Talk:Muhammad

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Watt caravan quote

Itaqallah whats the whole passage can you quote it? It looks about Arabian raids in general. Is it saying that Muslim raids saw it as a sport and were careful not to kill anyone? Or thats what raids were like before? Doesnt it contradict to say it was a sport but then they did it to get property back?Opiner 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

you cannot delete sourced material just because it conflicts with your own understanding. doing so may be perceived as vandalism. we AGF of whichever editor initially inserted it, assuming that they quoted him faithfully and in context. if you believe he has been misquoted, it is for you to explain how. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, you need to educate yourself rather than removing well-sourced materials. If you don't want to do scholarly research, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. --Aminz 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just asked question and got two non-answers. Not saying quote is wrong but it looks off-topic because its not awbout Muslim raids just Arabian raids usually.Opiner 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, you know how to check with the sources. Try books.google.com --Aminz 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Google books. Good idea. I checked pages 105 and 106, Watt does NOT say Muhammad raids were sports or careful not to kill anyone! Only generally Arabian raids he was talking about! DOES say that Muhammad raids 'deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans' so maybe that should go in instead?Opiner 23:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking with source and coming into the terms of scholarship. Please note that Watt is trying to address how Muhammad could have turned into raiding caravans bound for Mecca. He is giving context to the nature of these raids in general. The only reading of the text that I can see approves what is written in the article. Muhammad raids 'deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans' is not related to the perception of the raids in the tradition. Infact the Battle of Badr happened in response to the raids. --Aminz 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha I find your discovery comical, Opiner. I would venture a guess that there exists much more blatant misrepresentation of sources in this article. —Aiden 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which blatant misrepresentation of sources? I don't know who added Watt quote, but I checked it myself. It isn't a misrepresentation of sources. --Aminz 01:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i think Aiden may be noting that there are other cases where misrepresentation, if that's what someone is looking for, may be far more apparent than it is here. it can be read both ways :) ITAQALLAH 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

this is what Watt says: "The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad's behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war.", he then goes on to describe how raiding was perceived in comparison to actual war. within the context of the previous paragraph where he discusses (and probably questions) the act of raiding by Muhammad and the Muslims (which is where the above quote re: challenging/provoking Meccans is derived), as well as the passage directly afterwards which i have just quoted, it is clear that Watt is trying to justify Muhammad's actions by noting Arabian customs. looking at the current passage in the article, i would agree with Aminz in saying that the source has been represented fairly and entirely within its correct context. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on "Persian illustration showing Muhammad preaching"

An anonymous editor left the following comment below the afore-mentioned picture (which has been added and removed a few times recently and is clearly the subject of some debate): "This image here, is worthless,, it should be seen just as an imaginaton." I have no opinion on this issue at this time but I didn't want this anonymous editor's comment to be deleted and ignored just because he or she left it in the wrong place. --ElKevbo 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC) DocEss 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)==Why is "Persian illustration showing Muhammad preaching" here?== What purpose does the image have? At present we have three images of Muhammad. The one where he is placing the Al Hajar Aswad into the Kabaa is right beside the text discussing it, the one where is ascending to heaven is right beside where the text of the same nature. The image of Muhammad preaching serves absolutely no purpose. Why is it here? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is their to "freedom of expression" and to tell how artist think about Muhammad. These are the two only reasons given by them so far. --- ابراهيم 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Since when do we need a bundle of reasons to include photos into articles? What next, written permits and official approvals? And BTW, I stated explicitly and in length why I consider these photos a valuable addition, you just never stooped to reacting to (let alone challenging) my points.
2. What do you mean with "their" freedom of expression? Since you're living in Western countries, too, it is also your freedom. Do you disapprove of it? Do you think it should be abridged? In that case, you'd be in the wrong circus here. --The Hungry Hun 09:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

hm, I think our first question should be, is it really Muhammad preaching? The image page description claims as much, but I haven't found any reference for the claim. The source given is a deep link directly to the jpeg file. We'd need at least a link to a description on expositions.bnf.fr. dab (ᛏ) 14:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, I had to do the research myself. Originally it said it was an Arab painting, which it was not, and it was sourced with the notoriously innaccurate "Zombie Time" site. The image is clearly Persian, even an amateur such as myself was able to spot that, though the details behind who the people in attendance are interests me. Is that Fatima to the fore? Irrespective, it does not warrant inclusion here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Description given is "Le Prophète Mahomet - Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)"--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The people at "Zombie time" or whatever seemed to be amoung the group that think Persians are arabs simply because they practice islam. Zazaban 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Persians are not Arabs. Neither are Indonesians. Niether are many AFricans. Lots of people practice Islam who are not Arab; why people fail to graps that I'll never know. In any event, what we need is more pictures and images that are verifiable as proper representations of Mohammud. DocEss 16:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people are under the impression that arab is just another word for Muslims. most people are unaware that africans and indoneasians are Muslims because they are not Arabs. Zazaban 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhh...ya. We were able to grasp that from the tenure of the discussion; thanks for re-iterating it. Anyway, what we need is more pictures and images that are verifiable as proper representations of Mohammud. I found http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive to be a veritable goldmine of pictures and images. Which ones whould we include? DocEss 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

we just finished saying that Zombie Time was notoriously innaccurate... Zazaban 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I can read; your saying it does not make it so. What, precisely, is inaccurate? Every single image? They can't all be inaccurate - there are hundreds! Which ones are accurate? Point out the accurate ones, please.DocEss 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the pictures are inaccurate. What we have been saying is that it has inaccurate descriptions. anything that says Persans are Arabs are automatically inaccurate. Zazaban 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which descriptions are inaccurate? For which images? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? The images are fine - let's use some.DocEss 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm... where in the site does it say that Persians are Arabs? The description is "Islamic images of Muhammad". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have the strong impression that the determination to fill the article with images of Muhammad has less to do with conveying information (that's in a breakout article, on Depictions of Muhammad) or creating a visually pleasant article (calligraphy can do that) than it does with a desire to piss off Muslims. "Nyah nyah nyah you can't censor me!" Seems to me that there's a WP principle about not creating ruckuses to make a point. WP:Point. I think we did fine with one picture, the Persian miniature of Muhammad on the buraq. Is there a WP article on the Idomeno controversy yet? [1] Why don't some of you folks turn your attention to that? Zora 05:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well said. I do not think they will listen although. --- ابراهيم 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be easier to turn to other topics if people stopped obstructing the existing ones, right? Again: It works the other way round - you don't have to explain or argue for additions to an article if they give an added value. But you must have very good reasons to delete such content.

Accusing others of pretexting is laughable in this context: Scroll up a little bit, I took the freedom of collecting the various reasons that have been given to advocate deleting the pictures. It is pathetic - it all boils down to a refusal due to personal beliefs. But instead of saying so, argument after argument is raised against these images. This is really, really paltry. --The Hungry Hun 09:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

guys, regarding zombietime and what not, it is very simple, if you upload a manuscript image, it is your responsibility to give encyclopedic identification of the image. It doesn't matter if you found the image on zombietime or myspace, you'll just have to do your own research and identify the image. The French "manuscrit Arabe" in this case translates to "Arabic [language] manuscript", the MS is in Arabic, but made in Persia. Nobody claims it is an "Arab manuscript", made by Arabs, but the Persians happened to know and write Arabic, too. I agree that we should have fewer Persian images and more calligraphy here. Therefore, dear aniconists, instead of complaining of the images we have, do upload us some nice images of notable "Muhammad" calligraphy, and I will certainly suppport giving those precedence over Shia portraits (although at least a single Persian image should remain here for balance). dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab, if you can find a moment, please comment as to your assessment of The Sealed Nectar (text is linked) as a reliable source, equivalent in this respect to the works of Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt.Proabivouac 10:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, the image does not add value to the section in which it is placed, which is "rejection". We know little about the image itself, other than it is suppposed to be representing Muhammad speaking to some unknown persons who are presumably significant, given their depiction. --BostonMA 11:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, try reading whole paragraphs instead of headlines and image descriptions only: Right before the word rejection we find Around 613, Muhammad began to spread his message amongst the people. Most of those who heard his message ignored it. A few mocked him. Others believed and joined him., and right after it there is As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city.

The image blends in to the text just perfectly. If anything, it's the headline that is a little bumpy. --The Hungry Hun 11:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• What is the image showing? Is this Muhammad in Makkah, or Madinah, or back in Makkah? Who are those in the Image, they are obviously significant, they have Halos. Is that Hafsa, Fatima or Khadija towards the top - Its important to know, it gives us a period in time. Whats clear though is that it's irrelevent to the section on rejecton. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I could create your picture showing The_Hungry_Hun thinking something and even I do not know you or meet you. Then I insist to put in the article written on you. It will be well fit in many places in the article but it will not add any thing historically or informational to that artilce written on you. This picture is nothing more than that. It could be placed in articles like Depictions of Muhammad but not here. Even the artist who made that picture is not that well-know and famous that we give this pictures such a great respect. --- ابراهيم 12:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

if you were a 15th c. Persian and had drawn a picture of a Hungry Hun, we would be sure to include it in our Huns article! dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot born again in the past but I can create your picture right now. Then I can place it on this page (with the hope to save it in wikipedia cache). May be after few centuries my freaking drawing become valuabe for some people. --- ابراهيم 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

who knows. make sure to upload it then (in a few centuries), not now. dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. This is apparently a piece of Salafi pious literature. What does this have to do with historians/orientalists like Lewis or Watt? dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dab, your talk page is edit-protected so I had to ask you here. Several editors are trying to use this as a reliable source in articles such as Muhammad as a diplomat and, so I've heard, Battle of Mut'ah. There may be more infected articles, as they've gotten it into their head that this source is okay. I am arguing over at Muhammad as a diplomat, but I'm all alone against a like-minded clique, and am being treated brusquely to say the least. Please drop me a line on my user talk if you agree that Sealed Nectar should not be a source for historical fact on WP.Proabivouac 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

what Proabivouac is constantly ignoring however (deliberately or otherwise), is that the publication would be, at the very least, notable for providing the muslim opinion in order to ensure NPOV in that all significant opinions are covered. RS does not circumvent NPOV, even though some editors believe that the book as a standalone resource is legitimate. we have been discussing this for a significant period of time, and in many instances Proabivouac does not respond to the clarifications given. what Proabivouac in fact has resorted to is requesting editors to comment upon the content of the book in order to support his expunging of it, instead of requesting editors to analyse the pedigree of the book- the former being something editors are not in a position to do whereas the latter is something that editors are required to do. ITAQALLAH 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The pedigreee of this book: peer-review by Islamic scholars, endorsement by the Islamic University of Medina, an award from the Muslim World League. Itaqallah made his position clear when he wrote, "you should understand, that secular academia is not the only academia, and nowhere does WP request that we make use of only secular sources." They are not using it to "ensure NPOV," but this and similar publications are being used to add dubious facts to articles. One example, Heraclius knew Muhammad was the prophet, but for political reasons didn't convert, regarding which Itaqallah wrote, " if you find the passage to be false, then tell us what Heraclius did do and source it so we can include that opinion in the article." If you don't think the Miraj actually occurred, find a source that says what Muhammad was doing that night...Proabivouac 20:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"peer-review by Islamic scholars, endorsement by the Islamic University of Medina, an award from the Muslim World League.", yes, as well as being declared notable in a number of other secular publications, as noted on the relevant talk page. and yes, wikipedia does not conform to your view of western or euro-centrism. it is being used to ensure NPOV, to include the muslim account of an event where secular sources omit or reject it. it seems however, that your real issue is with the secular sources as the article is heavily based upon them, and you have shown a tendancy to constantly misrepresent the whole issue by criticising the sealed nectar to discredit the majority of the article where secular sources are used (almost exclusively). in fact, the sealed nectar is perhaps the only muslim source used in the article to any significance, yet even then you cannot seem to tolerate its inclusion though it is a notable secondary source, and arguably reliable. your false analogy re:Heraclius is also open for all to see. would you like to discuss this issue where it is relevant (i..e Talk:Muhammad as a diplomat) instead of smudging the matter by going here-and-there telling editors to judge a book by its content alone? ITAQALLAH 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"telling editors to judge a book by its content alone?" You know the old saying, never judge a book by its content!Proabivouac 21:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP editors are not in a position to dismiss a notable work just because they oppose the POV of the author. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What a lot of noise! Look, I think we need more (nay, many!) pictures of Mohummad. We are visual creatures. We are creatures who identify with one another by faces, expressions, countenance. We are creatures who wish to either identify with a face --- or even recoil from it. We are creatures who like (nay, need!) to put a face to a name. It is ridiculous to us in the West to have calligraphy or symbols represent a person - how did that work for the artist formaerly known as Prince? We need pictuers! I need to imagine his face when I read about Muhommed. DocEss 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"a religion he called Islam"

this is actually worse than "the founder of Islam", and it doesn't do justice to the fact that islam was an Arab word before the time of Muhammad either. It sounds as if Muhammad had just made up the term. "the founder of the [world] religion of Islam" circumnavigates this problem: it is a problem of islam meaning both "piety" in general and "the religious community initiated by the 7th c. publication of the Quran" (regardless of whether the Quran is 'eternal', it was still made known in the 7th c.). Once again, call it Islam, or Ummah, or whatever, but get rid of the clumsy and wrong "a religion he called Islam". dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

also, I presume (I don't remember seeing it made plain) that the objection to the "M was the founder of Islam" claim on the part of pious Muslims is because they consider God the founder of Islam and M as merely God's instrument. How about "Muhammad was instrumental in the founding/establishment of the religion of Islam" then? This may work, because instrumental may be both taken literally ("M was God's instrument") and in its common sense of "essential". And it doesn't sound moronic. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The "founder" thing is equally problematic -- even if (especially if) it's preceded by "history" or any similar qualifier. (Subtext: "In the realm of objective fact, Muhammad's supposed status as the final prophet of God is absurd, because he was in actuality founding something entirely new. Muslims have a special realm of belief that rejects historical fact, however, and they do not regard him as the founder of the faith.") It's needlessly provocative fighting talk. I'm not crazy about "he called," don't think I wrote it (or did I?), but it's better than "founder" or any variation thereupon, IMHO. BYT 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

um, I do not see any such subtext at all. Do we have any sort of WP:RS to establish that "Muslims object to the term 'founder'" or is this just an onwiki phenomenon? As you can tell from my "instrumental" suggestion, I have no interest in introducing any such subtext at all. I mean, hell, even ultra traditionalist Christians and Jews would agree that Abraham founded "Abrahamic religion" (who else), without of course admitting that Abraham made up God or something. Something started in the 7th century, even Muslims acknowledge that (or there wouldn't be such a fuss about the figure of Muhammad in the first place) -- if it wasn't Islam, what was it? Ummah? Dar al Islam? World domination? dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

just a note: the EoI article on Muhammad states that Muslims do not regard him to be a founder as such. ITAQALLAH 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Links establishing the Muslim aversion to calling Muhammad "founder" of Islam:

http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=713 (Islamic Society of North America -- search on "founder")

http://www.karamah.org/news_supreme_court.htm (Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights -- search on "founder")

From which article I quote, concerning the description of the image of the Prophet that appears on the Supreme Court building: "KARAMAH explained to the [Supreme Court's] administrators that for Muslims, the Prophet is not the "founder" of Islam. As an Abrahamic religion, Islam is considered by Muslims as a later revelation of the same message revealed to Moses and Jesus. Supreme Court administrators showed great sensitivity and understanding of the matter. It was readily agreed that the caption would be revised to describe Prophet Muhammad as the "Prophet" of Islam." End of quote. Note, please, that those who object to the same approach here are thus staking out a position to the right of Clarence Thomas.

Pardon my harshness - this last conclusion is one of the sillier things I've read on Wikipedia since the ideas of some proponents of the Hollow Earth theory.

1. How did Thomas Clarence interfere in this whole thingy? Did he write the challenged vistor brochures?
2. In what way are an office building's administration's views related to those of the officers working there - if the Supreme Court swings back to the left, do they sack all the janitors?
3. How is the question of how to call Muhammad intertwined with the question whether someone's on the political left or right? If anything, a god-fearing right-winger will be far more prone to an over-sensibility towards what it means to intimidate people's religious beliefs than a secular nihilist leftie.

Declaring everyone who considers "founder" the appropriate term a loony right-wing gun nut does not help this discourse and is far, far off-course.

--The Hungry Hun 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.aaiil.info/simplyIslam/intro.htm (search on "founder")

BYT 13:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

note that I have no problem with saying "Muhammad was the prophet of Islam" either. Founder or prophet refers to the exact same function here, and either states the same obvious, prosaic fact. What do you think about my "was instrumental" suggestion, though? Ands what about "M was the founder/instigator/whatever of Dar al-Islam"? dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

your sources state "Islam was the religion of Buddha / Moses etc.". This is precisely the semantic confusion I have discussed about five times on this page now: they take the Arabic meaning of islam, i.e. "piety". In Arabic, "Moses was pious" may be an arguable statement. In English, "Moses was a Muslim", "Jesus was a Muslim" or "Buddha was a Muslim"(!) is simply nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they DO mean that "Moses was a Muslim", NOT in the "Moses had piety" sense. --Striver 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The definition used for Islam is submission to god, and if you equate that to piety, then ok if you are pious you are a muslim. Technically, the term Momin is used to designate piety, muslim for those who have submitted for god. It has not been always strictly interpreted as post Muhammad requiring acknowledgement of Muhammad, or Post Jesus acknowledgement of Jesus etc. etc. People of Book are a grey area, generally Muslim is applied to differentiate them from Mushrik, or polytheists. Agreed today the definition become primarly charged with differentiating the various branches of the Abrahamic faith, seeing as it has swept the globe. Remember this was not always the case, most of the world were "pagans" back then and the identity of the term was defined vis-a-vis this reality, and most muslims still see that as their defining charecteristic not Muhammad, that is only a second layer of differentiation.

Personally I see no dichtomy between prophet of Islam and founder, but some editors have insisted that prophet is POV and founder is somehow neutral and factually accurate must be used. I may not agree that there is a POV but two camps have formed, and the compromise must be found between two equally verifibale statements. Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam; and; Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Unfortunately, this also obliges us to "explain" how each position is a construed as a POV.--Tigeroo 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes ... if (and only if) we use either term in the intro. But we don't have to, and notice that the present version of the article does not::

Muhammad ... was an Arab religious and political leader who preached a religion known as Islam.

My sense is that either "founder" or "prophet" will probably continue to destabilize the article. Many Christians and Jews (the US Supreme Court notwithstanding) will dispute the term "prophet," and request a softener such as "claimed" -- which will be instantly disputed by Muslims. And, as I have shown above, the term "founder" is similarly rejected by Muslims. What we have now is informative, accurate, and likely to stick around for a while. Ideologues and vandals won't care for it much, of course, but that's not exactly a news flash. They would prefer a picture of him with horns.BYT 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

yes (sigh) I am using "pious" as a shorthand for "submits to the will of God". In English, it makes sense to say "Moses submitted to the will of God", but unlike in Arabic that is not synonymous to saying, in English, "Moses was a Muslim". Why is that so difficult to understand? "Islam" doesn't have the same meaning as an English loanword as it does in Arabic. In English, "Islam" means "the religion preached by Muhammad in the 7th century", and to talk, in English, about "Muslims" for times preceding the 7th c. would be an anachronism. The reason is that in English, "Islam/Muslim" are proper names (hence the capitalised spelling), not mere adjectives. I'm sorry, but that's simply the lexical meaning, no theological pov intended. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

i was thinking just use "preached the religion of Islam"? ITAQALLAH 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I had added this intro last time I edited this page, but it didn't last more than 2 hours I guess. Anyway, here it is. I think its fairly neutral, in that it doesn't treat "M established Islam" as a fact, that most Muslims will object to and disagree with, while at the same time acknowledging that having "established Islam" is what he is "primarily known for" anyway:

Muḥammad (محمد; also Mohammed, and other variants), 570-632 AD, is an influential historical figure, known primarily for having established the Islamic religion. He is, within Islam, the pre-eminent prophet and messenger to whom the Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be the 'word of God', was divinely revealed.

--Bluerain (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, that "established the Islamic religion" piece has precisely the same problems as "founder." I'm not calling anyone a loony, by the way, just pointing out how a major US institution has handled precisely the same question. That's a fair point for discussion, I think. BYT 11:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tomb of Imam Bukhari

Irishpunktom, you state that the image of a preaching Muhammad "serves absolutely no purpose" in the Muhammad article. Yet you apparently think it's important to have an image of the tomb of a guy who authored a Hadith collection on Muhammed. Is this some kind of weird inside joke? Or why is the image of an article's topic less relevant in that article than the image of the tomb of a guy who once wrote on the article's topic? Befuddled, The Hungry Hun 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering their are no images of anything better concerning Imam Bukhari, I thought this should be added. It relates directly to the section it is in, but, if you can think of a better image, perhaps a book, or whatever, add it, I won't be offended. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I got no specific feelings towards this picture - I just wonder what makes a certain image (ir)relevant in your opinion. --The Hungry Hun 18:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The section was about the sources we have for Muhammads life. The Most authorative source for the Sunnah in Sunni Islam is Sahih Bukhari by Imam Bukhari. Thus, an image concerning Imam Bukhari is relevent. As I've said previously, the one I added is because of the absence of others, if you have a better image for the sources of the Sira, please add it! --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing is agreeing that Wikipedia:Images applies to this article the same as to any other: we want a well-balanced collection of pertinent images: no image clutter, but also no extremely pedantic approach that doesn't allow anything except an authentic mugshot. Treat Muhammad exactly the same as Charlemagne, Theodoric or any other notable early medieval figure. Once we agree on this, there can be good faith discussion of whether the tomb image is relevant: it should be replaced if there is a sufficient number of more relevant images. At present, there is no image clutter, and this means it is perfectly alright to keep also more tangential ones to keep the article illustrated. dab (ᛏ) 14:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy is here, but I'd like to see an image on every single page whose Title is that of a person. Page on Pres Bush? put a photo. Page on Pope Benedict? Put a photo. Page on Charlemagne? Put a painting. Page on Constantine? Put a painting. Page on St. Peter? Put a statue. Page on Moses? Put a skecth. Whatever kind of image is readily available and most verifiable should be used. The museums (and the internet) are full of pictures of Mehummud! I wrote this above: We are visual creatures. We are creatures who identify with one another by faces, expressions, countenance. We are creatures who wish to either identify with a face --- or even recoil from it. We are creatures who like (nay, need!) to put a face to a name. It is ridiculous to us in the West to have calligraphy or symbols represent a person - how did that work for the artist formerly known as Prince? We need pictuers! I need to imagine his face when I read about Muhommed (or anyone, for that matter).DocEss 16:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

um, I beg to differ, it is not "ridiculous to us in the west", and we don't put random sketches even on Moses. The image has to represent a notable artistic tradition. Shia Persia is such a tradition. If there were no Persian/Shia images, we would not just put up with South Park's Muhammad instead. dab (ᛏ) 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike all person you have stated above Muhammad had many less images made centuries after his death and Museum are NOT full with his pictures. Can you give stats about your above claim? Why you have to put imaginary picture that has no relationship with Muhammad at all, for your imagination (what good that imagination will be)? The best way to imagine someone is like we imagine God. Think about his qualities and characteristic. Like Most sweet, forgiving etc. --- ابراهيم 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)--- ابراهيم 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest your responses are not logical and were not thought out to conclusion. Your response is simply radommly chosen words designed to counter whatever has been written by anyone. Think about it. It IS ridiculous to us in the West to put a symbol to represent a person. Persian/Shia/pee-a/wee-a --- whatever you're on about there I have no idea. There exists a treasure-trove of images of all kinds of people, mohammed included. We all know they aren't photographs. We know they are only artists' renditions. We know they are mere interpretations. We know they are only facsimiles. But we know they're good enough to satisfy the human mind's need to visualize the face. We don't have a clue what Moses looked like - but there are thousands of images that we have assembled over the millenia that allow us at least an adequate amount of 'face-to-name'satisfaction. Pictures of Nehummud are perfectly legitimate - and from what I've seen, they all kinda look alike, close enough at least for me to put that face to a name. We even have multitudes of representations of God himself in all kinds of literature, murals, paintings,etc. And Mohammed ain't God!DocEss 16:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

in case you are replying to me (indent?) - your level of debate is exactly what bogs Wikipedia down. "us in the west"? "Persian/Shia/pee-a/wee-a"? "Nehummud"? indeed. either try to follow the debate and contribute something useful, or feel free to remain silent. dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to include a whole host of images now. OK? DocEss 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not do that. There are already 3 picture of Muhammad. --- ابراهيم 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand - why should I not do that?DocEss 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

nice one. very productive editing. you, sir, are a dunce. dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain, please. Alos, why are you calling me names? Are you not cognizant of the fact that doing so may hurt my witlle feewings?DocEss 18:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You do not care about feeling of many Muslims (and keep insisting on adding pictures) and even say my responce "a random selection of words". Then why you are sensitive about other people remarks. You should not have double standards. --- ابراهيم 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." (H.L. Mencken)

Do you understand what this means? Respecting your rules re images means that I don't demand you to draw some (though your offer concerning me was rather flattering). It does absolutely, positively not mean that others are bound by these rules. Think about it. Accept it. Move on.

--The Hungry Hun 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encylcopedia. Your feelings are as irrelevant as mine.DocEss 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this: Portrait of Mohammed from Michel Baudier's Histoire générale de la religion des turcs (Paris, 1625). We can include this one, right? Hey, Hungry Hun - what thinkest thou?DocEss 21:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh - dunno. An intro depiction (as in most bios) would be a nice starter, but a non-westernized image would be preferable for a non-western guy, I guess.

This image names Muhammad as a prophet, not a founder, though, what might be a plus for some...

--The Hungry Hun 22:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• An image from 1000 years later? The image is not a definitve portrait for the man, and doesn't even fit his description per the Sira. no. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is specious. Should we delete all the images of Moses, Abraham, David, Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, Constantine, Charlemagne and on and on from the pantheon of knowledge just because they were painted or created thousands of years later? That is senseless and you well know it. Now - which images do you believe are true representations of Mehammud?DocEss 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now - which images do you believe are true representations of Mehammud? None. Because Muhammad disallowed sketching him and except some Muslims biographies not much really old exist about Muhammad. The earlier Muhammad biographies do not have any images so nothing realistic could be found.

Should we delete all the images of Moses, Abraham, David, Jesus ... Certainly, why not. I am for it. --- ابراهيم 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your choice to believe we should delete all those other images is but a convenient one for you because it allows you to achieve your objective of having no images of Mahammud. That makes your position a disengenuous one; moreover, it invalidates your credibility. We are going to have images of all of those humans listed in this discussion.DocEss 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked him a question, he answered it. Get over yourself. There is a tradition in Judaism of paint prophets, likewise in Christianity, indeed, in most traditons, painting of Human leaders is followed. Not so Muhammad. At present this article has three images of Muhammad, all persian, all Shia. The Majority of Islamic Art is created not Persian, nor Shia, but Sunni. It tends to be Calliographic, and Arabesque. There are centuries of development of the art forms, wheter the colourfull nature of the turks, the repition of the Arabs, or the golden mosaics of the West-Africans, etc. ignoring this so as to see an image of a Human, and ignoring the islamic traditions so as, what seems, to have a go at Muslims is wrong in every way. Why can't you devote your energies finding these calliographic images that are Creative Commons allowed or Fair use to use here? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

{Discerning what you wrote is certainly a challenge.} But here is a suggestion: let us have all kinds of images, and you can help us write intelligent commentary on the validity of each. Shia, Persian, Sunni, West African, Turk --- whatever! Cool. Put em all in and educate the readers about each style. I know I'd be intensely intereted and impressed. Now THAT would be a excellent use of your energies and a good application of your obviously deep knowledge of Arabic art. And just a reminder --- this is an encyclopedia, and we do not shy away from things that might offend the odd person. See here, for example: medicine - this would be ofensive in another context. See?DocEss 23:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you chose to hide the link to Scrotum, using the name "medicine" instead? Looking to provoke is not a good way of creating an encyclopedia. As for Arabic Art, I do not have an "obviously deep knowledge", and never claimed I did, so your sarcasm is unwarranted. I have a basic knowledge of the art, being as it is, a significant part of Muslim History. This is straying from the subject here. The fact remains that the vast quantities of art concerning Muhammad are Sunni Muslim in origin and are not reflected here. There are three Persian - Shia images, which creates a POV problem, why is their art given more weight than the majorities? We also have an utterly irrelevent image sitting in the rejection section, an image with around ten people, though noone seems to know who any of them are, except one. This image needs to be fixed, and better images need to be introduced --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

<indent reset> I choose to hide the name so as not to offend anyone! Man - I can't win! I wasn't sarcastcic at all - you have a deeper knaloedge than I do. hey, man - let's get this done for the benifit of all the readers. DocEss 23:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be more believeable if (1. It made sense or (2. You didn't choose to hide it with the word "Medicine". --Irishpunktom\^talk 00:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this image is in this article, For what reason was it included? I'll remove it, and please understand why...

--so after I removed the image I see that change has been reverted!!! What's going on here, why should we not put the tomb of his cousin Ali too if we're putting a person who's only relevance to him is that he wrote his sayings, and it's not a picture of him it's a picture of his TOMB!! 217.17.224.28 12:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative traits of Mohammed suppressed

Muslim censors are refusing to allow quotes from the Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and other relevant holy Sunni texts which from the modern standpoint cast Mohammed in a negative light. They refuse to even permit us to inform readers that Mohammed was poisoned after plundering a Jewish settlement and lived in pain for three more years until he died from it. If you guys won't let people know what your own holy books say then there is something wrong with your minds (unsigned comments from User:24.7.89.173 )

It is in history books that he was Poisoned by Jew(s). I am not denying it. But the real question is that if that if his death after more than 3 years was indeed from that poison? Why you are so sure? What kind of poison was that? What is your prove ? I have not read in anywhere that he was sick for 3 years, from where did you get this information? --- ابراهيم 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My "prove," oh he who speaks english so well that he can't understand a quote in english from his own holy book, can be found in Bukhari's Hadith 5.713.

I have gone to [2] and tried to find the Hadith but not sucessful. They are given in this fashion volume#:book#:Hadith#. Now tell me who to find your hadith that will prove it in above format? I really want to know it. --- ابراهيم 09:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No academics accept the poisoning theory. Zora 02:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is your criterion for inclusion in the article then you should censor about a third of it. Go on, do it. Also I'm kind of scared that you're adding my IP to my comments. Adherents of the ``religion of peace" Islam sometimes murder when someone asks questions, following Mohammad who had many of his early opponents murdered in their sleep, i.e. Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, Kab al-Ashraf, Kinana, and others. By the way, where do you get this "One day after coming home from a cemetery..." line anyway, if not the exact same book I'm quoting, Bukhari's Hadith?

Adding the author to unsigned comments is a standard procedure at Wikipedia; simply create an account to prevent being associated with your IP.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of hotheads around here - sometimes editors too easily take changes for vandalism and are a little trigger-happy on the revert button re new, un-annonunced changes.

Plus, this whole topic is a battlefield, WWI-style. Every addition you make will be challenged until you can undeniably reference your claims. Hence, the following approach might be helpful:

1. First, create a new section on the talk page.
2. Add a prototype of the changed text you propose.
3. Back your claims with citations from primary sources and other (preferably scholarly) references.
4. Go through the discussion; believe it or not, but besides a lot of hooey you'll get helpful hints on both details and broader points.
5. Refine your changes.
6. Go through 4 and 5 until you feel it's ripe. (this is not about pleasing, let alone convincing every opponent but about steeling your arguments).
7. Publish the stuff.

It's far easier to defend statements if they are well-grounded and sourced. It also helps other editors evaluate your contributions and will often cause them to be supportive.

--The Hungry Hun 07:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Ad hominem attacks, e.g. at someone's language skills, are not considered helpful here...

"No academics accept the poisoning theory."

Hungry Hun has a point. Most often, it's asserted that Western academia is inherently biased for excluding the Islamic POV, based on Islamic traditions. Here were have the opposite. The real governing force is contemporary sensibilities. Where Islamic tradition makes Muhammad look good by contemporary standards - as with Muhammad being called "the honest one" - we must include it as being potentially correct and at least notable. Where it makes him look bad by contemporary standards - as with Aisha's age, and much less directly the poisoning incident - it's suppressed as un-academic. This does not constitute a principled approach to Islamic tradition, but instead, by the inconsistent plea for reliable sources, and under the excuse of NPOV, reserves a veto for what certain editors to Wikipedia who happen to be on this page think today. The determination of which traditions to promote and which to suppress, if unaccompanied by principle, is the macro-equivalent of original research.Proabivouac 09:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora is non-Muslim and has written most of the Muhammad article. If she says "No academics accept the poisoning theory." then there should be some reason behind it. We should try to assume-good-faith towards each other. I am open to any possiblity if given good enough prove which I am not able to get so far. --- ابراهيم 10:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not answered the question of: if we ignore the Sahih Bukhari, where do we get source material for Mohammad's life. Also your logic of "Zora says she's not a Muslim so what she says must be true" seems like something you would be killed in Pakistan for saying. Anyway it seems like the only people who know the complete picture on Mohammad and Islam are people like Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Please do not be rude and keep saying those things. Why so much hate? I promise you that you give me good evidence I will change my views. As I said above already I have gone from [3] and tried to find the Hadith but not sucessful. They are given in this fashion volume#:book#:Hadith#, chapter 5 had no 713 hadith. Now tell me how to find your hadith that will prove it, "in above mentioned format" (give me 3 numbers)? I really want to know it. The only convincing evidence you have given me so far is Aisha Hadith as all other are prediction to died by him and tell nothing about cause of death. So tell me the source of Aisha hadith if it is in Sahahi Bakahri or in any other athentic books of Hadith then I will be standing with you and support to change the article. --- ابراهيم 21:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I will tell you where to find it on the website you mentioned:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.713 If you continue to have difficulty understanding it I can translate it into Urdu for you.

I have changed that section. Please do not add hate and dramatic sentences there (like even after Muhammad prayer he died or he remained sick for 3 years) without references. If you have more information with reference like above then we can mention it there. I have used "could be" because that what hadith tell. --- ابراهيم 23:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult not to feel rage. If every Muslim chose ANY OTHER religion to convert to (Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Sikhism, Bahai...) we would have world peace; do you realize that? What makes Islam different? Read the Hadith and you will know.

---

The problem with relying on hadith for Muhammad's biography is that the hadith stories are snippets of information that were not written down for hundreds of years. When they WERE written down, it was for polemic purposes. Scholars supporting particular legal theories or religious beliefs wanted to prove that they were right, and the way to prove that was to cite Muhammad, or Muhammad's life, in support. There was enormous incentive to invent stories, or perhaps not to be too critical of dubious stories, in support of one's position.

Academics tend to be wary of working with hadith and rely more heavily on the histories, such as those by Ibn Ishaq and Tabari. Neither Ibn Ishaq nor Tabari mention the poisoning theory in their descriptions of the death of Muhammad. However, in Tabari, volume 8 of the SUNY translation, the narrative of the conquest of Khaybar is followed by the poisoning story and a claim that Muhammad said at the time of his death that his death was due to the one bite of poisoned sheep he had taken and then spit out years ago. (p. 124) The story is grotesquely implausible; if the tiny quantity of poison he absorbed from a spat-out mouthful didn't make him sick then, it is unlikely to have bided its time and then killed him years later. Why invent such a story? The answer is right there in Tabari: "The Muslims believed that in addition to the honor of prophethood that God had granted him the Messenger of God died a martyr." If you exalt people who die in battle and denigrate people who die in their beds, what about Muhammad dying in his bed? Well, you invent a story that makes Muhammad a martyr.

Tabari is writing approximately 150 years after Ibn Ishaq. 150 years in which legends about Muhammad continued to evolve. That's why academics don't accept the late, unsubstantiated, and scientifically implausible poisoning theory. Zora 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Zora I believe in correctness of those hadith books. I also believe that it is possible that his sickness "could" had been delayed because Allah wanted him to finished few important task. Allah could do anything and his powers are beyond our imaginations. I have changed the section based on the information available to me. My intention for this change was good. --- ابراهيم 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it laughable that you believed it before you had even heard of it. Anyway I'm sure that there could be some biological reason why he wouldn't die for 3 years. Maybe his system was weakened by the poison for three years, and then he got some bug and that pushed him over the top.

Is it not entirely possible that Muhammad was poisoned, and that this was at the time falsely blamed on an earlier incident involving the Jews of Khaybar? The desire to consider him martyred is only one of several plausible hypotheses; to blood libel Jews is another. Regardless, it should be presented as a significant tradition, one which at the very least offers insight into the psychology of its sources, and suggests the circumstances surrounding Muhammad's death to have been mysterious enough to allow for creative interpretations.

Why should it carry any less weight than similarly dubious claims rooted solely in Islamic tradition? Isra and Miraj are covered and even illustrated; these are much more certain not to have occurred, and are historically less important than the cause of Muhammad's death. Are there academics who find this story scientifically plausible?

See Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Stillman (1979), pp. 148–149.Proabivouac 22:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your rationality is a breath of fresh air. If you read the relevant passages you will see that they are not casting Jews in a bad light, really. According to the Hadith, Muhammad and his followers sacked the Jewish city and enslaved many of the inhabitants, so the fact that one of the Jews tried to poison Mohammad in retaliation is understandable. In fact the woman is quoted as saying that she poisoned him to find out if he was really from God or not: if he new about the poison beforehand then he was from God, and if not then they would be rid of him. It's kind of a strange passage.

Please do not upload any image of Muhammad

Please do not upload any image of Muhamamd, that may be any drawing or any imaginary image. Because Muslims dislike this and in relagion Islam to Portrait any image of Muhamamd (PBUH) is prohibited. So please avoid it.

Thank you.

<believe above unsigned comment was user:Mmsarfraz>

Well, with all due deference to your belief system, we are an encyclopedia and as such do not have to cowtow to any particular religous belief or cult procedures. It may be prohibited for You to do images, but it is not prohibited for Me to do images. Look, there are ample images and pictures of many things that people find distasteful in an everyday sense but agree are required iamagery in an encyclopedia. For example, there are pictures of vulvas, breasts, scortums, penises, colons, abscesed teeth, ingrown hairs, s&m tools, vivisected rabbits and any number of other revolting and disgusting things that turn the stomach and challenge the senses. But they are, to be sure, necessary. We don't put them on T-shirts but we do put them in encyclopedias. Pictures of Mowhammed are equally neceassary and we will include them. Sorry man, you will just have to suspend your abhorance and get over it. Or even simpler, don't look at it if ya don't like it. Maybe a sort of Viewer Discretion warning at the top of the page would help?DocEss 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which is on the bottom of every content page (though not editing pages) covers that very nicely. Verifiable facts and useful images in this encyclopedia may offend or shock viewers with certain belief systems, tastes, and phobias. I really think this needs to be more prominently featured encyclopedia-wide. As for the request by the original commenter, images and renderings of Muhammad that illustrate an important event in his life or provide visual context for the reader are appropriate images and should remain within the encyclopedia. I respect your desire to have Muhammad honored, but will disagree. Captainktainer * Talk 16:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Muslim Wikipedians, you ought to take note of the fact that Wikipedia is a non-Islamic encyclopedia. That you happen to dislike portraits of Muhammad has absolutely no bearing on what is allowed here. You simply have no right to demand that no painted portraits of Muhammad be shown here! (Anyway, the claim that any portraits of the Prophet have always been universally forbidden in Islamic history is a lie. There are many such depictions made by Muslims.) — Editorius 14:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Editorius, you said Dear Muslim Wikipedians, you ought to take note of the fact that Wikipedia is a non-Islamic encyclopedia. That you happen to dislike portraits of Muhammad has absolutely no bearing on what is allowed here. You simply have no right to demand that no painted portraits of Muhammad be shown here!

If its Non Muslim encyclopedia and can not respect the relagion and there prophet then Muslims should not come here. Its not matter of rights it was my humble request and you please increase your knowledge regarding religions, Muslims and Islam and its history then you will in some good position to say some thing about it. And one thing, because this artical is abouot prophet Muhammad(PBUH) to whome Muslims of all world love most so please keep in this mind that it should not hurt there beliefs.

Thanks for your comments, concerns and interest.

--Mahmood Sarfraz 18:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Historical Founder"

Adding "historical" to "founder" would only make sense if there could be an unhistorical founder of something. But I fail to see what "unhistorical founder" might mean. — Editorius 15:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, it means from a historical perspective. From the perspective of the religion M "sparked", Allah was the founder, not M. Allah/God is outside history - he is not a historical personage. So I suppose Allah could qualify as the "non-historical" founder (from the M POV) --JimWae 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Islam (and the other Abrahamic religions in fact), God influences history, revealing himself first to Israel, whom he guided for a while, then by communicating through the various prophets, ending with Muhammad. The idea that God is outside of history is more of a Hindu belief. unsigned comment by user:24.7.89.173

• God is not a historical personage. The discipline of history has nothing to say about a person called God. If historians write about God as if he is a person (rather than within the history of religion), they are not writing within the discipline known as history, but rather are writing religion. --JimWae 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You are using the word history in an unusually restrictive way. Native speakers of English do not think of "the discipline of history" when saying "history".

why no mention of Muhammads violent life

Muhammad was a serial murderer, rapist, robber and he incited his followers to do the same. And to justify rape, murder and robbing he always conveniently declared that the imaginary 'Allah' had somehow sanctioned it.

You're probably right, but to be fair we have no proof that he raped anyone, though it sems like the women he enslaved wouldn't have been willing. Don't bother trying to make this article informative; the Muslims censor almost anything that anyone in the West would disapprove of. They wouldn't even let me include what most Muslims believe to have been his cause of death!

What really should be included in this article is that the Qur'an is not perfect. In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bee's abdomen. Honey does not come from the bee's abdomen. Therefore the Qur'an is not perfect. In fact there are dozens of contradictions and inconsistencies.

• It certainly should be covered somehow in the Qur'an article --JimWae 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• but expect some counterpoint, such as at http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm --JimWae 07:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• By the way, if you put a POV tag on the article, editors expect some indication on the talk page (here) why - and what you'd expect before removal - otherwise it should be removed --JimWae 07:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention what you can verify is relevant. Find established sources to quote that back up what you say. If what you write about Mahumwed is correct, you'll have thousands of allies fighting to keep it in the Article. Just make sure all the spelling and grammar is correct or it will be imperfect. And remember, stay on point and don't get all defensive about censorship.(FYI, regarding honey and the honey bee: In the hive the bees use their honey stomachs to ingest and regurgitate the nectar a number of times until it is partially digested. It is then stored in the honeycomb.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocEss (talk • contribs) Oopops forgot to sign: DocEss 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

OK the Qur'an is merely inaccurate in this regard, not incorrect. But here are some other contradictions for you to try to rationalize;

The Qur'an teaches that there are seven heavens one above the other [67:3, 71:15], and that the stars are in the lower heaven [67:5, 37:6, 41:12], but the moon is depicted as being in/inside the seven heavens [71:16], even though in reality the stars are much further away from the earth than the moon.

Also Sura 51:49 claims that everything is created in pairs. But this is not true! There are quite a number of things that have no counterpart and species where only one gender exists.

And the most damning,

Jesus is raised to Allah, [Sura 4:158], near stationed with him [Sura 3:45], and worshiped by millions of Christians, yet Sura 21:98 says, that all that are worshiped by men besides Allah will burn in Hell together with those who worship them.

As regards the POV tag, this article makes no mention of Muhammad's unprovoked attack on Khaiber and the slaughter of the innocents that followed. Now the poisoning story has been mentioned but only followed by some Muslim dogma which has been placed there to mitigate the bad impression of Muhammad one would naturally have upon reading that the "prophet" couldn't even foresee this attempt on his life (and in the same Hadith he is depicted as praying for healing along with Gabriel so you can't make the Christian argument "oh he knew it was coming and did it anyway").

Ah...we see. You're an intellectual and wish to create a detailed critique of Islam, pointng out all of its flaws, foibles and inconsistencies in order to justify your disdain. This is the wrong forum for that agenda, as any fool can plainly see. Back to the point, this Article is a biography (of sorts) about Muehawmud: if there are verifiable sources that bolster the claim he was a murderer, rapist, robber, insurectionist, warlord, sowwer of dissent or anything else that tickles your fancy, do include it in well-written and encyclopedic style. I think that would be a better use of our time than reading your farcical observations. And by the way...you ain't no expert on theology, so silence and quiet study would be a better policy.DocEss 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I am something of an expert in theology. I am very well-read and have taken graduate classes in theology at a very reputable institution. There are contradictions in the Qur'an, but there are problems with all the holy books that I have read. The problem with Islam is its inherent violence, which springs from the violence of its founder.

how would you explain the inherent violence in Christianity, then? I would tend to the conclusion that the inherent violence in Islam very prosaically springs from human nature. DocEss is very obviously no expert on anything at all, except maybe the art of internet trolling. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your critiques are out of place on this page. I would explain violence in Christianity the same way I'd explain violence in Islam or in any religion. Quite simply, humans are violent by nature; we become more so when we delude ourselves that violence in God's name is an acceptable excuse. I ain't too bright, but I do know that no expertise is required to understand that simple concept.DocEss 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, and clearly not a student of religion. Christianity is not inherently violent. It was not spread by the sword until a thousand years had passed since its founding (and the Crusades weren't really conversion drives), and war has not been waged in the name of Jesus in hundreds of years. A cursory examination of the Gospels will teach you that they have almost nothing to say about war. The major Christian churches have apologized for the Crusades, proving that Christianity as we know it today is not violent.

Since Jews today do not fight wars in the name of religion and haven't done so since before the destruction of the second temple it would be impossible to make the argument that Judaism is inherently violent, though the beliefs of ultra-orthodox Jews regarding the political and military duties of the coming Messiah might be one exception. Saying that any of the Indian religions (possibly excluding Sikhism, but I know almost nothing about it) are inherently violent is ridiculuous.

So that leaves Islam. Muslims are involved in 14 of 15 of the world's major conflicts.

The spider caught in his own web! Saying any of our major religions is inherantly violent is ridiculous. And right now I am a student of you. Perhaps your zeal for comparing religions has blinded you to the truth. People are violent; Christianity is not. People are violent; Islam is not. In other words, it's the Christians and the Muslims who are violent, not the religions. It's the Christians and Muslims doing non-Christian things and non-Muslim things who are violent. If there is a Sikh in jail for grand larceny, does that mean Sikhism is a religion of theft?DocEss 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Christianity-as-we-know-it didn't even exist prior to the 4th century, Mr. student-of-religion. Of course it wasn't spread by the sword at first, because it began as an underdog religion. Once it had won the Roman Empire by the viral principle, it began to be spread by the sword immediately, although that was often not even necessary because everybody thought the Romans were cool and were Christianized as it were as a side-effect of being Romanized. The point is that Islam at least has a code of warfare. Christians otoh should turn the other cheek. Of course they don't and go to war regardless, and guess what, they then lack a religious code of warfare to keep them from atrocities, so that Christians fighting infidels are one of the most unsavoury sights history has to offer. dab (ᛏ) 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We are indeed fortunate to have such an esteemed theologian as you around. What a resource! I, for one will take full advantage so that I may learn. Can we start at the top? Could you please edamukate me on the central message of each of these major religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism)? One word or phrase for each is all I can comprehend, so be brief if you please. Thanks tons.DocEss 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

God (aka Truth in the Dharmic cases). My point was the discrepancy between the "central message" and adherents' behaviour. What good is the best of messages if people do the opposite in its name? As you may or may not note from my indent, I was addressing our anonymous 'expert' whom you just referred to as a 'spider'. dab (ᛏ) 18:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So I see you cannot answer the question. Alas, I shall have to find another expert to show me the way.DocEss 18:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your user talkpage. interesting that you should consider it vandalism there. It is offtopic on this page and we should get back on topic now. dab (ᛏ) 19:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you have shown your ignorance and poor rhetoric. I'll address the points you've heard from your friends one at a time.

• In terms of beliefs, Christianity became relatively homogeneous following the life and work of Irenaeus, who died in 202. Constantine basically institutionalized his directives. For more on this story read Elaine Pagel's Beyond Belief.
• You claim that underdog religions are never spread by the sword, at first. Counterexample: Islam.
• I will point out that it is silly to think that beheading children as Muhammad did after the Khaiber war amounts to following an acceptable code of war.
• You offered no proof that Christianity is inherently violent, nor did you address my arguments to the contrary.
• Hindus and Sikhs believe in God. In my view, the central message in Hinduism is the identity of the individual's essence with God's essence.
• For a very well-researched commentary on the violence in Islam past, present, and future, read Robert Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers.

A.D. vs C.E.

The Wikipedia manual of style states that dates within an article may be given either as AD or CE, provided one system is used consistently within that article. Given the subject of this article, I think it would be preferable to avoid using terms which have definite Christian overtones, when neutral terms are available. --BostonMA 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the date system we use. Why don't you put the Muslim date on every page then? Get over it - in the West, there are Chritsian overtones to everyhting (thank goodness, too!) The Gregorian Calendar is the one we use. Calling it C.E. instead of A.D. does not change that particluar fact, now does it? All it does is expose the silliness of political correctness.DocEss 21:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the appropriate section in the manual of style. When you say this is the system "we use", whom do you mean by "we". I don't use A.D. Further, there is nothing than mandates using A.D. in Wikipedia. --BostonMA 21:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

CE has just as much a Christian overtone as AD, it counts the years from the birth of Christ (albeit slightly mistakenly). Using AH is not an alternative, since no English reader is familiar with the Islamic calendar. See also Wikipedia talk:Eras for the current round of this endless debate. Or let's focus on the article's actual content instead. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I read it. You do use A.D. --- you just don't seem to know that you use it! This is 2006. What does that mean - it means 2006 A.D.! Always has, always will. And don't send me to the A.D. page, I've read that too. DocEss 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS Common sense mandates we use A.D. What should we use: Star Trek dates? Klingon? Muslim? Chinese: Jewish? Goodness, use you head.DocEss 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will thank you to be civil. No, I do not use A.D., I use C.E. Clearly, the change made to the article was not a change in the year, but in the description of the year. Which description shall we use, one that refers to "the lord" i.e. domini, or one that is used by common consent, even though it happens to have originally be based (erroneously) on belief that Jesus was born in year 1. Common sense does not mandate the use of A.D. over B.C., rather common courtesy suggests avoiding using terms that imply that Jesus is "the lord", even if that is what you may believe. --BostonMA 21:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

this is futile, ok? Wikipedia:Eras says, don't unilaterally change the date style of an article that uses one or the other. In this case, it was DocEss who unilaterally changed CE to AD, and although I am more on the AD side of the debate, I will of course help revert him in order to keep the "Era armistice". DocEss, you should urgently show that you also mean to make useful contributions in terms of content, it is getting more and more difficult to assume good faith on your part. We don't need people who hang out looking for idle confrontation: we prefer trying to write an encyclopedia instead. dab (ᛏ) 21:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Ok. Yawn. It's all been hashed and re-hashed all over Wiki world. It is 2006 A.D., your PC blindness notwithstanding. {A.D. vs B.C.? I think you meant to try to distinguish A.D. from C.E, did you not?}DocEss 21:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

the fact that the "AD" Era is in use worldwide today is a direct consequence of colonialism, which is not an era "the West" should be particularly proud of. Still, it's a random convention, never mind the 'D', just the Era "the West" happens to have picked historically. You don't need to believe in Christ, let alone the Holy Trinity and what not, before you are allowed to use it. You can also use the Julian epoch without being an Ancient Roman imperialist, and you may use the Unix epoch without being a Linux geek. alright? dab (ᛏ) 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Doc, you're wrong. On Wikipedia, by ruling of the ArbCom, you are not to change styles without good reason. Now, I personally believe that BCE/CE is politically correct nonsense and should be removed from all human discourse. However, the community consenus says "Don't muck around with these things!" So stop replacing C.E., which our Muslim contributors and others seem to like better here, and everyone just move on to something more important. Captainktainer * Talk 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

All right all right. I got the damned message! Stop picking on me or I might have a tantrum and go burn an athiest in effigy!DocEss 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you think that's funny shows how little understanding you have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.89.173 (talk • contribs)

The fact you don't think that's funny shows that you have no sense of humour. Lighten up.DocEss 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

what's an athiest? someone who is very, very athy? dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone who worship the Ungod Athe = LA = 31. first word of Shahada.Opiner 07:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a small remark:

The word 'founder' floats between two sentences: Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, and other variants) [1] [2] [3] [4] 570-632 C.E.,[5] was an Arab religious and political leader who preached the religion of Islam. founder[6] [7] He united

There should at least be something that makes sence instead of just a word. Maybe it's an idea to add the [6] and [7] to the end of the first sentence: The word 'founder' floats between two sentences: Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ ​; also Mohammed, and other variants) [1] [2] [3] [4] 570-632 C.E.,[5] was an Arab religious and political leader who preached the religion of Islam.[6] [7] He united ................... -- unsigned by 145.52.160.68

• Looks like somebody has been blindly reverting instead of participating in discussions--JimWae 17:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Possible. At the same time, though, I've been participating in discussions. Lots of other people have been participating in discussions. Based on those discussions, there is simply no consensus for including the word "founder." BYT 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But saying he 'preached the religion of Islam' makes it sound like existed before AS Im sure you know. People didnt like my words 'a religion he called Islam' but that at least doesnt make it sound preexisting without saying he started it. Second paragraph makes clear what he was saying. Im sick of this though. Only evidence for preexist is, Qur'an says so. All real world evidence says Muhammad started it himself. If Qur'an says, dinosaurs around with humans do we go to Dinosaur and fight there over the introduction?.Opiner 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what, though? I could live with "a religion he called Islam" -- totally accurate, neutral, no theological claims implicit or otherwise... what do you say we go back to that? BYT 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Place of picture

Do not touch the disputed picture. It an imagary picture and will stay at its place. or be deleted from the article.) by Ibrahimfaisal

What does that mean? Now you have the powers to both determine which pictures are to stay and where they should be placed? Please play nicely, you sound a little bit aggressive. A picture that shows Muhammad in general is much better suited for the overview section. What reforming actions or qualities of Muhammad's do you see inside the picture? --The Hungry Hun 18:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT move the picture up without any discussion. It suits no where. It is just an artistic picture with no historical value whatsoever. We do not know anything about it.

1. I didn't move it without discussion. You moved the picture without discussion (after Irishpunktom moved it without discussion and without your objection). Yes, it would be nice if you stopped that.
2. Yes, it is an artistic rendition; photography didn't exist until severeal centuries later. It is no valid argument against these pictures. We already covered that in all length.
3. What sense does the picture make in the reformer section? What reforms does it represent? It shows Muhammad in a general pose - maybe preaching - and thus fits much better in the general overview.

--The Hungry Hun 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my mind, it works better in the general overview section. An artistic depiction that is fairly faithful to the descriptions given within Muslim texts does definitely belong - human beings are visual creatures. We have sufficient context to know that it is a depiction of Muhammad, and preaching is certainly an activity Muhammad engaged in frequently, but we don't know enough to know that it's specifically related to Muhammad as a reformer. Oh, yeah, and it was a little odd how it just kept creeping further down the article over the past few weeks. Captainktainer * Talk 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its customary for any encyclopedia known to me (WP, Britannica, Larousse, Brockhaus) to illustrate the subject if possible. If so, the illustration is right on the entries top. Again, WP is a secular project - that Mohammed's depiction keeps creeping down before it gets deleted over and over again is shameful censorship. --tickle me 01:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My addition to the intro

My addition to the intro: "By 750, his successors had conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa, Sicily and Iberia and introduced Islam to the newly acquired territories, lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare. "

Proabivouac removed my edits to the article on the following basis:

"You are perfectly aware that we could source all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him in the intro. NPOV governs not just presentation but also placement of information; tacking hagiography onto a perfectly neutral introduction is POV".."shall we also mention that he beheaded hundreds of people and enslaved many more? also a fact, but equally inappropriate for the intro"

First, the intro is talking about "He united the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula under a state governed by Islamic law with its capital in Medina. By 750, his successors had conquered Persia, the Levant, North Africa, Sicily and Iberia and introduced Islam to the newly acquired territories." All I added was in the context of this sentence. If you would like to add anything related to this, feel free to do it.

Secondly, please go ahead and add "all kinds of well-sourced negative things about him". I will then come and bring other well-sourced material in his defense. This is how we should work on this article, not by censoring information. --Aminz 08:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Does all that apply equally to every area mentioned? Were Sicily & Iberia involved in Byzantine-Persian wars? --JimWae 08:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Esposito is generally talking about the time when the boundary of the Muslim empire was extended to Morocco and Spain in west and across central Asia to India in the east. But some of the comments may be only fit for Iraq, Syria or Persia. --Aminz 08:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Esposito also talks about the misconception that Muslims wanted to spread their faith through forced conversion by sword. But I didn't get into that detail. I can if you would like. --Aminz 08:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Farhansher wrote in his edit summary, "he actually beheaded only one ( who came to kill him at Ohad ) & enslaved none . Thats a fact)." That's a shameless lie. See Banu Qurayza. I'm also having trouble understanding how Aminz interprets death and enslavement as greater freedom for Jews. Maybe Islam helped some other Jews in some other time and place (such as Andalusia), but those seventh-century Arabian Jews who knew Muhammad didn't fare well.Proabivouac 08:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was enmity between the seventh-century Arabian Jews and Muhammad, because Muhammad was expecting them to do not ally with his enemy after they allied to him and were given religious and cultural autonomy. But if you look at the early expansion of Islam, you'll see Jews welcoming and aiding Muslim armies. --Aminz 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The word HE is interpreted as himself . Moses/David led to the killing of many, we dont say HE killed them . Bush led to the killings of Hundreds of thousands of people , again we dont say HE killed all of them . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Farhansher: ridiculous. We were talking about prisoners Muhammad had beheaded in cold blood, not people killed in battle. The point is that the introduction is neither the place to indict Muhammad nor to sing his praises. To do either is tendentious and invites edit warring.Proabivouac 08:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"To do either is tendentious and invites edit warring." --> I am abiding by the golden rule. --Aminz 09:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much scepticism

There is too much scepticism running around all over the article . We are told in every section that what muslims believe is not authentic, there way of collection knowledge is not so good e.t.c . Plz take a look Jesus or Moses article for comparasion . People writing theose articles arnt ashamed to state that their articleis based on bible , & they even consider gospels authentic. This should not be the only article that should bear the burden of "sceptic revisionism" or funny beheading disputes. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then go fix them; it'd be appreciated.Proabivouac 09:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny beheading dispute? Do you really think there's anything funny about beheading childen? Do you know what Muhammad did after his unprovoked attack on Khaiber? 24.7.89.173 22:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Schimmel Mahomet & Mahound

Please provide name of book & page number in which Schimmel says Mahomet is Scottish for Mahound. Even better, also write out the sentences where that assertion is made --JimWae 09:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is found at the introduction (page 2) of Schimmel's Islam:An Introduction. It says "The medieval European image of Islam and its prophet, Muhammad, is a throughly distorted one. The distortion reached such absurdities as to consider Muhammad, usually called Mahomet (hence the Scottish Mahound for devil), to be a kind of "supreme god" and to speak of the adoration of his golden statutes. The image of the goldne Mahomsbilder, golden effigies of Muhammad, continued to be used in early nineteenth-century German romantic poetry."

Also, on page 164 (index) you can find the following... Mahound, Scottish: "evil spirit", derived from Mahomet. -- Szvest 11:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The ref says:

Mahomet cf. Annemarie Schimmel who states that Mahomet is the Scottish "Mahound" meaning "devil", a thoroughly distorted view of Muhammad in medieval west, Schimmel states. See the next footnote for further information about the word "Mahound" cf. Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, 1992.

Where does the Schimmel text say that "Mahomet IS the Scottish Mahound". It says "hence"... but the relationship is more just similarity of sound - it is not a translation - Mahomet is not a Scottish word - it is how they spelled Mohammed --JimWae 16:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Scottish were calling Mahomet instead of Mahound. To them, Mahomet meant the evil spirit. --Aminz 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what your source states but quite the opposite: According to your quote, it wasn't that Scottish were calling Mahomet instead of Mahound and Mahomet meant the evil spirit but

1. Scots called Mohammed by the variant of Mahomet, what is not a different name, but merely a different spelling / pronounciation.
2. Scots believed him to be a kind of god to Muslims.
3. Scots used the word Mahound for devil, a word that might have derived from Mahomet.

The quote does not state that Scots considered Muhammad / Mahomet a devil.

--The Hungry Hun 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ both Jim and Amin. The thing is that Mahound comes from Mahomet (to mean the devil). Mahomet comes from Muhammad (to mean the prophet of Islam). So we can say that Scots got two different meanings for each one of the terms though they are related but not totally inter-related. -- Szvest 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hungry Hun's better explained what i tried to say. -- Szvest 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the pronunciation linked in the article, it is easy to see that Mahomet comes pretty close to being a phonetic spelling. D & T are often pronounced the same in English - especially at the end of a word (or syllable). Spelling was not standardized before dictionaries came along in the early 1800s. Mahound could be a mockery of either spelling - because there was no "correct" way to spell it then, AND mockery is more commonly a "play" in speech sounds than writing anyway - it was a mockery based on similar sounds at the beginning of the word. I doubt Mahound meant "devil", or anything at all, in any language, at first - it was the "hound" that was used to mock. --JimWae 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad's Wives

I was going through the article and I noticed that the names of the wives of Mohammad were missing so I thought I would add them. Problem is I dont know how to . I made some changes earlier but they got deleted so how do I make them permanent–Sonianaveed 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Sonia

You don't. Wikipedia content is constantly added to, revisted, edited, and deleted. It's the fundamental characteristic of the Wiki. Captainktainer * Talk 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You have to understand that this article is a vehicle for Dawah, not truth. In any way emphasizing his polygamy is in opposition to this. 24.7.89.173 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

you have to understand that your constant talk-page trolling and proselytization-via-polemic, as an anon and now as a registered user, that a number of editors are growing weary of, is entirely unacceptable. ideally, you should cease this and refrain from using wikipedia as your personal soapbox in the future. if you have anything constructive to contribute to the encyclopaedia, then please do. ITAQALLAH 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

To what faith am I trying to convert people with my "proselytizing?" All I'm doing is keeping these articles balanced. If you have a logical argument why anything I've added to any article should be removed, I will consider it, and if you're right, I'll remove it myself. If fact if you can convince me to convert to Islam, I'll do that too. But I don't think you can do any of that. Arrow740 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

that is precisely the point: how can you keep articles "balanced" when much of your contributions are talk-page regurgitations of polemic? an extremely brief look at your contribution history as both anon and "arrow740" shows that over two thirds of your contribs have been on talk pages, the vast majority being you-know-what (not one edit under your current account has been outside of talkspace). not to mention that much of your mainspace contribs under anon were reverted. of course, there would be no need to expound upon any of this had you not been repeatedly ignoring reminders to cease trolling. that you introduce red herrings like your last comment utterly exemplifies how you are misunderstanding what this project actually is. ITAQALLAH 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what proselytizing means? You accused me of it, then I asked you how I was doing it, and you ignored me. Please do not insult me unless you have reasons for doing so. Yes I have been posting to the talk pages a lot. What harm is there in that? If people like you, Ibrahimfaisal, dab, and others address statements to me, should I ignore you? The fact that many of my contributions have been reverted is evidence of nothing more than Ibrahimfaisal's refusal to allow anything even mildly critical of Islam on wikipedia. In one case he refused to let me include the majority Muslim belief that Muhammad died as a result of poisoning (until I found the exact statement from Bukhari's hadith from the website that Ibrahimfaisal usually consults). Who acted wrongly there, him or me? Now answer me this: Do you honestly think this article is fair and balanced? Arrow740 23:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

do you enjoy shifting the focus of the discussion through red-herrings? the issue here is what is being perceived as trolling, like the first comment you made in this section. you feel that it is an "insult" to be described with the word "proselytizing", though you are conveniently ignoring the dozens of times you have been accusing other editors of such in far more explicit terms, like in this very section. as for how accurate that word would be, you may want to bring that up on my talk page where we can discuss it at length. is this article (and by that i assume you mean Muhammad) "fair and balanced"? no, but certainly not for the reasons you believe it not to be. my qualm with you is simple: stop trolling, use talk pages how they are supposed to be used. if you want to advocate neutral articles, please do it without resorting to polemic as you have done frequently in the past. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

as for some of your contributions being reverted, well i did take the time to look at some and in all honesty removing a number of them would be justified on the grounds they generally fall through either WP:NPOV or WP:OR, or even both, though the former has been more frequent. i think a lot of editors would be much more motivated to work with you cordially if you would observe some simple talk page guidelines. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find any flaw in my argument you may dismiss it as polemic. Otherwise please respond to it in a reasonable way. I have given evidence for my claims of proselytizing, you haven't even identified which religion I'm supposed to be promoting (I'm interested to see what you eventually come up with). Arrow740 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

your own arguments generally carry no merit here: as it would count as WP:OR. we deal in what is verifiable and attributable to reliable or at least notable sources. if you want to formulate your own arguments you may be interested in [4]. ITAQALLAH 00:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down guys. Just reading your comments here (i have no idea which edits are being disputed upon) but this is what the policy mandates:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
• Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. -- Szvest 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

excuse me. All I wanted to do was add the names of Mohammad's wives and this led to a long heated argument. The only reason I am on the talk page is because I have just recently joined wikipedia and am not very familiar with how it works. your accusation of constant talk-page trolling and proselytization-via-polemic, as an anon and now as a registered user could not possible refer to me and I dont think it does because some one else has already replied to it. But then why am I seeing it under my contribution. This is very confusing.

Marriage to a child

Did Muhammad not marry a child of 6 years old, and consumated the union when she was 9? 86.7.208.240 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

how about you read the article? hint, find the section "family life", or click on Aisha directly. Hell, we even have Aisha's age at marriage, which has more on the question than you ever wanted to know. Only if you are asking in earnest of course, maybe you would prefer to just a few more "pedophile" headers to this page to stir things up a bit? dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Presentation on the life of Muhammad

Please comment if this should be posted as an external link. http://www.geocities.com/moreonislam/prophetmuhammadandyou.pps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac , Stop "misrepresenting" the sources

This is a warning. Proabivouac, don't do misrepresent the sources.--Aminz 06:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell us where did you find this information: " Non-Muslims were offered the choice between conversion to Islam, payment of a special tax upon non-Muslims, or to be attacked until Islamic rule was accepted. Some areas which were previously under the Persia or Byzantium rule enjoyed reduced taxes, greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews as well as unorthodox Christians."

--Aminz 06:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote for us what the text exactly says. --Aminz 06:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Christians and Jews were offered ..." not only the source doesn't mention this, but it is also wrong. The status of Dhimmi was also given to Zoroastrians and (later Hindus and Buddhists which is not related to the early Islam). Tell us where in source did you find this? --Aminz 06:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Taxation, doesn't the source says that for many, Muslim's rule was just the changing of master. You are writing as if taxation wasn't required under other rules? --Aminz 06:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From page 37 as referenced:

"Thus non-Muslims were offered three choices: (1) conversion to Islam and full membership in the community; (2) retention of one’s faith and payment of a poll tax; or (3), if they refused Islam or "protected" status, warfare until Islamic rule was accepted."

Also,

"...under Muslim rule, idolatry and paganism would be eliminated, and all people of the book could live in a society guided and protected by Muslim power."

If you'd like to add Zoroastrians to "Christians and Jews," that's fine.Proabivouac 06:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are using "The Islamic Threat: Myth Or Reality?" book but I am using "Islam the Straight Path" (extended edition). Let me check your source. --Aminz 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also in Straight Path, p.35. Esposito routinely plagiarizes himself.Proabivouac 07:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, none of Esposito's books contain the phrase "Thus non-Muslims were offered three choices: (1) conversion to Islam and full membership in the community; (2) retention of one’s faith and payment of a poll tax; or (3), if they refused Islam or "protected" status, warfare until Islamic rule was accepted". In fact, you've taken this from the "Is Organized Religion A Sham" written by Ed Sepernik p. 352 which I am not sure if is a reliable source (it seems to be polemics though) . Now, I am not happy with you man. I am asking again, do you again confirm that Esposito on page 37 says: "Thus non-Muslims were offered three choices: (1) conversion to Islam and full membership in the community; (2) retention of one’s faith and payment of a poll tax; or (3), if they refused Islam or "protected" status, warfare until Islamic rule was accepted."? --Aminz 07:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am looking right at Esposito, page 37, and have quoted it word for word. Check Google Books "The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?" if you don't have it handy. I know nothing of the Sepernik book, and would never consider introducing material from such a source. If it appears there, I assume he is quoting Esposito.Proabivouac 07:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Searching for "Thus non-Muslims were offered three choices: (1) conversion to Islam and full membership in the community; (2) retention of one’s faith and payment of a poll tax; or (3), if they refused Islam or "protected" status, warfare until Islamic rule was accepted" in google, I only found "Is Organized Religion A Sham" p. 352. But it seems that it also appears in page 37 of Esposito. Balant copyright violation by Ed Sepernik. I am sorry, I couldn't think of such a copyright violation.

Here is what Esposito writes in p.34 of the "Islam the Straight Path":

"Religious communities were free to practice their faith-to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. There were therefore called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with close linguistic and cultural ties than the Hellenized, Greco-Roman elites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians."

I have also read the Esposito's quote in his other book. I still have problems with it. You have written :"Christians and Jews were offered the choice between conversion to Islam, payment of a special tax upon non-Muslims, or to be attacked until Islamic rule was accepted, while the practice of other religions was banned altogether." --Aminz 07:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"under Muslim rule, idolatry and paganism would be eliminated, and all people of the book could live"Proabivouac 07:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But on page 36, it says that the populations were either Jews, Christians or Zoroastrians. So, saying "while the practice of other religions was banned altogether." is irrelevant. --Aminz 08:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then what was this "idolatry and paganism" that was "eliminated"?Proabivouac 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Islam the Striaght Path" doesn't mention it. "The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?" says that "The Islamic ideal was to fashion a world in which, under Muslim rule, idolatry and paganism would be eliminated". The very early Muslim conquerers didn't find pagans in the conquered lands. Later Muslim conquerers gave the Dhimmi status even to Hindus. --Aminz 08:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"The very early Muslim conquerers didn't find pagans in the conquered lands. Later Muslim conquerers gave the Dhimmi status even to Hindus."

That's not in the source, either. All that is in the source is that idolatry and paganism are eliminated. But we all know that these were banned, so why the fight? Wikilaw, for sure. Actually, it seems an excuse to change the order of the sentences in the paragraph. None of this should even be here. It's unfortunate that you felt the need to introduce this source to begin with, for that forces others to waste their time - ultimately our time - balancing it. I propose instead that this entire passage be deleted as off-topic. That would solve our problem while keeping this article on track.

Meanwhile, can Truthspreader and anon join the discussion? It's depressing to see such shameless edit warring.Proabivouac 08:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P. 36 says: "The indigenous peoples in the conquered ares belonged to one of the three major "scriptural" communities" p. 37 says: "The Islamic ideal was to fashion a world in which, under Muslim rule, idolatry and paganism would be eliminated" (the first part of which you didn't quote). My presentation of the source is quite fair. Yours was not (saying only Zoroastirans had to convert). --Aminz 08:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And as to the order, actually honesty is a good thing to have. The text mentions those points at the very end of the section (one of them doesn't even mention). --Aminz 08:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that this entire discussion is off-topic for this article. It's really unfortunate that you introduced it. Propose to eliminate the entire discussion, or move it to a more relevant article.Proabivouac 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. Do you want people to get the impression that Muslims were spreading their faith by sword? --Aminz 10:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The current introduction merely states that Muhammad's successors conquered a vast territory and also introduced Islam to the newly-acquired territories. Is that untrue? Your addition does not challenge it, it merely states some ways in which this benefited inhabitants of some of the conquered territories. "Introduced" is pretty neutral wording when we could as easily write "ruthlessly imposed Islamic law upon" or "invited them to embrace the truth of Islam."Proabivouac 10:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I am not adding any untrue sentences. But there is such misconceptions in the minds of many readers that Muslims were spreading their faith by sword. Pope is a good example of such people. Aside from these, Taxes and Religous freedom was one of the most important concerns of the inhabitants. Even today taxes are of concern. Back then, it was more important. I am fine with summarizing the whole text in a sentence saying that 1. they lower taxes and 2. provided greater local autonomy and religous freedom. I think it is a fair summary of what the source says. --Aminz 10:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

JFK also lowered taxes and supported religious freedom, but without forcing people to convert to Islam, pay a special tax or be attacked. Greater religious freedom? Note that Esposito specifies local unorthodox Christians (at this time, Catholics and Greek Orthodox are the same), that is, a small minority. Most inhabitants were orthodox and lost religious freedom even under Esposito's formulation.

What is really more on-topic here? Was Muhammad a seventh-century supply-sider, or a religious leader? Of course here we're not even talking about Muhammad but his successors, so that much more off-topic.Proabivouac 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Borelli, John. Christian-Muslim Relations in the United States: Reflections for the Future After Two Decades of Experience. The Muslim World. 94 (3), 321-333, July 2004.[5] says on p.330 when second Caliph Umar conquered different lands, The Nestorian Patriarch in Persia, Yeshuyab III wrote: “They have not attacked the Christian religion, but rather they have commended our faith, honored our priests . . . and conferred benefits on churches and monasteries.” TruthSpreader^Talk 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I am not interested in discussing the historical benefits of Islam to humanity, not as a religion, but as a system of social laws. People today may easily live without religion but that back then, it was religion which was regulating people's actions. Esposito explicitly says "greater religious freedom". So, you are doing original research inspired by your POV. It is clear that Esposito is writing about the early conquests and also it is clear that the points I mentioned are a fair summary of what he states. So, adding that in just a sentence or two isn't inappropriate. Proabivouac, I have encountered with some people who are filled with hate for Muhammad and Islam and that's enough for me. Any unbiased reader would notice Esposito's stress on the point that Muslims were builders rather than destroyers. But this is so difficult for you to see. --Aminz 11:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Small Change

I deleted the variant" mohamet" at the start of the article as it is not really a correct transliteration of the arabic pronounication of the name, and honestly, in the many religious books about muhammad or mohammed i have never come across THIS (mohamet) type of spelling. what do the other wikipedians think ? thanks for your comments.

--Aadamh 15:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)