Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Muhammad in other traditions

Alavis claim Ali ibni Abi Talib as god. how can these people be closely related to Islam and, 'all' muslims as oppose to 'many' muslims consider them outside Islam. A person who declares that there is no God except Allah (since it is requirement for a muslim) will surely regard that person (who belives in a human as god) to be not muslim. therefore 'all' muslims as opposed to 'many' fall in that category (with exception, a person who does not regard alavis as non muslim ofcourse would be mentally ill and all these people probably account for 0.00000000000001% of the muslim population). A little use of logic is required here, no offence. By same arguement Ahmedis reject finality of prophethood (essential requirement of being a muslim), therefore they do not come under the banner of islam. ahmedis are unanimously believed to be outside of Islam by both sunnis and shia. Infact, ahmedis themselves call non-ahmedis (including muslims) kafirs. Therefore if both agree upon each other to be different, there should not be any doubt. i would suggest you to read: why muslims consider ahmedis to be non muslims and what ahmedis refer to non ahmedis (muslims) as.

I see Timothy Usher is in a little revert war here. Here is my proposal for the paragraph that keeps getting attacked. As it stands, the original version is POV from the angle of the sects and then it uses an ambiguous phrase of "... regarded by some to be Islamic." Who "some" is or isn't is left to interpretation. A better paragraph reads like this:

Muhammed is also a prophet for the Mustaˤliyya, Nizarī, Alawites, Zikri, and the Ahmadiyya. Although these religions claim to be related to Islam on superficial examination, a deeper analysis on core tenants and teachings shows distinct differences. However, members of these religions claim to be Islamic sects, but are considered non-Muslims by a majority of Muslims following traditional Islam.

If someone wants to go in and explain the distinct differences then do so but since the "sects" are linked, the reader could do the research on their own time. I'd like some discussion before making the change. 24.7.141.159 03:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a picture? (just kidding!)

Don't worry, there is no revert war here. 81.76.90.225 appears to be new to wikipedia and isn't handling this correctly; q.v. his edit of Ahmadi.

I concur with your assessment of the original version as overly favorable to the sects' POV. However, your proposed version is at least as inadequate in this regard. The first sentence seems particularly inappropriate, as we are not here to state what a deeper examination of core tenets would show, nor is this article the place to present the evidence.

"Muhammad is also a prophet for the Mustaˤliyya, Nizarī, Alawites, Zikri, and the Ahmadiyya. These religions are closely related to Islam and are considered by their followers to be sects thereof, but many traditional Muslims consider them outside Islam altogether.Timothy Usher 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it as you see fit. I agree with your reasoning here. 24.7.141.159 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by what appears to be a trend by editors on certain articles to force other editors into engaging in debate on discussion pages over every edit. This is not myspace; some of us aren't here for the social life. The talk page is for discussing important issues related to how best to present information in the article. When someone makes an edit you think could be better put, fix it, don't revert and start a debate here. — JEREMY 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Done.Timothy Usher 04:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! — JEREMY 09:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My aplogies. I would hate to start a war especially since I'm an "anonymous" editor. 24.7.141.159 13:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is going in the right direction. However we should call them (the 'sects') 'religions' instead of 'traditions' (as it is currently). Isn't that what they would call themselves? If we had "Muhammad is also a prophet for the ...", and then "These beliefs are closely related to..." we would bypass this issue altogether. 80.135.255.49 11:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts here. Having "... several religions other than Islam." (first sentence in the section introduction) makes 'traditions' a synomym for 'religion' in this context. 80.135.255.49 11:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording was chosen precisely to avoid a determination as to whether these are their own religions, or sects of Islam.Timothy Usher 12:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true only as long as Jeremygbyrne has not 'cleaned' the section, so that only 'relevant' views are presented. 80.135.255.49 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, please refrain from your baseless personal attacks. — JEREMY 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Founder (continued)

JEREMY, why are scare-quotes better than 'Prophets of Islam' (which is the link anyway)? 80.135.255.49 12:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is called a 'prophet', the opposing view (held by a very large number of people, so relevant) that he is the 'Son of God' is missing. Remedy: use 'Prophets of Islam' instead of 'prophets' (after all, it's linked to WP:Prophets_of_Islam and not to WP:Prophets), to _clearify_ (stress) the point that only Muslims see him this way. Alternative: "...islamic prophets...". Thoughts on that? (I could 'fix it' right away to improve the presentation of information, but will listen to arguments first) 80.135.249.92 14:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the scare-quotes to attempt to satisfy your edit summary "Jesus 'prophet' only in Islam". The "bare link" (or indeed "islamic prophets") equally implies something I'd have thought you'd have had a problem with, ie. that Jesus (for example) is a Prophet of Islam. I'm happy enough with the non-scare-quoted "prophet", which is what Timothy has rv'ed it to. — JEREMY 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad the founder of Islam? - update

This section is still unsourced. I don't really understand what the necessity of this section is. Maybe the title should be changed to "Non-Muslim views on Muhammad"??? In any case statements like "Muslims accept that Muhammad founded Islam as a historical, political and social entity, but object to the notion that he founded the religion" seem highly generalized, subjective, and unencyclopedic. If you want to keep such statements you should at least provide some sources so the reader would know what the context is. Aucaman^Talk 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I killed it. The whole thing was added because editors were offended that Muhammad was being called the founder of Islam in the intro, so the Muslim objection was added in this section with a brief disclaimer to the effect that non-Muslims don't accept this. One side keeps trying to expand this disclaimer to give the non-Muslim POV equal weight, while the other tries to eliminate it. The prophets are being treated like fire hydrants.Timothy Usher 22:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it in a much shorter form. The section contains an explanation for a very non-intuitive concept — that Muslims believe Islam preceded Muhammad — not otherwise explained in the article. It is important, encyclopaedic material and, with some ongoing work by people who actually want it retained, a consensus position will be reached. No sources are necessary; nobody has disputed the facts of this issue, just how to represent it without WP:NPOVUW. I can see nothing "subjective" or "unencyclopedic" about the sentence quoted by Aucaman above, but I have modified the section considerably in an attempt to reduce any apparent POV. There are no "sides" here; we are all working on this together. — JEREMY 03:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I killed it again. Your para comes across as pure preaching. It's not necessary to understand Muhammad's biography, which is the main thing here, and the gist of it is surely conveyed by the link to the Prophets of Islam article (which I really need to check out) and the large template on the bottom of the article. Zora 03:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to your description of my honest efforts to achieve consensus as "pure preaching". This explanation is absolutely critical to understanding why Muhammad is not listed as the "founder" of Islam, which most casual (non-Muslim) observers might expect. We're not here to give people "the gist" by implication; we are here to make things clear. I have cut the whole thing down to two sentences from what was a three-paragraph major section when I first noticed it. Surely this compromise is acceptable to even the most devout non-Muslims amongst us? — JEREMY 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, this article is about Muhammad, not about Islam. The doctrines of Islam don't need to be explained here except insofar as they relate to Muhammad. Your edit won't stick, because marking the Jesus and Moses hydrants as Muslim territory invites others to visit and reclaim them. We could accept this tug-of-war were the point squarely on-topic, but it's tangential. Practically, your edit only means Aiden, 80.135.249.92 or someone else's version will be up there later.

And I ask, is it considered good style to add a link each and every time a word appears, or to only link in on first mention, and only elsewhere where the case is compelling? I'm inclined to the latter approach. Zora?Timothy Usher 03:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This doctrine of Islam relates directly to the reason Muhammad is not listed as the "founder" of Islam in the introduction — something people new to the article seem perpetually surprised by, and something that has led to many, many edit/revert sequences. Your apologetics for the ongoing POV re-figuring of the section are unhelpful; you see the problem, yet your solution is simply to delete the whole section. If you feel exasperated and unable to participate in reaching consensus on this issue, please step back. And yes, we only link the first time a word appears in an article, as per my examples which you seem to have replicated after your wholesale revert. — JEREMY 03:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was confused about one of your edits. We agree on the links. As for apologetics, I offered the same for each side.Timothy Usher 04:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate concerns

I think I'm beginning to understand some of the concerns here. The point is that, within Islam itself, Muhammad is not the "founder" of Islam, but rather a prophet among many. The only thing that distinguishes him from the other prophets is the claim that he's supposed to be the last prophet in this sequence. This is a ligitimate point of view and probably deserves to be mentioned. I'm not sure if it deserves its own section, especially with a title like "Was Muhammad the founder of Islam?". If you want to keep it I suggest changing the title of the section to "Mohammad within Islam", so that the section can be later expanded. Aucaman^Talk 04:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz has started working on article on Islamic views of Muhammad. It can go there. We're getting into theology. This is supposedly a biographical article. Zora 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well many people view Muhammad as a religious figure, so presenting him just as a historical figure is probably not that neutral. I suggest summarizing some of the matrial from Islamic views of Muhammad back into this article, emphasis on the word summary. What do you think? Oh and by the way, shouldn't it be "Islamic views on Muhammad" or Muhammad in Islam? Aucaman^Talk 05:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I have some qualms about the necessity of a "balance", it's notable that Jesus has a huge Religious perspectives section summarising Christian views of Jesus (and those of others). — JEREMY

A fair assessment of this article would find that at least 4/5th of it already represents views shared by muslims (or is there a difference between 'muslim views' and 'islamic views'?). The biography section, the longest by far, is preceded by saying it 'follows traditional Muslim accounts' and even has 'islamic' in the section heading (so muslim=islamic). The conclusion from this must be that a truly _neutral_ biography section is in fact missing. Even 'muslim veneration' is now longer than 'in other tradions', the latter currently not more than a gloryfied link list. If one looked for sentences that convey POVs _not_ shared by muslims, one would come up with a very low percentage count. Maybe there are applicable Wikipedia policies on 'neutrality' somewhere. 80.135.248.177 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include Christian and Jewish views within the "Muhammad in other traditions" section. —Aiden 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Muhammad has no bearing whatsoever on the christian or the jewish religion. Christian and jewish views as 'christian and/or jewish religious views' only come into play if figures or contents of their respective faiths are mentionend. In all other cases, christians and jews simply belong to the 'non-muslim views' camp. I don't think anyone would consider 'non-muslim' as a tradition in the sense the section heading implies. 80.135.248.177 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not fight :)

Jeremy's edits

Jeremy, please stop removing a reference to who Muhammad is in the eyes of non-Muslims. Muslims do not OWN this article. Having that reference at the top "places" Muhammad for non-Muslims.

Also, your edit combining two sentences just did not work. "Both" is an indeterminate reference. Someone reading it thinks "Both what? Both dates? Both cities?" One can eventually work it out, but that initial moment of uncertainty is unpleasant for the reader. Zora 06:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely "who Muhammad is in the eyes of non-Muslims" belongs in something called Religious perspectives on Muhammad, not a "biographical article"? Or does that argument only apply when it suits your case? The introduction as I left it very clearly said "Muslims believe" (with a link to contextualise those beliefs), not "It is believed" or "Muhammad was". There was absolutely no ambiguity and, frankly, you have to squint hard with the right kind of eyes to see that it "places" him for anyone. I take your point re. the cities, although I still feel those two sentences read awkwardly as is. — JEREMY 07:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I agree with you about the unnecessary hagiography. The explanation is that this is necessary to distinguish Muhammad's mission from those of other prophets, who were sent to guide one or another people rather than all humanity. However, this will not be obvious to most readers. I already knew this, but after many readings still didn't get the reference until it was explained to me. It sounds like pious rhetoric. This distinction should be noted in the article, but not in the introduction, and the phrasing is unacceptable.Timothy Usher 07:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that. I agree it's a fine point of theology (about Muhammad's supposed mission — ie. primarily a religious belief — rather than about the man himself) and thus should be moved down the article or into a perspectives spinoff. — JEREMY 07:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I think you're right that those two sentences are choppy. A rewrite would be fine, as long as it isn't ambiguous.

As for the "who he is" -- in biographical articles, we start off with a quick-and-dirty description of who the biographee is, and why he/she is notable. In the case of religious figures, this can be difficult, because the religion will have developed an elaborate story as to just WHO this person is -- and if it has split into sects, there will be several conflicting stories. So it's easy to give the non-Muslim version (he founded Islam) and hard to give a quick overview of the Muslim version(s). But we have to try -- we can't start the article with a 10K dissertation on Muhammadology. So yes, the Muslim version is going to be mangled by being squashed into a few sentences. But -- we have the rest of the article, or a breakout article, to explain further.

I do not think that it is fair to non-Muslims (who comprise a majority of our readers and users) to remove their view completely, which is what your version does. Zora 07:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the Muslim view is being fairly represented in the current introduction without additional expansion; your strawman about a 10K dissertation is misdirected, and I think you need to stop assuming I'm a Muslim because (apparently unusually) I am able to deal with Islamic-related articles without a resort to personal bias. Please consider my current version. — JEREMY 07:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[1]Enough said.

Any version which begins with the four words "Muhammad is the prophet..." is unacceptable. I also don't see the need for "generally" and a link to Islamic views of Muhammad, which doesn't mention any dissent in this regard.Timothy Usher 07:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm amused you think the only explanation for the frustration I displayed here is that I'm a Muslim. No version of mine began "Muhammad is the prophet..." as you well know. The reference was capitalised and scare-quoted such that nobody but the most imaginative observer could mistake this designation for a description. "Generally" covers people who consider themselves Muslims but don't believe Muhammad was the last prophet, but I actually agree with you that the link should only have been from "believe" (not "generally believe"). A couple of centuries more of this and we might actually achieve consensus. — JEREMY 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant only that you were offended that you felt Zora had assumed you to be a Muslim, yet made similarly unfounded assumptions about my own beliefs. But all is okay now.Timothy Usher 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

NP. (I don't feel my comment indicates an assumption of your religion, rather I pointed to Christian wikis to analogise the way you seemed to want to deal with differences of belief about issues related to Christianity, ie. by arriving at some agreed "Truth" about them. If that is not the way you think such articles should be handled, I apologise.) — JEREMY 12:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My goal in the last edits is to reduce clutter - it was just ugly - and increase clarity. Passive phrases like "He is regarded as so-and-so within/outside the faith", which reduce agents to locations on an abstract plane, are simply awful. And there is no need whatsoever to translate "prophet" or "messenger."Timothy Usher 07:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you consider moving the Arabic translations to a section lower down, or do you really think everyone is as disinterested as you are in knowing what Muhammad is called in the language of the religion who consider him their prophet? Are you deliberately bucking for a {{globalize}}? — JEREMY 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

All the Arabic text and transliteration should be moved into a little box somewhere; they do distract. Zora 21:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

They are in the box on the right, in the link entitled "Vocabulary of Islam."Timothy Usher 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

They are no such thing, Timothy. (Certainly, they're not there in a way useful to the casual reader.) I've restored them, grouped them with the out-of-place discussion of his name, and moved both down below the TOC. — JEREMY 10:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The etymology of his name, at least, is relevant. Translation of these Arabic common nouns serves what purpose, exactly?Timothy Usher 10:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To you, maybe nothing. To me, as a casual observer, much: it informs me about the titles in their native tongue (not to mention it helps me to understand how commonly-heard terms like Rasul and Nabi "work" in Arabic, using a concrete example). What's the point of the Greek translations in Christ? — JEREMY 10:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've not been watching Christ, but I'll take a look and see what I can sink (quote me, I am an anti-needless-text submarine). To me, the incessant translation reads like pamphleteering: it is the doctrine of many Muslims, for whatever reason, that Arabic is the only valid language in which one can discuss these matters, and so it's considered more important that it would usually be to include these for each and every term. That's not to say that's why you're doing it, but it is a common phenomenon plaguing Islam-related articles. They're already included in the "Vocabulary of Islam" link to the right - how many other subjects have such a page? - and they clutter up the article.Timothy Usher 10:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your dedication to aesthetics, but you must realise how POV that position is, particularly in light of the undeniable nature of the link between Arabic and Islam. I think, in this case, you're going to have to put up with some squiggly lines. — JEREMY 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor's edits

Anonymous editor, you've made the article more difficult to understand. As discussed above, people aren't getting the "sent to guide all mankind" in the way you mean it, and why should this point of doctrine be in the introduction? This really should go.

Why should we say Non-Muslims "generally" consider him the founder of Islam? Are people saying Uthman was the founder or the like? Is there a non-Muslim who nonetheless believes Islam to alwys have been present, as do Muslims? The move of "eventually" is awkward. It was perfectly fine where it was. And why is "defeat" better than "subdue?"Timothy Usher 01:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's more difficult to understand. What I did that was because he is not a central figure or Islam but a major figure. I guess you can remove the sent to guide all of mankind from the top but the difference between him and the other prophets really should be said. And we don't know if every non-Muslim considers him the founder or not. We can only say generally. And defeat sounds better because he did it eventually and didn't set out to subdue every tribe that was nearby. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

“What I did that was because he is not a central figure or Islam but a major figure.”

Your point is that God is the central figure and that to say otherwise might be construed as blasphemous, but one be almost be willfully misconstruing the sentence and the context to walk away with that. How many people are really going to read that and think, wikipedia is saying Muhammad is more important than God? The way it reads now suggests a Druze viewpoint or the like. Maybe there’s a way to solve both problems. Any other opinions on this?

“And we don't know if every non-Muslim considers him the founder or not. We can only say generally.”

There might be those (well, most) without an opinion, but that hardly counts, It didn’t say “All non-Muslims...”, but only “Non-Muslims...” which is unspecified as to “all” or “generally”. I’ve never heard such a stance. Have you?

Similarly we might change “Muslims believe that in 610, at about the age of forty...” to “Muslims generally believe...” Perhaps some Muslim believes some aspect of the particulars are wrong? We don’t know.

This road leads to chaos, as anything can be hedged if no good reason is to be required.

I see now why you removed the first “eventually”; it was entirely superfluous. I’m still not sure about the second though.

The reason I prefered “subdue” the tribes of Arabia is because they weren’t just defeated, they were forced into a tributary relationship, against which many of them revolted after Muhammad’s death.

“...the difference between him and the other prophets really should be said.”

Perhaps there is a more natural place for it.Timothy Usher 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about the sentence: "The military organization that emerged from this struggle then set out to subdue the other tribes of Arabia."

I think Muhammad fought with some tribes in Arabia. After conquest of Mecca, I've heard other tribes themselves believed in Muhammad as a central political power. The following verses I think are relevant: 110:1-3. When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory, And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds, Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).

I think Muhammad did not fight with all tribes of Arabia.--Aminz 02:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Zora, can you please let us know your opinion. thx. --Aminz 02:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Muhammad did not unify Arabia. He got most of it but not all, per Fred Donner, who is an eminent historian of early Muslim conquests. Second, tribes did hasten to submit, but only because they saw which way the wind was blowing. There is no evidence that they would have submitted without the many raids and campaigns that preceded the "Year of Delegations" (per Tabari). In fact, their Islam sat so lightly on them, as a submission to Muhammad as political figure alone, that many of them reclaimed their freedom following Muhammad's death. I believe some historians argue that the action that really unified the tribes was Umar's decision to send raiding parties and then armies out against the Byzantines and the Persians, thus opening up enormous new vistas for loot, AND his willingness to let the tribes who had been defeated in the Ridda Wars join the Muslim armies. (I'd have to check Donner and Kennedy again.) It would be unrealistic to believe that these tribes were Muslim in anything but name. Umar's armies consisted of a core of devout Muslims who really had given up all for their faith, and were willing to die for it, and a mass of tribesmen who saw an opportunity for warrior glory (always important to the nomads, commemorated in poetry, of which Ibn Ishaq is full) and booty.

I think that many of these warriors must have been converted by the example of the believers among them, but I don't think they started that way. As someone, I forget who, noted -- the pious early Muslims were less concerned with the formal submission to Islam (which is stressed today) and more concerned with fostering iman, belief, once submission had been obtained. If the idealized history that makes the whole Muslim army a band of devoted believers were true, the pious ones wouldn't have been as concerned with iman.

This POV doesn't have to rule the article, but it does mean that we can't put forth as unquestioned truth matters that are open to debate. Zora 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The so-called Ridda wars broke out when certain tribes stopped sending zakat to Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to collect.Timothy Usher 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it was completely apostasizing, sometimes it was "we're still Muslim, but we don't owe any allegiance to that Abu Bakr guy". Sometimes it was following another prophet. Zora 03:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Musaylimah. Zora, would you be willing to add the Donner cite?Timothy Usher 04:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor,

Why do you prefer “military organization” to “army”?

Why do you say “defeat” instead of “subdue”? As per the discussion above, he did not in fact defeat them all, nor were they merely defeated, but also forced into a tributary relationship, and I’d be rather inclined to say so explicitly if I didn’t know it’d be reverted. He *did* subdue them all.

Zora cited Donner for “most” of Arabia. That is why I changed this. I’ve asked her to add the cite when she has a chance. Have you been following the discussion? You just got another editor blocked for being on the wrong side of an edit war with you, and one of the reasons given to him was that he doesn’t discuss things on the talk page. This won’t happen to you anyhow, but you might at least make a half-hearted show of it. As for "sent to guide mankind", first you said we could remove it from the intro, now you've restored it, but it a manner that doesn't satisfy your originally-stated reason for having it there.Timothy Usher 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I removed "all of" mankind because that was the dispute there. This sentence is completely different because it is not for clarifying the difference between Muhammad and the other prophets, it is what each of the prophets did. And please stop trying to personalize, there is a big difference between a 3rr for reverting to a vandalized version and editing the article. So please read up on it before you carry on thinking the way you do now. And I am fine with having "most of" so you can add it back. As for army it wasn't one army but an organization of followers. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Actually I removed "all of" mankind because that was the dispute there." No, it wasn't. The reason, as discussed above, was because the entire sentence sounds like pious pomp, with or without "all". Now that the all mankind/only one people distinction is gone, what can possibly be the reason for retaining the rest? "God's final prophet" is pretty suggestive as it is, and it links to Prophets of Islam which addresses the rest.

Timothy, can you please explain how Zora's comments support "Muhammad went on to subdue the other tribes of Arabia." They themselves turned to Muhammad. Of course; it was because they saw which way the wind was blowing. This sentence as I can understand says that Muhammad was the initiative. Muhammad of course subdued the pagans of Mecca (peacefully) and those Jews who were joined the enemy party(by war I think). --Aminz 21:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't subdue Mecca peacefully, he subdued it without a fight. Advancing on a city with an army - or an "organization of [armed] followers" if you will - cannot be characterized as peaceful means. As for the wording of this sentence, I'm interested to hear Zora's opinion.Timothy Usher

I rewrote to make the text more exact. The coalitions were assembled before the conquest of Mecca, to a great extent. The conquest was not "peaceful" -- some people resisted (only a few) and some people were killed. A number of tribes DID send delegations to Muhammad, submitting without a fight and formally becoming Muslims, but since they only did this after the Muslims had assembled a force that seemed unstoppable, it can't be argued that they did this simply because Islam struck them as a good idea. It was just aligning with the winner and avoiding conflict.

All of this is documented from Muslim sources. It's just not the impression given in most inspirational works directed at Muslims. In the inspirational works, the inherent goodness of Islam penetrated the hearts of all involved and they all enthusiastically became good Muslims. It's only if you read the old chronicles, as the academicians do, that you come bump up against the messy political realities. Zora 21:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the political reality is not as messy as you say it is. Western academics have confused many parts of the historical documents. The tribes that did submit did not all submit because of an unstoppable force. At many times, the Muslims were outnumbered and some allied tribes didn't join Islam until later. But I agree with the changes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I am much more forthright in talk pages than I am in writing articles, when I really do try to avoid language that will result in fights. I could be accused of being "weaselly" :) Zora 22:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then let me accuse you of being a little weaselly here. Your sentence is well-written and true, but makes the whole thing sound a most congenial affair. One unintended effect is that the clause "and launched expeditions to the north..." is made vague, as if he'd sent explorers to map the regions, or recover a rare species of plant.Timothy Usher 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

rvv?

That looks more like a good faith edit you're rvv'ing there... was that extra 'v' a slip of the keyboard? Netscott 02:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• User:Anonymous editor appears to have failed to indicate (with a bit of commentary perhaps) that I posted this question to his talk page whereupon he moved it here and deleted it (not through revert but actual deletion as in speedy and without requesting my permission I might add). Is it just me or does that seem bad? Netscott 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The site in question is more about showing depictions of Muhammad in varying degrees of offensiveness (judging by the introduction and the Extreme Muhammad images). Given that the user subsequently blatantly vandalized the page, I would have to say that's an edit made in bad faith. joturner 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The link is disrespectful to Muslims. Should we for example add the list of all rude things people have said about Muhammad? I don't see any reason for that. --Aminz 02:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think being disrespectful to Muslims is enough to get the linked removed; it is more the degree and the manner in which it is intended. The link here contains some extremely offensive material and it's in bad faith. Maybe the addition (and Netscott's subsequent additions) were made in good faith, but the site being linked to certainly is not in good faith. joturner 02:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

the Mohammed image archive is so not disrespectful... what it is about is showing a fair representation of the history of Depictions of Muhammad (and quite a bit more completely then Wikipedia I might add. Netscott 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If we could find another site with material equivalent to those in the first four galleries, that would be great. No site with material like that found in "extreme muhammad" belongs here. Their intent is to upset Muslims under the pretense of making a point about censorship.Timothy Usher 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Netscott. Have you looked at this page? That is definitely disrespectful; even the webmasters opted to put a warning at the top. joturner 02:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are pages that show disrespectful images (with a warning..... hmm doesn't that seem to be showing a bit of good faith?) but if one takes the site in it's entirety one will quickly see that it is an exhaustive repository of all kinds of Muhammad imagery and overwhelmingly the respectful kind I might add. Netscott 03:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, if you want you can create your own website with the same images (minus Extreme Muhammad) as most (if not all) of them are uncopyrighted as they are from long ago. It certainly is not exhaustive, and to be honest, not particularly relevant to learning about Muhammad. joturner 03:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Several of these images would be offensive to nearly all readers of wikipedia, including me.Timothy Usher 03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't a the problem with having the external link, because Wikipedia's purpose is not to be "respectful to Muslims" or anyone else. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide the readers of it's articles with genuine information regaring these articles topics, and the link obviously serve that purpose. -- Karl Meier 11:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

• Just a note to apologize to my fellow editors for trying to revert/add the Mohammed Image Archive link. I must admit that it had been a month or two since the last time I had visited that site and when I originally visited it the "Extreme Muhammad" section wasn't the garingly reprehensible/hateful section it has become. Now that I've actually seen what's been added to that section since, I 100% agree that such a site has no business being linked to from the Muhammad article and if I personally see it added in the future I myself will remove it without hesitation. Netscott 06:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, had come across this site around the time of the cartoon controversy, and though I can't say these outrageous images weren't present, I don't recall having seen them. Thanks for removing this link from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as well.Timothy Usher 08:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical views

I suggest moving some of the historical views on Muhammad to a new article (Muhammad in history or Muhammad as a historical figure). To avoid a POV fork they can be summarized back into this article. This article should also contain some of the religious (Islamic) views on Muhammad. What do you guys think? Aucaman^Talk 10:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean?Timothy Usher 10:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad was both a religious and a historical figure, but this article seems more focused on the history part. Aucaman^Talk 10:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As it should be. Articles about people are usually biographical articles. We are working on the Islamic views of Muhammad article, which gives us room to discuss the theological/philosophical issues involved. Then both sides will be covered. Zora 11:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my point was that some parts of that article should probably be summarized back into this article. Otherwise that article is a POV fork. Muhammad is famous not just for the person he was - but also for the ideas he spread (i.e., Islam). Aucaman^Talk 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For these ideas we have the Islam article. The Muhammad article is mainly for historical events and general role (from different POVs), thus mainly 'historic' and 'biographical', as far as this is possible when mostly relying on non-contemporary religious sources. If the "ideas Muhammad spread" were included, it would become necessary to make clear that while muslims believe that these ideas are God's, this is not an undisputed 'fact'. Generally, non-muslims think that they were Muhammad's own. The "they were Muhammad's ideas" view is naturally not covered in the Islam article, and would fit here nicely. 80.135.213.250 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation from Donner re Ridda Wars

Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 85:

The Arabic sources call all these movements collectively the ridda, "apostasy" or "repudiation" (of Islam) and thus at least imply that all were equally acts of blasphemy that deserved military supression by the new state. Recent scholarship has taken exception to the traditional Islamic view and argued that not all the movements can truly be called ridda-- some because they involved no rejection of the religious teachings of Islam (e.g. in al-Bahrayn, Uman, or among the B. Fazara), others because the group in question had never made any agreement to recognize Muhammad as prophet or embrace Islam (e.g., the B. Hanifa).

Donner footnotes the Banu Hanifa assertion to Elias S. Shoufani, Al-Riddah and the Muslim Conquest of Arabia, University of Toronto Press, 1972.

Donner argues that if Abu Bakr had not attempted to put all the nomadic tribes under Muslim control (including tribes in the northern part of the Syro-Arabian steppe) he would have been able to control none of them, since they simply would have been able to move away from the Muslim-controlled areas and organize for a counter-thrust. Zora 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zora. I'll add it in a bit if someone else doesn't get to it first.Timothy Usher 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about last prophet bit

The article currently says, “Gabriel told him that God had chosen him as the last prophet to mankind.” Is this actually stated in the Qur’an? Sura 33: 40 would seem a rather ambiguous peg upon which to hang such an important point, in a text which does not shy from clearly and repeatedly stating key principles.

Hadith quote Muhammad himself as saying he is the last prophet, but did Gabriel tell him that? Is there some other Quranic verse involved, such that we can attribute this assertion to Gabriel? I am requesting comment before removing this apparent inaccuracy from the article.Timothy Usher 23:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am back! Everybody is editing too fast and I am far behind. I haven't still read people's yesterday's comments. Anyway, my POV here is that:

• 33:40 is not ambiguous. In arabic it reads: "valaken khatamoo o nabiyin" which is clear.
• It is a good question that assuming Muhammad is the last prophet, why it has not been repeated several times in Qur'an. But in any case, there is another verse which is often alluded to prove that one should not to believe in some parts of the Qur'an and reject others.

"And remember We took your covenant (to this effect): Shed no blood amongst you, nor turn out your own people from your homes: and this ye solemnly ratified, and to this ye can bear witness. After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do." (2:84-85)

• Muhammad as far as I know didn't foretold any other new prophet to come after him.

thx. --Aminz 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, if you believe it is inaccuracy, Would you please prove to me that

• 1. 33:40 is ambiguous according to at least one Islamic scholar.
• 2. At least show me that your idea is supported by one website/link/scholars or anything.

Is it fair? --Aminz 07:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is 33:40 most often translated as "seal of the prophets", for example, here: [2]?

I don't know. First of all, I am not good in Arabic. The reason that I think the verse is clear is that Farsi and Arabic have some words in common(including the word "khatam") It is a possibility that the usage of the word in Farsi differs from its usage in Arabic. Now, the word "khatam" as much as I understand is not best described by saying "the last". It is something that appears at the end of a list and ceases the possibility of new occurrence. Somehow achieving some maximum or some end. I don't know how to describe. The word is richer than "the last". But I may be very well wrong. --Aminz 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any Islamic scholar saying this, but for good reason: if they do, by that fact itself, they're no longer considered to be Islamic scholars, an issue which came up recently in this article regarding so-called sects of Islam.

Okay, an arabic scholar who says that is enough. --Aminz 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, there is a brief discussion on wikipedia itself: Seal of the ProphetsTimothy Usher 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it. thx. --Aminz 07:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I have no idea about the sentence: "Much has been made over the years that the term "Khatam" meaning seal, or ornament is used in the Qur'an, and not the related "Khatim", which is more commonly used to mean final or last." Khatim, Khatam?? I know Khatm can be very well translated as "the last, the final". We should ask some native arabic speaker. The word Khatim sounds weird to me but I don't know arabic. --Aminz 07:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Medina passage

The article currently states,

Muhammad and his followers are said to have negotiated an agreement with the other Medinans, a document now known as the Constitution of Medina (date debated), which laid out the terms on which the different factions, specifically the Jews and other "Peoples of the Book" could exist within the new Islamic State. This system would come to typify Muslim relations with their non-believing subjects. In this, the Islamic empire was more tolerant than another great power of the area, the Byzantine empire, which was actively hostile to any religions or sects other than the state-sponsored version of Orthodox Christianity.

This is outrageously distortive passage, considering the fate of the Banu Qurayza, while the Banu-Qaynuqa and Banu al-Nadir were expelled.Timothy Usher 00:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Muslim POV, everything they did to the Jewish tribes was justified because those tribes broke the compact. That's why the "Constitution" is controversial -- it first appears in Ibn Ishaq, who doesn't explicitly date it. Watt thinks that it's a later compilation of various oral agreements entered into over time. So there's no proof at all, really, that the Jewish tribes broke any "compact".

I'm not going to defend the way they were treated. BUT ... it is true that the Muslim conquerors, outside Arabia, were more tolerant than the Byzantines. One reason that the Byzantines were so vulnerable is that they had persecuted their client Arabs for picking the wrong brand of Christianity and thus lost their buffer state. Muslims were welcomed with rejoicing by towns that had suffered under the Byzantines.

Inside Arabia is another story. A hadith sourced to Umar says that no one save Muslims should be allowed to live in Arabia. It's a dubious tradition and it was applied spottily, but lots of Arabs did and do believe it. Including Osama bin Laden, BTW. Zora 03:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this hadith claim that these were Muhammad's last words? As you say, it's dubious.

Yes, the Byzantines were generally worse, while at various times, many portions of the Islamic world were very tolerant by the standards of the time. I don't object to this contrast per se. Only that the way it reads now suggests that the events of Medina proceded according to this model of relative tolerance.Timothy Usher 03:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's some way to rewrite that bit so that it doesn't imply tolerance for the Jews of Medina? Zora 04:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be the idea. Hmm...I'll think about it.

In the meantime, what do you think of my recent edits?Timothy Usher 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they're fine. You excised a lot of POV material that crept in. This article is heartbreaking. It is edited so many times, by so many people, that if you just check the diffs, you miss various odd edits. But complete reading takes some time, even for speed readers like me. I wish it could be permanently semi-protected -- that might help a little. Zora 05:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re permanent semi-protection, I couldn't agree with you more. I struggle to recall seeing a truly valuable contribution by an anonymous user. I'm letting the last one slide, as it's marginally acceptable, he seems to be gradually learning a lesson about what's likely to stick, and maybe letting it post will make him go away.Timothy Usher 06:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section for the following reasons:

1. It is unsourced.
2. It is POV.
3. It is irrelevent to Muhammad.

—Aiden 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

References?

The refs in this article are not associated with the text. Anyone know their history? Is there any way we can convert them to standard refs (ie. associate them with a particular quote in the text)? Floating unattached the way they are, they're not a lot of use to anyone but the serious student willing to go and read the lot. — JEREMY 10:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fulfilling part of one of Muhammad’s prophecies

"...fulfilling part of one of Muhammad’s prophecies (30:4)."

What on earth are you guys doing? This kind of thing has no place here.Timothy Usher 11:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I aimed to prove that the mentioning rejoicing is important. I have heard that (some?) Muslims consider this to be fulfilling part of one of Muhammad’s prophecy. --Aminz 11:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the fact that I've joined the two sentences so the "fulfilling" now becomes "(According) [t]o his followers", and thus purely a description rather than a claim. — JEREMY 11:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stylistic apostasy

You changed "...[Muslims] believe him..." to the passive "...believed by Muslims..." That's warped.Timothy Usher 11:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I am going to sleep. Take care of the article --Aminz 11:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, passive voice is hardly a major crime. Besides, I couldn't come up with a better way to remove the titles and still avoid a more awkward construction. If you can reword it to active voice without sacrificing flow, please feel free. (Feel free anyway, of course; it's not my article.) Sleep well, Aminz. — JEREMY 11:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how's that? — JEREMY 11:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But it is. Remember, this isn't just a BBS for collective late night WP opinion, but an article that people are going to read. Think of the reader. Readers don't need ungainly hedges, nor parenthesized Arabic terms every other sentence, nor blow-by-blow POV about how the Muslims were joyful because their prophecy was fulfilled. What is the purpose?Timothy Usher 11:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check, you'll see I've changed the sentence to active voice again (by breaking it in two) and removed Aminz's "joyful" stuff, but I continue to disagree over the Arabic. You're going to have to do better than the aesthetic argument (this is an encyclopaedia, not an artbook) to get me to agree that the Arabic is non-essential. And it's only 8pm here. — JEREMY 12:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for the scornful tone of my previous remarks above.Timothy Usher 01:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you've made these changes? Perhaps there are very good reasons. I am only curious as to what they are.Timothy Usher 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Which changes in particular? (You can find out what I've done using the diff function in the page history.) — JEREMY 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost every one of them, to tell you the truth. The Arabic translations, although I still don't see the point, at least have been discussed. I can accept that you think them important, even if it's never been explained why. The rest is entirely obscure to me.Timothy Usher 12:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my thinking on the Arabic text issue in several places on this very page. As for the rest... I'm trying hard to understand what you mean by "entirely obscure to me", but can only assume you're trolling me, as per [3]. If I'm wrong, can you perhaps explain your problem a little more precisely? — JEREMY 13:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute. Check out blocked user MuslimsofUmreka's user page, and the history. There's a very good reason I spoke to him that way, which does not remotely apply to you. And it's somewhat strange to claim to say I was trolling on my own talk page. No one made MOU show up there, it's not like a troll who lives under a bridge that one must cross. As for this page, I'll try to be more precise tomorrow. Just please, don't carry this abusive (and blocked) problem user's water. Come on, he wrote, "Did you ever go to school and learn what sources were?"; I'm supposed to respond to that how, exactly? Can you really call that trolling?Timothy Usher 13:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the Battle of Badr fulfilled a prophecy. That is irretrievably POV. I also changed the sentence re the Banu Qaynuqa back to "Muslims accused" rather than the "allegedly". The "allegedly" removes the onus from the Muslims and leaves the accusation floating without an accuser. The Muslims moved into an area as refugees and ended by expelling or killing some of the biggest groups there and taking their land and property (and in one case, their wives and children as slaves). I'm not going to put it that way in the article, but it does look bad from a modern perspective, and I don't think the unsavory aspects should be covered up. (Not that I want them exaggerated, either -- 7th century politics was grim, and these were not the grimmest examples.)

As for "most of the rest of the Medinans converted" -- we've had that in there forever, but Watt points out that the Arabic sources make that claim for several moments in Medinan history -- a claim that is then followed by an account of a tussle with yet another tribe. A tussle which would not have happened if "most Medinans" had converted. Watt doesn't trust these claims and after reading him, I don't either. I modified that Muhammad and his followers becoming the dominant force in Medina, which I think could be defended. Zora 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Accused , believed

Replacing

"Following this victory, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa, whom they accused of breaking a treaty and risking the security of the city state. Muhammad and his followers were now a dominant force in the oasis."

To less persuasive version:

"Following this victory, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa, whom they believed to have broken a treaty and risked the security of the city state."

Any objection?--Aminz 21:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's OK by me, since I think they did believe it. Accusations can be knowing lies. Zora 22:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Saad ibn Muadh

Someone inserted into the article "According to Ibn Ishaq, after the Banu Qurayza were defeated, all the adult men were beheaded by the order of Saad ibn Muadh, an arbiter accepted by the Banu Qurayza..." That Saad ibn Muadh was accepted by Banu Qurayza is plain wrong. In fact, Ibn Hisham's text says: "...when the Aws pleaded with [Muhammad], he said, 'Would you be satisfied, o People of Aws, if one of your own men were to pass the judgement upon them?' 'Certainly,' they replied. The Apostle of Allah... said, 'Then it shall be left to Saad ibn Muadh'." I've changed "accepted by the Banu Qurayza" to "appointed by Muhammad". Pecher ^Talk 22:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, can you please help us. This is in contradiction with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#The_judgment.2C_per_Ibn_Ishaq

There it says: "To determine their fate, Muhammad suggested Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as their judge, and they agreed. Apparently, the Banu Qurayza believed that he would treat them leniently." --Aminz 22:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I wrote that in the Banu Qurayza article and I think I was wrong. I pulled out my trusty copy of Ibn Ishaq, as translated by Guillaume, and it says that the Quraysh "submitted to the apostle's judgement" p. 463 and that the faction known as Aus or Aws demanded that one of their own be allowed to give judgement, and Muhammad agreed and appointed Sa'd, who was from Aws. Sa'd demanded that the Muslims accept his judgement before he gave it, they agreed, and then he demanded death. So the Banu Qurayza only "submitted themselves", which I think means simply surrender, and it was the Aws who stood up for them and demanded someone they thought would be a lenient judge. So it needs to be fixed here and in the Banu Qurayza article.

Importance of quotes! Verifiability! You should never have let me get away with that :) Zora 01:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Translations

Jeremy, I disagree with retaining the translations of "prophet" and "messenger". Last we heard from Zora, she didn't seem too favorable. Consider also the link to "Vocabulary of Islam" as discussed, where the reader will find all this and more. Rather than change it unilaterally, I'd like to see what other editors think. Why do they add to the article, and why are they important?Timothy Usher 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The vocab link is to a lengthy page, little of which is relevant to Muhammad, and which does not include translations of the titles (but rather the root nouns). Arabic is the language of Islam; Muhammad's titles in Arabic are entirely relevant to this article, while your stated reasons for wanting to delete (aesthetics) are irrelevant to this encyclopaedia. Also, when you say "I disagree with retaining" you misrepresent the situation; these translations predate your recent interest in the article, so what you should be saying is "I want to delete", which puts the onus of explanation on you. — JEREMY 05:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But English is the language of this article. We are presenting the titles, in English. Aesthetics of language and visual presentation are entirely relevant to this encylopedia, as is topicality. When they were added has nothing to do with this. If they are not adequately presented in Vocabulary of Islam, then you should add them, as they are squarely on-topic in that page.Timothy Usher 05:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than change it unilaterally, I'd like to see what other editors think. Oh, really? — JEREMY 06:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, I requested commentary, and none was forthcoming. Additionally, I made sure to engage you here. That's more consideration than you showed to Aiden, and to me, when you just went in and changed it back without comment. I don't see why your version ought to have stayed up in the meantime.

Since you mentioned the Jesus article, I went in and took a look to see what translation clutter I could remove. Someone must have gotten to it first, as all I saw is:

Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah".

Christ is translated because it's part of Jesus' common title *in English*, whereas in English, Muhammad is known as The Prophet. It's rather equivalent to the etymology and transcription of Muhammad, to which I've no objection whatsoever. I would very much liked to prove my sincerity by deleting superfluous translations, but there weren't any, at least not in the introduction.Timothy Usher 07:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Founder, yet again

I've re-added the founder section, as follows:

Muslims see Islam (literally "submission [to God]") as fundamental to all divinely inspired religions, and believe it was taught by biblical figures from Adam to Jesus (a proposition Jews and Christians reject). As such, they do not consider Muhammad the "founder" of the religion.

Aiden seems to think we need the whole, original three paragraph section or nothing. I can't see his point, but believe at least something is necessary in order to explain what might at first glance appear an odd idea (ie. that Muhammad didn't found Islam). Perhaps others might comment. — JEREMY 05:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The link from the introduction amounts to asterisking the sentence "Non-muslims consider him the founder of Islam." Timothy Usher 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am intending to highlight the sentence, because I think it requires an explanation. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that you've joined the Mecca/Medina sentences quite well. The second sentence was very awkward. Thank you.Timothy Usher 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

np. But Zora's is fine too. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also...

I'm going to advocate the return of "Non-Muslims generally consider him the founder of Islam." which covers the problem of Islamic offshoots like the Ahmadi and the Bahá'í. — JEREMY 06:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Going back through the archives...it was Dbachmann who originally strongly objected to this section as unencyclopedic, and though I disagreed with him at the time, after a little thought, I realized he was right. Then Aucaman came in and proposed its removal. I killed it, and Zora agreed. Especially in light of the new link, I'm going to remove it again.Timothy Usher 06:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete rewrite of the section — it's two lines, as opposed to three paras; your precedent is not relevant. Can you justify your deletion without reference to Dbachmann's poorly elucidated opinion ("(Jesus H Christ (sorry))") on a totally different version? — JEREMY 06:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The shorter version is more confusing than the original, although briefer which in itself is good. Most readers won't leave understanding what you wish them to understand. The information is already present in Prophets of Islam, Seal of the Prophets and Islam, which are prominently linked. The parenthisization of the Jewish and Christian point of view (shared by atheists, no doubt) is unduly dismissive, as is especially the link from the first paragraph. Finally, as promised, it will never be stable.Timothy Usher 06:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"[A]s promised", Timothy? Ah well, I guess at least you're prepared to openly admit your campaign. How a link to explanatory material could be "[especially] unduly dismissive" evades me. — JEREMY 06:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I never promised not to remove the founder section, only the translations. In the latter case, I did wait, and solicit commentary. No one said anything. In the absence of commentary, I don't see why these have to stay. You re-added them without any commentary, after several editors removed them.Timothy Usher 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Strike that, I misunderstood you. There is no campaign. I said that Aiden and others would likely object and either remove it, or add their own commentary thereto, which is exactly what happened.Timothy Usher 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Jeremy, that’s your fourth revert in nineteen hours: [4], [5], [6], [7]

Similarly with the translations. Please self-revert.Timothy Usher 06:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, by all means, post an WP:ANI. I'd love to see what an admin makes of your behaviour. — JEREMY 06:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is no occasion for this. Just calm down, follow the rules, and realize that you don't own the article. The last editor to remove it was Aiden, not me. Incidentally, I'm not protecting "my text", as you charged on my talk page - I actually created the founder section. It was a poor decision for which I'm deeply sorry.Timothy Usher 06:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not followed what is going on, but the issue seems too minor to me. I can not see any reason for having a revert war over it. It is even less significant than using the words "accused" and "believed". I personally prefer to have the "Muslim Founder" part. Jeremy, do you want to get blocked because of these very very minor issue? --Aminz 07:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No one's trying to block anyone. He's participating in good faith, and some of his edits are good. I was pretty snarky last night (for which I've apologized), and I think that might be part of the problem. Again, Jeremy, I'm sorry. Let's keep collaborating. There are many other things about the article that can be improved.Timothy Usher 07:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, while you continue powergaming (if you're tallying for 3RR, this won't get you very far), considering an hour and a half long enough to wait for comments and claiming aesthetics trumps content, I'm afraid I'm going to have a hard time regarding your overtures as other than disingenuous. Still, thank you for your apology; as I said on your talk page, I continue to look forward to working with you. Perhaps you can suggest a consensus-based mechanism for dealing with the issue of the "not the founder" concept and the Arabic titles (other than "more editors see it my way", of course). — JEREMY 07:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Something went wrong with your link - do you mean on Islamism? I got a message from another editor you know warning me of 3RR there, though I'd done two. I'm not sure where else you might be talking about. If I'm getting near a fourth rv on any page, please let me know, as it's certainly not deliberate, and I'd like the opportunity to self-revert. On this page, I wasn't even on three last night. As with the Meccans, what would have been the point? Aminz was thoughtful enough to let me know that an edit war was coming.

I don't think aesthetics trump content, only that the content wasn't compelling enough to warrant the clutter.

Re you thinking me disingenuous: I'm all ears on my talk page, and I invite you to ask whatever direct questions about my motives you like, which I'll answer as honestly as I can.Timothy Usher 09:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Jermy, Does the two versions differ much that we need to discuss it or even get into revert war for them? Having the founder section is another story but "Arabic translation" issue is negligible. I personally think that the Arabic translations only makes the article look ugly (except I think the Arabic form of "khatamo an nabiyin" is better to be included since I am not sure if Seal of the prophet is the exact equivalent of the Arabic expression). Why don't we get rid of arabic translations? --Aminz 10:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The key is to make sure that the linked articles deal with this material adequately. DBachmann mentioned something about "main articlism" which made a lot of sense to me. If there's something that needs to be added to Vocabulary of Islam, someone should do it, and liberally, as that is what that page is for.Timothy Usher 12:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Prophet" and "The Messenger" are titles unique to Muhammad. They simply don't belong on the Vocabulary page (and the way it is constructed makes finding an English to Arabic translation difficult), which is for common words — and thus includes the root nouns but not their quite different titular forms. Nobody protests the Greek in Christ, the Indic avatar names in Shiva, or the variety of non-English scripts in articles like Moses and Abraham. I'd be happy to see the translations moved out of the introductory section to avoid scaring off sensitive readers — indeed, I had moved them into a separate Name and Titles section, but that was reverted. I continue to reject the aesthetic argument utterly, although I will of course defer to wiki-precedent, if it can be demonstrated. — JEREMY 10:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

his own faith?

it is not clear to me what mohammed believed his own faith to be, before or after becoming a prophet. what was the religion he was brought up in, and did he refer to himself as a "muslim" or by another term? Aaronbrick 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of controversy about what Muhammad believed, or did, before he reported receiving revelations. See Hanif. Zora 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a great deal of controvosy about the religion of Muhammad. There are some reports however, that state muhammad was not exactly a follower of a religion before receiving revelations, but that he refrained from wrong doing, he did not drink alcohol, did not commit adultry, did not speak bad about others etc.--81.178.61.46 17:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher's edit

During his childhood Muhammad, was known to be a very helpful and a honest person to his neighbours, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Ameen" the trustworthy one, or the honest one.

You removed my additions saying "what exactly does the reference say", do you have any idea what does the rest of the references say about prophet Muhammed? Have you read all the references? Why are you only questioning the reference when it talks good about him? why aren't you questioning the other references. All I can say is if each user keeps removing things from the article asking "what exactly the reference says" there wont be an article left for anyone to read. I advice you to think calm and collectively whether what you are doing is the correct thing, because earlier when you removed the same content you said "Hagiography as per Zora" now you are giving a totally different reason. I dont quite understand your intentions here..Is it to keep away everything good about prophet out of the article. Sorry for not assuming good faith I've lost faith with your second removal with a different reason than the first. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 10:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsath, this is a very inappropriate title for a talk page section. Please refrain from further personalizing this discussion.

This article presents Muhammad in a very favorable light. There is no danger of that changing.

You write, "During his childhood Muhammad, was known to be a very helpful and a honest person to his neighbours, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Ameen" the trustworthy one, or the honest one."

I ask, 1) in what ways was he helpful and honest? 2) which neighbors? Perhaps there is an example, in which case we can present it without judgement. Short of that, it is hearsay, along the lines of, "During his childhood, Muhammad was known to be a jerk" (CITE), "Muhammad was known to be cruel to his captives" (CITE)", etc. In such cases, what difference does a cite make? As for cites, yes, I've heard this asserted, as has the cited source, no doubt, but I've yet to hear it it substantiated, and I'm curious to see what the source actually says beyond what I'd say, that I've heard others say it. Perhaps you can cite an original source and then say, "according to so-and-so", if you'll allow me to add, "but no specific examples are given"...that is unless you have them. I can't rule it out, as I've a lot to learn.

You speak as if you personally knew Muhammad as a child, and are quite certain he was known for being helpful and honest. I have no reason to believe he wasn't, but I'm quite certain you didn't know him, and it's not yet clear to me that your insistance is anything other than prejudice.Timothy Usher 11:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

See that, Arsath? That's me defending this article against patently offensive anti-Muslim propaganda.

Karl Meier, some of the galleries are fine, but please see the "extreme Muhammad" section of your link. This has no place on wikipedia.Timothy Usher 11:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought and after going through the "extreme" section, I think that you might have a point. They are indeed quite extreme, and more than I thought they would be. I'll make an effort to transfer some of the (free) images to commons instead, and perhaps find a site without such very extreme images. -- Karl Meier 11:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first to make this error re this site. Your proposed solution is on target. I'm happy defend a link to respectable imagery with real historic value from iconoclastic vandalism.Timothy Usher 22:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, Sorry about the title of the discussion, I just wanted you to notice it.. thats all.. I will not use your name again like that.. I will get back to you on the rest of the comments, I dont have the time right now, as I am at OFFICE and have to rush for a meeting. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to "During his childhood Muhammad, was known to be a very helpful and a honest person to his neighbors, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Ameen" the trustworthy one, or the honest one."

I believe being honest can be easily defended(based on the Islamic sources) since 1. I have heard that several stories which can lead one to such a conclusion (e.g. a story(in my words): The way Muhammad first started preaching was that he told people if I tell you that enemy's soldiers are behind this mountain will you believe me? They said yes, we will believe you, we have trust in you. Then Muhammad said that i have become a prophet ...."

2. Being trustworthy(title of Al-Amin) without being honest seems impossible to me.

Regarding being "very helpful", I think it is mentioned in the Islamic sources that Muhammad, when he was young, for example joined(formed?) a community of young people established with the purpose of helping others. I have vague memories of these stories.

Timothy, I think writing all these stories in the article is unneccessary.--Aminz 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is unnecessary, because they are so vague as to be irrelevant, as is the conclusion one might draw from them. Again, helping whom? Honest about what? According to whom?

And when was he given the title Al-Amin? Isn't this entirely circular?Timothy Usher 10:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Your questions are good ones and their answers will help improving the article. Could you please specify your position? Do you accept the Islamic sources of biography of Muhammad?

I don't think the statement that the title Al-Amin was given to Muhammad before his claim of prophethood could be disputed. There are several traditions supporting it(It is said that Khadija, his wife, was touched by Muhammad's honesty and trustworthyness.) --Aminz 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to sleep now. Will get back tomorrow. --Aminz 10:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My citation establishes (by the scholars ofcourse) that Prophet Muhammed was known as Al-Amin as a child in the page that I have given. The scholars opinion is that he was called as Al-Amin as he was trustworthy in any task that was entrusted to him. Because he was "entrusted with tasks" by many people, the scholars conclude that he was helpful to people (obiviously), as there is no evidence that he was doing a job during his early childhood. So according to the same scholars there is more evidence that he was called Al-Amin because he was trustworthy. Hope this clarifies the doubts. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 13:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't necessarily accept everything that's in the hadith and sira. We accept what scholars like Watt have chosen as plausible from the sira. "The trustworthy" is found in Ibn Ishaq, in the story of the rebuilding of the Kaaba, which no non-Muslim scholar accepts. This goes in the folklore re Muhammad. Zora 12:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, but this sentence belongs to the section "His life according to Islamic traditions". I agree with Mystic. --Aminz 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't accept "He was known to be" unless someone can tell me who knew him to be, and how - and were that the case, we could simply present what he did without further characterizing it.

I'm fine with moving into the "Islamic traditions" section, and presented as a tradition rather than as an observed fact.Timothy Usher 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, this sentence is already written in the section "His life according to Islamic traditions". Everything in this section is supposed to be Islamic traditions. I am really confused. Of course the Islamic traditions should say (and we expect to say) "During his childhood Muhammad, was known to be a very helpful and a honest person to his neighbors, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Ameen" the trustworthy one, or the honest one." --Aminz 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tomothy, I think you should let Muslims to write their own POV. If you can find a Muslims who disputes the above sentence, then we can enter into more details. I think the above sentence is even a mild Muslim POV. Please note the Muslim editor's feedback to your edits. This by itself is an evidence. --Aminz 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, that's the title of the whole bio. Duh.

Well, perhaps it is evidence. There's a lot of pushback on all sorts of things on most any article dealing with religion. People feel very strongly about it. That doesn't mean that we should present vague and unsubstantiated notions of his character and appearance as fact.

Although I question why it's so important that people should know this (I suppose so we know this honest one would never lie about revelations? That seems a clear enough function), I'm not opposed to inclusion. Only, that think there must be some way to distinguish between that which is broadly accepted as historical, and that which is not. That's all. Perhaps we can follow it with a sentence representing the skeptics' point of view?Timothy Usher 22:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe we can add "According to the Islamic sources" before the sentence though this is redundant since the whole section is according to the Islamic sources. But I think this is at least better than adding skeptics' point of view in the section which is supposed be the Bio according to the Islamic sources. --Aminz 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's not really biographical. Example: suppose I told you, I seem to remember someone telling me once something about Bob being nice in some way. Would it be accurate to say, "according to Tim, Bob is nice?" And have you learned anything about Bob? Timothy Usher 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What if there are many related stories? Should we say:"according to Tim, Bob is nice?", "according to Charls, Bob is nice?" "according to Alice, Bob is nice?" "according to Wendy, Bob is nice?" ... Please note that even Muhammad was reminding people of his reputation hoping that people may believe in his message. Were this controversial among Muslims, I would have agreed with you. Were this not wellknown among Muslims, I would have agreed with you. There is no report, as far as I am aware, that Muhammad has ever lied. --Aminz 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would like to know what the cite actually says, and what it's citing in turn (it might be better to go with the original source here). Can you or Arsath quote it?Timothy Usher 22:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have heard many stories but don't know how the original sources relate them or where they are related. --Aminz 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It says: 'Muhammad was KNOWN TO BE . . . ' so it's just talking 'bout the prophet (PBUH)'s reputation. And the holy Quran even states that he was an honest person that never lied. So we've got that to back it up.

The problem seems to be in the title of the section. I thought it was clear that the LONG version was what the "trusting" secular scholars, like Watt, accepted from the Muslim traditions. This is generally the Muslim account, but it excludes much hagiography and folklore. Now I suppose we could have three sections (sceptical non-Muslims, trusting non-Muslims, Muslim) -- but then the problem of length starts becoming acute. There is also the question of which Muslim sources to accept. I mean, there are Muslims who believe that Muhammad split the moon and those who, even though they may otherwise be Al-Azhar traditionalists, think that this is folklore based on a misreading of the Qur'an. Then there are Muslims -- who in all likelihood have received Western secular educations -- who will basically accept Watt's version and feel that it's sufficiently respectful and also scientifically validated. So among Muslims you're going to have a whole spectrum of credulity. Where do you draw the line? Whose view do you accept?

This article has been up in something like its current format for more than a year, and most Muslims haven't objected to the split into the two versions, or to the long version. I think that this is the first time we've had a battle about something that the Western traditionalists just wouldn't accept. I think that we might expand the section on the problem of sources to say that some Muslims accept stories beyond what even the most trusting of academics will credit. Then we could add a third section, very short, and give a precis of some of the best-known stories. I'd move Halima there. Watt thinks she's a myth, intended to give Muhammad a link to the Bedouin. So we put Halima, the story of the rebuilding of the Kaaba (which is where I think the "trustworthy" comes from), and perhaps a few other stories which are hagiographic or folkloric, but not miraculous. That is, anything against the laws of science goes in the veneration article, like the clot removed from Muhammad's heart, or his face shining, or multiplying loaves and fishes for his followers, etc. Then fill out the veneration article! It's been languishing for a long time and it is the right place to put all material that someone who believes in science wouldn't accept. How about that for a compromise? Zora 00:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, why did you remove my comment? --Aminz 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a bug, Aminz. I've seen this three times in the past 24hrs. on different pages. I've restored them.Timothy Usher 00:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy. Zora, regarding your suggestion, you are more experienced than me.

As for Muhammad lying, I can show you many places where Muhammad is obviously lying - to de-subjectivize this, where he says something which you'd have no hesitation calling a lie were anyone else to say it - but you can always consider that it's not a lie because Muhammad said it, and Muhammad doesn't tell lies.Timothy Usher 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For example? (Would you please let me know the Qur'anic ones first, then the Hadiths that are both accepted by Shia and Sunni and then bukhari hadiths). Thanks --Aminz 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the link I just fixed (added template, and noticed the verse was wrong to begin with - a great reason to always link, so we can check)? Not just ^{[Quran 033:050]} but through to 33:57 - who's carrying whose water here?

And it's not the first time that Gabriel conveniently showed up to let Muhammad off the hook for not following his (or God's if you prefer) own rules. As you said, his weakness was not for money (re the tax discussion, I'd thought it was more for power), but for women.Timothy Usher 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how this constitutes a lie. By the same standard, all other verses that particularly increase Muhammad's obligations (such as the obligation to stay awake and pray around half of every night or the obligation to preach the message while he was persecuted) are also considered lie (because Muhammad or Gabriel have changed their mind). I need to go now but will back in an hour. I will write more. --Aminz 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I am back! First of all, I should say I have not done any research about this issue and all I want to say are based on what I’ve heard here and there and my personal thoughts.

1. I believe Islam has a more natural view to sex than some other religions such as Christianity. Sex is not considered as a taboo. It is not discouraged (Muslim never have had the practices of abstaining from sex, marrying etc.) Islam does not view sex as something bad or something that should be suppressed but only something that should be controlled. Islam unlike Christianity does not view sex as something (somehow sinful?) which should be only done for the purpose of making children. It might be interesting to you that Koran mentions the love between husband and wife as a sign of God but does not mention the love between mother and child as a sign of God. Interesting, not? Note that Muhammad had many wives but Jesus didn’t marry. At least in the sense of view on “sex”, I like Islam, and particularly shi’aism.

2. Assuming Muhammad was God’s prophet, which in this case has bear many difficulties (as is reflected in Qur’an e.g. 20:2 “We have not sent down the Qur'an to thee to be (an occasion) for thy distress…”, “Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message.” 18:6) I don’t see it unreasonable that God wants to relax some of Muhammad’s obligations. I can not agree that this point will prove that Muhammad was a liar.

3. I don’t see anything bad with Muhammad’s desire to women. He was a human after all. I personally have desire to women and don’t consider it bad. I have some personal experiences which makes me to have a different feeling. Let me tell you how I, as a Muslim, felt after coming to US. I came from Iran where women are covering their beauties (they do NOT wear burqa). It was a big change for me! I was really bothered by the way these pretty American girls were dressing. I was feeling very sinful whenever I had a bad look to any girl. A very covered girl, in your standards, was like a very sexy dressed girl in my standards. In Islam, even having a lusty look to a woman is seen very sinful; not speaking of how sinful other things such as self satisfaction are. The only way to avoid sinning in Islam is marriage. Marriage is very encouraged. I have sinned a lot and somehow have lost my sensibility to sinning. I am going to hell anyway, but I can assume God didn’t want Muhammad to be punished. As I can understand from the story of Zaid, Zaid’s wife may have appeared beautiful to Muhammad’s eyes. I believe God relaxed Muhammad’s obligations to help him avoid sinning and have the feeling of being guilty. It is really hard to bear the burden of sexual related sins. It comes to mind over and over again and bothers the person.

In conclusion, I can not agree with Timothy that this commandment constitutes a lie. --Aminz 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sex being natural or not, or desire for women being bad. It's a matter that Muhammad claimed for himself what he denied to others - including captives. It's much easier to say Muhammad did no wrong when he's being held to different standards, and can put words in God's mouth to justify it, such that it's no longer wrong. But you're free to believe otherwise, I'll not press the point any further.Timothy Usher 03:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. This article isn't entirely fact. What I mean by that is that this article is supposed to be saying what the Holy Quran said about Muhammad (PBUH) and what Muslims think. Because what the Quran said about Muhammad (PBUH) is the truth. Duh. Timothy Usher, I seriously don't get why we're fighting over this, because the article is fine except for that stupid picture and the numerous edits that are WRONG.

Muhammad the Honest and Helpful Child

We are getting carried away from the main topic aren't we? about my references I will provide you with the ISBN soon. No the references I have given are not from Muslim sources.. So no need to put them in the "According to Muslim Tradition Section". I have noticed quite a lot of positive notes about prophet is ending up there.. Muslims are not the only people who have a positive notion about him. And Zora refrain from removing what I've added saying "Hagiography","but I do believe that something is being taken out of context". Please note Zora is also having two different reasons for removing it at two different occasions. How do you say its out of context? I am saying its not! Your judegement is better than mine is it? I believe wikipedia doesn't work that way right. So Zora kindly consider what I've said here before you removing it again for the fifth time!!. Because people really dont care what you think or I think.. Its the reference that matters. You do not do justice to anyone by removing it because you dont believe it. Please assume good faith Please. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 17:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Arsath, you wrote to me, "Sorry for not assuming good faith I've lost faith with your second removal with a different reason than the first." Think about that before you demand it of others. I doubt Zora thinks you're acting in bad faith (?). I don't.

However, despite your edit summary, you've not responded to my query. If you have the source, please *quote it*. It's not a primary source in any case, so where does the information come from? And most crucially, *substantiate* it. HOW was he honest and helpful? If there is something specific, just say what it is, and let the readers judge for themselves whether it makes him honest and helpful. Your text seems designed to have people walk away thinking good thoughts about Muhammad, so give us a reason.Timothy Usher 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted from the source only. anyway since "you think" I am adding my POV. I have put "according to scholars" happy? ;-) «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I've repeatedly asked you to 1) quote the source on talk 2) tell us what the source is citing 3) Substantiate how Muhammad was helpful and honest instead of characterizing him as such. You've done none of these. Adding "according to some scholars" merely compounds the problem: which scholars, and what specifically did they say?Timothy Usher 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In the process of fighting my edits my dear friend Timothy has missed the scholars cited at the notes section.. I have quoted the exact section from the Encyclopedia, nothing else. Could you be more specific as to what you want me to substantiate.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 18:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First, Arsath, you've reverted thrice today, I only twice. So it's not appropriate to speak of me "fighting [your] edits" (nor am I the only one).

It seems you're simply ignoring what I write here. I've been very specific:

• quote the source on talk.
• tell us what the source, an Encyclopedia, is citing.
• Substantiate HOW Muhammad was helpful and honest instead of merely characterizing him as such. What are you saying he did?

I've asked you these things again and again in the discussion above, and you've not answered one.Timothy Usher 18:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the source cannot be verified--WP:V--simply remove the unsubstantiated claim until it can. —Aiden 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Timothy, I have reverted it only once!!! Could you kindly tell me how did you arrive at that count? I think we need to have some good common sense or should have good faith its difficult to work when people loose both and argue for the sake of arguing. Anyway get back to you all, with more facts. It looks like I am fighting a lone battle. I am stuck with an assignment that I have to submit in the morning. I am working on it. and its 2.00 AM here so good night for now. Umbe Ammalaata pin. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 20:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem:[8], [9], [10]

As you're reverting previously deleted text, that's three reverts.

No one's arguing for the sake of arguing. Come back with more facts, as you say. Until then, good luck on your assignment!Timothy Usher 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IT IS MUSLIM POV THAT MUHAMMAD "WAS AN HONEST AND HELPFUL CHILD". This is clear since all the Muslim editors here testify to it. This is exactly the definition of Muslim POV and that sentence is written in the Muslim POV section. It is like the Christian POV that Jesus was mild. Can anybody please explain to me that when the pov tag is added to the article, what it is supposed to mean? That there are Muslims who do not believe Muhammad was honest and helpful?!!! --Aminz 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at what I was asking him for above. I didn't say it couldn't be included, and Zora's working on a way to include it. The real point seems to be, he helped repair the Kaaba. That's much more useful and biographical (true or not) than, unspecified people thought him helpful and honest.

We could just write, "Muslims think Muhammad was really, really great. He was also super-nice. Most people liked him a lot. Etc." Muslims do think that, right? That can't be the standard. Does the Jesus article say anything that vague? I honestly haven't spent any time there. I'll go look.Timothy Usher 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have misunderstood the discussion here.

Being helpful:

1. "The real point seems to be, he helped repair the Kaaba." to my mind is not directly relevant to Muhammad being helpful. He only helped the dispute to be resolved! One example is the story that: When he was young, he joined(formed?)a community that was dedicated to helping others(which I guess should include old people, women and orphans). At least please note that how many times Qur'an uses the word "zakat" (i.e. charity). Too many times! You can see the phrase"Those who pray and pay charity" is repeated over and over everywhere in Qur'an. This at least proves how the mind of Muhammad was familiar with this. If you assume Muhammad wrote the Qur'an then this repetition proves something. Doesn't it? By the way, according to the Islamic sources, paying Zakat only includes but is not restricted to charity. Teaching others is the Zakat of knowledge. Helping others, I believe, is the Zakat of being healthy and wealthy and so on.

Being trustworthy and honest:

2. He was given the title "Al-Amin" which means trustworthy one or honest one. This title by itself proves he was known for his trustworthyness.

--Aminz 02:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1a) Same question as to Arsath: please substantiate this story. What community? According to what source?

1b) The frequency of his exhorting others to charity in the Qur'an proves nothing about his reputation as a child.

2) When was he given this title? Unless you can show he was given it as a child, it's again irrelevant.

Please, engage the three questions I posed to Arsath instead of just re-asserting yourself.Timothy Usher 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not when he was a child. I think it was when he was around 20 or so. I have read this story in school. The story and the title, I think, should all belong to when he was young. Around the time he married or a little before or after that. --Aminz 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Version with yet another section

I prepared a draft of a version that puts commonly-accepted Muslim traditions not accepted by Western scholars like Watt into a separate section. Rather than put it up directly, I'm putting it up at Talk:Muhammad/temp for comment. Hold on while I set up the link and paste the text. Zora 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zora. Much work. I'll take a look in a bit.Timothy Usher 01:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. --Aminz 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My edit

"Muhammad was known to be a very trustworthy and honest person, thus the meccans called him with the name "Al-Amin" the trustworthy one or the honest one. "

It is referenced and is a Muslim POV. Any objection?--Aminz 10:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The English is not quite standard. "Muslims believe that Muhammad was greatly respected by his Meccan relatives and neighbors, so much so that they called him "Al-Amin", the honest one." Those references establish that Muslims believe this; they do not establish that it's true. Consider that all reports re Muhammad's life were written down more than a hundred years after he died, after he had founded a religion and a community and the community had created an empire. They WANTED to believe that he was an extraordinary person. There was no one to say, "Hey, wait a minute, this is just not true. His neighbors called him "the crazy one" because he was always off in a cave praying." In any case, if people will accept the three accounts version, this can go in the Muslim account. It is simply not accepted by secular historians. Zora 19:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora. I agree it is Muslim POV. It is a famous Muslim POV and I believe it should be mentioned in the article (either in the third section or somewhere else)

"Muslims believe that Muhammad was greatly respected by his Meccan relatives and neighbors, so much so that they called him with the title "Al-Amin" which means the trustworthy one or the honest one."

How is this one? --Aminz 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How is my last edit? I have made it NPOV. --Aminz 02:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off delivering an edited manuscript. Whew! "Called him with the title" is not correct English. "Gave him the title" or "called him", but not both. It's OK, English is your second -- or perhaps third -- language. Zora 02:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me! :) I have actually no talent in learning new languages. --Aminz 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Ishaq on Al-Amin and the Kaaba

I excerpt from Ibn Ishaq (among the bios links of the article) [11]:

Al-Amin:

“The Apostle of Allah grew - Allah protecting, keeping and guarding him from the abominations of idolatry, having predestined him to become His apostle and the recipient of His grace - till he became the most excellent man of his people, the most agreeable in behaviour, the most noble in descent, the finest in neighbourly feeling, the greatest in meekness, and the most truthful in utterance; the greatest in fidelity, the furthest from wickedness and from acts which pollute; so exalted and noble that he was called among his people ‘the faithful’, because of the good qualities Allah had bestowed upon him.”

So, Ibn-Ishaq suggests that Muhammad was a Hanif, that he was overall a great guy, and was known as Al-Amin, but doesn't say how he knows this, or substantiate anything. I think this must be the ultimate source.

Rebuilding the Kaaba:

“The groups of the Quraysh now collected stones for the rebuilding, each group gathering seperately, and they built until they reached the spot for the ruku [the sacred stone]. Then all the people quarrelled, because each group wished the honour of lifting the stone into place; so bitter were the quarrels that the groups made alliances and prepared to fight. One group produce a dish filled with blood and entered into a covenant unto death with another group by dipping their hands into the dish - they were therefore called blood-lickers. The situation remained thus for four or five nights; then the Quraysh assembled in the mosque to consult and reach a decision, and the oldest man among them said at last, 'Why not let he who next enters through the door of this mosque be the arbiter in this quarrel, and let him decide it?' They agreed, and the first man who entered was the apostle of Allah. And they said, 'This is the faithful one! We agree that he shall judge.' When he came near they told him of the problem and he said, 'Bring me a cloak'. When they had brought one, he placed the ruku [black stone] in it with his own hands, saying, 'Let every group take hold of a part of the cloak.' Then all of them lifted it together, and when they reached the spot, the apostle placed it in position with his own hands, and the building was continued over it.”

This is much more significant, I believe, than the nickname, because he's organizing the placement of the Black Stone on the Kaaba. There are many stories here which could be included in the article. However, they should be, as Zora suggests, in their own section.Timothy Usher 03:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Just one of a large number of anecdotes, picked more or less at random, which could be included:

"On his arrival in Syria the apostle of Allah alighted in the shade of a tree near the hermitage of a monk, who approached Maysara and asked, ‘Who is this man under the tree?’ Maysara replied, ‘This man is one of the Quraysh from the sacred city.’ And the monk said, ‘Under this tree no one ever alighted except a prophet.’"

becomes

"Muslims believe that, when Muhammad arrived in Syria, a monk noticed him sitting under a particular tree beneath which only prophets had sat before." [CITE].

It's just as well-documented as "Al-Amin", and just as important: if Muhammad's honestly/faithfulness means he'd never lie about the Qur'an, so does his sitting beneath the prophet-tree mean he is destined to be a prophet.Timothy Usher 06:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, your argument is ironic. Had you read Qur'an once, you would have realized its insistence on showing Muhammad's sincerity and honesty and you have felt the context in which the arguments are presented. I will get into the story you mentioned but I don't believe the famous title of "Al-Amin" an that story are comparable.

I have heard a story in which the monk is Buhayra. There was no mention of "prophet tree" there. The story as I have heard is as following: The monk was expecting a prophet to rise from arabia (the land of kedar based on some prophecies). Muhammad at that time was a child. It was noon and the weather was hot. Buhayra saw a cloud shaded on Muhammad. He came to Muhammad and asked him some questions and found the signs of prophet hood in him. He then told AbuTaleb about the future of Muhammad. --Aminz 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Had you read Qur'an once, you would have realized its insistence on showing Muhammad's sincerity and honesty..."

And the Qur'an was recited by...? We can't consider the Qur'an an independent source re Muhammad. That's beyond sockpuppetry.

Of course the title "Al-Amin" is a Muslim POV. The question is whether this title was a later forgery or not? My POV is no. --Aminz 02:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I just asked Gabriel, and he said - and I quote - "I wholeheartedly agree with every word Tim said."

That Buhayra story is there, just a few paragraphs above the prophet-tree. It almost sounds like two versions of the same original story.Timothy Usher 08:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the two versions of the stories to be the same. The second version ridicules the logic of Buhayra; no mention of Buhayra talking with Child, etc. I personally think that the story might have been changed since I can not find any reading of any possible prophecy in Bible from which a monk would be able to recognize a child from it. Maybe the monk has realized that the child is not worshipping the idols and has been surprised or he may have heard a sound logic or so, but I don't think there is any prophecy in Bible which could be somehow read helping the monk to recognize a child. --Aminz 02:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should list all of the versions of this story in the article. Because it usually has the same point but is slightly changed---stories, i mean.

"to all mankind"

Could you please explain why my edit was reverted? thx. --Aminz 04:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because it's out of place, and because it's POV. This article is about Muhammad, not the Qur'an. That Muslims believe the Qur'an, as opposed to other scripture, is intended for all mankind ought be mentioned somewhere in the Qur'an article - perhaps in the seocnd paragraph along with some a more down-to-earth version AE's "culmination" text.

The problem I am seeing again and again - and before you mention it, no, this is *not* the case with Christianity-related articles - is that certain editors want to make sure that the key points of Islam generally are explained in the introduction of every major Islam-related article, and done so with high-flying rhetoric such as the final culmination of God's revealed message to all humanity etc.

Another point: "Muslims believe..." doesn't NPOV clauses. One of the underlying motivations, conscious or otherwise, behind these clauses is to make POV statements which are not immediately preceded by the "believe" qualifiers. A new idea deserves its own sentence, with its own qualifier.Timothy Usher 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

That Abdulrahman link was some pretty sneaky vandalism. Thanks, Aminz.Timothy Usher 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Aminz 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Robotic vandalism

User:OrphanBot has removed a useful image from the page. I've left {{test2a-n|Muhammad}} on both bot and botmaster discussion pages. OrphanBot should join the talk page like the rest of us.Timothy Usher 11:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've you had read the reasoning you'd know what it's all about: The image might be useful but it carries no valid copyright tag. elias.hc 12:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:OrphanBot ought join the talk page in a non-trivial way, and explain its reversions. It has recently left automated messages - i.e., spam - on user talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. OrphanBot is not playing well with others.

I've no opinion of the image, other than it's interesting and unexpected to see Muhammad's actual house, in whatever shape. And I've no argument re copyright. But I'm offended that robots presume to override human users; it's un-wikipedian, un-Azimovian and impolite.Timothy Usher 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all: This has nothing to do with bots. As you can see I was the one who removed the image for the third (and fourth) time. Secondly, both the bot and I did it because - as mentioned before - there is no valid copyright tag on the image. elias.hc 13:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"This has nothing to do with bots." That might be reasonable, were this thread not inspired by the actions of a bot and its two unexplained (on talk at least) reverts. You cannot allow a bot to do these two reverts, pushing other editors totals up (as you suggest when you speak of WP:3RR), come over here to support the bot's actions, while saying this has nothing to do with bots.Timothy Usher 13:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I also note that your user talk page has no messages, while the active discussion link routes me to the user talk page of the botmaster. Nothing to do with bots.Timothy Usher 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not allow the bot to do any reverts for I am not the owner of the bot - I see nothing wrong in what was done by it, though. Furthermore the bot DID explain its reverts: The edit summary reads as follows: Removing image with no copyright information. Such images that are older than seven days may be deleted at any time. Also, a comment was added: Image with unknown copyright status removed. If you have a look at the image itself, you find two tags. (most notably {{Somewebsite}}.) One of them says The individual who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website and Works without confirmed copyright status will be deleted within a week. That's precisely why the image was removed. --elias.hc 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As for why my active discussion links to the talk page of the owner of the bot: This has nothing to do with this very discussion. Feel free to read what Carnildo and I talked about, though. --elias.hc 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, remove it. I read the copyright policy and realize that you're right, it's a nice picture, but it has to go. I hope you understand where I was coming from. Sorry to have been difficult.Timothy Usher 19:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Masjid al-Nabawi

Isn't it forbidden to build structures above graves in Islam?

The Wahabis would like to forbid it, even for Muslims who don't share their beliefs. Zora 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically Islam teaches muslim to restrain from building any grave stones, monuments etc. on top of, or around graves, because it may encourage some muslims to start praying at the grave with these grave stones, which is idolatry, and idolatry is shirk, which it is unanimously agreed to be the biggest sin a muslim can commit.Aadamh 15:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's YOUR belief, Aadamh, not Islam as accepted by all Muslims. Zora 19:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ok zora, i will source what i have said. And not "all" muslims believe in the same thing. I should of specified, I was refering to sunni Muslims. --81.178.61.46 14:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all Sunni Muslims believe that. Only a minority. Zora 18:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where you get the idea that it is a minority? --208.101.131.54 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the book 'Heavenly Ornaments- A Classical Manual of Islamic Sacred Law' by 'Ashraf Ali Thanwi' ( a muslim scholar) "It is haraam to construct a dome over the grave for the purpose of decoration. If this is done in order to strengthen the grave, then it will be mukruh. It is permissable to write something on the grave of the deceased as a means of remembrance". Haraam means: forbidden and Makruh means: disliked. --Aadamh 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So? He's a scholar you respect -- probably a Wahhabi or Salafi. That doesn't mean he represents all Muslims. Look at the article on Ziyarat. For hundreds of years, Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia have been building shrines over graves. Millions of Muslims have done ziyarat at those shrines. That suggests to me that a great many Muslims approve of building monuments over graves. Now you're going to tell me that they're not REAL Muslims? Sorry, WP doesn't take a position on who's a real Muslim or not, or what real Islam is. We just note what people do, and what people find acceptable. Obviously many Muslims find shrines acceptable. Zora 02:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So what gives you the right to say that Islam as a religion, allows this? Apart from saying muslims do this, because of course there are muslims that do not adhere to the teachings of islam.--81.178.61.46 17:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And what can you say that is accepted by all muslims, if there are different sects. Evidence should be taken from the Qur'an and sunnah, not what some muslims do.

Temp version put up as regular version

I put up a temp version and the other editors said "Oh that's nice" and ignored it. I suppose the only way I'm going to get any feedback is by putting it up as the regular version. Note that there is now a section where Muslim stories can be put. Not all of them are there. I'd call them folklore. Western-educated Muslims would probably call them folklore. As Aminz points out, millions of Muslims believe that they are literally true. More stories can be added. Would it be possible to add the ones that both Sunni and Shi'a accept, rather than immediately jumping into polemics? Zora 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with it Zora. The summary is fine, makes it clear it's Muslim belief. I had no notice of where this temp version was. Based on what you have been saying for months that you and I have edited this article about keeping the article short and informative, this is a pretty large change. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok you must have pasted it from the temp version. I think you could have just added the section separately. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just adding a section, other sections have been changed. Like the sources section, the section titles, moving the material re Halima, etc.

Let's let the "stories" section grow for a while and then, if everyone is agreeable, we can move it to its own section, try to come up with a neutral title, and then just summarize it here. I'd hate to try to summarize it now, because I'm not sure what the Muslim editors will agree to include. Zora 23:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of fixes and edits will be reverted with a large change like that so I think for now just stick with seeing if the largest change, the "stories section", can grow and stay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been only a few days since I took the then current version to rewrite. Have any major changes been made since then? I thought we were just having the usual wash of vandalism/revert. Zora 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should make it clear, because it wasn't clear before now: the section "based on Islamic traditions" was originally intended (by me, who wrote it) as reflecting the work of scholars like Watt who accept much of the Islamic tradition. BUT, they don't accept it all. Muslim editors wanted to add stuff that academic editors wouldn't accept. We have to make it clear that academics who write about Muhammad take a resolutely secular, non-supernatural POV, and they don't accept a lot of stories that Muslims tell about Muhammad. That's why we had the fights about "Al-Amin" - the Muslim editors thought that the long section was "theirs" and the non-Muslim editors didn't agree. Now we've got the POVs sorted out. Zora 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there are many traditions that non-Muslim scholars have a consensus on. Which academics are you talking about? They all don't agree and disagree about the same things, some of them don't agree with anything. This is why you should have a section based on what the academics don't agree on like the Halima tradition rather than what both sides accept or not. This will also cut back the huge names of the sections. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AE, as the section on sources says, there are two academic schools of thought, the minimalists and the traditionalists. Both are represented here. The first school is Wansborough, Crone, Cook, Hinds, Berkey, etc., though they are easing up as they get older and accepting more :) The second school would be Watt, Madelung, Donner, and other academics who are willing to work with the Islamic traditions. It's a fairly small pool of scholars and they tend to disagree on matters arcane enough that they aren't even covered here. If we have to add lots of caveats and references, we can do breakout articles on the academic tradtions. Zora 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay but wouldn't it be easier to have a section based on traditions the scholars don't agree on? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because the minimalists throw out 90% of what the traditionalists accept. After a century of academic fussing over minor edits to the Muslim traditons, Wansborough and his students arrived on the scene and declared it was all junk. If you can get hold of a copy of Hagarism, have a read. (It's out of print, and rare. I haven't been able to afford a copy -- but I'm old enough to remember the fuss when it came out. The later Crone is a little bit less of an iconoclast.) Zora 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading section title

The section title "His life according to Islamic traditions accepted by non-Muslim scholars" is misleading and, on balance, factually wrong. It may have been intended to indicate that the narrative cannot be disproved by methods of historical science because (1) no other sources are available, (2) it is not self-contradictory, and (3) supernatural claims are not a subject of historical science anyway. However, the word "accept" doesn't convey that to the average reader, because "accept" is not the correct word for that.

"To accept" means to receive with consent or approval, to admit or to agree to. To claim that the given narrative is in this way "accepted" by (a majority of) non-muslim scholars is not true, if only because such acceptance would be unscholarly (unscientific) considering the almost complete absence of contemporay and corroborated sources, archeological evidence and such. For that alone, based on scientific principle, the traditional narrative can be, and must be, disputed (like those of other religions are). Historians that "accept" most of the narrative would not be able to make a convincing scientific case for that view by todays standards.

That is why the section was originally called "His life according to Islamic traditions". It is only those traditions that fully "accept" what is narrated here. If nobody comes up with a better idea, the section title should be reverted to the former version. By the same argument, the section "Muslim traditions not accepted by non-Muslim academics" should at least be renamed so as not to convey implicitly that the narrative of the "His life ..." section is, in contrast, "accepted" by academics and therefore "historically true" (considering that for laymen, using 'academic' always implies scientific truth). -- 80.135.226.107 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I agree that the section titles, or even the arrangement, may not be the best desirable, but I think you misunderstand the situation in the academic study of early Islam. The problem is precisely to decide which Islamic traditions to trust. The problem is that there is so little evidence outside the Islamic traditions (archaeological, writings by non-Muslims of the time) to corroborate the traditions. Some academics DO accept something like the traditional Muslim Sunni consensus version, shorn of supernatural claims. Watt would be the best example. He thinks that by using the sira rather than the hadith (for the most part), and doing as much cross-checking as possible, he can pull something historically reliable out of Muslim hagiography. If you think he's wrong, well, your position is represented by the account in the summary. Madelung is another Western scholar who uses sira, tafsir, hadith, etc.. He takes a more Shi'a view, but focusses less on Muhammad than on the first four caliphs.

The problem here is representing all POVs re Muhammad. There are multiple academic POVs (which I think, and one of the quoted scholars thinks, can be grouped into two categories). There are also multiple Muslim POVs. Somehow we have to present this mass of material in a way that's easily readable. We've tried to do that by moving as much debate as possible OFF this page and onto linked pages. Do you have any suggestions for a reorg that would do justice to all POVs while being readable? Or for new titles? We can't say "Life according to Islamic traditions" because that implies all Muslim traditions, including the ones that academics don't accept. Zora 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We may be making a basic mistake: we put too much into the titles. Even disregarding the implicit impression of academic consensus, the current section title "His life according to Islamic traditions accepted by non-Muslim scholars" is bad because it is too long. The only title that could ever do justice to all the various academic and traditional POVs is "Life". That this 'Life' is presented 'according to islamic traditions that are accepted by (some/many) non-muslim scolars' (and why that is and whether it's disputed or not) is already explained in the preceding "Sources" section. If much of the debate is (correctly) moved into linked pages, why should the debate remain in the titles? -- 80.135.242.67 13:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How's that for titles and subtitles?

Does putting the info into italicized subtitles help? Zora 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. The previous section titles were rediculous. —Aiden 03:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good solution, way better than before, thank you! -- 80.135.242.67 11:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sentence re Muhammad a prophet to all peoples

Expounding who Muslims think Muhammad IS, in a theological sense, is not really part of Muhammad's biography. It's part of the Islamic conceptions of Muhammad article -- I forget the exact name.

Furthermore, it's stating as fact something that is not true. All Muslims NOW say that Muhammad is the universal prophet, but this was not the case in the first century or so of Islam. Suleiman Bashear's book Arabs and Others explores this in detail. He argues that there were two currents of thought in the Muslim community up until the Abbasid revolution: Islam for everyone and Islam for the Arabs. Those who thought Islam was for the Arabs thought that Muhammad was the prophet for the Arabs. In order to convert, non-Arabs had to be adopted into an Arab tribe.

This is the kind of complicated matter that should be discussed in the "Muhammadology" article I mentioned above. Putting it in one sentence in the biography is glossing over history, and controversy, AND it's preaching. It's not necessary. The article has done fine without it for years. Zora 15:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we should not pretend that Islam has always been the way it is now. Initially, non-Arabs had to become mawali, clients of Arab tribes, in order to become Muslims. I understand the urge to insert pious POV into this and other article, but I cannot say I support it. Pecher ^Talk 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, what I wrote has direct Qur'anic support. Moreover, not in one place but in several places for the case of Muhammad (for the case of Jesus I remember once). If you would like, I can say Qur'an says that and add the references but I think that was fine. I have no idea about your argument but it seems strange since it was after the death of Muhammad that the Islamic territory was expanded (and Persians for example became Muslims; they never became Arabs (if you tell a Persian that he has become Arab, he/she will be offended ;) ). Are you sure that the other thought was supported by a significant group of people? Was it global or just appeared at a particular period of time? After we are done with this argument, if I was right, I'll try to respond to your other arguments. Thanks --Aminz 20:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot quote directly from the Qur'an to support your view. You must cite reliable sources to show how Qur'an was interpreted. Pecher ^Talk 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We can write Qur'an says so rather than Muslims say so. --Aminz 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, there are verses in the Qur'an that can be interpreted both ways. WP has no authority to declare what the Qur'an means. As to the problems converting non-Arabs, yes, it's true. There's no academic controversy about it. It's all there in Tabari, in Baladhuri, in other chronicles. There are instances in which entire villages wanted to convert, to escape the jizya, and were refused. This was said to be one of the reasons that the Umayyads fell; they could only count on Arab support (and only the Syrian Arabs) whereas the Abbasids had the Persians behind them. (Of course, that part is debateable.) Zora 05:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, can you please show me just one verse that can be interpreted as "Every one who wants to become a Muslim should become an Arab" or "Muhammad was sent only to Arabs". I can show you several verses that unambiguously states that Muhammad's message was for all mankind. Muhammad sent letters to Sasanid and Roman empires inviting them to Islam. "Salman The Persian" was a famous companion of Muhammad and yet was not an Arab. Please just show me one verse that can be intepreted in a way that supports "there are verses in the Qur'an that can be interpreted both ways". (I searched the Qur'an the word "arab" or "arabic" only appears 11 times in Qur'an and I checked all these verses. But maybe I've missed the one you mean). Zora, I think yes there are tough, problematic and controversial issues in Qur'an but this is not one of them. --Aminz 10:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Zora, I saw the following verse which I don't know if it is relevant to above discussion or not: ^{[Quran 42:7]} --Aminz 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, how can muhammad be sent to only th arabs? If you research the Quran and hadith properly then it is clearly explained that muhammad was a prophet for ALL people, any race, not just the arabs. --81.178.61.46 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bilal's edits

Bilal, I don't think it's accurate to say that Muslims believe that Jibril asked, rather than commanded, Muhammad. Isn't the first word of revelations supposed to be, "Recite!"? As for the sentence re head pain -- your edit made it ungrammatical but it wasn't such a great sentence before you worked on it. I realized that we didn't need it, so junked it. So I think you had a valid perception there, that it was less than optimal sentence. Zora 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Zora, you're right --Aadamh 22:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad in other traditions

Chistofishman writes: Christians in general view Muhammad as a false prophet who derived much of his teachings from the heresey of Arianism. Um, I don't think "Christians in general" have ever heard of Arianism, so I added {Citation needed}. —johndburger 20:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now as I consider the topic in more specific you could get into a discussion about "Christians in general"

Certainly there are Christian groups that are also Aryanist but not Mohammedans. For instance the Mormons and Jehovah witnesses as well as I believe some of the Egyptian copic churches. But this affects weather or not Christians consider Aryanism heresy or not and does not represent a majority of Christians.

The debate is more complicated by the fact that not believing Christ to be uncreated God excludes you from the definition of Christian in the view of: Catholics (Russian, eastern and roman). Lutherans, Baptists , Episcopalians, Anglicans ect. So the minority group may not geven be Christians depending on your definition of the term.

If you want to amend the statement with "Christians in general, but not all" I guess that might help.

do you want one or all of the citations?

--chistofishman 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand—I'm not objecting to "view Muhammad as a false prophet", I'm objecting to the rest of it. Do you really mean to say that the majority of Christians know anything about Arianism? That's what your sentence indicates. I would be surprised if more than a few percent have even heard of it. If you disagree, you definitely need a citation about the Arianism part, not necessarily the false prophet part. If you didn't mean to say that, then I'd suggest just eliding the text to "Christians in general view Muhammad as a false prophet."

If in fact you meant to talk about the doctrine of most Christian sects, that's very different from what "most Christians view". —johndburger 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the Christian world views Muhammad as a false prophet who derived much of his teachings from Aryanism.

First of all it defies logic that Muhammad was inspired by Nazi theory so I am assuming this is a mistype and the author meant Arianism. If you go to the Arianism article they seem to dispute the notion that Muhammad /Islam was influenced by Arian thought. I bet if you polled 1000 Christians less than .0000001% have ever heard of Arianism or Arian or believe Muhammad derived his ideas from Arianism. Perhaps the article might cite one single Christian who believes this? I am not familiar enough with Muhammad, Islam or Arianism to start making changes to the article but there seems to be a glaring defect in that sentence as well as a lack of support for it. I suppose anything is possible but unless Muhammad was also a time traveler I am skeptical of the claim he was inspired by Nazi theory (aryanism). Mr Christopher 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

By default Christians view Muhammad as a false prophet, but I would not say they believe his teachings were inspired by Arianism. —Aiden 18:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the proper term to describe that branch of Christian Philosophy. Especially at the time of Muhammad is Arianism. Which is further supported by the idea that Islam spread very quickly in the area where Arianism was popular.

I don't claim that there are all that many people who are familiar with the formal term. I would make the claim that anyone who is familiar with the meaning of the term Arianism can see very easily that as a category of Christian philosophy that is the one which Islam most directly resembles.

I would not make the claim that the Mormons or the Jehovah’s witnesses derived any of there philosophy directly from the teachings of the historical Arius. However because they both hold that Christ is not God the fit the term as it is most commonly used by Christian scholars and theologians. Not withstanding the fact many Christians may not be familiar with the term most of them would recognize the accuracy of the classification.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Arianism/id/68172

Can someone find a better term that categorizes Islam within the context of the Christian view on theology? That is what I'm looking for. Is there a better term? --chistofishman 16:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Natalinasmpf

I'm upset by Natalina's edits -- she declared the organization of the article invalid, then changed the section headers. I don't like her prose and I don't like the emphasis on "military organization". Editing when I'm angry is usually a mistake, so I'm just calling attention to this. I hope the other editors agree with me. Zora 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

so? ur angry....

I changed my mind and took out "Research into Muhammad" and put back "Sources." That may not be the best title, but "Research into Muhammad" sounds like we're taking a scalpel to the prophet to investigate his innards. Zora 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article more professional. Explaining concepts with things such as "most people within [this group] would accept the following" is very relative, and often very shaky from a redaction point of view...rather label the viewpoints collectively, then say "most [people of this group] would accept [labelled view]". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon's praise of hadith tradition

An anon added material to the sources section saying that the hadith had been written down from the start and that they are completely reliable. No Western academic scholars believe this, and even Muslim scholars recognize that the hadith are recorded oral traditions and that they are sometimes contradictory and unreliable. Much of the work of the ulema consists of judging hadith as strong or weak, reliable or unreliable. Different traditions, and even different scholars, weigh the hadith differently.

Another editor had made some changes to the section re Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah. I didn't like the edits but rather than using the old version, I rewrote. Perhap that is more acceptable? Zora 09:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This article discreetly promotes islam. That is NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaitan Al Mahdi (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 May 2006.

Shayṭān, while your point may (or may not) be perfectly valid, you need to address specific areas where you see the article "discreetly [promoting] islam". Otherwise, your claim of NPOV holds little to no water. —Saposcat 08:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Finger slip, messed up edit summary

At some point, someone wrote that Muhammad was poisoned, and then started embroidering on that. I removed all of that. It is not accepted by academics, or by the earliest Muslim authorities -- that is generally believed to be a later anti-Jewish myth. Zora 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

While everyone else slept ...

DLH and Pecher worked to turn the article into an indictment of Muhammad and Islam. I'm pressed for time and too upset to edit carefully, but ... I don't think that this was wise. Zora 19:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Will you specify how a couple of copyedits and fact tags in a small section could "turn the article into an indictment of Muhammad and Islam"? Pecher ^Talk 19:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal here. Most of it seemed to be making the language more direct. Aisha's age was added, okay, but that's not clearly off-topic. This is (or should be) a bio, after all - in fact, all his wives should be mentioned, assuming that they were important to his life (?). I suppose saying that the Ottomans "...extended the sway of Islam over the Balkans" is a little judgemental, and arguably off-topic, but saying that "Islam spread" or the like would be worse. I don't see a special need to avoid controversy on this article. Rather, it needs many more facts about his life - he's not just the representative of Islam, but a real person whose deeds deserve to be recounted on wikipedia, as they're mostly not now.

Pecher brings with him a scholarly approach which has been sorely missing in this article, where editors (me included) tend to argue the spin of existing wording more often than add cited facts. I hope he sticks around.Timothy Usher 23:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher's edits turn some throw-away rhetorical paras about the spread of Islam into a longer "history of Islam" stressing the role of conquest in the spread. Perhaps we should just get rid of the paras, because they're extraneous to the biography of Muhammad. I would probably agree with Pecher that Muslims tend to gloss over the violence and force involved in the conquests. Islam just "spreads," with no mention of corpses, sacked cities, enslaved captives, etc. Muslims often offer a "we were just defending ourselves" justification, which strikes me as disingenuous. However, it is also true that some areas areas with large Muslim communities converted purely as a result of missionary activity -- sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, etc. It's not fair to write a potted history of Islam that stresses conquest and ignores the peaceful spread.

DHL's edits to the wives section introduce "evidence", which should be kept in the breakout articles. Otherwise, people who disagree with him are going to start introducing THEIR evidence. If any of you had seen the article before it was re-organized, with huge sections dedicated to topics like Aisha's age at marriage and the killing of the Banu Qurayza, you wouldn't want to go back there. The arguments made the article close to unusable by anyone who just wanted to find out who this guy Muhammad was. Zora 00:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Zora that in sub-Saharan Africa and Indonesia Islam spread through missionary activity. In Africa, with the possible exception of the coast of the Indian Ocean, Islam was spread through jihad and jihad only. I don't know much about the spread of Islam in Indonesia, and I believe that the topic is underresearched by Western scholars; however, based on what I know those were the rulers who converted into Islam first and then converted the rest of the population by force. I also disagree with your description about my "stressing the role of conquest"; if anything, the role of conquests is underemphasized, as I've pointed out above. Notice that the article says "Islam expanded into much of Africa and Southeast Asia" without mentioning the role of conquests in that expansion. Pecher ^Talk 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in sub-Saharan Africa and Indonesia, but I gather that Sufi orders were involved, peacefully, in the conversions. I know that this is true of Bengal, where the Bauls (wandering Sufi musicians) spread Islam.

But if this is going to turn into an arena to indict Islam as a whole, I think those sections should be removed. It's extraneous to the biography. It's not that I want to defend Islam; I'm not a Muslim. It's just that there are other venues for these discussions. Zora 08:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the sections certainly belong to the article, and I cannot allow their removal because they may say something negative about Muhammad and Islam, nor are we going to "go elsewhere" to discuss these pertinent issues. Lasting influence of an individual, especially someone as signifcant as Muhammad, is a critical part of a biogrpahical article. Pecher ^Talk 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora that what Muslims did later isn't necessarily pertinent to Muhammad. What is pertinent is that Muhammad's example directly inspired later conquerors, such as Timurlane, who (rightly or wrongly) claimed to be emulating Muhammad in his treatment of the polytheists. Would you agree, Zora, that if thusly framed, it becomes relevant to this article?Timothy Usher 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The influence of the faith that Muhammad founded is obviously relevant, but I agree with Tim that at least one thing that the article sorely lacks is a discussion of how Muhammad's example influenced the later Islamic law. Pecher ^Talk 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed legacy section, rewrote marriages section

I completely rewrote the marriages section, trying to keep it as neutral as I could. I also removed the legacy section. If the legacy section is going to become an occasion of debate about the spread of Islam, I think we're better off without it. There are other articles where this is discussed. A biography isn't the right place. Zora 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the significance section. Avoiding disputes is the worst way of resolving them becuase the chance of resolving a dispute that has been avoided is strictly equal to zero. By this logic, we should delete all controversial articles, or better shut down the whole project, pack our things and go home. If we do that, we'll indeed never have any deabtes related to Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, that section is not about Muhammad, it's about Islam. It's not necessary. The topics are discussed elsewhere. The fight is not necessary here. The only reason for restoring it, so far as I can tell, is to further an agenda that paints Islam as a bloody threat to the rest of the world. It was a remnant of an earlier version of the article. I wrote the dang thing, and I can tell you that all that I intended was a nice rhetorical flourish to end the article. If it turns from rhetorical flourish into potted history of Islam, it is superfluous.

I am also extremely upset, Pecher, that you rewrote the family life section to state as a fact that Aisha was six years old. This is disputed, and WP doesn't take sides in disputes. That is not playing by the rules. Zora 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

When there is indeed a split groups of academic and Muslim scholars regarding Aisha's age, we may honor the dispute. So far, the consensus view is that she was six years old at the time of marriage and nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Tiny minorities among Western scholars and Muslim apologists with no standing do not belong to Wikipedia. Pecher ^Talk 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The Historical Significance section isn't really relevant to Muhammad specifically. Muhammad helped establish Islam. Okay. But going on to explain that there are over a billion Muslims today and mentioning places Muslims centuries after Muhammad conquered is far from necessary. The part about Aisha being six years old is unnecessary specific, given that it's disputed (I thought she was at least nine). Later on in that section it mentions the controversy over Aisha and mentions nine years old as the age at which she got married. Therefore, I believe that should be sufficient in getting the point across that she was young by today's standards

(After edit conflict) We're not talking about "tiny minorities of Western scholars and Muslim apologists with no standing". The issue is that mentioning the young age an unnecessary number of times leads to putting undue emphasis on the idea. For instance, if I were to describe a person as tall and stocky, there would be nothing wrong with that. But, if I were to describe someone as tall and stocky, weighing 140 kilograms, that puts an unnecessary emphasis on the weight. joturner 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aisha's age is relevant in the context, as the article describes Muhammad's simultaneously marrying a young girl and a widow. The significance section was there for ages without anyone questioning its necessity until more historical material was added there, so I just cannot accept this argument. Pecher ^Talk 22:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the historical significance section, you're right in that it has been around for awhile (I hadn't noticed it either). I still don't find it very relevant though, so I believe it should be condensed. joturner 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Two small paragraphs do not loom particularly large to me, especially taking into account the true historical significance of Muhammad. Pecher ^Talk 22:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

References multiplying

Now Pecher and Timothy are adding extra references to "prove" that Muhammad was a child abuser. Someone is going to start adding all the refs that "disprove" it and then you'll end up recreating the whole dang controversy section in the Aisha article on the Muhammad page. Does this help the encyclopedia? NO. It's all about propagandizing for your POV at the expense of the project as a whole. Zora 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not about proving that Muhammad was a child abuser. What is proven is that the Hadith of Bukhari and Abu Dawud say that Aisha told a number of people that she was six when Muhammad married her and nine when they had sex. That's not my idea, but that of Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud, and the narrators upon which they relied. Were they "anti-Muslim editors" "propagandizing [their] POV", such that you need to spam talk pages of "Muslim editors" to stop them?

They do not say that he was a "child abuser" - that's an interpretation you're imposing on the reported data, one which musn't have seemed obvious to his followers in the seventh and eighth centuries.

Having reviewed the evidence, it doesn't really seem all that disputed - you give arguments in Aisha, but they're based upon 1) an anonymous source on www.understanding-islam.com calling himself "the learner" 2) Ghulam Nabi Muslim Sahib, M.A., at The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam 3) Michigan physician T.O. Shanavas at www.studying-islam.org. Surely a serious hypothesis can find more prominent academic supporters?

All are quite interpretive, building an argument from circumstantial evidence along with non-evidence along the line of, Muhammad was righteous, a righteous man wouldn't do that, therefore Muhammad couldn't have done that, or, Aisha was said to have accompanied Muhammad on so-and-so journey, children wouldn't be allowed to do so, therefore...etc. You're going to put that against Hadith which flatly state it as fact? Is there even one source which unequivocally contradicts them?Timothy Usher 04:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I have a great reading recommendation for you. It's a collection of sayings, called Hadith, compiled by Bukhari and others, and is central to a major world religion called Islam. Conveniently, there are links to it in a section of this very article which you've just moved. I know you're busy, but if you can take a few moments to actually read the passages at issue, instead of just moving them, they say clearly that Aisha was six upon marriage, not nine. She was nine when Muhammad first had sex with her. No one is saying she was nine when they were married. Your negligent edit mischaracterizes the cited sources.Timothy Usher 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop using one typo as a reason to revert. The sentence was already there and a lot of the information you reverted is repeated over again since you fail at paying attention to how paragraphs are written. The version was fixed from a biased and unclear version. Don't revert because a sentence I moved had a typo - "nine" which has been there for all the time that you were editing the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you've said takes away from the observed fact that you mischaracterized cited sources without actually reading them. The Hadith are considered nearly sacred scripture by Muslims, and as they're among our only sources on Muhammad's life, it's important to see what Muslims are saying.

You've also added weasel words "However there is a considerable debate amongst Muslim scholars" in lieu of verifiable and reliably-sourced material. I've added the {{fact}} tag to give you time to support your claim with good sources.Timothy Usher 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy and Pecher, please READ the Aisha article, and stop refusing to admit that there's a dispute. If we're arguing, there IS a dispute. Zora 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I've read it, and think your disputers fail the test of WP:RS, as discussed above. A Michigan physician? An anonymous poster calling himself "the learner"??? And you're putting this up against Bukhari? PLEASE.Timothy Usher 09:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The sites that published that material are fairly mainstream sites. And then ... what about Spellberg's book? Recent? University press? You going to come up with a reason to ignore that too? Zora 09:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd not objected to Spellberg, and don't now. This is really the only legitimate cite you have in this section of Aisha, and you don't characterize it as flatly contradicting Hadith, only as giving a reason why her age might have been highlighted.

Whether someone is mainstream is utterly beside the point. George Bush is mainstream. Can I cite him? Similarly, the Michigan physician may be an average mainstream fellow. "The learner" might be even more mainstream. So what? The issue is whether someone is a reputable scholarly source on the subject at hand. And the "mainstream" at issue is the mainstream of scholarly opinion, not of random people who feel aggrieved by established fact.Timothy Usher 09:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see where this is going off the tracks. There's a dispute if there are two or more NOTABLE positions on a topic. Notable doesn't mean that academics support it. It just means that there's a sufficiently large number of people who believe it, and that this belief can be demonstrated with references. We've got references from several un-connected websites, plus a book -- that's notable, that's widespread. I have written articles where I have described positions that I regard as completely bogus, supported by NO academics, because they're held by a sufficient number of people. That's playing fair. Please play fair. Zora 09:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The sites in question are not reliable sources; not every website that does not advocate radicalism is reliable. Spellberg, like other academic sources, correctly acknowledges some disagreement among Muslim sources as to whether Aisha was nine or ten years old at the time the marriage was consummated, although the majority opinion is that she was nine. Spellberg never claims Aisha was fourteen or older. What you've done Zora is not "playing fair"; citing popular opinions unsupported by academic sources is against WP:RS. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a collection of popular misconceptions. Pecher ^Talk 09:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. If they're notable. If you go to Evolution, it says that the theory is controversial, and then you can go to Creation-evolution controversy where positions that I would regard as outright nutty (and supported by no scientists) are discussed in detail. Wikipedia is a catalogue of the follies of mankind. If you think the "Aisha was at least fourteen" arguments are folly, you still have to give them houseroom. Zora 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, Notability only merits additional mention as a widespread belief, not in-text hedging of academically-accepted fact. We can describe their positions, but it's of secondary importance, and belongs on Aisha. Take a look at Earth and Universe. How are creationists represented? They're not, because they're not a scholarly source. Are there a lot of them? You bet. Are there a lot of them among experts on the Earth and the Universe? No. There is an intentional bias here towards expert opinion. That's one key purpose of WP:V and WP:RS. That's why the third line of Islam doesn't read "Many believe it synonymous with Terrorism." That's why Allah doesn't mention the moon god stuff. Etc.Timothy Usher 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I didn't remove your edit. I think there was an edit conflict and you didn't notice. As for Aisha's age, I don't think that the "nine-year-old" theory is an academically accepted fact. I've been pawing through my bios of Muhammad -- Watt and Rodinson say that Aisha was YOUNG, but they don't give an exact age. Since Watt tends to dismiss something by not commenting on it, rather than by attacking it directly, I think that's an indication that he prefers the sira over the hadith. In fact, he says as much in the introduction to his two volume bio of Muhammad -- he uses Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, and Waqidi rather than hadith. All the sites screaming "Muhammad the pedophile" are non-academic sites themselves, and of very dubious quality. Any mud you throw at the "she was older" sites sticks to the "she was a poor abused child" sites too. Zora 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, your diff:[12]

I didn't refer to any "Muhammad the pedophile" sites. I don't know what that's supposed to mean anyhow - someone who mainly likes kids, or someone like Muhammad who clearly is really into adult women (willing or otherwise), and also did it with Aisha? People are complicated, and the absolute power of being God's representative on Earth can enable idiosyncrasies and whims which might otherwise remain surpressed.

Anyhow, Tabari agrees, so what's the issue?Timothy Usher 10:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tabari doesn't necessarily agree. In addition to the tradition that Aisha was nine when the marriage was consummated, he also makes statements that directly contradict that -- frex, the statement that all of Abu Bakr's children were born in the Jahiliyah (sp?), the age of ignorance, which is supposed to have ended in 610 CE. That would make Aisha at least twelve, and probably older, since the Hijra was in 622, and the marriage wasn't celebrated immediately.

There are numerous contradictions and confusions in Tabari, and also matters for which he narrates several, conflicting traditions and takes no position on their truth or falsity. Zora 10:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In his article "Aisha" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Montgomery Watt puts it bluntly that Aisha was six years old at the time of marriage and nine years old when Muhammad and Aisha began living together. What's your objection to it, Zora? All your arguments are original research, you have no reliable sources saying that Aisha was older than nine or ten when the marriage was consummated. Pecher ^Talk 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Second edition, or first? Zora 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, of course. Pecher ^Talk 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If I can get a copy of the Encyclopedia of Islam, I'll check it out.

Pecher, you're trying to use WP to declare your side of the argument correct. It's hard not to get sucked into the fray, BUT ... I think we have enough references, from enough people, enough websites, to suggest that some Muslims are questioning those hadith, and that the arguments that they put forth should be presented too. I can't give you a cite from the Spellberg book right now (I discovered it only recently, through the Gertrude Bell Jar site) but I've ordered it and I'll be able to give cites in a few weeks. There is a dispute, and you are being unfair in unilaterally trying to rule the dispute out of existence. You are declaring a viewpoint "non-notable" because you don't like what it says, and so that you can present your viewpoint as the TRUTH.

The problem with trying to use academic sources is that the academics haven't paid much attention to the question. Attacks on Muhammad as a child-molester come from outside the academic community (as is evident from the sites given in Aisha) and the responses have too. Academics don't get whuffie from getting involved with these disputes, so they stay away. That's why I want to see the material you cited re Watt's acceptance of the tradition, rather than taking your word for it. Zora 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We have "enough references, from enough people, enough websites" saying that the Earth is flat, so what? None of your "enough references, from enough people, enough websites" comes from a reliable source. Popular misconceptions do not belong to Wikipedia until we have a reliable source describing them as notable. So far, I did not see any dispute among serious academic or Muslim scholar. Your arguments boil down to "Muhammad could not be a pedophile, and thus Aisha could not be nine years old," and if you don't believe that I can cite a source correctly, then, well, it's your problem. Pecher ^Talk 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"The problem with trying to use academic sources is that the academics haven't paid much attention to the question" - Zora. Actually, academics have given this issue some attention. For example, one Shi'a scholar, Ayatollah Ja'afar Murtadha, in his book الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأع claims that Ayesha was about 20. There are other scholars that have similar stances on the issue. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Considering the frequent removal of almost all materials even moderately critical of Muhammad from this biography, recommend adding a subheading and disclaimer.

==Criticism==

“Any criticism of Muhammad’s character or actions is highly explosive and rarely tolerated, often leading to a fatwa and murder. Seek such critiques elsewhere. See: Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Banu Qurayza, Rushdie.”

Recommend adding breakout pages for these and a breakout bibliography providing references to such critiques. --DLH 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

DLH, I edited your contribution so that your "header" didn't break the format. In response -- the criticism has not be removed, it has been put in breakout articles where there is ROOM to discuss things. The Muhammad article is already long, and it would be three times as long if we included all the material in the breakout articles. So the problem isn't that the material isn't there, the problem (for you) seems to be that it's a click away. You want the criticism front and center. You feel that your viewpoint deserves more attention. I think the policy WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Zora 21:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora et al

1)Please address the substance of this proposal to at least mention Criticism with some links to breakout pages or web searches. This is a major life and death issue in many parts of the world with no hint of it in the article.

2)Since 9/11 there has been a major international focus on Muhammad with numerous books addressing his life and actions including some comparing them to principles of western civilization. Why is no mention of these allowed on either side of the issue? This appears strong bias rather than NPOV. --DLH 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

As Gandhi said, when asked what he thought about Western civilization, "It would be a good idea."

I do think that the See also section could be better thought out and organized. Some of your concerns could be addressed by a special section called something like "Controversial topics", which could include Muhamamd's marriages, Aisha, Muhammad as warrior, Depictions of Muhammad, and Banu Qurayza. I think that's where the controversies are.

As for discussing whether or not Muhammad acted according to the principles of Western civilization -- it's not the place of WP to discuss that. We're an encyclopedia, not a blog. We just exist to provide an overview of material and to send people off to books and websites that go into more depth. If you want to diss Muhammad, there are many websites where your views would be welcome. Zora 03:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"it's not the place of WP to discuss that." That's exactly right, Zora. Another side of this is, it's not our job to be sensitive to how something might be perceived according to these standards. For example, when Muhammad sleeps with a nine year old girl, we should report it without further comment. It's not up to us to decide this is a "controversial topic."

Hence I do not agree with corralling "controversial topics" into their own section. They are either well sourced events in his life, or not, or something in between. To organize them according to whether we feel them to be critical or not is unencyclopedic, and in fact entails us imposing our own prejudices, which is what we say we wish to avoid.Timothy Usher 05:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Here we have one guy insisting that we don't give enough prominence to criticism, I suggest a way to make it more identifiable, and you want to shoot that down. I thought I'd achieved a compromise. Zora 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Zora...I'm not trying to shoot you down. I just think criticism is better left to the reader. The correlary of that is that we shouldn't remove well-sourced points from the bio, just because they suggest criticsm. That's the end result of "criticism" sections, in my experience, and worse still, "criticsm" articles - once they exist, people say, well, that sounds negative, so it belongs in this section, or in this other article, never mind that it's as much about Muhammad's life as anything else we've said.

Do you see my point?Timothy Usher 08:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But if you DON'T put the disputes in their own articles, they eat the main article. The article just gets longer and longer, more complex, and eventually unreadable. We are really trying to be neutral here; we give the gist of the dispute and say, "There's a lot more, go HERE to read it". Again, wanting to use the main article to give your POV prominence is soapboxing.

If this article were too Muslim-friendly, we wouldn't get the amount of vandalism we do, with anons turning up to wipe sections that they think insult their prophet. Zora 08:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, without meaning to ignore your other points, it continues to be completely inappropriate to characterize Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud as "[my] POV". It is rather the "POV" of Hadith. I wasn't there, and thus can have no opinion of my own as to what occured, nor do I appoint myself to judge it.Timothy Usher 09:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora & Usher

Not wanting to 'dis' M, but address 'the elephant in the room.' May I propose the following to compactly combine these issues and with NPOV.

“The September 11, 2001 World Trade destruction and high frequency of jihadists classified as terrorists have resulted in numerous examinations of Muhammad’s life. E.g., Richardson (2004) compares them with principles of Western Civilization. Evaluations of Muhammad’s character or actions can be highly explosive, and result in a fatwa or murder. E.g., See: Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Banu Qurayza, Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons.”

PS Suggest linking Banu Qurayza in the right timeline. --DLH 18:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

DLH, what you're saying there is that since 9/11, people have been blaming Muslims, Muhammad, and Islam for the event and claiming that Islam is necessarily opposed to "Western civilization". Western civilization like Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Firebombing of Dresden? Auschwitz? Pogroms in Russian and Poland? The Inquisition? The Massacre of the Huguenots? The Thirty Years War? That Western civilization? OK ... I think you want the Criticism of Islam article. Zora 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's Character

Zora, thanks for directing me to Criticism of Islam in the above discussion on "Criticism"

In Criticism of Islam, I think the section on Muhammad is improperly categorized as it addresses Muhammad's character, not "Criticism of Islam". That overall section is also getting long.

Accordingly I propose a new breakout page on: "Muhammad's Character." Character is a more neutral term than "Criticism" and allows both sides to address the issue. Recommend that the major section on Muhammad in Criticism of Islam be placed in a major breakout article by itself titled Muhammad's Character and linked back to the main biography on Muhammad and to that Criticism of Islam page.

Under the Section Title propose links to Muhammad's Character.

Then propose the following paragraph in the main article on Muhammad linking to this new breakout page Muhammad's Character.

---

Muhhamad’s Character

Main articles Muhammad’s Character

Muslims view Muhammad as patient, righteous, holy, and exhibiting other high moral qualities expected of a prophet. Others question his relations with women. They observe his strong reaction to criticism and approval of critics consequent murders. Vis Al-Nader, Ocba, Asthma bint Marwan, Abu Afak. Some scholars view Muhammad’s character favorably with principles of Western civilization. e.g., Sir William Muir, and D. S. Margoliouth. Zwemer, Don Richardson (2004) and others detail differences with major Western principles. See also Muhammad's marriages, Rushdie, Muhammad Cartoons, Criticism of Islam, Banu Qurayza.

---

Some of the general comments relating to above could be moved to this section. --DLH 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Recommend listing these "See also" breakout pages with this section as they all address his character.--DLH 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

See corresponding parallel proposal under Criticism of Islam

Miscellaneous Changes Made

In the summary bit I added in brackets that the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad over a period of about 23 years. Just a quick mention Aadamh 22:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed your section title to give a general category for such changes. --DLH 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Founder" again

(1) A Wikipedia biography is not a hagiography (i.e. a worshipful or idealizing biography)! This is what many Muslim readers seem to ignore!

(2) From the unbiased historical point of view, which is the only one that matters here, Muhammad is in fact the founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community [* in the full sense of "founder": "One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something" (http://www.bartleby.com/61/92/F0279200.html)

[* This is the exact description the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses ("Muhammad." Encyclopaedia Britannica. From Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD. Copyright © 1994-2004. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.) What is right for the EB should be right for Wikipedia, shouldn't it?!]

(3) Only religious zealots object to calling Muhammad the "founder of the religion of Islam" for purely ideological reasons. But those ought not to call the tune here!

Editorius 13:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should simply call him the founder, with citations. Those who object ought present reliable sources which state the contrary. It's good to explain what Muslims believe as, "Muslims believe...", but if reliable sources agree in saying one thing, we should state this as fact.Timothy Usher 02:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We might call Muhammad "the earthly founder", and let Allah be "the heavenly founder". Editorius 03:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but "earthly" sounds kind of silly here. Does EB similarly qualify this?

No, the EB does not use "earthly" (which I suggested with a slightly ironic undertone).Editorius 10:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, tense: we say George Washington was, not is, the first President of the United States.Timothy Usher 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered something else:

Muhammad: "Arab prophet who established the religion of Islam."

(Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise: http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9372773/Muhammad?query=muhammad)

Editorius 11:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference of opinion about WHO Muhammad was. Muslims say one thing; non-Muslims say another. According to the Wikipedia NPOV rules, both opinions are equally good. If you make the article say, "Muhammad was the founder of Islam," then you're setting up the non-Muslim opinion as TRUE and dismissing the Muslim opinion as mere opinion.

That Muhammad is/was in the full literal sense of the term the founder/establisher of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community is a socio-historical fact, and not just an unsubstantiated opinion. There is nothing to be done about it. — A fact is a fact, for there are no such things as Muslim facts and Non-Muslim facts!Editorius 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is one thing that could be done: proponents of "NPOVing" the intro by hedging this fact can present reliable sources which state that Islam may have existed before Muhammad.Timothy Usher 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is breaking the ground rules of the encyclopedia and it's breaking a compromise (regarding this article) brokered over many months of discussion. It would be wrong to use this article to praise and exalt Muhammad; it's just as wrong to use it as a venue to attack Muhammad and Islam. Please, show some concern for the overall project of the encyclopedia, rather than using it merely as an arena for Muslim-bashing. Zora 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So I and the editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica are "Muslim-bashers", because we "dare" call Muhammad what he objectively is/was: the one who founded/established the religion of Islam?!?

I beg your pardon, but this reproach of yours is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.Editorius 23:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Even such an eminent scholar as W. Montgomery Watt (who, by the way, is the author of the text on Muhammad in the Encyclopaedia Britannica!) applies "founder" to Muhammad:

"[...] So far Muhammad has been described from the point of view of the historian. Yet as the founder of a world-religion he also demands a theological judgement. [...]"

(Source: W. M. Watt: "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman". <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/watt.html>)

The assertion that the objective socio-historical description of Muhammad as "the founder of a world-religion" is per se anti-Islamic is absurd.

Editorius 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. And all scholars agree that Muhammad is a major figure in Islam so it's good to start off with that. Both views of Muslims and non-Muslims are given next. That is fully neutral. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora wrote, "According to the Wikipedia NPOV rules, both opinions are equally good."

That's an egregious misinterpetation of WP policy. NPOV only applies to our treatment of verifiable reliable sources. Material which has been challenged, but has not been sourced, is not on any kind of equal footing as that which has been. To proceed as if it were is itself "breaking the ground rules of the encyclopedia."

And Zora, I ask you once again to STOP accusing good-faith editors of "Muslim-bashing". It is not by any reasonable standard "Muslim-bashing" to say that Muhammad founded Islam. Even if it were, Encyclopedia Britannica (and WP:RS) is the culprit, not Editorius. So stop.Timothy Usher 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy I also ask you to stop accusing Zora. You have constantly changed the article and made a mess of it. We are not using other encyclopedias as references just to push a pov. It is neutral to give both perspectives and that is the only neutral way. Not to take sides and just say that he founded the religion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If by "neutral" you mean that Wikipedia should be nothing but a conglomeration of all opinions there happen to be, then I strongly disagree. Editorius 01:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

(I am prepared to take sides—with the facts and our knowledge of them! Editorius 01:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

I didn't "accuse" Zora, I quoted her.Timothy Usher 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy and Pecher, you're misreading the "reliable sources" policy. It says, "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." OPINIONS, even if you don't agree with them, deserve to be included and presented dispassionately. You and some of the other editors are trying to twist this policy into the very opposite of NPOV. That Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam is also an opinion, based on a belief re the meaning of "founder" as well as beliefs rejecting the Muslim claim to a history for Islam before Muhammad. Zora 18:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by "Muhammad is the founder of the religion of Islam" is "Muhammad established Islam as an institutionalized system of particular religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". — And that Muhammad did so is historically the case! Editorius 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, you wrote, "However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified."

That’s exactly right. Suppose, as is quite likely, we find a source which explains that Muslims consider Islam to have existed before Muhammad, etc. We can use this to support the statement, "Muslims believe that Y", but not to support "Y", such that a sourced "X" must be hedged to accomodate it under WP:NPOV. Encyclopedia Britannica does not say that non-Muslims believe Muhammad to have founded Islam, but that he did. You need a reliable source which states on its own authority that Islam may have existed before Muhammad to support your objection.Timothy Usher 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy It is a "Muslim-bashing", saying that Muhammad (PBUH) has founded Islam. Furthermore, if the article is about Muslims then why not to say he is last prophet "first" then your version that he founded Islam (Not a Muslims view)? It is strange that I have to find a reference to prove a very well-known view of Muslims to you. Even in research papers well-known things are not required to be referenced. --- Faisal 18:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No more than it’s "Wikipedia-bashing" to say that Jimbo Wales (PBUH) founded Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is okay to have difference of opinion. That is an opinion of few Non-Muslims that Muhammad (PBUH) has founded Islam and I can respect that view of Non-Muslims. But it is totally different to present your opinion as a fact or try to impose on others. It is opinion of billions of Muslims that he has not founder Islam. And he is just a messenger of God. Even Islam started before Muhammad (PBUH). You seem like do not care about this at all. --- Faisal 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally open to your point, but we can't cite editors to this page. We need a reliable scholarly source, and then we need to fairly characterize what that source says. If you can find a reliable source saying that Islam may have existed before Muhammad, present it. Otherwise, the best we can do is "Muslims believe that Islam exised before Muhammad" (and you still need a source) - moreover, such a statment is about Islam, not Muhammad, and thus belongs in that article.Timothy Usher 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Muslims believe that Muhammad found something old and venerable, something that had been distorted or half-forgotten, cleaned it up, and presented it to the world again. To say that he's a founder is, in Muslim eyes, tantamount to calling him a forger, and dismissing his claims to be "reviving" Islam as lies. To use another analogy (one that I've used earlier) it's as if you said that Isaac Newton "invented" gravity. Scientists believe that he discovered rather than invented gravity.

We're not asking you to accept the Muslim beliefs. I don't share them myself. But we have to treat them in a NPOV manner. Zora 19:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, if Scientologists claimed that L.Ron Hubbard (PBUH) merely rediscovered Scientology, that wouldn't stop us from characterizing him as its founder, if we had a reliable source which said so. Then we could describe what Scientologists believe. But we start with accepted fact, as established by reliable sources.

I'm personally sympathetic to the notion of God's religion (though I doubt it has a name). And I'm okay with the notion that some of it was shared with Muhammad. But I'm not a citable source. So find one.Timothy Usher 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointing to other articles may not be a good idea, but L. Ron Hubbard indeed describes him as a founder of Scientology. Pecher ^Talk 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a scientist and had many publications in IEEE conferences. I never read an paper which provide references of the obvious thing like Earth is not flat [reference] or Humans need to sleep [reference] or 2+2 = 4 [reference]. No one provide references for the well-known facts. It a fact that Muslims believe that he is a Prophet not a founder of Islam. No reference is needed to prove such a widely known fact. --- Faisal 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

But from "Muslims believe that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam" it does not follow that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. Editorius 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but you still need a reliable source which states that Islam may have existed before Muhammad. Not one that states that Muslims believe it so, but one which states on its own authority that it is so.

This is precisely why Earth gives a diameter, a creation date, etc. without hedging, even though there are groups which dispute both of these. No reliable source will say that Earth was created 6,000 ago by God. The most we can say is that "Creationists claim...", and we're not obliged to write "Non-creationist believe" before what the reliable sources say. Similarly here, I predict that no reliable source will claim that Islam might have existed before Muhammad. If my prediction is right - and by all means prove it wrong if you can - from the standpoint of wikipedia policy, that Muhammad was the founder is a simple matter of undisputed (by reliable sources) objective fact.Timothy Usher 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can a reliable source say that. A group XZY believe that that Earth was created 6,000 ago by God? Yes a very reliable source can say so, why not. So what is your point? One can find many sources that claim that Muslims believe that Islam is started before Muhammad and religion of all the Prophets included Moses (PBUH). No one can prove such things in 2+2 way otherwise the whole world would be Muslim or otherwise ... --- Faisal 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Read my post again. I'm not saying we can't mention what Muslims believe (for example in the Islam article, where it's topical). But Muslim belief cannot be a reason to hedge a well-sourced statement of historical fact, anymore than can the stance of Creationists be a reason to write, "According to non-Creationists, the Earth is X years old", or to include their perspective in the introduction to Earth. We state the well-sourced facts as facts, and mention beliefs to the contrary later on.Timothy Usher 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You yourself agreed that one can do that in Islam article. But it is strange that you do not want to do that in Muhammad (PBUH) article. What is the difference? Both are equally related to Islam, do not they ? --- Faisal 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not. This is (or should be) a biography of Muhammad. That Muslims believe Islam to have existed before Muhammad is somewhat off-topic. My main point, though, is that a source for "So-and-so believes that Y" isn't a source for "Y", and shouldn't be treated as one when evaluating whether a reliably-sourced statement "X" ought be qualified.Timothy Usher 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"A major figure"

"Muhammad is a major figure in Islam"

Sounds like

"Muhammad is just somebody among many other major figures in Islam".

Well, actually, Muhammad happens to be the major (human) figure in Islam, doesn't he?!

Editorius 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This offended some editors on the ground that God is the major figure in Islam. I agree that the passage as it stands is evasive, and obscures more than it informs.Timothy Usher 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then let's call him "the major human figure in Islam". Is it really that difficult?!Editorius 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God has no direct role except as quoted by Muhammad, while Muhammad's statements and actions, as recorded in Sunnah and Hadith, are important on their own.

Christianity states that it is a religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It does not say "centered on God" or "on the teachings of God", even though that is who most Christians believe Jesus to be.Timothy Usher 03:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support Muhammad is the major figure in Islam. Lets change it ..--- Faisal 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The present version is still too vague; '...the major figure in Islam.' is at best ambiguous and at worst incorrect. I'll change it to something better. MP (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See Jesus: "Jesus... is the central figure of Christianity." Pecher ^Talk 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but many Christians don't exactly distinguish between God and Jesus; also, Jesus is venerated in a very different way in Christianity than the way Muhammad is in Islam. MP (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've now protected the article per a request by User:Pecher at WP:RfPP. Please use the talk page to discuss possible changes to the article, and once you are able to reach an agreement, drop a note on my talk page or on WP:RfPP to request unprotection. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this protection is very unnecessary, especially when today User:Pecher has been reported for 3RR for the same article. --- Faisal 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean "falsely reported"? Pecher ^Talk 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, you shouldn't file false reports, even against infidels.Timothy Usher 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, I did not realize that it was a false report. Next time I will be more careful. Even sister Zora is a non-Muslim but still I like her, because she is neutral. She might be wrong at some instances but is not biased. Similarly there are many other in wikipedia who are not Muslims but TRY to present things correctly. Hence, please do not wrongly accuse me. --- Faisal 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't falsely accuse you. You did file a false report, as you now recognize. I respect your willingness to admit that. Do you think that Pecher is owed an apology on WP:ANI/3RR, where you'd posted in error?

As far as Zora even being "non-Muslim, but [you] still like her"...Timothy Usher 23:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now given my apology at WP:ANI/3RR. But I will report him againt if he violated 3RR (obviously I will be more careful). --- Faisal 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to article - how to say who Muhammad was in as short and reasonably accurate a manner as possible

The word 'figure' is vague and doesn't preclude non-humans. Although it may be obvious to most people what the correct meaning of 'figure' is, comparisons with Christianity or Jesus don't justify using the term here, for the reasons mentioned in the previous section ( different concept of godhead and Jesus). Hence, that's why I think that '...most prominent person...' is better than '...the major figure...'. MP (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is excellent. Good job. --- Faisal 19:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reliable source which states that Islam may have existed before Muhammad.Timothy Usher 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What one finds are statements like the following:

"Many people have a misconception that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of the religion of Islam. However, Islam is in existence since the first man (Prophet Adam) first set foot on earth. Since then, Almighty God sent several prophets and revelations, the last in this chain being Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur’an."

(Source: http://www.islamicvoice.com/september.2003/religion.htm)

(1) The sentence "Islam is in existence since the first man first set foot on earth" is incomprehensible to me, because I fail to see what the author means by "Islam" in this context.

What does "Islam" mean? — Let's take a look at a good dictionary:

"1. A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God. 2a. The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world. b. The civilization developed by the Muslim world."

(Source: http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/I0247700.html)

Now, does the author mean:

(a) "[The] monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God is in existence since the first man first set foot on earth." (?)

(b) "The people or nations that practice Islam, the Muslim world is in existence since the first man first set foot on earth." (?)

(c) "The civilization developed by the Muslim world is in existence since the first man first set foot on earth." (?)

Both (a), (b), and (c) are clearly false!

So what else might "Islam" mean here?!

Speaking anachronistically of a "pre-Muhammadian era of Islam" is nothing but an attempt on the part of the Muslim theologians to ideologically re-interpret the history of the religions (especially of Judaism and Christianity) in such a way that Islam and nothing but Islam appears to be the only true eternal religion that has always existed even before Muhammad.

Editorius 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not good in finding references. However, it is part of Muslims faith. According to definition of Islam it is true. Even if I provide you some source it will be not acceptable source for you because it is related to belief. No one can prove existence of God and other believes using Maths/references. But we can say by showing references that a group of people have this believe. See prophets of Islam. --- Faisal 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my post above[13].Timothy Usher 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for "founder" debate

Last time, this was "solved" by compromising between editors' own opinions, in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. This time, we should do it the right way, gathering Reliable sources. We can post them in this section as we find them.

Muhammad founded Islam:

• Encyclopaedia Britannica Concise[14]
• W. M. Watt: "Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman"[15]

Islam existed before Muhammad:

• -
• -

Timothy Usher 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, of course you are 100% correct on this issue. My question: Do you like the sound of crickets? Because that is what you are asking for with the way you set up the Islam existed before Muhammad references section. --FairNBalanced 03:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No one has mentioned in the article that Islam exisit before Muhammad (PBUH). Hence you are doing a pointless debate in the first place. Your founder hypothesis will always come after saying that he is the last Prophet. Your question is unfair as existing Islam before Muhammad (PBUH) has nothing to do with him being the final Prophet. The article say following.

Muhammad ..., (Turkish: Muhammed) (c. 571–632) is the most prominent person in Islam. Muslims believe that he was God's final prophet, to whom the Qur'an was revealed whilst non-Muslims consider him to be the founder of Islam.[1]. --- Faisal 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But isn't Allah more prominent in Islam than Muhammad?!

(Remember: God is said to be a person, a divine person!)

Editorius 13:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

God is not a person and never appear as a person too as far as Islam is concern. --- Faisal 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The monotheistic theism of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is personalistic by definition. "The creative ground of being" is conceived of by it as a conscious personal agent. That's exactly what distinguishes it from pantheism/nontheism/atheism.Editorius 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, theists do not regard God as a human person or a corporeal person, but they do regard him as a person, a "spiritual person". Editorius 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ward neatly captures the essence of theism:

"[I]f you ask what the most fundamental thing is about believing in God, I would say that it is believing that there is a personal ground of being, that the universe is in some sense grounded in a personal reality. The universe is not the product of blind unconscious will, law or accident. It is the product of a reality which we may rightly call conscious, purposive, wise and good."

[Ward. Keith | 2003 | God: A guide for the perplexed | Oxford / Oneworld. (241)]

Editorius 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

typo

One contended sentence was mangled:

...who may have been according to hadith was nine when the marriage was consummated.

should read:

...who according to hadith may have been nine years old, when the marriage was consummated.

--tickle me 03:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it should read "who according to hadith was nine years old, when the marriage was consummated", but that's the point of the controversy. 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Some hadith. Hadith are a highly heterogenious body of material, and different scholars accept different hadith as strong or weak. Zora 09:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I see the point you are trying to make, but, "some" suggests that other hadith say otherwise, which is not the case.Timothy Usher 16:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused:

1. Before:
   ...such as his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, and his marriage to Aisha, who according to Hadith was nine when the marriage was consummated.
2. Presently:
   ...such as his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, who may have been according to Hadith was nine when the marriage was consummated.

Apart from the text garbling, Zaynab and Aisha get mixed up now. As for hadith allegedly saying otherwise, I didn't know that Bukhari was contended among Muslims, except Shias. --tickle me 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)