Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 20 April 2012

Error: The code letter for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed.

Discussion of images should be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.
If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see the FAQ.

The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?

A1:

There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.

Wikipedia is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Wikipedia is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Wikipedia's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Wikipedia because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.)

Wikipedia does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.

Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false?

A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.

Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Wikipedia to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history.

These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Wikipedia, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.

Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?

A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:

Sign in or create an account
Click on this link to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
Click the edit button, and add the following line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;}
Click Publish changes or Publish page to save the preference

Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account.

Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Wikipedia by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off".

You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example.

Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool.

Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?

A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?

A5: Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?

A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia.

Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references?

A7:

Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Wikipedia are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion.

In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Wikipedia. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).

Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?

A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Wikipedia contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.

Q9: Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?

A9: No. The official policy is that Wikipedia is not censored.

Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

A10: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia.^[1] Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.

References

^ C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

Template:Pbneutral

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam GA‑class Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arab world GA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saudi Arabia GA‑class Top‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Middle Ages GA‑class Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, and June 8, 2006.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times.
Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Wikipedia: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise.
Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad". Fox News.
Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer.
Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Wikipedia faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer.
K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Wikipedia Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

Mediation Archives

Archive Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

RfC on image use

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images --Cybercobra (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

did not try to kill himself

There is a citing apparently from John Esposito's book that says he (pbuh) tried to commit suicide after receiving the first revelation - there is no proof nor corroboration of this claim. He is known to have received the revelation, felt physically ill and ran to his wife Khadijah (r.a.) and said 'cover me, cover me!' out of fear of what had happened to him. I suggest removing this lone sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottabeyou1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Issue with this article

This article says on line 3 & 4 that "Most Muslims consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran." It should be "All Muslims consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran." It is mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahab183615 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think all Muslims consider him to be the last prophet. The Ahmadiyya Muslims for example consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmed to be the last one, and there might be others as well. Eik Corell (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya are considered Ahmadiyya Muslims according to Wikipedia. However, in the wider Muslim community, Ahmadiyya, and other groups that do no consider him at the last prophet are generally considered as non-Muslim. I guess from a point of neutrality it could be replaced with "Almost all". However, I'm not changing it. If Wahab183615 considers it a serious issue, he can raise a Wikipedia:Requests for comment Asifkhanj (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Muslims consider Muhammad to be the final Prophet. At least as far as I know. Ba'hai'ism comes to mind. redORANGEblack (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blessed Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said: There will arise 30 grand Liars (Dajjaleen) from my Ummah, each of them will claim that he is a Prophet whereas “I AM KHATAMAN NABIYEEN AND THERE IS NO PROPHET AFTER ME” [Sunnan Tirmidhi, Hadith No.2202]

QURANIC VERSE

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the apostle of Allah and the seal of the prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things." (Ahzab 33:40).

In this verse, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)has been described as the "Seal of the prophets" or the "Last of the prophets". This verse from the Holy Qur'an is the most clear-cut evidence for the belief of "Khatmun-Nubuwwat" (finality of prophethood). The well known scholar Hafiz Ibn-Katheer writes in his book: "This verse is a clear evidence for this belief that there is no prophet after the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)." (Tafseer Ibn-Katheer)

It is thus incumbent upon Muslims to believe that Prophethood has ended with the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This belief in the finality of Prophethood has been an established belief of the Muslims since the time of the Prophet(pbuh). Every time a false prophet has arisen, the Muslims recognised him as false because belief in the finality of Prophethood has been established as part of the Muslim's fundamental beliefs. Without a shadow of doubt, the finality of Prophethood is something that is an essential belief in the religion of Islam. Hence the rejection of this belief is Kufr and any person who rejects this belief is out of the fold of Islam, no matter what claims he makes to the contrary. In the history of Islam there have been a number of false claimants of prophethood who were outrightly rejected by the Muslim Ummah as apostates and renegades.

The Prophet (pbuh) said:

(1) "Apostleship and prophethood have ceased. There will be no messenger or prophet after me." [Musnad-Ahmad]

(2) "My likeness among the prophets is as a man who, having built a house put the finishing touches on it and made it seemly, yet left one place without a brick. When anyone entered it and saw this, he would exclaim, 'How excellent it is, but for the place of this brick.' Now, I am the place of the brick: through me the line of prophets has been brought to completion."

[Sahih-al-Bukhari]

(3) "The Children of Israel used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.”

[Sahih-al-Bukhari; 4.661]

(4) The Messenger of Allah set out for Tabuk appointing 'Ali as his deputy (in Medina). 'Ali said, "Do you want to leave me with the children and women?" The Prophet said, "Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon was to Moosa? But there will be no prophet after me." [Sahih-al-Bukhari; 5.700]

The amended Pakistani constitution (Article 260, clause 3) defines a "Muslim" as a person who believes in the oneness of God, in the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh), and does not believe in any person who claims to be a prophet after the prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The Opinion of well-known Muslim Scholars on The Finality of Prophethood http://irshad.org/finality/opinion.php

Fatwas and court decisions against Qadianis (also known as Ahmadis) http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/fatwaenglish.html http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/govtdecision.html http://www.khatmenubuwwat.org/courtdecision.html

http://www.secondhandislam.co.uk/ http://www.secondhandislam.co.uk/resources/Interpretation%20of%20Finality%20Of%20Prophethood%20by%20Scholars%20Of%20the%20Past.pdf

http://www.albalagh.net/prophethood/finality%20of%20prophethood.shtml

http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Qadiyani/qadiyanism2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Remove the image. Please dont forced to start a campaign against you.....??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.0.17.29 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page header. Read the FAQ prominently listed at the top of this page for an exhaustive discussion of wiki policy. Thank you Span (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 7 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to Muslims Prophet Muhammed should be referred to as the one who received the message of Islam/Quran from Allah(God) and began spreading the message of Islam as opposed to the FOUNDER of Islam as Islam is considered to have been created by Allah (or God) and not found by any human being, this is a fundamental belief in Islam and the notes are not sufficient to describe who he was. In addition It is not that most muslims but there are no Muslims that believe Muhammed was the founder, therefore it is fair to say "according to muslims " prior to who he was.

Thus instead of "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎) was the founder of the religion of Islam.[" it should be "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎)was according to Muslims the one who received the revelation of the Quran/religion of Islam from Allah (God) through the Angel Gabriel" ...

68.120.162.164 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Read the intro carefully; it doesn't say what you claim it says. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 April 2012

Who sets the boundaries for censorship here. Could you please redirect me to the censorship criteria. Who decides what is offending to someone and not to others. Why is pornography 'censored' on wikipedia? How is a neutral point of view agreed upon when the persons deciding about an issue might not have any representation from the offended community?

O Wikipedia... you benefit too many but certainly have your own flaws... one just cannot give the authority of decision to the ones who do not have any representation from the people he has been given authority on ..

I know it would not change a bit.. but im just trying to prove my point which in the eyes of many here is not worth considering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuskhan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your complaint, I must simply answer that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. We don't claim "authority"; our process for determining what material is included by consensus (not voting). The matter of images has been extensively and exhaustively discussed (as you can see from the FAQ prominently listed at the top of the page) for years, and consensus has always determined that the images will be kept. If you and the other "offended parties" would like to try and establish a consensus to remove the images, you are of course free to do so, but you will most likely be disappointed because that would conflict with Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy. We do not censor images just because people are likely to find them offensive (Islam and Mohammed are not singled out in this; it applies to everyone). Sleddog116 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear Brother, I request to delete the pictures which appears as keeping the black stone and getting revelation from angel and any photograph which shows the face of Prophet Muhammed because they are not true image and lead to future misunderstanding. Thank you. Ahamed.

Fakhru77 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request will have to be denied, sorry. We cannot censor material on this project. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT REQUEST ON 18/04/12 ---- Non-Arabic Sources (2.4)

Please add the following after where Reference 41 ends.

Though history shows that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David (peace be upon him) did take part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As presented, this is not an acceptable addition. "Though history shows" is debatable, as the historicity of religious texts is disputed, and to my knowledge, no direct historical records (i.e. non-religious sources) mention David and Goliath. Also, the edit includes the honorific (peace be upon him), which does not conform to a neutral point of view and has been discussed extensively (and described in the FAQ at the top of this page). Sleddog116 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly add amended text as follows

Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)

end of text

Some links to corroborate the aforementioned traditions http://gardenofpraise.com/bibl14s.htm http://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-goliath-1-samuel-171-58 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV http://quran.com/2/251 http://www.haqislam.org/prophet-dawood-and-sulaiman/ some more links (taken from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

David and Goliath The Israelites, under King Saul, faced the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. He heard the Philistine giant Goliath challenge the Israelites to send their own champion to decide the outcome in single combat. David told Saul he was prepared to face Goliath and Saul allowed him to make the attempt. He was victorious, striking Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell, and David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him; the Philistines fled in terror. Saul inquired about the name of the young champion, and David told him that he is the son of Jesse.[22] [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to click on the links I provided? Did you bother to read any text whatsoever?

So I can't quote from Bible and Qur'an now? I am just speechless at your response. It seems wikipedia has been taken over by those who are clearly biased against Muslims.

you say and I quote "Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit)."

Only for exactly what they say i.e. they cannot be interpretted? Really? Have you never come across any interpretations of the texts of Bible (or for that matter any other book) on Wikipedia?

You want exact words?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel%2017

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him.

49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.

52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath[f] and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron.

53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

54 David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem; he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent.

Now compare that to what I had written as was suggested to my first proposed edit (which I took without any issues as I could understand where the guy was coming from)

"Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)"

So what is the difference? Don't those above two paragraphs imply the same thing? Or do you simply like the longer version better?

I don't even have to go far to prove how prejudice you are in your observation.

My suggested edit was in reply to this..

"The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They INDICATE that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet".

Indicate? Why I see no objection on not quoting directly from the Byzantine sources? So is it ok to say 'Byzantine sources indicate' yet 'Jewish and Christian traditions show' is incorrect? Perhaps I should have used the word INDICATE "instead" of "show"?

I could bring thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of examples where Bible (and other religious books) have been interpreted on Wikipedia itself. So why deny us something which is available to other faiths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this right now. This is a Wikipedia article discussion, as such it is important for Wikipedians to be civil, assume good faith, and not make personal attacks. Please consider carefully the probability that your fellow editors' edits represent their understanding of Wikipedia policy and are aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

[1]

@@ Line 279: / Line 279: @@
 Why I see no objection on not quoting directly from the Byzantine sources? So is it ok to say 'Byzantine sources indicate' yet 'Jewish and Christian traditions show' is incorrect? Perhaps I should have used the word INDICATE "instead" of "show"?
-I could bring thousands (if not hundred of thousands) of examples where Bible (and other regligious books) have been interpreted on Wikipedia itself. So why deny us something which is available to other faiths?  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bmanzoor|Bmanzoor]] ([[User talk:Bmanzoor|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bmanzoor|contribs]]) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+I could bring thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of examples where Bible (and other religious books) have been interpreted on Wikipedia itself. So why deny us something which is available to other faiths?  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bmanzoor|Bmanzoor]] ([[User talk:Bmanzoor|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bmanzoor|contribs]]) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ::[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop this right now. This is a Wikipedia article discussion, as such it is important for Wikipedians to [[WP:CIVIL|be civil]], [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], and [[WP:PERSONAL|not make personal attacks]]. Please consider carefully the probability that your fellow editors' edits represent their understanding of Wikipedia policy and are aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. [[User:Peter Deer|Peter Deer]] ([[User talk:Peter Deer|talk]]) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)