nor can you unilaterally draw such a distinction upon an article, this is not your soapbox to set down rules for others to follow. Can you found your opinion on something concrete? He is a valid source for use in this article, and has even referenced his work to various historical sources. Can you raise references to corraborate your claim, else you will need to stand down because there are plenty that do the opposite. Historians don't have to be either secular or posses western academic degrees. His sources are the same upon which all "historians" draw their inferences from, infact his sources are even more extensive since he had access to many yet untranslated works and worked with them in the original. Wikipedia can easily be NPOV by using him, if that is your concern. That is a different matter entirely.--Tigeroo 13:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
i agree completely. ITAQALLAH 14:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"Historians don't have to be either secular or posses western academic degrees." What do they have to be? I am disappointed that you people fight tooth and nail for this fairy tale to be viewed as history while protesting that Bat Ye'or can't be used as a historian. Her sourcing is extremely thorough, as well. Ibn Hisham's biography of Muhammad is not fact. If this debate is going to continue I'll make a list of quotes from your "work of history." Arrow740 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Mubarakpuri is a trained Islamic scholar who has worked in the sira department of the Islamic University of Medina, compiling all related authentic reports relating to the biography of Muhammad, whose work is furthermore endorsed by the same university. ITAQALLAH 23:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you knwo where I can get more info about this guy?Bless sins 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

The merge discussion can be viewed at Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat.--Sefringle 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Prehaps is would be better to merge some of this material into Islamic military jurisprudence?--Sefringle 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)