Talk:Muhammad/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 20


One click to the Pic

Hi, I'm the guy who posted sometime back about the veiled pic. The discussion changed to one of silhouetting the image, which I think misses the point. In my understanding, after reading this debate, most of the issue is about whether or not the image(s) should be here at all. If the images are not included on the main page, or filled with solid black fields, then a casual observer could click on the image and see the picture. This puts the image one click away. I don't understand why this wouldn't be done. Silhouettes change the representation of the image, which rings of censorship (whether people agree or not.) To have "No Image" but make them immediately accessible seems to me to solve everyone's problem. (Except for the people who don't believe any rep. of M. is okay, but they will never be happy with anything on this page as far as I can tell.) This at least limits the "accidental exposure" to the image. I'll listen off-air :-) Menkatopia 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is no mention of Aisha on this page.

It is very unencyclopedic to modify images in that way. This is not a bowdlerized encyclopedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it can work, given that we do not have that image on top. There is no policy regarding bowdlerized and wikipedia is censored (see my arguments on mediation Some Censored pages. --- ALM 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ALM, but you are wrong. bowdlerizing is a form of censorship, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. You cannot say a policy does not exist by finding examples of where you don't think it is being applied. If you think the policy is being broken, address that, but don't say the policy does not exist. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Specifically from WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored: "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements" HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To do this would be to treat Muhammad's article differently to that of any other major historical figure. If our readers feel that the article has been censored for religious reasons, they will cease to trust whatever else it says. TharkunColl 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.' - is why there's no child porn, as far as I can tell, none of your other claims actually have examples of censorship. For what it's worth, blasphamey is certainly not censored. WilyD 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this violates your sense of "encyclopediadness." the point is not to remove the image from WP, but to show we are sensitive to the surprise some may feel at being shown this, and giving others a way to see the images if they choose. Maybe you could explain why this solution is unfair? Menkatopia 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Surprise? You go to an encyclopedia, look up a person, and see a picture of that person and you are surprised? What would you expect to see? We try to have a picture for every subject we can. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just read Wily's comment. I can see how this would be taken as censorship, but I think making the pics easily accesible would answer that complaint. Menkatopia 19:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Those comments aren't Wily's, only the last two sentences are. The first part is part a quote from our core policy What Wikipedia is not. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am not surprised, nor am I the issue. But, as this is a sensitive issue for some, and cause us a lot of trouble rv'ing abuse, this seemed like a solution that would be viable to unlock the page. We were encouraged to think outside the box (see above) and that is what I attempted to do. If you are asking me, personally, I would love nothing more than to have this image front and center in the article, but as it is vandalized repeatedly, making it a click away might slow action in that arena. Maybe, High in BC, you can try to ignore what you think is my motive and look at the result. Thank you. Menkatopia 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many, many articles that suffer from constant vandalism. To use this as a reason for removing content, is to let the vandals win. TharkunColl 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I really am, to keep jumping in, but I wanted to point out the misuse of the term Bowdlerize. I am not suggesting we remove the image from anyone willing to click on a box, just from the top level of the page. And they are not terrorists, I am suggesting taking away the bait. Menkatopia 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This idea has been brought up and rejected over and over. This article get no more vandalism than regular articles of this importance. The page is protected because long standing editors are edit warring. I don't attribute any motive to you. I also did not mean for my response to mean just you. I don't see why anyone would be surprised when they looked up Muhammad in a non-Muslim encyclopedia and saw Muhammad. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean "bait"? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Comparable suggestions come up in every article that's vandalised every day (I myself watch a few.) They never fly. Because it's pretty much a comprimising of the article, which just works against everything we're trying to do. I watch a few articles that are vandalised every day - it's part of the job. WilyD 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant, by bait, that by making the image, in essense, a click away, then there would be one less thing to vandalize on this page. I know this page doesn't get substantially more or less vandalism than other controversial topics, but this might be a way to deflate their effort. As was mentioned with Harry Truman's S, it is such a constant target, taking it off the main page, yet making EXPLICIT the link and it's connection to the content would, in my estimation, limit this particular subject of vandalism. I do not agree that doing this "let's the terrorists win" or some other Cheney-ism. It isn't that simple. But making it clear that we want this image available, do not want to offend either side's sensibilities on the matter, I think we satisfy both camps. Now, my boss is going to put me in a pair of cement shows if I don't get back to work. :-) Menkatopia 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You people who actually want pictures don't get it, do you? You come back from work/school, check out how the discussion pages is going, and post something controversial you don't even care about. But Muslims actually do care about this and are offended by those pictures. Why can't you understand that? If you keep on just posting these pictures that hurt people, it just shows how selfish and how much of a jerk you are. Done, done, and done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iman S1995 (talkcontribs)

I think it's about time you review Wikipedia's personal attack policy. Not only are they illogical, but they're also against the rules.
Concerning your claim that we don't care about this issue, well, it's somewhat insulting. Who are you to decide what's offensive to who, and who cares about what? The fact that many users on the pro-inclusion side care deeply has been discussed here multiple times. --Hojimachongtalk 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad images should not be posted or must be edited because of the religous strong believes. Though Wikipedia does not guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements" The images must be removed by wikipedia's page operators or webmaster to avoid conflict. People have their own rights to post anything because this is a community project web. All religon must be respected and you have to earn the respect.

u canot paste Image of the Personality to whom 120 million thinks wrong.

Obviously they cannot. They are telling Muslims that you are stupid and do not know your own tradition. They are telling us that it is main tradition in Islam to depict Muhammad and we even do not know it. This is even wrong according to wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV. It is against it guideline WP:PROFANITY and add no useful information in the article. Please be around, I will ask your help in a week. Wassalam --- ALM 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Finally remember Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Hence even if majority want to include picture it does not make it right. --- ALM 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is not a democracy, though straw polls are sometimes used to gather the opinions of users. Keep in mind, these don't form consensus, but measure it. --Hojimachongtalk 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I cannot edit the article

Hi, Why I cannot edit the article ? --- SciAndTech 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's temporarily locked due to an edit war. WilyD 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why no obvious link to Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

If the page is at all important to the resolution of this mess, there ought to be a prominent link at start of this page. If instead people feel that page is embarrassing I can see why there's no link.

The page Talk:Muhammad/Mediation was started 19:25, 2 November 2006. I'd say almost four months with no resolution or apparent hope of one is a verdict on that effort. When does this go before the community as a whole? I really think the list of options must get put up before a larger, hopefully more dispassionate, audience and just get decided. Shenme 02:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the link to the top of this page. --Sefringle 03:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Normally mediation is geared towards individuals who were involved in a conflict. The way the mediation process works, parties needing mediation must all agree to undergo and abide by it so if a link is provided to the mediation case then it should be clear that it is not particularly meant for additional parties to join. (Netscott) 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


"User:Alim777," whose only edits to Wikipedia have been to remove depictions of Muhammad (first on Jyllands Posten, now here) and add the title "Prophet" to mentions of his name, has just removed a depiction, immediately after the article was unprotected.[1]Proabivouac 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Report him at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. --Hojimachongtalk 19:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
i don't know about this user, but i endorse the removal as per my comments above. ITAQALLAH 19:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Aminz's idea that during the mediation process it would be fair to have the image be on again off again. There's no denying that the image has been displayed in a locked state for weeks. Since mediation is still continuing and a final decision hasn't been reached would it not be a good faith gesture to leave the image off for some time? (Netscott) 19:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the user is probably a sock, and his only edits have been trolling, vandalism, or edit-warring. --Hojimachongtalk 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
there is nothing about his latest edit, nor his other contributions, which strike me as malicious "vandalism" per se. which is why he has been given a test warning. furthermore, i see no trolling or edit-warring. ITAQALLAH 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Netscott, I don't know. As the German and Spanish Wikipedias have still more depictions, and as the edit-warring has been constant, a good case can be made that the last version was already an incompletely censored version, yet some have proposed "compromises" splitting the remaining difference (e.g. one or two depictions) premised upon the idea that possession is 9/10th of the law. I have little doubt that someone say, "someone removed it during mediation, and the world didn't come to an end/no one seemed to care," pointing to the stability of the page (if it's allowed to be) after this move as proof that it is the right "compromise." Conversely, the willingness of aniconists to disruptively edit-war has always been their strongest argument.Proabivouac 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I unblocked him (leaving a message with the blocking admin). Even malicious vandalism doesn't get you blocked after one warning and he, at least, didn't add "penis" to every page he could see as is ever so popular. I explained to him the situation about why it's a bad idea to change images so... if he does it again a block may be in order. But, the first time is a little harsh considering we really don't know if he's privy to these conversations. I hadn't see this section when I did it, but, if he does something again tell me. gren グレン 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of images

(split from above discussion)

Well it is disruptive to other editors who want to edit in other areas of this article not related to imagery to constantly be finding it in locked state. My thinking is in the direction of, "What can we do to avoid edit warring during mediation so that the article can be improved irregardless of the question of images of Muhammad?". (Netscott) 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If any particular editor is going to reintroduce the lead image can it be done via this transclusion? → {{:Muhammad/images}} with a little disclaimer that the transclusion should not be removed from the article but its contents edited directly there? (Netscott) 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking a transclusion like this might be a good idea, from a practical/technical standpoint. Is there any problem with transcluding content in articles? Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Basically all images that show Muhammad could be done via transclusion with the agreed upon principle that directly removing the transclusions would be viewed as disruption. Then if editors want to bicker and be dispruptive about such images this disruption can be limited to the transclusions. I don't think there's any particular policy prohibiting transcluding content. The only caveat is that doing this would be a bit exceptional in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. My thinking is just to limit the disruption to a limited area temporarily at least until some sort of a consensus about these images and/or the mediation concludes. (Netscott) 20:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Umm, when has a technological 'solution' ever fixed a sociological/political/religious problem? Unless you can protect the area that contains the transclusion request, it won't be protected, and the changes will continue. Even if you define that altering the transclusion and its page is a 'no-no', that won't have altered the current situation where pictures are included, which already is a 'no-no' in so many minds. 'Playing' with 'no-no's is just playing. And the mediation has been going on for four months... Shenme 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm saying let the image related changes happen only on the transcluded part. That way if disruption returns surrounding the images the disruption can be limited to just the transclusions. (Netscott) 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm unclear how this would help. Does this somehow allow people who don't like seeing Muhammad automatically block such pictures? Frotz661 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There are people who want to edit on this article on things unrelated to images. This "image war" has been going on for awhile and it is disruptive. I'm proposing that images of Muhammad be transcluded onto the article with an ad-hoc rule that if editors remove the transclusions doing so will be viewed as disruptive and they can be blocked for it. This way if editors want to fight back and forth on the sole idea of images of Muhammad they can do so only via the transclusions and not directly on the article itself... thereby non-image centric editors can continue on improving the article. (Netscott) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This sounds good. Why did you remove the leading image? I can't see what you're referring to in your justification. Frotz661 22:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, you just now put an empty template there, so I filled it with the leading image and caption. That should have been okay, but you removed that template reference in favor of the old inline approach. I don't think using a template like that would have been controversial in the slightest. Frotz661 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is worth giving the template a try. I'll watch Muhammad/images, and edit that if I want to change anything. Tom Harrison Talk 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it, we can keep the main article unprotected that way. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't very insistent in my little <!-- note --> so if someone else wants to word that a bit more insistently (maybe with a small mediation explanation) by all means please do so. (Netscott) 00:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For those not aware of it please note that there is discussion about the lead image here: Talk:Muhammad/images. (Netscott) 02:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just plain silly. If there is an edit war, it will never be confined to another image. For example, if the image is locked, then people will edit the main article to revert to their version. A second article does not help.

I don't think the transclusion should ever be locked myself so long as people abide by WP:3RR. It is just a nightmare to have sockpuppet IPs and the like come in and edit war over this on the main article page and ruin editing for everyone else. (Netscott) 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If people who otherwise disagree about the images agree about the transclusion, at least we can keep this page unlocked. Tom Harrison Talk 04:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you guys are living in a dream world. 90% of the problem here are random edits by people demanding no images. When they see an image of Muhammad, they instantly hit edit and remove the image. You don't honestly think such people will be willing to go to a second page, and edit that.. when the whole goal is to allow easy reversion?!

We have people coming in, and placing religious sayings such as "peace be upon him" throughout the whole article. We have people coming on, and changing anything that does not appear 100% religious, to a fully dogmated article. Catering to such people won't help, and showing such a sign of weakness isn't going to help either.

I liked the idea at first, assuming it might work(naive). However, it does not seem to be reducing the disruption to the article. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This disruption is stemming from the Canadian editor Bbarnett (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) utilizing sock IPs to avoid 3RR. Read his talk page and you'll understand why he's doing that. (Netscott) 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be creating more problems than it is solving, and has caused quite the edit war the last several hours. --Hojimachongtalk 04:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
One editor utilizing sockpuppet IPs making disruption... again read User talk:Bbarnett who vowed to keep the image on the article regardless of 3RR. (Netscott) 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it - what the point (for anyone) of attacking the transclusion?Proabivouac 04:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Blind determination? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed because I can see no logic behind it, except that it will create more work. Now, some people might edit the second article with the image, and others will just edit the Muhammad article. Some will edit both. Locking the image article will instantly lead to vandalism of the original article.

All three IPs are from Canada (one specifically tracks back to Montreal). Review Bbarnett's edits and see his Canada centric editing (Bloc Quebequois, etc.) (Netscott) 04:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Good call, Netscott.[2]
Bbarnett, what are you thinking? There's no point at all in attacking the transclusion.Proabivouac 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is. As I've stated, it's quite detrimental to the article. It creates two articles to edit and repair instead of one, yet it provides absolutely no benefits. In each case that someone claims it provides a benefit, I can provide logic that it does not. It will duplicate edit warring, yet prevent no warring.

Hehe, nice. Nothing like a sockpuppet responding (and thereby confirming) to a question posed to his sockpuppeteer account. (Netscott) 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! You know I've been using IPs to anon edit! This was determined, what... two hours ago? Clearly I am not overtly concerned, or I would not have edited with my bbarnett login when anon editing came into play. Regardless of this, I still fail to see how this misguided change will help with anything.

It's stated in WP:3RR that 3RR applies per person, not per user. If you're socking (which you've admitted), you're breaking that guideline. --Hojimachongtalk 05:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What IP editor is going to be making an edit to the little boondock town of Aylmer, Quebec [3] that editor Bbarnett (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)'s going to be editing on himself? (Netscott) 05:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm. Yehaw, that makes lots of sense. You're right, we should all start to purposefully damage pages that everyone here has worked on, because you (netscott) can't keep your hands off of a page in mediation. That's a great idea. I guess I should start to do something incredibly complex and difficult and utterly so sophisticated as list your edited pages, because it shows.. what?

That I know how to click a mouse?

Hmm, looks like blocking is in order for again violating WP:3RR (and sockpuppetry to do so to boot). (Netscott) 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Netscott, you are guilty of the same. 3RR applies regardless of reason.
Bbarnett, I would guess that you will soon be blocked for this disruption. Until then, could you at least sign your posts?
For whatever it's worth, Netscott did not violate 3RR, but even if he had I doubt he would be blocked, given the nature of this incident.Proabivouac 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A mediation has been going on for over FOUR MONTHS, over this image. In 24 hours, a tiny cabal of three users decided to modify this article, and in a harmful fashion. It is harmful because it does nothing to protect the article, but does everything to create more work and effort for editors. The people out of line here, are those that tried to modify the subject of mediation, just as much as anyone that tried to remove that image. That image needs to stay, and static, and as it sits, until mediation concludes.

Bbarnett, was this also you?Proabivouac 05:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Another sock? --Hojimachongtalk 05:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, or it could just be an editor who's not aware of the transclusion due to User:Bbarnett's disruption and removing that as an option. (Netscott) 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the account is newly formed and the only edit has been to the Muhammad article. --Hojimachongtalk 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The account was created on the 7th... so while the account is "newly formed" I wouldn't chalk it up straight away to some other editor sockpuppeting here. (Netscott) 06:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this makes me feel weird. I find that I've recently expressed at least two of the same opinions as the 'outlaw' in the same timeframe that sockpuppets are being discussed. I assume that my comments will be devalued thereby. What is one to do?

My opinions about articles are mostly driven by this: what will best serve to impart the information in the article to the reader?. I can agree with most any option that serves that goal well. I will have to take the time to review more of the archives, to understand the stumbling blocks here. For one thing, I did not realize that there had been a real attempt at an organized mediation, disrupted when the mediator had to leave. But even after the reading I have done so far, I worry how much of the intentions here have had both the article and the reader as their prime focus. Or, at least, how much of those original good intentions still remain, uncorrupted. Shenme 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that once the bid to censor the article is put to rest, we can return to the usual business of improving it without further disruption. We shouldn't have to worry about whether we are either disrespecting or capitulating to aniconist Muslims, as this is all quite off-topic to the creation of a qualilty encyclopedia.Proabivouac 08:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know why I wonder where the impetus for "we have to do it this way" comes from, it's because I really don't understandsome of the thought, or lack of it. Shenme 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are some ideas to improve the chances that the transclusion method will work (as a method of allowing the main article to remain unprotected a larger proportion of the time while this dispute is worked out):
  • Make the name of the transcluded article seem open to both sides of the dispute. To me, the word "image" in the name "lead image" suggests an image of Muhammad. Actually, this file could contain either an image of Muhammad, or a different image, or more than one image, or no image, and/or other things besides an image (e.g. text). A more neutral name, to increase the chance that the transcluded file will be edited rather than deleted from the main article, could be: "top of article", "lead section", "part before opening paragraph", or "image or no image", etc.
  • I suspect that many of the editors who delete the image know little or no English. I'm guessing they know Arabic. (Maybe someone else can guess better than me what languages are likely involved.) For practical purposes, I suggest putting a bilingual or multilingual message (English and Arabic) in the comment section of the wikitext. I.e. Have the following (or something similar) appear in both English and Arabic in the wikitext: "<!-- Per this article's talk page and in the interest of reducing overall disruption on this article, kindly do not remove the above transclusion but rather edit What image is appearing and whether or not one appears in the lead is due to the state of the above transclusion. -->" (That's what the most recent transclusion version said, I think.) I think I can translate it into French and Simple English -- perhaps that would help.
  • Also add a bilingual or multilingual message in the wikitext comment "Please participate in the debate (in English) on the talk page before adding or removing the image of Muhammad." both in the main article and in the transcluded page.
  • I just had another idea: Have the Muhammad article be just a lead image (or none) and a transclusion of "Muhammad/rest of article", with everything else from the "Muhammad" article moved there. Then when the "Muhammad" page is protected, the rest of the article can still be edited.
I welcome comments on these ideas. --Coppertwig 12:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig changing name of that page or writing message in multiple languages will not help. The thing that can help if both side are willing to compromise. There is no rule of wikipedia that say that not having picture on the top is censorship in case it is against tradition of that personality. However, this thing they are not willing to understand. --- ALM 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Conflict is on all the THREE images on Muhammad page. Why you have moved one image to show that conflict is only on the lead image? At least represent the conflict properly. --- ALM 12:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've edited in accord with your concern here ALM. (Netscott) 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


The image should be removed. It does not add to the quality of the page but seems to act as a way for editors to be able to frustrate visiting muslims to wikipedia. It seems to limit the number of actual people able to visit this page in peace. The muslim religion forbids looking at pictures of the prophet but it seems quite ironic that they are present on the page of that religion. I like the idea of a link to see the pictures but the pictures dont seem to make or break the page so removing them wouldnt do any harm. Keeping them is offending for people visiting and may be interpreted as a non muslims only page. If you want to anger people and be disrespectful to people keep this picture. But at least put some sort of warning saying they are there. I personally dont really mind but there are people out there who do. Thank You! (Ssd175 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia, not a religious treatise. Frotz661 06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree, images are necessary- it is not as if the image depicts him in an offensive way or anything. Astrotrain 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are allowed to show good taste. The mere fact of depicting him is offensive to some people. Why do you say images are "necessary"? How about putting them somewhere where they're less likely to be accidentally seen by people for whom absence of the images is necessary? --Coppertwig 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And Wikipedia may contain content that is offensive to some readers. --Hojimachongtalk 01:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"May" -- not "must". The policy says offensive material is to be left out if it's not informative. The principle here seems to me to be a balance of good taste and provision of information. It doesn't say offensive material must be included and must be placed at the top of the page where everybody will see it. --Coppertwig 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And that is the argument, whether or not it is informative. As a visual thinker, the image adds a great deal to the article for me. I don't speak for all, but for me the image does make the article more informative. Most readers of the article would probably agree with this, if they could get past the "It's offensive to Muslims" argument, which has no place here per Wikipedia is not censored. --Hojimachongtalk 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this mess

Why cannot we keep all discussion in one place. Is that possible that someone move it all on mediation page and enforce to keep it there? Doing so will make it easy to follow. --- ALM 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion of images screws up references

Now that that images are transcluded, the reference shortcut buttons in the captions don't work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is a bug in the MediaWiki system. I have copy-edited and changed the ref. in response. (Netscott) 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now Muhammad preaching appears to be in the transclusion but not in the article. From a partly technical standpoint, I think the page needs to always reflect the transclusion, or else we need to drop the transclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 17:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Images should be removed

These images are not of Muhammad. These three images are persian kings, Zoroaster, and ruler who built kaba in 1100 AD. These images should be removed. And secondly there should be respect for every religion. You are adding images which were/are never part of Islam. This article is getting less informative but more hurtful for muslims. Wikipedia readers are not only christians,jews, or hindus. Muslims also read wikipedia. So it would be better to show respect for religion rather finding ways to hurt muslims. Funnypop12 09:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Kaaba was built in 1100?Proabivouac 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Funnypop12 is referring to this, which would be something like 500 BCE. A fairer response, Proabivouac, might have been to address the underlying concern, and suggest that Funnypop12's dating might have been off.

Are the images of Zoroaster?

Whether they are or not, we must expect variations on precisely this comment, and we must expect them hundreds, thousands of times in a row, from this point forward, if the rub-their-noses-in-it camp carries the day. Is this really how you propose that such should be addressed, Proabivouac? By fixating on a dating error in the message? Suppose the next message comes from someone who does not make a dating error? BYT 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point editors can edit Muhammad/images (read Talk:Muhammad/images as well). Consensus appears to be that there needs to be image(s) in the lead and that there needs to be an image or two of Muhammad somewhere in the article. I would recommend attempting to edit corresponding to that. (Netscott) 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that the images are not of Muhammad is completely OR or, if copied from somewhere else, fringe at best. That images were not "part of Islam" (whatever that means) is beside the point, that they are not photographs of the man is beside the point. Using images doesn't imply disrespect towards Islam. Str1977 (smile back) 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is essentially correct - if they're verifiably images of Muhammad, then whether or not they are images of him isn't for us to decide. If another verifiable source disputes this, then we should discuss replacing them with a different image. As long as we're not including every image ever produced (which is likely) then disputed images shouldn't be used unless they're particularly notorious. WilyD 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So far there is no disputed image, as no one of those uttering those claims have provided any shred of evidence for this. Str1977 (smile back) 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Dispute in this context offers no judgement of the legitimacy of the dispute. So there is a disputed image. WilyD 17:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to a back-up of the dispute by references. Otherwise it's OR. Str1977 (smile back) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is simply, basicly forbidden, images of Muhammad. There is nothing hard to understand that, it is a sin in Islam and forbidden. Simple right? Do you get it? Please respect others beliefs. For an atheist, Jesus's gay pictures on Wiki is nothing important, but for Christians and Muslims, it can not be acceptable. Same here, any of Muhammad's pictures may seem nothing bad for you but for Muslims, it is a sin. Please remove.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lardayn (talkcontribs)
So what you're saying is that we should censor Wikipedia to cater to the demands of a specific religious group. I'd like to direct you to Wikipedia is not censored. --Hojimachongtalk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Lardayn, on the topic of respect: were we to log onto an Islamic site such as Islampedia and post depictions of Muhammad there, that would be disrespectful, and you'd have a point. When you come to Wikipedia and try to impose your standards on others who prefer to contribute to a project which is free from religiously-motivated censorship, who is disrespecting whom?Proabivouac 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
What Im saying is, this topic is about a Prophet and pics are nothing to do with Him. Those pics are from Persia and they were created after hundrends years, and the creators never seen Muhammad and most probably, they've never seen an Arab in their life. If the topic was "Persian art about Muhammad" or "Pictures of Muhammad" there may be those pictures. But however, this is not cencorship, this is an act against human rights. You can not show pictures of photos of someone if he does not want. Doing this would be attacking personal rights. Not about cencorship. Respect other religions, what you do here is a part of Islamaphobia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lardayn (talkcontribs) 13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

in 1100 there was a ruler who constructed boundaries around squre Kaaba. So no error in date. It is not picture of Muhammad. Miraj.jpg is pic of zoroaster. You can see clearly fire in Miraj.jpg. Old persian religions had strong concept of fire as God. 1st disputed pic is pic of persian king. It represents time period of Ottoman empire. Disputed images!!!!!!Funnypop12 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, were are the citations. "a ruler" is hardly anything to go by. The picture definetely is Muhammad. Zoroastrian iconography might have informed this Persian depiction of Muhammad but it is nonethless him. Str1977 (smile back) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case, that image is definitely one of our worst-- it can't be seen at thumbnail size. I've replaced it with a different (but still veiled) image. --Alecmconroy 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it quite good and typical of this kind of picture. And your removal of it put the new picture in the wrong place. Str1977 (smile back) 23:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we want to use Image:Miraj2.jpg, our only choices are to crop it or to enlarge the thumbnail. Or we could switch to a different veiled image. I'm open to all three possibilities, but in its current state, I daresay there isn't a person on earth who could tell me what it's a image of. --Alecmconroy 00:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Calligraphy: Maybe people already know this, but here's another calligraphy image: on the Dutch (Nederlands) page they have the image Muhammed.gif which is black-and-white calligraphy. (In case anyone is looking for more calligraphy images.) I can't seem to find it at Commons, though. --Coppertwig 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Alecmconroy here save for the fact that the image that he's referring to (the Miraj image) actually corresponds to that particular section of the article it currently is displayed in. (Netscott) 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Do all of the images we're currently using have a reliable source backing up the claim that they are in fact intended to represent Muhammad? - Merzbow 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I like the look of the current version.[4] Liberal Classic 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Re this version I agree. My only changes to the images would be to put a note like in the dutch version to the calligraphy (that this is a common practice among Muslims) and to removed the uncited (and after the mentioned addition also unneeded) "though depictions of Muhammad are culturally important, no undisputed record exists of his actual appearance".
I like the current calligraphy better than the dutch one (presuming that the calligraphy is accurate). Str1977 (smile back) 23:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As do I. It combines the calligraphy and Maome quite well. --Hojimachongtalk 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how people are insisting that images are an essential part of the page. Were they made in the time period of muhammad anyway? Are they an accurate depiction of this man? If not then imsges are useless. You might as well draw some random person on a piece of paper and call it muhammad.(Ssd175 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

  • Given that this "point" has been addressed several times at great length on this talk page, as well as the mediation page and so on, perhaps you could be specific on what you're unclear on. WilyD 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do people need this image on here so badly if its not necessary and all its doing is causing controversy. This image itself is just causing trouble and will only create more work for revisionists due to muslims taking it out all the time. Millions of people visit wikipedia and these images are bound to be taken out over and over again. Why not take it out and make it easier for everyone? It's not like the images are going to make or break the article. They dont even represent an accurate depiction of the prophet himself due t the fact that they were created hundreds of years after his death. (Ssd175 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

Fear of vandalism is not a reason to break Wikipedia policy; What do you think Westboro Baptist Church would look like if this was the case? --Hojimachongtalk 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only fear of vandals but the controversy that will arise. I mean come on, look at the discussion page already. Its extremely long covering only images. If you take them out everyone will be content, and if people want to see pictures we can make a section at the bottom of the article providing links to images or the images themselves (with a warning beforehand of course).

The talk page pretty clearly demonstrates that the controversy has already arisen. The whole page is a debate about the controversy of including the images. --Hojimachongtalk 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to allow this type of pressure to influence our editorial style. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:NPOV and WP:NOT exist for this sole reason. Do you think anybody gives Fred Phelps any kind of respect? If WP:NPOV didn't exist, it would be a slur-fest against his bigotry. --Hojimachongtalk 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well after realizing that wikipedia is not censored it is useless arguing whether the images should be put in this article (although they are not necessary). They do have a right to be there although i still believe there should be some kind of warning at the top of the page before we reveal these images. A link to pictures would be ok too but i guess Wikipedia doesnt require anyone too (although it would be respectful). (Ssd175 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, funnypop, for your contribution. Of course, if the pictorals of Muhammed are evidently incorrect because they identify someone else, they should be removed. However, does it mean that no pictorals should be allowed ? From the encyclopedia's point of view, textual representations of the subject is in the same thrust and timber as that of other religious or cultural articles. Because the inherent discussion is not cloaked in reverential dogma, then comments, versions, even "facts" are subject to an honest debate. If that be true of what is written, then that be equally true of what is portrayed as a pictoral. The key perspective is that the encyclopedia is not influenced by spiritual piety in relating information about any of the religious subjects. Therefore, pictures are a must. However, for faithful adherents of any particular religious persona, the issue of presenting pictorals is more demanding. How can there be a concrete pictoral of a spiritual body; even a representation can be embarrassingly profane. In short, no picture is justified. Is Wikipedia responsible for altering its approach, when religious concerns arise, in order to satisfy the faithful, if in doing so, the historic integrity of delivering "objective" encyclopedic content is diminished. --Free4It 23:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Censored? Oh Really?

Please sign your name below my comment IF you think wikipedia is NOT censored. Its a serious call, and I will right here debunk this absured claim forever. Guaranteed.

If you win (i.e. censorship is not applied in wikipedia) then I will support the inclusion of pictures in this article. If I successfully prove that censorship is indeed applied then you must abstain from mentioning this absured claim of 'no censorship' and will have to apply the same censorship which I will prove the existence of. VirtualEye 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This voting is already done Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Another_vote_.28yawn.29:_Let.27s_keep_it_simple. --- ALM 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, VirtualEye, for your contribution. Is Wikipedia censored? Before there is a consideration of that, it would be necessary to acknowledge that the encyclopedia is largely text-based. Given a body of text, the very inherent nature of which necessitated editing, before it is even presented; given a body of readers, the very description of which necessitated a bias of one shade or another, even before the actual lecture; given a body of "editors", the very motivation of which necessitates adding their own colour, even before some sense of duty obligates them: given all that, as a minimum part of the text composite, and one cannot, apart from fact confronting opinion, not find censorship. --Curious2george 02:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Curious2george, but What do you mean? Please structure your thoughts from Shekspere's English to a simpler English. Sorry, I dont understand your points correctly. VirtualEye 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to have a vote on something already settled, Wikipedia is NOT censored, not discussion here is going to change that. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shahada image

We obviously need an image of the Shahada; however the flag of Saudi Arabia is, for a number of reasons, not the best choice. ALM has found many images of Islamic calligraphy recently, some of which are historically significant. Perhaps a better example may be found among these?Proabivouac 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and Jewish tribes

Sefringle, please take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 02:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It says that usuaully is an acceptable reason to delete, and in this case it is.
F.E. Peters states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was quite extraordinary and is "matched by nothing in the Qur'an, and is quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina. We must think then that his action was essentially political, that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God."[39]

I removed this paragraph because it is POV pushing and really doesn't add any valuable knowledge about Muhammad. It is only praise and nothing more.--Sefringle 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be polite Sefringle. That's all Peters says about the matter in his book and it contains valuable knowledge about Muhammad. For example the nature of his behavior, Qur'anic view on the matter and comparison with Muhammad's behavior towards Jews outside Medina. --Aminz 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, 'that' stuff might be relevant, however we are discussing the paragraph above, and that paragraph is POV pushing. What part of the above paragraph is informative and not an opinion?--Sefringle 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, what do you mean by POV pushing? It is what Peters say, his POV. Posting his POV is not POV pushing. --Aminz 03:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
yes it is, because it is only an opinion. Opinions don't belong on this page. Only facts. We've settled this way back. (see Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12#Aisha criticism)--Sefringle 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what he is saying is a fact. Do you have any sources against it? --Aminz 03:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not a fact... it is very contested how and why Muhammad treated the Jews. gren グレン 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My whole point is that even if assume that the view is not neutral, it shouldn't be removed per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Even though that section says:
"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."
That section says it should be deleted under these circumstances.--Sefringle 03:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It says:"Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright." And lastly, we are talking about a respectable scholar so his POV has weight. We can not say his views are biased. That's not appropriate. --Aminz 03:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone has a bias. We most certianly can say his views are bias. However the policy says we should present the facts without stating his opinion. That way we are minimizing POV.--Sefringle 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So, what is your suggestion? Which parts are the facts and which parts are his biased views? --Aminz 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. and the paragraph above is an opinion, and really doesn't belong here.--Sefringle 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, I am open to your suggestions. There are several points in the quote: 1. It was extraordinary behavior because Muhammad's treatment of the Jews is matched by nothing in the Qur'an & 2. Muhammad's treatment of Jews outside Medina was different. So, He thinks the action was "political that it was prompted by behavior that he read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God." These are points which we can check if they are true or not. Please let me know which of these points you dispute. --Aminz 04:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Analysis of historical process is always opinion to some extent. I don't understand your objection but I have never seen a place stating that opinion isn't valid. Scholarship is much of the time opinion because it's not about simple facts it's about processes. gren グレン 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I especially have a problem with this sentence:
Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an",
does this sentence provide any factual information other than a POV opinion?--Sefringle 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
One interpretation might be that it was "quite extraordinary" and "matched by nothing in the Qur'an" because later Muslims didn't do the same things to the Jewish communities rather they provided them with the pact of "Dhimmi". --Aminz 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, I have found another discussion of this topic on another page of the book which I think would bring more balance to the section. --Aminz 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It provides the opinion (which a scholar tries to form based on their interpretation of fact) that the treatment of Jews at Medina is very different from treatment of other Jews. I don't understand your problem with this. It's one scholar's attempt at analysis of the situation and trying to explain why Jews were treated differently at Medina. It doesn't need to be right but I see no reason why it's an opinion that needs to be removed. The fact that it contains opinion is rather meaningless. NPOV is not about removal of scholars' opinions. It's about neutrally representing them and not trying to pass one off as truth. No? gren グレン 05:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In page 7x of the book the author discussed the same issue but had a different approach. So, I added that as well. --Aminz 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the opinion of a scholar... it can be problematic how it's used but this and other articles are laced with opinions (both explicit and implicit) as is any piece of writing. gren グレン 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the treason that the Jewish tribes did during the battle of ahzaab (trench) among other epsiodes? They had a binding agreement with the Muslims for the common defense of Medina. However, when the Meccans came to attack the Muslims, the Jews opened the city gates that were under their control for the Meccans! Their objective was to harm the Muslims, but they failed and it was then time to face the consequences. It was natural for prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to address this after his victory. It is not a change of the attitude of the Muslims or prophet Muhammad's desire to wipe them out! Additionally, the Jews were not wiped out; the ones who did not harm the Muslims remained and one of the prophet's neighbors was Jewish and the prophet used to be kind to him.

Section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" hardly mentions anything about miracles

Half of the section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" makes absolutely no mention of miracles. Instead, it details Carl Ernst's views on how Muslim authors viewed Muhammad's social and political contributions. Historical views of Muhammad's social and political contributions should be covered in the article, but not in a section on "Miracles in the Muslim biographies". Patiwat 04:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Patiwat, if you read the previous paragraph, it says: "The pre-modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad .... Modern Muslim biographies of Muhammad however...", so there is a change. The next paragraph makes it clear why this change happened. --Aminz 04:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that it is relevant because it's explaining why miraculous explanations of Muhammad have become less important. So, in the sense that it's talking about a negation of the use of miracles in biographies it is about miracles. I think you can surely improve how it's written, but I wouldn't remove it. gren グレン 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How about mentioning the greatest miracles of Muhammad 'The Quran' the only consistent book with no changes since its compilation by sahaba.

Muhammad's attitude

Karl, I don't think that is disputed. --Aminz 02:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving the pictures down

I would like to move the preaching picture image down in front of the beginning of the Qur'an section as that's what the picture is talking about. Is that okay to most of us? --Aminz 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no consensus for that. As the Qur'an is mentioned in paragraph two, and as this is for what Muhammad is most famous, there's no credible objection after topicality. Of course, you might strengthen your argument by removing mention of the Qur'an to the section where you feel it (along with the image) more appropriate.
I did propose a solution which would have kept any depictions out of the lead, but this element of the solution was a compromise, only operative if a plurality of editors opposed to depictions agreed to the other provisions. Even among those editors opposed to religiously-based censorship, it seems I'm a bit isolated - the prevailing opinion might be aptly summed up as, Wikipedia isn't censored, period.Proabivouac 03:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The picture is about Muhammad's preaching which is only indirectly connected to the Qur'an. In front of the Qur'an section, we can have an image of an old-Qur'an. Muhammad, to Muslims, is known for being a messenger of God, not directly for his preaching in front of people. The picture is most relevant to a section on Muhammad's invitation of others to Islam: i.e. the section in the beginning of the Qur'an --Aminz 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there fair use/free content pictures of the JFK autopsy on Wikipedia/The Commons? If so, go propose addition at that page, and see what people say. But just because you find examples of where the rule isn't being enforced, does not mean that the rule does not exist. Comparisons don't add anything; we're supposed to be focusing on the policies and guidelines. --Hojimachongtalk 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad

On Talk:Muhammad saw (an article I listed on afd) a Muslim user expresses concern about the pictures of Muhammad in this article. The trouble is that he feels he cannot contribute to this page as it would cause him to see things he considers sinful and blasphemous. Now wikipedia is not censored, but would it really be censorship to confine the pictures to the Depictions of Muhammad article that we already have? It could certainly be linked to provide that information in a perhaps even more comprehensive way. I'm agnostic on this issue, but I can't help thinking that the pictures of Muhammad are only included here to make a point. Deranged bulbasaur 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that if the conservative element of the Muslim faith feels too aggrieved to contribute to this article on these grounds, it could greatly compound systemic bias. Deranged bulbasaur 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably, the rationale for inclusion is that the pictures represent a part of the cultural entity that is Muhammad, but I find instead that such depictions are a marginal phenomenon. Certianly it should be handled on wikipedia, and that it is, however if Muslims do not percieve this to be important to their faith, perhaps it's culturally insensitive to effectively say: "No, you're wrong, these pictures are important to our outside understanding of your prophet (pictures are part of how *we* do biography), so we'll include them in an article that's ostensibly about your beliefs in spite of you." Deranged bulbasaur 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree on most of the thing you have said. However, he can still contribute here by using some blocker etc. I agree that the pictures represent a minority tradition however they are there presenting to the reader as they represent majority tradition. I have no doubt that they are there in prominent places to make a WP:POINT and violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. However, sadly many people here even after seeing multiple references (that drawing picture of Muhammad among Muslim is very rare trend) are not agreeing to remove picture from the top. --- ALM 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia do ot spreads lies and fictional. i dont see the importancy of the image, all the details should be included in the articles, afterall its wikipedia, not picturepedia. albiru do not live at the time of Muhamaad s.a.w., what make such picture relevent to this article? no censor again? wheres the real picture again?--Towaru 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to deranged bulbosaur, since this debate has stirred up so much discussion, it has been agreed that any removal of the pictures now would be a conscious effort to remove it based on the whims of one group of contributors. The argument you use ("conservative Muslims won't contribute") is flawed, because it's not our job to keep everybody happy. All of the other topics of discussion have been exhuasted, and now the only debate (at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation, at least) is whether or not keeping the pics at the top violates the undue weight policy. --Hojimachongtalk 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, this is not an article about Muslim tradition, but about Muhammad, who's some guy (of variously stated importance, the true value of which I don't know). All the articles about Johnny Nobody or Mr. Important have a photograph, painting, sketch, sculpture (photo thereof) where available, regardless of the importance of that particular image, or the general pictorial representation of that person. WilyD 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It is false to assign motivations in a blanket fashion to all editors who want an image of Muhammad at the lead of this article and doing so runs heavy against the assumption of good faith (a Wikipedia policy). I would argue that there is no doubt that such pointed motivations are in the mix but that at this point it is my impression that the majority of editors wanting a lead image of Muhammad on this article are pushing for that in a good faith way. (Netscott) 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this directed at me? Maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet but I'm not sure how this reponds to my claim or what you're saying here. My (only) point was that Islamic Tradition should not be the sole (or even necessarily principle) guide for this article regarding style and the like. The article should not be trying to represent Islamic Tradition, but to represent Muhammad, who was an actual guy (this is fairly uncontraversial). Every article about Guy X includes a likeness of him if we can obtain it, even when there's no reason to believe it's accurate, as long as it's verifiable. WilyD 15:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I think we should follow the precedent of not showing the likeness that has guided this page for at least three or four years is pragmatic: unlike Guy X, people will constantly be appealing to remove the images of Muhammad, or simply removing them without discussion. That makes this article different than, say, Michael Jackson or John F. Kennedy, and frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article. Some articles are about unique topics. The last time I checked, there was no image of a gaping head wound at John F. Kennedy autopsy and no plans to include them, despite attempts to add the image. Help me out here -- is that censorship? BYT 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"...frankly the perpetual distractions on this article are keeping us from getting good work done on the article."
If that's your concern, why not start by dropping the matter yourself?Proabivouac 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If we removed everything that was a target for POV pushers and vandals, there'd be no encyclopaedia left to build. Some articles just require vigilance as part of the nature of the Wiki - there's not much you can do. WilyD 04:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Kennedy, I can't find any of the image discussion, so I can't comment. But things like Piss Christ definitely have religiously offensive image(s), for instance. Anyways, one cannot fight every battle, and it's more important that Muhammad is a first class article than it is that John F Kennedy Autopsy is a first class article. WilyD 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the point, there isn't any discussion about the JFK pictures at this time. AFAIK, there are not even any pictures such as this which exist on Wikipedia. --Hojimachongtalk 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is perfectly true. We should get off the image already. As i mentioned earlier it is not a major part of the article. So if you dont mind i am going to begin editing this page for information and historical accuracy.(Ssd175 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Go right ahead, just be careful not to do anything inflammatory (anything that could possibly be construed as POV, removal of pics, etc.). --Hojimachongtalk 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about an image that had been drawn base on fiction not fact, and please dont similarize Muhammad s.a.w. with any other human.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Um, why not? Is it not a fact that Muhammad was a human? Was he not born a man? Did he not live as a man? And like all humans, did he not die? Muhammad may hold a very high place in religious history, but he is a human just as you or I are human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
He was a Human, He die as a Human. He still a Human. He is a Human. But unlike any other Human. He is an Religious figure. Hes not like anyother Human. Hes been respect by all Muslim (and orientalist, perhaps). He changed the humanity from bad to good. The value He has, can not be similaries with anyother human.--Towaru 03:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
...Which is your belief system. There are plenty of other religious figures, Muhammad is not the only one, as you imply. Jesus, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Baha'u'llah... the list goes on and on. All of these people have great religious value to a specific group, but are often vilified and hated by other groups. This is why the not censored policy exists, to make sure that opinions (such as yours, or mine, or anybody else's) don't make their way into articles. The facts are what matter to Wikipedia. --Hojimachongtalk 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should we not "similarize" Muhammad with any other human? I'd like to hear your views. --Hojimachongtalk 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the anonymous contributor actually hits the heart of the matter-- the issue is whether we treat Muhammad like we treat everyone else or whether we treat him as a unique individual unlike everyone in Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy 06:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I am quite familiar with this IP's prefix... It is yet another meatpuppet/sock of VirtualEye (Along with User:, User:, and User: All of the IP's trace back to a company called "Wisma Telekom" (running an RIR on them reveals this). --Hojimachongtalk 06:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, u right, thats what i mean. and that picture is base on fictional imagination of an artist. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Hojimachong, if that make somebody or everybody to be virtualeye, why dont u just ban our isp from accessing wikipedia? over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells. and Im not virtualeye. probably u just like somebody who want to destroy other user, just because ppl dont agree with ur POV. --Towaru 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"Making out everybody to be VirtualEye", eh? Sorry, it's sort of suspicious when four editors from the same area and IP prefix (who have never edited Wikipedia before then) come straight to a debate, like they know exactly where it's going to be. And I think you need to review the personal attack policy, because what I did falls more under WP:CIVIL, as making an accusation. --Hojimachongtalk 06:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"over 20% malaysian populasion uses that isp, its hard to tells."
Um, yeah, right...VirtualEye, it's actually quite easy to tell from the character of your posts. Why are you wasting everyone's time?Proabivouac 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

oops sorry did i accuse somebody with anything related to them?im not virtualeye :) . just because or maybe my POV is same with virtualeye (eventhough its not), its doesnt proves anything :). just like that picture its doesnt proves thats Muhammad s.a.w., cool ur head down. and calm down. and think again. cheers. sorry.

sincerely from --Towaru 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) not virtualeye lol.

Stop assuming bad faith I beg you to stop assuming bad faith towards each other. VirtualEye is a Pakistani and came from Germany I believe. Towaru is Indonesian. I beg from you guys to have little bit of following of WP:AGF. Please. Otherwise end these accusations and perform the check user. --- ALM 09:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I totally agree with your call for assuming good faith. However, I would prefer if you did the same. Instead you posted this. Anyway, Towaru's being or not being a sockpuppet of anyone else makes no difference to me: his postings completely miss the point, hashing out the pseudo-objection that this is not actually M., that the painter had not seen M. Well, countless articles on WP do contain such images, a perfectly normal thing and not "fiction". Str1977 (smile back) 09:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Im Malaysian. Sorry. I will ignore these guy for accusing me to be virtualeye next time. Let them be. Sorry. Lets end these.--Towaru 09:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no admin warn these people so that they can stop having bad faith assumption. Where are admins? --- ALM
WP:AGF Applies until it is obvious that one side is not assuming good faith. By using socks (probably not all of the ones accused, but definitely some), the policy states that we must not AGF in unreasonable situations. AGF applies for the first several posts. This mediation/discussion has far surpassed that, and VirtualEye has demonstrated that he is not assuming good faith (by using the sockpuppets). --Hojimachongtalk 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone make 2 versions of this article--one for Muslims who disagree with pictures of Muhammad, and one for people who just want to learn about Muhammad and don't really care about his pictures.

This talk page is an ongoing disgrace

This talk page is an ongoing disgrace and a total waste of time.Proabivouac 09:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fiction vs fact

the picture that were used on this respective article are in fact fictional, whereas Muhammad s.a.w. is a real human. if its okayto put the fictional picture on an articles, its doesnt suit the articles.--Towaru 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word "fictional" is not really accurate here given the context. Words like "representation", "depiction", "portraial", or "artist's rendering" are more appropriate. Obviously, the technology was not available at the time to produce an accurate picture of Muhammad, so what is shown is indicitive of what was available at that time in history. Note that none of the images here depicting Muhammad claim to be 100% accurate. They speceifically state that they are images, depictions, etc. And this is completely with the depictions of countless historical people made throughout Wikipedia, the Web, and accepted scholarly works throughout history.

Please, if you take issue with the act of depicting Muhammad, then state it as such, but don't veil it in misinformation. 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Depictions or fiction, same thing in this context. Both don't have truth in them. 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth - roughly speaking, this is because none of us have the slightest clue what the truth is - about anything... WilyD 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Combining archives

Since archives 14 and 15 are both really short, if nobody objects, I am going to combine them.--Sefringle 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, check the "What links here" page for 15 and fix any links. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Done.--Sefringle 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise on Pictures

  • I am a muslim and pictures of the last prophet Mohammad shouldn't be displayed since they are considered insults to our religion I hope people who can edit Mohammad's page to Remove all picture that displayes him. Thanks for taking your time to read this and hopefully do something about it. Insert non-formatted text here. Edited by Simsimtigger

How about including the paintings that show Muhammad vieled only? I don't see the need to have so many paintings of him, as part of his teaching was not to have any, and that very few existed, and are based on guesswork. The absence of paintings of him is a reflection of the history of the individual, and his impact, so absence itself illustrates the character of Muhammad & his legacy. Paintings of him don't add any value to the article either, it's not an issue of censorship, would you include photographs of gutted bodies after an explosion, in an article about a bombing incident e.g. in Northern Ireland? Aaliyah Stevens 13:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This page's lead image is a stack of corpses, for instance - not censored really means that. WilyD 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found see the voting going on here. --- ALM 13:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No muslim would prefer a picture of Muhammed. Period. For Muslims, are there any grounds warranting a pictoral of any visual effect ? Probably, not. Therefore, it is not a stretch to realize no argument purporting a visual would be accepted by a believer. That eliminates a further fair discussion of the issue, does it not? An encyclopedia [not a religious body], historically, attempts an objectifed perspective on all subjects, those of a religious or cultural nature included. That very point of view, in itself, would prove offensive to faithful adherants. If you're a believer of any religious persona presented, prepare to be misunderstood and bothered. It's just that disturbingly simple. --Curious2george 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please don't make generic attacks against all Muslim editors - some are very reasonable. I'm unconvinced the percentage is any different than non-Muslim editors. WilyD 09:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack? Interpreting Curious2george as an attack on all Muslim editors is misguided. The word editor was never used. Are there Muslims who believe "it is better" to have a pictoral of Muhammed than to not and in the same numbers as non-Muslims? To have such a preferance, is it not contrary to the wish of Muhammed? Would Allah endorse a pictoral of Muhammed? You are convinced that followers of Muhammed and the teachings of the Koran are as fully willing to have a pictoral of Muhammed placed in an encyclopedia as non-Islamic editors? You are convinced that Muslims and non-Muslims alike embrace, and in equal numbers, the willingness to portray varied visual representations of Muhammed? --Curiouscdngeorge 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The merits of undue weight

Having given the Undue Weight argument (advanced primarily by ALM scientist?) a fair bit of thought, as well as the including quote-fictional-unquote images and its WP:V countering, I've come to conclude the following:

  1. Iff (and I believe this to be the case) veiled images are more common historical representations than unveiled images, and iff no unveiled images are believed to be accurate historical likenesses (which I also believe to be the case) then a veiled image is a more appropriate lead, because through WP:V we should see this as a more typical likeness and therefor a more majority point of view on his appearence.
  2. Given that numerous unveiled representations exist, they cannot really be considered a fringe position, and merit significant-ish inclusion.
  3. Given Muhammad's importance outside of Islam (which I won't pin down, but is undoubtably extremely high) some non-Islamic representation(s) of him should be included.
  4. I like wiki-markup too much, but generally I italicised things when I believed they were unclear, but even in the vagueness I think my point makes sense.
  • Then be it resolved, I'm going to rework the image choice/placement a bit. I trust it'll be to the satisfaction of few, but I've come to believe it's actually the proper choice. WilyD 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Point 1, misinterprets our verifiability policy. The threshold for inclusion is not truth, but attribution to a reliable source. If the source says it is a depiction of Muhammad, then the truth means nothing. Wikipedia's job is not to find the truth, but to reflect what reliable sources have to say. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've read this comment several times, and I don't follow at all. Point 1 does not discuss inclusion, so (with regards to it) I don't think anything else you say applies to it. Can you elaborate? WilyD 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I am saying that we do not attempt to determine the truth of a fact on our own for any reason, that is OR. We have attributable sources saying it is a depiction. The fact that it does not necessarily look like him has no bearing, the calligraphy does not look like him, the veil does not look like him. But the picture Image:Maome.jpg for example has a citation saying it is a depiction of him. So where is the undue weight? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Many verifiable sources say the veiled images do look like him - and that's good enough for me, and should be good enough for any Wikipedian. I'm not convinced either way as to whether the caligraphy can reasonably be considered a representation. The undue weight argument is subtle, but the principle does say we should use something more widely considered an accurate representation more prominently. Plus, aethetically, I actually like it better - your milage may vary on that last point. WilyD 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many other pictures with citation then why this picture? What is special about it? --- ALM 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have more veiled images with citation. We have only single freaky non-veiled images with good citation. Right? I have found three images veiled with citation.

They are older and well citied right ?

--- ALM 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with you undue weight claim? The crux of your claim seems to be either that depictions are so super rare that they don't deserve such a mention(no proof for the presented yet), or that it is not an accurate image of him(citation disagrees, the alternative, veiled and calligraphy, are not accurate images either). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have given you so many citation if you close your eyes then what can I do. See these citation and more Blair/Bloom state: "Pictures of Muhammad are extremely rare in Islamic art ..." and there are other citation of BBC given to you Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative [1]. You do not listen to them. --- ALM 16:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And I have given you citations showing that there is a long history of such depictions. I can dig it up from the mediation if you like, I will even find more. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One can find citation for any thing. However it is a fact (see Depiction of Muhammad) page that they are only from 1300 to 1600. (300 years out of 1400 history). Just like BBC says Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.[2] --- ALM 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On the WilyD Solution and his Four Points

The status of the page (as it currently stands at the time of this writing) is entirely consistent with policy as I understand it. I would summarize this solution as:

  • Caligraphy first
  • Veiled right beneath it
  • No other limitations on images (aside from the limits that would be found in any Wikipedia article)

If that's an accurate reflection of what WilyD's saying, then I can't find anything to argue with about it. His version makes ample use of images throughout the article-- so it's hard to accuse it of censorship. His version makes use of a veiled in the lead, so it's hard claim it's giving undue weight. I have no problems with it.

Of course, I'm longwinded, so I can't help myself-- I have to ramble on a bit. I disagree with the theory that that unveiled in lead would, necessarily, constitute undue weight-- but I get the "vibe" from Wily's wording that when he says "undue weight", he's using it only in a very subtle and more-tentative way-- not as an outright prohibition against unveiled images, but just as an argument that maybe could be used to "tip the scales" towards veiled in the lead, in the absence of any other compelling reasons. I can easily live with that. :)

As I've said in the past, I don't think unveiled in lead is any sort of "outright violation of policy". We haven't seen any sources that prove unveiled are particularly uncommon. Unveiled images certainly aren't harder to find online-- I haven't had to go out of my way to look for them: just type in Muhammad into image search and you find plenty. In order for us to claim "undue weight", I would expect us to have some really good evidence that unveiled is an extreme minority-- but no such evidence has presented itself. Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight. NPOV requires us not to give something undue weight. But if the world prefers seeing faces and has devoted a greater attention to the unveiled images, that's completely acceptable. If unveiled images have become the most popular, we should reflect that trend, not try in vain to overcompensate for it.

But at the same time, veiled images are certainly quite prevalent it wouldn't be undue weight if one of those was the lead image either. There are no depictions of Muhammad's face that are historically accurate, so no information is being lost. In the end, it seems like either option is consistent with Wikipedia policy. I'm comfortable veto removals of unveiled images when those removales seem motivated entirely religious concerns, but nothing make the thing WilyD is doing that.

Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png has a lot going for it. It's the most visually appealing to my eyes, but that's worth almost nothing. It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall. It's a veiled image, which gives us a opportunity to talk about that whole debate of Muhammad's Depictions. And because of the veil and the Kaaba, this image is probably the only image that I could have looked at and instantly deduced it was an image of Muhammad.

Image:Maome.jpg, meanwhile, has its advantages. It's the most "historically accurate" of the images we have. Except for trivials like clothing color and halos, it depicts a scene that we are 100% certain actually happened-- Muhammad leading and speaking. The image seems to intentionally depict his followers as ethnically-diverse, which underscores an important theme about Muhammad's life. Muhammad is unveiled, which is univerally agreed to be the more historically accurate rendering.

In the end, either is fine with me, so long as we're not just trying to eradicate unveiled images from the article. --Alecmconroy 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Muhammad walk round with a white handkerchief over his face and his head on fire? TharkunColl 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The flames are like the halos-- I think everyone understands that they're a reflection of the artist's religious beliefs-- i don't lose any sleep worrying people will interpret the image as that of a burn victim. Now, the historical inaccuracy of his wearing the veil definitely is worth weighing, although I think it's within the realm of what could be addressed by a caption. --Alecmconroy 00:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, more or less, although there a few nuances I'll shed light on
  1. I definitely very strongly disagree with this: Even if it were true veiled were historically the norm, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And it's not our job to go out and research the historical prevalence of different artistic styles in order to painstakingly construct a page that perfectly mirrors the net sum total of human artistic history. IF we don't introduce any further bias of our own, we're not giving undue weight - I will say, for the record or whatever, that a "perfect page" will reflect the views/thoughts/whatever of all times equally for something like art (the same does not apply to say, gravity). It's not usually practical, but an encyclopaedia should not reflect just current opinions and thoughts - that would be a newspaper.
  2. As a person, I may believe that unveiled images are better representations of Muhammad than veiled ones, but I certainly do not believe this as a Wikipedia editor. Our policy on verifiability leads me to the conclusion that the most accurate image is the one supported by the most verifiable sources - so if veiled images are more common from verifiable sources, then they're more accurate (in a Wikipedia way). This is really the critical point of reason that leads me to place a veiled image in the lead (plus I really don't care for Maome aethetically).
  3. Generically, I appreciate the point that Images should appear in some proportion (not necessarily linearly) to their prominence in the subject, when not used for specific purposes, but for general illustration. This may be a lot of words to cram so few ideas into. Any noteworthy genre of image should have at least one representation - for instance, I'm fairly sure the article really needs a non-Islamic image or two - for the European/Western cultural development, Muhammad is one of the may ten most important empire rulers/builders - he's an immensly important figure in the west as the builder of a (historically very important) empire - this should be reflected, somehow.
  4. I'm not sure I agree with this point: It's an image of "Muhammad the Religious Figure", rather than "Muhammad the Historical Ruler"-- and that is probably a good thing since his religious role is the one that's had the greatest effect overall. either. I've started to suspect it may not really be true, and that it's certainly not true to the level people seem to believe it is, nor to the level the article represents it as.

Anyways, you're milage may vary - I was trying to find a version of the article that reasonably represented the concerns of everyone involved within the context of the relevent guidelines and policies, within the context of providing readable encyclopaedic information. WilyD 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling you and I have very similar thinking styles-- there are some excellent points there.
The weighting of the past vs the present is a really interesting theoretical question. In articles on science or math, for example, we would obviously be 100% weighted to the present. For the right historical articles, we might could see something weighted almost exclusively to the past. It's hard to come up with a good rule of thumb. Best I can come up with is to use the analogy of a teacher-- drawing upon whatever images would best explain the subject itself without grossly misrepresenting other subjects So, for example, for Muhammad, we might draw upon images which are less "historically representative" than ones we would use for "Islamic Art" for example. Interesting question-- I'll have to think on that whole 'past-vs-present weighting' thing.
Normally, I would tend to agree that Veiled and Unveiled were equally supported by verifiable sources, regardless of my personal preferences. But I think that even the original artists and othes who make use of veiled sources agree that the veiled images are less accurate than unveiled. Sorta like George Washington chopping down a cherry tree-- it's widely attested, but I don't think the sources say its accurate. On the other hand-- a simple line in the caption can fix it. On the other hand, sources similarly agree that the faces shown in the unveiled images are inaccurate. On the whole, unveiled comes closer to approximating what Muhammad would have actually looked like-- but that doesn't have to be definitive.
When you talk about Muhammad's important to the non-muslim world, I definitely agree. Some people basically have argued that Islamic imaging practices should apply to Muhammad, which I think missed the point that Muhammad, as an actual historical individual, doesn't "belong" to any one religion or culture-- whereas say, Lord Ganesha might reasonably 'belong' to hinduism for example.
All and all, the page is really shaping up. Aside from the block of editors who just want to have all the images deleted for personal reasons, the rest of the editors seems to be converging on the current solution. Thank you for your help with it. --Alecmconroy 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism versus vilification

According to critic article, "critic is a person who offers reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation." - A dictionary also writes "The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works."

While "vilify" means "To make vicious and defamatory statements about."

Now, Esposito, Watt, Schiemmel all says Muhammad has been vilified in West while Muslims mythified Muhammad.

E.g. Watt says:

"Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad. We saw above how this has come about. For centuries Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, since Christendom was in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in power to the Muslims. The Byzantine empire, after losing some of its best provinces to the Arabs, was being attacked in Asia Minor, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily. Even before the Crusades focused attention on the expulsion of the Saracens from the Holy Land, medieval Europe was building up a conception of ' the great enemy '. At one point Muhammad was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the twelfth century the ideas about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading armies were such travesties that they had a bad effect on morale. Practical considerations thus combined with scholarly zeal to foster the study and dissemination of more accurate information abo Muhammad and his religion.

Since that time much has been achieved, especially durin the last two centuries, but many of the old prejudices linge on..."

--Aminz 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to my dictionary: "Fable" is "A falsehood; a lie." but "Theory" is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

So, they are not equivalent. --Aminz 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To characterize anyone's criticism of or position on Muhammad as "vilification" or "old prejudices" as you have done in your most recent edits is not neutral. I'll revert your latest edits per WP:NPOV. -- Karl Meier 16:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages don't have to conform to WP:NPOV or most other policies...WilyD 18:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course not, but my above comments was also about Aminz's most recent edit to the article, and not his comments on the discussion page. -- Karl Meier 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources say "VILLIFY"; that's different from "CRITICIZE". "FABLE" is different from "THEORY". --Aminz 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am aware that you are great at finding sources that advance your personal point of view. The problem is that your personal point of view is not NPOV. Your sources might say "vilify" and call specific positions ""old prejudices" but Wikipedia shouldn't make any such judgments. Read WP:NPOV and edit according to that policy. -- Karl Meier 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me chime in: Aminz, you are saying that criticizing and vilifying are not the same thing. You are correct in that assessment. But then you turn around and treat them as synonyms in the article. My edit tried, among other things, to make clear that there were both criticism and vilification in the Middle Ages. Naturally, since a writer who vilifies also criticizes, the criticism is a more frequent phenomenon. Hence I have written: "has often criticized and sometimes v"
Furthermore, "The medieval scholars and churchmen" makes the following a general statement about all scholars and churchmen, whereas most didn't care to write about Islam or M. I recently peeped into Peter the Venerable's writings about Islam and this is what he complains about: that noone else wants to tackle writing about/against Islam. Our sentence here should either be prefaced with "Some" or with out an article.
As for the "666" fable. I don't know from what obscure source this comes from (I am referring to the medieval writer who said this) but I for my part have never heard of it. That doesn't mean that it is inaccurate (though I could think of other reasons behind such a figure), only that it is obscure. I see, obscure as it is, that it has a part in article focusing on M's image in the medieval west, but: this is the overview article about M and this has no place in here. The article doesn't lose anything by dropping it, unless this passage tries to make the medieval critics look like fools, in other words: to vilify them.
Ah, and Aminz: name calling such as religious censorship are not quite helpful, especially when inaccurate. Str1977 (smile back) 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, many of such fables were created during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Medieval times. For a comparatively more positive view of Muhammad ("after reformation" as Lewis puts it) [8]
Still, this modified view is described as a vilifying Muhammad. --Aminz 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I think I shouldn't have written the "religous censorship" bit. --Aminz 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, I am glad that you take that last bit back.
The question is not whether many fables were created but how representative they are of medieval writing about Islam and how notable the fable is. The 666 bit is IMHO not notable and actually not needed for classifying Islam as the Antichrist (let me state that I don't agree with it but I can see how one can come to this conclusion), which BTW is not a fable but an assessment in a certain theological-religious framework.
You have not answere my query about your practically (maybe unintentionally) identifying criticism with vilification. Both were present in the MA.
Your link doesn't provide anything useful. Maybe you shouldn't be googeling so much. The page contains "villified" once and "Muhammad" several times but a whole lot more and nobody I hope advocates including this in an endorsing fashion into this (or any other) article.
From my observation (which doesn't matter much article-wise) I can not confirm that the reformation as such has resulted in a "more positive view" of M. (leaving aside hypocritical statements by Luther about the Pope and the Sultan). Str1977 (smile back) 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Str1977, Please take a look at pages 45 and 46 of Lewis's book here (last paragraph) [9].
I have read these information from various places and have no doubt that I am correct on this point. --Aminz 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Aminz, I have read and have found nothing in there that's disputed between us. Though I think the Mahound thing is overdone (but maybe that is a phenomenon of the English-speaking world), you could very well use the first sentence of that paragraph as an attributed quote. This is much better than the "fables". Str1977 (smile back) 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The word "fables" has too much moral baggage associated with its use; I think another word is more appropriate. - Merzbow 22:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, I also suggest that you read (if you haven't done so yet) this article by Watt, which I found on the al-Kindi article. Apart from minor squibbles (re the Crusades and the concept of "protected" "minorities"), I think it is a good outline of Muslim-Christian Encounters. Given your record regarding Watt, I think will appreciate this. Str1977 (smile back) 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a quick look. Does he disagree with what I have said? --Aminz 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Since when could a "source" not disagreeing be the basis for including a statement? The thing is that you beloved Watt manages to writes an article without referring to this silly fable. Str1977 (smile back) 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) PS. Does the word mythify exist? I have found no evidence for that. Str1977 (smile back) 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This Edit War Should Stop

Really, 'Islam' actually means Peace, so why can't we keep it like that? The users who want the picture, I totally know what your saying, but it's really offensive to Muslims and hurts them. The veiled picture of Muhammad (PBUH) is alright I guess, since his face is covered. But the one where his face is completely exposed isn't so nice, and is very offensive. If your so concerned about how he looks, why don't you give him a physical description or something? All I'm saying is that this edit war really, really sucks and we should stop fighting. Iman S1995 14:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Islam, means submission to God.
If you despise this edit war, why don't you stop it? Str1977 (smile back) 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Your proposal is not in line with our policies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The arguments you make have been discussed on this page already, multiple times, in great detail. Archives 6 and 7 may shed light on this for you. --Hojimachongtalk 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
And of course, members of the "anti-Muslim brigade" reply first as usual. Some things never change ... 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that speaks for our dedication to the subject, which some people (up at Talk:Muhammad#One click to the Pic) seem to think we don't have. And we're not anti-Muslim. --Hojimachongtalk 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins, if you're going to be using anon IP's, please take care that you don't say or do anything you wouldn't be willing to say or do under your regular username (e.g. vote-stacking, personal attacks, vandalism.)Proabivouac 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no clue of what you are trying to say ..... :D 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad and the Jews

Arrow, we are explaning Muhammad's view of Jews and its development. That Christians and Jews had disagreements isn't blaming them. It is sourced. --Aminz 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "when" blames the Jews and Christians. Arrow740 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Encyclopedia of Religion says that Muhammad was shocked to see that the community of one God is divided into warring sects because of a few theological disagreements. So does Encyclopedia of Islam says that Muhammad's view regarding Jews and Christians changed upon informing the internal disagreements between Jews and Christians and within themselves. How are Christians and Jews blamed here? --Aminz 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea of a "community of one God" became dar al-Islam versus dar al-harb pretty quickly. This is saying that they were responsible for Muhammad's negative opinion of them. In fact they weren't; they were minding their own business and he took it upon himself to butcher most of the Jewish males he encountered and enslave all the women to concubinage and so forth. It is not fair to his victims to blame them for Muhammad's ideas about them. Arrow740 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
When I look at the disputed passage:
Muhammad referred to Christians and Jews, sharing the same scriptural tradition as his, as "People of the Book". Muhammad's favourable attitude towards Christians and Jews started becoming negative in late Meccan period when he became more aware of antipathy between Jews and Christians and disagreements between members of the same religion.
I have two issues:
1) It is stylistically bad to start the section like that.
2) It is indeed pushing a POV, that Muhammad's attitude changed because of the antipathy between Jews and Christians. Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet. Also, if M. was so concerned about the community of God divided why did he create a third grouping instead of joining one or the other. It is indeed unacceptable to blame Jews and Christians for divisions.
Str1977 (smile back) 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"Fact of the matter is, that he changed it when other would not accept him as prophet."
Indeed, this is also easily sourced, as we are well aware. My impression is that this is be the majority view. Even Haykal concurs. The question is, do we wish to launch into an extended discussion on why Muhammad's attitudes changed? If so, then it should be balanced and appropriately placed.Proabivouac 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Norman Stillman also agrees "This attitude was already evolving in the third Meccan period as the Prophet became more aware of the antipathy between Jews and Christians and the disagreements and strife amongst members of the same religion."
Encyclopedia of Religion also confirms that.
Then what's the point? Now it is POV-pushing?! --Aminz 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, can you please clarify what does "It is stylistically bad to start the section like that" actually mean? Or Arrow740 thinks it is bad because it is blaming Jews and Christians for having disputes! I hope that doesn't classify as religous censorship. --Aminz 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV, to claim that as the sole and main reason for M's change of mind. Stylistically, it is better to first relate what happened and than give an analysis of the possible reasons (note the plural). Str1977 (smile back) 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It is far from apparent that Stillman means Muhammad became more hostile towards Jews and Christians because he became aware of interreligious conflicts. This idea would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom that Muhammad disparaged Chrisitans and, especially, Jews for rejecting his claims to prophethood. The passage in question is not entirely clear to me on its own, and it cannot be included unless we know more about Stillman's line of reasoning. Beit Or 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
To Str, "Just because Stillman and the EoR say that doesn't make it any less POV". I will attribute it to them.
To Beit Or, you have access to Encyclopedia of Islam. --Aminz 08:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Why are you removing sourced material Arrow? --Aminz 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that edit summaries are not a reliable source for my views? Arrow740 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not understanding why Aminz is being reverted. These are verifiable quotes aren't they? (Netscott) 06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you were completely obscuring Stillman's point. The full quote is balanced. I've never seen such blatant cherry-picking to advance a POV before. Arrow740 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My advice: {{sofixit}}, don't just blindly (and easily) revert Aminz's edit out... add to it what needs to be added so that the quote is balanced. (Netscott) 07:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you don't stop being rude, do you? --Aminz 07:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden table of contents

I see that Netscott has recently auto-hidden the table of contents on this article and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. What do people think? Is it an improvement over the versions with the standard layout: [10][11]?

My initial reaction is to be a little hesistant-- it seems like the standard layout works well. There's something to be said for inter-article layout consistency. And in general, I usually don't want to have to click on something in order to see valuable parts of the article. But that's just my initial impression. Have we hidden TOCS elsewhere? What do other eyes think. --Alecmconroy 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Plus I don't see any alternative that could look any better. - Merzbow 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to hesitate about removing it if you feel it's a distraction User:Alecmconroy... I'm just BOLDly putting Template:TOChidden out there gradually and seeing how folks are responding to it. So far it's only been removed from one article that I have placed it on (that I have noticed) but concurrently placed on another (and some user's are putting it on their talk pages). (Netscott) 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad died in 666

I've read a lot of material, but I've never seen the claim before that someone claimed that he actually died in 666. I'm suspicious of this claim, I'd like to see it quoted and cited. Thanks. Wjhonson 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the reason I'm suspicious is the use of "666" as a year. I'm not sure that someone living in 666 would actually understand that they were, and that typically *years* were expressed more in the form of "in the 8th year of the reign of King Gundapharas" and so on. Wjhonson 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a fable. He didn't die in 666. --Aminz 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that. I'm asking for what the citation is for the *claim* that he did, as was posted to the article. That claim has no citation and it's suspicious. Wjhonson 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And, as I stated above, the "fable", even if actually really brough up (for which we lack the reference), is in no way representative for how M was viewed in the Middle Ages. Str1977 (smile back) 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas

Although I do understand that this has had a spotty history of controversy here, I think there is some room to *mention* that this work exists and speaks of Muhammad. Whether it's spurious, fraudulent, or any other argument doesn't really speak to the fact that it *should* be mentioned in some context, even if only due to that very controversy. "A more detailed mention of Muhammad can be found in the Gospel of Barnabas, the earliest version of which has been traced to the late 16th Century. Gospel of Barnabas online Wjhonson 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, mentioning that the work exists, in no way asserts that its useful, factual, non-POV or any other thing. It merely asserts that it exists and mentions Muhammad and is notable. Wjhonson 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many completely ridiculous (yet sourcable) things have been said about Muhammad over the past thirteen centuries, and how long (and bizarre) this article would be if we listed them all?Proabivouac 08:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like what's in GOB is ridiculous or bizarre. But it does seem notable. Wjhonson 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a Renaissance-era forgery, and of basically no importance to this article.Proabivouac 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac: i totally agree with wjohnson,that was my point all definitely went overboard.besides,we are not citing "ridiculous (yet sourcable) things" as you barnabas still has followers and his churches are still alive in u.s-there's one beside my place actually-regardless of what you may believe.if something doesn't make sense to you then know that it doesnt necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to everyone as well.i don't know how religious you are but if you are christian then remember this:jesus(peace be upon him) was never hateful or rude as much as you are,you should be ashamed of yourself to be that biased.i would really appreciate if you can take users wjohnson or netscott as an exmaple on how to talk with others.hopefully US muslims can teach how to follow a loving person like jesus.its 3 am now i will hopefully attend to this laterGrandia01 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)..

Do not speculate about my religious beliefs, for it is incivil, or discuss yours, for they are completely off topic to building a neutral encyclopedia.
Just because your forgery is called "St. Barnabas" doesn't mean that institutions named after Barnabas follow it.Proabivouac 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Gospel of Barnabas is relevant to this article. What might be relevant is the belief of Jewish communities in Arabia before Muhammad that God would choose a prophet from Arabia (though he was supposed to be a Jew and not a Gentile). --Aminz 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with aminz.that doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.the reason why i want to include the gospel of st barnabas is because he is still looked at with respect from christians and he still has followers.i don't see any reason why he shouldn't be included.Wjhonson clarified my point.please help me with any tips on how to include my entry as well as include yours.thank you Grandia01

Proabivouac: 1)thank you for teaching me how to talk to others,i always value other's opinions and advices.i just hope that you can also direct your precious advices to yourself as well.hopefully that will make you more respectful to others as well,even those who don't necessarilly agree with you. 2)so what do you think about my entry and Aminz??or are we going to just keep on entering and deleting entries randomly forever??hope to get a constructive opinion from you this time... Grandia01

Ahmed Deedat was not any kind of reputable scholar, either academic or religious, nor a respectable mainstream interpreter of either the Qur'an or renaissance-era forgeries, but a proselytizer in the mold of Zakir Naik. His talking points are about as relevant here as are those of Jimmy Swaggart, whom he debated: that is, they're not. Perhaps another article List of marginal views about Muhammad would provide a good home for this material. Otherwise, it should appear only in the Ahmed Deedat article.Proabivouac 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should mention the gospel of Barnabas' relevance to Muhammad. Doesn't matter if one editor thinks it's forgery or not, that's just their opinion. 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

my question is not whether to include the gospel of barnabas entry or not.but rather how to write it.i agree with Proabivouac's point of mentioning ahmed deedat's analysis in his page but what of the gospel of barnabas thing??i also agree that it is definitely relevant to muhammad's page.regardless of what he or anyone else thinks.can someone please help me finalize this before i-or anyone else-enter it again??also,Proabivouac,please let me know of any recommended edits that you may want to include,i will listen and consider any opinions you may have.thank you

It's just fine to write on the Gospel of Barnabas. It just doesn't belong here. Frotz 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Frotz and Proverbiouac; I know this sounds odd, but the Gospel of Barnabas is, um, not a very verifiable source. There are many forgeries attributed to some prophet or another; we can't list them all. Patstuarttalk·edits 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That isn't what verifiable means in wikicontext. Verifiable only means that the average editor could go look it up themselves and proves that it says whatever it says. That is, you can verify the quote or summation matches the source. Verifiability says nothing about whether the source is truthful.Wjhonson 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides here,but Wjhonson so far has provided the strongest now what??how should i post the gospel of barnabas entry again??if so,can anyone provide any suggestions on hwo to do so so i can write an entry that everyone agress with??i already withdrew a lot of my previous ideas so i can be in agreement with everyone.please be fair and open-minded.i believe that i've done my part-that is to do my best to write an entry that everyone could agree on-and i hope that i find appreciative ears...Grandia01 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Patstuart didn't quite state it correctly. The reason why the Gospel of Barnabas does not belong here is that it's a forgery and therefore not a source of prophecy, as you suggest it is. The fact we can point at the document in a museum or library is not relevant. One can also point to documents claiming that Jesus was a space alien. Note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (also a forgery) is not mentioned in Judaism. Frotz 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not only is it a forgery (which is the main point), it is also a forgery not very relevant to the person of Muhammad or to Islam. The former lived in the 7th century, the latter started at that time, almost 1400 years ago. The "Gospel of Barnabas" was forged around 1500, more than 700 years later, when Muhammad was long dead and Islam had fully formed. Or can anyone tell me the impact of the GoB on Islam? Str1977 (smile back) 09:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys: 1)for the millionth time,just because this gospel is looked at as mere forgery by some doesn't mean that it is so in the eyes of everyone else. 2)please,provide any useful advice in re-constructing this entry so everyone else can be happy about it. 3)again,i've done my part of listening to your advices and actually took them into consideration.can someone do the same??4)Dear Patstuart:we have discussed this before and it was decided to omit this entry for the time being.but i still didn't get any tips from you on how to make this entry agreeable with everyone??i respect your character and i hope to get some sincere advice.and I thank you for your discussion with us so far.hope to get more ideas from you.5)last but not least,none of you editors represent ALL Christians therefore you can't say that it is definitely a forgery.even if it is forgery in your eyes,it is still notable to mentioned because of other’s different views concerning all this(and-obviously-no they are not merely a minority).thank you for your kind attention everyone and i apologize in advance just in case if i offended anyone,please know that i didn't mean to...Thank youGrandia01 07:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "represent[ing] ALL Christians," or anyone's religious beliefs. It should be obvious by now that there is no consensus, and likely will never be a consensus, to include this marginal material in this article. My advice, therefore, is to write about this in places where it is accepted as sufficiently topical.Proabivouac 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
And where would you suggest that??Grandia01 02:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Everyone,i will take Proabivouac's suggestion and start a marginal new article titled: "various other views of muhammad" where all editors can include as many views of muhammad as possible.agreed??Grandia01 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews

That section is badly written and takes Muhammad's side. Arrow740 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Should I tag it with {{sectionrewrite}} or {{balance}}?--Sefringle 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
{{sectionrewrite}} inserted. BTW, I don't feel the section is really necessary, as it is a detour from the chronological layout of the article. Beit Or 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree; although some of the material is fine, it should be presented chronologically along with the rest of the biography.Proabivouac 18:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I remember you welcomed having this section? --Aminz 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The material is fine. I am only saying that the biography portion should proceed chronologically rather than thematically. As it's from the same general period, all the material will wind up nearby the rest anyhow. Generally, the article should be structured as follows: I. lead, II. sources, III. biography, IV. legacy (including "views").Proabivouac 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that disagree with what is written here? --Aminz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state why you think the section needs re-write? --Aminz 21:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So Proabivouac, you only disagree with the order/placement of the section, not the content itself?Bless sins 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This section contains many errors and does not contain the Islamic version of events and is therefore biased and not neutral. It does not explain that the reason that the Jews were expelled from Madina was that they had killed a Muslim. A Jewish man nailed a Muslim woman's clothing to a table in the market place, when she walked away her clothes fell off her and she became naked. In the ensuing confrontation, a Muslim man was killed by Jews, and because of this incident the Jews were expelld from Madina. This incident was the climax of a series of events which showed the Jews growing ever more hostile to the Muslims of Madina. This version of events is documented by Islamic scholars, I remember reading it in Najeebabadi's 'History of Islam' Volume 1, published by Darussalam. (comments by User:

Why is this article locked

Why is it locked/protected from editing? And if yes, where is the tag? 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing of this article is restricted to established editors in order to protect it from vandalism.Galanskov 07:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the small padlock in the corner ({{sprotect2}} instead of {{sprotect}}). --cesarb 00:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So called "Images of Prophet" are NOT part of islam

These images are Not part of islam but actually they are part of middle eastern and persian art traditions. These images cannot be linked with islam. There are many saints of islam who came after Muhammad to preach islam , these images could represent them but not Muhammad. There is simply no evidence in that case. If you have evidence you can show it up here Funnypop12 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First, this is not an article on Islam. Secondly, there are reliable source that we attribute the claim that these are images of Muhammad, see the citations. Details are at Muhammad/images#References. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Age of Muhammad at his death

The numbers don't quite add up in the article. Apparently he was born circa 570 AD, died in June 632 and was aged 63 at his death. Which is the dodgy number? --Spondoolicks 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that circa 570 AD could mean he was born about 570. So if he were born in 568 or 569 you could still say he was born circa 570. On the other hand, it does seem a bit strange one would know the age and year of death so accurately but not the year of birth (although then again he could have either been born in 568 or 569 from the details we know. One more thing, if the age were given from Islamic sources it could be based on the Islamic calendar. Of course, if this is the case we should make this clear Nil Einne 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The Islamic calendar was not in use prior to 622, even in a proleptic sense, so it should make no difference. Perhaps the confusion as to his year of birth has been caused by people not realising this. Over sixty years, the difference between a lunar and a lunisolar calendar adds up to two whole years. TharkunColl 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that he was 63 years old, but those 63 years may have been measured in an old style which could correspond to about 61 of our years? Where are we getting this figure of 63 anyway? Is it from a contemporary source, an islamic tradition or just a wikipedia editor getting their sums wrong? --Spondoolicks 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what the source for his age is, but if it is contemporary, it would be measured almost entirely in lunisolar years. The intercalary month was not suppressed until Muhammad's final decade, which only makes a difference of three months at most. Measuring 63 from AD 632 takes us to AD 569. The same period measured on a purely lunar calendar (as the Muslims now use) would be 65 years. What I'm suggesting is that some people counted backwards incorrectly using lunar years, as if the Islamic calendar was already in force. This would take us to AD 571, hence the confusion. TharkunColl 19:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All of these sources confidently assert that he was 63: [12] [13] [14]. While these make a similar statement that he was 62: [15] [16] [17]. There seem to be fewer sources saying 61 or 64, at least in the first couple of pages of a Google search. I've found one for 61 [18] and one for 64 [19]. There seems to be some uncertainty here and quite what all these supposedly reliable sources are doing giving a definite figure when it is far from definite I'm not sure. Anyway I've taken it out of the article. --Spondoolicks 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I have presented the details instead of arguing whether it was a vilification or a criticism. --Aminz 08:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

There has been remarkably low edit summary usage for long-time editors. Aminz, Arrow740, TharkunColl, others have done it in the last 50 edits. It really helps to make clear what your edits are doing for the article. gren グレン 08:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay :) --Aminz 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Arrow740 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad the reformer

I was wondering in what sense it is unbalanced. --Aminz 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive for Talk:Muhammad/images

Since the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images is over, can we move it to an archive? Can we somehow do the same with Talk:Muhammad/Mediation?--Sefringle 23:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say just archive them both in place. (Netscott) 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
they are now archived--Sefringle 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the dispute/discussion over the images in this article resolved? I'm new at this and I'm trying to figure out how that long discussion ended (if it did). On those two pages and this one, I don't see a clear consensus or agreed compromise regarding the images - was one reached? If so, where and how? Thanks 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
there was a clear consensus to have the images as they are now.--Sefringle 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apart from the new/anon Muslims who come and complain every once and awhile there is a consensus. Zazaban 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
A consensus that took a lot of talk, one that is based on policy. I am very glad that we got this figured out(for now). HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Meaning and use of term "Founder"

I am not a linguist and I may be wrong in what I state here but I would like to know if what I am saying is valid.

The biography on muhammad starts with the sentence

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ Muḥammad; also Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamet, and other variants)[2][3] was the historical founder of the religion of Islam, considered by Muslims to be the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: ألله Allah).[4].

I am debating if the words "historical founder" reflect correct meaning. When I read these words and may be many other people, it imparts a meaning that Muhammad started the religion of Islam. This could mean that it is not a God sent religion and something invented/created by Muhammad himself. If this is the meaning that one gets from this sentence then I believe it is is a big problem. The synonym of the word Founder in the MS office thesaurus are creator, originator, initiator, organizer.

Based on the above, I feel that it would be better if we can redo the begining sentence and remove the word founder and write something like

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ Muḥammad; also Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamet, and other variants)[2][3] was choosen by Allah as the Rasool (prophet) to deliver and implement Allahs message (the deen/religion of Islam) and considered by Muslims to be the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: ألله Allah).[4].

The above sentence will imply that Muhammad did not start Islam on his own- he was choosen by Allah and the message that Muhammad delivered was not of his own whim or creation but the exact words of Allah communicated to Muhammad through Angel Gibrail.

I am sure I can come up with a more accurate sentence. Please let me know if the administrators and other more knowledgeable people agree with my request —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhan7425 (talkcontribs) 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Unless Muhammad was lying of course, or suffering from delusions. We simply cannot know, and therefore cannot take sides. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and nowhere is this more important than in matters of religion. TharkunColl 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl , what u were saying is a completely bias and it isnt NPOV at all, definitely a POV of you, can you prove it? please wikipedia need reliable source not exactly NPOV without citation from reliable source, and the Al-Quran is the most reliable source in the World. It is true that Muhammad s.a.w. did not create Islam and we can prove it, Islam was the religion of Prophet Ibrahim and All other prophet before Muhammad s.a.w. owh I just noticed that Akhan7425,thanks.. damn we so fokus on the picture forgot about the article itself. --Towaru 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
"the Al-Quran is the most reliable source in the World." Talk about neutrality now. Beit Or 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
ofcouse, its neutral... what would you aspect? the Quran has never changed from the beginning. what was the neutrality are you talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towaru (talkcontribs) 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
The Koran has never changed from the beginning? What makes you think it wasn't a lie, or a delusion, from the start? TharkunColl 23:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be excellent if we could keep our opinions about religion to ourselves. Wikipedia is not a forum from which to proclaim our religious beliefs. To do so unsolicited is rude, and invites rebuke by those who do not share them. The ensuing arguments create a negative atmosphere, lead to hard feelings and do nothing to improve the encyclopedia.
Akhan7425, it should go without saying that our personal views do not belong in the articles, but as it obviously does not, I direct you to WP:NPOV.Proabivouac 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
TharkunColl, obiviously what you are talking is to denial any record of history, if so every article about history in wikipedia are all fake and lies right? (if you says so u MUST denial holocaust too right? because the victim maybe having delusion on the holocaust too) and every prophets that come to ask all human kind to good deed as a person whos having delusion and a liar. and I dont really think we having forum here, its a disscusion on this article (just like the voting system but its a poll). "To do so unsolicited is rude, and invites rebuke by those who do not share them. " we are talking about fact here, and i do wonder why some articles in wikipedia do rebuke by those who do not share them but we cant do anything about it, its because they says its NPOV, lol. and wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, dont try to assume bad faith against other, please. we are try to improve the article.sorry. --Towaru 13:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I find your remarks comparing me to a Holocaust denier extremely offensive. Just because the Koran exists, and has existed in the same form for hundreds of years, doesn't make it true. If so, then you must also accord the same truthfulness to every other religious text that has ever been produced. Do you believe the Bhagavad Gita is true, for example? TharkunColl 14:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
sorry,I had no idea whats that before, and I dont really understand whats that have to do with our disscusion, first u says that Muhammad s.a.w. was having delusion and maybe a liar, then you thought that holocaust does happen, thats completely contrary to ur 1st statement that "Unless Muhammad was lying of course, or suffering from delusions. We simply cannot know, and therefore cannot take sides. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and nowhere is this more important than in matters of religion." , then simply you donno if holocaust did happen and all the other prophets are maybe or not exist at all (probably im just doing some allegation here but it all according to your post). do you need me to cite something from the Quran to support that Quran had never change from the beginning, I am sorry for making such stupid allegation about you being holocaust denial-er. and sorry again.--Towaru 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the Holocaust and the Koran is that we have millions of independent witnesses for the Holocaust, in terms of people, documentation, film, etc., and the fact that it happened within living memory also helps quite a lot. For the Koran, we have precisely one witness to its veracity, namely the Koran itself. So no, please don't bother attempting to prove the Koran by means of quotes from the Koran, they are truly worthless in this regard. Now please tell me whether you believe the Bhagavad Gita to be correct - it describes all the different Hindu gods and goddesses and what they did. It is a religious text that has existed for much longer than the Koran. TharkunColl 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about eh? theres about 1/3 of world population can be a witnessess that Quran had never change, and holocaust got a witness ? and a millions of independent witnesses? really? have u meet one? , i do have meet many witnesses that Quran had never change from the beginning. but have u ever meet that holocaust witness, even once in ur life? you have got to be kidding. probably u heard that from the jews themselve right? how can you reject citation from the Quran and accept the witnesses from the jews ? and why should i care for Bhagavad Gita?, eh but do the hindus has their own religious text? i thought the hindu only have veda text not too long that is PROBABLY during the conquest of india by aryan suprior race. I dont even believe in such thing, and please i do not live at the that time so i wont answer u, but I still the witness that Quran had never change from the beginning.--Towaru 16:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly know if a book has never changed simply by reading it? But in any case, I have never disputed that the Koran has never changed - it could easily have remained exactly the same as when it was first written in the 7th century for all I care. If it was trash to begin with then the fact that it hasn't changed is completely irrelevant. As for the Bhagavad Gita, or indeed any religious text, they have all remained unchanged, just like the Koran, and so by your logic must all be equally true. Incidentally, do you think the Jews are lying about the Holocaust? TharkunColl 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

you have got to be kidding, i have no right to says if the jews realy lies or not, because its not me to decide that. and Did you read the Quran yet? --Towaru 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read part of the Koran, but - in my humble opinion - I found it to be a turgid and chaotic mass of incoherent ramblings. TharkunColl 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
oh well, if thats your idea of Quran, i cant do anything. and do remember that the Quran and the translation are two different things.--Towaru 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK...let's get back on topic. Why not just edit the proposed sentence to read: "Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎ Muḥammad; also Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohamet, and other variants)[2][3] according to Islamic tradition, was chosen by Allah as the Rasool (prophet) to deliver and implement Allahs message (the deen/religion of Islam) and considered by Muslims to be the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: ألله Allah).[4]."--TryingToBeUnbiased

Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Check this out and may be this page can be tagged so that Wikipedians on this project can look into it. It can be tagged so by using {{globalize|April 2007}} tag. Vjdchauhan 18:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

We muslims believe that the Quraan is true because prophet Muhammed told us so. We have proofs that he wasn't a liar. Even thedisbeliever's of Quraish called him "The Truthful One" 40 years before he became a prophet. We Believe the prophet, and we believe in Allah (god, urs and mine). There have been so many attempts to try and change the Quraan, but have they ever succeded? I dont think so. But as u can see and probably already know that the Bible has been changed by men over the past 1000 years. They either change something or omit it. But nevertheless muslims believe that the bible is the word of God. If you have actualy read the Quraan and haven't been moved by its words then that means you haven't understood anything dude

POV and bias

I think this article contains a lot of bias points :

  • firstly it describes Muhammad as historical founder of Islam ... That is clearly a non-islamic viewpoint ... look to the introduction of Jesus and Moses :

Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity

Moses (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה Moshe Standard Mošé Tiberian Mōšeh; Arabic: موسى, Mūsā; Ge'ez: ሙሴ Musse) was an early Biblical Hebrew religious leader, lawgiver, prophet, military leader and historian

we havn't descriped jesus and moses as founders of their religions .. could somebody tell me why muhammad is then founder of islam .

Second point : the Pictures which are claimed as depiction of muhammad .. it is known as it is fictional art began in persia in arounf 15th century ... so why we have to insert them here in spite that majority of islam refuses them and refuses the depiction as whole . furthermore you put a clear anti-islamic picture which is depiction in the supreme court of USA .. I think this picture is so important and it worthes a separate article about it as it represents the western viewpoint about Muhammad ... but surely it doesn't belong to the official page of Muhammad ... Have we put an Anti-christ pictures in Jesus article .

I don't support censorship but such images here in this article will give totally wrong idea about the nature of article wich should be factual refrenced article about muhammad ... those images belong to article could be named Histroy of depiction of Muhammad for Example

--Chaos 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This isn't an article about the Islamic view of Muhammad, but the overall human knowledge of him. Since Muhammad is one of the more important figures in Western history, this article needs to have significant exploration of the western view of him if it's ever to be a NPOV. To suggest the Supreme court depiction is anti-Islam is clearly false - at best, it's uninterested in Islam, but it's probably far more pro-Islam than that. Including images where verifiable is the standard practice.

You second point misses the critical element - Muhammad was an actual guy, and nobody disputes this. The existence of Jesus and Moses is disputed, so they can't be straightforwardly described as founding a religion that exists. Ignoring, of course, that Paul, not Jesus is the founder of Christianity. WilyD

Interestingly, he's (Paul) in the 'founders of religion' category but is not called a founder of Christianity in the article, only an early Christian missionary Nil Einne 17:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ok but I suggest that we separate all images depicting Muhammad in one section dealing with this Issue : the persian depiction of muhammad and then the european depiction of Muhammad or let's say the westeren viewpoint of Muhammad .. That would be more acceptable systemically ... What do you think ? I think using such disputable images along the whole article doesn't give any factual clearance for the sections above --Chaos 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as all the evidence goes, the images are not disputable from what I can see. See verifiability. Generically, confining all the images to one section results in a terrible layout and basically no readability. It's definitely not acceptable without overwhelming motivation, of which I see none. WilyD 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


The blurb at the top... is that vandalism? I was thinking of deleting it but I'm not sure. Maybe it belongs there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Nevermind. Someone else got it, I guess it was. 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did the deletion. I think it was junk b/c it appeared on the Mawlid article and Arahmin1 posted a warning on the article saying it needed to be deleted. I found it very strange though that the blurb was added via a { {Muhammad} } tag. I am not too clear on this, but I believe this is a use of transclusion? If so, would that mean the page was referencing itself? How did the blurb get on there? I'm don't know much about transclusion, so if someone knows where the actual junk text is, please fix it. Thanks! --Treeears 00:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed what I wrote b/c the tag was still working. Dumb me. Oh well. Yeah, so here's what's shown if { {Muhammad} } is put is an article (w/o the spaces between the brackets) --Treeears 00:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC):
Part of a series on
Muhammad circular symbol
Sweet! As you can see, there's nothing there. Thanks to whoever fixed it. Could you provide an explanation?--Treeears 00:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism was at Template:Muhammad, as can be seen here. If you see something like that, there is often a some links in the box that say This box: view • talk • edit or something cryptic like that. Those are links to the template, where you can fix vandalism, or make other changes, as you would any other WP page. Anyway, thanks a lot for catching that. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
When {{***}} is used, it is calling for a template to be included in the article right there, which works a lot like an [[Image:***]] tag. For more, see Wikipedia:Template namespace. Wikipedia:Transclusion will tell you more about it, including how to transclude an article (not a template) into another article (I shudder to think if recursive transclusion is possible). Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources and Images

In this article most of references are taken from non moslem sources which were always biased regarding the prophet. Article lacks moslem sources, yes wikipedia is not islamic wikipedia but its not anti-islamic wikipedia either. Images of prophet in this article which apparently have no evidence that they are valid or not are also disputed. So images of prophet should be considered for removal.Albertbrown80 23:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of those images are from Islamic sources. TharkunColl 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reference from Islamic source. If you have show it?Albertbrown80 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just click on the note in the picture. All the references are already there. TharkunColl 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I am a muslim and pictures of Mohammad are considered insults to our religion. Please try to remove them.
  • I think we should remove all images showing imaginary portraits of Muhammad because it does not suit to show such a prophet with these imaginary things… and in Muslim faith its not allowed to do so… yes I know a minority is doing so in there books but we have to follow the majority.--Faraz Ahmad 01:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


The new introduction reads, "Muhammad is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God and considered to be the historical founder of the religion of Islam." The use of passive predicates such as "is regarded by...and considered to be" is hardly ever the right choice, and I am puzzled as to why so many editors seem to prefer it. I intend to restore the previous introductory paragraph.Proabivouac 23:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


The etymology of the name of "Muhammad" is wrong. In Arabic the short vowels are not shown in the standard writing so there are verbs written exactly the same but with (slightly) different meanings. That is the case with [ḥamida] and [ḥammada]. The former means "to praise", "to thank" and the latter means "to extol","to pronounce words". It is obvious that "Mu-hammad" comes from the latter verb. In Arabic the prefix [mu] means "the one who performs the action" e.g. [darras-a] "to teach" and [mu-darris] "teacher". That is why "Muhammad" should mean " the one who praises" (Allah) or "the one who pronounces the words" (of Allah). In other words "Muhammad" is the doer of praise (or the pronouncer of the words) not the one who receives it.degoor 09:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnostic saint?

Does anyone know how muhammad got to being listed as a gnostic saint? Its in: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Did Muhummad practise simple living?

Please add comments to discussion at Talk:Simple_living#mohammad_practiced_simple_living? nirvana2013 10:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed a lot of heated debate about including images of Muhammad in this article. Would it be possible to include a link at the top of the article to a parallel article with the same text but certain images excluded? I think that might solve a lot of these problems, but I'm not sure how to implement it. Gnixon 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that would be against our no censorship policy. Content of some articles may be offensive to certain groups of people, you can read more in our Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. However, if you get an advert blocker, you can tell it to not show specific images, that may help you. Also, you are welcome to copy Wikipedia's content to your own website(if you give credit in the form of a link back) and you can alter it all you want. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not clear to me. In addition to the content disclaimer you referenced, we also have a brief paragraph about censorship at WP:NOT#CENSOR, a page on profanity, and a page on pornography. Which parts of those pages do you think prohibit parallel pages? I would note that in several places those pages suggest simply not using images that are offensive and do not add important content to the article. I personally find depictions of Muhammad interesting, but I'm not sure that balances the offense to others. Gnixon 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. There does seem to be a hair of precedent against parallel articles. See the third item at Some examples of debates, decisions and non-decisions, where a parallel censored version of the article on the Abu Ghraib scandal was heatedly debated before being deleted with consensus. The issue seems far from settled, and the circumstances of this article are different. Notice also that some offensive images have been retained in a linked form only. Gnixon 14:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Content forking also applies here. (Netscott) 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Presumably if the parallel article was somehow locked to this one, it wouldn't qualify as a fork. Gnixon 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be technically possible through transclusion but such a thing would be highly unusual and would likely need to be approved by the community at large via something like Wikipedia:Village pump. (Netscott) 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That would still be forking, if the second one was different(no images), and if they are the same there is no point. I suggest running an ad blocker on the images. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Gnixon 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Probably what would be an optimal solution would be to give people a cookie cached option to display images or not (across all Wikipedia pages). I've proposed this before. It would be very handy for folks wanting to do research relative to image sensitive material on public computers, etc. (Netscott) 15:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a cookie solution would be a good idea if it was smart enough to exclude certain tagged images. I feel like I've heard something like that idea before. Gnixon 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This absolutely would never happen. It would be all images displayed or all images not displayed. What you are talking about would facilitate censorship...and Wikipedia is very much not about that. (Netscott) 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are not run by precedent, but by consensus. And your proposal has been brought up bfore, and the community has decided, after months of discussion, that displaying the images on this page is the way to follow our policy.
There are other articles that go more into the subject such as Depictions of Muhammad, that page contains images that not appropriate for this page, such as the Salvador Dali portrait of Muhammad. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to get snippy. Obviously sufficient precedent is an indication of consensus. I'm sorry if this has been brought up before---I didn't think that was the case. I'll try to look through the archives for that discussion. I came here from WP:CSB, where another editor gave me the impression that this was a new idea. Gnixon 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if you felt I was snippy, tone does not convey well through text, it was not my intention. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand it's frustrating that this issue keeps coming up, and I know messageboards tend to create misunderstandings. Gnixon 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No consensus

After spending considerable time looking through the mediation page and the proposed solution that followed it, I'm disappointed to find no evidence that consensus was ever reached. Instead, as is typical on contentious issues like this, it looks like a few persistent voices managed to wear down any opposition to their side of the debate. The tactic used, which is familiar from similar debates on other articles, was to insist on misapplication and misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, particularly its policy on censorship, which remains largely undefined.

A critical part of the idea of consensus is that all parties, or at least a vast majority, agree on something. That never happened here. In fact, of all the editors who came to the debate opposed to including images of Muhammad, I saw zero who later agreed to how the current article looks. That's simply not consensus, and defending the current state as consensus is dishonest. I could comment further on the tactics of those who won this argument of attrition, but the problem is widespread in Wikipedia, and I know from experience that I'd be unlikely to get anywhere. This article and its talk page give a perfect illustration of what Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is trying to counteract. I'm sorry to report that, so far, it's making little progress. Gnixon 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require that. It requires that all sides agree to live with something, if you'll read it. Furthermore, in practice consensus only "counts" editors who are acting in good faith and arguing based on policies, guidelines and precedent, as well as common sense. The consensus is actually pretty clear, though there is a lot of crap to wade through. WilyD 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
All sides did not agree. There were lots of editors who came in good faith but eventually gave up and left. I saw none on the no-images side who agreed to the final "compromise." Gnixon 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Came in good faith yes. Has any points based on policy, guideline, precedent or common sense no. They gave up the arguments because they didn't have an argument, only a position. WilyD 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but what matters is that nobody joined any "consensus". Those on one half of the debate were just chased away. Gnixon 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That isn't how consensus works. Nobody has to join, nor do you even necessarily need a majority of editors - what matters is the strengths of the arguments, and that (in practice) everyone agree to abide by the outcome. Both of those favour a consensus existing here. WilyD 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See What happened here was more power politics than consensus decision-making. I've said my peace. Good luck. Gnixon 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What you need to understand is people who hold viewpoints contrary to our policy are not counted in consensus. That being taken into account there is a very clear consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's simply a transparent excuse to dismiss the positions of other editors. You've said nothing more than that you disagree with their interpretation of policy. Gnixon 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's transparently false. No policy based arguments exist for removal of all images. It's straightforward. WilyD 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus claimed

I don't know where you're looking Gnixon, but consensus WAS achieved, and most of those on the no or few images side DID agree to accept the current state of the article. See: Talk:Muhammad/images#New_Version- Merzbow 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Really?!? Which, specifically, of the 16 editors who lasted long enough to vote there had changed their minds from no images? Also, where were the "votes" of Durova, Itaqallah, blessins and others who contributed thoughtfully to the discussions? As best I can tell after a long time reading, the 40-50 editors participating in this poll simply fell off due to exhaustion until only those on one side of the debate were left to declare consensus. Since then, the same editors have brushed off frequent objections by referring to that false consensus. Gnixon 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that we are going to include as much relevant information in the article as we can, including depictions. You are just going to have to deal with that. It is a common practice to depict the subject of a biography, and there has yet to be a policy based consensus not to. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not the conclusion that disgusts me, but the process. Not to mention the attitude of editors who think it's reasonable to say, "We're going to do what we want. Just deal with it." Gnixon 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well we certainly did not ignore anyone, we let them have their say. But the fact is we run things a certain way here, and giving one religion such special treatment would violation our goal of neutrality. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The certain way that a handful of editors has controlled this page is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to run. Gnixon 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon, If you examine this poll closely, you will find that the combined total of unique editors who supported any of the other options is slightly smaller than the number which supported the least censored option on offer, an un-"veiled" depiction in the lead. We now have a "veiled" depiction beneath a calligraphic image. Another showed nearly-unanimous support for treating Muhammad no differently than we would any other historical figure. Besides these facts, the lack of a basis in policy for censorship became quite apparent. All this has been discussed ad nauseum.Proabivouac 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously a slight majority doesn't constitute consensus. If images remain because the issue is unsettled (which it is), then fine, but editors here should stop dismissing objections and proposals by referring to a false consensus. Gnixon 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship policy

Nor does a slight minority mean a consensus. And since we have policies about neutrality and not censoring, then we don't really need a consensus to act normally. There is no consensus to act out of the norm. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're clear that there's been no consensus here. Reasonable editors disagree with your personal interpretation of our policy. Gnixon 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a consensus. Consensus stems from policy, not from voting. WP:CONSENSUS is a specialised meaning of consensus so that ordinary usage of the word is inappropriate here. That's why you don't understand that consensus was reached. WilyD 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
WilyD, you've got it completely backwards. Policy stems from consensus. WP:CONSENSUS in no way contradicts the dictionary definition of "consensus." The salient fact is that policy on issues such as censoring images is unclear, because consensus hasn't been reached on details like the problems of this page. Gnixon 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy is a greater consensus. If you want to change policy do it on the policy talk page, not an article you want to be treated differently. But just so you know, our nuetrality policy is not based on consensus, but is imposed on the community by the foundation, see m:Foundation issues. Consensus cannot override our core goals. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no foundational issues of neutrality here. You continue to assert as policy-consensus your particular interpretation of a policy on offensive images that is very much undefined. That's either dishonest or reflects a poor understanding of the relevant policies. Gnixon 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it's exactly right. You're also right, though. Policy flows from consensus (except the foundational issues, of course). Consensus flows from policy. Policies represent overwhelming consensuses one's that can't be overturned on a whim by a couple of editors who are trying to make the encyclopaedia worse. The policy on censoring images isn't unclear. WilyD 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Policy on censoring images is indeed quite unclear. See the links below. Gnixon 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say there is a consensus, as the parties that were making arguments that were even remotely policy based were a minority, and many of them even agreed to the current configuration. And lets not forget the long standing, much larger consensus, that Wikipedia should be neutral and not censored. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral yes. Policy on the presence of offensive images is largely undefined. Your judgement of the degree to which other of your peer editors based their positions on your interpretation of policy is not relevant to the idea of consensus. Gnixon 19:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reached the point where further communication with you would require me to repeat myself. Instead of repeating myself I invite you to read what I have already said. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. You might also review relevant policies linked to above. Gnixon 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You have not linked to any policies, just a couple of essays and a manual of style page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's because no detailed policy exists on censorship. The best we can hope for is to judge consensus on censorship from related discussions, where Wikipedia:Content disclaimer (not policy), WP:NOT#CENSOR (simply stating that WP does not promise censorship), Wikipedia:Profanity (related policy), and Wikipedia:Pornography (an essay containing useful facts and links). Gnixon 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would especially call your attention to Wikipedia:Censorship, where exactly the policy you're claiming was proposed and rejected. Gnixon 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity, not a policy but a guideline. Wikipedia:Pornography, not policy, an essay, and we aren't discussing pornography. Wikipedia:Censorship, not what I am claiming. WP:NOT#CENSOR, core policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of those characterizations can be found in my post immediately above. Not sure how Wikipedia:Censorship differs from your claims. It's discussion page is highly relevant here. WP:NOT#CENSOR is of course policy, but is also not directly relevant. It's just a disclaimer that this site isn't actively policed to remove offensive images someone might add. It certainly doesn't say that offensive images have to be included; nor does it say that offensive images can not be excluded. Consider for example, Jimbo's approval of removing a cartoon with appeal to pedophiles from an article where it was relevant (see link in pornography essay). Gnixon
From the Wikipedia:Profanity guideline, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers..." We have no reason to believe that typical Wikipedia readers would be offended by these depictions of Muhammad.
As for policy being based on consensus, where this is the case they are based upon consensus on Wikipedia as a whole, not just one local group. It very possible (indeed it happens all the time) where a group of like-minded individuals wishes to override policy on an article where they are in the majority: policy (at least in theory) must and does disallow this.Proabivouac 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding typical readers, please see WP:CSB. A local, like-minded majority of editors never has the right to simply overrule and ignore the objections of a substantial minority. Editing by consensus is at the very core of Wikipedia. Gnixon 20:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Merely saying "I disagree" without raising any objection does not prevent consensus from being reached. WilyD 20:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does, although of course one could join a consensus without agreeing wholeheartedly with the decision reached. The etymology of "consensus" is shared with that of "consent". Saying "I do not consent," even without explanation, does indeed prevent reaching consensus. Gnixon 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Tom Harrison Talk 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUS and consensus to understand the different and see why your argument is without merit. Perhaps I should have said Merely saying "I disagree" without raising any objection does not prevent the conditions at WP:CONSENSUS from being met. WilyD
You'll have to give me a more specific reference. Here's the bit I notice: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome. Gnixon 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
For instance, this clause However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice. There are probably others. If you don't understand a policy, the policy's talk page is probably the best place to discuss it. WilyD 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be equally easy for me to simply say that you don't understand the policy instead of discussing it with you civilly. "Not considering other viewpoints in good faith" is a very fitting characterization of those on the "no censorship" side of that debate. Gnixon 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should go back and read the debates again. My "four point" solution borrows heavily from arguments made by User:ALM scientist, who was definitely on the moderate to strong censorship side of the debate. WilyD 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Gnixon, re WP:CSB, that is a WikiProject, not a policy or even a guideline. That Wikipedia must assume a neutral point of view and be free from censorship are themselves very strong forms of systemic bias against the norms of those nations in which to speak non-neutrally about a subject is socially expected, or to deal with openly is discouraged or forbidden. This is a feature, not a bug.Proabivouac 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: WP:CSB, I was only attempting to let others make the point for me and save space here. Let me repeat again that Wikipedia has no well-defined policy against censorship. That fact is clear from a brief review of related policies, particularly the rejected policy Wikipedia:Censorship. Issues of censorship like those here need to be discussed openly, not shouted down by misperceptions about our policy. Gnixon 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should stop feeding. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's an unfair insinuation, and I resent it. I'm trying to discuss a substantive policy issue in a civil manner. I'm not sure all the other editors in this discussion can say the same thing. Gnixon 23:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Go to a the WP:NOT talk page if you wish to change our not censored policy, but shear determination is not enough to change things here. We are not going to make a special exception for this article no matter how much you repeat your arguments. If you want to change policy then an article talk page is not the place to do it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to change policy. I'm trying to correct a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of current policy. I've been clear on that point, and I don't appreciate your attempt to straw-man me. Gnixon 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It is just that you have not explained how showing the pictures is not in line with policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't argued that policy prohibits showing the pictures! Rather, I've pointed out that (1) policy does not demand showing them (no clear policy on censorship), and (2) no consensus was achieved that these pictures should be shown over the objections of many editors (rather, those who objected were worn down by repeated misrepresentations of policy). The whole debate over these images was poisoned by the misperception that Wikipedia has a clear policy against "censorship." Gnixon 00:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Input from ArbCom member

While there is no strict policy regarding not showing images of Muhammed, common sense will tell you that as no actual images exist and since it is common knowledge that such image are extremely offensive to a large number of people, it is better to not include them. Fred Bauder 01:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The above comment was solicited from a member of ArbCom. Thanks, Fred. Gnixon 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure if we deleted everything in the encyclopaedia that a significant number of people found upsetting or offensive, there wouldn't be a single article left. I've certainly never edited an article with more than 3 or 4 other editors that someone wasn't offended by. WilyD 01:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The energy which surrounds the question of images of Muhammad are at a whole different level. Just not a good idea. Fred Bauder 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Should that energy result in this article getting treated differently than other biographies? --Iafrate 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be a simple matter to purge all biographies of images that offend a large population, thereby treating them equally. It probably wouldn't require any changes except here. Gnixon 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why would pictures in biographies get special treatment? Why not just purge the encyclopaedia of everything that offends a large number of people, and be left with no articles at all? WilyD 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it takes too much away from the encyclopedia to avoid showing images of child pornography, does it? Gnixon 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to elements of yours and Fred's arguments, and wish you had shown up earlier, but the fact is it will take a lot more than two new voices to re-open this debate now, which consumed a huge amount of time and effort on the part of dozens of editors. Nobody here wants to go through that again without very good reason. - Merzbow 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. The fact is that this debate was flawed by misunderstandings of policy (which I think Fred has cleared up for us), and it failed to reach a consensus on what to do about these images. Since then, editors on this page have cited a nonexistent consensus to quell any dispute over using the images. We don't have to discuss the issue now, and I frankly don't know where I stand on it, but the next time someone comes to this page objecting to the use of images or proposing a solution, they need to be welcomed and their opinions need to be considered without prejudice. In fact, it would be a good idea to file an RfC to seek out the input of editors who haven't been exhausted by the previous, flawed debate. This page has yet to figure out what to do about displaying images of Muhammad in the article, but I hope something can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Best wishes, Gnixon 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any qualms about participating in the debate again, but not for a while. Perhaps we can invoke the Brian Peppers precedent and agree to delay any major attempt to revisit the issue for 6 months or a year. Any earlier and I think voices would get lost from those editors who are currently exhausted over the whole issue. - Merzbow 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not entirely unreasonable, but remember there are lots of editors on this site. Presumably any random sampling of them has about the same mix of opinions. Gnixon 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
When somebody comes up with a new policy based argument that has not been discussed to exhaustion then we can have a discussion. Otherwise we are just going in circles. Nothing that has been brought up here has not already been dealt with. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWN may be pretty relevant here. I think I've made it clear that the issues were not properly "dealt with." Having a discussion in terms of the actual, presently existing policy would be a "new" thing on this page. Gnixon 03:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
May I ask if you've carefully read through the entire four-month mediation, as well as the subsequent discussion on the images subpage?Proabivouac 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite carefully. It was a pretty arduous task, as I'm sure you can imagine! Gnixon 16:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This issue is more dealt with than any issue I can think of. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57's image change

See here. It seems Matt57's new image is a better quality image of the same picture. I think we should make the change. Any comments?--Sefringle 04:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the original source of this image. Only one of the two can be authentic. --Aminz 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Matt57's edited version of the commons image is washed out and does not look 'better' but actually worse. (Netscott) 05:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The two images are image:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg and Image:Mohammad Kaaba.jpg.--Sefringle 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The brightened one has washed out detail on the wall. It looks like it is adjusted for a dim monitor. The darker one seems better, providing much more clarity without blown highlights. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the image I made is better in certain areas, like the carpet and whereever its dark. But then I didnt know how to prevent the burn effect in the white areas like the turbans. So I'll leave it like this for now but definitely this image can be defined more and made to look less washed up. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

South Park

Do we really want to show this cartoon portrayal from South Park of Muhammad holding molotov cocktails? No mention of the show or allusion to controversy is made in that section of the article. Gnixon 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That does not belong here, it is not a historical depiction, and it is already shown at Depictions of Muhammad. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say, yes. Sad but true fact: it typifies the usual Western view of the great Prophet. Itsmejudith 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Molotov cocktails. Arrow740 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
He is not holding molotov cocktails, he is summoning fire from his hand to help cure the giant stone John Wilkes Booth to save the city from an evil giant stone Abraham Lincoln. Muhammad is shown in nothing but a favorable heroic light in that episode. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, bad assumption and poor memory by me. Gnixon 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"sourced material"

What makes a "section" that consist of only four quotes about Muhammad being sincere and a victim of "the old prejudices" worth including in this article? -- Karl Meier 09:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We are writing about the historical views of Muhammad. It is about the view of in recent modern times (we have a section on medieval times etc etc). Here we are quoting Bernard Lewis and Watt, two of the most renowned historians of Islam.
As regard to accuracy, Itaqallah has found another quote from Watt:
"Recent writers have on the whole been more favourable and have taken the view that Muhammad was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith. Francis Buhl emphasized the far-reaching historical significance of the religious movement he inaugurated9; while Richard Bell spoke of the eminently practical character of his activity even as a prophet.10 Tor Andrae examined Muhammad's experience from a psychological standpoint and found it to be genuine, and also that he has a prophetic message for his age and generation."
--Aminz 10:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you yourself believe that a section that is supposed to discuss modern views of Muhammad, that has only four quotes telling us that Muhammad was sincere and that he is a victim of "the old prejudices" is in any way balanced or worth including in a serious Encyclopedia? And do you believe that adding yet another quote saying the same thing helps the situation? The section is supposed to be a concise and broad description of the modern views that exist regarding Muhammad and your version with your personal quote selection is just none of that. -- Karl Meier 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not my personal selection. Please get Bernard Lewis's book from the library. He talks about western medieval views and then talks about modern views. The quote I have presented is what he says about modern views. It is Bernard Lewis's summary --Aminz 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that Lewis has published the same selection of quotes, and that is quoting himself. I'll get the book though. Anyway, you forgot to answer what I believe was my most important question: Do you believe that four quotes that claim that Muhammad sincere and he was a victim of "the old prejudices" makes this section what it should be: A broad, concise and balanced introduction to its whole subject? Perhaps a better section title would be "selected quotes from modern scholars that believe that Muhammad was sincere in his claims"? -- Karl Meier 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you doubt something, you can check it for yourself. But otherwise please assume good faith.
Regarding the current status of the section, I am not saying it is the best ever possible summary but I believe it covers the matter to a great extent. For now, please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete --Aminz 10:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying is that it is not a summary at all. It is four quotes that claim that Muhammad was sincere and that he is a victim of old prejudices. That is not to cover the matter to a great extend, and not to quality or the type of material that should be included in a serious Encyclopedia such as this one. -- Karl Meier 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read the other sub-sections of it. The common early Modern of Muhammad was that he was a deciever. That was changed in recent modern times. --Aminz 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Should you find another scholar who writes about western views of Muhammad and summerizes the modern views regarding Muhammad, I would be happy to include that as well. --Aminz 10:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps we should just delete the whole thing for now, because currently there is no way that it is suitable for a serious Encyclopedia? -- Karl Meier 10:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I have to agree with Karl here: he cannot forbid you to make your point if it is well-referenced, but he can demand that you phrase it succinctly, summarizing it in one or two sentences, per {{quotefarm}}. Sections consisting mostly of quotes as a rule should be compressed into encyclopedic prose within an existing paragraph. That is to say, your point may well need to be made, but expressing it in a florilegium of quotations is not the way. dab (𒁳) 10:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I can try to summerize it. We have two quotes in the article + this third quote from William Montgomery Watt:"Recent writers have on the whole been more favourable and have taken the view that Muhammad was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith. Francis Buhl emphasized the far-reaching historical significance of the religious movement he inaugurated9; while Richard Bell spoke of the eminently practical character of his activity even as a prophet.10 Tor Andrae examined Muhammad's experience from a psychological standpoint and found it to be genuine, and also that he has a prophetic message for his age and generation." --Aminz 10:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps you could try to write something that makes that section worth including, so that I and possibly others will not remove again: A concise, broad and balanced introduction to the sections subject. -- Karl Meier 11:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Karl, I strongly suggest that you get Professor Bernard Lewis's book and read the relevant pages. It explains the views of Medieval and early modern west. And then writes the quote I provided for the modern times. --Aminz 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW all of Lewis' books are available on Amazon's site for free browsing/searching. - Merzbow 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be available on "" as well. --Aminz 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


I tend to agree w/ both of your stances here. On one hand, i agree w/ Karl on that the section is nothing but a collection of quotes and on the other hand i agree w/ Amin in that "modern views of Muhammad" should be included. Applying one of the core principles of Wikipedia (presenting both sides of the coin) i ask everyone to accept the opinion of the other. That is to say that the sub-section should remain but it should obviously be reformulated as per the prior sub-sections. To do so, i ask both of you to work together on this. You have to talk about what modern scholars think of Muhammad and present both sides w/ less quoting and w/ both pro and Vs views. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sure, I suggest Aminz try to summarize the position, and Karl adopt a more charitable stance, constructively indicating what he would accept as an encyclopedic summary. There is no question the point can be made in the article, but obviously not at great length. dab (𒁳) 12:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you guys should be able to cooperate here---your points aren't necessarily in opposition. No need to quote farm here, but verifiable, attributable views should be recorded. I'd recommend adding dates to make phrases like "early modern" less vague. Also, where's the text under "modern times"? Surely that's one of the most important sections. Gnixon 15:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to do that as soon as possible but can we put quotefarm tag at the top of the section for now, instead of removing it? --Aminz 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Both readers and editors of this page will prefer to see neither the quotefarm nor quotefarm tag. Beit Or 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, you have only one vote. --Aminz 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are not for voting, but for discussing. They are not for posting lengthy quotes either. Beit Or 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I was refering to your unqualified sentence: "Both readers and editors of this page will prefer.." - You can only know what you think and not all "readers and editors of this page". Your statement was clearly incorrect because I belong to the set of editors of this page and would prefer to temporary see the section there with the quotefarm tag. --Aminz 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And the "quotefarm" tag was made for this very purpose. --Aminz 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, you're the only editor who turns into a quotefarm every single article he edits. Your fingerprints are so characteristic that I can often say "Aminz was here" even without checking page history. Your proposal to add the quotefarm tag smacks of your frequent attempts to first add your POV to the article and then adorn it with a neutrality dispute template. Thanks for being frank, but please spare the readers both your POV and the template. Beit Or 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on content and not editors. --Aminz 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You've forgotten to add a link WP:CIV or WP:AGF or whatever you usually cite instead of arguing. Beit Or 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please guys,

  • (presenting both sides of the coin) should obviously be reformulated as per the prior sub-sections... FayssalF
  • I suggest Aminz try to summarize the position, and Karl adopt a more charitable stance, constructively indicating what he would accept as an encyclopedic summary....dab
  • No need to quote farm here, but verifiable, attributable views should be recorded....Gnixon

Something complicated on the three things above? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Aminz seems amenable to making a more general overview section - why not let him do it and take a look? This definitely seems like the right approach. Direct quotes should be avoided, unless there's a very compelling reason, as should ascribing stuff to historically insignificant people. Jean Paul II or something might be a reasonable exception for an exemplar, for instance, of an outsiders view. WilyD 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The section is currently just POV-pushing. Watt has a decided POV (Muhammad was a great political and religious leader of the Arabs, but not for Watt) and we should keep that in mind. Lewis's statement that modern historians should remain silent on aspects of this issue is more scholarly. I think we should try to emulate Lewis here and keep this to a minimum. Arrow740 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. keep it to a minimum--Sefringle 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the above comments reflect a misunderstanding how we should use academic sources. Watt was a bona fide historian. Historians relate the facts accurately and also make professional interpretations of those facts. Therefore it is entirely legitimate for Watt's view to be added. Ideally it should just be summarised and the reference given. There is no need to quote him directly or even to say "William Montgomery Watt thinks...". Scholarly disagreements between historians are a normal part of historical enquiry. If there is a scholarly disagreement we must represent both sides of the picture. If another historian has disagreed with Watt then that must be added too. It is emphatically not our role to decide which view is "more scholarly" if both are qualified authors working in the field. Itsmejudith 09:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
As i said above, and supported by dab and Gnixon and others, we have to represent BOTH sides of the coin as per WIKIPEDIA guidelines and policies that everyone here is well aware of them. Discussions about Lewis Vs Watt is not our issue. So, please reformulate that section. A 4 to 6 lines sub-section (as it is the case for the sub-sections above it) is how it should be. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the other side? Lewis's book is available online. If there were other scholarly views he would have said it.[20] --Aminz 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I should like to rephrase this sentence, but cannot discern its meaning: "In the early modern times, the popular literature admits the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians." When is "the early modern times?" What characteristics and judgments?Proabivouac 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Historian Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam in the section "Anti-Islamic tendencies" writes:

"At the beginning of modern times, popular literature also admits altogether, with respect to MuÈammad, the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians. It is true that Luther, in the commentary of his translation of the Confutatio Alcorani of the Dominican friar Richard (1540), goes so far as to see the Antichrist in the Pope rather than in MuÈammad because the latter attacks the Christians in a recognisable way and from the outside, but for the rest he adopts the prejudices transmitted since a long time and labels MuÈammad among other things as the devil's son. The MuÈammad biographies of the 17th century, in accordance with the Christian tradition, impute to him sectarianism, robbery, indiscriminate warfare and whoring."

More information can be provided. --Aminz 08:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Lewis:

Bernard Lewis states: "The last traces of Western theological prejudice may still be discerned in the work of some modern scholars, lurking behind the serrated footnotes of the academic apparatus"

--Aminz 09:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
From this, I extract the claims that 1) Luther called Muhammad the son of the Devil - that is certainly interesting 2) 17th century biographies accused him of theft, violence and sexual impropriety.Proabivouac 11:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC
No. That's not what the passage wants to say. The previous views of Muhammad(e.g. during the crusades) was that Muhammad is an idol worshiped by Muslims. "After Reformation" he becomes a cunning self-seeking destroyer. I think I've explained this in the article. --Aminz 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Should it not be mentioned that Muhammad was supposedly illiterate? I didn't see it mentioned in the article. Apologies if this has been addressed before. 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NO. There is too much dispute about this alleged claim, and as William Montgomery Watt says, it's hardly convincing.--Sefringle 03:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Watt only confirms that Muhammad knew as much as he needed to do his bussiness(as a merchant). Need to check out the exact quote. --Aminz 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I found these quotes from the other article:

Watt:"The Meccans were in general familiar with reading and writing. A certain amount of writing would be necessary for commercial purposes ... In view of this familiarity with writing among the Meccans particularly, both for records and for religious scriptures, there is a presumption that Muhammad knew at least enough to keep commercial records ... The probability is that Muhammad was able to read and write sufficiently for business purposes, but it seems certain that he had not read any [religious] scriptures."

M. Rodinson:"Whatever Arabic tradition may have assumed from a wrong interpretation of a word in the Koran, it seems certain that Muhammad learned to read and write. But except for a few vague and unreliable pointers in his life and work we have no way of knowing the extent of his learning."

--Aminz 03:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that seems to settle that issue. Apparently he wasn't Illiterate.--Sefringle 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't settle the issue at all. It's still a debatable subject, and as such should be at least mentioned in the article. 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable source that makes such a claim? WilyD 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned. I'll try to include that. --Aminz 08:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern views on Muhammad

I removed this section because it was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. A number of cherry picked quotes that all say that Muhammad sincere and a victim of old prejudices, doesn't make a section worthy of inclusion. When it is balanced and actually discuss the many aspects of it's subject, it can be included. As it is now, it is nothing but a piece of fan-cruft and a collage of cherry picked positive statements about Muhammad, that is for some unexplained reason all related to him allegedly not being a liar but sincerely convinced that he was receiving relevations. The section should be balanced between positive and the more critical opinions that makes up the reality about modern non-Muslim views regarding Muhammad, and it should actually discuss it's topic which is much more broad than just the issue of weather or not Muhammad actually believed what he himself was preaching. -- Karl Meier 13:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like adding the sourced opinions you describe would be the way to improve it. I think it is better to leave it in place and let people improve it by the normal wiki process. Tom Harrison Talk 13:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we should have something worthy of inclusion before adding anything. Especially in an article as important as this one. Another issue is that the question of whether Muhammad was sincere or not, and whether he himself believed in what he was preaching should properly only be mentioned in one or maximum two sentences, so most of the material will have to be deleted no-matter what anyway. -- Karl Meier 14:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
it seems appropriate to retain this section. it can only be improved if editors are able to see it. there exists no specification that the section must first be worthy of inclusion before it is included. the Encyclopedia of Islam, if i remember correctly, has quite a lot about the changing opinions with regards to Muhammad.. and i don't think Watt's observations concerning how modern academia views Muhammad have been 'cherry-picked'. ITAQALLAH 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If the section is going to represent early negative views of Muhammad and provide both early and modern responses, then it makes sense to allow modern negative views like those of Pipes and Spencer to be represented, right? (It seems like we're no longer utilizing the Criticism section of this article for criticism and responses). - Merzbow 17:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, that's true. However, which needed to be shorter, has instead become significantly longer, longer than almost any other section except family life. There is a subarticle Christian view of Muhammad as well as Criticism of Muhammad. We can't be lingering over every detail of every point. In particular the quotes must be briefly summarized, and even so some sourced material will have to be condensed or removed.Proabivouac 18:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
NO! Spencer et al are Islamophobe (PROF CARL ERNST SAYS). They are NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. They could be only used on Criticism of Islam articles. --Aminz 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE FIND A RESPECTABLE ACADEMIC SCHOALR(like Lewis, Watt, Welch, Paret, etc etc). There is no lackage of such scholars. --Aminz 21:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
"even so some sourced material will have to be condensed or removed." - Please discuss the changes on the talk page before doing so. Thanks --Aminz 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Aminz: Please tone down your language, and fix the obvious problems that you have with your caps lock before adding any more comments here. Itaqallah: Dumping useless content hoping that someone will eventually improve it, is not the way to develop an important article such as this one. If the intend is to inspire editors to write something useful in that section, I suggest that we replace what is currently there with a "to be written" or something similar. -- Karl Meier 23:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The section is written based on the most authorative sources. I don't think it is POV but if you feel it is, please read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete and you are welcome to provide relaible sources written by respected scholars to this article. --Aminz 00:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are the ludicrous views of medieval Christians who claimed that Muhammad was Satanic reliable, but the views of modern critics like Spencer not reliable? I'm truly puzzled here. In a section called "Modern times" in another section called "Christian and Western views of Muhammad" we need to give all notable modern views of Muhammad, many of which come from critics. There is no requirement for a critic to be a university professor; that is not the job of a university professor. - Merzbow 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Spencer has no qualification as a scholar of Islam nor is a representative of western thought. He is just a critic of Islam. Can you show that his views represent that of a vast number of people in west? --Aminz 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Several of his recent books spent a great deal of time high on the NYT best seller list. That certainly counts. Anyways, the problem here is that most of the material in the "views" section is in the wrong section, being explicitly criticism and the response to it (i.e. "Against the earlier views of Muhammad being a self-seeking imposter"). But whatever, I don't care really where it is as long as we are consistent and NPOV. We've already agreed that notable modern critics like Spencer and Warraq belong in the Criticism subarticles. So they deserve mention where criticism is discussed in the parent article. - Merzbow 00:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, it is not actually a criticism or response. Three phases can be distinguished in western view of Muhammad: "1. He is an idol worshiped by Muslims 2. He was an insincere self-seeking imposter 3. He was sincere" - It shows the gradual changes in this view. Watt is not responding to contemporary critics of Islam, but rather to the views of previous writers.--Aminz 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1 and 2 are clearly criticisms of Muhammad, while a sentence beginning "Against the earlier views of Muhammad being a self-seeking imposter" is clearly a response to criticism 2. Now if you want to ditch the Criticism section completely (it's already empty) and keep criticism/response distributed, that's one way of doing it. But then that means that notable critics also deserve mentioning in these areas. If you really really don't want to see Spencer and Warraq cited outside of a Criticism section, then for consistency we have to move all the criticism/response material to that subsection. - Merzbow 01:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. 1 and 2 happen to be criticism. This section is not a summary of criticisms of Islam. It is a summary of general views with respect to Muhammad. It is not the intend of this section to become a summary of "Criticism of Islam" article. If 1 and 2 happen to be criticism and 3 happens to be a reponse to that, it does not mean that the purpose of this section is to provide a summary of criticism of Islam and the responses to it. --Aminz 01:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the purpose of the section is most definitely to include "Christian and Western views of Muhammad", since that's its name. If critical views are notable, they should be included, as some of the medieval ones already have been. The views of modern critics are notable enough to constitute a large percentage of the criticism of Islam subarticles. I'm not asking for much - just a small paragraph summarizing the modern critical debate on Muhammad. That seems entirely reasonable to me. - Merzbow 01:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, I started the section with a quote reporting the general view with respect to Muhammad: "Recent writers have on the whole been more favourable and have taken the view that Muhammad was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith." - Or Lewis who says:"Modern historian will not readily believe..."- Or Watt who says: "Modern historians must accept sincerety of Muhammad..
These sentences are general. If you can find a well sourced "general" statement about how modern westerners criticize Muhammad, like "Modern historians criticize Muhammad for" or etc etc showing a large scale phenomenon, I would agree with its addition. --Aminz 01:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning Aisha

Why the fact that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad had sexual relation with her not mention. After all whether it is true that Muhammad was paedophile or not don't matter what matter is the fact that he had the relation with her and everybody can decide by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talkcontribs)

Desiring to have sex with a child makes you a pedophile. The question is whether or not pedophilia is wrong. Arrow740 19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read Muhammad#Family life. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The age of Aisha is disputed though, some say she was 16 or 15216.99.59.249 02:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad in West; Proabivouac's edits

Diff in question [21]


  • The following sentence is removed: "In the early modern times, the popular literature admits the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians."
  • Proa's edit summary: rm "In the early modern times, the popular literature admits..." - per talk, we are not sure when this is or what this means)
  • The original quote from historian Welch from Encyclopedia of Islam:"At the beginning of modern times, popular literature also admits altogether, with respect to Muhammad, the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians."


Starting with the first diff: [22]: 1. I think one can figure out when the beginning of modern era is traditionaly identified. I don't think one can remove a text because he doesn't know when Modern times started.

Lewis also points out to the reformation. There were many fables prevalent in west a couple of which is mentioned in the article (like Muhammad being born in 666; or being a Christian heretic; or other fables). --Aminz 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"At the beginning of modern times, popular literature also admits altogether, with respect to Muhammad, the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians."
After several requests, you have still not explained what time period we are talking about, or what these characteristics and judgements are. If they refer only to the material which follows in the paragraph (e.g. 17th century biographies), this is already in the article. We cannot merely lift entire paragraphs from sources into the article; leaving out the quotes, as you did, does not qualify as paraphrasing.
"Often" vs. "some" - was this the justification for your mass revert?
As for "faithfully presenting out sources," it often seems that the only representation you will accept as faithful is a cherry-picked quote in its entirety; this is exactly what we are not supposed to be doing.
Discussing every detail of style with you can be frustrating, because these discussions tend to be long and contentious, and I get the feeling that you're either not aware of or don't care about the problems with your material, or are too distrustful to recognize when and accept that others are merely trying to keep the material coherent, topical, specific and appropriately brief. I am happy that you add sourced material, but very unhappy that you are so resistant to it being edited by others, when nearly every contribution is sorely in need of it.Proabivouac 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I should also add that arbitrarily barring editors from your talk page, while reminding them of judgment in the afterlife, as you did only several days ago,[23] is hardly conducive to the atmosphere of discussion that you advocate here, nor is mass reversion of all your material.Proabivouac 22:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you give the full context from EoI for the "in modern times" sentence? I'm thinking there must be a more NPOV way to represent it. - Merzbow 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The passage was given above as follows:

"At the beginning of modern times, popular literature also admits altogether, with respect to MuÈammad, the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians. It is true that Luther, in the commentary of his translation of the Confutatio Alcorani of the Dominican friar Richard (1540), goes so far as to see the Antichrist in the Pope rather than in MuÈammad because the latter attacks the Christians in a recognisable way and from the outside, but for the rest he adopts the prejudices transmitted since a long time and labels MuÈammad among other things as the devil's son. The MuÈammad biographies of the 17th century, in accordance with the Christian tradition, impute to him sectarianism, robbery, indiscriminate warfare and whoring."

My problem with it isn't POV, but informativeness. The first sentence alone tells us nothing, and is written in a odd and confusing style. For some reason, I had thought the 17th century biographies material was already in the article. That, like Luther's epithet, is at least somewhat specific and informative.Proabivouac 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Merzbow, EoI's article has the following subdivisions:
1.Popular texts of the Middle Ages: 1.1 (a) Heroic epic and Crusaders' epic : Muhammad as god 1.2 (b) Romantic biographies of Muhammad 1.3 (c) Travel accounts of the Later Middle Ages
2. Modern times 2.1 (a) Anti-Islamic tendencies 2.2 (b) Texts pointing towards a less biassed view 2.3 (c) The life of Muhammad as a vehicle of literary expression
In the first section, Popular texts of the Middle Ages, the main themes are Muhammad being an idol; Romantic biographies of Muhammad and some travel accounts.
The second section starts with the sentence: "At the beginning of modern times, popular literature also admits altogether, with respect to Muhammad, the fabulous characteristics and degrading judgements of the Christian theologians."
The picture of Muhammad as an idol is no longer there.
This quote from Lewis is also relevant:"The West, too, had its legend of Muhammad, from the preposterous errors and scurrilities of medieval polemic and lampoon to the lay figure of Voltaire's 'Mahomet'. Beginning as a kind of demon or false god worshipped with Apollyon and Termagnt in an unholy trinity, the medieval Mahound developed in the West into an archheretic whom Dante consigned to a not undistinguished place in Hell, as a 'Seminator di scandalo e di scisma', and finally, after the Reformation, into a cunning and self seeking imposter." --Aminz 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, to say we don't know when the Modern time is a very strange argument for removal of the text. The article Modern Times explains well the conventional datings of "Modern times".
The sentence is informative because it says that the west altogether admitted their mistakes and their degrading judgments. Were it not informative, the author of EoI wouldn't have mentioned it. --Aminz 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it says what you think it says (there are about 80 million evangelical Christians in the US who would probably still agree Muhammad is a devil); in fact, I don't even have much of a theory as to what it is saying because the sentence is so poorly written and garbled. Just because a quote comes from a reliable source doesn't mean we have to use it; that's where editorial discretion comes in. - Merzbow 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you know any contemporary Christian who says that Muhammad is an idol worshipped in an unholy trinity, or that he was born in 666? --Aminz 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't, but then you insist upon including the distinctly opinionated (and possibly false) "many of the old prejudices linge [sic.] on," so maybe. Incidentally, that was written over thirty years ago; I suspect that Western perceptions of Muhammad may be quite a bit better-informed today.Proabivouac 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Diff in question [24]

Summary: "Medieval Christians often identified the year of Muhammad's death as 666" is changed to "Some medieval Christians identified the year of Muhammad's death as [[666]".

  • Proa's edit summary: "Medieval Christians often" > "Some Medeival Christians", in the absence of specifics"
  • Original quote from the source: "it was often stated within Christian medieval circles that he died in AD 666, a clear reference to the number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 13:18)"


Re: [25], we have a secondary reliable source telling us that the Medieval Christian circles "often" cited Muhammad's death as 666. Every "often" is a "some" but every "some" is not "often". As such it would be an inaccurate report of what the source says. --Aminz 09:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Often" vs. "some" - was this the justification for your mass revert?
As for "faithfully presenting out sources," it often seems that the only representation you will accept as faithful is a cherry-picked quote in its entirety; this is exactly what we are not supposed to be doing.
Discussing every detail of style with you can be frustrating, because these discussions tend to be long and contentious, and I get the feeling that you're either not aware of or don't care about the problems with your material, or are too distrustful to recognize when and accept that others are merely trying to keep the material coherent, topical, specific and appropriately brief. I am happy that you add sourced material, but very unhappy that you are so resistant to it being edited by others, when nearly every contribution is sorely in need of it.Proabivouac 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Proa. Please Comment on the content; not on the editor.
Please reply to my comment: "Often" vs. "some" - was this the justification for your mass revert?" was no answer to me. --Aminz 23:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the "some" vs. "often" difference as particularly substantial. When I wrote "in the absence of specifics," I meant just that, as they are both vague and generic qualifiers. That something like this is cause for concern, but stylistic atrocities of the sort you mass restored roll right by you unnoticed is exactly the problem. You nitpick my changes for every possible "misrepresentation" while remaining completely oblivious to the problems which make these changes necessary, and unmoved by persistent complaints from a number of other editors to this same effect.Proabivouac 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who are those other editors you are talking about and please don't use straw man arguments. I only said we should discuss these edits before adding them. Now, to me, "often" is different from "some". I often go to school is different from I "sometimes" go to school. Yes, to me, it needs to be discussed. If they are the same to you, then I'll bring it back to often and in either case, there shouldn't be a problem on your side since to you, 'they are the same' --Aminz 00:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a difference between those words, which is quite minor in this context. No, I don't care you restore "often."
"If they are the same to you, then I'll bring it back to often and in either case, there shouldn't be a problem on your side since to you, 'they are the same'".
Go ahead, I really don't care. That you clearly assume that I do is the problem that I've been attempting to impress upon you: not everything is a POV war, much less an attempt to slyly misrepresent sources. Do you think it "my POV" that this was not done often, but only sometimes? My actual purpose was to change the modifier from an adverb to an adjective modifying the subject; there is no exact equivalent here to "often," though "many" would work equally well for me. Had I changed "often" to "sometimes," you might have had a point.Proabivouac 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Diff in question

Summary: The following sentence was removed: "The popular early medieval literature does not reflect the knowledge of Muhammad's life as known in Latin theological texts."

  • Proa's edit summary: "rm apparently useless sentence and irrelevant wikilink"
  • Quote from the source: "The knowledge of Muhammad's life as known in Latin theological texts is at first hardly reflected in popular literature."
This diff shows how the average people were unaware of the knowledge of Muhammad's life. But this can be removed. --Aminz 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Diff in question

Summary: Proa changes Chanson de geste's description of Muhammad, from "an idol, whose image the Saracen warriors take with them into battle; after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it. Like Christ or God the Father with the Christians, he is implored for help by the Saracens, but is shown as being ineffective." to "Muhammad as an idol to whom Muslims prayed for aid in battle."

  • Proa's edit summary: Just explains the diff.
  • Quote from the source: the above quote was taken from the source.


Please explain why you removed: "after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it." ?
The second part "Like Christ or God the Father with the Christians, he is implored for help by the Saracens, but is shown as being ineffective." can go away. --Aminz 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, don't try to force others' comments into any particular format.
Both passive and redundant, this is simply horrible writing, wherever you got it from:
"A verbal expression of Christian contempt for Islam was expressed in turning his name from Muhammad to Mahound, the "devil incarnate"
This was fairly summarized by:
"...others changed his name from Muhammad to Mahound, the "devil incarnate"
Do we really need to tell our readers that calling someone “the devil incarnate” is an expression of contempt? Not just any expression of contempt, but a verbal one? All in the passive, naturally. Not all academics are good writers, and we are not here to perpetuate these shortcomings.
In place of the perfectly fair and appropriately brief summary,
"The 12th century genre of the Chanson de geste characterizes Muhammad as an idol to whom Muslims prayed for aid in battle."
you restored your quote farm:
"The 12th century genre of the Chanson de geste describes Muhammad as "an idol, whose image the Saracen warriors take with them into battle; after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it. Like Christ or God the Father with the Christians, he is implored for help by the Saracens, but is shown as being ineffective."
For the umpteenth time, Aminz, the fact that something is a lengthy direct quote is most of the time a weakness not a strength. I get the feeling that if you'd copied and pasted the entire article, we'd be having the same discussion.
Finally, we have this:
"The popular early medieval literature does not reflect the knowledge of Muhammad's life as known in Latin theological texts."
Besides the hideous " known," Latin theological texts are otherwise unmentioned here, so I felt this confusing and off-topic; however, I’m not dead-set against its inclusion.
It is bad enough that you add poorly-written material, but I accept that you can't help it, and often the material is substantially worthy of inclusion. Edit-warring to restore it is unacceptable. I'm sorry to say it, but the fact that you wrote this to begin with is strong proof that you are not a competent judge of style. It therefore seems ridiculous that anyone should have to go through everything point by point to avoid an edit war. If "often" vs. "Some" was the issue (and a pretty darned minor one), why did you not restore only that?[28].
This is exactly the kind of drawn-out discussion I wanted to avoid. After many months of complaints to this effect, you won't (or can't) solve the problems which make this kind of routine clean-up necessary, and you won't allow people to do it without a huge time commitment on talk.Proabivouac 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Just let you know: I don't read the comments you make about myself and not the content. And regarding your question: I said we need to discuss these edits on the talk page not that I disagree with all of them. Now, please answer the following question specifically: Why did you remove: "after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it."? --Aminz 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
"Just let you know: I don't read the comments you make about myself and not the content."
Combine this with your arbitrary request not to post on your talk page, and you are basically saying that you intend to ignore any requests to modify your approach.
I removed
"...after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it."
because it was part of a quote farm, this section is already far too long, and some material has to go. One purpose to providing references is so that readers who are interested in such colorful details can follow up; there are also subarticles for this purpose. If you fill a page with sourced material, some of it will and must be removed even though it is sourced Some things will be removed because they're just not that important.Proabivouac 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it's unnecessary to establish the point being made. If we can express the same thing using a shorter excerpt that flows better, that's a virtue. - Merzbow 00:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow, "after a defeat they throw it among the dogs and pigs or into the river or also trample on it." is the same point as "bringing it to the battle?" --Aminz 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course they're not the same point, only details accompanying the main point.
You do realize that this section must be trimmed still further?Proabivouac 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up false accusations

I have read the wiki page, however, there is a lot of false information, when will there be a _fair_ page, that contains more truth then falsehood? -- joefso

if there is inaccurate material you find needs correction, please feel free to make the necessary changes while sourcing it accordingly. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


What does "peoms" mean in the sidebar? I wanted to change it to "poets", but I wasn't sure... Corvus cornix 23:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I bet you're right, since it mentions "and writers." But ask User:Aminz about his change? He likely know for sure. Shenme 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


The meaning of the name Muhammad is "the praiseworthy" or (literally) "one who is praised." The article has it wrong, saying that it means "the one who praises" or "the one who pronounces words". However, the cited reference has it right: see current article reference #15. Mosura 15:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I had missed it. Cheers, --Aminz 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


" ... In his youth, he was called by the nickname "Al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين ), a common Arab name meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.[10][6]". Today, of course, "Al-Amin" as a name has been popularized because of Muhammad. However, there is no evidence that the nickname "Al-Amin" was contemporaneously a "common" Arab name and the article does not cite its source for what appears from a google search to be a solitary claim limited to this article. Either a proper cite should be given or the word "common" should be deleted. Mosura 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Be brave! You have posted it on the talk page and if no one object then simply remove wrong information. ---- ALM 15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to do so, but there is no edit for me to click, probably because I'm a new editor. The article is classified as Semi-protected. "Semi-protection prevents a page from being edited by anonymous and newly registered users." Mosura 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It must be because you're newly-registered. I don't know the criteria, but you may have to wait a certain number of days and/or make a certain number of edits elsewhere first. - Merzbow 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Mosura, a historian(welch) thinks that the name Al-Amin was common back then like the name of Muhammad's mother "Aminah". But I understand that this is Welch's POV. Since to best of my knowledge Watt or any other scholar have not made that claim, I suggest we add it as a footnote. I'll correct this in a bit. --Aminz 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
It's 4 days for sure, and I think there is a 100-edit threshold. --Hojimachongtalk 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


"All religon must be respected" - Why do I have to respect stupid superstitions? Have you never thought about all the suffering that the religions have caused to this planet? Aaker 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what this is in reference to? and more importantly, its relevance to this page. This seems a little like a soapbox?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenavitar (talkcontribs)
It's written at the top of this talkpage. Aaker 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Aaker, Please keep the discussion focus on the article. We cannot here have a consensus that if religion give peace or fight. The person on the top is referring to Muhammad pictures dispute. You can discuss that but we should not start a useless debate about religions in general, which will never end and has nothing to do with article. Cheers. --- A. L. M. 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
His [29] comments was posted on the wrong place hence were looking out of context. I have now moved it on the right place. I hope that will fix the problem? --- A. L. M. 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The prophet's knowledge of the unseen and future events

i have added the section "THE PROPHET'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNSEEN AND FUTURE EVENTS" which is taken from the work "AL-SHIFA" a very famous and respected book by Qadi Iyad. The notes could use some tidying up and propper links need to be made but i am not good at these, the tutorials are near useless.--Rami.b 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Although you seem to be editing in good faith, what you added isn't proper for the article according to Wikipedia policy. Please spend a few hours reading Wikipedia:Welcome and the policy pages it links to for an overview of the encyclopedia and what its goals and rules are. - Merzbow 05:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

would you like me to rephrase the title to muhammads knowledge of the unseen as witnessed by muslims. neutrality is the only thing i can find relavent to your point?.--Rami.b 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic view of Muhammad is where those material should go. Please make sure that you mention this very briefly; please also mind copyright issue. --Aminz 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why have non muslims hijacked the muhammad wiki page, shouldnt it be the other way around that a non muslim view of muhammad page should be created. It seems to me that for a persons view to be valid they must be non muslim.

Neutrality means non bias, yet this article is filled with quotes from non muslims who have a positive view of muhammad is this some sort of peace offering to muslims for not alowing them to write about there own prophet. neutrality means that you simply state A or B occured without commenting in favour or against the event.

this in reality means i can quote any authentic hadith from any muslim source without any person deleting what i post since a hadith is a verified source of information. I have more right by this logic to delete what is nothing more than third and fourth hand infomation by western commentators [rather than historians] as the standard of islamic scholarship and verification is far superior to anything you refrence from a mere book [wich is the stadard of wikipedia].

If you have an issue with an islamic source you are more than welcome to challenge and prove it is fabricated.--Rami.b 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you expect people to read your lengthy quotes and arguments? We can have a summary section on Muslim view of Muhammad. But we need to summerize everything and do not give undue weight to particular points. We also have say Isma in Shiasm etc etc. --Aminz 07:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
to be fair, I find it strange we have an "Islamic view of Muhammad" article, seeing that all we even know about the man is from Muslim sources. This smells of pov-forking. I thought Veneration for Muhammad was a better title (now a redirect). dab (𒁳) 07:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That article was first created to focus on issues of dispute among Muslim themselves. But some degree of POV-fork-ness is going on here. --Aminz 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Neutrality means non bias, yet this article is filled with quotes from non muslims who have a positive view of muhammad is this some sort of peace offering to muslims for not alowing them to write about there own prophet. neutrality means that you simply state A or B occured without commenting in favour or against the event."
I must say that I strongly agree with your second sentence, while the first is quite insightful: such quotes were likely selected to substitute for more blatantly devotional material. however, remember that on Wikipedia, articles belong to noone. There is no requirement that "muslims...write about there own prophet;" indeed, this might arguably be discouraged per WP:COI and WP:NPOV.Proabivouac 07:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well put. Arrow740 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that no one owns the article but when a post is deleted simply for being muslim then what am i or anyone to perceive. As has already been stated all anyone knows about Muhammad [sallahu alaihi wa sallam] is from muslim sources, so where does that leave the entirety of this article? when no opposing source exist commentary and interpretation of original sources and Islamic exegeses by so called historians are not acceptable.--Rami.b 08:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

By wiki stadards if i quote an orginal/primary source it supersedes an unqualified commentary.--Rami.b 08:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, please take a couple hours to read through crucial Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Scholarly sources published via university presses trump almost anything else. - Merzbow 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In reality they dont trump orginal primary sources only a conflicting primary source can, universities did not even exit when these hadith were being collected and verified. University standards of accepting and verifying sources are not on par with Islamic scholarship and standards so unless you are familiar with both dont comment please.--Rami.b 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rami, your previous addition was long and probably a copyright violation. What specific suggestion do you have regarding a particular statement in the text? --Aminz 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is simply wrong to add such a thing in the article based on Hadith. When Quran itself deny that Muhammad had any foresight in future other than what Allah told him. I could try to give your Ayat if you could stop this thing. --- A. L. M. 09:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM thank you for your message, regarding your statement none of what i quoted made the claim he had knowledge beyond what allah willed him to have this is assumption you have made on your own. It is wrong to use ahadith? that has to be a very undefendable position when everything you know is becouse of hadith, if you have a problem with hadith or wiki does then this is simply a joke and not even at university standards of scholarship. The source of the entire piece is a respected and famous scholar in the muslim world. No there is no copyright violation, copyright in islam does not exist only the prohibition of profiting from other peoples work at there detriment oe expence.--Rami.b 09:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rami, there is no ban on using any Muslim sources as long as the authors are notable scholars (not just websites) and that you can show that their views are accepted by many other scholars (i.e. they are not very dissent).
We can not use quran or hadith directly because it would be close to original research (see WP:OR). We should use a scholar who has a comperhensive knowledge of the Qur'an and hadith to tell us what they mean. So, we can not directly quote them in order to derive conclusion from them. --Aminz 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
And BTW, If Muhammad knew everything in the future, then he should have known when the hour of judgment will come which we know is not true. --Aminz 09:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rami, I have not read this whole thread or hadith. Obviously I believe in Hadith but I do not find any need to mention it in the article, because it might give wrong impression to readers but that is "only" my opinion. I am basically against all edits telling Muhammad had any special quality. --- A. L. M. 10:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned it Aminz do a search for "Qadi Iyad" in wiki and you will find a page on the author specificly noting his most famous work to be "ash Shifa", what i Quoted is from an orthodox scholar stating the majority Islamic scholars views. Original source means looking at direct evidence which we are not with ahadith, we are looking at direct sources as collected and verified by Islams scholars so we are in reality relying on these scholars to tell us these hadith are true which is not against wiki policy and the intent of that policy. We can most certainly Use Quran and ahadith if a scholar is using it to explain a matter which is exactly what i did by sourcing material from Qadi Iyads work rather than my own personnel compilation.
Qadi Iyad did not state the prophet knew everything if you had read the work you would have seen this, you are simply making assumptions from the title and i gather it was also on this basis the work was removed.
A.L.M, what wrong impression will quoting from the only sources on anything iabout Islam give? i find this an astonishing view and one that places the emotions of people above the truth. Your last comment is even more astounding since we are talking about a prophet and not an ordinary person his "special qualities" as granted to him by Allah are of extreme importance and relevance to his personality, should we not mention the miricles of jesus that he walked on water raised the dead simply becouse we are embarrassed of people?
Miracles of the prophets are specifically what people look for in them after there character, these are signs and evidences of there prophet hood and speaking from a purely impartial position all evidences must be taken into account when judging his person and most certainly there are many verified and authentic accounts of the prophets miracles.--Rami.b 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Miracle of Muhammad was Quran and that miracle is still with us. I do not know that Muhammad has any other miracle on permanent bases. At least I have not found any evidence in Quran reading. He was a very special human being who used to get Wahi from Allah. I love him more than anyone else in whole world. However having said that, one should not try to promote him to what he was not. --- A. L. M. 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
hadith are taken as the second source after the Quran for Islamic law there is no doubt about the sources that are being quoted if you have issue this your own personnel unorthodox view, try reading something before criticising it. Your personnel view is not a basis for claiming a source is fabricated, he received wahi from allah and was granted much more as human prophet you are simply denying reality which is obvious when you compare his status to other prophets and what each was granted, the Quran itself attests to much more miraculous matters at the hands of human beings. I can more than provide for you references for these if not similar ahadith which you can not dispute, any person familiar with islamic scholarship would know that simply becouse something is not mentioned in the Quran does not make the thing fabricated which is ridiculous to suggest or even imply.--Rami.b 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I never said that the hadith is fabricated. Anyway I am out from this discussion. --- A. L. M. 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This conversation is further evidence (as if any more were needed) of the undesirability of using this talk page to discuss our own personal religious beliefs.
"your own personnel unorthodox view"
For whatever it's worth, Rami, ALM's is what I'd understood to be the most orthodox Sunni position. Nevertheless, this is not the place to debate these points. What is relevant is that your edits are very unlikely to gain consensus.Proabivouac 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Rami's views are shared by many Shias though I personally disagree that Muhmmad knew everything. Rami, here is what you can do. Please first add your material to the Islamic view of Muhammad article. Then we can provide a short summary of that here. Important Note: Please summerize everything in two or three lines. The readers will get tired of reading detailed discussions. They just want to get an idea of the general beliefs. --Aminz 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

lack of knowledge of islam is no excuse, Qadi Iyad is a scholar of the Maliki Madhhab not shia. As soon as anyone quotes an authentic hadith by the shear fact of its authenticity it is orthodox and binding on muslims to believe in this is basic islamic law that a child even knows. While on the other hand we have uneducated people spouting there own personnel beliefs which have not been established to be Islamic in nature [i have yet to see anything that disproves this collection of ahadith], isnt that the criterion of right and wrong to prove what you are quoting is mainstream islam. Well my so called educated friends you can not get more islamic than a Maliki scholar quoting ahadith from Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawuud, Tabarani, Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzayma, and al-Hakim i suggest you do a search on wiki if nothing else to see who they are becouse for certain you have egg on your faces.
My edits are the common beliefs of all muslims that he was given knowledge of the future and prophesied about it, like any prophet before him prophesied about anything yet to come, what a joke.
Aminz staying silent when a person doesnt know something is wise, no one made the claim he knows everything if you had read what i posted i would at least respect your opinion becouse among these ahadith it clearly states that. summarise everything becouse people are not interested? have christians lost interest in the book of daniel? what are your qualifications to be judging what is or isnt islam are you a muslim even.
Here are my three lines: "THE PROPHET'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNSEEN AND FUTURE EVENTS" all prophets where given knowledge of ghaib [lit. unseen] and where shown future events hence the title prophet. Synonyms augur, forecast, predict, presage, prognosticate, prophesy.
If you dont mind i would also like to add the following example of a prophecy so the kiddies can visualise a bit better, Hudahyfa said: "The Messenger of Allah gave us an address in which he did not leave out anything that would happen until the Last Hour came. Whoever remembered it remembered it and whoever forgot it forgot it. Many companions of mine have known it. When any of it came to pass, I would recognize it and remember it as a man remembers the face of a man who has gone away and which he recognizes when he sees him again." Then Hudhayfa said: "I do not know whether my companions may have forgotten or pretended to forget [i.e. to prevent fitna; Qari said: to turn to what is more important], but Allah's Messenger did not leave out the instigator of a single disaster that was going to happen until the end of the world. There were more than three hundred of them. He named them for us, each with his name, the name of this father and his tribe." Narrated by Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Dawud the epitome of Sunni Islam.--Rami.b 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Rami, simply because one scholar says something, we don't have to agree with you that it is a general orthodoxy belief. I personally think these hadiths go against the Qur'an, hence they are not reliable. It is not possible that one knows what is going to happen until the Last Hour (say what is going to happen in the day before the Last Hour) and yet he doesn't know when the Hour is. Please edit article Islamic view of Muhammad and then we can summerize it here. --Aminz 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Rami, you wrote:
"As soon as anyone quotes an authentic hadith by the shear fact of its authenticity it is orthodox and binding on muslims to believe in this is basic islamic law that a child even knows…what are your qualifications to be judging what is or isnt islam are you a muslim even."
This is not the place to subject other editors to religious litmus tests.
"Well my so called educated friends...for certain you have egg on your faces."
Nor is this the place for incivility.Proabivouac 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz [with respect] it would serve you well to learn the basics, Sahih Bukhari and Shahih Muslim are the soundest sources in islam after the Quran by consensus of ALL muslim scholars to even argue otherwise would degrade this discussion even further than it has. When a hadith is found in both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari it reaches a grade even higher than "sahih" and that is termed "agreed upon" a classic example is the work of Imam Nawawi's [please also look up who he is] work "Riyad as Salihin" [gardens of the righteous] in which many ahadith are graded as "agreed upon" ie meaning what i stated above, this is the status of the hadith i have Quoted above check the refrence. What you think is of no importance to what is or isnt in Islam i am not quoting my own personnel opinion and i am more aware of what my religion teaches than you are.
"It is not possible that one knows what is going to happen until the Last Hour (say what is going to happen in the day before the Last Hour) and yet he doesn't know when the Hour is."
Your basic premise is wrong he only knows what is revealed to him nothing more.
Proabivouac this isnt a litmus test but the basic facts in islam if a person is clearly wrong as a muslim i am obliged to point it out. Your unfamiliarity with the subject matter is your shortcoming not mine kindly do your research before commenting, i have read your previous posts and find you more than capable of judging for your self given background information.
This enitre discussion is what occurs when people who have not done there research attempt to comment on something simply based on there own logical analysis with out the benefit of the facts. Im sorry for my incivility please understand my point of view though, i come across this article which is being edited and moderated by people with little to no knowledge about orthodox islam [we have four schools of law] which is clear and well defined in its laws, beliefs and practices to any person who is educated enough, I post something by a famous orthodox scholar [maliki madhab is one of these four schools] who references Islams most renown and respected scholars and i am accused of quoting something not in islam, a shia belief, and against Quranic teachings i am sorry but a muslim child versed in "fard al ain" [personel obligatory knowledge] can diferetiate between what is right or wrong in this discussion.--Rami.b 03:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
For anyone seeking to know more about islam, Usul al Fiqh Al Islami[30] and The Science Of Hadith[31]--Rami.b 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Rami.b, what we do or do not know is irrelevant. Even the truth is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in Wikipedia is what we can support with verifiable cites, and we must also edit according to Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. - Merzbow 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Rami.b, for God's sake, please study WP:ATT and WP:RS first. --Aminz 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"if a person is clearly wrong as a muslim i am obliged to point it out."
Actually, you're obliged not' to point it out per WP:SOAP. I appreciate your feeling of personal responsibility, but talk pages to Wikipedia articles are not the places to engage in this activity, however righteous it might be.Proabivouac 09:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed the Quote from Al shifa on Qadi Iyads wiki [page][32], It is more apropriate than the "islamic view of muhammad" page, dont mind the refrencing ill fix them once i know how to link within a page. how do you suggest we sumerise it?--Rami.b 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since i havnt had any sugestions i have gone ahead and done so myself.--Rami.b 04:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon image, addled section

What is this, The Quran and science? This just looks insane. Also, I am sick of mainspace being used as a sandbox. This language is difficult to understand, and does not belong in a published article. Please bring this to talk so that we can collaborate in determining what is appropriately topical and how best to phrase it -- Proabivouac08:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is what Muslims believe to have been a miracle of Muhammad. It is well established and widely believed. It has no scientific nature as splitting of the sea has in the bible. --Aminz 08:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't ascribe to Moses' purported parting of the sea any "scientific nature."
Anyhow, the picture of the moon is pretty off-topic here. Readers already know more of less what the moon looks like; there is no need to include its picture every time it is mentioned.
These passages (for example) are, to to the English-speaking reader, unacceptably obscure:
"Martin Varisco, something that seemed like moon spliting in two parts happened when the Meccans began to persecute the Muslims: a motivation for naming chapter 54 as chapter(sura) of the Moon"
"According to historian Denis Gril, although according to the Qur'an, Muhammad did prophesied but he was not granted to perform miracles in their traditional sense "as they were not, ipso facto, sufficient to convince unbelievers"[33]
Such writing is not acceptable in mainspace. At the same time, the topic is intesting, and it does seem that there should be something here that is worthy of inclusion. Please share the relevant passages from your sources, so that we can construct something comprehensible and useful.Proabivouac 08:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually meant: "It has no scientific nature (like the parting of the sea in the bible that doesn't have any scientific nature)." I mean these are supposed to be "miracles". Anyways.
I will try to produce a picture of an splitted moon and add that.
Here are the relevant quotes:
From article "Moon"- Encyclopedia of the Qur'an:

"In the Qurʾān, the general Arabic term for moon (qamar) occurs twenty-seven times, usually paired with the sun (q.v.; shams). Sūra 54 is entitled “The Moon” (Sūrat al-Qamar), in reference to the moon seeming to split in two at the time the Meccans began to persecute the Muslims (see mecca; opposition to muhammad). The new or crescent moon (hilāl) appears only once (in its plural form, ahilla, q 2:189), and neither the term for the full moon (badr) nor that for the night when no moon is visible (i.e. sirār) is mentioned."

For the second quote, we have:

Supernatural intervention in the life of human beings. When defined as such, miracles are present in the Qurʾān in a threefold sense: in sacred history, in connection with Muhammad himself and in relation to revelation. Although an almost indispensable attribute of prophecy, Muhammad was not thought to have been granted any miracles in the traditional sense as they were not, ipso facto, sufficient to convince unbelievers. In the Qurʾān, the concept of miracle takes on a cosmological and eschatological dimension, and the supreme miracle is finally identified with the Qurʾān itself: divine speech in human language.

--Aminz 09:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will support creating of seperate article for Muhammad miracles and just write couple of sentences in main article (or not at all). After Islam approaching to FA status this should be second article we all focus on. --- A. L. M. 11:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're allowed to put a picture of a moon here saying that its split was Mohammed's miracle (claimed in hadith), I suppose we can put a picture of a nose saying Mohammed said the devil sleeps in our noses (see here other quotes). Any takers? I say, let this moon image stay but then I agree: if we start including an image for everything, this page will be full of images as there are so many images that could be put in (the nose, e.g.). To the right is an example of a rat image, relating to the hadiths where a group of Israelites were, according to Muhammad, transformed into rats. So my question is: where does the use of such images stop?
According to Muhammad, a group of Israelites were cursed and changed into rats (Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:524)
--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have in fact put this image there now. It will be interesting to see if people remove the image, what reason they give as to how this violates policies. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You make an interesting point Matt57, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make that point. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didnt know I was proving a point. I thought it was a valid addition like the moon image. Ok then, I'll wait for other editors to express their opinion over the inclusion of this image and others for example: what justifies the inclusion of an image? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You may an interesting point Matt57? Give an offical warning, that next time he will do it he will be blocked. Like you have given me of adding cartoon pictures. Why you are so polite now. --- A. L. M. 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, I didnt know I was proving a point. A warning for this would only be appropriate if I kept doing it. Can you please assume good faith? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, I did just warn him, you quoted it. There is no such thing as an official warning. What is more, your addition, way back then, was of a very controversial picture, and you knew it. This is a picture of a rat, can you see the difference? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the heated discussion?

Why is that heated discussion about that article? First, depicting Muhammad's pictures is not necessary, even though I think they add a lot to the article, but if they are causing such a debate from obsessed people about a photo, then remove it, why bother? In addition, you could simply make a link to commons that has all Muhammad's photos and pictures for whoever wants to find them. Moreover, for people who apparently cannot stand the existence of a drawing of a person, please remember that Wikipedia is NOT a religious entity or a place to display your point of view. If the photos bother you so much, find photos that would replace the existing ones with photos without Muhammad’s face and could deliver the same message. And about the Jyllands Posten cartoons, they should be mentioned, and a photo should be put, what is the problem? This specific event is particularly noticeable. It is a fact; the article is not about a prophet of God, or the Prophet of Islam. The article is a biographical article; it should talk about Muhammad as a person who was a leading figure for people, like Gandhi, Buddha, or Confucius. It is no big deal. However, I see that there are people who do hate Muhammad and try to add stuff that are irrelevant. Muhammad and the Jews should have already had an entry in the anti-Semitism series of articles. And that photo of the rat, is really unnecessary, it is like visualizing leading the readers mind to look at the rat without giving him the time to think, and if that is the case, then shouldn't every item in the article comes attached with a photo? If I am someone who is coming here to read about Muhammad for the first time in my life, I am looking to find a neutral and unbiased article that is to the point of a biographical scale, if I want to look for Islam, there is an encyclopedic entry about it in Wikipedia. Why bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Abdel Mageed (talkcontribs)

See Wikipedia:Censorship. Your answer is there. Frotz 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Also read: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies - this gives a short overview of how Wikipedia policies do not support the censorship of these images at all for any reasons. I agree we should also put a picture of the Cartoons controversy in this article. I have no doubt that this will happen. Like you said, this is a bio article like Gnadhi or anyone. I agree on some of your points you raised with the rat photo. It was a response to people putting a picture of the moon and saying it was Muhammad's miracle to split the moon. Why not the rat then too? The point to note is that, if this wasnt controversial and so many people didnt resist it, I would have no problem in doing such a thing because it is informational afterall. I might pursue this some other time because pictures are good. I believe that we should be balanced. If we add a picture of Muhammad's miracle, we should also put a picture of the rat. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
We should not add the rat, but make sure that this absurd split-moon image does not appear on Wikipedia.Proabivouac 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moon photo

Please see WP:OR#Original_images before removing the picture.--Kirbytime 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz has no basis at all for determining what this purported "splitting of the moon" looked like. See also WP:RIDICULOUS. This is supposed to be a serious project, Kirbytime.Proabivouac 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I can see that, as the page doesn't exist. And a description of the splitting moon can be found within the Hadith.--Kirbytime 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it is rediculous to include the image. This is not an advertisement for the miracles Muhammad preformed.--Sefringle 04:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying it shouldn't be included on the basis of a policy which doesn't even exist?--Kirbytime 04:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That Wikipedia should not be ridiculous is indeed policy.Proabivouac 04:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why is it redlinked?--Kirbytime 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirby, suggesting and interpreting that the moon was split into two equal parts is OR. Also, contrary to what you beleive, the moon can only be split in photoshop.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Kirby, actually thanks for pointing that out. I saw:
A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If they are noted as manipulated, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion if the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.
So this means the image may be a candidate for deletion as its OR.--Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That's only for manipulated images, like it says. There is nothing wrong with, for instance an artist's conception of a black hole (is that what a black hole REALLY looks like? A question I have raised on its talk page. And also, you are speaking outside of your field of expertise when you say that the moon cannot be split.--Kirbytime 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as Aminz and you are outside your field of expertise when you aim to illustrate how this appeared. This is particular silly against the backdrop of the depictions debate: picture of Muhammad on Muhammad = bad, photoshopped image of the moon = completely topical and appropriate.Proabivouac 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely it should be deleted.Proabivouac 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think even if it isnt deleted, everyone should know that the "moon was split". They might get a chuckle out of it. I think its good either way but we'll check into this definitely. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So why not have a ridiculous image to illustrate a ridiculous concept?--Kirbytime 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The split of moon (regardless of being legendary or not) has a place in Muslim's view of Muhammad's miracles. I understand that people from a different culture see things differently, but this section is supposed to represent the miracles within Muslim biographies. (within Muslim biographies). I find the image completely proper for this particular section.

It has been argued that this image is OR. What do you mean by OR mean? Moon can not split in two parts in a different way. --Aminz 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately think the image is OR precisely because we don't know what it means for (Muhammad? Allah?) to have split the moon; us creating an image to show how we think it to have looked is OR. The caption is also way too long for a picture. I would suggest working the material into the text. Have you looked to see if there's a picture somewhere created by a historical Muslim artist that illustrates this or other miracles that we can use instead? - Merzbow 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be a better idea to use an artistic image but can you please explain "we don't know what it means for (Muhammad? Allah?) to have split the moon"? --Aminz 08:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly that - what does it mean to split the moon? I don't know. Commentators seem confused also. Split it two parts? Multiple parts? Is the language figurative or not? - Merzbow 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Many think it did happen Merzbow. It is believed that the moon was split into two halves. As far as I know, a disc can be only split in two halves in one way. That's why I don't understand your point. --Aminz 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Vertically or horizontally? Or on a diagonal? Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
How does this book cover look like? [34]. The author is Safiur Mubarakpuri (author of The Sealed Nectar). --Aminz 08:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, that book cover looks hackish and ridiculous. The author is not himself a reliable source, and who knows who created this image? Usually covers are commisioned by publishers not authors, in this case Darrussalam publishers and distributors. We can be pretty certain that no serious academic scholar was involved, nor is this image notable in its own right. Please drop this unproductive thread. Posting nonsense in mainspace, deliberately or not, is disruptive.Proabivouac 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Proabivouac, as you might guess I have decided to skip your aggressive comments. That author was discussed elsewhere and his notability as a Muslim scholar (not western academic) was established. The direction I am more interested to follow is your original research argument. --Aminz 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, Mubarakpuri, besides not being a reliable source about astronomy or astrophysics, or a notable artist, did not create this image.
As for you "deciding to skip" any of my comments, I am attempting to resolve a dispute. As you have requested that I post on the talk page of articles rather than on your user talk, I am doing so. POV I, like anyone else in this space, am used to, but we must draw the line at OR quackery. I once again request that you desist from adding such material to Wikipedia, and should you do so, and it is removed, please do not edit war to restore it. This is a serious academic enterprise, and it is my intention to see that the appropriate standards are maintained.Proabivouac 10:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it any better if the over-long caption text is taken into main space? Does anyone know what the reference to a "sighing palm tree" is, and maybe we can use a palm tree instead? Itsmejudith 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, how was the moon split? Two halves or 3 parts? 2 parts of 50.00% each, or 2 parts of 30 and 70% each? Suggesting that it was split in any particular way is OR, isnt it? Second, can we also make images e.g. of the Banu Qurayza massacre and show a man being beheaded there? Or anything like that. You know if you let this pass then things like that could happen, becuase then there will be no stopping as to what can be illustrated and what not. By the way the caption right now is OR and should be sourced. So all I'm saying is: If you can justify the image being created by checking with policies, please know that this will create a precedent for further images to be created by users in any other way as well. If you're ok with that and if you can tell us that this doesnt violate policies, then no one can stop you, and no one can also stop others from making pictures in other ways. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On the specific question of a source for the caption, the reader can look over and see that note 106 applies. Itsmejudith 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if Muhammad had split the moon then contemporary European and Chinese astronomers would probably have noticed. Unless, of course - since the moon is a sphere - he split the far side from the near side, rendering the split invisible from the earth. But such an invisible split would hardly, I suggest, constitute a particularly impressive miracle, since it would just be Muhammad's word against everyone else's that it had actually happened at all. And what about the adverse effect any such split would have on tidal and gravitational forces? At the very least we should expect massive tidal waves assaulting all the coastlines of the world, which again would have been recorded by the literate civilisations of Europe and China, at the very least. Is it recorded how long this split lasted for? Was it just a few seconds, or hours, or days, or what? And more to the point, why did he do it? TharkunColl 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another thing about this image which I just now noticed: Aminz took one side of the moon, duplicated it and rotated it 180°. So, even aside from the splitting part, it's inaccurate. Actual moon: Image:Moon-Mdf-2005.jpg, Aminz version: Image:Splitting moon.JPG.Proabivouac 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • i haven't examined the issue in very much detail, but i think a photoshopped image of the moon can be a tad misleading to our readers - that either the moon was split in that particular way - or even that the moon in the picture has actually split. as a quick remedy to this i'd suggest it be replaced with a normal image of the moon with a brief caption retained concerning the related narrative. the appropriateness of having a moon image at all can then be discussed thereafter if that's necessary. ITAQALLAH 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Itaq, this is the 2nd thing we've agreed on in a long time. We're on to something. Anyway Aminz has replaced it with the original moon photo now. In any case, thanks Aminz for your initative to add a picture to improve the article. The text near "Beginnings of conflict", "trace of hudaybiya", "Mohammad's family life", would be good candidates next for pictures (if any can be found i.e.). Pictures make the page interesting (where relevant and possible only, ofcourse). --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The very original picture I placed there was the full moon picture. --Aminz 21:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I personally love photos and who doesn't? I am a magazine collage amateur and maybe one day i'll share some of my work w/ you friends. Ok enough hubris guys and back to business.
I've worked hard in the Collage article as much as i worked indirectly in The Face on Mars. I've just participated at a [Images and media for deletion] discussion lately. This can be considered as an analogy but i believe all of what i've just said is not bla bla but it means that i give much importance to images issues.
Now, we have a situation here where we are talking about miracles re to Islam. Fine. Now i have to note the following:
  1. the section in question is longer than the article itself → Islamic view of miracles. So why not try to develop that article first?
  2. the picture itself is one of the most famous pictures of earth's moon. Anything particular? Does the posted picture describe the miracle? I doubt it. It is just a pic of the Moon. Back to the Face on Mars at Cydonia. There the pics are relevant as they show what is a face on Mars looks like and it was taken by Viking Orbiter 1 to tell people more about the issue. Just like Live coverage on video. We are talking about a miracle which happened centuries ago and show a 1960's image → Innapropriate.
  3. Relating the pic in question to a miracle is just like inserting [Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg] and say that the earth is really orbiting. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of unnecessary and obscure language

Aminz, you restored your language, " relation with the question of violability or inviolability heavenly bodies."[35]. This language is both ungrammatical and completely unnecessary. As is all too often the case, it is not even clear what you are trying to say. It is fine that you add it once, for it is a good faith effort, buy you must allow others to edit it without edit warring to restore it or forcing them into lengthy discussions. Please heed this advice and take it to heart.Proabivouac 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The original debate was about something different (question of violability or inviolability heavenly) rather than whether the miracle happened or not. Philosophers took the verse metaphorically probably because its literal implications (heavenly bodies being pierced) went against the Greek philosophy. My addition makes the context clear. --Aminz 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not at all clear unless you follow to the footnote.
  • This is much more detail than we need in this main article, which is already too long.
  • Footnotes are not places to store "extra material." Per FayssalF, sub-articles are. Additionally, this practice makes editting confusing when the edit window is filled with erstwhile hidden text.Proabivouac 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, could you please send me an email explaining what you are doing? I believe our kitchen is delicious. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the prophet

Arent pictures considered offensive to muslims in gerneral so shouldn't the picture of the prophet be taken down? 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored so the pictures will not be removed just because they may be offensive. After a long debate the consensus was that pictures should be kept because the majority opinion was that they were encyclopedic and removing them was censorship. Feel free to disagree; however, just don't remove them unilaterally. We don't need more edit wars. Also, not all Muslims care very much. There is a variety of opinions. I get the feeling that there was less offense at just seeing the pictures than there was at thinking the pictures were put up just to be offensive. gren グレン 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus. While establishing so called consensus not a single Muslim had taken part in the voting. see yourself Talk:Muhammad/images#New_Version. I was told to get banned if I remove pictures again and so is to dozen of other people. Those who were restoring it was never given a single warning. If that the way we FORCE consensus then it is a piece of **** (sorry for bad wording). We will contact Jumbo on the issue and will file arbitration case. We will try everything that we can. --- A. L. M. 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If no Muslims participated, then why was there a problem? What you're asking for is an exception to be carved out specifically for discussion of a specific person. You seem to be against having pictures of Muhammad here, yet you state that nobody (but yourself, I suppose) will cast a vote saying so. I'm confused. Frotz 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Things does not work in this way that you threat multiple people deleting pictures and ignore people adding picture. You blocking-threats show that you are yourself biased towards adding picture. It become more sad when admins start calling each user deleting picture as vandal. They have posted vandal message on many people pages which are deleted picture, threaten to bann them. In contrast no warning was issue for user adding pictures. I accept that majority here do wish to have picture but there is no concensus. Even one user is block-reviewed by an admin who himself was supporting picture. This all was not at all good, it should not work like this. That is not a way to achieve a concensus. Still at least Me, Itsmejudith, User:Itaqallah, User:Bless_sins, User:Zora, User:Aminz, User:AktarAhmed, User:Kirbytime and many others are against adding pictures. We might be in minority but please do not call this concensus. --- 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
People who deleted pictures were chastised because they were engaging in censorship, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. To suggest that those who added pictures should be chastised implies that an exception be carved out. No justification for this besides "it's offensive" has been offered. Wikipedia does not work that way. There are lots of other things on Wikipedia that might offend Muslim sensibilities. Shall we censor those too? How about those articles that offend Christians, Jews, and Buddhists? What is so special about Islam that it alone has the right to determine what shall and shall not be displayed? Frotz 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also thought that the discussion ended too abruptly and that it was said that a consensus had been reached when actually there was no consensus. I still haven't changed my view that depictions are unnecessary. The late intervention by Fred Bauder is another reason why the debate could be re-opened (but not too long-winded or drawn-out, please). Itsmejudith
If the debate is reopened, it will (no doubt) be long and drawn out - If you look through all the archives on the subject, this should seem to be the case. Of course, I have little doubt it'l have to be debated again (and again, and again, and again, and again) at length anyways. And of course, if Wikipedia moves away from it's original goal of providing whatever information we can freely to everyone, the debate may well end u at some other result than the one it's forced to reach now. But "Let's not have continuous debate on the issue" is certainly a sentiment I can sympathise with. WilyD 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
i agree with Itsmejudith. a lot of us simply became tired of expressing our arguments ad nauseum, of constant declarations of consensus even during mediation, and quite frankly of the gulf in penetrative communication between the two sides. IMHO, there was no actual consensus formed, as has been noted by an outside observer. ITAQALLAH 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason why images finally found their way into Wikipedia is given on my page, which you've read already: User:Matt57/Pictures of Muhammad and Wikipedia policies. UNDUE does not apply anymore. Images of Mohammed are everywhere now and their number is not likely to decrease. Recentist is a guideline only some editors agree with. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe next time we should try to draw the community at large into the discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we did have the community at large participate here (although I was not a part of it then). I mean this had been going on and on for months and what not. How else can we get more community input? Wasnt that the maximum community input that could ever be, considering the amount of debate on that issue? --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there are a number of people who oppose religious censorship but do not follow this page. Tom Harrison Talk 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well ALM has been saying he is taking it to arbcom over the last few months, perhaps he will do it. That should give a wide enough audience, but frankly this has been discussed by a rather large group for months on end. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also adding to what Tom said above, I'll say that the wider audience will probably result in a stronger confirmation of what the previous consensus was, because if there was anyone strongly opposed to the issue at the time all that debate was going on, they would have participated at that time. I dont think the Arbitration will result in any significant change. The policies apply very clearly and briefly to this issue as I had explained my own page here. If anyone has to make up a 10 page rebuttal of why the images are wrong and if what I had to do was only briefly show how the policies dont support censorship, then they're clearly wrong. The pages are improving now, like Kaaba and Black Stone also have images relevant to the articles and that makes them look great and very informative. Also considering these paintings are very unique and historic so they are great for these pages. In short, Wikipedia's mission as stated on its Profanity guideline is "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not". This along with "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used", means the images should definitely stay and in fact there should be no restrictions for adding more relevant ones. The typical reader of Wikipedia does not find these images offensive and so these images cannot be considered as offensive. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the image debate return

ALM, I see you're back, re-petitioning for the issue. Welcome.

Is the current version a consensus? I think it is-- we had extensive discussion, we found a compromise, and we got a survey that had more than 3-to-1 in favor of support it. I call that a consensus, but consensus IS fuzzy. And of course, consensus can change anyway.

Here's the thing I would ask (and indeed, require) of people. If the current version, with all its support isn't a consensus, then keep that definition of consensus in mind when you're doing your own edits, and see to it that you're just as rigorous in requiring evidence of a "consensus" which you would agree with. If the current version, with widespread discussion and 3-to-1 support wasn't a consensus, then obviously you should be seeing even MORE widespread support for a page version before changing the current version.

In the end, it's fine to discuss, fine to talk, fine to try to persuade. But don't you DARE start edit warring or vandalizing the article again until there is a consensus for deleting the images. Please. :) --Alecmconroy

Do not DARE to say me DARE again. If you do not know how to talk with respect then do not talk with me. Please :). I will try to ignore you. --- A. L. M. 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless some sort of new information is available ALM, then this is really just stirring up settled dust. To say that we did not come to a consensus is silly, we discussed it for months and came to an agreement which has suited till now. Now your points of been addressed ad nauseum, and it seems the only reason you continue is that you don't like the answer the community came up with. I am sure of a weaker consensus decided to remove the pictures you would not be demanding the consensus be more clear. Do you have any new arguments? Or are you just repeated the arguments we have already dealt with? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am writing my argument at User:ALM_scientist/Including_Muhammad_Pictures_Against_wiki-policies and that is work in progress. Once again, I will file arbitration case and they will also decide if there is concesus or not. I will talk with Jimmy Wales too. So do not worry and be happy. --:). --- A. L. M. 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration would be productive and I look forward to it. Until then I think this matter was settled a while back. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh great. Not this again. I thought we settled this in the last mediation.--Sefringle 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
We did. But the Islamists are not going to be content with any decision that goes against them.--Cjh57
WP:CIVIL. - Merzbow 08:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Miracles of Muhammad

The section looks much better. But I think something important was lost there.

The view of these modern biographies is that Muhammad's real miracle, as Daniel Brown states modern historians would probably agree, "was not a moon split or a sighing palm tree, but the transformation of the Arabs from marauding bands of nomads into world conquerors".

Another relevant quote is:

John Esposito says: "What is most striking about the early expansion of Islam is its rapidity and success. Western scholars have marveled at it...Within a decade, Arab forces overran the Byzantine and Persian armies...and conquered Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt...Muslim armies prove to be formidable conquerors and effective rulers, builders rather than destroyers." (John L Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path)

--Aminz 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't miracles in the Muslim biographies, per the title of the section.Proabivouac 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
These are the miracles in Modern biographies. "The view of these modern biographies is that Muhammad's real miracle, was not a moon split or a sighing palm tree, but the transformation of the Arabs from marauding bands of nomads into world conquerors"" --Aminz 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, thats not really a miracle. Thats just a figure of speech. You should really focus your effort for this on the Islamic view of miracles which Faysal pointed out. There you'll be able to work exclusively on that issue. Then you can link back and make a section with a Main article link, if you have enough material for the miracles that tie them to Muhammad. And then ofcourse there will be a Criticism section in the miracles and all that. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not up to us to decide what a miracle is. We should just report it. --Aminz 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, the Brown quote is explicitly not about a miracle, it's just a clever way of saying modern biographers would now agree that Muhammad didn't perform any miracles. For example, if someone wrote, "that Muslim forces prevailed at Badr was nothing short of a miracle," we wouldn't include it here, even though it uses the word "miracle." The Esposito quote not only isn't about miracles, it isn't even about Muhammad.Proabivouac 02:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"it's just a clever way of saying modern biographers would now agree that Muhammad didn't perform any miracles."- That's not correct. Modern biographies only do not emphasize those aspects(rather than rejecting them). Brown says: "Muhammad's real miracle, , and most contemporary historians would probably agree, was not a moon split or a sighing palm tree, but the transformation of the Arabs from marauding bands of nomads into world conquerors". This is sentence is not ambigious. Miracle doesn't have to be defined narrowly.--Aminz 02:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Modern biographies only do not emphasize those aspects..."
That is why I'd changed my earlier "abandoned" to "deemphasized."
"Miracle doesn't have to be defined narrowly."
It must at least be defined reasonably. No native speaker would equate the figurative use of the term "miracle" with the assertion that an actual miracle had taken place.Proabivouac 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica defines miracles as "Extraordinary event attributed to a supernatural power" --Aminz 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, your entry would go fit more into whereever Mohammed's claimed 'leadership' is being mentioned. According to Wikipedia: "A miracle, derived from the old Latin word miraculum meaning "something wonderful", is a striking interposition of divine intervention by a god in the universe by which the ordinary course and operation of Nature is overruled, suspended, or modified.". If you think this is a miracle, then any other human being who also did something like this could also be classified as soemone who did a miracle. If you actually mention this in a Miracle section, that will be a strawman argument. Readers will think "you call that a miracle?", so it will actually backfire. Thats why I said it will fit more into where Mohammed is being praised in the sense this author wanted to praise him for. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing prophets names.

Salam Alaikum, To the best of my knowledge, all Prophets of Islam should be referred to with Peace be upon him (PBUH), or Arabic equivalents. I cannot edit this page to include this, so please, anyone with editing power, include PBUH after "Muhammad", "Prophet Muhammad", "the Prophet", etc... Salam Alaikum, R Hammouda

Honorifics aren't allowed in Wikipedia for purposes of neutrality. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Islam-related_articles). - Merzbow 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important to refer to the Prophets using Their original names, not Western corrupted forms. Please use Muhammad, not "Mohammed" or "Mahomet" and "Musa" not "Moses", etc.. I also think that the word Prophet should be capitalized.Aminullah 09:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminullah, if we use "Musa", people will think that we are talking about a different person (not "Moses") --Aminz 09:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
They are not Western "corrupted" forms, but simply the rendering of names in different languages. And since this is the English Wikipedia, we must use the forms most commonly used in English. With Moses there is no contest, nor with Jesus. But Muhammad presents a problem, as there are dozens and dozens of different spellings used in English, especially by those people who actually have that name. The spelling Muhammad, however, is probably the best as it is the same spelling as used by the famous boxer Muhammad Ali, who is surely the most famous person named Muhammad in the world today. On the other hand another very famous person with that name, Mohamed Al-Fayed, spells it totally differently. TharkunColl 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
to be fair, I see no problem with using Isa and Musa as distinct from Jesus and Moses (since there are specialized articles). Muhammad is the preferred spelling these days. This is a matter of convention, not "corruption", and "Mohamed" etc. are simply conventions which have fallen out of favour. dab (𒁳) 15:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with Christians using "Moses" and "Jesus", but it's proper to demand "Isa" and "Musa" being used on Islam-related pages. For most Christians (especially Catholics) "Jesus" is a name of God and it would be misleading to say that Muslims believe in Jesus. Aminullah 14:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures of prophet Muhammad should be removed, this is offensive to the Islamic religion! I am a muslim, and displaying our prophet in pictures is an insult, whether they were good pictures or bad pictures, his face and body should not be drawn. Prophet Muhammad said that we should worship God (Allah), well, some people see these pictures, they start worshiping prophet Muhammad's picture, they would try to look like him, and that is wrong.It drives people away from the basic principle of Islam, which is worshiping God, to worshiping his, this messes up the name of Islam. I demand these pictures be removed as soon as the publisher of this webpage reads this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanad Shegem (talkcontribs)
Please rest assured that after seeing pictures of Muhammad, I do not feel the slightest desire to fall down and worship him. TharkunColl 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
you did not read the article Sanad. It seems to work for you: the pictures detract you not from your religion, but from reading what the article says about them. All you are trying to tell us, and much more, is explained at depictions of Muhammad. dab (𒁳) 08:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You could also help in improving Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. --- A. L. M. 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammed founder of islam?

peace, The posted biography of Muhammed(pbuh), the prophet of islam contains '''HUGE''' errors.They are:

1.Muhammed(pbuh) is the founder of islam-Muhammed(pbuh) is NOT the founder of islam,it is common knowledge among muslims that Muhammed(pbuh) preached the religion of Adam(pbuh), Noah(pbuh), Abraham(pbuh),etc.And he preached the same religion that Jesus(pbuh) preached, Lot(pbuh)preached, Moses(pbuh)preached.

2.Muhammed(pbuh) is perfect- NO ONE IS PERFECT BESIDES GOD,Muhammed(pbuh) was perfect in the religion that he preached only.He was NOT perfect in any other way.Muhammed(pbuh)was an illiterate man.He did not know how to read or write.This is a clear proof that he wasnt perfect.

3.Muhammed's depiction- There is not even one verse in the quran or in the sira or hadith that men should be veiled,neither is it an 'islamic art'.(my personal request,please remove the depictions)

I havent read the whole article, but there will be more mistakes please take notice as these are not a small matter.It really makes a big difference.As wikipedia is a very popular site, non-muslims could start hating the peaceful religion of islam even more.Misconceptions are atr large. Thank you.

Very good points and I agree with all of your above three points. Create user account and edit it yourself using references. For pictures we will file arbitration case someday In-sha-Allah. --- A. L. M. 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad is the founder of Islam. To say that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims is not only patently false, it is also a gross insult to Jews and Christians. TharkunColl 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ALM, if you agree with "3. There is not even one verse in the quran or in the sira or hadith that men should be veiled,neither is it an 'islamic art'" - a point I'd actually raised myself in mediation in respect to the alleged inaccuracies of Image:Maome.jpg - then why did you agree to include "veiled" images, but draw the line at unveiled ones?[36]Proabivouac 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer no images at all. That was a compromise.--- A. L. M. 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that. My question was, as you stated above that you agree with anon's point, "3. There is not even one verse in the quran or in the sira or hadith that men should be veiled,neither is it an 'islamic art,'" why would you have preferred depictions which are inconsistent in this respect with prescribed Islamic dress and descriptions of Muhammad's appearance to those which are consistent with it?Proabivouac 22:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Just like I dislike all of politicans of my country but still vote for the one which is less bad. People will be misguided by including any picture of Muhammad veiled or unveiled. They tell wrong story about history of Islam which mostly does not make pictures. They misguide end reader. However, if his dress is according to Sunnah instead of some red/yellow (those colors which are disliked in Islam for men to wear according to many hadiths). Then they will be misguided lesser. However, I support not to include any images at all like other majority encyclopida have done. That is what I wish to achieve in arbitration. --- A. L. M. 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
ALM, none of the depictions on this article clearly show him in yellow or red. Two show him wearing green, one wearing blue, and the last (which anyhow is before his ministry) shows him in an indistinct sandy color which most of the others are also wearing. The Supreme Court image which was there at one point had no colors at all.
Hadith say that, while Muhammad usually dressed simply, in his final years he occasionally wore costly robes presented to him by foreign dignitaries. Image:Maome.jpg, in which Muhammad is wearing blue, shows him preaching in post-conquest Mecca, so the time period is consistent.
The two "veiled" images are inconsistent with hadith not just by showing him wearing a veil/with a blank face, but also show him on fire; I am not aware of any hadith which state that Muhammad was ever on fire (we'll overlook the fact that one shows him flying about on a winged horselike creature with a human female head.)
If consistency with hadith is really an issue, why wouldn't your compromise be, keep Image:Maome.jpg and toss the ones which show him veiled and on fire?Proabivouac 23:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that he had wear expensive dress many times. He usually wear gifted dresses once and then leave it. I have read many such case about him. Do you have any reference they say he wear it more then once? There is no reference other than your own original research in linking that dress to real history. It is clearly persian dress with persian hats of red color. I cannot even imagine that anyone in Arab could wear such a hat. It is 101% persian hat. Secondly, I do not know why we are having this debate in first place. I feel so bad that I agreed to include three images in the article at the end of mediation (even on on the top). I feel so bad that I agree in past so much against what was right. I only wished to end the dispute but still those people did not agreed with me. Hence now I only wish to have no images at all. It is because, that is what correctly represents reality about that historical figure. No images , neither veiled nor unveiled. --- A. L. M. 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Maome.jpg doesn't shows him wearing this robe more than once, but only once. Hadith specify that these costly robes were the gifts of foreign dignitaries, I don't recall anything stating whether these were in Arab or foreign styles.Proabivouac 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re [37], none of the depictions show Muhammad wearing a red hat: all four show him in a white hat, one of which (the lead image) has a small patch of turqouise.Proabivouac 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

tor said "it is common knowledge among muslims that Muhammed(pbuh) preached the religion of Adam(pbuh), Noah(pbuh), Abraham(pbuh),etc,", though this would more closely fall under belief or dogma, rather than knowledge. --Hojimachongtalk 23:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)