Talk:Muhammad/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 25


Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

There is a Veda on Prophet Mohammed. Prophet Mohmmed is the God Of The World in Hinduism ..

Shaheed Azam Muhammed is one of the most important prophet in Hinduism. Prophet Muhammed is also mentioned in Hindu Holy Vedas books, Hinduism has Holy Scripts of Prophet Muhammed in the Vedas. Unfortunatley Christianity has no Holy Scripts of Prophet Muhammed. Many Hindus sacrifice themselves to Shaheed Muhammed and only Prophet Muhammed, who is mentioned in Hindu Holy Scripts. Hindus believe in Prophet Muhammed and only Prophet Muhammed. They also follow their way in Islam in a twist. according to where you live you must follow most prominent religon or would result to conflicts. There is a serious relation between the two. Hindi language has many many words same in Arabic which is extremly serious and proves some kind of serious relation. must be investigated.

Hindi has Arabic words in it because Muslims occupied and subjugated India for hundreds of years. The rest of your statement is quite bizarre. Arrow740 (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


At the end of that part of the page, it says that sufis create an image, this is NOT true, they are simply using calligraphy, NOT to create, but to praise, you are NOT actually forming an image by calligraphy. This is completely wrong, please CHANGE this, because calligraphy is writing in the form of art.

Summary so far

It seems that there is still some disagreements on the wording of the Qur'an speaking shamefully of the idols but I suggest we move on for now. The SV incident is currently mentioned in the "last years in mecca" section where it does not certainly belong. I've summarized previous discussion here. Let's move on to new sections and discuss the further disagreements in the second round.I've made the change "Some scholars suggest".

Early years in Mecca

According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet.[1] She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.[1]

Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.[2]

According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he [Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." [3] According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor. [4] Religious duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls. [5]

Opposition in Mecca

According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped besides God... and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief."[6] According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.

The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage.[7] Some scholars suggest that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below). [8]

Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers.[9] Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion.[10][11] Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. [12]

In 615, some of Muhammad's followers emigrated to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king.[9] While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."[9]

The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," which recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah. Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had instructed him to do so.[13] Starting in the tenth century AD, Islamic scholars began to reject the account.[14] The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated.

According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. The boycott lasted for three years. [15]

--Aminz 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing" -> "was tortured by Umayya ibn khalaf who." Also it's not clear how a goddess could be "valid." So "validity" -> "existence." Otherwise it's pretty good. Arrow740 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Both changes are good. I suggest two more changes: 1. switching "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated." with the historicity discussion as this bit belongs to the incident. On historicity, EoQ on SV says that "Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century", so I suggest "Starting in the tenth century CE, Islamic scholars began to reject the account." --> "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the fourth/tenth century". --Aminz 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fourth/tenth century is likely to be confusing for readers not particularly familiar with Islam (and we might well expect people with only the vaguest familiarity to be interested in Muhammad). Using an Islamic dating system is fine, but any phrasing should probably be more explicit. WilyD 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. So,how about "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the tenth century CE"--Aminz 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"Strong" is POV. Modern scholars reject them, so they're not that "strong." It's better to state the facts. The fact that Islamic scholars reject this story is already somewhat tangential. Arrow740 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is a fact that they strongly disagreed with. If X strongly disagree with Y, saying that "X strongly disagreed with Y" is reporting a fact; to say that their disagreements were correct or not is an opinion. The exegesis of the first two century (not all, e.g.Ibn Hisham) include that. In 4th century strong disagreements happened the author says. It doesn't say there were no scholar before that who rejected it. --Aminz 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with reading comprehension on your part. Adjectives are not the same as adverbs. Your version calls the objections "strong." This is saying that they are persuasive, correct, etc. It is different from saying that some Muslims "strongly objected." It is describing the objections themselves, not the act of objecting. Arrow740 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So how is "Islamic scholars strongly objected to the historicity of the incident as early as the tenth century CE"? --Aminz 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think "strongly" and "as early as" are needed? Arrow740 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What about "vigourous" as an alternative adjective to "strong". "Strong" in this context can mean either the objections had good merit (not a conclusion we should draw) or that the objections were strongly worded, considered of significant importance, et cetera. WilyD 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"vigourous" seems good too. It is needed because an active type of disagreement could be observed at that time (i.e. one including persuasion of others) --Aminz 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) preached Islam not the Baha'i nor Druze religions. Their views of him are hence secondary compared to that of his Muslim companions. Hence, the Islamic view should hold the center point of this article. To that extent it is important to remind people how the prophet (PBUH) spent every effort to avoid him being revered as a god, he even said to a nomad who called him Master, "Al Sayidu Allah" meaning "The Master is God", further more he forbade his companions from standing up when he arrived at their meetings, just to sight a few examples off the top of my head. So after all these efforts it would be outright against him to proclaim that he is a manifestation of God (verily God is above their descriptions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is considered a Manifestation of God by the Baha'i Faith, and a prophet by the Druze. This information is noted at the bottom, but it should appear at the top. Muhammad is a primary figure in both these religions. The fact that the largest religion his is a figure in is Islam should not matter, as this page is about the figure Muhammad, not Muhammad specifically in relation to Islam. Can the top paragraph be changed to appear as such? Aeroplane 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As you might know, this is a delicate subject. Try to seek a concensus first. Though if I were you, be bold. Tourskin 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Propose a wording and see if anyone objects. WilyD 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aeroplane in as much this should be briefly mentioned in the intro (just mentioned) but it should be covered in fullness at the bottom. Str1977 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

the name Muhammad

The name of the holy prophet has to be accompanied with "peace be upon him (PBUH)"...

like the Muslims say Muhammad "sallala hu alaihi wa sallam"

(Suhayl's 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

No, it doesn't. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) --Wasell(T) 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Emigration or exile?

Did Muhammad emigrated to Medina or was he exiled (i.e. did he leave voluntarily or was he forced to)? There seems to be a confusion about this throughout various articles on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He emmigrated of his own volition and for a number of reasons. One was b/c the threat to his life had increased greatly with the death of 2 of his most beloved kin. The other was b/c he was planning to move the community anyways due to the increasing persecution demonstrated by the boycott of Banu Hashim. He had met with people from Medina twice in the 2 pledges of Aqaba IIRC, gained converts and a covenant from them that they would take him and his followers in.
It is further evident that he himself was escaping b/c on the night he left, people sent by the Meccan chiefs entered his house and tried to kill whoever was in bed. There is also the account that they tried to hunt him down but he and Abu Bakr had hid in a small cave which the Meccans overlooked. Jedi Master MIK 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be careful in usage of the words. Mentioning "emigration" and the reasons/details of it certainly works and seems appropriate. A dictionary defines "exile" as [1] Enforced removal from one's native country.
Since in all the emigrations, the starting point were Muhammad's native city, Mecca, I don't think the reader will become confused with the usage of "emigration" once the article makes clear the reasons for emigration.
So, I think it is best not to use the word "exile". --Aminz 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the years of teaching I have recieved from muslim seekers the prophet's Hajj from Mecca was an emigration not an exile, as the murderers that pursued Muhammad(saw) were not intent on driving him out, they were intent upon murdering him...In fact I came to this wiki looking to see to what extent this adventure was covered because I have always admired the miraculous story of the spiders web in the Cave of Thuar! In brief the cave of Thaur is commemerated because The Prophet and his companion took refuge in this snake, spider,and other poisonous creatures infested cave the night these pursuers were about to overtake them. It is said that the pursuers where about to explore this cave to search for them but that only moments after Muhammad and his companion entered the cave a spider guided by Allah began to spin a huge and complex web over the entrance, The spider completed the web only moments before the Meccans reached the cave, and the pursuers discussed the possibility of the refugees having gone into this deadly cave. The story relates that they were decieved by the web, having decided that Muhammad and his companion would not have dared to enter such a dangerous cave and that the web was so great and complex that it had to be ancient and that it would have been completely disturbed. consequently the Meccans gave up the idea of searching the cave(I'm not sure wether they decided that the muslims had not stopped and gave up the search or wether they just gave up out of frustration.I hope to see a reference to this story here on the wikipedia, maybe I'll find some sources for it and edit it in, perhaps under the miracles section...I guess when the debates are ended. One great source for information I would suggest is here that can offer orthodox (though probably hotly contested by the modern mainstream muslims) views: I urge all serious wikipeians to refer back to this site(in addition to any others you may check) for any real hope of logical information sources and Islamic POV and NPOV facts, and explanations that will not be infused with irrational passions,threats,and stonewalling. an interesting Muhammad link:

On the first paragraph...

"Muslims do not believe that he was the creator of a new religion, but the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others" Who are the others? They are all the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an, specifically relating to Judaism & Christianity, namely Sir Jesus and Sir Moise. I think it is important to stress out this commonness, that muslims do actually beleive in. This is my point of view, quranic verses available on demand.

Peace hkernel 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Most non-muslims know very little about Islam to begin with anyway...

"They see him as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets."

Muslims do see him as the last in a series of prophets, but they DO NOT see him as the greatest prophet, as God states in the Qur'an '...Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, "We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers'..." Qur'an, 2:285,

So the true thing to say would be "They see him as the last in a series of prophets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasawneh7 (talkcontribs) 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the Quran says there is no distinction between them, it is meant that there is no distinction made in their validity and piety as being men of God.
On "ranks" of prophet-hood:
[2:253] These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank...
On the exalted rank of Muhammad:
[33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
Jedi Master MIK 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

swords —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvdham (talkcontribs) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Obviously, both positive and negative biographies should be added. But they have to be reputable, and accepted by either the public or the academic world It is clear from the article on the Craig book that it is not considered reputable or reliable, and is written for the purpose of attacking Islam, not providing a biography of Mohammed. Perhaps it might be good to indicate the orientation of the ones that are there. If all responsible views are not represented, then good ones can be found to fill the gaps. DGG (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

'Ibn' == 'Son'

It Looks quite funny that in Muhammad's (PBUH) genealogy the word 'ibn' is used as if, for example, Qusai ibn Kilab meant an augmented name rather than simply meaning "Quasi, son of Kilab". As a native Arab, I guarantee you all the ibns can safely be replaced by son of's, and... that's pretty much it! -- 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

uniformity of Kaaba

Can someone PLEASE change the spelling of Ka'aba under "opposition in Mecca" to Kaaba.

The rest of the article uses Kaaba, that one time is the only deviation.

This will help with confusion and uniformity.

Thank You. (Run4fun 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Prophet Muhammad's full name!?

I have always thought that Prophets full name was 'Muhammad Mustafa.'

Where did 'Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh' come from?

Can someone confirm this????

As traditional Arab naming goes, AFAIK he technically would've been Muhammad ibn Abdullah. However, people were given honorary titles as in many cultures no doubt people do based on merits, personality, looks, etc. Muhammad was known as siddiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy) to his fellow tribesmen. Finally he was also known later as Mustafa which according to wiki means "chosen one" and as you should probably know, he proclaimed to be a prophet of God for all of humanity so you can gather where that could/would/should come from. Jedi Master MIK 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Life based on Islamic traditions"


The title of the section Muhammad#Life_based_on_Islamic_traditions is misleading and unnecessary.

First, and foremost the section contains a lot of information from non-Muslim secular sources. For example in section Muhammad#Childhood there is a discussion of Western critical analysis. If we do choose to keep the section title as such, then we should remove all non-"Islamic tradition" material and put it in a separate section. But that would not be a good idea, and I favor changing the title instead.

Secondly, the inclusion of "Islamic traditions" is unnecessary. The sources of Muhammad's life are already discussed in Muhammad#Sources_for_Muhammad.27s_life. To label the diverse set of sources as "Islamic tradition" is an oversimplification that best be avoided.Bless sins 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Western scholars may use pre-Islamic sources or knowledge they have from other area too. So, Muhammad#Life would be better. --Aminz 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wily, can you please apply this change if you nobody disagrees. Thanks --Aminz 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll give people a little while to disagree, and if no one does, I'll apply it. Cheers, WilyD 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I had made this change. as a note, I found the actual title wasn't really discussed, so I put in something a little more grammatical than "Life". If any objects I'll change it. Cheers, WilyD 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


It's pretty trivial, but did Muhammad die in Madina or Medina? Clicking on the Madina link directs you to the Medina page, so is it just a spelling error? Wkpdia rox 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Medina (which is also spelled as Madina). That's where his tomb is as well (since he was buried on the spot). An administrator should change "Madina" to "Medina" in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM.Bless sins 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

View of Muhammad by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

{{editprotected}} I recommend the following be placed in the Muhammad article under the section on Christianity:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad as one of the great religious leaders of the world who received a portion of God’s light and that moral truths were given to him to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.[16] Alanraywiki 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for a couple more people to comment here as to whether or not this change should be made. If there is a consensus in favour, the {{editprotected}} tag can be re-added. Tra (Talk) 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The link above references a statement from the Mormon leadership from 1978. The full text is "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal Welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father."
A search of the word Muhammad on (an official LDS website designed to answer basic questions about the LDS faith) comes up with zero hits. A search for Muhammad on (the official website of the LDS church) gives 21 hits including one entitled "A Latter Day Saint perspective on Muhammad." The article was published in the official church Magazine. Full text at [2] The concluding statement of the article is "... we belong to a church that affirms the truths taught by Muhammad and other great teachers, reformers, and religious founders. We recognize the goodness reflected in the lives of those in other religious communities. While we do not compromise revealed eternal truths of the restored gospel, we never espouse an adversarial relationship with other faiths. Rather, in accordance with modern prophetic counsel, we seek to treasure up that which is virtuous and praiseworthy in other faiths and to cultivate an attitude of “affirmative gratitude” toward them. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that it is vital to respect and benefit from the spiritual light found in other religions, while seeking humbly to share the additional measure of eternal truth provided by latter-day revelation".
Early church leaders writing in the Times and Seasons (the official LDS publication of the day) occasionally vilified Muhammad. Articles such as "Last Hour of the False Prophet," [Apr. 1, 1844] and "Mahometanism," [Jan. 15, 1845] support this view.
In 34 years of attending Mormon Church services I cannot remember a time when Muhammad was ever referenced as a doctrinal source or as a teacher of currently adhered to Mormon doctrine. While we may consider him as "a great religious leader" we do not consider him any more significant than "Plato, and Socrates".
I think to place a reference to Muhammad as a great religious leader of the Mormon community would misrepresent the Mormon position on Muhammad--KidDocMD 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with KidDocMD that LDS do not consider Muhammad as a great religious leader of the Mormon community. He is not villified, however (at least in this century). I was trying to bring some balance about the view of Muhammad by Christian churches. Maybe using the full quote would clarify the role of Muhammad in the LDS church, i.e., among the great religious leaders of the past and one respected for his contributions, but not as a source of doctrine. Would using the full quote work and be clearer? Thanks, Alanraywiki 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think including the full quote or even just a minor modification of the originaly recommended line "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad along with other historical figures such as Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Confucious, as leaders of the world who received a portion of God’s light and that moral truths were given to them to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."--KidDocMD 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading Addition

I think it's worth putting down 'The Sealed Nectar' by Saif-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri as part of the further reading. It's an execellent biography of the prophet Muhammad, and a credible source in my opinion.

Quote from The Sealed Nectar article:

" It was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following a world-wide competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979."

Aadamh 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article needs a summarized criticism section. I'll add it when the article is unprotected. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it does. if there's any noteworthy criticism, it should be diffuse wherever relevant throughout the article. in this case, both positive and negative views can be covered in sections like these. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, tell me why its ok to have a Criticism section in Islam but not Muhammad. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section, and Talk:Islam#Criticism_section. ITAQALLAH 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world would we need to criticize him? Is that the theme of every article? To look up dirt on a person and expose for all to see for the sake of a "good" article?63rd 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a criticism right on the Moses article so there should be a criticism section right on the Muhammad article.--Java7837 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it just means the very small criticism section in the Moses article should be removed and the text incorporated into the main body. It's only a few lines related to some of the OT Moses law and 1 of the lines is uncited anyway.Ttiotsw 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost every article on notable persons contemporary or hitorical contains a criticism section. Avoiding this crucial element in Muhammad's case for the sake of political correctness is wrong. According to history, Muhammad was a man, a leader, not a prophet, not a saint to be revered. The article should give the facts, including the relevatn historical interpretations (positive and negative).--SCJE (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that i read the links given above, I guess we'll have to abide by what Jimbo said here, which says criticism should be distributed throughout the article as opposed to it being separate, which is actually not a bad idea. That way, the rest of the article doesnt whitewash or appear positively biased as it would if it we had a separate criticism section. All the sections will then appear uniform and nuetral instead of being only positive. In another way of saying it, having 100% of the article giving a nuetral view, is better than having 95% of the article having a positive view and only that small 5% criticism section having a negative view. But in the end Jimbo's unbiased ruling rules anyway, so.. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} It would help to have Muhammad's entire name written in Arabic as well. Also, Muhammad's full name is Abu-l-Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd-Allah (thats attested in several sources), so updating that would be nice too. Sicarii 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Muhammad's full name in arabic script: ابو القاسم محمد عبدالله The source for that full name is Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam volume 1: The Classical Age of Islam, University of Chicago Press. I'm going to make this an edit-protected request, because I think that having the full name in both english and arabic script is useful. The edit would look like this: Abu-l-Qāsim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد بن عبدالله‎ Thanks. Sicarii 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable making this change while the page is protected. If there are other editors that support the change, please speak up, and I'd gladly make the change. However, this seems a bit like word soup, and I know that filling the lead of the Jesus article with different translations of his name was opposed by some users, so I figure someone may oppose adding this extra text. However, if I'm wrong, please speak up to support this change. We need more input before I'm comfortable with the notion of this edit being non-controversial.-Andrew c [talk] 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Since there isn't a great deal of clamor for this change, I agree with Andrew it is better not to make it while the page is protected. I will disable the editprotected request. When the issues that led to the disagreement in September are resolved, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

this article is far too long

This article seems quite long compared to the other articles in wikipedia.Hasseniqbal192 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are many conflicting agendas on this page, eh? Thus, a long article --Bill Bisco 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

يحرم وضع صور للرسول ولو كانت افتراضية لذلك أطالب بحذف صورة المنقبة بجوار الكعبة-- 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia . . . please translate. Thanks, Alanraywiki 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That last Arabic line had something to do with "Pictures of depriving a messenger" and "delete the image excavating near". --Hojimachongtalk 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Can we have a left-to-right mark (&lrm;) after the Arabic text of Mohammed's name in the first line please, before the <ref> tag? Otherwise, at least on my browser, the Arabic version of the script ends up "crossed out" by a broken footnote marker. Thx. Jheald 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done-Andrew c [talk] 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion of Muhammed vs. later events

I think much of the friction in the editing of this article results from a complete lack of distinction between Muhammed and people much later in history. How much relevance do Christian diatribes from the twelfth or eighteenth century have to the actual topic of this article? Meanwhile much of the most relevant content - regarding what Muhammed did and when he did it and whether he really did it and who saw him do it - is scattered among little articles like historicity of Muhammad, Muhammad before Medina, Migration to Abyssinia, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca, several articles on specific events, and Allah alone knows how many other itty bitty articles composed mostly of summaries of one another.

I suggest that this article be split into two, into which smaller articles would be merged:

  • Events of Muhammad's life, which should be merged with most if not all of the articles I name above
  • Cultural references to Muhammad, which would be like the garden-variety "Cultural References" sections of many other articles, except with sections for many different eras, religions, and perspectives - everything from "Traditional views of Muhammad" onward, including the Christian view of Muhammad, the Mormon, Baha'i, and Druze views mentioned in the article or above.
  • Muhammad should either be a disambiguation page or be used as the name for the former article, with the disambiguation line "This article describes what is known of the events of Muhammed's life. See cultural references to Muhammad for subsequent reactions.

It greatly disappoints me to see permanent full protection becoming the norm for Wikipedia. 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just second that the organizational scheme employed here is very, very odd. The Before Medina, Migration, In Medina, and After Medina at least have some sort of sanity to them, although they could be vastly improved. Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general are just a mess, and I can't believe that structure has survived as long as it has. I took a stab at trying to fix it once, but it didn't take. --Alecmconroy 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus to Christians and Muhammad to Islam

Should the article on Jesus be written with an Islamic perspective? Why is it that Jesus is quoted according to the bible and not according to Islamic scholars?. While there is a small section with the Islamic perspective on Jesus, I think there should be a Christian and seperately Western perspective of Muhammad listed. The Muhammad article is filled with perspectives and refereances of western scholars, while these perspectives should be welcomed, there should be a seperate view of this and it should be listed under the title of according to western scholars, and the Muhammed article should be re-written according to muslim scholars and other scholars can have their quotes in a seperate section, after all Muslims do not learn about Muhammad's life according to the Oxford dictionary, Watt and or Richard Bell, Muhammed's life, while quote well recorded as a historical figure is not taught to muslims according to western scholars. This article needs to be completely re-written according to Islamic history by Islamic scholars, and other views should be listed as well, under the sub-heading Muhammed according to western tradtion. The is how Jesus and all of the other prophets are listed on Wikipedia, written by their own subsequent scholars, with limited quotes being seperately listed under sub headings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe you missed Islamic views of Jesus. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
...and Christian view of Muhammad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The view of Christians and Muslims on Prophet Muhammad and Jesus, respectively, is welcome; but the point is these should be under sub-headings. But most of the articles releated to Islam are derived from Western, Non-Muslim sources while Christian and Jewish articles are written with Christian and Jewish perspective. This seriously dents the neutrality of an Encyclopeadia.--Muneeb smw (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You could look up, research, and provide some non-Western sources couldn't you? Of course you also seem to be arguing that "Westerners" cannot understand "Eastern" thought and vice versa, which is something I just do not believe to be true. If you think something is badly referenced or incorrect then edit it according to wikipedia policy. RecentlyAnon (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

proper sources

To tell us "Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad" is not good enough. The article - and the cited section in particular -- is signed: do have an author with a name. Please provide it. (I am referring to footnote 21)


Since it seems the dialogue has dried up, I'm going to reduce this page back to semi-protection. WilyD 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, if you're going to protect an article as prominent as this one for the incredible length of time you did, you should take a more active role. Arrow740 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll apply the changes that were discussed above in the "opposition" section. ( For the rest of the disputes, I'll continue discussion here before making any changes. --Aminz (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
the job of a mediator is to oversee dispute resolution and help facilitate discussion (which i think he did), not to force a hand in the debate. WilyD's intervention was certainly welcomed, and i request he continues to monitor these pages more often. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An addition

Fazlur Rahman, in Islam, p.21, mentions several reasons for the existing state of war between Mecca and Medina. He says:"But, besides all this, the most urgent and immediate reason for the Prophet's measures against the Meccans was the hostility of the Meccans themselves against the Muslims even when these latter had emigrated to Medina. The Meccans had not only seized the properties of these emigrants whom they had virtually expelled from their homes, but ..."

I'd like to add "The Meccans had seized the properties of Muslim emigrants in Mecca." to "the beginning of armed conflict" section. --Aminz (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pure POV. Adding this fact there is original synthesis because you are implying a connection, and that is pure POV. Arrow740 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
it's not an original synthesis, he is talking in the context of action taken against Mecca. at the same time, Aminz, if you find corroborating sources suggesting Meccan seizure of Muslim property (related in some primary accounts i think), then it may add more weight to the rationale for inclusion. ITAQALLAH 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, I can not understand your point. If you read page 21 from Rahman, you'll see he is talking exactly about what we are writing here. Rahman is making the connection between the warfare that followed and seizing the properties of these emigrants. --Aminz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

Itaqallah has recently added uncited material claiming Muhammad passed some kind of "prophethood test." Further, his "skirmishes continued from both sides" attempts to summarize material which only mentions attacks initiated by Muhammad. Next, the POV about Muhammad only marrying women to contract alliances must be removed. Just the facts. He actually married them because he was quite fond of many women. Rodinson mentions his "violent attraction" to Safiyya (maybe Rayhana, I can't remember right now), and his splitting up his son's marriage so he could marry his beautiful wife. Rodinson also finds Watt's dismissal of Muhammad's attraction to her as ludicrous, this will soon be added in the relevant places. So you see it is better to leave the facts.

Also "was to be taken" is quite bizarre. Read the original Rodinson who produces the arguments of Muhammad's critics in quite strong language. Clear writing is certainly a good compromise here. About the Ali thing, it's not irrelevant because Muhammad had to make a decision and he asked people for advice, and that's how Ali responded. The assasination connection can be left out.

Regarding Mormonism, get an RS please. Arrow740 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

let's get our facts right Arrow.. you removed a passage because you considered it uncited (not necessarily the case) and because it needed clarification. instead of identifying it for others to fix (as you weren't able to do so), you simply removed it, and have continued in that vein. as for the skirmishes -attacks occured on both sides after Badr. you have tried to precede Uhud with one specific caravan raid to push your unsupported POV that it was the causation of Uhud (and hence the tendentious underlying theme of Medinan provocation/Meccan reaction). some of Muhammad's marriages were for political reasons, that's just plain fact. it isn't an excuse for you to threaten POV-pushing Rodinson's speculations, your abstinence from which being presented as some sort of bargaining chip.
this opposition to "was to be taken" isn't a convincing pretext for reverting to your version from months ago. you could easily have changed that phrase alone, as i have now done. i expect no further qualms regarding that passage. Ali's comment is irrelevant once it has been disjointed from its significance (held by only a minority view), unless you'd like to neutralise it and add some of the more positive comments she obtained. ITAQALLAH 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, I added a fact about the general Arab customs of marriage and the general emphasis on virginity. That's a fact. That Muhammad's marriages were based on forming alliances is mentioned as the opinion of Watt and Esposito. So, everything is perfect.
Regarding Ali's comment: it is irrelevant because many other people had reactions, Abu Bakr, Aisha herself. You have picked a piece of the story that is completely irrelevant to Muhammad's biography here. --Aminz (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Under Marriages and Children section, please add some detail on wifes

Please add detail about Zeinab, one of Muhammad's wives. The current entry says "Later, Muhammad married additional wives, most of them widows, to make for a total of eleven, of whom nine or ten survived him".

Zeinab was definitely an exception to the 'widows' comment. She was not a widow.

I would propose that we should add the following to the section "Marriages and Children" after the existing text:

-- Muhammad fell in love with Zeinab, the wife of Zeid. Zeid is the adopted son of Muhammad. Then Muhammad received a revelation from Allah that it was permissible to marry the wife of an adopted son. Zeid divorced Zeinab. Muhammad married her. --

The source of this information is Quran itself as well as Haditha, and hundreds of historical and theological texts from Islam. There is never any dispute about the facts of the marriage of Muhammad to Zeinab. There obviously is a lot of discussion on the morality of it. Islamic purists insisting devine decree is beyond moral critique, and others pointing out that the 'revelation' sounds too convenient. I am not suggesting we put this discussion on the article. Let's just put the facts.

Dharmateja (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In Regards to Sections 2 + 3 Titles

Hello, I've been taking a glance at the article here for recreational purposes, but sections 2 + 3, or more accurately, their titles, I have a small concern. Be assured my concern is a purely neutral one and am not trying to assert any point of view in particular, but in these titles are contained the following honorifics: "The Holy Prophet" "peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah upon him" "The Holy Life" and "(pbuh)". This is a concern to me because of the following section of the manual of style: WP:MOSISLAM#Muhammad, which specifically states to remove "The Holy Prophet" and "(pbuh)" due to their POV, and also states: "There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles", which would lead to the conclusion that the two other honorifics which, while not explicitly mentioned in this section of the Manual of Style, should also be removed based on their POV. I would have moved myself to remove these but considering the volatile nature of pages like this, I did not want to spark a heated debate/flaming, and also was not sure whether some prior consensus had been reached on the matter; therefore, I bring the matter here to ensure the proper course is taken. Thank you. (A note: I did not read the article thoroughly, so I do not know whether other honorifics are contained within the text, but this is something that should be checked upon as well). DoomsDay349 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

remove the critism section

this section should and has to be removed. muhammad is beliveed as a prophet to muslins, critising him mean rasism. it is like insultind a religion. this artical has to be removed. those who believe in him will be hurted like me. so remove it. how would you feel if someone insult your religion.

critism section is located at the ight side of the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam100 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel any part of the criticism article is incorrect then feel free to go there and discuss it on its respective talk page. Furthermore, criticism is not an insult, and trying to ban criticism leads to tyranny. -- (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the seccessor.

An article of an encyclopedia should bear all references, concepts and beliefs of all the sects of Islam. In the information box showing the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws), only one name of Abu Bakr is mentioned which is incorrect. The belief of the Shi'a sect should also be considered and the name of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) should be added as the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws). --Ya 'Ali Ya 'Azeem (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go and remove the box in its entirety - it doesn't make sense to have a successor to the "Founder of Islam". It's like having a second discoverer of the theory of gravity after Isaac Newton, or something. Also, obviously, it's unnecessarily provocative in its present form in preferring the Sunni POV over the Shi'a POV. Lankiveil (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC).

Banu Qaynuqa

Arrow, please read the original article. According to Watt, Muhammad's insistence was on having the Qaynuqa must leave the city, but was prepared to be lenient about other conditions; Ibn Ubay argued that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help in view of the expected Meccan onslaught. The opinions should be explained in the main article. Here only comes the facts. --Aminz (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, what's your point. Watt says: Muhammad's insistence was on having the Qaynuqa must leave the city, but was prepared to be lenient about other conditions; Ibn Ubay argued that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help in view of the expected Meccan onslaught. --Aminz (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't contradict Rodinson. Arrow740 (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
YES, it does. was prepared to be lenient about other conditions - his insistence was that Qaynuqa must leave. Watt does not say Muhammad wanted to have them killed, only that wanted them to leave. --Aminz (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't say that Muhammad wanted to have them killed. He doesn't say that Muhammad didn't want to have them killed. Do you understand? Arrow740 (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Watt clearly says that he wanted them to leave the city? How can they leave the city when they are dead? --Aminz (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you had paid attention to Rodinson you would not have asked those questions. Muhammad wanted to have them killed, then changed his mind and said that they only had to undergo exile. Arrow740 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Arrow. Watt's reading and Rodinson's reading of Ibn Ubay's later involvement is different. In Watt, Muhammad never gets close to wanting to have them killed. In Rodinson he does. Each person is telling his own narrative. Smashing the two narrative together is like combining the view of two witnesses of an incident together and pretending as if both are saying the same thing. --Aminz (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that you are correct as to what Watt was thinking but did not write. As such you cannot remove sourced facts. Arrow740 (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Watt's narrative is quite clear and stands on its own. In Watt's narrative, the intervention of Ibn Ubayy happens after the decision for expulsion of Qaynuqa was made. (see page 131, Muhammad the Prophet and Statesman) --Aminz (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Aminz' reading of Watt here is sound. Watt is saying that Ibn Ubayy's vehement opposition was to the expulsion. it is in that context that the later pleas of Ibn Ubayy (who tries to convince Muhammad to not expel them) is given. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Aminz' reading of Watt appears to be sound (Watt said that "Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy attempted to stop the expulsion".) I disagree, however, that Watt's reading is sound. This may seem a rather shocking statement to accuse a well-known historian of being inaccurate, but I'm afraid it is the only conclusion I can come to, and since this issue cannot be resolved without accusing one of either Watt or Rodinson of inaccuracy, it seems to me to be more justified to accuse the former. Before I explain myself, I just need to mention that the premise for my conclusions is that it is better rely on source material for factual statements where possible rather than various people's interpretation of it and that, if there is a dispute over the facts, source material should be consulted to resolve it. I hope this seems logical enough. Okay, so here's where I get off accusing Watt (!):

  • According to Ibn Ishaq, when Abd-Allah finally managed to get the enraged attention of Mohammed, he protested Mohammed's planned fate for them by describing it like this: "you would mow them in a single morning". Aminz quite reasonably pointed out that it is a step to take the metaphor "mow them" to "execute them". However, it is a veritable leap off the precipice of rationality to take "mow them" to "exile them". "Mow them down" is a recognised euphemism for massacre. The reason for this is that "mow" evokes the image of cutting things down. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "(historical) cut down (grass or a cereal crop) with a scythe or sickle". The image being evoked in Ishaq's historical description is one of cutting down individuals (like blades of grass) with a blade (like the farmer's scythe.) I see no possible way to interpret "mow" as "exile". The metaphor just ceases to make sense interpreted that way.
  • Why would Abd-Allah say, "I do not feel safe" (according to Ibn Ishaq) if what was being threatened was only exile, not death?
  • Additionally it contradicts Watt's own description to interpret it this way. Even if we were to lose our marbles and pretend that "mow" meant "exile", the "in a single morning" is problematic because, as Watt states, "Three days were granted to them".
  • Watt suggests that Abd-Allah's attempt to change Mohammed's mind was unsuccessful: "He urged upon Muhammad [their] important contribution ... But Muhammad insisted they must leave"; "This failure of their Medinan allies to support them, and the indication of the comparative weakness of 'Abd-Allah...". This is not true though. According to Ishaq, Mohammed's response to Abd-Allah was not continued insistence that they must leave: So the Messenger of God said, "They are yours." The So indicates that Mohammed's change of heart was a direct result of Abd-Allah's pleas. It also indicates that Mohammed completely forfeited his authority to decide the manner of their punishment. That is a far cry from insisting on their exile!
  • Watt is factually incorrect on another part of this account: "He urged upon Muhammad the important contribution Qaynuqa could make to his forces in the event of further fighting with the Meccans — they were said to have 700 fighting men, of whom about half were armoured." Watt misinterprets. Ibn Ishaq records Abd-Allah as saying, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and non-Arab alike, and you would mow them in a single morning?" Sir William Muir (Ch.13) records Abd-Allah as using a similar argument in appeal to Obada: "What! art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a day? "- and he began enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. As you can see, Watt gets his "700" number from adding together the 400 and 300 that Ibn Ishaq mentions, but Ishaq was quoting Abd-Allah as talking about events in the past! He was not attempting to convince Mohammed and Obada about the potential future usefulness of the Banu Qaynuqa, but instead, to remind them of their bravery and loyalty in the past. While this does not appear to bear direct relevance to the issue of what it was that Mohammed wanted to do to the Qaynuqa, it does bear direct relevance to the question of whether Watt's interpretation of this incident should be trusted. Watt misread the source material and made false conclusions from it on the point of what Abd-Allah said to Mohammed. Can his conclusion about what Mohammed said in response be trusted then? And please continue reading to the end to see why it is that Watt made this mistake, because I can directly tie this misinterpretation to Watt's description of Mohammed's intentions!
  • Tabari vol.VII p.87 records Mohammed as agreeing to let them go and cursing them and Abd-Allah.
  • In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir v.2 p.32, Ibn Sa’d records: They shut themselves up in their fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their hearts. They submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs. The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa’d Ibn Khaythamah to tie their hands behind their backs. Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated him (to release them). Thereupon he (Prophet) said: Leave them, may Allah curse them and curse him who is with them! He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished from Madinah.

From all this, I conclude this chain of events:
1) Mohammed besieged the Qaynuqa (source: Ibn Sa'd agreement: Watt)
2) Mohammed made an agreement with the Qaynuqa that, upon their surrender, they would take their women and children away with them (in exile) and leave Mohammed their property, and Mohammed would give them three days' grace to sort out their affairs. (source: Ibn Sa'd agreement: Watt)
3) Once they had surrendered, Mohammed reneged on his agreement and ordered them to be tied up and killed (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq agreement: Rodinson)
4) Abd-Allah intervened repeatedly on their behalf, begging for their mercy, citing their bravery and loyalty in the past and expressing disbelief and fear that Mohammed would turn against them now. (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, agreement: Sir William Muir)
5) In response to Abd-Allah, Mohammed agreed to release the Qaynuqa from their bonds and desist from his plan to kill them, and pronounced a curse upon them and Abd-Allah. (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, Tabari)

So Watt misread the situation. It probably confused him that Mohammed originally agreed to exile; after all, if Mohammed's response to Abd-Allah was (to paraphrase) 'fine, I'll exile them' and if you miss the part where he reneged on his agreement with the Qaynuqa (as Watt did), then it looks like Mohammed's plan did not change and therefore he did not compromise with Abd-Allah (as all relevant sources insist he did) but instead ignored him (as Watt mistakenly and single-handedly concluded.) I hope I have clarified it to a point where you can see how it is that Watt's mistake on what Mohammed intended to do to the Qaynuqa manifested itself in (or dominoed into, I guess) the peculiar factually incorrect and easily refuted assertion that Mohammed ignored Abd-Allah and insisted on his plan of action. Whew! That was a lot of text. Sorry to put you through all that. Comments? clicketyclickyaketyyak 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite impressive! Thank you very much for this. Arrow740 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
the presumption of this is that the primary sources you cite (which, as far as i can make out, have been quoted from third party websites) are the only ones he had access to. Watt's reading appears to be unique, that much is for certain. as for whether he is right or wrong in his opinion, it would be fruitless to conduct that discussion here (see the opening sentences of WP:V) - but your civility is certainly welcomed. ITAQALLAH 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Clicketyclick, first of all, I'd like to thank you for the analysis. I think some of the arguments should be made based on the arabic texts rather than their translation, and the metaphors should be understood as they are in the Arabic language of the time. As Itaqallah mentioned there are also other early sources like Al-Waqidi. Having said all these, Clicketyclick, I would separate "what I personally perceive as truth", and "what I write in wikipedia". Your comments can indeed change the "what I personally perceive as truth" part but as to the second part, the policy is that we should blindly mention the views of scholars and simply leave it to the readers to judge which one is correct. I justify it not only based on wikipedia policies, but also because it is perfectly possible that a reader might be smarter than me and I'd rather give him the chance to take those steps for himself/herself. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah: There is no need for such a presumption. Whether or not these were the only sources available to him, he is still mistaken in his idiosyncratic interpretation when considering these sources.
Aminz: to mow people down does not magically change its meaning to "exile" when considered in Arabic. Unless you would like to quote the Arabic and give a convincing argument as to why the Arabic version should be treated as radically different in its meaning from the English source (and thus why the translated version of Ishaq and Tabari are not reliable sources), then I don't find the argument that it could potentially mean something different in Arabic convincing. A translator's job is to make sure that their translation reflects the language usage at the time, and I see no reason to doubt the excellent translation of his works succeeds at this. As for "what I write in wikipedia" and giving the reader a chance to read the views of scholars that are to be mentioned blindly, you were the one removing a scholar's explanation. I and Arrow were the ones reinserting it. I do disagree however that things should be inserted blindly. This is fine for when it is understood that perceptions and opinions are being stated, but when the section in question is supposed to establish the truth of what happened, if source material does not jibe with critical interpretations on a point of fact, the source material should take precedence over the interpretation. clicketyclickyaketyyak 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Clicketyclick, we have one paragraph on "Banu Qaynuqa", "Banu Nadir" and "Banu Qurayza". This is supposed to be a short summary and I don't feel a significant part of this should be spent to what Ibn Ubay did and what Rodinson says Muhammad wanted to do. There are other important incidents like 3 year of Meccan boycott on Muhammad that we have mentioned them just in passing in one sentence. Such details should go to the main article(e.g. Banu Qaynuqa, Meccan boycott, etc etc).
And Clicketyclick, it is not expected of wikipedians to discuss and accept or refute the views of one scholar against the other or otherwise. Not that this is a bad thing, but it is against wikipedia policies (please see WP:OR). You think Watt is mistaken, a perfectly respectable view. My arguments may not aimed to convince you otherwise but to mention how Watt's view can be reasonable. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Clicketyclick - that is a presumption i see as the basis of your comments. you rule out the possibility that Watt might have had other primary sources which conflict with the ones provided by yourself. that is part of the job of a historian - to weigh up primary sources when they contradict, to look at other contextual factors and evidences, and then try to synthesis a narrative. that may eventually mean a departure from what certain primary sources say. regardless, this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand- i would echo Aminz' sentiments that we aren't supposed to decide which opinions have greater validity. if we want to discuss the Banu Qaynuqa, we should either present the whole incident in a balanced manner (without giving it undue weight, or providing a tendentious focus on one aspect of it)- that is, the increase in tensions, the Qaynuqan challenge, and then the seige, or we should present an extremely brief overview and defer the more detailed account to Banu Qaynuqa.
as a sidenote, the whole section #Jewish tribes of Medina doesn't follow the chronology of the biography for it covers again each of the Jewish tribes. i suggest that this section be merged into the two above sections so that we don't find that we're repeating ourselves and giving undue weight to one incident or series of incidences. ITAQALLAH 13:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
If you choose to ignore his excellent argument and the primary sources, the fact is that Watt does not expressly contradict Rodinson. Watt's statement that ibn Ubayy tried to stop the expulsion does not imply that he did not successfully stop the execution. Arrow740 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
i think you'd find your hypothesis to be wrong if you read through Watt's narrative. the whole incident of the confrontation mentioned in the sources is given, by Watt, in the context of Ibn Ubayy's resistance to the idea of expulsion, who argues they're of better use remaining residents of Medina. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
That ibn Ubayy tried to stop the expulsion does not imply that he did not successfully stop the execution. Arrow740 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, aside from Watt's view; we have one paragraph on "Banu Qaynuqa", "Banu Nadir" and "Banu Qurayza". This is supposed to be a short summary of the whole story; a significant part of this should not be spent to what Ibn Ubay did and what Rodinson says Muhammad wanted to do anyways. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cook agrees with Rodinson; see the main Banu Qaynuqa article. Clickety has proved that Cook and Rodinson are right. Watt does not contradict Rodinson. In my view Watt may simply be ignoring Muhammad's desire to kill them all and only mentioning his desire to exile them. In any case, Watt does not contradict Rodinson so your excuse to remove Rodinson is gone. We have a section on Muhammad and the Jews. We should mention his attitude toward the Banu Qaynuqa. Arrow740 (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, everybody here disagrees with you. Watt says "Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy attempted to stop the expulsion". Where in Rodinson Ibn Ubayy tries to stop the expulsion? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy attempted to stop the expulsion" Rodinson doesn't contradict that. From the primary sources presented here it is clear that Rodinson and Cook are right and that Watt should have mentioned Muhammad's murderous intentions. He is either omitting it out of personal bias or his personal reading of the texts is incorrect. The fact is that you are trying to oppose Watt and Rodinson when there are no contradictory statements. Arrow740 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you can not go against the consensus here. It is so obvious that Watt and Rodinson have a different reading of Ubayy's involvement. You are violating WP:Consensus if not other policies. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, Watt doesn't contradict Rodinson and your narrative of Watt's narrative isn't significant. Stop ignoring clickety's argument, the primary sources, Rodinson, and Cook when Watt doesn't even contradict all that. Arrow740 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a tendency to ignore evidence of things you find uncomfortable. I'm mentioning this because itaqallah suggested I try to address you behavioral issues with you directly instead of with an RfC. For one thing, ignoring discomfort with issues of identity is a way of being dishonest with yourself and never solves any problems or brings true happiness. In this context, it makes it frustrating to deal with you. Here you are ignoring the primary sources, clickety's clear argument, and the statements of Rodinson and Cook. Please address those things. Arrow740 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting that you mention that I "have a tendency to ignore evidence of things you find uncomfortable" while you are ignoring that clickety said that my reading of Watt is sound, but that he thinks Watt is mistaken (which is an altogether different issue). Interesting indeed! Arrow, none except you here shares your view re Watt's view and you can not edit war against the consensus. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you are pressing on with this futile attempt to claim they aren't in contradiction. you clearly haven't bothered to read the passages in Watt, and you should cease this wikilawyering until you do. ITAQALLAH 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not futile. There is no clear contradiction. Arrow740 (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
i can see why you would argue that, had i not read the passages themselves. as explained above, the physical confrontation is placed in the context of Ibn Ubayy pleading against their expulsion according to Watt. according to others, it is in the context of sparing the BQ. there weren't two physical encounters. ITAQALLAH 14:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you need to stop your denial about on Watt's narrative. Watt is clear about when and why Ibn Ubayy stepped in. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, you need to stop your denial about Rodinson, Cook, and the primary sources. Do you admit that they all indicate that Muhammad wanted to execute the Banu Qaynuqa? Arrow740 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Arrow, you are diverging from the discussion. Everybody except you agrees that Watt does not disagree with Rodinson and it is time for you to acknowledge this clear fact. --Be happy!! (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

abu rihan biruni

Please correct the name of abu rihan biruni.probably, The name you used was copied from arabic resources which adds AL to all names.Abu rihan biruni was an Iranian scientist and never been in any arabic country

Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

Prophet Mohammed is the God Of The Worlds in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Mention the Hinduism View of Phrophet Muhammed

Thats not fair, you put Christianity view of Muhammed and not Hinduism. Muhammed is a Hindu God.

If you can find reliable sources that attest to this fact, you are welcome to include such a section in the article. Lankiveil (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

ok,. the following is some refernces i could get intouch with

  • There is a veda on Prophet Mohammed.

this link is an image of Prophet Muhammed in Hindu text from the holy veda.

  • This link shows holy Priest/Pundits who are very well known in the field of research in India, and are amongst the Learned Religious Leaders

  • Dr. Zakir Naik is a doctor/lecturer who talks to more than millions of millions of Hindus in India and explain Islam relations between the two religons. Dr Zakir Naik is also the president of the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) << is in Hindu/Urdu

I will try to provide more. I will put in proper time and do proper research the following is just a bit i researched.

it should be mentioned because Christianity has no holy book on Mohammed nor Allah. Hinduism has holy vedas on the two of them. i will provide more within time. i am pretty busy sorry for the inconvience

Muslims have claimed that the NT Paraclete is Mohammed, and agree that the God of Jesus is Allah. I looked into the last geocities page and found some rebuttals to it, like as for the claim Mohammed and Kalki live on olives and dates, in fact in Kalki Purana Chapter III[17], Verse 43, Kalki and his wife is shown to have been feasting on rice, curd and other milk products. rebuttal. So each claim by Prof. Parkash should be verified in the primary Hindu source, and if there is contradiction then editors can deem it to be unreliable. Also his actual book on the subject, not a homepage about it, would be the source to use. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to study alittle bit harder to know that there is no relation between mohammad (gpbh) and hindosim, they believe what they want and muslims believe what they want. Symbolisim is not correct in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talkcontribs) 09:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is Incorrect. See Al-Baqara page.

Please explain why does Hindi Language have many many words same in Arabic ??????? also when Prophet Muhammed went to India, a Veda was made on him during his Journey and ventures. In the Autar Purana it says when he was born and history of Prophet Muhammed. another Veda said that a God will be born reffering to Prophet Muhammad and how he was suppose to be born at this time and kill a specific number of people etc...

Removal of offensive material

Is there anything we can do to stop Muslims coming here every couple of weeks to demand that we should adhere to their religious taboos? Can we perhaps create a special page and automatically transfer all such demands to it, where they can stomp their feet as much as they like? Or instead maybe we should make some counter claims. Before they come here trying to tell us what to do, perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran. I am not a Christian I hasten to add - religion isn't compulsary in the West - but I merely suggest this in order to highlight a certain level of hypocrisy and double standards. TharkunColl (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As you can imagine Talk:evolution has a somewhat similar situation, you can see what they do - but in general, not exactly. I dunno, one might look at the Danzig vote ... Talk:Gdansk/Vote although personally I think the Danzig vote is about the stupidest thing ever done around here, it seems to have stuck. WilyD 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • We could create something similar to Talk:Evolution/FAQ, which would contain all the arguments that have been made against the removal of the images. Anyone who complains could then be referred to the FAQ page unless they have some new point to make. Hut 8.5 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the FAQ is a good idea. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea! I've started it based on the Evolution FAQ. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"Perhaps we should ask them to remove all those offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran." That made me smirk, I have to admit.--C.Logan (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to quote locan when saying "offensive and highly inaccurate references to Jesus from the Koran" and i just want to ask him/her from where you got this misleading information??? Jesus is a prophit acknowledged by all muslims and i challenge you to find any offensive references about him in the Quran; because actually one the pillars of being a good muslim is to believe in god, and all his prophits including jesus of course..... Anyway...i wonder what is the problem if you remove these pictures? untill now i was thinking of Wikipedia as one of the most successful examples of how a great website can be, but after finding out that the page is PROTECTED so that no one can remove these images, i believe that this is just CRAP...because there's nothing wrong in respecting other people's beliefs. Finally, i would like to say that it is forbidden to symbolize jesus or any other prophit in Islam, and not just the prophit Muhammed PBUH. So when we are asking to remove the pictures, i guess this request should be handled with enough respect and avoid getting wikipedia in these time wasting stupid debates; that won't do anything but giving a chance to more and more debates...

Creativecopywriter (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)creativecopywriterCreativecopywriter (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Koran claims, for example, that Jesus was not crucified and that another took his place. This is highly offensive to Christians. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have a zero-tolerance policy for this. If somebody brings this up again, we simply revert them and leave a warning on their talk page. It's quite clear that people wanting the images are not willing to debate the issue. Zazaban (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As annoying as it is, leaving a warning might be a bit bite-y. How about a friendly pointer to the FAQ page on their talk page, and a revert here? Most of the requests, while misguided, have been made in good faith. Lankiveil (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

The intent is to not have a picture or statue of Mohammed to worship as Christians may do with Jesus, unfortunately it's taken to extreme by many Muslims who don't understand this. There should be no real problem for Muslims there if they don't pray to it, and if it's not offensive otherwise. So while I understand the reasoning in asking for removal, I'm not real supportive of using Wikipedia to further reinforce misunderstanding of this religious principle. -Bikinibomb (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they actually, honestly believe that we might be tempted to worship Muhammad? The mind boggles... TharkunColl (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm Muslim but I guess like, more of a freethinker you could say. The idea is for Muslims not to turn Mohammed into an idol like Christians did with Jesus. That rule isn't there because he is just so holy he can't be imaged, that one is reserved for God. But too bad, a lot of Muslims don't really know why they believe stuff, that's just what they are taught and they run with it. So I don't recommend humoring them since there's no real rule like that to start with. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think in the respect point of view to remove this image from the web page. Mohammad (gpbh) is a holy thing for muslims, and it is forbidden in Islam to draw or symbolize him and so any symbolizm from any pary, even from those who claimed to be muslims at some time is not allowed, so please keep neutral, and try to keep the feelings of hunderades of millions by removing this aggrisive action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talkcontribs) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Christian iconoclasty is contemporary to Muhammad's time. It is not a moslem fashion. Ask the Christian historians or log on the iconoclast on Wikipedia and see. Iconoclasty is a famous chapter in the Christian history. The French Archaologists excavating in Jordan today found more historical churche sites in Jordan than in Palestine. The main feature of these findings is the iconoclasty phenomenon in the centuries prior to the birth of Islam. Noureddine (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I've attempted to answer two parts of the FAQ with arguments that are as much based in Wikipedia's policies as I could managed. The criticism section should be removed should itself be removed as there is no criticism section on the article. Recent trends have been to incorporate criticism throughout the entire article instead of segregating it into one section. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I put that stub there because of Talk:Muhammad#remove_the_critism_section and Talk:Muhammad#Criticism_section. The question seems to have popped up often in the archives as well. Frotz (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is no longer relevant, so why have it in the FAQ? --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no criticism section. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section. Any criticism that is relevant and reliably sourced should be incorporated throughout the article. ITAQALLAH 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't quite realize that it was gone. Frotz (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many leading thingies

Maybe I'm just being pendantic, but having all those disclaimers and other stuff at the top of this talk page makes an awful clutter. Frotz (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it might cut down on a tiny bit of the repetitive argument about the pics etc being brought up by newcomers. Merkinsmum 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


We're making headway on the "Story of the Cranes" material, which is great.

A question moving forward: Can I ask why you think it's important that we imply that works printed in 1996 and 1998 are not "modern"? BYT (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Muhammad was an apostle, orator, and physician"

If the concensus is to keep these POV's in the intro as it appears to be, they should be attributed and balanced as I have recently done. What are some opinions on the matter? I made mine clear when I removed the first attempts to add this material. In particular, what are some opinions of this edit by User:Bless sins? Arrow740 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Put simply, the statements you added do not follow the same metrics as the preceding statements; they are not opposing views of the same subject. This does not constitute an "opposing" point of view. What does Muhammad being an orator or messenger according to Muslims, for example, have to do with Islamic imperialism? The two ideas are not explicitly related and it would be an inappropriate addition, at least, under the guise of NPOV. Certainly I could see an inclusion of Islamic imperialism in this article, but the area in which you placed it in was completely irrelevant to that subject. There wouldn't be a counterargument to Islamic/Arab imperialism (because it is a historical reality), so placing it randomly next to sentences about Muhammad being a merchant and apostle would actually be a POV statement. You are essentially trying to place a negative statement next to any (apparently) sympathetic statement on Muhammad, even though the two statements have no relation to each other. That is why your statements should have been (and were) removed. On the topic of Bless sins's edit, if you can find a "counter view" to those statements, then by all means. Honestly, I don't think there is a counter view to Muhammad being an apostle according to Islam. That is a fundamental, defining characteristic of Muhammad that should be included in any lead that describes him. I suppose he should be able to find a better source than what he did for Muhammad being an orator, philosopher, etc. A "famous quote" from a French poet doesn't seem like a very good source for information on Muhammad. Perhaps his statements should be removed as well. -Rosywounds (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
These are not "POV"s but facts. Are there any sources that deny Muhammad was an apostle, an orator, a merchant, a general, a diplomat etc? If you can find some, then there would be a need for attribution.Bless sins (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
These sources are unacceptable, as I said in my edit summary when I removed this material. There's nothing in the body about him being an orator or physician. Arrow740 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins, your sources (quotes from a French poet) are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether or not they are "facts," they must still be sourced. With that said, Arrow's inclusion of Islam as a "conquering religion" was both irrelevant and would require a much more thorough debate than simply a one liner in the lead. -Rosywounds (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest also that this is unnecessary in the intro. An argument could be crafted for their incorporation into the views section.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If we deem it appropriate to use Alphonse de Lamartine (not in the lead, I think), his statements should be verified by a reliable source. If a source is to be opposed, it can be done without resorting to pointish attempts to include other unreliable material. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspersions aside, Trifkovic is a reliable source. Arrow740 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree. Can you tell us all a little more about the publisher? ITAQALLAH 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about this book specifically. Despite your reluctancy, I think it's important to mention the publisher of this work, that is, Regina Orthodox Press. Do you think that this book, cited as an example of anti-Islam sentiment displayed by the conservatives of Eastern Orthodoxy ("No God in Common:" American Evangelical Discourse on Islam after 9/11, Cimino (2005), Review of Religious Research 4(2):162-174), is really a reliable source? ITAQALLAH 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not asserting the reliability of this material on the basis of the publisher. Trifkovic is a trained historian being used for analysis of history. That's why his material is reliable. I don't deny that Trifkovic has critical views of Islam, as other qualified scholars do. He is still qualified. Arrow740 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Trifkovic does seem to be a historian (I would be interested to see precisely what his specialisation is), although he appears to have been criticised by Sells. His views and the book in general does appear to be highly partisan and polemical, which is why I think it is published by a religious press, rather than an academic one. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Unlike other editors in the Islam space, I do not spend my time POV mining, but fact mining. If I use Trifkovic for a POV it will only be done with restraint and regard for WP:NPOV. Arrow740 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to believe your first statement, but considering your string of edits on Islam, I don't think I can. Last I checked, multiple sections here were tagged with POV-sect... the last thing we need here is more POV. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but when biased language is added we should balance it as best we can. Arrow740 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Biased language should be tackled on its own, not "balanced" by adding more biased material. I think we are digressing. Trifkovic's polemical book seems to be published by a partisan press. ITAQALLAH 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i think

We want to address issues in more civilized manner, no offensive opinions , we are all human beings love each others, but someone might be offended by some media materials published we shall look at this and solve, all media materials shall not be there for propose of offense others, and if it does we shall think about it.if lots of pepole does not like it just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this.--C.Logan (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I am a Christian, but I recognise that Islam is a beautiful, loving religion. And we in the West might even learn some lessons from it.--Gazzster (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys,

By the way, to those who does not know, this image is exactly from the old days of islam, and it is from the 15th century, and it symbolizes the crist when he came to Mecca to do piligrimage in the old days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar shboul (talkcontribs) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The only way acceptable to God"

This sentence is silly. What is it supposed to mean? Why was the proper word removed? Arrow740 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the footnote following it. To say it is the only religion accepted means Christians and Jews say go to hell which is not true: "Those who believe, and those who follow Jewish law, and [also] Christians and Sabeans, whoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day and does good deeds, they shall have their reward before their Lord, and there shall be no fear upon them, nor shall they grieve."
But way is correct because according to Islam, submitting oneself to God is the only way to God. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm telling you that it doesn't make sense. It sounds incomplete. Also the verse you quote is likely "abrogated." Note S. 3:83-85: "And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." S. 5:72-73 also says Christians will go to Hell, let alone the poor Hindus. Arrow740 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The verse you quoted does not contradict the one I mentioned, because "Islam" means surrender here. Who goes to heaven and who goes to hell can not possibly be a matter of abrogation; practical laws may be. Aside from these, whoever does not receive the message in its correct form will not be questioned about it. As to the article, I think it is best to remove it altogether. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you addressed the verse. I assume "religion" is "deen;" in any case your argument falls completely flat. There should certainly be something regarding this aspect of Muhammad's message. Arrow740 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous opinions of theologians on the issue. According to some, it refers to those pre-Islamic Christians, and the Jews before them, who followed the prophets. According to others (and I think this is the majority), it includes the previous category, as well as monotheists from later ages who had not yet been exposed to Islam. It's not as relevant to this article as it would be to an article like Jannah. ITAQALLAH 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of the Name

Muhammad's name was unique in his time. One would say he was the first male to have this name. Its meaning is also unique but where does it come from? I like the wikipedian saying: "The name Muhammad literally means "Praiseworthy"". This is litterally true, as read in Arabic. However, some tribes in Arabia have their own dialects and their pronunciations and moods. These moods sometimes reveal the origins of the current meanings since Arabic is an evolving language. For example: the Caliph Omar once heard a Kuran reader pronouncing the term "Hatta" (Palatal sound) with a Ayn (guttural sound). The Caliph then had to stop the reader and correct him by asking him where he comes from. The caliph knew what tribe the reader was coming from because that tribe pronounces the Ha sound in a guttural manner.

Therefore, the name Muhammad could mean the "baptized" since the christian monks of Arabia were known for their blessings, and when they baptize, the blessing is made in a ritual gesture with water, and with the "palm" of the hand. The Palm of the hand means the number five, which leads to the term "Mukhammas". Arabian linguists cannot deny this permutation because it goes back to centuries before Islam and Jesus Christ. The term Mukhammas could also mean "Mughammas" - dipped- (in water of course).

Permutations in Arabic are common in history lest not forget the story of King Ahmos of the Egypt, the king who, in the Osiris scriptures was predicted to come in the future to free Egypt from the rule of the Hyksos: ".. and there will come a liberator with the name Ahmos to set you free from the...". Apparently the prophecy was held for generations after Ahmos freed Egypt in 1580 BC until the Old Testament mentioned an up-coming prophet <from among yourselves> by the name Mechammed, so tender and praiseworthy that you will follow him. No wonder that the name Muhammad had several equivalent names like Ahmad and Mahmoud.

Noureddine (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pls. remove the fotos of the Holy Prophet

It is not permitted in Islam to draw a sketch / painting of either the last Prophet Muhammed or the previous Prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam, Joseph etc. (peace of Allah be upon them all). Muslims are bound to surrender to this Islamic teaching and non-muslims are required to respect this. It is not "neutral" to connect to Islam what is prohibited in Islam. DELETE ANY KIND OF SKETCH OR PAINTING CLAIMED TO BE THAT OF PROPHET MUHAMMED (posted by Abu Bakr Al Falahi)

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Better citation needed

Ottoman miniature. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b)]] This won't help with the depiction of Muhammad issues obviously, but the images and artwork should be cited properly, something like this. -- (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's fine as it is. Jmlk17 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't receive full marks in a high school English class with the images cited the way they are now, so I'd say it isn't fine as it is.-- (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The easiest way to fix this is to register for an account, which has lots of benefits, but if you'd rather not, improvements can be suggested here, and if nobody objects, implemented. WilyD 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if not, this seems like a sensible idea. We just need an article on Nakkaş Osman, then! Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
Ask and thou shalt receive. WilyD 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I should ask more often! Fantastic work! Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

Typo in the header

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Muhammad. If you are interested in discussing or debating Muhammad himself itself, you may want to visit alt.religion.islam.

The header has a typo int should be 'himself instead' not 'himself itself' I'd change it, but I cannot figure out how to do it myself. Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, posted at the wrong end of the talk page.

Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Respecting the others doctrine

Adding a picture for the prophets generally is something forbidden for the muslims, and solid in their doctrine, as we do not have the philosophy of the holy person, and being sacred is left only to God Almighty. And as we are not concerned, as muslims, for imposing our ideas on the other religions so we are not against publishing photos for Jesus Christ, by the chrisitans, however we found ourselves responsible for prohibiting such photos for our prophet because it constitutes threats for the islamic doctrine, especially for the coming generations, exposing the muslims doctrine for alterations specially for those who are born and raised in western countries where they are subject for the majority of the time to westen media, and not taking the religion from its specialized scholars.

Moreover neither of such photos were done for phrophet Muhammed (PBUH) during his life or by his order, nor they were aknowledged by him. And as we respect your site as one of the most important knowledge sources, we are asking you kindly to remove all the photos impersonating prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from you respectful site. And I think respectng the others feelings, and doctrines are important factors constituting the policy of this website, and its so clear now that such photos have caused unpleasent and pasive feeings among the muslims who where informed with this issue, and among the users of the website.

And I think it will be a matter of respect, before any other considerations, to remove such photos, specially that it is not representing any added values or information to the issue discussed.


Hazem Mohamed Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talkcontribs) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not asking us to respect your doctrine, you are asking us to follow it.-- (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have taken the time to formulate this message, but it has been gone over one too many times before, and the consensus on the issue favors inclusion. See the FAQ. I also agree with the sentiment of the anon- the encyclopedia does not favor any religion in particular, and as such will include many topics which can and do cause upset or ire in adherents (I know of many topics which unsettle me, but I don't oppose their inclusion unless a policy violation is being made). Understand that you are imposing your religious requirements upon us to some extent. Additionally, note the fact that not all Muslims have a religious sanction against images, and that many of these images were created by a Muslim for another Muslim (at least in the case of al-Biruni's illustrations.--C.Logan (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, may be I was not clear in my previous message, I am neither trying to impose my believes on any person, or debating the source of the pictures. Because simply I am not claiming the fidelity of our prophet or even asking for confession that he was a prophet, also I am not debating about a conspiracy theory of who issued such photos. I am simply saying that such photos are not of additive value, and it will cause passive feelings among the "majority" (not all) of the muslims. And the same could be implied for any idea that is not a matter of debate, has no additive value, and offensive for a large group of people.

It seems its some how difficult to have a meeting point, because simply the west can't understand the senstivity of the religious issues for us, and we can't admit the freedom theory of the west as well. However I am gratefull for your fruitful contribution (to Logan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel (talkcontribs) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad is not owned by Islam. As a human being with a definite - indeed, in his case, extremely important - place in history, he belongs to all of us, and the views expressed in this article should not simply be those of Muslims. To exclude the pictures because of Muslim pressure would devalue Wikipedia beyond measure, because our readers would legitimately wonder what else we had censored to avoid causing offense. TharkunColl (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to start, Hazem Adel, by thanking you for raising this issue in a respectful and polite manner. It is certainly a difficult and for some emotive topic that has as you can see caused some controversy. Wikipedia has had extensive discussions on this topic, and we have reached consensus on many occasions that such controversial images, like the ones you refer to, are best left in the articles, as they are of great historical interest and relevant to the topic. This is the only reason for their inclusion, they are most definitely not intended in this context to insult or be disrespectful towards either Muhammad or Muslims in general. I acknowledge that many Muslims will either not believe this, or will not accept this decision, which truly does sadden me, but Wikipedia's policies for building consensus must be followed on all articles, regardless of content, including this one. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
I think it would help for those who do not like the images to understand why they are there. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not remove material relevant to an article for reasons external to encyclopedic value and NPOV. I find the number of pictures to be a tad ridiculous as they over represent a minority view in favor of standard representation of human beings. While this is not ideal by any means it is the consensus version and while it over emphasizes a means of representation it is rather more difficult to invoke NPOV when their purpose is primarily aesthetic (although, I argue it still is relelvant). The point is Wikipedia is driven by consensus and generally that should be respected even though the Islam-related articles seem to be troll magnets. If you would like to discuss the images according to Wikipedia policy feel free to. But, even if the images are someday removed from Muhammad some will still remain on Depictions of Muhammad where there is no doubt that they are relevant. Not to open a-whole-nother can of worms but there will be images that insult some Muslims because notable artists create them. For Christians there is Piss Christ, for Muslims you have the Muhammad cartoons and even Peter Klashorst's work of nude models with niqab on. Regardless of images here, there is no way that Wikipedia will remove all offensive images. gren グレン 08:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, just a reply to Tharkuncoll, you may debate that Muhammed's (PBUH) output to the humanity should not be patented by the muslims, however you can not argue about the fact that the muslims are the most affected people with what written and published about Muhammed (PBUH), affected by all means (moraly, phsycologicaly, politicaly,....), hence it is something normal that what published about prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is much more concerning the muslims than any other group, for the muslims, it is not a matter of patenting a product for commercial or scientefic purposes, its a matter of feelings, and morals, exactly like the feeling of a mother toward her child, sure she is not patenting him, but she is the most one caring about him.

For the rest of the messages; As I said before we are both playing a game with different rules, however because the field is yours we are urged to comply with your rules, or it will be fair enough to quite the game.


لا يحل

لا يحل ولا يجوز وضع صور للنبي محمد نحن نعترض بشدة على هذا العمل الأخرق (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation: Does not solve may not put pictures of the Prophet Muhammad We strongly object to this senseless.
Reply: وأفهم انه لا يتعارض مع معتقدات المسلمين قد صور النبي محمد ، ولكن ، هو محايد ويكيبيديا الموسوعه ان لا يتقيد باي المعتقدات. مع الاحترام ، Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Translation of Reply: I understand that it does go against Muslim beliefs to have pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, however, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that does not adhere to any beliefs. Respectfully, Keilana|Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
And in the future, please post in English. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia

i think all Muslims should know that because wikipedia owners think that they know more than muslims about Islam. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him had never been pictured , but you people insist that the fake picture in the article belong to him. you can keep the picture , whatever you people do, islam will stay the fastest growing religion in the world and all the world will be muslim someday.

I question your understanding of "free".
Additionally, I don't see how anyone has ever claimed to know more about Islam that Muslims, although this is actually fairly plausible and, I believe, has been the case at least once or twice in this discussion.
What is obvious is that you have no concept of illustrative representation. I suppose that this is a cultural circumstance, because I truly cannot understand how difficult it is to fathom the concept of attempting to illustrate a person or event for which no contemporary representation is possible. This is common in Western culture, and the FAQ (which you are above urged to read) makes this particular point quite moot.
Thanks for the threat/assurance(?), but I highly doubt that that will be the case. Islam is only remarkable demographically for the high birthrate of Muslim countries, and that in and of itself is only dramatic in contrast to the relative evening out/reduction in the population of Christian countries. The conversion rates of both religions are relatively even (and hardly remarkable in comparison to Buddhism or Wicca, for example), and there is obviously no clear data on conversion from Islam to other religions. It may seem surprising, but many estimates show- even 200 years ahead- that the current percentages remain the same (in fact, Islamic countries are becoming increasingly secular, and will in time lose a considerable fraction of population to non-religious causes- on the other hand, Christianity experiences a great boost, due to missionary work in Asia and Africa).
It's an interesting thing to study. In any case, you should be more realistic. Please review the FAQ and past discussions before raising issues that have already been covered.--C.Logan (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Its very funny, when a person claims that Islam is growing because of the birth rate. That high birthrate only exists in the middle east, and the middle east represents a very few amount of muslims all over the world. for example there is 10% muslims in india which equals all the muslims in saudi arabia if not more. Adding to that, a valid study showed that atleast 10000 Americans are converting to Islam in the united states yearly of non muslims roots. adding to that, the growing rate of conversions in Europe, in a real fact mentioned by one of the polictics of Austria, that if Islam is not stopped 50% of people living in Austria will become muslims. so the argument that Islam is spreading as a result of birthrate is very silly and highly questioned. going further, Christianity is growing ?! i can assure you that a big number of those counted as Christians have little if any, understanding of Christianity. Many of those counted as Christians dont practice christianity. Adding to that those who are becoming christians in either Asia and Africa, are as you said done by missionary work, but examining that work shows very few rates of conversions, comapared to the massive work done, plus the converstion is done based on money temptations or other similar techniques, not based on the believes. I also want to actually point the attention to many born christians that have converted to Islam, after they read and understood its concepts clearly. Actually many say that Islam answered the questions they had due to christianity. I have heard, and read many stories and some do come from those people who actually were trying to spread christianity. saying this to correct the mistake written by my friend above and to be fair to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you're talking about- please see the CIA data on the issue, and you'll find that your simplification of the issue is incorrect. Non-Middle-Eastern countries in which Islam is a considerable religious group are experiencing birth rates far beyond those of countries with a Christian majority. Compare Indonesia's +1.213%, India's +1.606%, Pakistan's +1.828% and Bangladesh's +2.056% growth rates to Italy's +0.01%, Germany's -0.033%, Spain's +0.116%, the UK's +0.275%, and the United States' +0.894%. These non-ME (assuming you aren't one of those people who considers Pakistan a Middle-Eastern country) countries have high growth rates which are magnified by their already large populations. Foreign Policy magazine reports that the growth of the Muslim populace is due largely to high birth rates (and immigration when concerning certain national data).
Additionally, you misquote the Austrian source, which concerns immigration and laxity in adherence. There is no mention of conversion whatsoever, and the element of immigration is an obvious issue in this respect as the old extent of Ottoman rule was only defined by the firm resistance of the Austrians and their allies.
You also neglect to note the numbers of Muslims leaving Islam. Individuals who like to advertise the growth of a religion often neglect to mention the "exchange"- there are conversions between religions going on every day. Christians become Muslims, and Muslims become Christians. Last year, 35,000 Turks became Christians (as reported by United Press International). 200,000 Muslims have converted to Christianity in the UK (as reported by The Times). In the past 15 years in Russia, 2,000,000 Muslims have become Christians (as reported by the Inter-religious Council in Russia). Ahmed Katani has argued on Al-Jazeera TV that 6 million African Muslims convert to Christianity each year. Your argument is pointless, because conversion is an ongoing cycle. Additionally, you neglect to mention that a study by Professor Ilyas ba Yunus finds that 75% of United States converts to Islam actually leave Islam within a few years.
The remainder of your comment divulges into a poor rant with an attempt to disparage the "other side" of the picture while ignoring the fact that if one wants to bring such charges, then they are only valid if one is willing to admit them for both religions.
Christianity is growing. Almost all religions are, and Christianity is currently far beyond other religions in terms of the number of adherents, and even a small rate of growth makes a considerable difference in terms of absolute numbers.
You argue "that a big number of those counted as Christians have little, if any, understanding of Christianity". I wonder a few things: first, how can you be certain of this? And second, how much does one need to understand to practice a religion effectively? It is equally arguable that the majority of Muslims understand very little about their own religion beyond the simple doctrines that every religion makes known to even the most disinterested adherents. I wonder how you can claim that "many of those counted as Christians dont practice christianity", without recognizing the same could be true for Muslims (in personal experience, I know many Muslims who only take it nominally, just as I know many Christians who do the same).
You then recognize that "relatively few" conversions occur due to missionary work in Asia and Africa. This is complicated; some areas yield a great number of conversions, while many produce "relatively few". I wouldn't argue with the given numbers, but they could be much higher. Part of the difficulty is due to the social stigma and perceived familiarity with Christianity (through Muslim lenses, which many would argue is, to use your own words, "little, if any, understanding of Christianity").
Your claim that "converstion is done based on money temptations or other similar techniques, not based on the believes" is damning. This is a common propaganda technique used by Muslims and Hindus (as far as I have seen) to discredit the idea that some people could genuinely leave their own religion for another. Now, I can't speak for all missionaries, and I'm certain that there have been instances of regrettable techniques being implemented, but your attempt to neutralize the work of missionaries by libeling their efforts is very sad- especially considering the fact that many Muslims and Muslim communities are more justifiably accused of this same sort of coercion (it is no secret that many in the community and the government can make life more difficult for those who are not of their own faith, especially if these individuals are converts from Islam). Your comment amounts to a perpetuation of the cultural delusion that "someone couldn't possibly leave Islam for another religion in sincerity- there must be some insidious factor involved". People convert from one religion to another at every hour of the day. Be realistic.
Finally, you argue that many Christians convert to Islam after they read and understand its concepts clearly, and that many people claim that their questions about Christianity have been answered by studying Islam. First of all, this is a silly "point", because the same is often claimed by Muslims who come to Christianity. It's ridiculous when individuals attempt to use conversion demographics to prove the truth of a religion, and your statement reeks of this. Please recognize that questions are "answered" however and by whomever the inquirer wishes. Questions and concerns can be satisfied by answers and explanations from within the respective religious system, but individuals often choose an outside answer based on many factors: the perception of "hidden truths", an exasperation with an old system, the "he-who-answers-first-has-the-upper-hand" mentality, and so on.
I apologize for the amount of text I've added on this peripheral issue. I'm opposed to propaganda, bad research and general nonsense. I can't simply let misconceptions persist.--C.Logan (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I agree with your predictions C.Logan. I agree that Christianity will experience a great boost, due to missionary work in Africa, China and particularly South Korea (but not Japan). As a result of rapid structural changes and implementation of capitalism in South Korea, they have become favorable to religion. South Koreans that I know are all very much into something, be it Christianity, Alchol, or something else. Combined with increasing missionary work, I guess South Korea may become a majority Christian nation eventually. I however do not think that all Islamic countries are becoming increasingly secular. Something though will certainly happen but I have no idea what. They would not become more Jewish or Christian mainly because of the political conflict between Israel and the Arab world and the US support of Israel, but they may become secular though this is not so probable because instead of the conflict between science and religion as in west, the conflict between democratic concepts and religion exists in middle east. So, what may happen is the birth of another reformist Islamic movement that can satisfactorily do what it is supposed to do. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose if using the image of your justly revered prophet in this article is going to cause you so much offence you might consider not visiting it. I'm not suggesting all Muslims leave this article. Most definitely not. What better way to understand this great spiritual leader than from the mouths of Moslems? The Western attitude has been coloured, and continues to be coloured, by centuries of misunderstanding, warfare and imperialism. But, as has been stated before, this page cannot be used for promoting any religion.'Peace be upon him', certainly. But peace be upon us, too.--Gazzster (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

to I question your understanding of "free" Muslims claim that the pictures in the article dont belong to the prophet , non-muslims claim that they belong to him, so how do you people know more than muslims ?! thats my question...... i think there should be 2 Articles talking about Muhammad pbuh , one according to Muslims and one according to your imaginary sources. to gazzster offend me ? lol , if you want i can give you the link of the danish cartoons and you can add them too, i dont really care because, it wont hurt me , the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is DEAD ,it will hurt wikipedia only because people are going to see it as a source of false informations , and by keeping this pictures, 1400000000 persons in this world see it like that.

It's nonsense like that that keeps good, honest discussions from happening. Jmlk17 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Your grammar is confusing, but I know what you're saying. Again, See the FAQ- it responds on this point.
Your attitude of close-mindedness is troubling, but what can I say?
It's important to note that only a faction of Muslims are strict on images in this manner. That's one example in which our "imaginary" viewpoint seems to triumph. Everyone who comes here to complain is a Muslim of this school of thought, and though they claim to speak for all Muslims, they certainly cannot. There have been Muslims arguing against the iconoclasts. Speak for yourself, and not for the supposed 1,400,000,000 individuals that don't all agree with you.
Again, read the prior discussions and the FAQ. And to a point, I agree with Jmlk.--C.Logan (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
My grammar is fine, it's my logic you find different. Wikipedia represents a worldview, not what "1.4 billion" think. That is not the majority. Wikipedia is for open information, not suppression. Jmlk17 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That was in response to the anon- that's why I formatted it alongside yours, so you wouldn't perceive it as being in reference to you.--C.Logan (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it's a longstanding decision on Wikipedia that we don't make multiple versions of an article representing different points of view. The policy on article forking explains this in more details, but the short answer is that we're committed to writing an encyclopaedia neutrally, without preferring one point of view to another, only giving different ones due consideration. Cheers, WilyD 12:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


These conversations are incredibly futile and all too common. We need to resurrect Talk:Muhammad/images and have a policy of moving all discussion there. I have no problem with responding to these queries to try to explain to the editors but they are not discussing relevant issues with article that will make it better. They also make it rather difficult to discuss legitimate issues dealing with the pictures because editors become so frustrated by discussions of the images which have nothing to do with WP policy. If a few common editors voice their support I'll move some of the discussions over there. gren グレン 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Support this. I believe one of the main selling points of having the FAQ was that we could summarily transfer new discussions on the topic elsewhere, leaving a brief "look at the FAQ" response. I agree that it is not that productive to have more than half of this page full of the same old circular discussion. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
No, talking will not resolve anything. You cannot argue with religious sentiment. The policy has been stated: images of Muhammed will not be removed. --Gazzster (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Rather than doing that, why not simply refuse to engage in such conversations or just reply with "Read the FAQ". While the problem isn't trolling, the solution can be similar. Frotz (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Frotz although I don't believe either action will stop the trolls. --Veritas (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem being is that whenever the images are removed from the article, the standard response is "take it to the talk page". Now, I'm worried about the policy ramifications of simply refusing to discuss an issue point blank here where it is meant to be discussed. I think it's counterproductive to dismiss all of these requests to remove the images as "trolling", as it's clear to me that many of them are made in good faith. Still, I doubt that consensus on the matter is going to change in the near future, so giving those who wish to argue it somewhere to do so, while leaving those of us who wish to improve the article to have somewhere to discuss improvements in peace seems an ideal solution to me. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC).
I wasn't calling the picture-deleters trolls. I was saying that the solution can be the same. What I'd like to see done is that people not engage in discussion with people who post questions here saying that the pictures should be deleted, append "(pbuh)", and so on. At the most, people who start such threads should be given a polite pointer to the FAQ and that's it. Nobody else should reply to that thread. If this is done, then perhaps we can cut down on the enormous volumes of discussion that go nowhere that drown out other discussions. Frotz (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I certainly respect the religious feelings of contributors here. But this is not a forum for religious discussion. I suspect that some editors, knowing this, are representing their objections but using supposedly academic arguments. No, this discussion will go on forever. If this talk page is not to be pirated by this issue, we need to accept what admin has said: images will not be removed. And we avoid argument by not responding to requests for deletion, and reverting deletions. Unless of course, they are deliberately unacademic or offensive.--Gazzster (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to be firm and informative- deletion of comments and ignoring posts may only serve to frustrate and confuse users (and increase misunderstanding and paranoia) who may have simply missed the hard-to-spot FAQ box at the top (choosing a different color may be helpful- it responds simply to major arguments used by these posters, and yet it receives no special coloration as other boxes do). The consensus decision should be clear enough, but when you combine fervor with a misunderstanding of policy, you'll doubtless end up with dozens of half-baked comments.
We should be certain that we respond patiently as we would to any other newcomer; giving a good explanation is better than ignoring the issue and having that same poster rally up some friends and start up another absurd petition. If they choose to ignore a personal explanation, then what can we do? For the most part, however, we fan the flames when we delete comments without proper responses, I think.--C.Logan (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with C.Logan's comments above. I'm really uneasy at the prospect of simply ignoring comments or slapping them with a form response, based simply on their topic (I'm all for banishing uncivil comments though). I'm not for a moment suggesting that we should bend our principles when it comes to the images on this page, but it seems to me that some of what is being proposed will violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I fully support making the FAQ stand out more, but I really feel we should not violate some policies in the name of preserving others. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

I suggest to remove the pictures where Prophet Muhammad SAW is shown . (Bilalsarwar (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).

Your suggestion has already been considered in the past, and has been utterly rejected as a policy violation. Please see the FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the images based on the following logical reasons:

1. As an encyclopedia, you must not present a fabricated stuff as an original. This the utmost action misleading and deception. As u can see in images, they were produced in 14th-16th century, whereas the era of The Prophet was during 8th century. Only a senseless & biased person can believe that the pictures are NOT wrong / fabricated.

2. Regardless of the correctness of the pictures, it is an humanitarian issue. Remember the purpose of knowledge is to benefit people, not to make troubles. This is not an issue of "beliefs of a group of few (100's or 10,000's or even 100,000's) people. This is related to fundamental belief of 1.5 Billion people (1/5 th of the total population today) and even Billions of Muslims since last 1400+ years. There is not authentic record in history that the picture of Prophet was made. Instead it has been STRICTLY FORBIDDEN.

3. I don't agree with your definition of "neutrality-of-religions". Neutrality should mean that all religions have equal rights to be included. But when describing facts, you have to agree to the community that own those beliefs, as you are an outsider. As William Shakespeare said: "Your freedom ends where my nose starts." So your have right to be free and neutral in your beliefs UNLESS & UNTIL you run into other's space.

4. For an example, can you associate some theory with Newton or Einstein which cannot be found in their books, articles or any proven material produced by them, just because some Mr ABC claims so years after them?

I hope I'll get a logical response (the best would be the removal of pictures).

A point-by-point response:
1. Responded to in the FAQ.
2. Responded to in the FAQ.
3. This line of thinking would cause conflict between different religious requirements. Christian icons of Jesus would meet headfirst with Sunni iconoclasm, for example. This line of thinking is silly as well. Wikipedia adheres to no religion, and censors nothing on the basis that it would offend a particular group. The transmission of knowledge in an objective manner irrespective of any particular POV is Wikipedia's primary focus. I'm sorry that you disagree.
4. You misunderstand the concept of illustrative depiction, and you make a poor analogy at that. If an individual were to give his impression of the above mentioned scientist's theories, the information would likely be included depending on the notability of the individual, amongst other issues. This, however, hardly translates to the field of art and depiction, where the accuracy of depiction is a negligible element when judging the historic, educational and artistic value of a production. Again, this is responded to in the FAQ.
Thank you for your post.--C.Logan (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I don't think most of the comments are trolling and the vast majority are in good faith. That doesn't mean they aren't impeding our efforts to actually discuss the article. I think allow this to take over the talk page is what allows users like Gazzster to dismiss "editors, knowing this, are representing their objections but using supposedly academic arguments". Which I find to be rather annoying and as baseless as me claiming people who want to keep it as we have it just want to piss off Muslims. I have supported a more limited use of images planned to give a better sense of Muslim representation of Muhammad and maybe without 90% of the talk page being requests having nothing to do with Wikipedia policy we could actually discuss this--or more importantly, other aspects of the page. (my specific opinion on the images is in an archive somewhere and also in my mind) gren グレン 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of hidden template

After scanning the previous discussions, I see no-one suggesting use of the hidden template, so you have to click on "Show" to see them, or "Hide" to hide them. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but that's a good suggestion. A small note regarding the content of the images would make it perfect. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the idea has come up, because I could swear that I've seen a proposal like this shot down once before. I can't recall the specific reasons, mind you, but I'm certain that the proposal did meet a grim fate.--C.Logan (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found the previous discussion in the archives now: Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Suggestion. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But I think the suggestion worths reconsidering. I can not see any strong argument made against it by either side. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing or not removing will obviously never meet consensus. Perhaps hiding template will make things less painful for muslims, without being censorship either. Anthere (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of being painful for Muslims. If a Muslim can not control himself/herself after being notified that there are such pictures there, then it will be all his/her own responsibility. The main point is not to let non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article. That's all that matters. Furthermore, those images can be kept for whoever wants to see. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a really bad idea for the precedent it sets. Some people find nudity offensive, so maybe all pics depicting unclothed bodies should be hidden. Swaztika's are offensive to some, so they should be hidden too. And of course homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to flaunt their existence, so all pics of self-described gays should be hidden. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.) Once it starts, where does it start? Censorship, in any form, is not a good idea. Pairadox (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There is consensus: consensus on NOT CENSORED as one of the core principles, and that is sufficient to put an end to this series of requests. We do not hide images. Hiding is censorship. We do & should take care that they are not at the top of an article when they might be really troublesome to some readers, as a matter of courtesy. The top image in the Mohammed article is a calligraphic representation of his name, perfectly appropriate. There are three images of the Prophet, all from Islamic sources, all respectful. One of them does show up in the first screen; even though it is discreet one, with his face veiled, it might be moved down a little. DGG (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, Pairadox. Wikipedia is not censored: no exceptions. нмŵוτнτ 17:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
DGG, Pairadox and hmwith, please let me know the answer to these questions:
1. Philosophers are in disagreement when it comes to the limitation on freedom of speech. What is the justification for favoring one view over others?
2. Why is hiding censorship? Are we really depriving readers from any sort of information or are we simply giving them the choice to decide if they want to see it? I would like to know what we mean by censorship. We usually need to do some kind of work to get access to some information. IMHO, it is censorship if we can not get access to those information with a reasonable amount of work. So, I can not understand why clicking on a hidden template is a huge amount of work.
3. Do you think there is already a consensus in wikipedia against pornography? If yes which I believe you will agree, what is the real justification for that?
4. Lastly what is your response to [3]. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My response to questions from Aminz:
1. I am for the utmost free speech that does not break Florida law (where servers are hosted). See also: WP:NOT#CENSORED
2. That is definitely censorship per the censorship article. If we hide these images, then what images should be hidden? It sets a terrible precedent. It's censoring the images, because they are being hidden. They're still available, yes, but images of one person should be the same as image of another person.
3. No, I don't think there is a consensus against pornography. I usually prefer any real images over drawings. Check out images of genital piercings at Template:Body Piercing.
4. There is no need for debate. Wikipedia is uncensored. If one does not agree or is easily offended, then he or she can avoid the pages that could possibly upset him or her. Less people would get offended by it than wouldn't. I say target the widest audience adn err on the side of majority. нмŵוτнτ 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My replies:
1. Speech is not a neutral manner. If I say that I apologize, I am actually doing something and not only speeking. Freedom of speech is different from Freedom of action. Here we are dealing with a freedom of doing something that is interpreted by some as an insulting matter. Flordia's law are to my mind irrelevant to the matter.
2. To answer to the question "What images should be hidden?", I would say if something can be legitimately banned per Joel Feinberg's "principle of offense" in at least one country, it should be banned in wikipedia. Again, if one wants to get any kind of information, he has to do some work, be it doing a google search or coming to wikipedia. If the amount of work is unreasonable for the information, we say the information is suppressed. Clicking on a tab is hardly a lot of work given the arguments we have for the importance of giving people choice to see them.
3.If I name an editor who got blocked indef for merely asking on its talk page for child porn pictures be added to a relevant article, are you willing to unblock him?
4. You have not addressed my concerns I believe. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Why would Joel Feinberg have the utmost say over an encyclopedia?
3. Child pornography is against Florida law. See my the answer to #1 in my previous post. нмŵוτнτ 21:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
1.English language has become the scientific language of our time. If I live in some random place in the world and would like to publish in a good journal I have to write my article in english. If I want to read about something I would do a better job if I also refer to english sources. Wikipedia is one of such sources and english wikipedia is not just for english speaking people but for all people from all nationalities.
2.there are surely different views but this one is a prominent one.
3.please see [4] for my answer.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Still gets back to the point that we are not censored, and that is own of our biggest features. There are countless articles and images on this website that someone could find offensive, but we do not conform to the minority who wishes for censorship. Jmlk17 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, hiding is not an effective solution. It is just not something an encyclopedia would do. Either the images are relevant and should be part of the article or they should be removed. I don't particularly like how the article is now but I don't think hiding would make it any better. I would have no problem with a Wikipedia-wide censorship system where you can change your monobook.css and have various categories censored. But, by default I don't think hiding makes so much sense. And, I would be for displaying everything that is legal. gren グレン 13:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Another idea: what about having the default be "show" but including a hide button so that some people can choose to hide them (and are only briefly offended)? I'm not sure even I support this but I figured I'd throw it out there... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reflist & Notes

Why can't we merge notes and references together? Or better yet, why can't we fit it into a box and attach a scrollbar on the notes section? It is easier to read that way. And the whole thing doesn't take a long time to come up. It does seem to have more references than any I have seen ever before... LOTRrules (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some articles use the scrollbar method but I think it is particularly ugly and makes it very difficult to browse citations. Hopefully in the future that will be an option in your CSS where you can change <references/> into being into a box or not.
As for merging the two--they provide difference purposes. You can have the first note give full bibliographic information and all of the subsequent just use the author but I find that makes it harder to compile a list of references. By separating them you allow for small notes and full references. One problem in this article is that we seem to use full bibliographic information in the notes for online references. gren グレン 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling attention to the FAQ list

The large STOP hand was a good idea, but the colors need work. Various flavors of purple on a pink background makes for bad contrast. Frotz (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have the visibility and contrast problems solved, how about if we move the FAQ notice at the very top of the talk page and delete the three notes about pictures, honorifics, and censorship? All three are covered in the FAQ. Frotz (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A vivid explanation, and pure request

I am really glad that Wikipedia has this section to post our discussions and different views. I will explain to everyone why all Muslims want these pictures of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him removed. We all know that these pictures are not of the prophet Muhammad and that there is no way that these pictures can resemble him accurately in anyway, simply because there is no real picture of him nor that there is any drawing of him while he was alive. These pictures were drawn many years after his death, or the death of those who lived around him. You told me that no one said that these pictures are really of the prophet peace upon him, but in the article it clearly says the opposite. Some pictures do say that these pictures are only depictions while the others don’t. This will certainly confuse any reader. It should be very clear to all readers that these pictures are nothing but depictions of actions and have no resemblance to the prophet in his looks, as you have told me. I was one of those who were confused by the pictures and what they really resemble, especially the one with the black stone. Also in the other picture, where the drawer claims that this is the prophet reading preaching Quran, it clearly opposes what we know of Muhammad peace upon. The prophet had a long beard, unlike the one in the picture, the prophet used to sit on the floor and his companions around him while he taught them about Islam and read Quranic verses to them. So the question I raise is how did Wikipedia validate the accuracy of these depictions? Its not enough to bring any picture from any Muslim scholar, many Muslim scholar might have drawn wrong images, and all humans are not flawless, so I want those pictures to be validated accurately with the descriptions of the prophet peace upon him, and his ways of teaching Islam and preaching Quran. The big question is why Muslims don’t have image depictions of the prophet? The simple answer is that, we highly respect and love our prophet peace upon him, we value him higher than we value our kids or our parents. Since we simply don’t know how he really looked like (we have a description of his looks, and these pictures drawn on this website don’t even match the descriptions in any way) we don’t draw him or depict him out of respect and love. We don’t want to draw any picture that might have some flaws that weren’t present in his looks. We don’t want to have a specific figure of him that might not match how he actually looks. We don’t want to have an Idol of him that might not match his character and looks. We simply leave it for every person to read his description and have their own mental image. It does hurt our feelings when someone draws him based on nothing and out of nowhere and then claims that this is how he looks like. If you compare the pictures with the valid description of his looks, you will understand the differences. This website is indeed educational, and I don’t see what is the educational purpose of the pictures present in this article. It will be simple to depict how he prayed or how he read the Quran based on valid descriptions, but with removing the face on the picture, similar to the one present in this article. This will actually represent an educational part of his real actions, to those interested. If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material. You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks. Having this said, I request action. Wikipedia has always been a good source for educational research and studies. I don’t want this to affect its reputation all over the world. I am sure Wikipedia added this material with good heart, hence it wont be hard to comply with the requests to ensure sincerity. I wish you added some of his descriptions that would have definetly given the reader a better educational sense of the Prophet Muhammad peace upon him, than those pictures added.

Here is a description of how Prophet Muhammad looks like. His appearance is historically well recorded. Here is some of his description, I am sure you can find more with which to validate those pictures.

Muhammad (peace be upon him) was of a height a little above the average. He was of sturdy build with long muscular limbs and tapering fingers. The hair of his head was long and thick with some waves in them. His forehead was large and prominent, his eyelashes were long and thick, his nose was sloping, his mouth was somewhat large and his teeth were well set. His cheeks were spare and he had a pleasant smile. His eyes were large and black with a touch of brown. His beard was thick and at the time of his death, he had seventeen gray hairs in it. He had a thin line of fine hair over his neck and chest. He was fair of complexion and altogether was so handsome that Abu Bakr composed this couplet on him: "as there is no darkness in the moonlit night so is Mustafa, the well-wisher, bright." His gait was firm and he walked so fast that others found it difficult to keep pace with him. His face was genial but at times, when he was deep in thought, there there were long periods of silence, yet he always kept himself busy with something. He did not speak unnecessarily and what he said was always to the point and without any padding. At times he would make his meaning clear by slowly repeating what he had said. His laugh was mostly a smile. He kept his feelings under firm control - when annoyed, he would turn aside or keep silent, when pleased he would lower his eyes (Shamail Tirmizi).

He was always the first to greet another and would not withdraw his hand from a handshake till the other man withdrew his. If one wanted to say something in his ears, he would not turn away till one had finished (Abu Dawud, Tirmizi). Those who have seen him, in describing him they always described him as someone in appearance whom they never saw before, and never saw even after his death.

He was especially fond of children and used to get into the spirit of childish games in their company. He would have fun with the children who had come back from Abyssinia and tried to speak in Abyssinian with them. It was his practice to give lifts on his camel to children when he returned from journeys (Bukhari, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 2 pg.886). He would pick up children in his arms, play with them, and kiss them. ( Copied for educational purposes from Ispiration and Creative thoughts website) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of your comment above will find its response in the already-established Muhammad FAQ. I think you'll find that the decision made apparent there opposes most of your argument on the issue. Detailed information on the illustrations can be found by clicking on them; I see no need to note that the image is a depiction because it should be very obvious to anyone that it is not, in fact, an attempt to produce a realistic likeness in any sense of the term.
"If you want to keep the pictures for the educational purposes then you need to do two things. Remove the face of the prophet from the pictures, then make sure that this is actually how he was doing the action. You can do that by matching it with the valid and detailed descriptions of his actions. This will be for the sincerity of the educational part, since I am sure no one wants to end up learning the wrong thing. Removing the face from the picture will not give the learner a certain figure and claim that this is of the prophet, this will definetly wont change the quality of the educational material."
Quite simply, no. The educational value of the images is derived from their historical relevance and from their own mere existence. You are essentially asking us to amend a work of art, and this is an absurd request. I don't see how anyone is "learning the wrong thing"- first of all, I can assure you that no one is going to take sitting positions and beard length so dramatically when the human figure itself is distorted to cartoonish proportions. The educational value of the image, as I've noted, is determined by its existence alone. You argue that it should be removed because it is "not accurate". Once again, this issue is raised in the Muhammad FAQ.
"You replied to me, that these pictures are actually validated, or to be precise “can be easily validated”. Well I want to see how these pictures were validated, and on which bases. I also want a valid truth from Wikipedia that, those who wrote the article and attached the pictures have actually validated these pictures to his looks."
Validate the images by clicking on them and reading their description. Look into it independently if you'd like. I've verified the images myself by discovering an exhibit of Al-Biruni's work in which these images were on display. I'm concerned that you have little idea as to what verifiability is; Wikipedia makes no claims to truth- therefore, the verifiability issue makes it clear that the image is indeed an illustration by Al-Biruni (or whoever else is featured) composed in the given year and concerning the given subject.
Thank you for the elucidation on Muhammad's appearance, but I doubt such detail will come in handy to this article in particular (perhaps it would fare better in a side-article, but I can't be sure as it depends on how it is incorporated). With such a detailed description, the prohibition on images for the cause of idolatry becomes semi-ridiculous. Thinking in the vein of Maimonides, this intense mental picture is just as much an idol as any simple graven representation which follows this form. Additionally, I must remind you again that only particular schools of Islam forbid images in this manner; Shi'ites, for example, have no real problem with such representations taking a prominent place in the home or elsewhere.--C.Logan (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. ofcourse people have different point of views and different reasoning. As you have said, it might not be important for you to have precise and exact depiction of the person depicted. But as far as I am concerned, when it comes to highly rated history charecters, i will go to the farthest extrem to make sure that all the material I am presenting is 100% accurate and to the point. Because, working in the educational sector is a huge responsiblity, and any small mistake or any small delinquency I will be questioned about and responsible for in this life and the hereafter. If i was in the place the editors and writers of this article are, i would definetly have done things differently. I am not undermining the work that these people have put in this article, its a good one. But I would have had more understanding of the value of the character am writting about, and have more emotions and compreshinsion of the different views of different people, who are directly related to the character and take that into my consideration, no matter if these people were the minority or the majority, simply because we were brought up to respect everyone and everybody. There is no winner or looser here, no hatred or such things. the thing that we all care about is presenting this character as it really was, without any biased or illsuited facts. As in conclusion, the character of the prophet Muhammad peace upon him, is much higher and way more important to be described in words, or by one or more articles. Thousands of books were written, in almost every century talking about him. This influence is pure miraculous because there is not other human, before or after him, that has had such number of followers and such number of books written about, or such amount of incluence on people. He literally has changed the life of many billions of humans, during the passage of time. the most miraculous thing is that people are still influenced by him, and his character 1400 years after his death. Such a great man can only be a real miracle, and a real messenger of God.
Infact all the posts, and all the reaction and all the arguements here and everywhere else, proves this.
Whatever Wikipedia does next, removes the pictures, get better more accurate ones, or leave them will only alter its own value and recognition among the public, and will not harm the figure and the value of the prophet peace upon him.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Care for an athiest view? It doesn't matter if this article has images or not. Just like Jesus, nobody alive today know what he looks like - here's hoping things get resolved. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope the same. It's not so much whether the article has images or not; we shouldn't remove them for reasons which contradict Wikipedia policy. Images are preferred in articles, as they illustrate concepts, act as useful visual references, and generally make the article more aesthetically pleasing.
As the FAQ (which is a short page that we recommend people read before they make a complaint concerning the images) explains, the inaccuracy of depictions is nothing unique here, and it is no valid reason for the removal of the images here just as much as they would be invalid reasons for removing certain images of Christopher Columbus because they are inaccurate.
Wikipedia doesn't care about this issue, and I doubt most people would or should- this argument is a peripheral element to the comments left here, and the futility of the argument would be apparent if one simply read the aforementioned FAQ.--C.Logan (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already said I'm not particularly interested in removal of all pictures, but I feel like there are some errors/half-truths here. Shia Islam wasn't anything more than a fringe sect until the Safavids. Moreover, Shiites generally don't use images of Mohammad as frequently as many of these editors have suggested (most of whom aren't Muslims, although that doesn't mean they are automatically ignorant). I am personally a Shiite, and we are more well known for using images of Hussein on the day of Ashura. Certainly we don't forbid imagery like many Sunnis do, but to say that Shiites prominently display images of Muhammad in their homes is an exaggeration. Geometric art and calligraphy is still the dominant form in Iran. Take a look at Isfahan, the former capital of the Shiite Safavid Empire. In fact, imagery is nonexistent in actual mosques (places of worship). Mosques in Najaf, Karbala, Kufa, Qom, etc. are all perfect examples of holy Shia cities that don't have an "overdose" of depictions. As I've clarified in previous threads, I don't think the images should all be shot down, but this article certainly is skewed towards nontraditional and minority views. The article on Jesus doesn't have a single Middle Eastern depiction of Jesus, even though the majority of the historical and scientific community believes that Jesus had a Middle Eastern appearance. Yet, all non-White (non-Western) depictions of Jesus have been given their own separate article (which can be considered POV fork, perhaps even a racially motivated one). That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that perceived errors are just those taken out of their context here. No one ever attempted to put Shi'ite imagery on the level of, say, Eastern Orthodoxy (in which the interior of the church is occasionally completely covered by elements of Jesus' life and by saints), and it should be obvious that mosques themselves would not really possess such imagery. I think that the misunderstanding derives from forgetting who the statements are being directed to: forgiving for overcorrection if that is the case, but the statement is in response to an individual who holds to the belief that an image of Muhammad is an equivalent to the plague and that all Muslims agree and are harmed by these depictions. I know that this is untrue from my experiences with Shi'ite friends and my observance of icon-esque images in the homes of Iraqis and in other places (to my initial surprise).
As far as comparison would go, the Shi'ite practice concerning imagery would seem more in line with fundamentalist Protestant Christian groups, in which the churches are devoid of imagery (at least in terms of those used in worship) and are often little more than a room with chairs and a pulpit; of course, these Christians will more than likely have a painting or sculpture of Jesus at home even though it is generally not seen in worship use (in contrast to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.).
In short, I reaffirm my statements above: the taboo against imagery so claimed as universal by this and other posters is an exaggeration which largely ignores the position of Shi'ites, and their viewpoint and practice of general acceptance to the presentation of such sacred imagery in the home or elsewhere should be explained to place the above users' claims into perspective.
Far too many individuals post with this argument, ignorant the fact that the image was created by a Muslim for a Muslim- many overlook the fact that not every Muslim feels the same as they do, and the purpose of explaining the Shi'ite understanding of things (even only superficially) does much, I hope, to dispel the misconception of unanimity against the images.
Concerning the points on the Jesus article, I will look into it. Non-white depictions of Jesus are generally good to include, though it should be noted that the majority of Arab (Antiochian) Christians use images that would generally be categorized as Byzantine form. There are therefore few examples of Jesus in specifically semitic form (although an argument can be made that Byzantine-style iconography is ambiguous enough to make this representation; I would agree to some extent). I question the existence of many images of Jesus which attempt a more semitic appearance than these (generally, icons represent the cultures in question- Russian icons, Ethiopian icons, Japanese icons, etc.; the fact that no specific presentation exists for the Antiochian division seems to imply that the forms depicted are semitic enough). Of course, this is just my analysis.
That comparison from within the FAQ is pretty weak, and I think there is somewhat of a Western bias there (and perhaps here), even if its unintentional. I don't quite understand what's being said here.--C.Logan (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i have many shite friends and i have never saw a picture of Muhammad peace upon him in any of their homes, but i will still accept the argument posted by my friend above. but what is really confusing me is the truthfulness of the depiction. ofcourse it matters, and it matters alot. preaching Quran is one of the biggest and amongst the most major things the prophet Muhammad peace upon him did, and all muslims want to recite Quran and teach it as he actually did, thats why you will find a detailed description of how that was done by him. As i said since people look at how the prophet did something and then they do it, it becomes very important to describe his actions with the utmost care and precission. So, now as this website is created for educational purposes, many will seek knowldge on how the prophet preached Quran, and they will use the "unaccurate image" to learn that. what i am saying is that, since this charachter is highly valued and all his actions are infact done by his followers, having a picture saying that he did this very important part of Islam, in a wrong way will mislead many people, and might actually believe that this is the way he did, while infact it is not. that is why i have raised the issue of validity of the image. i find it funny, that the author doesnt want to edit the image to remove the face, because this will change how it was actually drawn, yet he adds an image that changes how a major thing was done by the character described. the latter change is by all means worse, and has lots of consuquences especially its claimed to be an educational website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the images isn't a good argument as the FAQ does state; my concern was more so with the amount of images compared to the amount of calligraphy. Personally, I don't have a problem with keeping the images, while also perhaps adding more calligraphy (in different calligraphic styles, like nastaliq, etc.) since calligraphy is probably an even more important aspect of traditional Mohammad depictions. Moreover, different ethnic groups have different calligraphic styles and whatnot (e.g. Nastaliq is a style that is used primarily by Urdu and Persian native speakers, rather than Arabic). IMO, that would add something to the article and it wouldn't give an overemphasis to imagery (Shiites only constitute 15% of the Muslim world), assuming that space allows for more expansion to this article. We have one Ottoman miniature, and that form could also be expounded on, since it was so popular amongst South Asian, Persian and Turkish converts to Islam that were unable to speak Arabic fluently (and thus, depended on imagery as a way to understand the Qur'an). Translations of the Qur'an haven't always been as widely available as they are today. -Rosywounds (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Including such calligraphic presentations would be very useful. I do suppose Western bias comes into play when considering them- one might wonder how many images of the same thing (yet in different style) could be included. In my mind, I can't help but compare it to 3-4 illustrations of the same event, but in different art styles. Perhaps the images (calligraphy) themselves would need to be seen to understand how one might arrange them within the article. In any case, the current images have unique historic value- they are, after all, some of the earliest depictions of Muhammad in existence.
I'm concerned that there is a kind of "mistranslation" going on between the editors here and the concerned Muslim readers who continue to persist in similar arguments (which the FAQ, in my opinion, dispels satisfactorily). How can one explain illustrative depiction to individuals who seem primarily obsessed with the accuracy of the images themselves? Wikipedia didn't create the images, and I think that many people misunderstand the idea of imagery in Western thinking and they misunderstand the concept of "educational value" when it pertains to images.
Although it seems that you dismiss the reasoning given in the FAQ, I support it: images are not made invalid by their lack of contemporary contact to the subject. Art that endeavors to depict a famous subject or event is almost exclusively non-contemporary, and I see no problem with that whatsoever; nor do I see a problem with an inaccuracy of depiction (sometimes deliberately made for the sake of aesthetic or symbolic representation)... art is art, and some of the requirements requested by Muslim readers is very difficult for me to understand because of the fact that an understanding of these concepts is very elementary to me and to most readers outside of the Muslim world.--C.Logan (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't criticizing the FAQs response to the validity of the images (I agree with you here). I was more critical of the FAQs reasoning for Western bias, as my original post had stated. The anon is the only one in this specific thread that is critical of the validity of the visual depictions (unless you were directing that portion of your post to him). -Rosywounds (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the section concerning Western bias is poor reasoning when considering the topic (I don't think the title is so appropriate, and the section could use a rewrite). However, it is important to note that there seems to be a persistent misunderstanding of neutrality on the part of these outside users. To us, neutrality means "operating outside of biases/POVs; showing no greater respect to any POV or ideology in particular". To these users, it appears to mean that we should present nothing which might offend the sensibilities of the reader. This is a misunderstanding which violates Wikipedia's prohibition against censorship.
And yes, that was directed towards the above user and all others who had used the same article (although I had framed it into an example for you to consider and comment upon).--C.Logan (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
All we are asking is to present the real fact and the real action as it was done. It makes no sense to present an important action in an art depiction that has nothing to do with the truth?? if you are telling me that an image of art can be anything, then what is the reasoning of having this image in particular? if you are telling me that this image doesnt have any educational value and it doesnt have to be accurate, then why it is there in the first place? isnt this an educational website, and all the material on it should be ready to learn from?? then what is the use of having a picture that says that this is how Muhammad preached Quran, while infact he did it in a different way!. isnt it simple to understand that for the honesty of the website, and the material on it, everything on it must be valid and real. so that who ever wants to be educated from this website, simply learn the real thing as it was. the opposition here, is why have a picture that presents something that didnt even happen.. to me it is hard to understand, and even believe someone who is as literate as the writer of this article would agree to attach something that has no real historical bases. shouldnt the writer of this article have enough knowldge on the prophet and his descriptions to easily point out how this picture doesnt represent the illustration written. If anyone is allowed to add an image without having any real connection to what it truly represents, then the website will certainly turn to useless knowldge base, that you cant know which is right and which is only a depiction, and which is not even a real depiction. the reader will loose the trust given to this website, because if now, you are agreeing that yes this picture can be wrong, and it is still there... then how many images are on this website that are wrong, and in how many artciles?!. I am quite amused for that i have to even mention this point to professionals. Again i repeat that, as a learner who wants to learn about the prophet Muhammad, will definetly want to know how the porphet Preached Quran, and will want to how it was done for real. So adding a wrong picture that says that this is how he did it, will mislead any reader. Now, as i am a person who actually knows how that was done, i was able to point and see the fault in this picture, but for those many who dont know, they will end up learning the wrong thing. What I am saying, if you think it is important to add images, then add right images, with right actions, with solid illustrations, that wont change history. Add images that will give sencirty and accuracy. Am asking is, since we know the real fact, and the real way the prophet peace upon him preached Quran, then what is the need to use fatasized image that shows that act in a different way than it was described? I would agree to this image, if we infact had no idea on how Quran was preached by Muhammad peace be upon him, and we just asume something. But since we already know, and it is very easy to find, then adding a wrong image is not acceptable. It is just like having an article that talks about Earth, and add an image that shows the earth as flat instead of oval shaped, and then write in the illustration " a depiction on how earth looks like ", i think a 7 years old will refute that silly depiction. I hope its clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no. Plenty of people have been portrayed by images of less-than=perfect accuracy before, and long before wikipedia, and the world has not caved in. Also, please read the FAQ linked to from the top of the page. Zazaban (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Mind that I said that an image does not have to be accurate to possess educational value. Additionally, this article was created by a myriad of the contributors (possibly numbering in the hundreds), and therefore any presentation is the combined effort of a group, rather than the result of an individual's beliefs or preferences.
I'll remind you that the problem which you appear to have with the images is not an issue of concern for the majority of editors here. As Zazaban and countless others have noted, the accuracy of depictions is hardly ever an issue in Western art, and often times it is the straying from reality which benefits the artwork aesthetically.
Remember also that the image was not created by any user here. Your request for a "proper illustration" ignores the fact that these images are included for what they are intended to represent rather than their accuracy. These images were created by Muslims centuries ago in an attempt to depict particular actions of Muhammad. As such, they are presented here for the affiliation with the subject and for the historical value of the images. As far as "realism" is concerned, I would be more mindful of the lack of accurate human form and the lack of consideration of depth.
Finally, I would see no problem with the inclusion of a flat Earth image; there have been periods of history where many individuals perceived this to be the Earth's shape. "An Xth-century depiction of the Earth" would be a perfectly acceptable caption for such an image. I'm actually surprised that the Earth article has no summarization of belief in a flat Earth, though I'm sure there's a reason for this.--C.Logan (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of people, but you should keep in mind that these people's actions are not imitiated by their followrs. This is a dangerious change in an important and a fundemental part of Islam and its practices. Preaching Quran is a practice that is done by millions all over the world, and its done as Muhammad peace upon him has done it. So, now coming and putting an image that changes how he actually did it, and claim that this is how he did, is a very dangerious and truth changing event. You should have the a sense, of differientiating those actions that must be depicted with certain level of accuracy and those that doesnt require that accuracy. a simple example, in a text book article that talks about the methods of hunting of the hunters and gatherers of the new world, a depiction of those hunters using a hunting tool that didnt exist during their time, will be considered a huge mistake.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
People not imitated by their followers? Almost all the biblical figures are depicted without fair idea of what they look like. Nobody has asked for Michelangelo's David to be removed because it's not totally accurate. Nobody is going to ask for every single statue and painting of Jesus to be recalled because we can't be sure it's totally right. Zazaban (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Your example depends on the nature of the image and its context. If, for instance, the image is from an early 20th/mid-20th century representation of a "primitive man", then there would be no discernible problem with including the image. Of course, context may determine placement, but this is a more detailed issue.--C.Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
you havent commented on the the example i gave..? well, this now returns to the follower's detication to exactly follow the footsteps of those they are following, and to the importance of that event. In this case, the event is one of the basics and fundementals. and the detication of following the exact footsteps of Muhammad peace upon is very high, to the extent that people love to walk over the area that it is known that he has walked over. or to rest in a place, that it this known that he rested on. Even people shower the same way he did, and showering is by no means as important as preaching Quran. So i guess that must be respected. giving the proceeding argument the comparison you gave to this event is totaly refuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If an individual would like to learn Muhammad's practices and habits to a "t", then this is certainly not the correct place to turn. This article is a general overview of the subject, and as such will likely never delve into the detail which has been provided concerning Muhammad's habits and mannerisms. Islamic scripture will certainly be a much more elucidating resource in this respect. Images are not required to be "accurate"; these images in particular were created to represent Muhammad and his actions. Their historical value and relevance to the subject is the primary cause of their inclusion, along with aesthetic value.--C.Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To all who still insist that the accuracy of the portrayal is important for the practice itself, I have an interesting revelation to make: almost all middle-ages depictions worldwide are in the form of pictoral (or other similar) illustrations that severely lack realism; still, I've never heard any of the people of any time till quite recently complain about them. Do you want to know why?

These people forget that the depiction in itself means nothing; for all we know, without the proper data to back it up, these very images could be thought of as a bearded man talking to bearded men - yet we have the data and know that this is just a depiction (i.e. an illustration that does not mean to be used as an accurate drawing or painting) of his. What is even more important is that his followers know what he tought without even having to know such an image exists anyway.

How do these relate? Simple: even alchemical and martial arts treatises had such illustrations which, speaking in a like manner, not only make no sense unless you understand the basic principles, but can even seem quite absurd. And we are talking about manuals that were seeing everyday use back in their days, not dusty tomes on a bookcase.

The rules are simple, concise, and all-inclusive: the images won't go; period. - RaspK FOG (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good example in the image of historical fencing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaspK FOG (talkcontribs) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have really enjoyed reading these replies, but what really gave me the best smile of amusment was the reply to the example i wrote of the flat earth depiction. Well, ofcourse dear friends with adding a good illustration under the flat earth picture and saying that this is how people used to think earth looked like, then of course it will be very well accepted. But notice, we Added a good illustration explaining its contents precisely and accurately. my argument still holds true, i said simply that if we add that image (flat earth) and only said that (this is how earth looks like), meaning we give it unaccurate explanation and illustration, then i dont think anyone will object that there is a problem. I have also given a better example with the hunteres and gatherers depiction of them using tools that didnt exist during their time, ofcourse the depiction then will be having a problem. I am emphasizing on the accuracy of the depiction once more, because as i have read through this discussion that many are agreeing that a good depiction, or in other words correct and accurate depiction is a important in conveying the educational sense of that depiction. A level of accuracy must be maintained no matter what. I am not asking for a violation of the rules, and incase those rules had errors in them, i will definelty ask for a change in them, but What I am asking here, is who is the one in charge (reponsible) for this article is to make the necessary changes to increase the educational value of this article. I dont understand why it is so hard to edit the illustration to make it very clear that this is nothing but an imaginary depiction that has no real connection to the real act, or get a better depiction that has a better historical connection and truthfulness. Many have been saying that in Islam only a few part of muslims forbide using images of the prohpet Muhammad, so i guess it wont be very hard to get a better one. Plus you can find plenty of images depicting the action you want, accurately and with not having the face shown, similar to one posted in this article. This will definetly reflect that sencirty of this website of putting a good reliable educational material for those interested. I have not once referred to censorship of any material, I am asking to improve the quality of the material. It wont affect those who wrote this article to spend some few more minutes looking for a better depiction, with better illustration, with better value, that will serve the purpose needed from these depictions here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talkcontribs) 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove the pictures

Pictures are what he would have wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin of wikipedia-

Kindly remove all the images related to Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) and his companions especially from the following link: specially this image

Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia. Jmlk17 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, but also please see [5]. Using hidden template would resolve all the issues I believe as suggested above. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I doubt these issue would rest unless they were removed completely and not even offered for viewing. Jmlk17 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If we provide a clear note regarding the content of the images, then how can Muslims disagree? If they choose to see the picture, it will be their own fault. Aren't they 18+? :) The important point here is to give people choice to decide for their own. If somebody wants to find something on the internet to watch he can easily find and certainly images of Muhammad are not the most sinful ones to Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Very true. Jmlk17 05:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should act as a responsible organization and should immediately remove all such offensive materials. Not to mention, it shouldn't have been published at first place

Wikipedia is not subject to Sharia law. Surely the question is that simple. We respect Muslims rights not to draw pictures of their Prophet Muhammed, but this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. The images do not defame or harm his reputation The suggestion that we should hide them out of sensitivity, is like suggesting everyone should follow the laws of the country next door as well as their own, in order to be "sensitive". Censorship would establish a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. I'm surprised this subject has received as much debate as it has, it is a non-issue. Lostsocks (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Jmlk17 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
But why not using hidden templates as suggested here [6]? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
These hidden templates sound like the perfect solution, if you want to see it, then you can , if you don't, it dosen't show. Perhaps we should try this out and see? (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no qualms with the proposal as it is- the pictures will stay, but nobody has to look at them if they don't want to. Perhaps an official proposal should be put forward?--C.Logan (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Jmlk17 06:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hiding the images means that Wikipedia is censoring - unless the default option is "show", in which case, there is no point in doing it. Wikipedia is not censored... Hiding images that a small proportion of people find offensive is a very dangerous prescedent - To proptect the sensibilities of others, should certain sexual content be hidden? Certain political content perhaps? Other religious conent that can be claimed to cause offence to one group or another? The arguments that have been long made about why these images are encyclopedic, relevant to the article, and appropriate and therefore should not be deleted, also apply in rejecting arguments for them to be hidden instead. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No matter what, people are still going to delete the images, ask for them to be deleted, and then complain when the aren't. Jmlk17 09:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Chill doubt raises a good point. Compromise is typically good, but compromising policy to satisfy a body of individuals who don't even seem to grasp what the policies are and why we're standing by them may be hazardous and would set a poor precedent for future breaches of Wikipedia's "no censorship" policy. It would be nice if there were some way for users so inclined to disable/hide the images beforehand (although the FAQ offers a manner to do this, people don't even seem to read the FAQ in the first place, so the usefulness of this method is very limited) on this article in particular, without affecting the code for everyone.
I'm somewhat torn here, because I don't like to give the impression that I'm shoving things in other people's faces- but again, no one is forcing anyone to come here. If you are a Muslim, and you cannot handle the policies of Wikipedia, then there are certainly Islamic encyclopedias which support your viewpoint and religious requirements with which you may feel more comfortable. There will likely be much more detail on such religion-specific encyclopedias as well. This is simply how things are done on Wikipedia; if you find it unacceptable that Wikipedia presents a neutral tone irrespective of religious beliefs and requirements, then it would seem obvious that Wikipedia is not for you.
If any bright solutions can be presented which might satisfy the interests of both parties, please feel free to enlighten me. Being reminded of the obvious consequences of this proposed policy side-stepping, I'm very apprehensive about moving in support of this idea.--C.Logan (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of compromise, it's important to remember that the current position is in fact a result of years of carefully crafted and negotiated compromise. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If only the anons and newcomers were aware of how many times each of these arguments has been repeatedly heard, considered and subsequently dismissed. Seeing as to how the discussion is progressing now, it's difficult to imagine how it must have been before there was an established ruling on the issue.--C.Logan (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Chill doubt, do you really think there is a consensus in wikipedia to should show pornography pictures? what do you mean by censor when we are not removing the pictures? Anybody who would like to see them can easily do. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If censorship is a concern, why not people's opinion is a concern for WikiPedia, or it is just that Wikipedia wanted to show the world as they see/feel. Lift the protected mode of the page, have wikipedia user edit what they want, dont censor the content modification right, if wikipedia is for people.
That's the whole point. It's not censored, and hence is the perceived issue. When the page does get unprotected, the images are set to stay, not be deleted because a handful of editors wish them so. Jmlk17 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
My reply

If the default position is to hide, then this is obvious censorship - regardless whether the images are subsequently obtainable or not. If the default position is to show, then this would be defeating any purpose in making the change. At the risk of repeating myself censoring articles by hiding either text or pictures that could upset the sensibilities or beliefs of certain groups is not something that Wikipedia should be doing. The arguments against hiding or deleting pictures are not limited to this however, as the FAQ shows. C Logan makes a very good point in the fact that the FAQ provides people with an easy way to enable them to self censor, to prevent these images being displayed.... below....

Please note that if you are offended by the images (and you have an account), you can change your personal settings so that you don't have to see them, without affecting other users. To do this, create a page at User:YourUsername/monobook.css and add the following line: img {display: none;}

•CHILLDOUBT• 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said we are going to hide texts. And you have not responded to my question. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I see little difference between hiding text and hiding images as far as the censorship issue is concerned.--C.Logan (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove these pictures

According to the faith and beliefs of Muslims, painting / sketching of the LAST MESSENGER OF GOD, MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH) and of any other PROPHETS of GOD is strictly prohibited. So, the management / editors of Wikipedia are respectfully asked to remove those from the article on PROPHET MUHAMMAD (MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE ON HIM AND HIS AHL-E-BAIT AND HIS COMPANIIONS AND HIS UMMAH). It is a part of our belief so I request you to remove those sketches. ADAM, NOAH, ABRAHAM, JEOSPH, MOSES, DAVID, JESUS (the SON of BLESSED MARRY)and ALL other PROPHETS of GOD [BLESSED BE ALL] are similarly respectful to US. So if there is a similar case with the articles on any of them, I again request you people to remove them. We (Muslims) believe in ALL PROPHETS of GOD and respect all in a same way. And these acts hurt our feelings quite badly... remove these pictures as it hurts religious beliefs of Muslims around the world. this is no censorship, its about human feelings, Urgent action required, please remove the pics.

No... read above. Jmlk17 11:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is based largely on human feelings and opinions. You are offended by the presentation of images of Muhammad, whereas others are offended by nudity or sexual imagery. Neither is censored here.--C.Logan (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
i am offended by the falsehood that these pictures present, it can not be compared with the other subject that you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That was exactly the point C.Logan was making -- people are similarly "offended" by other images, as well. The basic argument you're presenting is nothing new, it's been repeated, debated and compromised over countless times over the past several years. Do you have something new to add to the discussion? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Commmon, I know people who got blocked indefinitely from wikipedia for being persistent in asking for porn pictures to be added to the articles. Yes, there are underlying rules and there have always been. These rules simply come from what people generally agree is bad for them at a certain time.
Aside from these,Luna Santin, I'd like to hear what you think about [7] in which I argue for hidden templates. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, there are numerous sexual and pornographic pictures and images on this site. We are not censored, we are not here to offend, and simply because one (and small) group disagrees, does not mean we should conform to a new and certainly drastic means of censoring ourselves. The simple fact that these images even EXIST on this site is enough to anger these people. Jmlk17 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So if I name an editor who got blocked indef for merely asking on its talk page for child porn pictures be added to a relevant article, are you willing to unblock him?
Please define what you mean by censorship, i.e. in what sense it is depriving people of the information? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No way. Child porn is illegal, and quite a bit different than 18+ and legal porno. Jmlk17 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Muslim countries may say that pictures of Muhammad are illegal too. And many of free-speech movements were working against what was considered illegal at that time. I don't think being illegal can be an real principle because it changes with time and with government.
Not that I agree with having child porns pics. I think one should ask is a more basic question: What was the basis for those who said that child porn is illegal? They would try to justifying it because they think exposure to them is bad for the society as a whole. But so do those Muslims who say that pictures of Muhammad are illegal.
--Be happy!! (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Illegal" isn't some ambiguous state of mind, it's an actual, written state of affairs. Child porn is unambiguously illegal by the laws of the state of Florida, which Wikipedia has to follow. That's not the case for pictures of Muhammad.—Chowbok 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The government here takes child pornography very seriously. This law is one of the few which Wikipedia must abide by to continue operating. It is possible that, if such imagery was not illegal where the servers are located, then it would be permissible for inclusion on relevant articles. However, I'm no expert in this field, so I can't make this assumption with any sort of authority.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what we mean by censorship. We usually need to do some kind of work to get access to some information. IMHO, it is censorship if we can not get access to those information with a reasonable amount of work. So, I can not understand why clicking on a hidden template is a huge amount of work... --Be happy!! (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Aminz, I see that you haven't gone to the trouble to hide the images for yourself as suggested above (User:Aminz/monobook.css), but you do want everyone else to go to the trouble of having to click "show" every time they go the article. It seems to me that the people who want to hide material should have to go to the trouble, not vice versa.—Chowbok 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's not single out Aminz, here. He may have no personal problem with the inclusion of images, and therefore wouldn't need to censor them in this manner. Let me point out the fact that the concerns over how this motion would interfere with Wikipedia's "no censorship" policy have been elaborated upon in the sections above, Aminz.--C.Logan (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to improve the text below images

The text in the article below the image at says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.

Kind Regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarosh Alamgir (talkcontribs) 09:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talkcontribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

why cant i edit this page ?

last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.

--digitalSurgeon (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally. Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. WilyD 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk17 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So it was, I'll change the template. WilyD 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the FAQ

The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?—Chowbok 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to, and revert the changes. I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here. See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

For what it's worth, I copied the design of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ from Talk:Evolution/FAQ. Frotz (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More calligraphy please

The article really should have an example of Sini script. For exampleIslamic Calligraphy in China, figure 16 shows an honorific of the Prophet, although the most mind-blowing are probably figures 6 and 15. What a fantastic artistic tradition! Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think C.Logan and I have agreed that more calligraphy could be useful. You do bring up a good idea.. I had already brought up Nastaliq as another style that we could use (since its common for Persian and Urdu). Sini calligraphy seems even more interesting, since it differs so much in its look (Nastaliq is more simplified, with an emphasis on Arabesques). The Chinese already have a strong calligraphic tradition of their own, so I'm sure their styles do carry a sense of uniqueness, even if they are written in modified Arabic script. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Figure 8 is my personal favorite, but I fear it's not quite distinct enough (when compared to the more traditionally Chinese-influenced forms displayed).--C.Logan (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I find the calligraphy offensive. It has no representative function for anyone who cannot read Arabic. And it is also far more recent than the pictures. Why should it be the first image shown? TharkunColl (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming (hoping) that is sarcasm. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm or not, it is a refreshing change of pace. In any case, I'm beginning to wonder how one would respond if the comment above is indeed serious.--C.Logan (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't sarcasm. Why is there a calligraphy image given pride of place? TharkunColl (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please elaborate on this argument.--C.Logan (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
All articles on historical figures - especially important historical figures - have an image at the head of the article of that figure. The fact that this article consigns those images to secondary places is itself censorship, and we really should put one of them - say the Biruni one - at the top. Besides, the calligraphy image is repeated just a few inches further down in the info box. TharkunColl (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do disagree with you here. Visual imagery has always taken a secondary role when it comes to depictions of Muhammad; for that reason, giving heavier emphasis to an art form that conforms to Western aesthetic comes across as somewhat of an intellectual imperialism. I am not pro-censorship (in fact, I'm Shiite), but I still think the calligraphic styles and veiled styles, which represent the more typical forms, should taken precedent here. The reason most articles do not use such examples at the top is because most other historical figures have not been depicted in such a way. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that we might want to choose a less redundant calligraphic representation. As far as the images are concerned, I have no greater preference for either.--C.Logan (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the "lead" image is calligraphic, with the other images relegated to below the fold, as a deliberate concession to the people who don't want the images here at all. This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable and appropriate compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This also seems a sensible compromise and basis for a policy to me. I do not support wholesale removal of all the images in question, but there's no point in rubbing them in the noses of Muslims who find the pictures offensive by cramming as many as we possibly can into the top 10% of the article. Especially when there is calligraphy and other images available that can illustrate this article just as well. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
In no other instance do we put pictures of the subject "below the fold". Treating this article differently because of the objections of a vocal minority would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. We should treat the article about this man no differently than an article about any other man.—Chowbok 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not only, I argued for calligraphy first (and I wanted fewer images, not none) because it is by far the most common representation of Muhammad in Islamic history and an important part of Islamic tradition. gren グレン 14:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with "Remove pictures of the Prophet PBUH" - and cleanup of the talk page

  • I've moved some items from the header into a collapse box to make the warnings related to controversial issues more prominent (and make it easier to get to the actual point of the page). I've also added an archivebot tag so that the page will be automatically archived.
  • Regarding the issue of responding to complaints about the images - consensus has demonstrated over time (among registered editors, anyway) that the images will remain and that they will not be hidden. These options have been debated many, many times as you can see by the archives. I would suggest, then, that the focus at this point should not be on convincing every new IP and SPA why this consensus exists - rather, come to a conclusion about how to deal with future complaints. The complaints will never stop, as you are obviously aware. The prohibition on displaying images of Muhammad is more than a thousand years old, and it is unlikely it will be weakened while you are editing Wikipedia. My suggestion would be one of the following:
    • Combine the notices about the FAQ, PBUH and the images in one box.
    • Add a new box that is addressed to regular editors (i.e. not those whose first edit is asking to remove the images) explaining to them the agreed upon process for handling new complaints.
    • Pick a process for handling complaints - some suggestions have been removing all new requests, or ignoring new requests and allowing them to be archived. I might suggest that you do a combination of those two things and a third.
1) Concisely respond to coherent requests by directing the requestor to the FAQ. Ask these people to consider editing elsewhere in Wikipedia for a time before they return to the Muhammad page, and suggest IPs register an account.
2) Revert poorly written demands and obvious trolling.
3) Ignore anything in between.

Avruchtalk 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely a good step in the right direction! :) Jmlk17 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that no agreements was achieved. Even though I think the images should be hidden but not removed, but I am not very hopeful that this will happen. How many of you guys have uploaded an image of Muhammad with uncovered face? I have; but yet I changed my position over time and I can only try my best to have the community hears my arguments. The community will decide at the end. My theory is that refusal of hiding the images is more psychological than rational: why should we care for this particular minority who find these images objectionable/ if we do that what does this imply about us/ let them create their own encyclopedia... This view misses the fact that English is not only a language for native speakers but also one for scientific discourse universally, and many people throughout the world visit the English encyclopedia; it doesn't really matter if the servers are based in Florida, it should think of itself universally... and for another fact the world is becoming increasingly one...
Hiding images is not censorship because with small amount of effort people can see the images. The aim of censorship is however to avoid access of people to certain information, that is making it hard for them to get access. This is a different thing. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
What about when homophobic people get upset at seeing an article on homosexuality with images? Or when an anti-drug editor sees a picture of weed on cannabis? Or even when a pacifist visits WWII and sees images of corpses? Do we hide those as well if they offend people? Jmlk17 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Two points: the number of pious homophobics who want to visit homosexuality article, the number of pious pacifists who want to visit WWII article are much much less than the number of pious Muslims who want to see Muhammad. This is like Christians visiting Jesus article. It is a central article to them and they care about it.
Secondly, yes, if many homophobic editors raise their concerns over a long period of time (showing that they are really feeling uncomfortable), I would sympathize with them. The amount of reaction is itself a measure. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I came up with those examples spur of the moment, and certainly are not the best, but I think we both get our point(s) across. :) Jmlk17 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I get your argument; at the end of the day, this is a decision that each of us take personally take, and clearly this is controversial and people end up accepting one solution or the other. Good night :) --Be happy!! (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll reiterate my suggestion. Move all such "remove images" requests to Talk:Muhammad/images. Leave the header on this page but replace any body with "The subject of the removal of the images of Muhammad can be discussed on Talk:Muhammad/images, your discussion has been moved there. Any more posting in this section will be removed." Then have a 0 tolerance policy on ANY posting under that section. And those who wish to continue discussing this can talk about it on a subpage. Also, this should not be construed as a reason to move more nuanced discussion by established editors like Aminz if he wants to discuss hiding. Many (myself included) may not agree but it is still very different from the drop-by editors who only posting "remove pictures now". BTW, good job cleaning up the top some. gren グレン 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

use of "to conquer"

Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan

Sure we are, wikipedia is not an islamic encyclopedia. We don't follow islamic law. Zazaban (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You dont have to follow islamic Laws to give respect to others' feelings. and to what laws do u really follow ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Censorship is different than respecting others feelings. Should we delete the article on Masturbation or anal sex because the subject matter is often considered offensive? No. And about the laws; I am an anarchist, so I don't suppose I do follow a set of laws. I don't find them to be useful or justified. Neither is censorship. Zazaban (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.

^^^ This is hilarious. I actually almost because a muslim once, and joined an islamic forum. Not to mention the huge interest I have in religion. I've read the entire history of Muhmmad's life several times for god's sake! I suggest you get yourself more educated on Zazaban, before posting comments. Also, how on earth am I missing the point? Could you be willing to explain that one? Zazaban (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think, you are missing the point Random Anonymous Person, I suggest you get yourself more educated on the website Wikipedia, before posting comments. JuJube (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Amen to that.--C.Logan (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The image of no scholarly/historic significance

The image that is there with reference of Albeironi is of no scholarly/historic significance. Albeironi was born after almost 04 centuries after the prophet (PBUH) hence he did not know how the prophet looked like. The image if it is there just for the sake of illustration then it should be like the Ottoman image i.e. not showing the face of the prophet (PBUH). Thus it would not be hurting anyone's feelings and illustration is also possible. The reason that you are giving that it would make people think that wikipedia is hiding things because of the protest from muslims is in itself showing the importance of people. So do illustrate but only after keeping in view the thinking and feelings of the people (muslims in this case). If you want the "Albeironi refered image" in the article then like the ottoman image the face should not be clear. That would be more neutral so let commom sense prevail.Rehanz 138 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See above, as well as Talk:Muhammad/images. Jmlk17 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a separate discussion. What I am telling you is that (1) The image is of no scholarly/ historic significance. (2) If it is there only for the illustration purpose then the face of the prophet (PBUH) should be blurred so that incorrect information about how he looked like should not be there in the article. So use common sense. Your article has incorrect information shown in the image that the prophet (PBUH) looked like that image. Do you have any proof that he looked like this? The information is incorrect and has to be corrected. Do all articles have information like this without any proof at all??Rehanz 138 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's a depiction of him, as true, photographic images haven't even been around for more than about 160 years or so. They're depictions of Muhammad for educational purposes. Jmlk17 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the "appearance section" below regarding the educational purposes. Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...

So information that he looked like that image is not verified and hence should not be there in the article. " À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù " This is a depiction of how air looks like... Would you be publishing it in article "air". The depiction is not verified by any reliable sources. and completely based on assumption. Muslims (people) who use this website are being offended by a depiction (1) Not based on reality (2) Not verified (3) Useless. Blur the face of the depiction. Describe with a pen how he looked like, what he wore. The information should be creditable. Not all based on assumptions...Rehanz 138 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The images are centuries-old drawings/paintings that have only been said to depict Muhammad, and have been accepted as so, including by Muslims since their inception. Sorry if the images offend you and other Muslims, but blurring Muhammad's face would censor them, and Wikipedia does not do that for any reason, at all, ever. Jmlk17 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Rehanz, by that same logic, we'd have to remove the images of Jesus, Buddha, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Homer, Socrates, Moses, Adam, Plato... basically everybody who lived before the fifteenth century (when accurate portraiture first became commonplace). That's a pretty tall order. You really want all of those images to be removed?—Chowbok 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Presumably, if you presented those characters on canvas and they acquired some sort of notability/relevance/historical value, then yes, we could include such an image on the Air article, I suppose. The funny thing about many of these arguments presented to somehow "defeat the logic behind the images" is that they are actually valid possibilities which are reasonably allowed within Wikipedia guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslims started at arround 613, and the image is of arround 10th century. Who were the earliest muslims who accepted the image? I am not talking about images of other personalities. May be those are verifiable or not... Those images are based on reference to bible etc. Do you have any such image based on Quran or a painting by someone who was there at that time? We had cave drawings and egypt drawings arround 5000 years ago. There are pages of Quran that were written 1400 years ago...Do you have any verified image of the prophet (PBUH) more then 1400 years old??? The bottomline:- An image that is not verified, based on assumption, has incorrect information, offends a large number of people stays on Wikipedia...You don't want a censorship. but you are passing incorrect information. Never say never again...Rehanz 138 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No we are not passing any incorrect information. Our image of Muhammad from 1315 is the earliest verifiable depiction of him, hence it is included. His face is not covered or marked out, conforming to the accepted laws of the time when it was produced, as well as the others. Your argument has little to no basis based upon fact. Jmlk17 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Since it doesn't claim to be an accurate depiction of Muhammad, but merely a painting, that doesn't matter. 2. If people get offended by it, too bad. In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not censored. JuJube (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) The image is taken not directly from Albeironi, it is taken from a french translation of Albeironi. Is that translation verified. Have the arabic of that manuscript has been checked? Translation errors are common in the whole world...where is the original. (2) Jmlk17, on 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC) you said that the image is accepted by muslims since their inception. Muslims started at 613 and the iamge is 0f 14th century. How could muslims accept the image before it was created. (3) My argument is based on facts. From 7th century to 13th century there are 8 centuries, There was no image. Suddenly in 13th century an image appears in a french translation which "is accepted" by the muslims as you tell. Why those between 6th century to 13th century, did not produce an image of the prophet?? Because it was prohibited. Now an image produced after 08 centuries of the prophet (PBUH) is bound to be inaccurate, not verified and incorrect info. (4) If its just a depiction. This is a depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і". Put it in you "Sky" article. This is a wrong depiction. Description is inaccurate and not based on facts. Your information is being created out of thin air.Rehanz 138 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the inception of the images. There are no actual images of Jesus, Buddha, nor anyone until the mid 19th century. The images are used to show a story, or tell a tale, and are coming from a Muslim source. I still fail to see exactly what your argument is other than "they are incorrect". Jmlk17 02:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) The images you are talking about are wrong but they are widely accepted "images". The image of the prophet (PBUH) is or was never accepted by muslims. Its not about a small group of muslims. you don't find imasges in any mosque of muslims. You can't find an image of the 6th century, although you do find the verses of Quran that were written on rocks,leather, pages etc. Images were/are not accepted by muslims. (2) The images are not from a muslim source. These are from translations. If these are from a muslim source. Give reference of the muslim source. (The arabic/persian book). (3) Above description of "Sky" also tells a story why don't you put it in your article "Sky". You don't put it in "Sky" because it is incorrect, not based on facts and is not widely accepted. That is exactly why you shouldn't put the incorrect image. Why insist on incorrect information?Rehanz 138 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

They are widely accepted images/depictions of Muhammad, and hence belong in an encyclopedia. You're argument that they are invalid, is, in itself, invalid. Wikipedia is not censored, not for myself who might be offended by certain things, nor for yourself who finds Muhammad's depicted face offensive. We serve as an educational site, and are using these images in their correct context. Jmlk17 02:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The images are taken from translations...There are chances of errors in the translation. The images may not be in the originals in the first place, may be added by the translaters. Where are the Oraiginals? Refering from the translations that are not verified is not scholarly. An encyclopedia has to check the credibility of the information, so far I have not found any thing because of which these images are considered important or relevant enough. How do you define "Widely Accepted". This is widely accepted depiction of sky "З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і".

Everything, every image and painting throughout human history could easily have the exact same label attached to it though. Muhammad is no different than any other man's depictions throughout history. Jmlk17 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect again. I repeat my question. You have taken the images from translations. Where are the originals? How do the images suddenly appear in 13th century although there are works available before that...Information is not useful if it is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehanz 138 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Many paintings are only available as reproductions. Your question is irrelevant. JuJube (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Have you ever read two translations of the same book. You would notice the difference (2) Sometimes translaters add there own material while translating You can't tell me about the originals and you tell me that these are from eminent muslim scholars. These are not, these are from translations. Information is incorrect... Rehanz 138 (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect that these images are of the prophet (PBUH). It is incorrect to put the wrong images(wrong info) in the article without verifying those images. It is incorrect to believe that "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж" is what is beneath this earth.

How is it incorrect? For all we know there's some obscure culture that calls what is beneath the earth just that. Zazaban (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Zazaban. And Rehanz, your argument that they are incorrect simply because the images are from the 13th century and not from before has no basis. They are commonly accepted as depictions of Muhammad, have been for hundreds of years, and hence will stay. End of story my friend. We will not removed them, especially under some unfounded basis as being "incorrect". Jmlk17 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to say Wikipedia is that obscure culture which says things without verfying any thing at all...This is nonsense on the part of wikipeida. They are not able to prove what they say yet insist on putting it there. There arguments are fake, they are not listening to people, they are laking in common sense and they are "Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж"Rehanz 138 (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You think I'm Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж?! Wow, thanks! I thought you were upset at me and all, and then you go and say such nice things. Have a cookie. Also, I really think this whole argument is absurd. This is not a conspiracy to offend muslims, it's simply a picture. It's no different from pictures of quite a few other historical figures, and I don't see what makes this so special. If you want this image gone, go and protest all the other articles mentioned above. Zazaban (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense. The images of muhammad are valid, and shall stay, due to our being an encyclopedia, one that is not censored. End of story. Jmlk17 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
What's "laking" in common sense is people expecting the images to be removed simply because they're "offensive to millions". Your arguments, which are a sideways justification to the same old "zomg muslims are offended" ruckus repeatedly brought in here, have already been shot down and you're just repeating the same thing over and over. Give up. JuJube (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is full protection necessary?

Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A number are coming from sleeper accounts as well though, hence the full. :) Jmlk17 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, blocking such persistent accounts seems to a better choice because after expiration of this protection, the edit war may resume again. Those accounts have to learn that like it or not, they are a pushing a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll reduce the protection to semi for a while and see what happens. If the edit warring over the images resumes, I'll reprotect. Nakon 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it as well. Let's hope it works! Jmlk17 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.

Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia... constructively. This whole removing the established, purposeful, and relevant image thing isn't constructive. Jmlk17 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> Since people refuse to talk on this talk page, and continue to remove and revert the images out of the article, it has to be fully protected again. Jmlk17 07:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Appearance of Muhammad

Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [8]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? --Be happy!! (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My question would be - is it necessary to include such a level of detail in physical description in this article? It is fairly long as it is. Avruchtalk 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the appearance information seem to be interesting especially when we have reliable sources talking about it. Some readers might be interested to see how Muhammad looked like. That would in part address some of the objection made above regarding the informativeness of the drawings.--Be happy!! (talk)
I'm not sure how - I would much rather see a visual depiction of his appearance than try to imagine it based on written descriptions. Not the most neutral of descriptions in this case, either. Avruchtalk 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talkcontribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And we know that how? JuJube (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

pictures, wikipedia servers

Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?

no, the proposition would have to be passed into law, and that would never happen. Zazaban (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not at all how it works. That would be complete and utter censorship, as well as a free speech issue. Jmlk17 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b William Montgomery Watt (1953), p. 86
  2. ^ The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36
  3. ^ ref to Peters
  4. ^ Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam
  5. ^ Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam
  6. ^ ref to Peters
  7. ^ The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36
  8. ^ The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.37
  9. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference EoI-Muhammad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Slaves and Slavery
  11. ^ Bilal b. Rabah, Encyclopedia of Islam
  12. ^ See:
    • Watt (1964) p. 76;
    • Peters (1999) p. 172
  13. ^ *Some early Islamic histories recount that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). cf Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume p.166.
  14. ^ EoQ, Satanic Verses, Shahab Ahmed.
  15. ^ Francis E. Peters, The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, p.96
  16. ^ [9] 1978 Statement of the First Presidency regarding God’s Love for All Mankind