Talk:Muhammad the Reformer

Encyclopedic?

I agree with Zora and Gren said on Talk:Muhammad. The fatal flaw of the "reformer" stuff is that it equates Islam as we know it today is equivalent to the Islam of Muhammad and his followers. This idea is so absurd that not even the ulema will probably agree to it. Try to think about like this. Today there are Shias and Sunnis; were there Shias and Sunnis in Muhammad's time? No. There are four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (there used to be more, but some became extinct). Were there all the four schools in the seventh-century Hijaz? No. Another problem with calling Muhammad a "reformer" is what he could "reform". He lived in the seventh-century Hijaz, and he could only reform the pre-Islmic society of Hijaz. But what do we know about that society? Close to nothing. There are some writings of Muslim historians, there are modern attempts at reconstructing this society, but there isn't much consensus on how pre-Islamic Arabia looked like. Furthermore, we do not know much how Mecca, Medina, and the surrounding areas changed in Muhammad's lifetime. The assumption is made that all the stuff about slavery, charity etc. happened within those several years when Muhammad held the power first in Medina and then in Mecca, but no evidence is provided to support this view. Beit Or 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok so lets put it through the process. here goes! FrummerThanThou 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youre missing the already existing article Reforms under Islam (610-661) where the template is going.Opiner 11:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be moved to "Muhammad as a reformer". "Muhammad the reformer" doesn't sound correct, as if he was the only reformer in world history.Bless sins 17:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this article being retitled or appropriate cautionary remarks about historical evidence being added, but I see no basis for deletion. The discussion on this page focuses on the actions traditionally attributed to Muhammad and their significance in their historical context. .ReligionProf 14:16, 18 December 2006

I think this article should be omitted. It is basically a partisan gesture, not an encyclopedia entry.Menkatopia 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be merged with Reforms under Islam (610-661).Bless sins 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]