Talk:Satanic Verses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Satanic Verses article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Comment

68.4.99.122 is rewriting the article and inserting factual errors, such as Rusdie invented "Satanic Verses" in 70s. Rusdie's book came out in 1988. The phrase "Satanic Verses" was invented much earlier by Muir. And don't remove all the links and external links. OneGuy 12:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rusdie's book was a novel. The book says nothing about the Qur'an. Even though he got the name from Muir, the novel itself doesn't have anything about the incident reported by Tabari. Please don't add factual errors in the article. Before you rewrite something, make sure you at least know what you are talking about. Your rewrite reads like apologetics. OneGuy

[edit] Zora Edits

68.4.99.122 made the article apologetic and now Zora completely removed the Muslim response and presents the story as a fact. Muslims reject the story because they believe the story is provably false (as three reasons were given) and is invented by munafiqoon. If Ibn Ishaq and Tabari reported the story, that doesn't mean they believed the story to be true. Tabari (where this story comes from -- not Ibn Ishaq. We don't have manuscript of Ibn Ishaq that survives) for example clearly states that he is reporting all stories in his book that he heard from others, regardless of whether he thinks the stories are true or false.

She also added another speculation that Khomeini ordered fatwa against Rushdie because the title of book is Satanic Verses, even though Rushdie's book has no argument about the incident. Why did Khomeini order the fatwa? Because the book supposedly slanders Muhammad and his wives by using vulgar language, not because the title of the book is Satanic Verses OneGuy 07:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OneGuy reverts to Muslim apologetics

I am extremely upset that you chose to censor all the work that I put into the article and revert to the previous POV version.

How is that Ibn Ishaq is a paragon of truth when it comes to writing the biography of Muhammad except when he says something disagreeable? I myself am not sure that the story is true, given my doubts about the oral tradition, but throwing it out JUST BECAUSE you don't like it is the opposite of real scholarship. Zora 08:26, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The question is not about my liking or disliking the story. I also reverted the POV by 68.4.99.122 until he at least tried to fix some of the problem. You jumped into the middle of what 68.4.99.122 was doing and entirely removed everything added by 68.4.99.122 and why Muslims don't believe the story. You made the article even more anti-Islamic POV, especially by adding false assertion about Khomeini and Salman Rushdie. The question is not whether Ibn Ishaq (or better name would be Tabari and Wakidi and other Islamic sources) reported the story. No one doubts the story is reported by Islamic sources. The question is whether this incident really happened or was it considered by Ibn Ishaq or Tabari as an invention by the Meccans and other enemies of Muhammad at that time of Muhammad? You need to rewrite the article instead of inserting anti-Islamic POVs. You need to clearly state why Muslims believe the story is an invention by the Meccans or enemies of Muhammad. You can also add the counter argument by anti-Islamic sources if you want .. but don't make the article one-sided POV OneGuy 12:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me repeat it clearly once again since Zora thinks that I am some kind of Muslim apologist and that's why I reverted her edits. Zora apparently doesn't even understand the issue of Satanic Verses. Yes, the story is clearly reported by at least Tabari and Wakidi. However, did Tabari think the story was an invention by the Meccans and other enemies of Muhammad or did the verse really was a part of the Qur'an and latter removed? That's the question. The question is not to selectively discard the story because you don't like it. Islamic scholars believe that this is a true story but was invented by the Meccans. Then they give reasons why they think this true story couldn't have happened and must have been an invention by the Meccans and reported truthfully by say Tabari. Your article didn't make that part clear. Don't start insulting me that I am a closet Muslim apologist and that's why I am censoring you, when you don't even understand Islamic argument. Revise it. Add pro and con arguments, but aleast present the Islamic argument, instead of making it one-sided incomplete POV article. OneGuy 13:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I revised Zora's otherwise good revision myself. Now the article is NPOV -- unless you have something more to add here OneGuy 14:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where does it say that?

This article says: "Since the Qur'an explicitly states that Muhammad is human and fallible..." Where does the Qu'ran say that?--Josiah 20:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the same surah najm in the third verse the quran days "wa ma yantiqu anil hawa in huwa illa wahyun yuha" he does not speak of his own will it is but a revalation (wahy"

In number of places the qur'an explicitly says that Muhammad is only a human. And the hadith is very clear on that, for example:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/030.smt.html
Sahih Muslim, Book 30: Book 030, Number 5831:
... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to Medina and the people had been grafting the trees. He said: What are you doing? They said: We are grafting them, whereupon he said: It may perhaps be good for you if you do not do that, so they abandoned this practice (and the date-palms) began to yield less fruit. They made a mention of it (to the Holy Prophet), whereupon he said: I am a human being, so when I command you about a thing pertaining to religion, do accept it, and when I command you about a thing out of my personal opinion, keep it in mind that I am a human being
So here is a clear example in hadith here Muhammad admits he was wrong and is fallible on nonreligious topics. OneGuy 02:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks.--Josiah 00:38, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
Shi'a Muslims assert the infallibility of the prophet and maintain that the Qur'an neither explicitly states nor implies the prophet's fallibility (being human does not necessitate fallibility) but infact advocates his infallibility (e.g. 33:33). They regard hadith that claim otherwise as weak since they contravene the first rule of hadith verification which is aggreement with the Qur'an. Leo Africanus 00:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You are right about Shi'a belief, but what I wrote above was also correct about Sunni belief. I checked 33:33; It says:
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. 033.033
It's just an interpretation that this verse means "infallibility." The verse says no such thing OneGuy 08:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The belief in the infallibility of the Prophet (S) has roots in sunni traditionalist belief. It was never intended to expand to all aspects of his life, but rather to his interprative power of the Divine law. After all, if he was the last Prophet of God, and the last source of religious guidance to all the universe, it wouldn't do for him to leave a permanently lasting incorrect line in God's book now would it. Yes, i know this isn't definitive proof on the topic, but you asked as to where people get it and this is where they get it - 600 years of theological discussion. 128.164.158.3 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)AHMAD

[edit] Who fabricated the story?

Why did you remove that sentence "by the Meccans and other enemies of Muhammad"? I have seen Watt and Muir argue that the story could not have been a fabrication because no Muslim would fabricate a story like that. They missed the point that enemies of Muhammad could have fabricated the story, and the story kept circulating orally among few people (including Muslims who didn't know the facts) till it was recorded by Ibn Ishaq OneGuy 18:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you really want it, let's leave it. Zora 19:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pruned external links

I believe it was an anon editor who added the two "sunrisinginwest" links, which I pruned, as more hortatory than informative. The link to the Rushdie site was really off-topic for THIS Satanic verses article; it belongs to the Satanic verses (novel) article. Zora 09:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's edit

An anon made an edit in the "critics say" section, asserting that all religion was shaped by history rather than being divine revelation.

I'm not sure that everyone who believe that Muhammad could wobble in his monotheism would share those views. There might be Christians who believe in divine revelation, but just don't believe that Muhammad had it. The addition is just too POV and argumentative, so I took it out. Sorry. Zora 10:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] POV Neo-Con Propaganda

Just to say that these references in the article are from a transparently neo-con propaganda sheet:

Daniel Pipes: The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West (1990), Transaction Publishers, (2003), with a postscript by Koenraad Elst. ISBN 0-7658-0996-6
Elst, Koenraad: The Rushdie Rules Middle East Quarterly, June 1998

The 'Middle East Quarterly' is explicitly (says so on title page) written to promote American and Zionist interests in the Middle East and includes articles praising Rumpsfeld, Bush, the American invasion of Iraq and the Israeli attack on Lebanon.

For the benifit of any neo-cons reading this it is as well to say that Rushdie is a liberal-leftie and does not support American imperialism in the Middle East:

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/5934/1/236

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/10ajp.htm?q=np&file=.htm

Colin4C 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hapax Legomena

I removed the hapax legomena, since gharaniq is not one. One search on www.alwaraq.com yields 195 results for this term. Seems that someone tried to mystify the article a little bit. I replaced it with "unclear in this context" since it is rather obscure. Someone added it again, but this is definitely faulty.

[edit] Arabic title

I've removed the Arabic title of the book. That information would be appropriate in the general article on the phenomenon of the contested Qu'ranic passages, but here it serves little purpose. And the place where the book really made waves (in getting its author sentenced to death) was Persian-speaking. CRCulver 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected Talk page

Hello The talk page for The Satanic Verses the novel has been redirected to the talk page for Satanic Verses the expression. Could someone fix this Jask99 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Now you can start a discussion on its talk page. --BorgQueen 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I want to thank Matticus78 and NawlinWiki for catching my stupid mistake (starting a duplicate article). I don't know how I missed finding the article. A disamguation page might be nice --BoogaLouie 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed Disambiguation page

There is now a Satanic Verses article on the Quranic ayat issue, a The Satanic Verses article on the Rushdie novel and an The Satanic Verses controversy article on the fatwa against the novel and related issues.

I propose creating a Disambiguation page, which will mean I think changing the article on the novel back to Satanic Verses (novel) --BoogaLouie 17:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the disambiguation page. I doubt most people think of this article (or are even interested in this article), when they think of "Satanic Verses".Vice regent 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caetani

while i haven't found much in terms of Caetani's actual qualifications, i have found that he is well known in the academic, scholarly community; and his work is abundantly cited and reviewed by scholars and academic journals.

here's a sample of what i found:

  • Review of "L'Islam: Manuale delle Credenze ed Istituzioni Musulmane." - originally written by Henri Lammens, translated by Ruggiero Ruggieri; Henri Lammens (Journal of the Royal African Society)Vol. 29, No. 113 (Oct., 1929), p. 108: "This is the Italian translation of a work by Father Lammens, of the University of St. Joseph, Beirut. This learned Jesuit, one of the first Arabic scholars of the day, may be said to share with Prince Leone Caetani the primacy in Islamic studies, so far as Italy is concerned."
  • there appear to be numerous academic works mainly reviewing Caetani's central and mammoth contribution: Annali dell' Islam, all of which contain lavish praise for Caetani and his work, for example (there are plenty of other reviews to be found):
    • H. Hirschfeld (The Jewish Quarterly Review. Vol. 17, No. 4 (Jul., 1905), pp. 808-809 )
    • G. le Strange (The English Historical Review. Vol. 22, No. 88 (Oct., 1907), pp. 772-773)
    • Richard Gottheil, who reviews a follow up to Annali entitled "Chronographia Islamica", again, containing nothing but praise for Caetani. (The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jan., 1914), pp. 145-147)
  • Franz Rosenthal describes him as a scholar in "From Arabic Books and Manuscripts III: The Author of the Ġurar as-siyar" (Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 70, No. 3 (Jul., 1950), pp. 181-182)
  • there are also a plethora of academic works citing Caetani's substantial work (for example, The Social Organization of Mecca and the Origins of Islam, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter, 1951), pp. 329-356 ), as demonstrated by a JSTOR and google book searches. this is only supposed to be a brief sample, so i'm not inclined to continue, you can find yet more affirmation of his scholarship and reknown in academia if you research on JSTOR. ITAQALLAH 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

as for removing Shahab's statement on the baseless premise that Rubin must know something he does not: Shahab, in his PhD dissertation on the chains, may have very well found another defect in whatever asanid Rubin thinks are complete i.e. the chain not being sahih in the first place. there is no reason to excise Shahab through the construction of a false dilemma. ITAQALLAH 23:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start adding the century-old scholars' opinions on the matter, we can do that. Arrow740 03:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the relevance of this discussion for the article? Beit Or 20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interpolated

I've changed the wording a little bit or clarity. "Interpolated" could be interpreted to mean that someone else changed the Qur'an after it was written. Arrow740 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations from Rubin

K that didn't go too well, lets try that again. First off I'd like to apologize for not being more specific in my summaries to my intentions or a little more consultive here a little sooner. I was not trying to lie if thats what it seemed to you but I thought my summary was clear and all encompassing of all the edits and I did not realize soon enough which piece you had a problem with. Now then, I would like very much if I could discuss my edits with an agreeable solution b/c I do believe there was problem with what I removed and I'll explain up next to start off.

  • The general reason I removed the quotes by Rubin is b/c they have no place in the section they were put in which was Traditional and Modern Islamic views. Those sections as their titles state are purely for what the Muslims in the Muslim world think, not commentary and criticism by non-Muslims about what they think about those views. If you want to do that, then you should first find Muslim authors who criticize Orientalist/Non-Muslim works in a similar manner, or you breach NPOV.
  • Just so you know, I just noticed that I kept removing only half of Rubin's citation b/c there were 2 given in the same area. If you think I was lying b/c of that, my apologies as I meant to remove all of Rubin's citation and so otherwise I would've moved both citations if I spotted the other.
  • The first piece by Rubin I removed I admit it was a little unjust to toss it out altogether b/c it does present a view of a modern non-Muslim scholar. Therefore, it should be placed with the rest of the views expressed by Rubin regarding the Satanic Verses underneath the appropriate topic which is for now "Academic view" where every other non-Muslim authors views and critiques are placed.
  • The second piece by Rubin I removed b/c it is an obvious breach of NPOV. In addition to what I said in my first point regarding this, he is just labeling another author as he sees fit to describe him which is something that has no place in wiki if it wants to remain NPOV.
  • As I stated in my summary definitely most clearly, calling non-Muslim historians "Academic view" degrades the views of Muslims who also study the field and to put it bluntly makes them seem like idiots to some degree. This problem has occurred on several pages btw, its not the first time. Thats why I chose "Western view" as pretty much all the non-Muslim scholars are Western but if thats too politically incorrect, I suggest something like "Non-Muslim view" can do the trick just fine too.
  • Again as I stated in my summary (though maybe not as clear here), I added the detail to Haykal's work b/c I wanted to elaborate the pieces of information he uses to give his argument and not that he just called the account "BS" from the get go just b/c he's Muslim and yes I read the section he dedicates to this topic in his book to know he does use them. The same thing is done for the non-Muslim authors whose views are given and elaborated upon like those of Rubin's for example.
  • I fixed the spelling of a word, don't know why you removed that o_O.

I hope that clears it up further, please explain your further dissatisfaction/disagreement with what I have to say before you change it again. I can't promise anything but if you do decide to change it back, I'll try and hold off a RV before we can get a compromise. Jedi Master MIK 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Responses to views should be placed next to those views for maximum usefulness of the article. Further the discussion of the isnad will not be chopped up. If you honestly have a problem with the section titles, maybe those can be changed. Arrow740 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is highly disingenuous of you to remove some things not directly connected to the headings and not others. I've changed the headings to better fit the text. Arrow740 08:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Arrow, I made some edits but they did not all deal with what we're disputing. In fact, I think you might agree with some of the edits b/c they will agree with some of the edits you did with the section titles. W/O necessary mention though, I still feel its not alright yet as I will discuss up next:
  • That would make sense if this was a page for arguments and debate. It is an encyclopedia however so when separately representing each sides views, that setup will not work.
  • If you want to do that though without changing the sections around, you must find Muslim critics of non-Muslim writings to put in the non-Muslim section views as well.
  • It is not chopping it up, it is showing the different views on the isnads by the proper parties as the sections are done so.
  • Pardon me but it looks as if you've worsened the problem with the headings.
  • You can't just explain the views of both parties but label one of the parties with a specific view name but label the other party's views with something totally unrepresentative of that
  • On top of that, you label the party views with a specific representative name in a glorifying manner. Muslims and some non-Muslims too who know those Muslims who have seriously studied Islam will consider them scholars too.
  • Therefore I suggest another alternative, "Muslim Scholars views" and "Non-Muslim Scholars views".
  • There is another alternative; you can break the sections up not into the different views but into the different issues being debated by the different Muslim and non-Muslim scholars so theres no segregation of thought.
I wait for your response. Jedi Master MIK 04:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Jedi Master MK's got the right idea on this, though I made a few style corrections. But perhaps it would be better to divide scholars by whether they believe the story is true or not, not by whether they're Muslim or non-Muslim; Muslim scholars may believe it's true, and non-Muslims may believe it's false, according to the text.--Cúchullain t/c 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear difference here between academics and apologists. The "recent history" title encompasses the modern apologetics (not that apologetics are necessarily bad) and the Rushdie book issue. Arrow740 05:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That difference can be very POV and AFAIK, yes the word "apologist" does have often negative implications as anyone can label anyone else defending/explaining an ideal as an apologist. If you're going to resort to labeling in that sort of light, one can label "Western Academics" quite easily as "Orientalists" as thats how they can clearly be defined otherwise and more specifically than just "Academics". Why don't we just name the section titles "Orientalist views" and "Apologist views"? B/C the terms in usage here give an air of POV and I don't want that and I hope nor do you. Finally, again changing it to "recent history" definitely makes the whole thing POV b/c you name the views of one group specifically but totally blow off the identifying of the other group. If the rushdie affair has nothing to do with the views of Muslims on this incident then take it out. Jedi Master MIK 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent rewordings

  • First, did you really think that I wouldn't notice that you duplicated something, then removed the instance of it in the appropiate place on the pretext that you were "going to remove repeated statement which appears later." Well, I noticed. Please at least provide an excuse for chopping up the isnad discussion. You removed the statement altogether; very sneaky, but I am paying attention.
  • Next, [1]. There is no need for attribution, as it is a statement of fact. "States" is completely accurate and neutral.
  • Provide a source for "in his treatise on naskh."
  • The "extant" implies "existing." An expert on the topic, Rubin, argues that there was another isnad. We won't say he's wrong; we'll keep it neutral. Arrow740 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • i don't know what you're talking about... i simply removed the same line you had pasted throughout the whole article. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • "states" cannot hide the fact that it is a theory with little supporting evidence. claims is more appropriate here. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • the EoQ article - it's in his al-nasikh wal-mansukh i believe. ITAQALLAH 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • and other experts on the topic don't make such an argument. implying the existence of other chains forwards a minority view, which does not have to be reflected in the rest of the prose. please also differentiate fact from opinion. what's wrong with "... the chains of transmission available for the narrative ..." which is virtually the same, with the implication less strongly expressed? ITAQALLAH 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You should read his book before you say there is little supporting evidence. No one contradicts him. Available is fine. Arrow740 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunate edits

Aminz, why did you add "(The precise wording varies with the different reports; there is also a report of a version of the verses as a pre-Islamic talbiya or ritual invocation of Quraysh[1])"? Are we to understand that Muhammad was chanting a pre-existing pagan invocation, or do you have another reason? Please explain reorganization here. As you can see, we are already discussing that at length. Attempting to ram through a reorganization when there is already an extensive discussion and adding obfuscatory sentences is bad editing. Arrow740 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you copy here what you want to add so it can be evaluated and then argue for your restructuring separately. Thanks. Arrow740 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my edits were unfortunate.
We are, in this section, following EoQ's summary of the incident among various sources. All I did here was to follow EoQ's summary: "These are the “satanic verses”: “Indeed they are the high cranes/the high maidens (al-gharānīq/al-gharāniqa l-ʿulā), and indeed their intercession is to be desired.” (The precise wording of the satanic verses varies with the different reports; a version of the satanic verses is also reported as a pre-Islamic talbiya or ritual invocation of Quraysh.)"
I added the "pagan invocation" bit, as EoQ does, as part of the summary of the range of SV-related material in the sources.
The main rearranging that was done was renaming the "views" section to "historicity" because that's what really all that is about. This historicity section now includes much of what was previously placed under "Transmission of the narrative". In the "western academic part", the additions I believe are all constructive and factual.
Now, please take a look at the new version and only revert the parts you really think need discussion. I won't certainly revert it back before any discussion takes place. Thanks. --Aminz 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Please try to keep the discussions unified. Rubin's work is discussed in it's own place, but the material from him regarding certain issues must still be placed in the places those issues are discussed. This ensures the fullest treatment. Arrow740 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I better understand more of your changes. Nevertheless, there are still present very disconcerting edits in the article central of which in the section for views is your titling the views of non-Muslim historians as "Academic Views" and the section including the views of Muslim scholars you name "Recent history", problem one being Muslim views are not clearly represented and problem two being non-Muslim views are glorified over Muslim ones. Stemming from that, to include commentary by a non-Muslim historian (i.e. Rubin) on other historians, particularly Muslim ones, is an incredible violation of NPOV, especially when the clear intent is to discredit those authors. Wikipedia has no place for such POV'd thinking. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the distinction to make is not between "Muslim Historian Views" and "Non-Muslim Historian Views". Muslim scholars may believe the story to be true, while non-Muslims may consider it not to be. On top of this, the wording and formating of your changes to the headers is wrong; I've reverted them.--Cúchullain t/c 06:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That is irrelevant here b/c that is not how the views in the views section are organized. There is a clear distinction in the section from where the Non-Muslim views are put and the Muslim views are put irregardless to what individual scholars in each group think. And I've already made clear the previous headers were blatantly POV and one-sided. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not at all clear that the headers are POV and one sided. If anything, they go out of their way not to make it seem as if there's only one view all Muslims or non-Muslims must follow. It's better to separate the information between scholars and the others (perhaps the "recent history" section could be titled to indicate most views therein are from Muslims; however, it is not fair to label the scholars as "non-Muslim" as if that's their defining trait.) If anything, you must come up with better titles than you have "(Non-)Muslim Historian Views" is not grammatical or particularly relevant, and the capitalizations do not accord with the manual of style. But perhaps it would be better to organize the information differently.--Cúchullain t/c 10:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If I was trying to implying that each side had their own separate view, I would have written view, not views. However I do write views b/c I know that there isn't set views for each group. However, as of right now if you bother to closely read the section, it is split up in this fashion of non-Muslim authors on top and Muslim authors below and so I'm titling it this way for that reason.
  • If you don't want a distinction, then the views of Muslims and non-Muslims should be placed in one big section entitled "Different Historian Views" or something of that nature and not separated in such an incorrect manner as you seem to express it is.
  • If you want to split up the views into those who agree with the story and those who don't, that would be great too, but I didn't come here for that sort of mass movement of information but you can do that if you want. What is wrong is switching back to the original which I don't know what I haven't explained previously to show it was POV; calling non-Muslims "Academics" and then just labeling Muslims as vaguely "Recent history" makes their views look worthless or un-educated. They are ALL historians and thats why I named them as such.
  • What I seriously don't understand is why you keep reverting the commentary a non-Muslim author, who believes the account, provides on a Muslim author's work, which denounces the account, in clear intention of discrediting his views and work and you don't even provide an explanation for that in your edit summary or here. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting your changes because of the issues I named above. First, the views in each section are not a singular "view", not all the scholars in the section believe the story is real. Second, it should not be "Historian Views" but "historians' view" or "views of historians" or something like that. Finally, the capitalization is wrong per the manual of style: the first word and proper nouns are capitalized; the others are not. I have not fixed this minor problem in your edits because your section titles are no good to start with. Finally the line in which Muir calls the Muhammad Husayn Haykal book "marked by apologetic motives" seems relevant, though I probably wouldn't have bothered with it if you didn't keep changing the section headers in such an undesirable way.--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
K now, numbers are helpful to work with. BTW, I was editing b/c of the issues I named above too:
  1. Yes I know that and I addressed that by saying that is why I put views instead of view.
  2. Ok then, great! Why don't you put that instead of reverting repeatedly back? When a person makes grammatical mistakes by accident or whatever, the solution usually isn't to blow off the edits but to fix the grammar.
  3. All words are supposed to capitalized in a title except in between words like conjunctions and what not, I have not ever heard differently.
  4. To start its Rubin, not Muir. Next, would it be appropriate too you think if someone puts Muslim author's (against account) citations next to Non-Muslim author's (supporting account) claims saying his or her work is "marked by orientalist motives and Western bias against Muslims" or something in clear purpose of discrediting the other author? I wouldn't think so and thats why I say it should be removed b/c it serves the same/similar purpose.
Now do you get where I'm coming from? I admit I do understand the things you were having problem with and hopefully this response will address that. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all words are capitalized in the section headers according to our manual of style. I've pointed this out to you several times above. And it's not just the grammar that was bad, it was the headers themselves - I said above it's not appropriate to list the "academic views" as "Non-Muslim Historian View" as if not being a Muslim was their defining characteristic as scholars. Also, I think the quote from Rubin (not Muir, thanks for correcting me) is relevant in giving context to the preceding quote - not all sources are equal.

I have attempted a compromise by retitling the "Recent history" section as "Muslim scholars' views", is this acceptable? This way it's clearer what the section will be about, without defining the academics in the previous sections as primarily "non-Muslim".--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. K then if you say so, the headers I mean; your link is broken though.
  2. All people under the section "Academic views" or as I would like "Non-Muslim historians' views" are all non-Muslim and all under "Recent history" or as I'd like "Muslim historians' views" are all Muslim and that is why I'm naming it as such; I realize they do not all keep the same views under the same group heading and I addressed that above by suggesting some alternatives in the setup of the views given by authors.
  3. The same can be suggested very easily by a Muslim author about Rubin or any other non-Muslim author promoting this account but it isn't b/c it is only POV of the author and is bad for the NPOV of this article and I've addressed this numerous times above.
  4. Thank you for the compromise but I'm trying to stay away from words such as scholars and academics b/c either not everyone agrees w/ both parties receiving the title or if only one gets it, its being honorary to one side so I thought historians is a better name b/c it gives what they all are by their work in this area, historians.
Hope for further feedback. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The link is fixed now; I also included it above several times, and our manual of style is not hard to find; you'd do well to learn the basic tenets of it. Second, I already said I object to classifying the scholars as if "non-Muslim" was their major characteristic – even if all the ones in the section happen not to be Muslim, it does not mean they're not experts in their field, or that they don't know what they're talking about. To your third point, I can't really understand your phrasing, but I'll try. Ruben is a reliable source; his statements carry weight in discussing the opinions of others. If you have any reliable source claiming that Ruben's or the other scholars' findings are skewed, please include them (though I personally doubt that any exist). As to your fourth point, I can see what you mean, but I don't see how you can consider all those people in that section as "scholars" of the caliber of the previous section. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, for instance, is journalist, while Cyril Glass just compiled a book. Again, I'm not sure if this is the best way to organize the information, but that seems to be another issue.--Cúchullain t/c 06:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Alright I will.
  2. And all the people in the section below happen to be Muslim as well? Whoever made this setup did it on purpose. Before I started these issues (before you too), the heading titles were set up "Academic views" and "Modern Muslim views" or something of that kind. If you think thats not right, I did suggest several possibilities above on what to do about it.
  3. Some would view naming them scholars or academics as a biased way of titling them as I have already encountered on 2 other pages as well. Naming the Muslim scholars some people I've seen have downright denounced. Saying calling them historians doesn't demote them though as it does state where their field of study and knowledge lies.
  4. Theres a difference between him analyzing sources and information for his studies and then giving his personal POV on what he thinks of other authors.
  5. Journalist is a later career he took up for a bit; he had a degree in law though as a lawyer and he later became Minister of state and then Minister of Education in Egypt.
  6. This does bring up something concerning though, the fact that there is a severe lack of sources to what Muslim historians/theologians think about the account.
  7. Didn't say it was the best way to organize the information, just saying this is how it is right now so until someone does give a plan or edit that gives a better organization, we'll have to work with what we got. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Transmission of narrative section

Looking at [2], I can see that "Objections to the incident were raised as early as the fourth Islamic century,..." why are these placed in "Transmission of narrative section" section rather than in Muslim disputes regarding historicity? I think the "Transmission" should end with a "simple" report of transmissions. --Aminz (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)