Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 83.84.46.69 (talk) to last version by Consumed Crustacean
←Replaced content with 'Muhammad sucks chunks'
Line 1: Line 1:
Muhammad sucks chunks
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{controversial (history)}}
{{pbneutral}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{tmbox
|style = border-color:#b00000;
|type = content
|image = [[Image:Stop hand.svg|60px]]
|text = <div>
'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article''''', and removal of pictures without discussion at [[Talk:Muhammad/images]] will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them. '''Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage [[Talk:Muhammad/images]].'''

The '''FAQ''' below addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the [[WP:CON|consensus]] of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.
}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{censor}}
{{todo}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=GA
|priority=Top
|core=yes
|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Islam|Prophets-of-Islam=yes|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WPARAB|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WPMA|class=GA|importance=top|nested=yes}}
{{WPMILHIST
|small=
|nested=yes
|class=GA
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|Biography-task-force=yes
|Medieval-task-force= yes
|Muslim-task-force=yes
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|coresup=yes|nested=yes}}
}}
{{pressmulti
|collapsed=yes
|author= Noam Cohen
|date= February 5, 2008
|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/books/05wiki.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
|title= Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized
|org= [[New York Times]]
|author2=Torsten Kleinz
|date2=February 6, 2008
|url2=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/103052
|title2=Wikipedia: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)
|org2=[[Heise]]
|author3=Fox News
|date3=February 6, 2008
|url3=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328966,00.html
|title3=Muslims Protest Wikipedia Images of Muhammad
|org3=[[Fox News]]
|author4=Caroline Davies
|date4=February 17, 2008
|url4=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia.islam?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews
|title4=Wikipedia defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet
|org4=[[The Observer]]
|author5=Inquirer Newsdesk
|date5=February 11, 2008
|url5=http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/02/11/wikipedia-faces-wrath-islam
|title5=Wikipedia faces wrath of Islam
|org5=[[The Inquirer]]
|author6=K.C. Jones
|date6=February 7, 2008
|url6=http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206106192
|title6=Wikipedia Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad
|org6=[[InformationWeek]]
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=September 7, 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Muhammad/archive1
|action1oldid=22674545

|action2=GAN
|action2date=January 8, 2006
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=34393935

|action3=GAR
|action3date=March 30, 2006
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=46261936

|action4=GAN
|action4date=11:59, 5 July 2008
|action4link=Talk:Muhammad/GA1
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=223711043

|small = yes
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=philrelig
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Muhammad/Archive Index|mask=Talk:Muhammad/Archive <#>|mask=Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive <#>|mask=Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive <#>|Mask=Talk:Muhammad/images|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(3d)
|archive = Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22
}}
{{Archives|list=&#x20;
[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 1|1]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 2|2]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 3|3]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 4|4]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5|5]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6|6]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 7|7]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 8|8]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 9|9]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10|10]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 11|11]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12|12]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 13|13]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 14|14]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 15|15]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 16|16]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 17|17]], [[Talk:Muhammed/Archive 18|18]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 19|19]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 20|20]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 21|21]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22|22]]

*'''Image archives'''
[[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 1|1]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 2|2]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 3|3]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 4|4]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 5|5]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 6|6]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 7|7]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 8|8]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 9|9]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 10|10]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 11|11]], [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 12|12]]

*'''Mediation Archives'''
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 1|Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 2|Statements]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 3|Clarity discussion/Refining positions]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 4|Ars' final archive]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 5|The rest of the mediation by Ars]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 6|Archive 6]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 7|Archive 7]]
# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Aarchive 8|Archive 8]]

*'''[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive Index|Archive Index]]'''
}}


== PBUH? ==

This is probably too much to ask, but for muslims, the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is usually followed by saying or writing "Peace and Blessings be upon him (PBUH)," as I have just demonstrated. Perhaps this should be added where the Prophet's (PBUH) name is mentioned? Thoughts? [[User:Cheese1125|Cheese1125]] ([[User talk:Cheese1125|talk]]) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:The established protocol is ''not'' to use blessings afterwards. Cf. [[Wikipedia:MOSISLAM]]. '''<font color=#BA55D3>[[User:Ogress|Ogress]]''' <sub>''[[User_Talk:Ogress|smash!]]''</sub></font> 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:There is a reason individual's might choose to use PBUH, but that reason would not apply to an encyclopedia. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Isra and Mi'raj ==

On the section of Isra and Mi'raj under the thumbnail of Masjid al-Aqsa, the caption reads 'The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the site from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven.'. This is technically not correct, as it is from the Dome of the Rock, which is adjacent to the al-Aqsa Mosque, and part of the same compound as al-Aqsa that Muslims believe he ascended to heaven. If someone could change the caption and picture please. [[User:M2k41|M2k41]] ([[User talk:M2k41|talk]]) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== "He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general..." ==

We need to add "highway robber"(or a similar word) too, he hijacked a number of caravans and plundered them. T.R. [[Special:Contributions/87.59.76.74|87.59.76.74]] ([[User talk:87.59.76.74|talk]]) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:Brigand? [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::No we don't. [[User:RaseaC|RaseaC]] ([[User talk:RaseaC|talk]]) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

==What to Call the People who started Caravan Raiding? The problem with Western historiography of the Muslim history ==

It seems that some users tend to deliberately offend Muslims and exploit their sensitivities about the person of Muhammad. To hurl insults at the central holy figure of Islam has a long history going back to the medieval Europe. Though abated to a large extent, this practice continues to resurface, one way or the other, in our apparently enlightened era. However, I think that Muslims should respond to such indecency with dignity and reason as two wrongs do not make a right.

In the present case, this "neutral" article states "facts" that "[e]economically uprooted and with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca". Taking cue from such "facts", willing people can let loose their imagination as to what could be the best word for such practice, "highway robbery or what?

Well, the part of the article under discussion is clearly biased against Muslims drawing on two writers namely Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt. Bernard Lewis is a Jew and have good reasons to depict the early Muslim history the way he has done. Watt is a Christian cleric who also happens to be a professor. Imagine a professor imam writing Christina history! Could that be acceptable as a neutral point of view?

The problem with western historiography of the Muslim history is that the narratives of historians like al-Tabari and Ibn Hishsham are considered "unreliable" because they lived a few centuries after Muhammad. However, an author living fourteen centuries after Muhammad bearing the label of "academic" says something based on selective use of the same "unreliable" materials and it becomes a "neutral" and "reliable" statement. All you need is some good imagination and speculation. Ehy! If al-Tabari, for instance, says that it were Meccans who threatened migrant Muslims and their hosts of war discard it because al-Tabari livid three centuries after Muhammad. (By the way, why historians are called historians? Do they write history or live in history?). If the argument is that the religious confession of these historians colored their narrative, then why not to apply the same criterion to the writers who came up with the caravan raiding "fact"? Or is it only the Muslim confession which can color the historical narrative? [[User:Haqju|Haqju]] ([[User talk:Haqju|talk]]) 07:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Exactly. Even though Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, he was definitely ''not'' a paedophile. Similarly, I think it will be shown, that although he hijacked caravans and plundered them, he was definitely ''not'' a brigand. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::By the standards of his culture and his time, the consummation of his marriage to [[Aisha]] would not have made him a pedophile. Similarly, you would have to show that he was considered a brigand by the standards and culture of his time, not through modern-day social filters. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Precisely my point. He was ''definitely not'' either of those things. The very notion is absurd. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::Ah. OK. I mistakenly took your earlier statement as sarcasm. You meant what you wrote. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::So, what were the standards back then of brigantage and padophilia? [[User:Frotz|Frotz]] ([[User talk:Frotz|talk]]) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::::We don't worry about that. We mention that according to traditional Sunni sources he married a 6/7 year old and consummated at 9. And that he and his people were involved in raiding caravans. There is no need to give him these labels when we describe what he did. The reader can decide if they want to call him a brigand or a pedophile or if they want to justify as okay in his time or come to whatever conclusions they want. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. That approach keeps things neutral. Folks 100 years from now might have their own interpretations, and they don't need to sift through our views to get at the historical records. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:I think the point is that few of those claims are actually supported by references from reliable sources. They are either wikilinks to internal articles related to the subject or just generic links on the subject without reference to the subject. Given the consensus here (for what may be considered by some to be adverse descriptions) is that the references have to be contemporaneous to the time frame involved we should only really accept references to these descriptions which date from the time of Muhammad. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
::Specifically which claims require references? [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I believe he's referring to Muhammad being described as "a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general". In a objective way, of course, we can call Muhammad a diplomat in that he dealt with representatives of states or peoples. Still, we have a very different contemporary understanding of what a "diplomat" is than people had back in Muhammad's time. Of course, you can pick any single leader of any given tribe who made new laws, and explain how he can be called a diplomat, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, and military general... perhaps not merchant. That being said, I don't think these descriptors need sources, and I think brigand carries too many specific connotations. We could call Muhammad a "raider", though, as easily as a "military general". -[[User:BaronGrackle|BaronGrackle]] ([[User talk:BaronGrackle|talk]]) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I think we shouldn't use modern terms to describe him, they're interpretive (biased). We should describe him as his contemporaries described him. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::We can use modern terms if we have sources that use those terms. Right now we have
:::::*diplomat - wikilinked to [[Muhammad as a diplomat]] - which seems OK.
:::::*merchant - wikilinked to [[Islamic economics in the world]] - in that the only reference to Muhammad is "To some degree, the early Muslims based their economic analyses on the Qu'ran (such as opposition to riba, meaning usury or interest), and from sunnah, the sayings and doings of Muhammad.". That is a bit thin for a lead paragraph.
:::::*philosopher - wikilinked to [[Early Islamic philosophy]] which is referring to developments that happened after Muhammad was dead.
:::::*orator - wikilinked to [[Orator]] - a dubious claim given that if what Muhammad said was sourced from Allah literally then this would make all of us Orators if we spoke the [[Iliad]] aloud.
:::::*legislator - wikilinks to [[Sharia]] and Sharia had developed in the [[Islamic Golden Age]] onwards and so well after Muhammad was dead. Thus this wikilink is anachronistic.
:::::*reformer - wikilinked to redirect of [[Early reforms under Islam]]. Given [[Bernard Lewis]] describes the [[Constitution of Medina]] as a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad then a benevolent [[Dictator]] is more appropriate.
:::::*military general - wikilinked to [[Muhammad as a general]] so I would guess OK.
:::::So it seem clear that we drop the claims that are poorly supported by those wikilinks (i.e. merchant, philosopher ,orator, legislator and reformer unless people find better wikilinks or reliable references to that claim. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] ([[User talk:Ttiotsw|talk]]) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::There's a few I think are less relevant than others, but they do seem to be cited in the article. Philosopher is one that should probably go IMO. Orator would probably apply to the speeches he gave such as the one during the last pilgrimage. Merchant seems OK as Muhammad was a merchant pre-prophethood, and did make quite a few prescriptions with regards to monetary dealings. Re: reformer, I don't see how Lewis' comments are relevant. And unilateral proclamation doesn't mean that the other parties did not agree, almost all academic sources call it an agreement. You can also refer to Serjeant's highly detailed study on the constitution for similar points. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 19:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

== Aisha's Age ==

In other pages mentioning Aisha, her age is given as 5 or 6 with supporting references (ie: [[Aisha]], [[Muhammad's wives]]). Why is it not the same here? I see awhile ago there was a revert war between the words "young" and "5 or 6 years old", but with the current supporting pages and references, I think the text should be changed to include her age here too. Thoughts? --[[User:Judgeking|Judgeking]] ([[User talk:Judgeking|talk]]) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:'''Agreed''' - it's sourced. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::Roughly speaking, it's kind of pointy and probably fails [[WP:UNDUE|the undue emphasis clause]]. The point also isn't totally undisputed, and is better dealt with where there's space to deal with in more in-depth. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::"Sourced" wasn't the issue back when the discussion took place. POV [[WP:POINT|pointedness]] was. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Ditto. In the passages about Muhammad's marriages, we don't mention the age of each of his wives when they married him (and this would be excessive). There doesn't seem to be much basis to unduly focusing on one or two ages just for the sake of it. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Some of the other ages can't be found Mohammad's earliest biographies, but his early biographers thought Aisha's age was significant enough to mention - repeatedly. And her age is used as justification for child-marriages even today. This makes it both significant, relevant, and notable. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Your attack on motives does nothing to counter the points I made above. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I think most of the ages probably can be found in the biographies, or at least deduced from them. Specifically, which early biographers made repeated mention of Aisha's age but didn't mention others'? As for your second point, that may well make it noteworthy for an article like [[Islamic marital jurisprudence]] so long as its significance in that context can be verified, but I don't see why it merits inclusion in the sentence in question (esp. if that significance itself isn't explored). [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 18:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::That no other motivation exists for introducing it is a big part of the problem though. Aisha was a more significant figure than any of his other wives, and more is known about her. But the place to go into nitty-gritty detail is [[Aisha|here]]. Muhammad's marriage to a child is used in some contexts to justify the practice today, but the place for that discussion is [[child marriage|here]]. To put it in here serves no purpose other than to disparage, and is thusly incompatiable with a neutral point of view by putting an undue emphasis on a point to promote an anti-Muhammad, anti-Islamic POV. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Outside of Wikipedia, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a scholarly source that references Mohammed's marriage to Aisha that does not also reference her age at betrothal. This makes noting it here quite neutral. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I do not find that claim to be very believable, honestly. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, give it a try![http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Mohammed's+marriage+to+Aisha+&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search] [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yea. Articles etitled "Aisha in trouble", Christo-centered books from 1889, and excerpts from overtly bigoted websites like answering-islam.org? I'll pass, thanks. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::The sources listed are of varying reliability and significance. I'm sure most academic biographies would mention the respective ages at marriage. But what makes Aisha's age uniquely significant here as compared to other wives? The context of child-marriages doesn't necessarily make it noteweorthy here as I opined above. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

::::::How can stating facts (like someone's age) be anti-anything? A fact is not POV. If a fact makes you uncomfortable, that's your issue, not Wikipedia's. --[[User:Judgeking|Judgeking]] ([[User talk:Judgeking|talk]]) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The manner and the context in which a "fact" is presented can indeed by POV, as we see quite clearly with this subject matter. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::How you choose to present facts, what facts you choose to present, et cetera, all reflect a point of view. It's even well recognised in policy: [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That's why I included the ages of all wives. And why not? Muhammad's age is mentioned in the Marriages section and throughout the article. There is no undue weight placed anywhere that way. --[[User:Judgeking|Judgeking]] ([[User talk:Judgeking|talk]]) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Mentioning all the ages is a nice CYA attempt, but it isn't gonna fly. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::The problem is that the edit speaks for itself. Anyone reading the edit immeadiately knows why it's being added, what POV it's trying to push onto the reader, all of that. An article is neutral when you can read it and not know the POV of the author - is this edit the POV is as subtle as [[Mechagodzilla]] on [[PCP]]. Adding the other ages is not the disguise you're looking for, it doesn't alter the POV being pushed. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::This edit is just the re-addition of material that was removed earlier. What about removing the ages of subjects, is that not POV? And Wily, what we're worried about here is how the article reads, not the history of the edits. If editing a certain section of an article is POV, then Wikipedia should just shut down, since every edit would be POV. --[[Special:Contributions/208.124.175.34|208.124.175.34]] ([[User talk:208.124.175.34|talk]]) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest? The "search other sources" challenge intrigued me, but I was very surprised to find that encarta's article on Muhammad doesn't mention Aisha's age when it talks about her. -[[User:BaronGrackle|BaronGrackle]] ([[User talk:BaronGrackle|talk]]) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:Encarta's article[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553918/Muhammad.html] is much shorter than this one. [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me as one who sees no reason this information should not be included. If you look at European kings who made political marriages, the ages are included. So why not here? This is ridiculous. I want a good reason, [[WP:POINT]] is not one. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's [[WP:UNDUE]] that's the issue. The information is included time and time again. One can only harp on it so long before it's too much. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

::[[WP:POINT]] is a valid one, whether you like it or not. [[WP:UNDUE]] also comes in to play. I will repost a response I made on this [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Aisha|the last time]] the subject came up;
::
::"Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here; the issue of Aisha's age stems from a decidedly Western-oriented, right-leaning agenda of painting Islam in general and Muhammad in particular in the worst light possible. That does not make it any less notable of course, which is why a section of the "Criticism of..." article is devoted to it, [[Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha]]. But placing it on this page serves no purpose other than to criticize, and that is quite inappropriate and out-of-place"
::Summation; appropriate in [[Aisha]] and [[Criticism of Muhammad]]. Here? Not so much. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Isn't a separate criticism article a POV fork? And I never said one should be critical of her age. That's a value judgment. Like I said before, look at some of the royalty pages; ages are mentioned all the time at the time of weddings, they are considered relevant. Why is in only this one page it's considered undue weight? Leaving out relevant information because others don't like it would be violating [[WP:POINT]], in my opinion. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::No, it's a sub article because Muhammad is ''probably'' the single most important or influential human in history, and requires more than ~60K to discuss to a reasonable depth. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that alleged "5 or 6" was in dog years. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

:Bugs, didn't you say "because it's anti-Islam" is a worthless argument? I guess you were wrong. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Aunt Entropy]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::I don't follow. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no laws or customs based on the age of his other wives but there are laws and customs based on Aisha's age so I think it is very important to state her age clearly here. [[User:Bluetd|Bluetd]] ([[User talk:Bluetd|talk]]) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

:The point is, it isn't relevant to an article about Muhammad himself, other than to make a veiled criticism. The controversy about the girl's age is covered in the appropriate articles. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

== Sources ==

Please don't publish any WORD regarding prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from unauthentic Islamic scholars' writings. Like, it's mentioned here that fasting and pilgramage (hajj) are not in Qur'an. This is a big lie, fasting (Sawm) and hajj are mentioned in Qur'an.

In accord with the above I have removed mention of an empty space next to the grave of Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) There is no empty space in the tomb. According to Ibn Kathir (Sirt Ul Nabawaiyya, Vol IV) when Abu Bakr was buried in the chamber the feet of the prophet were uncovered due to lack of space. This empty space is a myth concocted by modern-day Mullah. The only source quoted is from a little-known western writer. ([[User:SEMTEX85|SEMTEX85]] ([[User talk:SEMTEX85|talk]]) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

:Thanks for your contributions. Any scholarly sources, however, are valid for citing in this article if they meet the [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]] policies. "Authentic Islamic scholars" do not have a monopoly on the historical knowledge about the Prophet. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

== to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively ==

dear sir,
iread about muhammed ,
but at firstly in article tells prophet muhammed is the founder of islam.
it is not correct, he came in sixth century only.
befor that came number of prophets.
adam was the first man and first prophet.since his period have ther islam .
so how we can consider prophet muhammed is the founder of religion.
actually islam is compleeted by muhammed.
he is the last prophet. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:218.248.31.125|218.248.31.125]] ([[User talk:218.248.31.125|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/218.248.31.125|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

*Prior to Muhammad's preaching, there was not a religion called "Islam". That makes him the founder. [[User:Frotz|Frotz]] ([[User talk:Frotz|talk]]) 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:32, 23 February 2009

Muhammad sucks chunks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=272625327"