Talk:Muhammad

Criticism

Non-Muslim views of Muhammad, especially those from the West deserve mention in this article. The non-Muslim views, by definition, reject Muhammad (as a prophet) and his message (as divine). These are important and they should stay.

In recent years there have been some extremely critical views of Muhammad bordering on Islamophobia. Geert Wilders, for example, calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile". Just like Holocaust denial is not mentioned in the Holocaust, such views should be restricted to Criticism of Muhammad and not be mentioned in this article.VR _talk 02:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It's best not to reproduce ignorant or malicious statements with doesn't add anything to the article. Let's just keep this article based on fact. By the way, there is already a section on "Other religious traditions". Xareen (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism section summarizes (should summarize) Criticism of Muhammad. That doesn't mean the section should be a platform for Islamophobia or fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Critical views of Muhammad that are/have been mainstream in the west should be detailed in Muhammad#European_and_Western_views. And it seems they are (for example the article notes allegations that Muhammad was a devil). Hence there is no need for a criticism section.VR _talk 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the prior discussions, but it does seem odd that nothing in the current article summarizes Criticism of Muhammad. There are two links in the sidebars, but that's it. It would probably be worth, summary style, having at least a couple sentences, and a link to the criticism article. Having it somewhere around the European/Western views section would probably work, though the Europeans aren't the only ones who have issued criticism. --Elonka 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that best might be to add a subsection entitled "Criticism of Muhammad", which includes the following summary. What do other editors think? --Elonka 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Its not strange at all. E.g . Holocaust denial is not summarized into a section on the Holocaust. Furthermore, calling Muhammad a devil, currently covered under Muhammad#European_and_Western_views is also a type of criticism. I think any notable criticism of Muhammad, which probably comes from the West, should be included in the Muhammad#European_and_Western_views section.VR _talk 06:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My concern about that, is that criticism did not come solely from Christians in Europe. There have been critics from other faiths and locations as well, especially criticism and persecution from around the Arabian peninsula. --Elonka 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

---

(suggested section)

Criticism of Muhammad

Main article: Criticism of Muhammad

See also: Criticism of Islam

Muhammad and his teachings have been the subject of criticism, even from his own lifetime. His contemporaries persecuted him for teaching monotheism, and medieval Christians and Jewish writers condemned him as a fanatic or madman. Modern points of contention generally focus on the fact that Muhammad had multiple wives, one of whom was very young upon her arranged betrothal, Aisha; that Muhammad owned slaves; and complaints about Muhammad's treatment of Jews. Most of these complaints are taken out of context. Having multiple wives was common in Muhammad's time, and indeed, he launched a reform to limit the number of wives that a man could have to four. Multiple marriages were arranged for political reasons, as a way to form alliances. Arranged marriages and child marriage were also common in his era, and it would be incorrect to refer to it then as pedophilia. And Muhammad's negative treatment of Jews was not sweeping, but targeted towards one Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, which had allied with his enemies. In general Muhammad spoke respectfully about both Christians and Jews, referring to them as the People of the Book.

---

Having multiple wives was the norm in the Arabian community back then. Prior to Muhammad, one could have hundreds and thousands of wives. Him marrying multiple women is not a fair criticism because he was not doing something that was abominable or unnatural. Muhammad own daughter's Fatima was also married at a very young age (some tradition state her age was 9 or 14). And so many women back then were married at this age. I also don't agree the statement about child marriage because even girls as young as 12 or 13 were married off in the Medieval time in Europe. Marrying at young age was the way of life back then. It happened everywhere in the world. They were never consider child bride, just regular girls/women. 19:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs)

Hi Xareen, you raise good points. However, our goal here at Wikipedia is not to try and debate what is or is not true, but simply to provide information to our readers, which summarize the debates in outside sources. In other words, our mission is not to decide on the criticisms, but to describe the criticisms. Then other readers and scholars can read the Wikipedia article, to become informed on both the criticisms, and the arguments against them. Most of this information is better elaborated in the article Criticism of Muhammad. Here at Muhammad, we are trying to decide on the wording for one paragraph which summarizes the criticisms, and then readers who wish to learn more, can follow the link to Criticism of Muhammad. So, what do you think of the wording? Do you think the paragraph is a fair summary? Or if not, how would you word it differently? --Elonka 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a few suggestions. We can mention about him being prosecuted for teaching monotheism because there are three major incident in his life that support this stance; i) him and his followers were outcast and prosecuted in mecca, ii) migration to abbysina and iii) migration to medina. Criticism from medieval Christians/Jews (about Muhammad being fanatic madman) should be removed because it is just duplication from an existing section- non muslim views. Please add that sentence in that section. If you wish to write about multiple marriages then please also mention that Muhammad did not introduce polygamous marriage. It existed way-way before him in the Middle Eastern community. There are verses in the Quran that limit the number of wives a man can have; the first limit was four and the second limit was only one.Xareen (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees on the age of Ayesha. There is some disputed in her age. You can also mention that there is no reason to believe that his marriage to Ayesha was an eye brow raising incident since in those time frame early marriages were norm and there wasn’t much taboo against age differences between spouses. For supporting evidence you can also quote the young age of his daughter’s Fatima when she was married.Xareen (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps an easier way to handle all this then, is simply to add a "See also: Criticism of Muhammad" link in the "Legacy" section? --Elonka 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a closer look at the Criticism of Muhammad page and saw that a lot of points being considered here are already mentioned on that page. The only problem I see is that that page is completely one sided. Wanna make that page more interesting? Rename the page to Criticism and Counter-argument of Muhammad. One section will highlights all the negative things that has been said about him (see: Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan) and another section for scholarly views that are more balanced and neutral. Xareen (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a "See also" under "Other views" will do it, given that some of these points are already touched on in the European and Western reception section. --JN466 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Xareen: to do what you suggest, I'd recommend bringing it up at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, and see what other editors think. --Elonka 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Xareen, You're right; that article needs much such improvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not very knowledgeable about where things should be located as I am quite new with wikipedia. Go ahead and make necessary changes (in locations, adding references or links) that you think will improve the overall article. The criticisms of Muhammad page can be improve to include all the things that are already mention on the page and more. But it would be nice to have a section for counter-argument because there are some differences of opinions on many aspects of Muhammad’s life and teaching. The top section can be devoted to criticism of Muhammad and the bottom of the page can be devoted to explanation or counter arguments. Xareen (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that a link is alright, but we don't need a section, because we already have a section on Western views.VR _talk 16:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Image poll

A poll has been started at Talk:Muhammad/images#Image poll, to gather opinions on how the images of Muhammad should be handled in this article. This is not a vote, but an attempt to see where everyone stands on the issue. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images is still pending. In my view, participating in yet another poll on this subject would be appropriate only after the conclusion of that case. So keep it open until then, but don't be surprised by the lack of response. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Other Views" - Remove, change, improve

The other views section seems currently problematic. We should consider removing much of this to other articles and/or making other changes to improve.

Issues:

• 1) This section is somewhat tangential to the biography - thus suggesting it should be concise and directing to other articles.
• 2) The Non-Western/Western/Other-religion organization of the section seems haphazard.
• 3) Why Western and Non-Western? In some schemes the great monotheistic civilizations, especially settling or finding themselves in Hellenic and Roman lands, all have much in common (and an intertwined history).
• 4) "Non-western" is one quote from a famous 20th century personage. Really? That's it?
• 5) "Western" - I am sure there is rich accessible literature on this, which partly accounts for its length, given the history of Europe but too much and too many long quotes. Perhaps turn the article, Criticism of Muhammad, into a more informative article, Muhammad (non-Islamic views), to become in some ways a companion article to the article, Muhammad in Islam, which would then also focus on mainstream and minority views over the centuries, including any critical review, in that area.
• 6) Other religions - this seems slightly too undeveloped, if we are going to have this separate section at all.

Some of these observations overlap or perhaps cross purpose but, ideas? - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Prophet of Bahai

In the last edit, someone wrote that Muhammad is a Prophet of Bahai. I reverted the edit because according to Bahai religion, the founder of their religion is "The Bahá'í Faith (play /bəˈhaɪ/)[1] is a monotheistic religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh". Xareen (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bahá'u'lláh is the founder of the Baha'i religion, but Muhammad is a prophet in that religion. I reverted your edit. Mvaldemar (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Other religion like Bahai may have paid tribute to him but Muhammad did not found that religion. Bahaullah did not get to met Muhammad because he lived between (12 November 1817 – 29 May 1892). Why do you keep insisting that Muhammad who lived in the 6th century found an 18th century religion. Please revert back the article. I don't wanna start an edit warring but you don't give me much choice. Xareen (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what I stated. Muhammad is a prophet in the Baha'i religion; this is a fact. I am NOT insisting that he founded the religion, and the article does not even state so. Please make a distinction between "prophet" and "founder". Mvaldemar (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. By your logic, I can also add Muhammad as a Prophet recognized in Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, Taliban, Ismailis, Zaydiya, Salafi and every other off-shot sects and religions? Xareen (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The two major religions which recognize Muhammad as a prophet are Islam and Baha'i. The groups you mentioned are all Islamic schools of thought or sects, while the Baha'i is a religion separate of Islam. I don't see why we shouldn't mention both Islam and Baha'i: the article on Moses states that, in addition to Judaism, he is considered a prophet in both Islam and Christianity, although he certainly did not FOUND either of those religions. Mvaldemar (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is extremelly flawed. According to your line of resoning, Muhammad is actually the founder of Judaism. That's what the implication means here. Xareen (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about Muhammad being the founder of Judaism. Would you please clarify? Mvaldemar (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When we say that Muhammad is a founder of Islam is because there is a history where he propogate his teaching to his followers. And they are many historians who has written about him. But Muhammad did not talk about Bahai at all. Muhammad live in the 6 century AD while the founder of Bahai lived in the 18th century. Muhammad couldn't possible meet the founder of Bahai religion and as such could not be considered as the founder of Bahai. Xareen (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does not claim that Muhammad is a founder of Baha'í! It merely states that he is considered a prophet and a messanger of God in that faith. Why do you want to erase this information? Should we delete the lines which state Moses is a prophet in Islam and Christianity from the Moses article because he did not found these religions? Mvaldemar (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad is recongnized as Prophet of God by so many religions and sects. There is already a section on views from other religion. If you feel the bahai needs to be mention in the intro section then so do the other sects, religions and individuals that recognized him as a Prophet of God. Should we start mentioning ever one of the religion and sects in the intro section? Xareen (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This bio is about him as a person and not about other off shot sects and religion that recognized him.Xareen (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already a para about the bahai faith in Muhammad page. Xareen (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.[270]

Yes, that's why I added this to the intro. Mvaldemar (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Why what? Why does it need to be in the intro. Taliban also recongnized Muhammad as a Prophet. Should I go ahead now and add that info in the intro? Xareen (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Taliban follow a form of Islam, while Baha'i is a religion separate of Islam. See above my comment about Moses. Mvaldemar (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mvaldemar has the right perspective - Muhammad is recognized as a prophet (but NOT founder) in only two major religions, Islam and Bahai. It's important to understand that "Sunni" and "Shia" are both branches of Islam, not separate religions in their own right, and the Taliban is a terrorist organization with religious motivations, not a religion at all. The fact that Bahai regard Muhammad as a prophet is significant, well referenced, and as a point covered in the main body it's totally appropriate that it should be given due weight in the intro. Doc Tropics 15:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow your line of reasoning. See the Bahai religion on wikipedia. They do not exclusively acknowledge Muhammad as Prophet of Islam. They speak about Muhammad and every other prophets in the world. See this sentence here "In the Bahá'í Faith, religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers, each of whom established a religion that was suited to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people. These messengers have included Abraham, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and others, and most recently the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh. "Xareen (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bahai have their own Prophets. Muhammad is no more important than any other Prophets. Xareen (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since the information is covered in the main body of this article it is appropriate (per the MoS) to mention it in the intro, giving it due weight. That's not opinion, it's policy. At this point, each of your objections has been responded to with an answer based in policy, while the objections themselves have never been justified as more than "I don't like it"; ie, you've never cited policy to support your position. The inclusion of the 2 small words "...and Bahai..." is clearly supported by both external sources and internal policy; time to move on now. Doc Tropics 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am citing another example to show you that intro section is perhaps not the best place to put information about other religion recognizing Muhammad's contribution. See this article on Jesus. Bahai is mentioned as an after thought here too "Meanwhile, Gnostics, Mandaeans, Manichaeans, Muslims, Baha'is, and others have found prominent places for Jesus in their own religious accounts." Again, why is Bahai religion is mentioned in the intro section? There is already a section on Muhammad's page mentioning Bahai religion recognizing Muhammad. Xareen (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I explained very clearly and carefully exactly why it should be mentioned in the intro. Go back and read it again, the answer is right there, linked as policy. Doc Tropics 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How can you even be considering this, after the SOPA block...

... After SOPA really this looks insanely hypocritical...

An enyclopaedia should be about facts and an objective view of the materials available, not hiding things away depending on whose pressure/lobbyist group is larger...

'WP:NOTCENSORED - "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

You either are, or you aren't... If you're going to hide this stuff then it's going to be other "blasphemous" material next...

Why not go the whole way and just start letting people opt out from links and articles that could offend them, per Websense let people live in an maginary world of their own creation: Filter bubbles in internet search engines, BBC News Online --Mss. Selina Kyle (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that by protesting SOPA, wikimedia has now become muslim?.....I'm confused, and also this isn't a forum. Is this leading towards a sugestion about content? Smitty1337 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Mss. Selina Kyle seems to be unaware of the FAQ linked prominently at the top of this page, which describes how one can avoid seeing certain content. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Selina was saying is that if the Wikipedia is so greatly concerned about the censorship from external legislative bodies if SOPA became law, that it is hypocritical to turn to censorship itself just because certain religious groups do not like material that they find objectionable on the Wikipedia. Her argument is in favor of retaining the depictions and critical of the project for even considering removal on grounds of offense. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Tarc, that's exactly how I read it too. Doc Tropics 19:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense than my interpretation. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012

ths page 'prophet muhammed' should be removed!!!! XX-CrimsonVIper-Xx (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not censored, please see the FAQ at the top of the page--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)