Talk:Muhammad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015[edit]

Dear editors,

Request: I ask you to kindly replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" or the word "idolaters".

Reason: Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed in one God like the Jews and Christians, but they associated with him sons, daughters, and partners whom they considered to be their intercessors with God. This pre-Islamic belief is quite evident in several verses of the Qur'an like:

Qur'an 39:3 it is to God alone that sincere obedience is due. And those who take other guardians besides Him say, "We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to God." Surely, God will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. God does not guide anyone who is bent on lying and is a disbelieving liar.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Qur'an 12:106 and most of them, even when they profess belief in God, attribute partners to Him.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed, for example, that the angels are the daughters of God:

Qur'an 17:40 What! Has your Lord then favoured you with sons and Himself adopted females from among the angels? What you say is monstrous.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Notes:

  • The Arabic word for pagans is وثنيون/Wathaniyyoon. This word has never been used in any Arabic sourcebook to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians.
  • The Arabic word for associaters is مشركون/Mushrikoon. This is actually the word used in the Qur'an, the books of Hadiths, the Arabic literature and the Arabic history to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Although it is common in the West to translate the Arabic word "مشركون/Mushrikoon" into the English word "pagans", this translation is false and could result in a corrupted cross-cultural understanding.

Further explanation:

  • The religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians was quite similar to the religion of Sabians. Sabians believe in one God. However, they associate 360 powerful "semi-gods/idols" with him. They believe that the 360 act as mediators between God and the creation. It is well known that pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians had 360 idols too. There are also other similarities like the veneration of angels and stars.

Loved & Beloved (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say, X mark.svg Not done. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English terms as commonly understood by English speakers. There is nothing wrong with the word "pagan" in the context of this article, although in some instances the word, used as an adjective, could be removed without harming the meaning of the text.
In historical contexts, a "pagan" is simply a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. It can also mean someone who has polytheistic religious beliefs. It doesn't really matter what the Quran says, what Hadith books say, or whether an Arabic word was mistranslated to "pagan" because we are not using those sources in this article (nor should we). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Reason. Islamic sources have translated the Word مشركون as pagans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated the first verse of Surah A-tawbah as 'A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-' (ref: Ali, Yusuf. "I-Tawbah verse 1". Quranic Arabic corpus. Retrieved 5 April 2015. )
Translating the word مشركون/Mushrikun into the word pagans is common in the West (among both Muslims and non-Muslims). This is why Yusuf Ali translated it in this way. However, you can see that most of the translators used the words "associaters"/"idolaters"/"polytheists" instead the word "pagans".
  • (The translation of Maududi) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of disavowal by Allah and His Messenger to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity and with whom you have made treaties
  • (The translation of Daryabadi) Qur'an 9:1 Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.
  • (The translation of Pickthall) Qur'an 9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
  • (The translation of Wahiduddin Khan) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists, with whom you had made agreements.
  • (The translation of Saheeh International) Qur'an 9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.
The most accurate translation is "associaters". "idolaters" & "polytheists" are acceptable translations, but translating the word "Mushrikun", which is derived from the Arabic word "shirk", into the word "pagans" is truly a corrupted translation. The Arabic word for pagans is quite different form the Arabic word for associaters.
"Pagans" is specifically used to describe those who don't believe in the Abrahamic God & in the common aspects among the Abrahamic religions such as the existence of angels and demons. It is not acceptable to use this word to describe the Sabians, for example, or the Yazidis, or the Mormons, or the adherents of similar religions. Being an Abrahamic idolater is not the same as being non-Abrahamic at all.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Still X mark.svg Not done. Reason. Pagan has been translated as 'An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion' in This Reliable Dictionary. Therefore you cannot drag out this semantic debate unless you provide a source which contradicts this dictionary and is equally, if not more, reliable. your own POV and Original Research does not count as source.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"Idolater" has also been translated as "One who worships idols" in the same reliable dictionary you cited. Thus, the word "idolaters" is as correct as the word "pagans" per the reliable dictionary you cited. The question is "which one is more practically used?!" you provided one single translation of Yusuf Ali and said to me: "look! here is it", so I came to you with 5 more reliable translations and said to you: "look! here are they".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Firstly being a mushrik does not mean that one has to worship idols, I have no idea where you got that from. Worshipping anything other than one single God will get a person under the heading of mushrik in Arabic. A person who does not believe that there are multiple gods but rather he believes in angels or whatever will not get under this heading per say. I think this is why you have been mistaken. There is a huge difference between 'God' and 'demigod'. So as idol worship is not required for a person to be a mushrik the term idolaters is not going to work(A person who worships the sun is a mushrik but not an idolater). The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a non-Islamic non-Arabic Western source which acknowledges what I saw saying concerning the fact that pre-Islamic Arabians were "associaters":

Even in pre-Islamic times Allah was distinct at Mecca because he had no idol. But idols had come to be associated with him and this was the issue in the Islamic reform. Thus at first Muhammad was not concerned with regulating the life of a community of believers ... but rather with reforming the beliefs and practices of his fellow Meccans. "Reforming" is a more appropriate term than "converting", because the Qur'an also reveals ... that the worship of Allah was already well established there before Muhammad. What was at question, then, was not simply belief in or worship of Allah, which the Quraysh certainly did, but the Meccans' "association" as the Qur'an calls it, of other deities with Allah, a practice that seemed to accept the existence of other gods in the "exalted assembly" while at the same time denying that they had any autonomous power, though perhaps they could help men if God so willed. It was thus the associationism (Arabic: al-Shirk) of the associaters (al-Mushrikun) which was the object of Muhammad's and Islam's condemnation of what was going on in the Kaabah and his religious revolution consisted essentially of removing the associated "gods" which were detracting from the uniqueness of Allah. Polytheists were condemned on this basis; Christians escaped full condemnation since theirs was a book-religion, though the Trinity was condemned for its implicit associationism. John F. Healey, ISBN 90-04-10754-1, page 84

Notice how the author called them "polytheists" & "associaters" instead of calling them "pagans".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I will just copy past what I said earlier so that it can be noticed by you, I think you did not notice it before "The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better."FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to copy paste what you said earlier. What you need to do is to notice what I said in the first place. I said: "replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" OR the word "idolaters". I gave you two choices instead of one. You came to me with a translation by Yusuf Ali. I came to you with five more reliable translations than Yusuf Ali. You asked for a secondary reliable source. I gave you what you asked for: John F. Healey, who is neither Arab nor Muslim, used the terms "associationism" & "associaters" to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabians. If you insist on disputing the legal usage of the word "associaters" because of your dictionary, then you should not dispute the legal usage of the second choice I presented; that is the word "idolaters".
To be noticed here is that your argument -that the word "idolaters" can't be an appropriate translation of the word "Mushrikun"- is your own Original Research and POV. You didn't present any reliable source to back up your argument. According to the "reliable dictionary" you used, an idol is: a-An image used as an object of worship/ b-a false god/ c-any being (other than the one God) to which divine honour is paid. This means that the term "idol" can be applied to describe a demigod or a false god; which means that the usage of the term "idolaters" to describe the pre-Islamic Arabians is quite fine.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, "associaters" isn't a word, so you aren't really offering a choice here. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Loved & Beloved do you read my comments before replying? I'll just 'copy paste' the reasons as to why your inclusion of idolaters and associaters is not possible.
1)Let us discuss idolaters first. Now according to all dictionaries idolaters is a term used to describe worshipping of idols. This is not a POV, this is in every single dictionary. The very word is derived from idol. So this word cannot be used in place of "Mushrikon" because a person who is "Mushrik" may not worship an idol but still have more than one god. Like the people who worship the sun, moon and the stars. Therefore the word 'Pagan' is a better choice. FYI no word of one language can be translated into another completely with all its meanings and the word Pagan is the best translation, a whole lot better than idolaters. But if you find a dictionary which is reliable and says that idolaters can be used for a person who worships multiple gods no matter what kind, we will be happy to accomodate you.
2)Associaters is not in the dictionary dude. I checked and rechecked. Link me the one you are using. No disrespect but i cannot find it in the free online, oxford or webster. Perhaps there is some obscure dictionary giving this term, link it please.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am still very convinced that the word "Abrahamic idolaters" is far more accurate than the word "pagans" in the description of pre-Islamic Arabians. It is clearly evident that the Prophet Muhammad didn't face any problem in preaching the "Abrahamic God" to the Arabians or in calling them to believe in Abraham and his son Ishmael: They (the pre-Islamic Arabians) were already believers in them. The hard mission for Muhammad was actually to make them believe that the idols whom they associated with the "Abrahamic God" are false.
Since the word "pagans" is not practically used to describe "those who believe in the Abrahamic God", I am going to replace the word myself with the word "idolaters".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

White supremacist is neither WP:DUE nor "historical Christian"[edit]

A user repeatedly inserts a long section sourced only to a white supremacist in the section on Historical Christian Views. First of all, it's obviously misplaced. How is a contemporary supremacist a "historical Christian"? Second, is this really due here? I'd argue it's wildly WP:UNDUE and that there is no reason to report (at length) the opinion of this person. Third, the user who keeps inserting it has not provided any reason, and blatantly ignores WP:BRD.Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was my edit here. I request you all to check it whether it was right or not.Sharif uddin (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please indent your answers. Despite numerous calls for an explanation of why you feel a contemporary supremacist is a "historical Christian", and why this is WP:DUE, you just keep commenting without engaging in the discussion. What's your reasoning?Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I added some line in the article and a user rollbacker rollbacked the edit here. Should I revert my edit and was my edit appropriate? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I already started a discussion above. No, your edit was not appropriate, as I explain above. (And I did not rollback the edit, I reverted it and explained why.)Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jeppiz, Napolean Bonaparte was not also a christian historical but his compliment has been mentioned here. How do you explain it? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You link to a Tamil film actor (Nepolean) and I don't find any opinion from any Tamil film actor in the article. And once again, please indent you answers properly.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Napolean Bonaparte.Sharif uddin (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[287] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[288][289] Sharif uddin (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
And what is your argument? You added a whole paragraph about a white supremacist, and you defend it with the argument that we have a a short sentence about Napoleon? Apart from the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, one of the most famous persons in history is infinitely more DUE here than some white supremacist.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If we could stop nitpicking Sharif uddin's spelling for a moment? Napolean is an extremely notable historical figure. Hart is an obscure author/white supremacist. The two opinions have greatly differing weight. --NeilN talk to me 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have objection in adding a para, instead may I add the first line only? Sharif uddin (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is it WP:DUE?Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"famous book"[citation needed] --NeilN talk to me 23:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The harts book is very very famous in muslim world. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC) It is also famous in the non-muslim world also. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's no doubt moderately famous as its author has a Wiki page Sure (though I've never heard about it, but that's no argument) but we could find a lot of famous books and famous people's opinions about Muhammad. Literally hundreds that are even more famous. So why this book in particular?Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, please provide references that attest to the book's stature and reputation. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
We are not listing a racist's opinion alongside those of Leibniz and Napoleon, i.e. historical people of some renown. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

This is obvious WP:SYNTH as the Qur'an cannot "respond" to anything written after it. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was initially just going to modify it instead of revert it, but I'm not going to restore it.
  • "declared himself to be the Messenger of God" carries a sense that he was stating a fact, while "since he claimed prophethood" is neutral
  • "He has been criticized by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries" makes no chronological sense. Are folks from his time still alive? "had been" is more accurate.
  • The Quran is a primary source, and so needs a non-primary source for any interpretation.
And looking into it further, the source cited is not the most academic source, and while it does say that Muhammad preached the equality of humankind, it does not say that he was criticized for that idea in particular. If the material is restored, I will revert it instead of modifying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
All we really need is a summarization of the lead of Criticism of Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, Tarc. Khestwol (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015[edit]

Sar777 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC) remove all image

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
lol, smooth 77.165.250.227 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove pictures from this site - Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015[edit]

Hi, There, please remove imaginary picture (Painting picture of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam). By posting picture of our Prophet you are hurting the feeling and love of followers of Last Messenger of Allah.

My humble request please remove images of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam) as this is not his real picture and no one can make his picture, without evidence please don't post pictures.

Thank you on advance, Abdul Rauf Raufsbu (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Hello! I think you misunderstand what purposes the images in the article serve. The article is not saying "this is what Muhammad looks like". The images are there to show how people in the past have depicted Muhammad. Also, Wikipedia does not censor its content for anyone's beliefs. I'd suggest you take a look at this page for more on that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please read the notice at the top of the page, as well as the FAQ (particularly questions 1, 2, and 3). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)