Talk:Criticism of Muhammad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent edit warring, protection

There is quite a bit of back-and-forth edit warring here by experienced editors recently. I think part of the problem is that the reverts and edits to the article are coming faster than the discussion on this talk page. It should be the opposite when there is a disagreement. Reverts should be explained fully on the talk page, and conversations should not be carried out in edit summaries. As you can see, the unfortunate reult of discussing things in the edit summaries is that the other person can only discuss back by making an edit and reverting you, so it's a vicious and unproductive cycle. I've protected the page for a short time, just 24 hours, in the hopes that you'll all discuss here before making controversial changes that are likely to be reverted, and then continue doing that even when the protection expires. Thanks! Dmcdevit·t 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection. Hopefully we'll sort this out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is at 3 reverts. Arrow740 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Edit war. Dmcdevit·t 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A very important contribution is made by Khurram Zaid about the age of Madam Aishah, a reference of research is also provided with the contribution, the research suggests that the correct age of Madam Aishah at her time of marriage was 19 years not 9. No one should undo or delete my contribution except with the trackable PROOFS that the references are false.

Removal of Haykal

Haykal's book is a reliable source. It was approved by the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, Cairo, Egypt. Haykal himself was major Egyptian official. Please keep in mind that Egypt is the 5th largest Muslim state in the world.Bless sins (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this question a different way: what is it that makes Robert Spencer reliable - in your view - but doesn't make Haykal reliable? I desperately await your response.Bless sins (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing Robert Spencer but Halyak or whatever his name is. I havent even heard of this Halyak guy. For starters, a lot of people know who Robert Spencer is. The same cannot be said of this Mr. Halyak. I didnt know who he was. Why dont you tell me why he's reliable? Spencer has written 7 books including 2 best sellers on topics related to Islam. Has Mr. Halyak done anything close to this? Also tell me how according to you, Warraq is less reliable than Halyak? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, I want to make sure you don't apply any double standards on wikipedia.

"a lot of people know who Robert Spencer is." Who is "a lot of people"?

"I didnt know who he was." So just because you don't know some scholar, he isn't a reliable source? If that is your argument, then its the most absurd I've ever seen.

Him and his work are reliable (or at least notable) because:

• His book is endorsed by the the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, an official agency of Egypt, one of the largest Muslim nations in the world. By contrast, the American government has never endorsed any of Spencer's books. (Also to be noted is that Haykal was the Minister of education, Spencer has never held any such post).
• Britannica considers his work as a "useful" biography of Muhammad.

• (Source: "Muhammad." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.)

• His work is considered an example of "scientific historical research".

• (Source: "The Reader-"Another Production": The Reception of Haykal's Biography of Muhammad and the Shift of Egyptian Intellectuals to Islamic Subjects in the 1930s" by Israel Gershoni. Poetics Today, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 245. Published by Duke University Press.)

• Haykal is considered a "thinker", an "intellectual" or "important intellectual".

• (Source: Shawky S. Zeidan. "Review: Islam and the Search for Social Order in Modern Egypt: A Biography of Muhammad Husayn Haykal" The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4. (1984), pp. 755)
• (Source: Book reviews by Jacob M. Landau in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 106, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1986), pp. 383. Landau is from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.)
• (Source: Selma Botman. "Review: Egypt and the Crisis of Islam". British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2. (1992), p. 216.)

• Haykal's book too was popular, and remains to be (but that doesn't make him reliable).Bless sins (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You didnt have to give me all that. You could have given me a link to Muhammad Husayn Haykal which would also have worked. Fine, Haykal is acceptable but the source you tied it to is not. Please find another source which is reliable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. "Poetics Today" is hardly a reliable source for determining experts on Islam. Uri Rubin calls Haykal an apologist, and Haykal has no qualifications, whether or not he is an "intellectual." What nonsense. Arrow740 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57: Then the only obstacle that remains for the restoration of Haykal is me going to the library and personally verifying what "witness-pioneer" has said. In that case I urge that no one restore Haykal until either I, or Matt57, or another user has verified for themselves that Haykal indeed makes this argument.Bless sins (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. The fact that this person is called an intellectual does not make him a reliable source. Read it now. Uri Rubin, a qualified scholar, says his book his apologetics. You know that. We have the same situation with Haykal that we do with Ibn Warraq. Arrow740 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The new policy on reliable sources says "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications." As I have demonstrated above, Haykal has the respect of scholars, an official Islamic organization and an encyclopedia.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. The fact that this person is called an intellectual does not make him a reliable source. Read it now. Uri Rubin, a qualified scholar, says his book his apologetics. As regards Islam he is the only scholar of Islam that has commented on Haykal that I know. We have the same situation with Haykal that we do with Ibn Warraq. Haykal is not respected in the Islamic studies community (if not, you certainly haven't proven it) and his publications are endorsed by partisan organizations only. Arrow740 (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to read WP:SOURCES, it is more detailed. The fact he is called an "intellectual" means the sources respect him (with regards to his publications). Thereby he satisfies "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. (emphasis added)" "Uri Rubin calls Haykal an apologist" Can you provide the source? Even if he does call him an apologist, Daniel C. Peterson, a professor, has labeled Rodinson as "Marxist".(source: Peterson, Daniel. Muhammad, Prophet of God. p. 180) Does that make Rodinson an unreliable source?Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed the Rubin quote from Satanic Verses yourself multiple times. Go check it again. Being an intellectual does not imply that someone is a reliable scholar of Islam. Good luck proving otherwise. Can you find any of Haykal's publications that you can prove are "mainstream?" Again, good luck. And no, Marxists are not disqualified from being reliable sources, just as Muslims are not. Arrow740 (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't play games with me. If I did something on wikipedia, provide the diffs. I asked you for a source on Rubin. Either you provide the source, or you can't make claims about him. "Marxists are not disqualified from being reliable sources, just as Muslims are not" Agreed. I will not remove Rodinson, and you will not remove Haykal.Bless sins (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my statement was not long enough. Muslims are not excluded because they are Muslim; Haykal is excluded because he is partisan and unreliable. See Uri Rubin, editor, The Life of Muhammad. Ashgate, 1998, page xviii. Arrow740 (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<reset>Ok, so before Haykal was being excluded because he was apologetic. Now because he is partisan. Who says he is partisan? Who says 'partisan' sources should be excluded from wikipedia? As for reliability I've provided evidence above. I'm tired of repeating this. Please check out the evidence provided.Bless sins (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have shown that his intellect is respected. I have shown that his work is not respected as scholarship of Islam. Let's move on. Arrow740 (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was ready to move the when I started this section. I have known from the beginning that he is a reliable source. The more you contest this, the longer this'll take.Bless sins (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, no qualifications and no reputable publishers. Arrow740 (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

His qualities are listed by academic journals above, as I have said repeatedly. Do you have any new argument against him?Bless sins (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

BlessSins could you please respond to Arrow's arguments? Plus, we can still not use that website as a source whether its verified or not. For example, Geocities websites are not used as links in refs section even if they contain information that has been verified. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said: someone must go to the library and verify for themselves what the book says.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haykal is a reliable source for the Muslim view. The Khaybar article in EoI finds him notable enough to quote his view for example. The very fact that Haykal has an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam proves his notability. Regarding the refutations based on Haykal being "pro-Muslim", Martin Kramer says that Rodinson's work, though valuable, has a polemical style; does that mean that by the same logic Rodinson should be avoided? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anything he has had published by a reliable publisher could be considered. Arrow740 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Who are you quoting with those quotations marks? No one used that word. You're making this up. As long as we're all clear on that. Arrow740 (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, Deedat is a notable Muslim apologetic just as Spencer is a notable critic. Please stop this. Haykal is a notable Muslim scholar and his views can be cited as a Muslim POV. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Spencer is different because Daniel Pipes, who has a PhD in Islamic History, has endorsed his approach to criticism. Deedat has no such endorsement. Itaqallah removed all of Ibn Warraq's statements; notability isn't enough anymore. Arrow740 (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? From when Daniel Pipes has such authority to endorse the scholarship of others. You probably want to change WP:RS then. Arrow, this is getting tiresome.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to this. If you're tired, go to sleep. Arrow740 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing two things. If say EoI quotes an scholar, it tells that the author considered the person worthy enough to mention his view. Spencer is a hired polemic. Daniel Pipe himself is known for being a critic of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You said "The very fact that Haykal has an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam proves his notability." Which article? Arrow740 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Article titled "Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal" at EoI.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Though that indicates notability, it doesn't make him a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

He is notable for the Muslim POV. What on the earth are you talking about? If you say that one prof says that he is pro-Muslim , another prof says that Rodinson's bio has a polemical style but you are freely using it.--Be happy!! (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, we can mention Haykal's views so long as they are relayed by a reliable source, which is likely in some cases considering his prominence (and that he has a EoI article). That's a fair balance between spamming critiques/responses (which is the case on many of these articles) and mentioning none at all - simply relay that which has been relayed by third party reliable sources (or sources which are themselves reliable). As long as that is done, with regard for maintaining neutrality, the quality of articles will improve as a result. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By the standards which itaqallah has been rigidly enforcing with edit warring, he is not reliable for the Muslim POV. Another, reliable source would have to quote him. Rodinson's work is reliable by wikipedia standards. Arrow740 (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is "Criticism of Islam" article and we have already used all sorts of critics simply because they are notable, not because they are reliable. Your argument for the reliability of Spencer is weak. The practice that we for long had was that in Criticism of X articles, notability matters. --Be happy!! (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability still matters. I was fine with the status quo until people started removing all sorts of things and refusing to listen to me, so I guess concensus changed. Arrow740 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz please note that Haykal is reliable (and also notable). I have demonstrated the reliability above, and Matt57 seemed to agree with his reliability, (but disagreed with the reliability of a particular website).Bless sins (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please not that Haykal is not reliable, though notable. I have demonstrated his lack of qualifications above. If the publisher is reliable, that's a different story. BS has only showed he's notable, certainly not qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All you've demonstrated is that he you don't like him. You have not quoted any source, so how can you demonstrate something?Bless sins (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. Refusing to acknowledge the statements of others is a WP:POINT violation. Arrow740 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57 said he was ok with him, Aminz leaned towards him. You said you are opposed to him, but did not give any valid reason. Who am I not acknowledging?Bless sins (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

<r> Bless Sins, Haykul seems questionable and Itaqallah has said so too. Do you realize that he doesnt have any peer reviewed stuff and nothing published under any academic presses? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Haykal was "questionable". Did you read my response about peer review on my talk page? ITAQALLAH 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cite error

The "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named _____" need to be fixed.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah's edit

Itaqallah moved up the quote from Yusuf Ali to the top of the article: Yusuf Ali claims that the accusation that Muhammad was possessed was similar to the accusation levelled at Moses by the Pharaoh. This comes in a comment to a verse in the Qur'an that claims that the same charge was made against all of God's prior messengers (thus discounting its weight).

I disagree with this on two grounds. The section is about the historical criticism of non-Muslims. If you would like to include the corresponding responses from Muslims, the heading should be changed to "historical criticism of non-Muslims and Muslim apologetics". Secondly, what makes Yusuf Ali notable enough to comment on such matter. It should be mentioned that the Qur'an made that argument in reaction to accusations of possession of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove that sentence from Yusuf Ali altogether. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on this. I just thought it was a bit silly to have a section containing a single sentence so I relocated it to another section where I thought it might be better placed. ITAQALLAH 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Prophet" Muhammad

I see no mention here of the fact that Muhammad is known as a prophet, yet never actually made any prophecy in the Qur'an that came true. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

a prophet is not necessarily a seer, so your point is moot. also, the Qur'an itself is considered the verbatim word of God and contains very few statements about the future (before the day of judgment at least) as it is theoretically a real-time communication from the 7th century. Your statement otherwise also smacks of a talking point from a polemicist which you are simply regurgitating.David80 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is actually a good point. I assume Mohammed chose this moniker to place him with Jesus and the Hebrew Prophets: Isaiah for example makes many prophecies which are used to show Jesus as the Messiah. I don't know the Koran well enough to know if Mohammed did make any [non-eschatological] prophecies, or if any are recorded in hadith? Rather than making an ad-hominem attack perhaps we could attempt to answer the question?

This answering-christianity very unreliable source (Muslim bias) gives only a few surahs (24:55, 3:12, 110:1-2) in support of Mohammed as a prophet and those only to support the general proclamation of a "promise of victory". Which at least suggests there's nothing concrete in the Koran to support the idea. That same source however gives many apocryphal (completely uncited) and several hadith quotations to support the notion that Mohammed made prophecies that came true. 91.108.179.18 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC) pbhj

Aisha and Vines

Half of the section on Aisha is about Vines' comments and the reaction to that. I don't think I'd heard of him until today. Is it appropriate to give this much weight to his comments in particular? Andjam (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No not really, there are much more notable people who have critcised a middle aged man for having sex with a 9 year old. Unfortunately they get deleted as "extremist sources". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. This paragraph seems extremely mild and slanted towards an apologetic/consiliatory POV. See also quote "The age of Aisha is of particular concern to SOME non-Muslims" This seems an inaccurate reflection of the large number of people who condemn this behavior. -- JNL - --82.168.9.5 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of academic sources that contradict the notion that it was a cultural norm for a middle aged man (actually, Muhammad was almost elderly according to age at that time) to have a sexual relationship with a very young girl. However, much of what is written in regard to Aisha is considered "controversial" either way. Why, then, do we include a defense of Muhammad's marriage to this child without a cited rebuttal to that defense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the criticism directed from the age of the child at the time of her relationship with Muhammad, there is also much criticism in regard to Muhammad's supposed "message from God" to take Aisha as his wife.

Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous Off-Topic Rhetoric in Aisha Section

User:Itaqallah seems to be insistent, without explanation, on reintroducing unencyclopedic, gratuitous and off-topic rhetoric to the section on Aisha's age. The quote in question, reproduced below, is nothing more than general praise of Muhammad and, therefore, has no specific relevence in the section:

Faheem Rokadiya said: "On the other hand, the Prophet, who is a messenger of Allah, and the Prophet of Islam, is based on the foundation that all people should be treated fairly. The Prophet was a kind, fair and noble man. A man who everybody could look up to out of respect, because he had respect for everything in the world. Why should we disrespect him like this, when he has done nothing wrong to us. Devil he is none- only his enemy."

Here is a diff showing the quote in context and the section after removal.

98.226.198.53 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Itaqallah has, yet again, inserted this irrelevant passage into the section and I have, yet again, removed it. Itaqalla, this article is not the place for random, off-topic outbursts of religious rhetoric. 98.226.198.53 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It would actually be relevant if a reliable source notes Rokadiya's comment in relation to what Vines said. I have re-removed the passage as neither the Times website nor the Washington Post website actually verify that statement. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote is general praise of Mohammad and absolutely does not address the issue of Aisha at all. The quote is right there in full. Sourced or not, the content has no business being in that section. As far as the source is concerned, considering there is no evidence that name is noteworthy and considering that this article is the only place the quote appears online at all, your insistence on repeatedly putting it in the section is extremely suspect and definitely qualifies as vandalism. 98.226.198.53 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Spencer

Spencer himself is an unreliable source. If any particular critique of any critic is noteworthy, it will have been covered in a reliable source. The Jerry Vines incident is cited to the Washington Post (a reliable source), hence its inclusion. ITAQALLAH 12:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a load of times before. The result is the same every time: Spencer is unreliable.Bless sins (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Spencer is not a reliable source; if his criticism is notable, that would have to be established by a source that is reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Spencer's books are surely reliable sources for Spencer's own views, irrespective of whether they are reliable for anything else. For instance, if I want to write that notable critic Robert Spencer has said A, B, and C, then there can be no problem citing Spencer as a source. If I want to cite him for some historical fact about the seventh century, then maybe it is appropriate to have a discussion concerning his reliability. Auto469680 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the policy page on self-published and questionable sources about themselves states that questionable sources (and I'm not conceding this for Spencer) can be cited for the author's own views. Auto469680 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Either a publication is a reliable source, or it isn't. Any source, no matter how extreme, ridiculous, or distasteful, is "reliable for its own view" - but that doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for articles on Wikipedia. Spencer is a indeed an unreliable source, and the policy clearly states that it should not involve claims about third parties (in this case, Muhammad/Aisha/Islam). If Spencer's view is truly noteworthy, a reliable source will have deemed it appropriate to cover it - a standard that has been set throughout the rest of the article. ITAQALLAH 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spencer makes no factual claims about third parties here. He is only cited for his view of that an incident (cited to the reliable Hadith translator) is important, and this view is verifiable from his book, so according to the policy there is no violation of reliable sourcing criteria. Auto469680 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He is making a claim about Islam - not himself. Hence he is talking about a third party. I don't see where "factual" comes into this.

Secondly, you assert the incident is "important" - if that is the case, why do we have no reliable source discussion of it? ITAQALLAH 19:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if Spencer was talking about himself, his views should only be in his own article, not here, or any other article on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Factual" comes up because there are no facts asserted by Spencer that are any trouble to verify. I wrote Spencer mentions beating incident as important, and it is easy to verify that he mentions the hadith story in his chapter on Islam and women, demonstrating a prominent criticism of Muhammad. In other words, the Spencer reference implies notability, and the hadith translator reference implies verifiability. I will be away from Wikipedia for awhile, but consensus has not been reached yet. Auto469680 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to provide more detail about the hadith itself, or a reliable interpretation of it, not Spencer's take on it. He might even be right, but that's not the issue. Verifiability is.

I don't see a lack of consensus. I see a consensus delayed by wikilawyering. I'm removing the Spencer sentence. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All this talk on Islam were dominated by User:Bless Sins, User:Itaqallah and other Muslim wikipedians or wikipedian who act in the name of political correctness who tried to cover up negative facts regarding islam and they claimed there are former consensus among wikipedian to block the source from Robert Spencer , Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq. Is Robert Spencer source consider unreliable because user:Itaqallah said so. Thats just Itaqallah personal opinion that throw everything that she/he consider extremist on Robert spencer. There need to be WP:Rfc on Robert spencer source. Also, please don't try to compare The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with the work of Robert Spencer given that Spencer himself presented his work base on reality of Islamic world while Elder protocol of Zion are base on conspiracy theory to demonize Jews and Free Mason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundera m117 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How is the portion about Safiyya bint Huyayy criticism?

I don't see any criticism there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.165.226 (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any critics either.Bless sins (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The opening of the section should be explicit: the common criticism is that he killed a man and took his wife, property; work should be cited and the assertion made succinctly -or the section should be removed.Mavigogun (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticism is implied as those of normal morals are considered to find the forced conversion and rape of a recent widow to be abhorrent. I think this is the situation where Mohammed or his tribe killed the father and then husband of the woman, who then supposedly converted and "married" the perpetrator. It's called rape and is common in times of war. Presumably the Mohammedeans code required them to "marry" before they had intercourse. Mohammed initially saved as slaves the survivors of sieges and the like but later found this troublesome and so the menfolk were all killed and the women who would "convert" were "married" to the victors and taken as slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.18 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Turner quote

The Colin Turner quote in the "Aisha" section pretty much completely misses the main dispute between Muslims and critics of traditional Islam -- which is whether or not Muhammad's behavior is to be taken as an ideal pattern for the best possible type of human behavior for all time (not whether Muhammad acted like other 7th-century Bedouins and/or 7th-century warlords). AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Turner is answering from a Muslim perspective. I think he's offering his own reasons as to why he feels the critique isn't valid. ITAQALLAH 22:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Turner quote regarding early maturity. There is no reason to believe that Turner is an expert on this matter and his claim seems factually wrong given that ages of Menarche fall with nutritional improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.151.98 (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Independent of my own view on the subject: Turner need not be an expert on historical menarche- he needs only to cite a credible expert in his work. However, the ambiguity of the paraphrasing of Turner rendered the the reference of negligible value; adulthood and menarche are not synonymous.Mavigogun (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Succinct Delineation of Aisha Critique/NPOV

The opening of the Aisha section does not adhere to a NPOV: the section should delineate the critique of Muhammad succinctly; obfuscating or 'soft-selling' the critique amounts to advocacy of a position. The contemporary critique of Muhammad regarding Aisha is, in part, due to the difference in standards between that time and now- a passing mention of this is only warranted as reflected by common criticism.

This line:

'Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is seen by some as controversial, mainly because of her age during the marriage.'

has been changed to this:

'Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is seen by some as controversial because her age at wedding and consummation meet contemporary western assessments of rape and pedophilia.'

Again, we are succinctly describing critical opinion- not filtering that criticism to be neutral, as that would be altering the criticism to advocate an agenda.Mavigogun (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a very good assessment of the criticism. The marriage does not "meet contemporary [W]estern assessments of rape and pedophilia", which is a very abstract statement. The clinical definition of "pedophilia" means an adult has a sexual preference for children, which Muhammad certainly did not have, judging by all his other marriages. The critics do not have a problem with the marriage because it does not meet "contemporary western" standards, they have a problem because it does not meet their own personal standards.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF! "The clinical definition of "pedophilia" means an adult has a sexual preference for children, which Muhammad certainly did not have, judging by all his other marriages." WTF! So its your medical opinion that you are only a pedophile if you have sex with TWO children. Also many pedos do have marriages, often so they can have more kids to abuse.

"The critics do not have a problem with the marriage because it does not meet "contemporary western" standards, they have a problem because it does not meet their own personal standards" Yes and thier standards are "contemporary western" standards. Having sex with a nine year old is rape in every western country no matter how many times she (and her family) said yes. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion one way or another, it's the actual clinical definition of pedophilia. There is a difference between pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Someone can be a child sexual abuser and not a pedophile (or a pedophile and not a child sexual abuser). As for the critics, I have yet to see one who actually says something like "Muhammad's marriage to Aisha fails to meet contemporary Western standards, and therefore is wrong." They imply that the standards are objective and universal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So this wording would work for you?

Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is seen by some as controversial because her age at wedding and consummation (at 6 and 9 respectivly) meet contemporary western assessments of rape and child sexual abuse.

Western countries include the 27 EU states and USA, Canada, Mexico and others as Western world shows. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because it's not neutral - it asserts the view as fact. There is also no discussion of 'rape', either. I don't see any alleged obfuscation, the specific criticisms are mentioned in the very next sentences. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Child sexual abuse" is clearly more accurate here, but the whole sentance is still poor, because the phrasing is murky - it implies that the critics use the fact that Muhammad's marriage doesn't meet contemporary Western standards as one of their points of criticism. Really they criticize the age itself, not that the marriage doesn't meet Western standards. It's better to just say they criticize Muhammad over his marriage to a young child, and then explain their criticism below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, criticism need not be neutral- our presentation of that criticism need only be accurate and succinct and neutral. The summation of the criticism should be clear -detail following on that summation should expound on the summation -not make the summation clear- as the summation needs be written so as to not require explanation. The criticism is that Muhammad's actions are rape and pedophilia -as viewed from a contemporary western prospective; there are times and places that may have other standards, and the counter point is typically that standards at that time were different; the wording acknowledges this in the service of NPOV. There may very well be some less cumbersome way of structuring the summation -suggestions would be useful.Mavigogun (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the present wording. It says that critics criticize Muhammad over Aisha's age, and then explains why below.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Building to Encyclopedic Content

This article, as written (18/August/2008), is far from the standards of Wikipedia; most of the content needs to be redrafted in the interest of resembling some semblance of an encyclopedia entry. Position advocacy may greatly hamper such an effort; slow progress should be anticipated.Mavigogun (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic Sentiment Tag

Removed recently added tag; Criticism of Muhammad does not equate to anti-Islamic sentiment; the messenger and the message are not one and the same.

Does this warrant debate?Mavigogun (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question. What criteria are you using to differentiate "Muhammad" from "Islam" in this context? I'm obviously not debating whether or not you can hypothetically make that distinction, but how can they be separated at a basic level, anymore than you can say, split "Christ" and "Christianity"? Are you suggesting that Islam can exist without Muhammad and remain Islam? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology does not define the context. One may be a devout servant of Allah and adherent to the tenants of Islam, view the Qu'ran as the will of God, and at the same time view Muhammad as a man with flaws; the Qu'ran makes mention of the messengers imperfection, and I may take issue with Muhammad copulating with a 9 year old girl without impugning the Qu'ran or my devotion to Allah. Though these expressions may be discordant to many Muslims, offending is not the same as being anti-Islamic- a label which, in this context, advocates for an elemental link between acceptance of the actions of a prophet and acceptance of his message. One may criticize Henry VIII's motivations for Protestant Reformation while still being a devout adherent to the principles of the Christian Protestant Reformation and Evangelical doctrine -and not be 'anti-Protestant.' 'Anti-Islamic sentiment' connotes a disdain for, prejudice toward, and opposition to Islam that is not necessitated by a critique of Muhammad.Mavigogun (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a universal argument, I don't think it works from an Islamic theological perspective.

In any case, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is added to articles which discuss prejudice/defamation within the context of the topic of the article. It in no way suggests that every criticism equates to "anti-Islam sentiment," though the fact remains that a sizeable chunk of rhetoric is regarded as prejudicial i.e. the issue of Jerry Vines and the response by the Anti Defamation League, or medieval Christian anti-Muhammad polemic. As the article discusses the issue in question, the category's presence becomes appropriate. See some of the topics listed under Category:Antisemitism for a better idea of what may be included under a general category heading. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Restart

Any reasonable person understands that this article needs to be scrapped and completely redone by an author with a neutral opinion on the subject. Every criticism in the article is countered with a lengthy appeasement or red herring. The entire work is disgustingly biased and needs to be deleted to preserve the intellectual integrity of Wikipedia.SamTrojan (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Sam Trojan

What is a "neutral opinion"? Ever head of a white raven?

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. All relevant views that are reliably sourced should be covered, and I disagree with your assessment of the article. ITAQALLAH 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I will risk being labeled an 'unreasonable person' by suggesting that, rather than junking the work in toto, the sections be reworked extensively; deleting a work rather than developing it is a shortsighted remedy for a problem that needs a durable solution -such as developing editors, article documentation, and talk page content arguments. I suggest a section by section rework; as currently construed, I concur that the article deviates pointedly from adhering to a neutral point of view by softening critique, defensive posturing and equivocation. I encourage any motivated editor capable of adhering to NPOV to make improvements within the arena of peer review.

Relevant views, in this case, are major, minor -but not marginal- critiques; counterpoints are legitimate only so long as they inform an understanding of the subject -in this case, critique of Muhammad. Neutral point of view does not mean 'neutralizing criticism' or providing an exhaustive counter argument for each critique- or altering the nature of criticism so as to be 'balanced' -as doing so constitutes position advocacy. That said, every citable counterpoint must not be included, nor should counterpoints be arbitrarily equally weighted.

Addressing these issues as abstracts -in an atmosphere where investment in individual perspectives and ideologies prevail- is not constructive, amounting to nothing more than 'I am right, you are wrong' rants. There is no shortcut; do the work, defend the work- and see if it holds up.Mavigogun (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I support Mavgogun's proposal to revise the article by sections. I would add that one serious lack in this article is historical perspective. Criticism of Muhammad has had various central themes in various times and places, just as the views and concerns of (for example) 11th-century Franks, 17th-century Austrians, and 21st-century Americans must be substantially different — and must be treated from a neutral point of view, not with the intent of either championing or vilifying them. The article is also heavily focused on the West, whereas the figure of Muhammad is known and discussed in almost every culture on earth.

So how should we proceed? -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Carlyle

What does Carlyle actually say? We have two opinion on the matter, one sourced to Watt (Muhammad as an ambitious impostor) and one without a source (Muhammad as a sincere champion). Obviously it cannot be both. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See for yourself: "Lecture II. The Hero as Prophet. Mahomet. Islam." (May 8, 1840). Carlyle is interpreting Muhammad's career in light of a stage theory of human development. He uses Muhammad to represent a type of hero, and humanity's supposed transition from venerating a human being as a god (Odin) to venerating a human being as God-inspired. As Carlyle and his audience are Christians, it is safer to discuss the Muslim prophet in this analytical way. N.B.:

He is by no means the truest of Prophets; but I do esteem him a true one. Farther, as there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans, I mean to say all the good of him I justly can. ... Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to any one. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only.

Clearly Carlyle has been quoted out of context in this article. Someone carelessly attributed to Carlyle the opinion that he refutes. Reading through this lecture, I find nothing but some of the most effusive praise of Muhammad I have ever seen in English. Therefore I'm deleting all mention of Carlyle from this article.

It was presumptuous to delete the citation of Carlyle praising Muhammad while leaving the one that claims Carlyle condemned him. The deleted citation was the accurate one. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that it was totally uncited, while the other one at least claimed to have a citation. It wasn't "presumptuous" at all, the real problem was that it was a misquote.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I spoke out of a sense of frustration with the result, not out of antipathy to anyone. In the future I will do my best to refrain from implying that any other editor's work on this article is inadequate. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both for solving this issue. This was exactly what I tried to achieve with this section. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Current external link mini editing war

Surely this situation can be settled in a reasonable fashion through discussion, rather than this silly back and forth stuff. :) Deconstructhis (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The links he/she keeps reinserting fail a number of points of the external links guideline. The links connection to the article is tennuous - this isn't an article on Muslim apologetics after all, its about criticism of Muhammad. And how is the site reliable? From the guideline page, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable". And Peacekeeper-89 has never justified the inclusion of the links they keep adding back in, so they must stay out until they have done that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd like a chance to examine the potential relevancy of their inclusion by reading some policy and looking at comparable situations in similar articles first before I give my opinion on this; but I agree that in the meantime I think it would be more constructive to leave them out and hear the reasoning behind why Peacekeeper-89 believes their inclusion is appropriate. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is clear that it is on Peacekeeper to justify the link's inclusion. As for judging the link's relevance, look no further than the site itself to see why it's inappropriate: it's a poorly constructed personal apologetics forum written in broken English.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi evreyone well the links is very Related to the article If you say it's not! well remove the Similar sites from this article Criticism of Islam if you say it's diffrent well it's not,this article is a baby article to the other one as you can see in the top of the article this sentence "Main article: Criticism of Islam" in the end I removed one of the links because i think it's not talking about one Subject so I removed it. and the other i changed the link page to be more Specific to the supject i put the link for i'll put more of these links once i found them thank you and I am sorry for any disturbance your brothers in humanityPeacekeeper-89 (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That link is as described above, poorly written in broken English, there is no justification to add that link. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excause me but can you understand what you read in that site ? if you can then there is no problem to be poorly written-as you claim-. the site don't want to win a prize for good English writing to be Judged this way,besides I've chacked WP:EL and I couldn't find your un ostensible reason to remove the link,So there is no Real reason to remove the link. thank you Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand where the burden lies, it lies with you to show that site is reliable. That site is nothing more than a forum, with user posted responses, it is not appropriate for this page. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's A forum Is this the last thing you came up with. will It's not a forum and you know it,So I'm asking you all please stop been prejudice It's not useful for Wikipedia or your reputations thank you Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a forum. It is a forum like Yahoo answers is a forum. It is not reliable, the information on it is dubious at best. If you insist on re-adding it once a day then I will have no further option but to have the site blacklisted. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's a fourm as you say will add something to the site if you can ,show me Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:EL#AVOID, particularly points 1, 2, 4, 11 and 13. This article is about criticism of Muhammed, therefore the link should back that view up, or support it, not be a counter argument, for that you would need a new section in the article or a new article, but the article on Muhammad would already do that. The EL section of this article is not the place to be planting your flag on this argument. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted is exactly right. Peacekeeper, we've told you repeatedly that the burden of proof is on you to establish that the links are necessary, and warned you against continuing to add them back in when you don't get your way through discussion. If you continue ignoring this there's no point in continuing this discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It now appears Peacekeeper has been canvassing other editors with the intention of influencing the outcome of this discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that too. The only option may be to have the sites blacklisted so they cannot be added. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Only 4 or 3 Is this many to you ? and It's neutrally worded,Besides I didn't ask them to interpose in the discussion,because there's nothing to discuss Except the prejudice.I asked them to tell Is there a wrong in the links,or not ?thank you Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you don't want me to add anything that response to the criticism, Even It's not a wikipedia policy as we can see in this articlecriticism of islamOnly god knows why?Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are saying, nor why you felt the need to copy-and-paste this into two places at once. You canvassed, it's as simple as that. You have kept re-adding the same links or types of links over twelve times, and have even passed 3RR. You have yet to establish these sites as reliable, nor have you even given any indication that you read EL#AVOID and understood why these links are not needed. So for one final (I hope) time, those links are not WP:RS, they are not written by academics with proven records on this subject, and most importantly they are the opposite of the title of this article, the EL section is not the place for a counter argument to the article, either the body of the article is or a separate article on the subject is the right place. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I'm in agreement that the appropriate place for addressing any issues that Peacekeeper-89 has with this article is not in the external links section, but rather in the body of the article itself and of course supported by reliable referencing. In my opinion, there is no merit whatsoever in the argument that alleged biases in a given article should be counterbalanced by adding "suitable" links in the external links section. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points. The links are not acceptable, and they're certainly not acceptable where Peacekeeper keeps putting them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Aisha

Hello. I'm not a wikipedian as you can see but i have some info about aisha to share with you. Recently I've been to Arabia, and to the country areas(Outside Cities). In one of our trips we stopped by a tribe I forgot its name but they live near the central part of arabia. I discovered something there but i couldnt find any English sources (or german, i speak a bit german too) to back it up. Maybe it will be of some help if we could find this. The arabs of those parts give girls age after the first time they enter puberty ie. menstural bleeding. I discovered this while I asked one of the girls who are there her age she responded that she was 7 whereas she was around 17-19 she was fully grown with all feminine features. I don't know how viable info this is but when I asked why she said she was 7 she responded that arabs dont take notice of girls ages until they grow up as they view girls less than man. I found several Turkish articles supporting this(Not from the web, from university articles and research). While i was taking a peak at this i remembered this article. I dont know if this is the case for Aisha but i am gonna find some solid sources for my claims and maybe edit Aisha part. Just giving a heads up. Greetings from Turkey 85.99.0.48 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe you might be refering to this: At what age Aisha marry Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? [1] Faro0485 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone add that link into the Aisha section? It is a very well sourced article. I'm talking about this link: http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=ic0811-3718 --CantoV (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

[Still chuckling] My reaction was:

"Crap"?
My edit is crap?
How's he gonna explain that?!!
Oh.

And while it's clearly none of my business, i'm still dying to hear what you'd have put instead of "Crap" if you hadn't caught your slip so quickly.
Have a good day, colleague! (And don't OD.)
--Jerzy•t 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Headings within "Personal Motives" Section

I just wanted to point out, first, that the primary subheading, "Unbiased (non-religious) views," is either unnecessary or should replace the "Personal Motives" heading, since there is no other subheading in that section; second, it's absolutely absurd to equate "unbiased" with "non-religious" in such a simplistic way. It should just be "Non-religious Criticism."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.239.204 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is an articulate critic of Muhammad, perhaps this article should mention some of his writings. 89.125.12.127 (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

"It was customary for Arab chiefs to use marriage for cementing political alliances, thus reinforcing the fact that Islam was a continuation of age-old Arab injustices with a new label; and remarriage for widows was hard in a society that emphasized virgin marriages."

When you say reinforcing the "fact" does that imply reality for one person? and "age-old Arab injustices" isn't that judgmental?I just think this should be said in a somewhat neutral tone, when you say these words it implies someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong and I don't think wikipedia should be in the business of moral judgements, especially cross cultural criticisms based on one set of values, beliefs..

Very one sided in my opinion, I think the writer can clean this article up a bit. God Bless~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All sounds sensible, up to the God Bless bit.

May the FSM show his kindness to you.

89.125.12.33 (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

For those not initiated into The Truth^TM, IP89 means the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who has graced us all with his noodly goodness. More seriously though, the OP has a strong point about POV language. The current version may well be a "violated" version of previous text; I'll review. Doc Tropics 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello and greetings to you! So you think that we here on Wikipedia should never make moral judgements no matter what? And even when some Arab prick shoves his dick into a little nine-year-old gal, the fact that this happened in a different culture somehow makes it all OK?! Well bloody hell, that kind of behavior is still an absolute evil no matter if it happens in our culture or in some other culture, and when we see this happening anywhere, we must condemn it in the strongest terms possible! To do this is not POV, but a perfectly valid ethical criticism of an evil cultural practice, and to not do this is not neutrality, but delusional moral relativism! To put it another way: Would anyone in his/her right mind be OK with someone shoving his dick into his/her nine-year-old daughter?! And if he/she is OK with that, wouldn't it make him/her morally inferior to the rest of us? 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Other POVs on Aisha's Age

The whole article describe the numbers of 6 and 9 for aisha's age as absolute without citing other POVs. If you could read arabic, check [2].--SheriKan 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? We can't cite anything if the source is not reliable. And in all the time I have spent editing the Aisha page, no one has ever produced a reliable source that contradicts what is in the primary historical works, which say that Aisha was six or seven when she was married and nine when the marriage was consummated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah it is reliable. It is a major news site (maybe the second largest in the arab world). I'll try to translate the headline:

"Al-Obaikan (a sheikh): (some sentence meaning untrue)

Saudi researcher: The Prophet probably married Aisha at 19".

I should add the article is very recent (06/09/08), but this study is not new. However, the 6 and 9 is Al-Bukhari hadith book and is the most prevalent view today. And I think (not in that article), the shia have other views.--SheriKan 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Being a source of news does not equate to meeting the standards of this venue; the source -in context- still needs to be vetted. Marginal views refuting the criticism are secondary in importance to contrasting majority positions -if at all.Mavigogun (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we apply the same standards to articles regarding Biblical history? In other words, alternate historical hypotheses are not to be mentioned because they conflict with a single scriptural source from the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.76.207 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's exactly the problem we've always had at the Aisha article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--SheriKan 20:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Reza Aslan's book "no god but god" states that Aisha was only engaged to Mohammed at the age of 9 and that their marriage would not have been consummated until she had reached puberty.

Having sex with a 9 year old is not acceptable by any standard, let the reader judge for themself.--Paul Lewison (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The point of this article

This article is called "critisism of Muhammed" but the goal of(the article) seems to be to shoot down any criticism. This article is NOT neutral. Anyone who is mentioned in the article as a critic of Muhammed is more or less described as a person who is out to cast shit on Muhammed just because they don't like him ... and if you don't like him you are a evil bastard.

This quote just says it all : It is note worthy to mention that almost all criticisms in this section are made by Westerners-mainly Europeans. While some of the criticism might be objective, most were biased. When reading any western depiction of a none-western culture/religion one is advised to consider the effects of Orientalism by Edward Said.

The main point of the Ashia critisicm is that Muhammed is described as a person with high moral standings with god on his side. This, including the religious idea that moral is more or less set in stone and comes from god makes the marriage more or less ok.

So the western ethics says that a nine year old is a child and you should not put your dick in to it while the action of Muhammed, and his claims, makes it ok. My question to you people are, would you like a man 60+ to be showing his dick into your 9 year old daughter/sister? Do you feel that this would be ok?

If what I heard is thrue, then Ashias father protested the marriage because Ashia was so young(6 years old) but Muhammed wanted to "consume" the marriage then and there. The result was a compromise so that he waited for a few years. If Ashias father protested the marriage, it could not been a standard proceeding for people of this time.

Many western kings/influense persons hade young wifes when they where "older". One 17-18 century scienties married a 14 year old when he was around 40+. The main differense is that 1. They girls where atleast old enough to have reach an age where they had an intressting in sex and 2. They are not seen as role-models for moral behavior.

So in short, the marriage to Ashia is a problem to the claim that Muhammed was of good moral. 87.96.132.174 (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is insanely biased. It would be more aptly labeled "apologetics of Muhammad."

Based on the date given in the digital signature, I've cut this section out and moved it further down the list so that the comments would be presented in chronological order. (Also, most people tend to read only the most recent comments in any detail, so this would expose your perfectly valid criticism to more readers.) If you don't like this and would like me to move the comment back up, please let me know. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with those above. The title of this article is Criticism of Muhammed. However, there is very little of the actual criticism i nthe article. In some cases, the criticism occupies little more than the subhead title, and the body is a lenghy refutation of that criticism. Very little space seems to be devoted to the actual criticism.KartoumHero (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article does its job, and does present valid criticisms of Muhammed. In fact, after reading it, and in all fairness, I can't imagine how anyone can consider this man holy. A great political leader? Yes. A great conqueror? Also that. But religious in any sense that I understand? An emphatic no. Cutugno (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mediaeval Arab critic named "Muhammad"

Some months ago I stumbled upon a web page discussing a mediaeval critic of Islam and Muhammad who himself had "Muhammad" as part of his name. Would someone please help me remember who that was? I would like to add that name to this article. Frotz (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I found him. The critic was Muhammad al Warraq and I listed him in Criticism of Islam. Perhaps he could also be listed as a direct critic of Muhammad, but I'll let that alone for a while. Comments? Frotz (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Zaynab bint Jahsh

This criticism page is full of bs, excuse me, but you have some really made up stuff here. Ignorant users who take something out of context and manipulate it to meet their agenda is apparent to any religious scholar (even a Jew or Christian would agree here (i.e polygamy in Islam is taken out of the context of orphans... but in the Qur'an it is specifically referring to marriage with widowers with orphans who have lost their husband in time of war or disease...

You shall hand over to the orphans their rightful properties. Do not substitute the bad for the good, and do not consume their properties by combining them with yours. This would be a gross injustice. Qur'an Al-Nisa' [4:2]

If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers- you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship. Qur'an [4:3]

Now concerning the following excerpt:

"When thou saidst to him whom God has blessed and thou hadst favoured, 'Keep thy wife to thyself; and fear God', and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then We gave her in marriage to thee, so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted son, when they had accomplished what they would of them; and God's commandment must be performed." - Sura al-Ahzab 33:37, [25] [26]

(The above quote from the Qur'an is an incorrect translation of Sura al-Ahzab 33:37 btw)

Most expositors agree that this verse speaks of Zainab, Zaid's wife, whom Muhammad saw dressed in a chemise with a veil over her face when he went to Zaid one day on certain business. She was fair, and her physical appearance was perfect among the women of the Quraish, so that he was bewitched by her beauty. Then he said, "Praise be to him, who changes hearts!" and left and later married to her. So that nobody consider this marriage taboo he told his follower that:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali in the 'Meaning of the Holy Qur'an' writes...

Correct translation of Sura al-Ahzab 33:37:

"Behold! thou didst say To one who had received The grace of Allah And thy favour: "Retain thou (In wedlock) thy wife, And fear Allah." But thou Didst hide in thy heart That which Allah was about To make manifest: thou didst Fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou shouldst, Fear Allah. Then when Zayd Had dissolved (his marriage) With her, with the necessary (Formality), We joined her In marriage to thee: In order that (in future) There maybe no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when The latter have dissolved With the necessary (formality) (Their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must Be fulfilled. Sura al-Ahzab 33:37

3722. This was Zayd, son of Harithah, one of the first to accept the faith of Islam. He was the freedman of the Prophet, who loved him as a son and gave him in marriage to his own cousin Zaynab. The marriage however turned out unhappy.

3723. Zayd's marriage with the Prophet's cousin Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, did not turn out happy. Zaynab the high born looked down upon Zayd the freedman who had been a slave. And he was not comely to look at. Both were good people in their own ways, and both loved the Prophet, but there was mutual incompatibility, and this is fatal to married life. Zayd wished to divorce her but the Prophet asked him to hold his hand, and he obeyed. She was closely related to the Prophet, he had given a handsome marriage gift on her marriage to Zayd; and people would certainly talk if such a marriage was broken off. But marriages are made on earth, not in heaven, and it is no part of Allah's Plan to torture people in a bond which should be a source of happiness but actually is a source of misery. Zayd's wish indeed the mutual wish of the couple was for the time being put away, but it became eventually an established fact, and everybody came to know of it.

3724. All facts are reffered to Allah. When the marriage is unhappy, Islam permits the bond to be dissolved, provided that all interests concerned are safeguarded. Apparently there was no issue here to be considered. Zaynab had to be considered, and she obtained the dearest wish of her heart in being raised to be a Mother of the Believers, with all the dignity and responsibility of that position.

3706. The position of the wives of the Prophet was not like that of ordinary women or ordinary wives. They had special duties and responsibilities. The only youthful marriage of the Prophet was his first marriage-that with Khadijah, the best of women and the best of wives. He married her fifteen years before he received the call to Prophethood; the marriage life lasted for 25 years, and their mutual devotion was of the noblest, judged by spiritual as well as social standards. During her life he had no other wife, which was unusual for a man of his standing among his people. When she died, his age was 50, and but for two considerations he would probably never have married again, as he was most abstemious in his physical life. The two considerations which governed his latter marriages were: (1) compassion and clemency, as when he wanted to provide for suffering widows, who could not be provided for in any other way in that stage of society; some of them, like Sawdah, had issue by their former marriage, requiring protection; (2) help in his duties of leadership, with women, who had to be instructed and kept together in the large Muslim family, where women and men had similar social rights. Aishah, daughter of Abu Bakr, was clever and learned, and in Hadith she is an important authority on the life of the Prophet. Zaynab daughter of Khuzaymah, was specially devoted to the poor she was called the "Mother of the Poor". Zaynab daughter of Jahsh worked for the poor, for whom she provided from the proceeds of her manual work and assist as Mothers of the Ummah. Theirs were not idle lives, like those of Odalisques, either for their own pleasure or the pleasure of their husband. They are told here that they had no place in the sacred Household if they merely wished for ease or worldly glitter. If such were the case, they could be divorced and amply provided for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, no personal attacks. You have no right to call people 'ignorant'. No one person knows everything, and sometimes people make mistakes.

Secondly, assume good faith. Do not assume that people are maliciously twisting things in order to suit themselves. If you feel that a person has made an error whilst trying to improve this article, then by all means inform them, and always in a respectful manner, of their mistake.

Thirdly, be bold. If you see a mistake, correct it, and leave a little edit summary in order to clarify yourself and your desicion. 89.242.188.89 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Much of the content on this criticism page is devoted to people who merely want to read criticisms of something that they have animosity towards and do not understand. The content that fills this page is taken out of context and manipulated and many of the translations (as is the case with Zaynab Jahsh quote from Sura al-Ahzab 33:37) is incorrect and not in any of the Qur'an English translation texts. Please wikipedians at least present two sides so that your not encouraging and fueling people with false information that has been circulated on wikipedia to serve the agenda of anti Islamic and ignorant minds. I am not saying everything in the texts are good and divine, but the material that fills this wikipage is unbelievable bias and a counter argument is not even provided which can always be accompanied by direct reliable quotes from the book itself. I think this page is helping a lot of people out there who care not to read the book than judge it by its own standards, and come to a wikipage such as this one to read in a couple minutes some criticisms so they ease their mind about something they dont understand or want to take the time to learn about. I am not a Muslim nor a religiously devoute person, but I found much of the mumbo jumbo that anti Islamic and religious enthusiasts spit out are based on flawed incorrect claims like the ones found here and I think the format that criticism pages have laid out is not optimal because it doesn't allow arguments for and against to be presented in a fair and equal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Source of Criticism move to a separate article or at the bottom of the article

I find this article hard to read since the source of criticism is rather lengthy and really unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sections Formatting Changes

I like to see sections formating into three groups:

1) Criticism 2) Response 3) Rebuttal

Any suggestions please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Not Appropriate

This article is outside of Wikipedia guidelines.

There is always room made for a (small) "controversy" section in the actual subject article (in this case, the actual article on the subject of Muhammad the Prophet of Islam is the only legitimate article).

To make a whole huge article just about criticisms of someone is not encyclopedic, but just allows for people to push their own agendas and ideas on Wikipedia-- turning the article into an online forum rather than an encyclopedia.

This article is also potentially an ever-expanding and unfocused laundry list of objections, because anyone can make up criticisms endlessly about another person, and because it has no focused subject area.

69.171.160.148 (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but in fact there are many articles about criticism of various figures, religions, and philosophies including: Criticism of Jesus, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of capitalism and even Criticism of Wikipedia. These articles are fairly common and they generally focus on academic criticism rather than personal criticism. Especially in the cases of great historical figures and major religions, there is far too much material to include it all in the parent article, thus the "Criticism of X" articles are an acceptable way to present the information. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Aisha's Age

This is not the first time an attempt to offer another, entirely valid point of view concerning the age of Aisha has been made. Please stop referring to my edits as "unexplained". I am not pulling proofs out of thin air, there are references to not only a website but also to published, valid material. Furthermore, most of the "original" text under this subheading is blatantly biased and phrased to immediately shock and repulse. Virgins were not "forced into child marriage", but were rather given more freedom than they had hitherto possessed regarding marriage. (And not only that.)

I will perform an edit once more and would not have it dismissed on ridiculous grounds.

Anyachico (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not explaining or justifying your edits in the edit summary. Therefore, your edits are unexplained.

You are also relying on self-published sources. As far as I know, what you are trying to add about Aisha's age conflicts with scholarship consensus about the traditional sources. That doesn't meant that disagreement doesn't exist, but the disagreement should be portrayed in a manner consistent with sources, not giving a minority view WP:UNDUE weight.

These are not "ridiculous" grounds to dismiss your edits. They are entirely valid concerns.

Please don't make wholesale changes to multiple parts of the article if your changes cause contention. I suggest going through each section one at a time. I don't disagree with the biased wording you changed, as long as the words accurately reflect the attitude of critics, because, after all, criticism of Muhammad is the topic of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on some counts which I will keep in mind when re-editing. And I've already gone through each section one at a time, thanks.

However, I am not citing self-published sources alone; my reference included the footnote from the website I cited content from which in turn cited the "Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, 1992 U.S.A. edition", not merely some random Joe on a website. The idea that Aisha was indeed in her teens when her marriage was consummated is not a minority view in the least.

The biased wording that I changed reflected no attitude except that of whomsoever wrote it. You'll notice I did not alter the wordings anywhere else in the article even though they were of the same tone and nature.

Anyachico (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the dialog. I must say I disagree with your assertion regarding what isn't the minority view. Let me clarify my position.

According to most Sunni sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage Aisha when she was nine years old. Most Shi'a sources (a minority view) often put it at sixteen. Some Sunni scholars favor an early age, other Sunni and Shi'a scholars favor a later age, and some Shi'a scholars have favored an early age. I erred earlier in describing this state of affairs as "conensus" but there is certainly a majority view.

I think it is important to differentiate which group is saying what, but the WP:UNDUE principle requires us to devote more space to the dominant view, which is that Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine years old. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohamad/Jesus criticism

Hey guy's I'm not a Muslim nor educated in this area of study, but the criticism page of Mohamad and Jesus are disproportionate. Way to much stuff on this wiki page versus Jesus's. Maybe someone like to balance it out a bit? I'm sure there is a lot more criticism than the current page, I mean the controversies surrounding Jesus is nothing less than Mohamads, or Moses , or whoever for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Same amount of criticism with regard to Jesus (PBUHN & whatnot)? As far as I recal, Christ did not boink any nine year olds, so that's a huge part of criticism that you won't find with regard to Him. Deary me, this is PC central here, eh? (93.240.98.239 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

POV, etc.

This complete article is a Mess, and mere promotion of the subject from one sided biased POVs. This article is titled as Criticism of Mohammad, however it includes hatred and abusive wordings used by non followers of Mohammad out of their hatred. Secondly citation are mostly from Christian, Jewish and other non Muslim sources, hence this article's neutrality is also disputed and badly requires a clean up. For Example, Mohammad's depiction in Picture in hell is no where mentioned in any book, so how come an assumption be included as an encyclopedic material?? Humaliwalay (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2010

The scope of this article includes both historical and contemporary criticisms, and all of them are properly referenced. The article does not actively promote any point of view, it merely presents verifiable facts from reliable sources about criticisms that others have made. If you wish to challenge a specific point or source, please feel free to do so. However, a "Criticism" article cannot be tagged "POV" simply because it contains criticisms....that's the whole point of the article. In the absence of specific, actionable issues, I'm going to remove the header tags. Doc Tropics 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Aishah's age was 19 at marriage time.

A very important contribution is made by Khurram Zaid about the age of Madam Aishah, a reference of research is also provided with the contribution, the research suggests that the correct age of Madam Aishah at her time of marriage was 19 years not 9. No one should undo or delete my contribution except with the trackable PROOFS that the references are false.

Some thought-provoking suggestions:

According to a research made on "Aishah's marriage with Prophet Muhammad and her true age" [3], by Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, Some have suggested that Aishah was born in 610 CE, some 11 or 12 years before the Migration to Madinah in 622, which would mean that at the time of her full marriage she would have been around 14 years old, and not 9.

Some have suggested that she was born in 605 CE and thus when Muhammad attained the Prophethood she would have already been 5 years old, 17 in the year of Hijrah, and 19 years old when she took full marriage.

Another suggestion is that at the time of her nikah Aishah was 16 years old (sittah ashra). It is quite possible that the later authors, while quoting the figures, mistakenly omitted ‘ashar (ten in Arabic), thus changing 16 to 6 years old.

So, numbers, dates etc. in the Quran are not to be trusted because someone might have left something out. Got it. And we should feel free to add or subtract whatever, in order to make the text fit into whatever argument/apology we are trying to build up? What else shouldn't be trusted in the Quran? Just so we're on the same page.--Nwinther (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in someone's mouth, so to speak, with full knowledge that what you're saying is inflammatory. There is no mention of the Qur'anic dates anywhere in the above talk post. Thanks. -- Anyachico (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure they do. The number ten is apparantly omitted from time to time. Noone can really say for sure when, so anyone can add or subtract 10 - and why stop at 10? Any number can be omittet - when it serves my purpose.--Nwinther (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Age of Aisha (R.A.A) isn't given in the holy Quran and the HOLY QURAN IS TRUTH AND IT'S FREE FROM ANY MISTAKES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.51.67.178 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to leave comments on the talk pages, take a gander at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices:

"Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc."

If you have a point to make; type it, don't shout it.89.242.188.89 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

reverted deletion of Muhammad images

Would it be appropriate to have the same warning at the top of this discussion page as it is at the top of the discussion pages for Muhammed and Depictions of Muhammad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetteDoe (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure there's as strong a consensus about images in this article as in the others. Although it might make sense to have a version of that box on this talk page because some criticism is in the form of depictions. For now, I'd say keep reverting and warning the users who delete the images, until someone starts a dialog explaining a logical rationale why the images should be removed (other than being personally offended). ~Amatulić (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed Zainab stanza

I had added a stanza about Muhammad in which I exhibited his marriage with his daughter in law Zainab , that stanza has been removed , may i know the reason!, was that wrong ??, Historical evidence were provided too to support the contribution. --Race911 (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

At least a speedy deletion notification should get provided to me (the contributer) before deleting the contribution !! , This is a mock, When somebody is trying to assemble the pieces from history to enlighten the reader's mind and on other part to disrespect that crucial contribution people here are deleting artifacts without any prior notice or information. --Race911 (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for not providing the reason for the deletion. The passage in that section has some false information that completely contradict with the muslim's beliefs and the historical facts (I'm talking based on being a practicing muslim who has been involved with islamic readings and studies since more than 18 years). In particular, the statement: "Muhammad was so bewitched by her beauty that he asked Zaid to divorce her so that he can marry he" is completely wrong and based on a false narration that the muslims do not accept. None of our Islamic narrations ever say that the Prophet asked Zaid to divorce Lady Zainab "so that he can marry her"!!! there is no authentic narration that mentions that (note that even if a certain historical book mentions such a story (which I doubt), it is not enough to take it as a fact. I expect you to know that all the historical books are under continuous study and criticism by muslim scholars to identify the "authentic" stories and the lies). Beside, I can never imagine any culture on this earth that may accept that a man asks someone to divorce his wife so that he can marry her!!! this is not only a non-islamic moral, it is completely unaccepted in the environment where the Prophet lived as it is extremely rude!!!. On the other hand, the word "bewitched" is a complete "corrupted" translation of the Arabic word mentioned in the narration (aside from being an authentic narration or not). Yes, the passage was right when it said that muslims consider the story as mythical, but the way the section is written implies that the story happenned but the muslims deny it!!! That's why the section is completely misleading as it accuses the muslim's Prophet of something that the muslims refuse and never practice, yet you consider that as a "criticism against their prophet". A criticism should be against something that did happen, while this story is refused by muslims. Finally, the section ends with the statement "Muhammad felt responsible for the failed marriage and offered to marry her after her divorce". Again, this is completely not a true justification of the Prophet's marriage and it contradicts with what muslims believe. The true story is that after the marriage was ended (due to that Lady Zainab was unhappy in it, not because the Prophet enforced that), the Quran clearly stated that Allah ordered the Prophet to marry Lady Zainab in order for the Arab to know that it is permissible to marry the divorcee of their adopted sons (the Arabs before Islam used to refrain from such marriages because they treated their adopted sons as true sons and thus they never allowed any male to marry the widow or divorcee of their adopted sons). Here is what the Holy Quran says in the verse 37 of Surah 33 (named Al-Ahzab): "Then when Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's command must be fulfilled.". In brief, the muslims believe that the latter was the reason behind the marriage of the Prophet and Lady Zainab, and the claim that he was "bewitched" and "in love" with her and thus enforced the divorce from Zaid is completely refused by muslims who admire their Prophet and treat him as "infallible" and refuse any kind of "insults" against him through such stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.93.204 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not responsibly for any changes to this page, but need to comment since the Zaineb line has been placed back. Please understand one thing very well to all who bring random narrations without respecting the science of Hadith which these narrations are held to. You are posting something from Tabari without it's chain of narrations as mentioned in Tabari. You are then ignoring what the chain of narrators tells us about the authenticity of the narration. This is unacceptable, and the narration is in itself unacceptable. Some narrations have people who were unreliable, unknnown, or never even met the person they claim to narrate from etc. As for this narration:

1. It is narrated by at-Tabari from the narration of Usamah ibn Zaid ibn Aslam al-Qurashi, who is Munkar (rejected) in hadeeth by Saleh ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and his father, the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal considered him weak as well. This is in regards to the narration found in v.22, p.13
2. A number of other narrations of this story, altogether as weak as a a cobweb, are all discussed in detail here (Arabic source):http://www.burhanukum.com/article768.html
3. Zaineb is called the Prophet's daughter-in-law by Race911. She was married to Zaid, who was not related to him.
4. It is totally not mentioned that Zaineb and her family originally wanted her to marry Prophet Muhammad.
5. It is totally not mentioned why and how she was married to Zaid by the Prophet, peace be upon him
6. It is totally not mentioned that Zaid sought numerous divorces, and that Zaineb did not originally want the marriage.
7. It totally does not mention the lessons normally derived by the story which were well-known at the time and are well-documented: the legitimacy of a person of lower status marrying someone of higher status (Zaineb bring a noblewoman of Quraish, Zaid an ex-slave), the legitimacy of marrying a divorcee, and the illegality of adopting someone (you can take care of someone but not claim fatherhood).
8. An excellent English source is here: http://www.a2youth.com/ebooks/the_wives_of_the_prophet/zainab_bint_jahash/

Bottom line: This needs to be unprotected and edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsg70007 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.135.30 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 

Regarding the work I did, the video cited is not a big problem. That can be fixed, and I have no objection to that. There was clearly a lot of work besides what the video was cited for, and I had meant to return to do more work - though I consider the video citation a mistake. However, I need to know what is the reason for removing ALL the work I did on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsg70007 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)