Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Links to Muslim biographies of Muhammad

The list of links to online biographies was getting longer and longer. I deleted the duplicate link to MSA, one link that was just to a proselytizing site, and then picked some links that seemed representative and not too kooky. I may have made bad choices; I'm not at all sure of myself. I request the help of the Muslim editors here. We need only the best of the links; that means most informative and best written. We need a Sufi version, a Salafi version, perhaps a modernist version if one exists, maybe a Shi'a version ... not more than five, say. We can't have five links to Salafi or Wahhabi sites. We need to be even-handed.

I'm getting better at sussing out the motives of the various sites, but I still make mistakes ... so help from the Muslim editors IS needed. Zora 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The Harun Yahya link is a good one in that it is well written (to the point) and has many references. The second one is more of a historical description with a lot of extraneous details. The last one is quite informative too. I'd say scrap the second one and it's a close call between the first and third. I'll try to find a better one, but personally, I like Yahya's style of writing. MP (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Just found an online book: Life of Muhammad(pbuh) - fairly comprehensive, but probably too detailed. Looks like a sunni source. MP (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That Witness-pioneer site is strange. It doesn't come out and state its motives or position; it seems to be a strange amalgam of Sunni and Shi'a material. It's credulous and doesn't give any sources. Let's NOT link to that one. Zora 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is the prophet Muhammad (s.a.s)?

Here is a website in many languages describing our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s): http://www.islamway.com/mohammad

It would be great to put this as an external link for the biographie

Yes maybe. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's all praise and no real information. Zora 07:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation needed

An IPA pronunciation key is needed for this entry. I'd provide one myself but I'm not sure of the correct pronunciation of Muhammed. Agateller 13:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wapipedia

Anyone here use it (http://wapipedia.org)? I'm kind of new to it, and there doesn't seem to be a talk/editing facility. So I'm going to post this here, hope that's okay. Their article on the Prophet Mohammed includes the following text:

By his own standards, the continuing traditions of social justice in the Islamic World, of methods and knowledge of science, history and medicine as they evolved in the modern world (thanks to his profound influence driving Muslims to literacy and inquiry), and the prayers of over one billion Muslims, many of whom pray for him five times a day (or attach " peace be upon him" after each mention of his name), render Muhammad arguably the most influential man in all history, an honour often reserved for Jesus in the West. Even those historians who have deplored his influence and considered it to have retarded the growth of its chief rival faith, Christianity, express grudging admiration for the man.

and this:

To the traitors inside Medina it must have come as a surprise when the 10,000-strong force of Abu Sufyan failed to cross a trench dug around Medina by order of Muhammad, as the Persian scribe Salman e-Farsi had suggested to him. After the retreat of Abu Sufyan and his forces, the Muslims directed their attention towards the groups that had committed treason to the Charter of Medina. The munafiqun quickly crumbled, and their leader Abd Allah ibn Ubayy pledged allegiance to Muhammad. The Muslims then besieged the Banu Qurayza, who had intrigued against them. They had the opportunity of choosing Muhammad as an arbitrator, but instead the Banu Qurayza chose Saad ibn Muadh, the leader of their former allies, the Aus.

And this is its take on the Battle of Badr, 624 CE, which is markedly different to that found in the Wikipedia article (which raises doubts about the aftermath of the battle):

On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the two forces clashed. Though outnumbered 800 to 300 in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least 45 Makkans, including Abu Jahl, and taking 70 prisoners; whereas only 14 Muslims died. To the Muslims this appeared as a divine vindication of Muhammad's prophethood, and he and all the Muslims rejoiced greatly. Following this victory, assassinations eliminated Medinans who had satirized Muhammad, and the victors expelled a hostile Jewish clan. Virtually all the remaining Medinans converted and Muhammad became de facto ruler of the city.

I had the idea that Wapipedia was a direct transfer of Wikipedia articles onto Wap, but it seems not. Timbudds@acasa.ro

Accuracy of encyclopedia and Pictures of prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

If the goal of an encyclopedia is to be accurate then only things that are true should be in it. This is the logic I am pursuing.

If you look up the word "inaccuracy" and "true" on dictionary.com the you will find that inaccuracy is defined as "containing or characterized by error" and that the word true is defined "Consistent with fact or reality".

Since none of the pictures depicting prophet Mohammed (PBUH) are actually of him, but most probably of some other person (or just made up) then if those images are to be included then one can not suggest that the purpose of this encyclopedia is to be accurate. If there is no desire to make Wikipedia accurate then really it is meaningless and has no value.

If someone can "prove" that one of these pictures is actually of him and not someone else's image then at least I will have to cede acceptance of the picture on the front of historical accuracy.

Of course even a historicly accurate picture is still not beneficial because the next issue is what is the educational value of that picture. How is someone learning enhanced by it, unless we are also making Wikipedia for the illiterate who can only look at pictures. Autoshade

You are at liberty to create your own Salafi version of Wikipedia, sans pictures. However, the Persian miniature should stay; it's valuable information about how some Muslims saw Muhammad. Zora 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No one knows what Jesus, Zeus, Mary, Budda, Vishnu, or Ganesh looked like but we still have artist's conceptions of them. Muhammad is no different. Blueprinter 05:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is important to learn about the tradition of pictorial representation in Persia and the Ottoman Empire. This is rightly treated in the "veneration" section, obviously without any claim that the depictions are historically accurate. I believe that the article has "educational value" even for Muslims who may not be very well informed on the history of Islam. dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Autoshade: Unless the picture provides a valuable, educational purpose, it should otherwise not be included in the article. Sure, I agree that learning about how the Persian interpretation of the image of the prophet and how “Muslims viewed Muhammad” are important topics; it is just that they should be placed in articles and other headings that relate to these concepts.

Placing the picture in the article, especially under the heading of “veneration” is sort of ironic: Muslims do not praise Muhammad by illustrations of him; they do quite the opposite and to prevent his imagery. Also, the purpose of placing the picture shouldn’t be for the sole point of creating controversy; the article was created for educating and providing factual information which the article will do fine without placing the Muhammad image in it. Stoa 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are taking "some" Muslims at face value when they say that they represent "all" Muslims. "All" Muslims are not shocked by depictions of Muhammad. The fuss over the cartoons was less over depiction than it was over the supposed disrespect. The point of the picture is precisely that the Salafis and Islamists do not represent all Muslims. Zora 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are doing no one any favors by assuming that only "Salafis and Islamists" prefer not be exposed to visual depictions of Muhammad, using those words as weapons, or by approaching the issue as though it were a front to be defended. One side of the issue appears to be some people's feeling that to include an image directly and without warning shows disrespect to a level which is itself a sort of POV action against people who would strongly prefer not accidentally happen upon such an image -- saying "the point of the picture is precisely that the Salafis and Islamists do not represent all Muslims" appears to be more of an in-your-face remark than a remark about inclusivity. The point of using a link is not censorship, but that people who prefer not be exposed to the image do represent some Muslims, and are people who are just as likely to read here as any other. What could be a legitimate question in your remarks is that of whether or not including an image through a link makes the information unreasonably difficult to find. That, then, is what should be discussed. --66.109.253.61 21:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Salafi, I just do not understand why after 3 & 1/2 years without a picture it was necessary to add an image to the page. The first image was added by Zeno_of_Elea on 2005-07-03 without a description of reason. It was deleted 3 or 4 times in the following days but was repeatedly re-inserted. The idea of a portrate appears to me to have been treated as cannon thought it was never on the page before. It was finally discussed and the agreement was to have a veiled picture at the bottom of the page. Those are the facts, now my POV; NPOV seems to be determined by the number of people who support a particular side of a view, as in our case by the people who label me a Salafi. Ultimately I would never edit the page on Jews and I would respect Xtians by not adding an "Islamic" section because I know it would cause trouble. So I am asking that some respect and understanding be practiced as is mentioned in WP:Civility - Autoshade 07:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When respect and understanding means suppressing information, then they amount to censorship, and I'll fight censorship to the death. If this is ultimately a matter of YOUR honor, your demanding respect from me -- I'll give respect where it is due, not where it is demanded. Zora 07:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying censor the image, I have no intention of asking for the files deletion or blanking it (which would amount to vandalism). I am just saying don't actually have the image on the page, link to it. It's still on Wikimedia so I do not see how that is censership. - Autoshade 07:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Making information you don't want public harder to find is censorship. Zora 07:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

in the strict sense, it is only censorship if you have actual executive power. Say, if Jimbo converted to Islam and had the image deleted by fiat. Autoshade is making a suggestion, as it happens a suggestion that was made several times and stood no chance of majority support. Come on. Nobody is suggesting we inline the turban bomb image on this page. The image we have here is actual Muslim pious hagiography, and Wikipedia is not to decide whose Islam is "better", and representing historical non-aniconic currents is both encyclopedic and respectful. Enough said. dab (ᛏ) 08:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Autoshade went ahead and removed the miniature. I restored it. Zora 08:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On Resolving disputes is states "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." I have improved it. There is still a link to the picture on the page, but without actually showing the picture. - Autoshade 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit violates WP:ASR. It was not an improvement; much the opposite really... Argyrios 15:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the article and I now understand the error. Thank you. However I do not feel that removing the picture violates NPOV. I would appreciate it if someone can logicly argue that it IS a violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks. - Autoshade 15:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it is five days and no responce. it is my view that the picture provides no educational value. Therefor I am removing it.

3RR hit, done for today, See you tomorrow Autoshade 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as "Father of Islam"?

List of people known as father or mother of something lists Muhammad as "Father of Islam". This sounds really odd to me. Thoughts? -- 201.51.208.156 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed his name from there, it's very odd. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Article morphing rapidly

The Battle of Badr is a featured article, so -- as I expected -- it and various connected articles are getting lots of attention. Including this one.

I removed the fantasy picture of Muhammad from European sources. Adding it seemed like pure provocation to me. I also removed someone's notation that any mention of Muhammad must be followed by PBUH. WP doesn't issue orders, especially orders for religious observances. I also removed a long section on Muhammad's appearance that seems to have been sparked by the cartoon controversy. Lots of descriptions of Muhammad, old pictures of Muhammad, etc. I don't think that we have such sections in the case of most people who died before photography and without having been the subject of realistic portraiture. It also seems somewhat like intentional provocation.

It could be that that material could be spun off into a breakout article and then linked to the main page, as we've done with other controversial topics. Zora 19:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no mention in the article of some very relevant points until I added them (and then someone took them away): that pictures are not allowed, and where that rule comes from; simple life and emphasis on cleanliness.

Sorry, but you're completely wrong. The Qur'an prohibits worshipping idols -- it doesn't say anything about figurative art, or pictures of Muhammad. Injunctions re the latter are contained in some hadith, recorded oral traditions, which are always difficult to interpret. Some Muslims follow them, some don't. It has nothing to do with "simple life".

Not so much wrong, as unclear (in Talk, not in the article). May I reword? "There was no mention in the article of some very relevant points...: (1) that pictures are not allowed, and where that rule comes from (and that pictures of Muhammad were commonplace in Islamic art); (2) that Muhammad lived a simple life and emphasised cleanliness." neither of these points, nor his appearance, feature at all in the article. Pol098 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That there are respectful pictures from Islamic sources is relevant. It's a bit of a fudge to say "I don't think that we have [descriptions] of most people who died before photography and without having been the subject of realistic portraiture." In most such cases we have a fanciful picture which takes into account known features (e.g., Samson's hair. Note that Samson IS described anyway: shoulders sixty ells broad ... lame ... very strong). There are very few people for whom no portrait exists, but there is a good description - do you have any examples? I can't think of a description as being against any rules, particularly as it comes from religious sources, though I may be missing something: is there anything wrong with the book I refer to? Perhaps you would propose how to add this information to the article in a more suitable form? While I'm not in favour of censorship, is there even anything I wrote that anyone could be offended by? Pol098 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of offense so much as it is of readability. This article is already long (way too long) and adding a whole new section doesn't seem necessary. Perhaps you could create an article called Muhammad's physical appearance or something like that and write a history of descriptions of Muhammad. Pictures of Muhammad is another matter ... do we have articles on Islamic art, or Aniconism in Islamic art? Discussion of pictures of Muhammad would seem to fit there. Zora 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic is notable enough to warrant an entire Depiction of Muhammad. That article can also have a section giving details on hadith descriptions of his physical aspect. Such an article would begin with an account of the aniconism stuff, then talk about the pious 16th century depictions, give an idea of Christian imagery of Muhammad and move on to the contemporary hubbub. dab (ᛏ) 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps you could create an article called Muhammad's physical appearance" I don't really know enough aboput the topic; the best I could do would be to copy the little I wrote and paste it into a new article. I can do that, but am quite happy for someone else to do a better job - while in Wikipedia I don't need to say this, feel free to copy what I wrote. Pol098 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I took dab's suggestion and created Depiction of Muhammad. It's kind of stubby at the moment and needs lots more work. We should have some quotes from the earliest Muslim sources, like Ibn Sa'd. I have the relevant volume of Ibn Sa'd, so I try to find a good description and insert it later. We might also want to have some of the later, more fanciful and mythical, descriptions.

I think the article should have real pictures, not just links. Could someone add some MUSLIM pictures? Also, need links to cartoon controversy and possibly Satanic Verses (novel), as that involved verbal depictions that some people felt were disrespectful. External links would be good too.

I won't link it to the main Muhammad article and the cartoon article until it's readier for prime time ... but if someone else does it, I won't be upset. Zora 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My Question is

should Muhammad be placed in the slave owner Cat.?

So who set up this category? Is it intended to stigmatize historical figures? A great many of the historical figures who have articles were also slave owners -- probably including most of the early Islamic figures. So, is your intent just to cast stones? I'd say that this is a provocative and inflammatory category and should not be added to anyone's page. Zora 03:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He also raped his slaves. Not that my fellow muslims don't desperately try to hide this fact. Separating Muhammad the man from Muhammad the prophet is hard to do, especially when so many fundamentalists fill the faith. Fixislam 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Image

File:Muhammad at Kaba.jpg

Muhammad at the Kaaba (16th century Ottoman illustration of the Siyer-i Nebi)

In my opinion, the Muhammed image I have posted here should be added to the article. Since it was crafted by Muslims, it is unoffensive. Any agreements, disagreements?--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

this goes in the same category as the Persian hagiography, it is fair to show both a Persian and an Ottoman sample, so I suggest you add the image to the gallery under the "Muslim veneration of Muhammad" section. dab (ᛏ) 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the Muhammed article needs some sort of image of Muhammed.--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Might I point out that the article already has 2 images? We barely need the ones that are already there; adding another won't benefit the article's readers. Don't just place the image for the sake of creating controversy please. Also, just because something is "created by Muslims" does not mean that it is acceptable my Muslims everywhere: as with other religions, not all Muslims believe in the same details of every concept. Stoa 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the other pictures are unneeded. The current picture of Muhammed is much to small; and I see no point in showing Muhammed's name in Arabic. Does anybody mind if I remove them?--FelineFanatic13 ^talk

Ys, I mind. Please don't remove the pictures, don't remove the calligraphy. Zora 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"..I see no point in showing Muhammed's name in Arabic. " Then you don't understand the Muslim culture. Calligraphy and writing have tradtionally held paramount importance. Most of the decriptions of the Prophet come not from paintings of him (as do that of famous Europeans), but from imagery of his written descriptions. Bless sins 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We like to have pictures because they liven up the page, make it more readable, and that lovely calligraphy certainly does so. Zora 08:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, so FelineFanatic is just here for WP:POINT. I still support addition of an Ottoman image to the "veneration" section, where it belongs. There are no images in the rest of the article, because the article is about a largely aniconic tradition. I mean, there are no images on Atheism either, we don't need images just for the sake of them, we only need them where they document the subject. Persian and Ottoman images document Persian and Ottoman veneration for Muhammad, period. Where we are treating Persian and Ottoman verneration, these images are proper, regardless of whether they offend other Muslims (WP:NOT censored). Most of this article does not deal with Ottoman times, so the images are only appropriate in the section where they are now. We could do with another calligraphy to grace the top of the article, since that's how Muhammad is typically symbolized. dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say I find it strange how there is so much vandalism of the Muhammad image, and none of the purported image of God. Is there someone whose religion allows images of God, but not of Muhammad?Timothy Usher 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is because the English word God is just a title, this is different from the name of the one true god, Allah, which eliminates ambiguity as to if you are talking about the real one God or same made up pagan god. So if people want to attach images to a title in a language that may or may not even be used in heaven (as opposed to Arabic) is of no difference. - Autoshade 14:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact no such ambiguity in English. Purported gods other than God are uncapitalized, and are preceded with articles the/a. They infidels are painting Allah, Autoshade, and then you know what they're doing? They're posting Allah's picture on Wikipedia.Timothy Usher 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian painting

Why do people want to remove this? Those who want to remove it would have a better case if they come up with alternative pictures. Aucaman^Talk 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, I placed an image of the Dome of the Rock there as a substitute for the depiction of prophet Mohammed (PBUH) ascending from this spot. - Autoshade 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Autoshade, please note that this article is called *Muhammad*, not the Dome of the Rock. An image of Muhammad is thus on-topic. It is obvious that your change is motivated by religious taboo, not a desire to improve the article. Further, your caption treats Muhammad's ascent to heaven as a fact, which to you no doubt it is, but that is POV.

Timothy Usher 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

BlatherAndBlatherscite

Anyone here disagree that BlatherAndBlatherscite is a troll? --Zero 09:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He need to find sources for his arguments. Aucaman^Talk 10:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He looks like a sockpuppet. He seems to be attacking a lot of middle east articles, but also this one. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I find it trollish for you to place this sort of notice here, too. Fixislam 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying another of your socks. --Zero 11:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

PBUH

I think this is used frequently enough to be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph. A lot of the readers want to know what this means and having it hidden somewhere at the end of the article is not going to help. Aucaman^Talk 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of readers want to know what it means! I'm an omnivorous reader and I never encountered it before I started working on Islam-related articles and reading material directed by Muslims towards other Muslims. I'm sure I had encountered the practice of adding "Peace be upon him", but that's self-explanatory -- it's the use of abbreviations, to save time and typing, that assumes a Muslim to Muslim communication. I'm still a bit hazy on all the abbreviations used and who uses them -- there's PBUH and SA and SAW and Hazrat. And then there are the websites that don't use English letters (even if the text is in English) but add a bit of Arabic calligraphy. One site was using such elaborate calligraphy, reduced in size, that it looked like a smudge. So the text read, to my eyes, Muhammad (smudge) ... I think that the terms are best explained at the end. The intro tends to get overloaded with detail. Zora 10:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know what it means, you are more likely to look for an answer at PBUH than here. dab (ᛏ) 10:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if we make it a footnote and says "sometimes written Muhammad (pbuh)"? Aucaman^Talk 19:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Where it is, is fine. Fixislam 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

it is mentioned, in the "veneration" section. That's where it belongs, since it is an expression of veneration. dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"PBUH" has nothing to do with Muhammad's name, but is rather phrase of veneration used solely by Muslims to show respect. It is highly POV to include in a neutral encyclopedia where many may not consider Muhammad either a prophet or worthy of such praise. —Aiden 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything POV in saying Muslims usually call him Muhammad (pbuh) in the footnote. It's just an informative piece of information. Aucaman^Talk 01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aucaman, the info is there, it's just not in the place you want it to be (up front). Please let go of this. Zora 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think some users here don't want the name to appear just to offend some of the Muslim readers. Otherwise why is it allowed to have "Jesus Christ" as an alternative name for Jesus? One can argue that the term "Christ" is also only used by Christians and that it's also just a title of veneration.

And, although I don't see any reason why it shouldn't appear at the top, I was exactly trying to put it at the top. We can make it a footnote like the Saddam Hussein article. I don't mean to be pushy here, but I still haven't heard any valid arguments for why it shouldn't be mentioned that Muslims call him Muhammad (pbuh). Aucaman^Talk 01:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We do mention that. Read the whole article. It's in the Veneration of Muhammad section. Zora 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I knew you'd say that. Well I'm going to make my changes. If you think it's that wrong to mention it, then you can go ahead and take it out and the discussion would be over until someone else brings it up. Aucaman^Talk 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

we do not think it is wrong to mention it, man, we do mention it all along. Now "Christ" is a title like "Prophet" or "Saint", and you will note that there is no article titled "Jesus Christ", which is a redirect, not to Jesus but to Christian views of Jesus. Jesus mentions that he is known as "Christ" in Christianity, just like this article here mentions that Muhammad is known as rasul in Islam. Rasul is a title. PBUH is a benedictive pious addition. What is your problem? dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the more fundamentalist members of my religion seem to be of the impression that adding those letters is mandatory, no matter what. That appears to be his "problem." Fixislam 15:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No matter what your religion is, I don't think we share the same religion. I was just advocating a compromise on behalf of a user who doesn't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia. The issue is now over. I happen to think various religous views should be tolerated (if not respected), but apparently this is not shared by a lot of users here. Aucaman^Talk 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Alright, so there is a revert/edit war upon us. That being said; I think a comprimise is possible here, if the blanket changes and charges of vandalism end. I'll go through the differences between the two versions piece by piece.

The introduction: Transliterations are very important especially for those who find it a bother to open those sound files. I also think Pepsidrinka's version fixes the odd statement that "Mohammed" is the most common way to transliterate the Prophet's name. The comment about the root at the end of the intro is a bit unnecessary, but I'm going to have to go with Pepsidrinka on this section.

I had no problem with the intro, it got missed when I removed some other reinserted pov garbage. If you'll note, I took care to leave it when Pepsidrinka pointed it out. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the comment about the name and the root should be moved someplace else. Too detailed. (comment by User:Zora)

The summary: The comment above the patron pagan deity looks like something of note. But the comment about the sultanate with the harem doesn't seem to make sense. A country with a private room for women? Eliminate that statement, but keep the one about the pagan deity.

Pagan deity bit is standard anti-Muslim trope, remove. Sultanate is anachronistic, charges of keeping a "harem" is also standard anti-Muslim charge. Not accurate in any case, since Muhammad's wives were NOT confined, but mingled freely and went where they pleased. Zora 17:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "anti-Muslim trope": you can be a muslim and still admit that Muhammad was not a perfect man by any means, even admit that he twisted and invented some things for his own selfish benefit, especially those things that were "for him only" such as his number of wives. And the facts are that "Allah" was the name of a part of the pagan pantheon worshiped at the Kaaba before Muhammad had his visions. Fixislam 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A harem is a collection of women kept for the pleasure of a single man. Mohammed's collection of wives/slaves/concubines. He is supposedly the "only muslim" allowed these (normal Muslim males are limited to only four wives, though they get as many slaves as they want). Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Family life: I don't see anything wrong with FixIslam's version here.

The picture: Oh yes… the picture. FixIslam clearly has decent motives (as his/her user page shows). But I find it hard to believe that someone who is rallying for positive change in Islam and someone who feels pbuh is not necessary after the name of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is removing the veiled picture. It clearly is relevant to the article. This has recently been a hot issue, but those removing the picture have failed to provide a reason for doing so.

No problem with the picture, I just missed it again in cleaning up the mess left by POV warriors. I'll put it back no problem. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that Fixislam has the motives he says he does. We're supposed to assume good faith, not to keep assuming it in defiance of the evidence. Zora 17:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say the same of you. You have all the earmarks of a fundamentalist muslim. Straining to assume you are in good faith is nigh impossible seeing your behavior. Fixislam 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refrain from personally attacking anyone. If Zora was a "fundamentalist muslim", she probably would be proud of being Muslim and not place a Buddhist userbox on her userpage. Pepsidrinka 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Notes: I'm not exactly sure why this section was removed. Change it back to Pepsidrinka's version.

This section was generated by a user trying to force a footnoted PBUH into the first paragraph, and has no other purpose. Should be removed. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The template: I'm not sure why this was removed either, so re-instate the template.

I don't see the point of the template on this page or in that section. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All in all, I think the issue here is that FixIslam made a large number of edits at the same time without any clear reason. The accusations of vandalism, point-of-view, and nonsense are counter-productive, FixIslam. Please be grateful that I am ignoring your uncivil behavior and actually looking at the changes you have made.

POV warriors kept reverting factual information using "rvv" tags, and "Anonym" has even now tried to get someone to block me on fraudulent claims: I no longer have any choice but to assume they are not editing in good faith. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

May this dispute be resolved quickly and calmly and may Allah bless you both in this life and the Hereafter. joturner 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The dispute isn't even between me and Pepsidrinka, as you can see. Fixislam 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not label everyone that disagrees with you as a "Fundamentalist POV warrior." Pepsidrinka 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I only label those who behave in that manner, that way. Fixislam 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

you may want to be careful with such allegations. With a username betraying your intention to "fix Islam", you've got "pov warrior" written all over you. dab (ᛏ) 19:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And why did you remove Zora's comments? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not by choice. I made my edit, then noticed that hers was in the middle, and that mine had overwritten it, so I have now taken the time to fix that. I've also made sure YOUR comment is preserved here, since the edit conflict template came up this time. Fixislam 18:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a bunch of text to the "sources" section

There's so much churn here that I lose track, but someone doubled the size of the sources section, adding a lump of text and quotes that repeats a lot of what was said earlier. I have a strong suspicion that this may be a copyvio from somewhere. It would take a bit of research to figure out who added this and when. Is the editor reading here? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? Relieve my mind and tell me it's not a copyvio. Zora 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A good article quotes its sources and is verifiable. I saved the text of the historical view of Mohammed under Historical Mohammed + added link in this article
Half of the sources is in Dutch, but I provided links + journal article + books partially accessible via books.google.com
Blubberbrein2 09:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Eek! Another POV fork! Blubberbrein, you shouldn't do this. Every time you don't get your way on a main article, you just create another one, with a slightly different title, in which you can have things just as you want them. That's a waste of everyone's time, if we have to then go and have them deleted. Zora 12:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet more edits by Zora

It's late here in Hawai'i, and even later in much of the rest of the world, so I ended up cleaning up some POV edits that were added in the last few hours.

First of all, I restored the Persian miniature. Autoshade, please, stop.

Second, I removed some recent edits re the Mecca-Medina wars that tended to cast the Meccans as the blackest of villains and the Muslims as pure innocents who were the subjects of aggression. I could make arguments that turned these claims on their head -- but I won't. This really isn't the place to discuss whether the matter -- if we did, it would take over the whole article. Let's try to keep the language here completely neutral, and confine the controversy to the Jihad and Muhammad as warrior articles.

Third, someone had turned the fate of the Banu Qurayza women and children from "slaves" to "captives". This is whitewashing. Ibn Ishaq says that "the apostle divided the property, wives, and children of Banu Qurayza among the Muslims". What is that but slavery?

Fourth, there were claims that Muhammad had offered a general amnesty to the Meccans. Not so -- some people were excepted. Also claims that people were free to convert or not -- not so. The Jews and Christians were allowed to keep their faith, but the so-called pagans HAD to submit, give the bay'ah. "I said to him, 'Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,' so he did so." That's from Ibn Ishaq, re the conversion of Abu Sufyan.

Fifth, there were claims that the Meccans broke the treaty of Hudaybiya. Not necessarily so. Tribal allies of the Meccans and Muslims, who had been long-time enemies, clashed. Both the Meccans and the Muslims accused the other side of breaking the treaty. We can't say who was right, since there was a dispute.

Sixth, I took at look at the timeline again, and realized that there were matters presented there as fact that are in fact disputed, such as the date of the Constitution of Medina. There were items like "End of South Arabian high culture" which is just plain ... wrong. The timeline went past the death of Muhammad and ended with "Abu Bakr reestablishes the caliphate" which is misleaded and Sunni POV to boot.

Um, adding this later -- I forgot -- I pruned the "see also" section, which was full of stuff with little or no relevance. This is not to say that the "see also" section is done. I suspect that there are articles that should be listed there but aren't. Would appreciate help by other editors in selecting the MOST relevant articles. Zora 09:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to take out bias and I hope that I haven't added any. I hope that the other editors will be willing to discuss these edits bit by bit, rather than just doing a complete revert. Zora 09:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Zulfiqar/Thulfiqar

As near as I can tell, this is a Shi'a story. I need to correct the Zulfiqar article to state that. It would be POV to link to that article. Zora 09:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why linking to a Shi'a story would be POV. Zulfiqar may well need work to reduce or indicate its biases, but acknowledging the existence of the story is not POV.  JEREMY 10:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is such a MINOR matter. We've got links to Shi'a Islam and to Ali in the body of the article. There are many articles that mention Muhammad peripherally -- we can't list them all. So we need to pick just the important ones, the ones that might shed light on the character of Muhammad. Legends about a supposed sword no longer in existence don't qualify, IMHO. Zora 10:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that such ephemera doesn't simply vanish, but is kept as close to the main article as possible. If there were a Folklore about Muhammad article (or even a category of Muhammad-related articles) the sword would naturally go there, but I feel simply cutting stuff loose (it's in Category: Islam, but is unlikely to be noticed there by someone researching Muhammad) reduces the usefulness of the encyclopaedia.  JEREMY 11:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But this is not really a legend about Muhammad -- it's about Ali and Husayn. Ali is said to have received the sword from Muhammad, but that's about it. By linking this article to Muhammad, you're stressing the link between Muhammad and Ali, in a very Shi'a-POV way. Zulfiqar is mentioned on Ali's page. Let's leave it at that. Zora 11:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.  JEREMY 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving images

After the removal of the unsourced mosque image, I've moved the remaining images around to improve the article's balance.  JEREMY 13:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hair Colour

According to the Red Hair talk page the prophet Muhammed is supposed to have had red hair. Does anybody know if this is true, please? 83.104.185.49 16:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding that very hard to believe. An Arab with red hair? That's genetically impossible. Unless he was exceptionally fair-skinned. joturner 16:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I beleive there are ahadith that say he had red hair in his beard. I do doubt any claim that says the hair on his head was red. Pepsidrinka 18:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do people remember this guy? An Arab with red hair. But it's still unlikely that Muhammad had red hair. Aucaman^Talk 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

RE Tor Andrae

Tor Andrae's widely acclaimed biography of Muhammad, which was originally published 1932 in German, is, e.g., listed in the bibliography of the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry "Muhammad" (written by W. M. Watt!). My point is that what is good enough for the Encyclopaedia Britannica should be good enough for Wikipedia. [Source: "Muhammad." Encyclopædia Britannica, from Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2005 DVD . Copyright © 1994-2004 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.] --Editorius —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorius (talk • contribs)

See: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-68882

--Editorius

The book is available online -- I saved the link somewhere -- and it seems well-written, if not exactly cutting edge. I don't see any harm in including it. Zora 14:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is not only no harm in including it but also a real benefit.

As far as I know there's only an excerpt available online:

http://www.bible.ca/islam/library/islam-quotes-andrae-menzel.htm

--Editorius

I'm sorry, I now know how to sign my comments properly.

Editorius 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Founder?

"Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam" Is there proof of this? Why is it not better to write "Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the prophet (or messenger) of Islam"? Would anyone write that Jesus Christ "founded" Christianity? I would like to know this. RedCrescent 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag until you prove that this is true. Please see Jesus Christ - he is not said to be the "founder" of Christianity or Siddhartha_Gautama who is not said to be founder of Buddhism or Abraham who is not said to be founder of Judaism! RedCrescent 03:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Because non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam. ONLY Muslims consider him a prophet or messenger. That is, Muslims believe that there is a truth called Islam which Muhammad did not invent, but only announced. Non-Muslims think that he made it up. Invented it. Founded it. This is so obvious as not to need a reference.

Someone who uses the term "Jesus Christ" would not say that Jesus founded Christianity. That person would be a Christian. Someone who just says "Jesus" might well say, "Jesus founded Christianity". Zora 03:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I have written. If this article wants to claim that non-Muslims call Muhammad a "founder" of the religion, then those articles should list those prophets as "founders" by people who do not follow those religions. This is a double standard. RedCrescent 03:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

At one time, this article said that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Muslims objected. Therefore the article was changed to say that Muslims believed that he was NOT the founder and the non-Muslims believed that he was. No non-Muslims have objected. It is not up to the Muslims to object to statements of the beliefs of non-Muslims. As to the founder business -- look at this article, List of founders of major religions. So far no Christians or Buddhists have objected. Zora 03:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then please go to those articles I listed and change them so that there is no double standard. And also, for the record I object to that claim where no proof is provided that non-Muslims believe this about him. RedCrescent 03:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem with the statement. It should remain. joturner 03:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then provide proof. RedCrescent 03:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll drop it, but I think you're being a little pedantic here. It is sufficient to say that, according to Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad was sent to guide all of mankind with "the message of Islam" rather than "the last revelation of Islam". And in fact, I think the former is preferred because in Islam, his purpose was more than just to deliver the Qur'an (which is what the latter implies). joturner 04:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see article on Islam - what I wrote is true, this is what Muslims believe. RedCrescent 04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

RC, you don't represent all Muslims. Several of the editors with whom you are arguing ARE Muslims. Look, you're a brand-new editor. You just got here. How about doing some real work, like, researching and writing, instead of heading for one of the more contentious articles on WP and trying to force it to your own POV (point of view)? For instance, there are a great many Muslims who lack biographical articles, and a great many Islam-related historical events that don't have articles, or have mere stubs of articles. Surely if you want people to learn more about Islam it is important to have full information here. Zora 04:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would first like to correct the sentence about non-Muslims. Non-Muslim writers say many things about Muhammad, but they do not say he founded the religion. I just think that this article should be like Jesus Christ and Siddhartha Gautama and Abraham. That is my "point of view" if you wish to call it that. But there is no proof that they say Muhammad founded Islam. That is what I am saying. RedCrescent 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I get 100,000 Google hits for the exact phrase, "founder of Islam". Try it yourself and see. Zora 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Jesus Christ and Buddha and Abraham? How come those articles do not say they are founders? It is only fair. RedCrescent 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you go to those articles and make those changes. I have no idea what will happen -- though I'm guessing that if you take the same attitude THERE that you've taken here, you're not going to get a friendly reception. Zora 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that because we both know that they will not like that! That is why we should not do the same here. You see what I am saying? If you say that non-Muslims say Muhammad was a "founder" (not true either way, even if secular), that is what you could call someones "point of view". Is there any other way to write it to be like the other articles? RedCrescent 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz ruined the sentence, it should say "is believed by Muslims to be Islam's final prophet, sent to guide all of mankind with the message of the Qur'an, the last revelation of God." Why he did that I don't know. RedCrescent 04:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I'm a Christian, and I'm inclined to say St.Paul founded Christianity.

As for Islam, Muhammed logically must be the founder, for a very simple reason: the standard definition is, 1) there is no God but God, and 2) Muhammed is his prophet. Noah, Abraham, Jews, Arianists and Unitarians (and I) agree on the first clause, the second...well, Noah, Abraham and the Arianists were never posed this question. You cannot impose it on them, and give an answer for them, after the fact.

Timothy Usher 07:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As Zora said, non-Muslims (and that's 5/6 of the world's population) by definition do not believe that God gave Muhammad his word in the form of the Quran. If they did, they'd be Muslims. They can believe all kinds of things: that Muhammad made it up out of thin air; received it from one of many gods, or maybe even Satan--it doesn't matter. Whatever their beliefs, they are the beliefs of non-Muslims and can vary widely. But in general, they do not consider Muhammad's message divine or timeless. They consider him to be the writer of the Quran and the founder of Islam. —Aiden 06:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While it seems more stylistically normal to begin with what Muhammad is said to be by his followers, I agree that the article as it reads is somewhat on the pious/unskeptical side e.g. "The First Revelations" section title, which is unquestionably POV. Couldn't we say instead, "Muhammad began composing the Qur'an in the year so and so, claiming his words to be those of the Archangel Gabriel?" That, too, would be POV. But we should recognize, and the page should reflect, both POV's.

Timothy Usher 06:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The "they believe" fallacy

You do not know what ALL muslims believe, you only know what some vocal Muslims have said they believe. Just because a person is born in a Muslim country does not mean that they believe what the Qu'ran says. In most cases they hold their own personal beliefs private , particularly in an atmosphere of heavy penalization for voicing divergent beliefs to the Qu'ran. But inevitably you will never get to know what "ALL" muslims believe. So we should rather say , what the Qu'ran states and what Muslims are required to believe. --CltFn 04:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I still like what I wrote better. RedCrescent 05:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone does not believe in Qur'an, he/she is not Muslim by definition. --Aminz 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely , and I wonder how many of those of Muslim birth , do not believe in the Qu'ran , they just do not advertize it. For example, I would venture to say that a lot of people do not believe a lot of things that are held to be true in their society, but know that it is not practical to say so. They have have enough commen sense to know that there would be undesirable consequences to voice dissident opinions out in the open so they keep their true thoughts and beliefs behind closed doors. But if they only dared to speak up they might find that others also feel the same way.--CltFn 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I will say something about this, "Muslim birth" does not have meaning. You can be "raised" Muslim or born into family that is "Muslim", but how are you "born" Muslim yourself? Is not in your blood or a race! RedCrescent 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"If someone does not believe in Qur'an, he/she is not Muslim by definition."

Then, again, how can you say, Abraham was a Muslim? Mere monotheism, you now say, isn't enough - he must believe in the Qur'an (and even that isn't enough, as seen with the rejection - indeed assasination - of the Qur'an only movement) - but do you think that God bothered to run the early drafts by Abraham? Or can you speak for him, to say that he would have agreed, had he read it?

Timothy Usher 07:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy wins. —Aiden 06:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aiden. I appreciate this. Note that the page has moved beyond the include-or-not edit wars to the "founder" discussion further down on the page. The questions at this point are, 1) is this section accurate, logical and NPOV (I'm a little unsure about the last two sentences in this regard)?, and 2) should there be a "founder" mention in the opening paragraph(s), with a cue to the discussion to follow?

Timothy Usher 06:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Founder ?

The American Heritage dictionary calls him "Arab prophet of Islam" but Merriam Webster calls him "Arab prophet and founder" and Bartleby calls him "the name of the Prophet of Islam, one of the great figures of history, b. Mecca." So I think we should just say that non-Muslims consider him an Arab prophet of Islam and religious figure. Okay? RedCrescent 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I gave you a figure on Google hits. The words are used. Stop trying to edit a statement re NON-MUSLIM beliefs to fit your Muslim beliefs. As a non-Muslim, I say he's a gorram founder, OK? Zora 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That is very rude. I have not tried to impose any of my beliefs - I have even provided definitions from dictionaries and encyclopedias which say that he was an "Arab prophet and religious figure". That is neutral. I dispute your version. RedCrescent 07:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets settle this matter, Hi RedCresecent, I think Zora is correct in what she was saying, but I wont endorse the way she put it accross to you.. I agree she was rude..And she hurt lots of muslims heart by saying "goddam founder". Zora I never expected that from a experienced wikipedian like you..

I didn't say goddamn. I said gorram. Watch "Firefly" :) Zora 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were not in your cool mood when you answered that question. Anyway Mr RedCrescent, I totally disagree with you on your point of view about Muhammed (PBUH). People who dont believe in Islam and Rasul(PBUH) will definitely look at him as the founder and it is childish for us to argue based on what the dictionary says. I dont see anything wrong in any kafir saying Prophet is the founder of Islam, that is their point of view. The other thing I want to point out to you is rather than fighting over pitty things here why don't we look at improving some of the islam related articles that need our attention. Zora being a non muslim has contributed a lot on these articles.. In most of the Islam related articles I only see people fighting over pitty things and are in edit wars which are totally unproductive. Why dont you check out some of these muslim wikipedians user pages there is something for you to learn user:pepsidrinka, user:joturner.. Salaams Mystic 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, another person agrees with me, see comment below mine. Zora says in history comment that "Muslims can't tell ME, as a non-Muslim, what I believe" (about saying "gorram" I think - never heard it, but sounds disrespectful to Muhammad - I try not to say "PBUH" here because people might say something bad) and she claims that all non-Muslims say that Muhammad was "founder". This is not true - others say he was just an "Arab prophet" or a "religious figure" or a "great historical figure" or just an "important figure" or "prophet of Islam". So it is not clear that they all agree. Also, see comment below and also look at Jesus Christ and Abraham and Siddhartha Gautama then look at double standard. It is not neutral to say that Muhammad was founder - also see my comments on this page. Please read them and do not ignore them. I do not know this "Zora" and you may agree with her, but I have made my case for why, and I think you should really think about it and think about why I am disputing the mention of "founder". RedCrescent 09:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the founder comment aught to be deleted. Use of the word "founder" suggests a contrived, human, rather than divine genesis of the faith. It sounds like a deliberate insinuation of skepticism, right into the intro of the article. You don't find "founder of Christianity" in the Jesus article. There is only a List of founders of major religions link in the "See also" section, where Muhammad and Jesus are listed. The link exits in this article also. That is as far as "founder" can be neutrally included.--AladdinSE 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. These are thorny issues, but here is my take: It's correct to say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam as the Quran did not exist in the days of Abraham and the the faith of Islam as most people know of it, did not take root until the Quran was written. Jesus asserted that He was present when the world began and that He is one with with the Father. Even so, no reasonable person interprets those assertions to mean that Chrisitanity is Judaism. Was it not Jacob who was given the name "Israel", which means "One who has strength with God and man"? Indeed, it was. The term "Israel" can rightly be traced to that point. The point is that from a perspective of external histories, there must be rational starting points which can be referred to. The internal advocates of a faith see "Muslims do not believe in trinity because" [1] will always see things differently than an outsider looking in. We write for the perspective of a neutral external reader and our edits must conform to WP:NPOV. Remember, we are not trying to get people to know Islam - that would be proselytizing. Rather, on Islam related articles (or any faith related article), we are trying to get people to know of the subject matter, not know it. The distinction is subtle, but very important. "There is no compulsion in religion". Merecat 09:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, then why do you not change the Jesus Christ article to say that non-Christians consider him the founder of Christianity? You cannot say that because Jesus "asserted that He was present when the world began and that He is one with with the Father" that you can use that claim to say that he didn't found Christianity. This is like using the New Testament to say as a fact that Jesus is God. Belief is one issue, facts are another issue. You cannot say as a fact that non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the "founder". You can, however, say as a fact that Muhammad was an "Arab prophet" or "religious figure" or both. This is an issue of what is neutral and what is not neutral. "Founder" is not neutral. See my other comments on this talk as well please. Thank you. RedCrescent 09:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Did Muhammed write down the words that are in the Quran? Did Islam as most people know of it begin when the Quran was written? I think so. As to your question, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is the "founder" of of the Christian faith. Christians believe that one becomes a Christian after being convicted of their sin by the Holy Spirit and calling on Jesus by name for salvation. Modern Christianity (Christianity when Jesus was present on earth could be seen as "contemporaneous" rather than "modern") was founded when Jesus ascended to Heaven and just prior, promised to send the Holy Spirit (see John 14:16-18 [2]). Suffice it to say, because Christians believe in the Trinity, it's not quite as simple to say which aspect of the Trinity is the founder. If indeed it's true that all three are one, then all three were together since the beginning. All that said, I would say that from a external historical standpoint, modern Christianity started at Pentacost, Judaism started when Jacob was named Israel by an angel and Islam when Muhammed wrote down the words in the Quran. That's how I'd peg it and I think it's a reasonable enough view. Merecat 09:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For example, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Muhammad is called the "founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community".

(By the way, the author of this entry is none less than W. M. Watt.)

Editorius 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, your arguments have nought to do with NPOV and everything to do with a pronounced Christian sermon. "Non-Muslims often describe him as the founder of Islam" is a disputed, unsourced POV evaluation in direct contrast to the Jesus article. You advance as defense for your hypocritical stance an utterly Christian perspective that Jesus was present from the beginning, along with the Father, and therefore "founder" does not apply. Well, it's the non-Christians that are supposed to be the ones describing Jesus, so you can't use a Christian tenant to support a non-Christian description. "Founder" is POV and inappropriate in either article.--AladdinSE 22:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

AladdinSE, I urge you to re-read my comments, as I am not saying what you claim I am saying. Please take some time to study the history and tenets of both religions. I am speaking from a historical time-line perspective, taking into account an amalgam of the most widely prevelant views. This is the WP:OR way - we are not to come up with novel theories. I am well aware that as understood by most Muslims, Islam means submission to God and I am also well aware that as a general rule, all Muslims believe there is only one God and Muhammed is his prophet. And I am also aware that there is an Islamic theology which states that Islam has always been the only true religion. Indeed it's this logic which opposes saying Muhammed is the founder of Islam. Because after all, if Islam means submission and there has always only been one true religion, then Islam was started by God and pre-dates the writing of the words into the book we call the Quran. However, that is a religious argument, which requires that we accept the Islamic premise about all religions. Doing that is not NPOV. Therefore, we are left with the option of asking ourselves, of those who do not have the Islamic religious premise, according to them, when does Islam appear in history? To the outside observer, (Christian, Atheist, Gaiaist, etc.), Islam appeared in history after Muhammed wrote down the words which form the Quran. Tracing that line of reasoning back, we can conclude that secular history is both accurate and reasonable to say that Muhammed founded Islam. As for your concerns about Jesus I withhold any commentary about that beyond what I have already stated. This talk page is about Muhammed. If you want to talk about Jesus and have a suggested edit for that article, let's talk about that there. Merecat 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuffr

Arsath wrote:

"I dont see anything wrong in any kafir saying Prophet is the founder of Islam, that is their point of view."

Excuse me, Arsath...kafir??? What happened to "people of the book"? Now we're all kuffar? Let the record show that this is a deeply derogatory term (as well as, in some contexts, a notoriously racist one), as much as if not more than any other in American usage, in many times and places a death sentence, and it is wildly inappropriate that it has found its way onto Wikipedia.

Timothy Usher 09:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that non-people of the Book Kuffr, like Hindus, Sikhs, Mormons, etc do not believe Muhammad the founder of Islam? All non-Muslims are Kuffr, it is far from racist as all races contain Kuffr amongst them. Chill man. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"In cultural terms, it is a derogatory term used to describe a non-muslim..." See Kuffr. Merecat 10:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In Muslim Terms, it is used to describe alllll non-believers, people of the book are just some, and thats the point. - Why are we writing in bold? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I am quoting the wiki article for that word Kuffr. It's clearly a derogatory term. Whether it's true or not, it ought not to be used here as were are supposed to be civil. See WP:CIVIL. Merecat 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not Derogatory, unless you see it as derogatory to be a Non-Muslim - For exxample when certain Sunni Muslims refer to Shia as Kaffir.. then, yeah, I can see it, but not in the context it was used in here. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's not "derogatory" then the wiki article about that word is in error. I urge you to stop injecting your POV and admit that you are not the arbiter of derogatory meaning. Merecat 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, yes, the article is in error. because it's not, it's an Arabic word which should be used as being opposite to Muslim. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then take this discussion to the talk page of that article. I'd guess that you will not find consensus there for your view, but best wishes trying. Merecat 10:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No - I don't have the time for this, but, you shouldn't jump down the throat of people who use the word in the way that Arsath did. It was uncalled for. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Islam holds that non-Muslims are worthy of scorn. Any word earmarked specifically to describe them, is defacto scornful. Perhaps you would agree with that? Merecat 10:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scorn? No, I'd disagree.. Do you really want a religious debate on this? --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Timothy, I am not going to apologize if thats what you are expecting, Kafir is an Arabic word meaning a person who hides, denies, or covers the truth and it translates to English language as Infidel. (So I am Kafir to you as much as you are kafir to me). And it was not my intention to instigate your religious hatred or to show my religious hatred. Wikipedia is no place for children who cannot take a comment and get offended at the slightest misunderstanding. Its a place for intelectuals to share knowledge and act in good faith. Not a place to get offended and declare war like small children..

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

What I presented was my point of view on the Muhammad talk page and talk pages are to express your point of view. Lets not waste anymore time on this. Please, Please, Please wikipedia is not the place to bring out our religious differences and fight over it.Mystic 10:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irishpunktom, Merecat

See guys do u both agree that Timothy Usher had no business putting that comment on this talk page.. If she got offended by my comment she should only talk about it in my talk page not here.. this talk page is for muhammed article related discussion. She was only trying to get more people to sympathize her incorrect point of view and get everyone involved in a soup.. These are the kind of people who create relgious hatered and problems in this world (clearly when it could've been avoided). Lets not get caught in it.. Dont waste your time..Its not worth it. Mystic 11:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So wait.. by getting offended by something that is meant to be used as a derogatory term shes being childish and trying to create religious hatred? So if someone calls you an a**h**e and you feel slighted, but their response is that its my opinion and youre getting offended at the slightest remarks? How about people take their own personal biases outside and not use derogatory remarks here, period. Because I have heard that word used plenty of times as an insult and if its used here, just because you decide that its not an insult right now, doesnt change that its used as one by others. Misfit

Okay Mr M.F, If a muslim calls another muslim a kafir (a non-believer) its derogatory, insulting. When somebody really is a non-believer I dont see anything wrong in calling, anybody a kafir, How do I believe that you heard that word being used as a insult just because you are saying so, maybe only you took at that way. If I call you a b**t**d does that make you one..Suppose if that is the truth and proven beyond doubt maybe I am not wrong in calling you that right?.. Thats the case with the use of Kafir. Now keep a cool head Mr M.F Mystic 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Arsath wrote,

"Suppose if that is the truth and proven beyond doubt maybe I am not wrong in calling you that right?"

Then by the standard you propose, Arsath/Mystic, where truth trumps courtesy, let the record show that you are a blinkered bigoted ass. If your atitude exemplify belief, then Lord, grant me unbelief.

Timothy Usher 07:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy - Chinese proverb "You can win arguing with 1000 ineteligent people, but not with a fool". If you want to be blind and not see the truth when it is so clear let it be. may god have mercy on you, my religion teaches me to be civil and have good faith on others, I need not tell anyone who is the bigoted ass who provoke relgious hatered and division among people, it is clearly evident, there will be a day that your eyes will open, then it will be too late. Mystic 04:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Al-Aqsa in gallery

I removed that picture, and the caption, because the mosque really has nothing to do with that section, and because the caption was irretrievably POV. Non-Muslims do not believe in the reality of the Isra and Miraj, and hence would not describe Al-Aqsa as the site of the Isra and Miraj. Furthermore, there is much academic dispute over the identification of Al-Aqsa with "the furthest mosque". Some historians say that Muslims did not make this identification until much later. Zora 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora, Muslims only identified Dome of the Rock as "the furthest mosque" much later, the original Al-Aqsa mosque remained the same, shall we change the caption and include the picutre, because I think its important and adds value to the article. Mystic 06:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arsath,

Can I ask, what is the purpose of the Al Aqsa image? I recognize and appreciate that the caption has improved somewhat, and that it's no longer associated with vandalism of the other image, but am still curious as to what this adds.

Timothy Usher 08:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Its the place from where miraj took place, since the other image about prophet (pbuh) talks about Miraj its important to know where it took place. Mystic 05:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then it is on the wrong section. There is no mention of the Miraj in this section. The Muhammad image relates to the statement about images of Muhammad in this section. Also, why does no other location in the article have a picture? The biography here is rather wanting, as well as being tilted towards the muslim POV. I've little doubt that your additions will also reflect this POV, but that is okay as long as you allow other editors to review it and collaboratively edit it. Thanks for engaging, Arsath.Timothy Usher 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Life according to Sira

After living with that section heading for a long time (in fact, I think I wrote it), I've decided that it's inaccurate. That is, Muslim scholars and Western scholars who based their work on traditional sources use many kinds of sources, not just Sira. They also call on hadith, explanations in tafsir (the occasions of revelation), military histories like Waqidi, etc. So is there a better section heading? You may not like the one I came up with, which is fine with me, but I think we need to be more accurate. Zora 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Life according to Islamic tradition? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved founder argument, rewrote sources section

Starting the article with an argument doesn't make for easy reading, so I moved the whole thing to the bottom.

The editor whose name starts with C (sorry!) rewrote the sources section to make it very sceptical. I'm a sceptic myself, but I think that he overstated the case. Western academic scholars are generally MORE sceptical than devout Muslim scholars, but they certainly aren't all sceptics of the Wansbrough ilk. A lot of them take a much more centrist position. So I tweaked that section back. Zora 03:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And he moved it back again to his version, which as far as I can tell is copied from freerepublic.com and is just plain inaccurate. Not to mention prejudiced. Zora 04:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Very skeptical?, I like to think of it as more factual. I do not seek skepticism, I seek facts. --CltFn 04:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the "founder" comment from the intro, and its discussion in a separate section. I have made some revisions, mainly dealing with what Muslims believe regarding what was actually founded by Muhammad, being the forms and traditions associated with Islam and Islamic worship. I elaborated on why he is not considered to the founder of the faith itself, as is he considered to be the instrument of revelation, bringer of tidings, as it were. That is what messengers and prophets do. --AladdinSE 08:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why my edits were reverted wholesale! I thought they are quite mild and make things more clear. At least part of them were good I think. --Aminz 09:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not 'starting the article with an argument' to mention in one sentence the views of the 5/6 of the world who are not Muslim. View any other religious figure article such as Jesus and see you will a detailed account of alternative views, not only in the article, but in the intro. It in no way is in line with WP:NPOV to represent only one POV in the article as you are advocating. —Aiden 22:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally was happy with that one sentence at the top. It had been there for many months. However, RedCrescent (who threw the apple of discord into the group and then disappeared) was strongly of the opinion that mentioning non-Muslim beliefs was discriminatory, a view that seems to have been adopted by several other Muslim editors. Since the sentence turned into an argument, I moved it to the bottom of the page. It's simply a matter of readability. Start simple and expand. The non-Muslim views are still there, they've just been moved. Zora 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Theological discussions of the nature of Muhammad

Aminz, I reverted your edits, not because they were BAD, but because they were getting too detailed for the article. I think we talked at one point about writing an article on various Muslim traditions and their beliefs re the pre-existence of Muhammad, his sinlessness/humanity, his continuing existence (Barelwi theology), etc., and you weren't sure you wanted to do it. If you want to get into Muhammad-ological discussions (like Christological discussions), then we should probably have a breakout article. This could get very big and very complex. Muslims have been speculating on the subject for millenia. Zora 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. I can not see any connection between my current edits and Muhammad's pre-existence. I just said what Qur'an says.(i.e. that Islam, i.e. submission to God's will, was the message of all the prophets and not only Muhammad; The word Islam and Muslim have an spectrum of meaning rather than a particular meaning within Quran.)

Thanks --Aminz 09:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed long Qur'anic passage - check history if curious.

Timothy Usher 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits to "Muhammad the founder of Islam?"

Timothy Usher,

Question #1. Why my edits were reverted wholesale, when only one of its sentences was disputed?

Question #2. This sentence is supposed to say what Muslims believe. I didn't made things up. I quoted from the Qur'an. Being POV means that the view of all scholars is not provided here. While I am quoting directly from Qur'an, I can not reconcile myself with the statement that it is POV. Unless one tells me that Qur'an has contradictions regarding this issue. What I said was mentioned in the above passages, mostly in 2:133, 2:135. Could you please let me know your argument. Thanks. --Aminz 10:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Aminz,

It's 2:45 a.m. out here...going to bed. For now, just acknowledging receipt of your message, and promising to return tomorrow to address your questions. Thanks for engaging. Timothy Usher 10:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Good night. It is also 2:54 a.m. here. We should live in the same time zone I suppose. Thanks for your attention and bye for now. --Aminz 10:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora,

The first sentence "Whether he founded Islam as a religion is an item of debate, and a notion to which Muslims strongly object." was changed to " Did he found Islam as a religion? Muslims say NO." I don't think this using NO (capital) and having a question and answer is more proper than the previous edit.

You removed all the edits clarifying Muslim's perception of the word "Islam" and "Muslim". I think this was the main point of this section. You also removed qur'anic references!

Instead, you added: "Muslims believe that Judaism and Christianity originally taught pure Islam, and have since been corrupted. Muhammad, then, was not the founder of Islam, but merely a messenger who proclaimed a message that had been lost."

I do not think this is correct in this context. In the case of Jews, they do worship one God though I heard from a jew that this commandment is important in the sense of not worshipping several gods but not atheism.

They do agree that obedience of God is extremely important (e.g. in the second to last verse in the book of Ecclesiastes: "The end of the matter, all having been heard: fear God, and keep His commandments; for this is the whole man [i.e. the whole purpose of man].") In the case of Christians, as far as I understand the issue is related to Trinity AND the Qur'an claims that salvation is achieved through believing in God and being obedient to him rather than being forgiven through Christ’s blood.

Now, the reason I think your edit was not better than the previous one is that it confuses the matter with doctorine of tahrif, which implies the corruption of interpretation of the text or the text itself(this one is rejected by a minority of Muslims). Anyway, the doctrine of tahrif is usually used in the context of justifying different narrations between Qur'an and Bible and not here. The view of minority of Muslims is not well-known. Anyway, your edit, I think, makes some connection in the mind of the reader which is irrelevant here. Thanks --Aminz 23:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted my compromise merge of Zora's and the previous version. The section as you want it delves too much into what the definition of a Muslim is, when the section is in fact simply about whether or not Muhammad founded Islam. It can be handled much more directly and easily in the format I have added. —Aiden 00:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because, to my mind, what we are discussing here is irrelevant to the doctorine of tahrif. It is all about: what does Islam mean in saying the statement "Muhammad is the founder of Islam". Does it mean the new Law that Muhammad brought? What does this term means to Muslims? How one then interprets the following verse: "135. They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah." Please have a look at the verse I mentioned in the above section. --Aminz 01:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you're going off into original research here. You seem to have your own theories about what Islam is and how it relates to other world religions, and we can't go into them here. I also take issue with your citation of the Japanese writer. He may be someone you like a lot, but he is simply not part of the academic discussion about Islam. Zora 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Now, Aminz, please stop unilaterally reverting the article and accept the opinions of the other editors. You do not own this article. —Aiden 04:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You do not own article either. I have made many comments about why "founder" is wrong and the new section is not correct and looks like what you call "original research" since non-Muslims may think many things and have different opinions about him. Other editors have agreed with me. RedCrescent 05:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora and Aiden, You, being Non-Muslims, assume being all-knowing about Islam and consider me as an ignorant Muslims who misinterprets his religion. Thanks really for your kind attitude. I was talking at an scholarly level, quoting verses from Qur'an; You can not revert my edits wholesale just because you don't like them and post your own interpretation there. I don't like to get into a revert war though I am pretty sure that my edits are quite justified and I will be the one who will eventually win the debate. You can always add the POV tag to the section and try to find the opinion of other scholars or quote other qur'anic verses. Regarding your point; doing "original research", I would like to say that it is just an excuse and maybe a good strategy to quite the beginners. If we REALLY don't want to do ANY original research, many parts of many articles in wikipedia should be deleted. All the articles will become mere quotes from several scholars without any glue to keep different quotes together. You statement that I am doing original research is by itself an original research!! It is strange to me that somebody claims that his/her understanding of Islam is authentic and the others are just original researchs. Regarding Toshihiko Izutsu, it is strange to hear from you that you denounces an scholar(Non-Muslim) just based on personal reasons. --Aminz 06:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aminz. Zora also has said about me that I "have a direct line with Allah" [3] when I voice my concerns about what is not neutral or factual. If anyone wants to know, I do not believe that I have a "direct line" to God (I don't use word Allah, I call Him "God") and I do not know what she means - if we pray to God, does that mean we have "direct line"??? Very strange. RedCrescent 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Zora is trying to say that you are starting a quibble over a minor, and to this moment, relatively uncontested detail. This article is considered good and yet here we are having to contend with this issue. It's not that others don't want to hear what you have to say and as you can see others have taken your thoughts into consideration, but you don't need to be so gung-ho about it as if you "have a direct line with Allah" (yes, I'm saying it too). What the article is trying to say is that many people think / say Muhammad is the founder of Islam. You are free to disagree, but that is what other people believe. This should be covered briefly as it is now and no more. It's really not essential to the article. joturner 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not the only one who disagrees with her (and you I guess) so I suppose we all have this "direct line to Allah". Thank you both very much for your kind words. RedCrescent 06:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, who were you directing, me or RedCrescent? --Aminz 06:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More so at RedCrescent, but I was talking in part to both of you. joturner 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said I didn't care much about the sentence at the beginning, but now I am determined to defend it since I feel that 1. there is some truth in it. 2. Because Zora and Aiden's accusation of me to do original research and denouncing the scholar I quoted from. --Aminz 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

More on "Founder"

The keyword is "generally." There are many people who aren't Muslim and yet are educated on Islam and thus know how the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is viewed. But we're talking about generally. Perhaps "Many people" instead of specifically "non-Muslims" think of the Prophet as the founder of Islam would work better? But again, I think this miniscule detail is being dissected far too much. joturner 06:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you have to understand that words and the way they are put there is very important because they can be misunderstood. Word "founder" means that Muhammad founded Islam as institution like Catholic Church. This is not true, he did not found Islam as institution. Some writer may say that Islam is political institution or both political and religious, but that is his opinion. One could say that Caliphs founded Islam as "political and historic institution". Do you see my logic in this? Words are very important and I think article should be as neutral as possible. RedCrescent 06:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea is that some people think that he is the founder. Whether that is true is debateable. We really should quit worrying about this, and also get rid of one of those templates; one will do. About the part where it says "Muhammad founded Islam as a historical, political and social entity." What do you have to contradict that? After all Muhammad was not a practicing Muslim at birth. For history's sake, he founded Islam. Before him, although to Muslims Islam did in fact exist, it did not as an idea exist. I hope that makes sense; it's getting awfully late here. I suppose we can try to find a source for that, but it's common knowledge that does not need to be sourced. joturner 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do I have to contradict the statement, when they have not provided referenced for their words? I am curious why they do not seem to want to impose this logic on Jesus Christ or Abraham or Siddhartha Gautama. My feeling is that this is double standard. Muhammad was not like L. Ron Hubbard who one can say founded Church of Scientology. Why many sources do not use "founder" and instead only say "Arab prophet" or "religious figure"? I want to know why they want to impose something like this when it is obviously not neutral. And the section I should say has no reference and looks like what they call "original research". RedCrescent 06:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually all three of those articles you mention have sections devoted to different religions' views on the respective people. In fact, the first two have entire articles on opposing views (Isa and Ibrahim, respectively) that are mentioned in the other, more Judeo-Christian-oriented articles. joturner 06:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment again - we are talking about the issue of "founder" which is not mentioned in those articles. And you forgot to say anything about their section not having any source. Also just because you or someone else does not think it is important issue does not mean that others think the same. There is a dispute and I will not have my concerns ignored because I am Muslim or someone thinks I have "direct line to Allah". I deal with enough of this already in the world. RedCrescent 06:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent wrote:

"Muhammad was not like L. Ron Hubbard who one can say founded Church of Scientology."

In fact, I believe this is precisely what the skeptics are saying, and I agree with them in principle that this is a POV that should be included. The challenge is to do this without unduly tilting the article in the other direction.

Anyhow, don't you think that Hubbard would tell us that he was just uncovering, not inventing, pre-existing knowable truth?

Timothy Usher 08:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a strong defender of having this part in the article; not because I liked it at the beginning, but just because of my current conflicts with Zora and Aiden. I want to make it clear here that Muslims don't think that Muhammad founded Islam in a religous sense. Qur'an says:

135. They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."

136. Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." --Aminz 06:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but the Qur'anic quotes are getting tiresome. I think we all understand the muslim POV by now Timothy Usher 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, It is really nice to hear that someone eventually understood me. I would like to appreciate it since you, unlike Zora and Aiden, do not consider my position as my own personal belief which is based on original research. Thanks. --Aminz 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

, and your point was faithfully reflected in the text I'd posted...which by now has been chopped to shreds by both sides, only to earn a dispute tag, where no one seemed to take too much issue with offended by the original. In fact I may revert shortly, only because I can't see how/that the passage has really been improved.Timothy Usher 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you should not revert it! Though I don't like the current edit, but we don't want to get into a revert war. Aiden and Zora are supposed to join us on the talk page which they have not done so far. So, let's wait a little bit more, if we didn't hear from them, you can revert their edit and then we can discuss your faviorate edit. Thanks. --Aminz 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I will also say that the addition by the reps of anti-Muslim POV stating that Jews and Christians don't believe earlier prophets were Muslims is gratuituous. More likely, most Jews and Christians are unaware of/don't care about this line of reasoning and never gave the question a second thoughtTimothy Usher 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Christians and Jews do believe that the prophet were obedient to God. I was discussing this with some Christians and Jews and they told me that BASED ON THIS DEFINITION, they do agree that the prophets were Muslim. --Aminz 09:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "I'm not joining in talk"? Is the expectation that I'm going to be logged into WP 18 hours a day? I don't have much of a life, but I have a teeny tiny one. You should give people 24 hours to respond -- or longer. As for Christians and Jews agreeing that earlier religious figures were Muslims -- that's YOUR report, Aminz, and it's hearsay. I've certainly never read anything by any Christian or Jew asserting so.

I am sorry. I thought when someone is editing other articles in wikipedia, he/she should be logged in. But you are right and I didn't expect you to response earlier than a day. --Aminz 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole debate was touched off by someone who seems like a devout Muslim with a chip on his shoulder, demanding veto power over descriptions of non-Muslim belief. We gave proofs, in the form of Google stats, and quotes, but no, that's not enough ... we now have to have a looong argument about exactly what Muslims and non-Muslims believe, which is rapidly turning into a theological debate with strong infusions of original research. Which means that you could write volumes on the subject and it would never be settled. Why don't we just restore that one sentence, that has been up there for over a year, and go on to doing some real work on an encyclopedia? The Ziyarat article could use more pilgrimage sites and more pictures. Zora 09:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I assume that others maybe right as much as I am right. I do believe that there was some truth in what RedCrescent suggested. That is what we are debating here. I repeat again, I do not believe I am doing original research and your accusation is offensive to me; your statement, if true, may imply that I am doing blasphemy. I do not agree with your statement: "Which means that you could write volumes on the subject and it would never be settled." There are two different positions, one taken by me and one taken by you and Aiden. Please clarify what you mean.

I think the matter is not so much original research per se as that the opinion of Toshihiko Izutsu is not broadly recognized as important in the context of what we are discussing, the prophet-or-not Muhammad.

I don't really know if the Izutsu's view is shared by others or not. He is looking at the text scholarly. So, I think his views are valuable; but it is not crucial here. My objection is the way Zora denounced him. --Aminz 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Zora, what would you think about a revert to the compromise text I'd posted a few days back, while accepting your move of it to its own section? Similarly, Aminz and Aiden? Timothy Usher 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel it was much better than the current version; just my personal opinion. --Aminz 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the meaning is OK, but I don't like the style at all. You're using three big words where one little one would do. Let me work it over -- tomorrow. Right now I need to go to bed because I have a job interview. Zora 10:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you are defining the word "Muslim" in the context of Muslim beliefs. Aiden 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not defining; it is already defined by Qur'an. --Aminz 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course then, all Jewish and Christian religions figures will be Muslim prophets to you. Aiden 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course they will. Not only within Judaism and Christianity, but also any monotheist who is following God's will could be called Muslim. --Aminz 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And you are attempting to liberalise the definition of Islam to the extent that it represents only "obedience to God" and in effect make Christianity and Judaism appear as if by default they then must not represent obedience to God.Aiden 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the essence of Christianity is baptism, confession to Jesus, or... ; the essence of Islam is supposed to becoming one who submits himself/herself to God. If you don't believe me, read Qur'an. My statement does not imply that Christianity and Judaism must not represent obedience to God, Of course Christianity and Judaism teach obedience to God and it is quite important concept. But in protestant Christianity, belief in Jesus and/or baptism is at the center.

You cannot define non-Muslim views in the context of your religion. Christians and Jews do not view Islam as a timeless religion, nor do they view Muhammad, the Qur'an, or Hadith, as part of any divine revelation. This is by definition what seperates these religions.Aiden 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what they think. I am not defining non-Muslim views. I am reporting the Muslim views. And you are right; Christians and Jews do not accept Islam in the sense you just mentioned. --Aminz 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What it appears you are trying to do is minimalize the differences between the beliefs in the effort to make the section subtly persuasive to your POV. —Aiden 20:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is your claim. Try to find evidences for the other side and work on it rather than removing my works. --Aminz 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And another thing, why do people keep removing the non-Muslim view from the introduction? That is a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. —Aiden 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Aminz wrote,

“Yes, of course they will. Not only within Judaism and Christianity, but also any monotheist who is following God's will could be called Muslim. “

It is not just a matter of following God's will, as Christians and Jews also believe they are doing, but following God's will *by doing so-and-so*. It is the specifics which make this more than a turn of phrase.

I reiterate that the most conventional definition of Islam is not merely belief in and worship of God alone, which most would agree is true of the better-known earlier prophets (even Christians don't hold that Jesus worshipped himself), but also accepting Muhammad as prophet and Qur'an as God's word.

If Muslims believe that they alone submit to God, it is only because they believe this submission must also entail the acceptance of Muhammad and the Qur’an. To consider this included in obedience to God is entirely circular as well as POV.

Yes, you are right and your argument helps me to guide the direction of my response better. Muslims believe in two things: 1. Muslim = The one who submits himself/herself to God 2.Muhammad was God's messenger. Putting (1) and (2) together they CONCLUDE that those who reject Muhammad's message, when the truth of the message has reached them are not really Muslim (Quran 29:68 may be relevant). Of course, we do expect Islam to consider itself as a truth and expect it to make such a conclusion. You may call it circular and Muslim POV. I do agree. --Aminz 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Others might earnestly hold that their submission to God requires them to reject or denounce Muhammad and the Qur’an. We’re not calling them Muslims, are we?

True and this may indeed be the case for some people. God knows well those who have been earnestly trying to find the truth. Verses Quran 17:35-36 and Quran 39:17-18, I think, can support those people. The true question that we need to address here and I think Timothy addressed in the later paragraphs is that what is it supposed to mean if we call someone "Muslims"? and what is it supposed to mean if we call the prophets as Muslims. --Aminz 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

By calling these earlier prophets muslims, one is saying that they would have accepted Muhammad and the Qur’an had they heard his message, which is inherently speculative, and totally POV.

The Qur’an says they would have, and for those who accept the Qur’an as the unadulterated word of God, I suppose that is the end of the argument. For the rest of us, we can note that the function was and is essentially propagandistic: O peoples of the book, we are not asking you to change your religion, only to perfect it. Moses and Jesus would have joined, so why shouldn’t you?

It delegitimizes the other religions by portraying followers as misguided heretics even from the standpoint of their own traditions.

I would like to thank Timothy for his nice argument. I learned something new today. Let me summerize my opinion about: what is it supposed to mean if we call the prophets as Muslims: 1. It is supposed to show that the bowing to God's will and being obedient to God was the main teaching of the prophets and that the salvation is based on this rather than belonging to a particular religon. 2. Timothy's point. Let me quote a Qur'anic verse which I guess supports his idea(you can skip it if you want) Quran 3:81-82 reads "Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you an apostle, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." If any turn back after this, they are perverted transgressors. "(5.12 may be also relevant)

Now, I think when Qur'an chose "Islam" as the name of the religon and applied the term "Muslim" for the earlier prohpets, it may very well wanted to implicitly draw these above-mentioned connections in the mind of the reader. Good. Now I agree that Non-Muslims should not consider the earlier prophets as Muslims. This is completely Islamic POV.

Shall we start a “was Muhammad Baha’i?” section? Was he a twelver (Shia)? These would seem equally legitimate. I might create one. We'll see.

Timothy Usher 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am now fine with removing the section. --Aminz 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"This whole debate was touched off by someone who seems like a devout Muslim with a chip on his shoulder, demanding veto power over descriptions of non-Muslim belief. We gave proofs, in the form of Google stats, and quotes, but no, that's not enough" All they can do is make accusation against me (I expect apology from this person, I have no chip on my shoulder, but maybe you do since you want to impose something that others disagree with) and other people but "Google stats" are not academic or good. It seems like "original research". Do not add back until we agree and do not ignore my comments or curse me because you think I am "devout" Muslim. Thank you. RedCrescent 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but if you wish to perceived as neutral when writing on Islamic topics (the only things you've edited), calling yourself "Red Crescent" doesn't help.

Timothy Usher 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - it is a good organization and they are neutral. Thank you for making bad assumption like others. RedCrescent 23:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added neutral source - do not remove. RedCrescent 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also to you and Zora and anyone else who might make bad comment about me, "If you do not have something nice to say then don't say it!" RedCrescent 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent, I did not say anything bad about you personally. I only pointed out that your tag announces you as a partisan. Perhaps that was a little rude.

The article you cite is POV in claiming that Muhammad *is* a prophet. I'm personally okay with that notion, but there are those who believe him to have been no prophet at all, but merely a fraud. You also removed the "founder" sentence again. While I'm not particularly fond of it myself, I am even less fond of your approach here, as further exemplified by your command "do not remove."

Timothy Usher 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RedCrescent, what don't you understand? It is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) to include a sentence such as "Muhammad was a prophet," without a qualifier such as "Muslims believe..." The 5/6 of the world's population that is not Muslim tends to disagree. In the same respect, saying "Muhammad was not a prophet" is also a violation. However, saying "Non-Muslims believe..." is neutral. Now that this has been explained, it is also a violation of Wikipedia policy to discuss only one POV. Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the creator of Islam, and as that is a significant majority view in the world, there is no reason why it should not be included. —Aiden 00:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you seem to imply that there is such a thing as a 'real' prophet. For the purposes of the Columbia Encyclopedia, apparently, a 'prophet' is anyone who manages to get a group of followers who call him so. And, again, having article titles like Saint Patrick is much more biased than saying "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam". See what I mean? Do we, by saying Patrick is a saint, imply divine justice, the existence of heaven, and the proposition that Patrick is located there? no. Calling him a "saint" is just a traditional title. Same goes for "prophet". dab (ᛏ) 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pause for a Moment

Can someone please summarize the issue here briefly? I lost track of exactly what the issue is, if there really still is one. We are real close having Muhammad delisting this article from Wikipedia:Good articles as this debacle is starting to destablize the article. I'm not saying you all shouldn't make changes to the article, but this protracted debate isn't helping matters. Everyone, please refrain from letting your personal religious beliefs interfere with keeping this article of good quality. joturner 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To my undertanding, the issue is, was Muhammad the founder of Islam? To Muslims, he was not thhe founder, because previous prophets such as Moses and Jesus are said to have been Muslims. To non-Muslims he is the founder, because most Jews and Christians would not accept that Moses, Jesus etc. were really Muslims.

Timothy Usher 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's still the issue? It looked like the conversation in the section above got off-track. joturner 00:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well people like Aminz and RedCrescent keep removing the non-Muslim view from the introduction. Secondly, they use the Was Muhammad the founder of Islam? section to basically preach. When Zora attempted to balance the section by using one paragraph to explain the Muslim view (listed first) and one paragraph to explain the non-Muslim view, these two reverted. The version they are advocating seems to be one that mentions non-Muslim claims only in passing, while spelling out in great detail Muslim claims. Further, they are violating WP:NPOV and possibly WP:OR in that they are liberalizing the definition of "Islam" to such an extreme that any religious person could be considered a Muslim by their definition. Timothy had a good point that being 'obedient' is entirely subjective and that one religion might consider disbelieving in Muhammad and the Quran 'obedience to God'. Would they then be considered Muslim? The basic problem is that we have 2 editors who want to pass off the Muslim view as fact and discuss other views in the context of their religion being the only correct one. That just doesn't make for a neutral article. (And Aminz, if you respond, please do not insert individual responses into my statement; use a new line.) —Aiden 01:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, please provide source for your theory that all non-Muslims believe that he is founder. I have added neutral source from English encyclopedia you may check if you dont believe me. You can add yours too if you like, but mine should stay since I have read some rules and it says it is okay to add it, so please do not remove. You say you speak for non-Muslims, but do not add source. That is my concern. Thank you. RedCrescent 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent, you cannot state that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as an Arab prophet as if that is fact. That is an Islamic principle and not fact. Your source doesn't even go with the statement in the first sentence. Although we should be trying to avoid weasel words, in this case I don't feel this generalization but qualification of the "founder of Islam" statement falls under weasel wording. And sometimes statements don't have to be sourced. Nevertheless, I think this debate is really pathetic. If the other parties involved can agree on something, even if that something isn't in agreement with what I proposed here, I will accept it. joturner 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent, you have once again violated the three revert-rule, of which you are no doubt aware, as you have been blocked for this in the past.

Timothy Usher 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he has violated the three-revert rule. He has reverted three times; it is the fourth time that is in violation of the 3RR rule. joturner 02:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ansadar should join the discussion - that is supposing he hasn't already done so under a different name - as the source he is demanding was given a long time ago by Editorius. Timothy Usher 02:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's great so put it in there too. Then there won't be any problems, right? Ansadar 02:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's AladdinSE? Somebody should ask him for his input. His opinion is important. Ansadar 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to bring others into a debate over a matter as trivial as this. I added a request for comment to try to expedite completing this discussion. joturner 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I now support removing the section "Was Muhammad the founder of Islam" just because of Timothy's argument and not that of Zora or Aiden.--Aminz 02:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I'm not sure the section necessarily should be removed, just rewritten to be NPOV (as I believe my first version pretty much was). Hmmm...let me think about this.

There are several other portions of this article (e.g. The First Revelations and Family Life, for starters) with serious POV problems. I'll see what I can come up with.

Timothy Usher 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I prefer to remove this section since Zora (and sometimes Aiden) consider my opinion as "original research" and my personal theories. They never quoted any Qur'anic verse to support their argument, but just claimed that I am re-interpreting my religon and that their interpretation is the authentic one. In any case, your edit seems good to me since it didn't have their argument. --Aminz 03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On the edit summary, I'd meant to write, I don't think this section merits deletion. If nothing else, the discussion here has shown this to be a point of great interest to all, and potentially very illuminating to readers. Timothy Usher 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the lenghty discussion above seems a little self-indulgent. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Yes, the sentence "non Muslims generally consider him the founder of Islam" could be improved. The problem lies with the semantics of "founder", it doesn't sit quite right with me either. So instead of going off on intricate tangents, you should cogitate about what exactly the phrase means to express and how its wording may be improved. I can think of replacing founder with "instigator" or something, but I believe it is common to describe Muhammad as the "prophet of Islam" even by non-Muslims: that's just the role he plays within Islam. Sybil is also described as an "oracle of Delphi" even by people who are not adherents of the Ancient Greek religion, or who do not believe in oracles altogether. If Sybil can be an oracle, why shouldn't Muhammad be a prophet, even from an atheist pov (*shrugs*). dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello dab. This is what I am trying to say but everyone ignores me or deletes my reference. Islam is not institution like Catholic Church or Church of Scientology that one can say was "founded". It is a religion and even neutral source like Columbia encyclopedia say that Muhammad was "prophet of Islam". I gave that reference and people keep deleting. I ask for reference about saying that "non-Muslims generally believe Muhammad was founder" and they give nothing! And instead they make accusation or make fun of me (see above) or say that I am "devout" Muslim! I feel like I am talking to brick wall with them. RedCrescent 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam not an institution? It isn't NOW, but in Muhammad's time it was both a religious and a secular/political community. Being a believer meant both believing Muhammad in his role as prophet, and following Muhamamad in his role as ruler, judge, and commander-in-chief. The ummah fell to pieces after Muhammad died, but nostalgia for that lost community is still very much alive. Zora 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

see below for the finer points of terminology. It was all much easier when Islam was still known as Mohammedanism. Islam now refers both to the institution, and to the religious faith felt by each adherent. To refer to the institution unambiguously, one should maybe use Dar al-Islam or Ummah or something? My suggestion below is "the religion known as Islam" to make sure the religion qua institution is intended. dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

google shows that "founder of islam" has some currency, apparently especially as a term used by critics of Islam. But the question whether this is accurate is not so much a matter of being or not being a Muslim, but of being aware of the Arabic language. Islam means about as much as "Faith" in English. Now, in English, "Islam" is used to refer to "faith" according to the teachings of Muhammad, but to Arabic ears, the statement that "Muhammad founded Islam" sounds about as weird as "Jesus founded Faith". RedCrescent is right that Columbia Encyclopedia, certainly not a Muslim source, has "Muhammad is the Prophet of Islam" perfectly acceptable. Britannica however has "founder of the religion of Islam", and the 1911 Britannica [4] had "founder of the religious system called in Europe after him Mahommedanism, and by himself Islam", both without implication that "founder" should be controversial or reserved for use by non-Muslims. In my opinion, we should say something like:

Muhammad (c. 570–632) is the founder of the world religion known as Islam, believed by Muslims to be God's final prophet sent mankind with the message of Islam. He is referred to as "The Prophet" or "The Messenger" within the religion.

dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Encarta also describes Muhammad as the "founder of Islam". —Aiden 19:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage dictionary calls him "Arab prophet of Islam" but Merriam Webster calls him "Arab prophet and founder". RedCrescent 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be better to write: "...was an Arab religious figure, and the FOUNDING FIGURE of the world religion of Islam" in the introductory sentence? This is a little more ambiguous and therefore potentially less offensive while still implying that he can be considered the founder. It would have the added advantage of better covering a minority view that questions the historical existence of Mohammed alltogether (on account of the total lack of independent and contemporary historical sources, not unlike the situation in Christianity). 80.135.228.138 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Good Article

I delisted this article because of the recent instability. joturner 03:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Timothy Usher 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. We'll always get inappropriate edits to this article that are reverted quickly, that's no reason. The recent "was he the founder?" section just repeats material already treated, phrased in inferior prose, so of course it was reverted, that's a sign of stability. The dispute above is about one single word, "founder", and that word is still there now (no "instability", no warning templates, nothing) -- "founder" or no "founder" that's a single word in a 37k article that is extremely stable. If the article body was referenced by footnotes, this would easily be a featured status article. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Beyond the founder dispute, there is also the problem of relentless POV. To some degree this is inevitable - Muhammad is famous because Muslims consider him prophet, not because some non-Muslims might consider him a fraud/satanic/whatever, so it is natural that the Muslim POV is front and center. However, sections such as "Family Life" are frankly disinformative in their piety - Muhammad is shown here just helping people out - no mention of the fact that he and he alone was exempted from the four-wife limit (33: 50, thanks be unto Gabriel for conveniently coming to his rescue), no mention that some of his wives were not the widows of Muslim warriors but prisoners of war, widows of those he and his companions had just slain - and come on, "The First Revelations"? Can you honestly read that, both the title and the following passage, and say it's anything but totally sympathetic? And this is but the tip of the POV iceberg.

Muhammad's life was a fascinating one. Are we trying to make it boring? Leaves me wondering why this was considered a model article to begin with.

Timothy Usher 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

well, we only even know about Muhammad because of Muslim pious tradition. The topic of this article can only ever be to discuss this tradition, of course with all the academic distance of literary criticism. If you look through the archives, you will see the tremendous effort made by Zora and others to prevent this from becoming Islamic hagiography. Of course this article radiates 'sympathy' for even discussing the life of Muhammad in such loving detail, but being interested in their subjects is a 'pov' that should implicitly be taken by all articles. Yes, the wording can be improved still. But it will not do to insert "(but some non-Muslims consider this a satanic fraud)" every other sentence, per WP:POINT. Some Christians are really allergic to Muhammad and try to blame him for all the evils of 7th century Arabia, we get it. I don't have special sympathy for Muhammad, but if I come to this article, it is to inform myself about Muslim traditions. Yes, the wording of "first revelations" sounds a bit naive and unencyclopedic, as if addressed to a child. That's a problem of encyclopedic style, not of pov. dab (ᛏ) 08:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Qur'an sometimes prescribes different laws for Muhammad himself. The permission of having more than four wives is part of it. It is fair to have all of them rather than only one of them. For example, he was obliged to pray, between 1/3 to 1/2 of the nights:

73:1 O you who have wrapped up in your garments!

73:2 Rise to pray in the night except a little,

73:3 Half of it, or lessen it a little,

73:4 Or add to it, and recite the Quran as it ought to be recited.

73:5 Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word.

73:6 Surely the rising by night is the firmest way to tread and the best corrective of speech.

73:7 Surely you have in the day time a long occupation.

73:8 And remember the name of your Lord and devote yourself to Him with (exclusive) devotion.

I think we should have a section and talk about the Muhammad's personal obligation and permissions separately. It is not fair to just mention that permission. Thanks--Aminz 09:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added comment as response to dab above. RedCrescent 12:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Qur'an

That section should NOT be there. Having a slew of Qur'an verses is bad enough, but having them summarized is worse. This should be in a breakout article on Islamic views of Muhammad's nature and character or something like that. We could start that with the Qur'an verses, which for Muslims is the final word on who Muhammad IS, and then go on to discussions of Muhammad's sinlessness, whether or not he was a hanif, Shi'a beliefs, Barelwi beliefs, etc. Before I go start the article and move those verses out, does anyone have any better suggestion for a title? Zora 21:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Just responding to Netscott's request for assistance. Feel free to remove.

Re your proposed article, I'm not sure why this can't be dealt with here. How someone's nature and character is viewed is usually part of their biography. It sounds kind of like a POV fork.

Timothy Usher 22:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think that's a valid addition to the article about Muhammad... the two are so intertwined (Muhammad and the Qur'an) ... your opinion Zora is that the refs are too religious? Netscott 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The topic is of interest mainly to Muslims. It's not relevant to the biography, since there is no biographical material there. Furthermore, paraphrasing Qur'an quotes is a NO-NO; the paraphrase introduces even more uncertainty and possible bias than a translation does. Zora 23:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing I feel funny about is, I can't read my summary of the last of the four verses without laughing. Though it does appear to be what is literally being said, there are probably some meanings I'm not getting. I'm not comfortable standing behind it.

The second thing is, the mentions of Muhammad by name are basically random. There's no coherence to them as a set other than his name just happens to be used. It doesn't really throw much on either the man, the Qur'an or his/its teachings.

Timothy Usher 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation you two, I understand now. Netscott 23:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Musaylimah

I invite those interested in POV issues on this page to visit Musaylimah. I've tried to clean it up to some extent, but you can check the history to see what it was like to begin with.

From the neutral point of view, how are Musaylimah's claims different from those of Muhammad? Well one way, Muhammad was first, making Musaylimah sound like rather the cheap knockoff. And perhaps he was. But I still think a look at this page is worthwhile to see what some wikipedia editors consider NPOV when dealing with someone who their religious understanding derides rather than reveres - at least as unsympathetic as anything (besides vandalism) I've seen on this page, or elsewhere as an example of "Islamophobia".

I'm not entirely comfortable with getting rid of purported examples of Musaylimah's verses, as they are informative, but they were clearly (and explicitly) chosen to make him look ridiculous. I think all of us familiar with the Qur'an realize that the same could be done by an unscrupulous editor, and that regardless of their suposedly impeccable pedigree (in contrast to the secondhand examples of Muslaylimah) they would likely be deleted as POV.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I can say this: someone claims to be getting word-for-word revelations from God, many might find this inherently dubious if not ridiculous. We can debate to what degree this POV should be represented, but if this article were any guide...

Any feedback?

Timothy Usher 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Pruned some new material

I pruned some hagiographic material -- someone had added something re how much other Meccans loved and trusted Muhammad. Also, someone had added details on Muhammad's last illness that are simply not found in sira. The statement that he lost his voice is contradicted by many passages in Ibn Ishaq.

I slightly rewrote the section on Muhammad's marriages, which I thought had become unbalanced in the Muslim direction. However, I tried to avoid specifics, which are, IMHO, better discussed in the breakout article. If we tried to put them in this article, it would double in size and triple in dissension.

I don't think I've done anything controversial, but other editors will doubtless check out the diffs and comment. Zora 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Druze and Baha'i religion

Muhammad is an important prophet for both the Druze and the Baha'i faiths. Just as the Islam view is mentioned in the introduction to the Jesus article, Baha'i and Druze should be mentioned in the introduction here (NPOV !), albeit in a short form. I think the sentence: "He is also venerated as a prophet by the Druze and by the Bahá'í." is an appropriate solution. That those faiths are already mentioned on the Islam page does not concern the article on Muhammad. In fact, their mentioning is probably even more relevant here. 80.135.202.209 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and he's also a prophet for the Zikri, and the Ahmadiyya, etc. We can't mention every faith or tradition that derives from Islam in the introductory para. That's just too confusing for readers. If you want to put a para down at the bottom, maybe that would work. There's a lot to be said for the newspaper style of organizing articles, in which you put the simplest, most important stuff at the top and add complexities at the bottom. Readers who don't make it through the entire article will at least get the gist. (Or, the final paras can be lopped off if there's no room for them, but we don't have to worry as much about room here.) Zora 23:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jossi restored the edit. I repeat, it's unfair to mention SOME of the traditions, and not others, and if you mention them all, you end up with an unreadable intro para. You could summarize by saying that he is also recognized as a prophet by other religious traditions deriving from Islam and then link to a later section. Zora 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously we can't have every minority viewpoint present, so I partly agree with Zora. However, I do think that 'size matters'. In contrast to Zikri and Ahmadiyya, the Baha'i faith is a world religion with several million followers in over one hundred countries, which warrants their viewpoint in the introduction (one short sentence!). I do not think much is gained by writing "venerated by the Baha'i and other religions that derive from Islam...". Also, Baha'i, Druze and followers of the other religions would dispute that their faiths "derive from Islam". 80.135.202.209 01:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just not fair to feature the Bahai and not feature the other groups. That would be POV. OK, leave out the comment at the top and put a section in the bottom saying that "members of the following faiths, which claim to have incorporated and superceded Islam in the same way that Islam claims to have incorporated and superceded Judaism and Christianity, also recognize Muhammad as a prophet" and then give a list.

All that simply doesn't belong on top. It confuses matters. Zora 01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But that would be factually wrong. I just checked your examples and found that Zikri and Ahmadiyya are indeed muslim sects (like Alevites). In contrast to this the Baha'i religion is an independent religion not at all derived from Islam. I think we should drop the Druze and write "He is also venerated by some other religions, including the Baha'i faith." and then link to a new section like the one you propose. I cannot see how this 'confuses matters', it is very easy to understand and it belongs in the introduction precisely so that it is NPOV and not Islam only. The Baha'i should be named, because of their relative size and international importance (for example consultative status with WHO, UNICEF and other United Nations agencies). 80.135.202.209 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Zora, generally. Historically, Muhammad is a prophet of Baha'i only because he is the prophet of Islam. However, compare the Jesus article. Jesus' position in Islam is mentioned in paragraph four, not quite an afterthought, but not quite top billing either. A similar thing would be appropriate here.Timothy Usher 01:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe as the last sentence of the introduction then? Sounds like a good compromise (would be the fourth paragraph also). It just seemed to fit best where it is now. 80.135.202.209 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've actually contributed a great deal toward the Jesus article. I helped establish consensus on all four paragraphs of the introduction, even writing most of the third. I'm saying that to say this: The Jesus article did mention Ba'hai views of Jesus in the Intro but I removed them after we decided they did not warrant inclusion because they are not significant views. You can now find them in the "Views of other religions" sub-section. Why? If you refer to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, you'll see that views of a small minority need not be expressed in as much detail as major views (i.e. in the Introduction), and views of a tiny minority need not be expressed at all. I've seen estimates of Baha'i followers at somewhere around 7 million--not to mention the incredibly short history of the religion. In the grand scheme of things that's a pretty small view. THAT SAID, this article is still incredibly lacking and could even be considered in violation of systematic POV in that it does not have a "Religious perspectives" or "Historicity" section. This entire article is for the most part based solely on Islamic religious sources. I would have no problem adding Baha'i (as well as a host of other ignored views) in a section such as aforementioned. But it does not belong in the intro--Christian views are a different story. —Aiden 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree of course that the Baha'i are small compared to the big religions. I just felt, that they should be mentioned as a counterweight to the strong Islam POV of this article. The christian POV in the Jesus article is counterweighted by the Muslim POV. The biggest counterweight to the Muslim POV in this article (including the intro) is the Baha'i POV. That's the whole reasoning. 80.135.202.209 02:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"THAT SAID, this article is still incredibly lacking and could even be considered in violation of systematic POV in that it does not have a "Religious perspectives" or "Historicity" section. This entire article is for the most part based solely on Islamic religious sources."

Agreed, Aiden, the article is unduly pious and clearly Islamic POV (e.g. "The First Revelations"!), as well as generally impoverished and uninformative. Not sure how it got "good article" to begin with. As I said earlier, I'm this far from pov tagging several sections...Timothy Usher 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a great amount of Islamic point-of-view here, or at least with "The First Revelations". We could start every sentence with "Muslims believe that..." or "In Islam, Muhammad is...", but clearly that would be absurd. Putting all that content under the section entitled "His life according to Islamic traditions" takes care off all that. The reader should realize that by that section header, the following content is not necessarily cold, hard fact, but rather the life of the Prophet Muhammad according to Islamic traditions. joturn e r 02:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But yes, we should have a section of the view of the Prophet Muhammad in other religions as well as historicity, per Aiden. joturn e r 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Joturner, I didn't see your comment. You can revert my edits if you want. --Aminz 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back until a consensus in the discussion arises. Ignore my edit summary as I put the wrong username. joturn e r 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is all those two minor changes, let's do them. But if Timothy has more examples of POV sentences, we can discuss your point Joturner then. --Aminz 03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite what I wanted, but I see Aiden's point. I think we should have a section on the views of the smaller religions (of which the Baha'i are the most important) and it should be situated _not too far_ from the intro. If we put it at the bottom, it does nothing about the problem (too Muslim POV). 80.135.202.209 03:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Islamic view is obviously the most prominent and should be discussed first. After the Biography section, sure, there should be a section for views according to other religions. —Aiden 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV by omission

The thing that I think is POV is that nothing potentially negative is presented, even though there are ample attestations - from Islamic sources, naturally - that would be of great interest to readers.

I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but by modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal - executing POW's, ransoming others, poisoning wells with dead bodies, etc., and a dictator, ordering the excecution of poets and the like. Saying he's a war criminal would be anachronous and POV...but going into more detail about his life, including the ugly ones, would go a long way towards explaining why (one reason at least) Muhammad is so controversial to this day. And more importantly, would make the article more interesting and more informative.

However, given what I've seen on Islam-related pages, anything remotely negative, regardless of truth, is quickly vandalized by a small band of his followers. I personally don't understand how the perfection (well okay he was abrupt with a homeless guy once) of Muhammad's person fits into the worship God alone thing anyhow - how do Muhammad's errors (much less of the Caliphs) reflect on God? But it seems a large number of people think this way.

If it sounds like I'm just complaining, and doing nothing about it, that's true, but only because the latter takes more time.

Timothy Usher 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not saying the article should be a "Criticisms of Muhammad" article, but you can't have an objective article presenting only the positives. There are historically undeniable things that many people would find morally reprehensible that are simply ignored--some would consider this article a big white wash. I'm not calling for Muhammad to be classified as a war criminal or murderer by any means, but there does need to be some sort of balance, possibly a small "Criticisms of Muhammad" section linking to a main article, as well as a section for other religious views. —Aiden 03:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't you first add the claim of "poisoning wells with dead bodies" for example to the criticism of Islam article if you have any reference? Never heard of it. --Aminz 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And what does POW mean? thx--Aminz 03:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm not familair with the poisoning of wells incident. 2) POW = Prisoner of War —Aiden 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how this works - to what degree can the article approach biography? In other words, can we discuss the events at Khaybar as simply an event in his life? Or must it be in a special section, while the rest is in Battle of Khaybar?

As for the well, don't have the cite in front of me, but it's better known for Muhammad supposedly taunting the corpses he threw in there, his companion says, they can't hear you, and Muhammad assures him that they can hear him in the afterlife. Typically this is thought of as curious, and critics say it highlights a vindictive streak in Muhammad's character. Not highlighted in the narrative or as often noted is the fact that to throw dead bodies into a well isn't just disrespectful to the bodies, but ensures that all who drink therefrom will become sick - a medieval form of biological warfare, as anyone living at that time would be well aware. I'll dig up the cite.

Timothy Usher 03:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Bukhari via Anas is considered reliable, but there is also this:

"Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234: Narrated Abu Qilaba: Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle .""

"Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die."

"Volume 8, Book 82, Number 795: Narrated Anas: The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of 'Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died."

Yuk. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would treat something like this.

Timothy Usher 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add it to the article of criticism of Islam together with your sources :( Your sources are authentic sources according to the Sunni Muslims. BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TRUE. :( --Aminz 03:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

thx Aiden and Timothy. I will be waiting for more details. At least, criticism of Islam article can be a good place for adding that after the citation is provided. Its addition to this article can be discussed later. --Aminz 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 360:

"Narrated Ibn Shihab: These were the battles of Allah's Apostle (which he fought), and while mentioning (the Badr battle) he said, "While the corpses of the pagans were being thrown into the well, Allah's Apostle said (to them), 'Have you found what your Lord promised true?" 'Abdullah said, "Some of the Prophet's companions said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are addressing dead people.' Allah's Apostle replied, 'You do not hear what I am saying, better than they.' The total number of Muslim fighters from Quraish who fought in the battle of Badr and were given their share of the booty, were 81 men." Az-Zubair said, "When their shares were distributed, their number was 101 men. But Allah knows it better."" http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.360

Timothy Usher 04:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz's NPOV'ing edits

While your edits are well-intentioned, they are unnecessary. As the entire section is titled "His life according to Islamic traditions," there is no need to place qualifiers in front of every section or sentence. The sub-section is titled "The First Revalations" because that's how the event is reffered to "according to Islamic traditions." Take a look at the Jesus article. There is a sub-section titled "Resurrection and Ascension," but it is under the section "Life and teachings based on the Gospels." There is no need to title the sub-section "Reports of Resurrection and Ascension," if you see what I mean. —Aiden 03:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't get it. You are right. Thanks for clarification. I saw that out of the context. --Aminz 03:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow Aiden; did you read my previous post or did you come up with that argument independent of me? joturn e r 03:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha. I did not see your previous post or I would have saved myself the time. Oh well though, at least we're all on the same page now. —Aiden 03:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing sourced info

I removed some detailed info from the sources section and replaced it with a more general recent quote from an academic. Timothy told me to take it up with the creator. Um, I am the creator. I wrote that section a LONG time ago, and I now think it's too detailed for the article. It's distracting. I've put that info into the Historiography of early Islam article, which we should probably link, and which I need to update. So the info isn't gone, it's just in a breakout article.

Does that satisfy your concerns, Timothy? Zora 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, of course. I'm sorry, I hadn't realized you were the creator. So much vandalism recently, I guess I've just been waiting for the other shoe to drop. I like you, though, and your edits. Sorry.Timothy Usher 10:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

Timothy, the sentences I rewrote are just plain UGLY. Bad prose. I didn't change the sense, I just made things plainer. "Item of debate" is clunky phrasing. "Matter for debate" or "debateable" would be better. Saying that an "item of debate" is a "notion" is also a strange juxtaposition. Surely you should be able to SEE the difference? Zora 09:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC) (proofread and copyedit for an exiguous living) (late at night and tired) (I'll rephrase tomorrow -- I'm sure I can think of dozens of ways to say this and you'll accept one of them, I'm sure.)

Okay, I've no doubt there is a better way...just "community" is a little weak I'm sure you'll agree. Reminds me of "So-and-So Community Center" or something. So, please do keep at it. I'm going to sleep. Thanks.Timothy Usher 10:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"Religious perspectives"

This section was added after a consensus was acheived among editors involved in a dispute. It mentions some religions which consider Muhammad important, but is by all means a work in progress and will need additions of other prominent views, such as those of Christianity and Judaism. Mentioning the views of other religions by no means indicates importance. WP:NPOV suggests views based on prominence not importance. The title of this section should be straightfoward: "Religious perspectives," not another pro-Muhammad soapbox where we discuss just how important he is. —Aiden 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with calling it a pro-Muhammad soapbox but was for limiting it to religions where he actually has some significance. But I will wait to see how it works out. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that may have been an overstatement, but I just think it's important that we end this policy of policing where dissenting views are not permitted. Jo has attempted to resolve the issue, though I don't know why we need to name the section "Other religious perspectives" when of course they are perspectives of other religions. —Aiden 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This section was called 'religious perspectives' in parallel to the Jesus article. That was just a working title to start it (as per talk), but didn't address the problem of where to put other, non-religious views (historical science, philosophical movements, ...). So I think we could either have two independent sections, one for 'Perspectives of other religions' and one for 'Other views', or we could use these two headings as subsections in an 'Other Perspectives' section.

My other issue: why was this moved to stand after the 'Historical significance' section? We should have it right after the islamic perpective (the biography section), so that all POVs are in one place (assuming the historical significance is more or less NPOV). 80.135.201.251 10:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Link-pruning

William Muir's bio is extremely old and pro-Christian. I don't think it makes sense to have it here. It is of historical interest only. Zora 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the links you removed because your edits only removed the views of Nonmuslims. The fact that Muir may be pro-Christian is fine as the link is under the "Nonmuslim biographies" section. I have also added the word 'critical' to the section to highlight this. —Aiden 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zora. And the link doesn't work either for the first link and the second one was in French. If links like that are added, that means we can do the same for Arabic and other language Muslim biographies that are often added. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Historical interest only" isn't a good reason to delete, nor is"pro-Christian." I must admit I don't like seeing the Answering Christianity site much due to perception of NPOV, but if they're the only ones posting, it should stay. p.s. first link working fine over here. Timothy Usher 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those extremely agressive, non-Academic links. I also removed the French article since that language has no bearing here. However, as the section is appropriately titled, I think Muir's biography should stay. —Aiden 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't the critics have anything NEWER than a 100-year-old biography to offer? I hate to send people to something that, while well-written, is antiquated. Zora 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Free, online and in the public domain is a plus, though. It's not the ideal one-stop source for info on Muhammad, but I don't see that it has to be to merit retention. Not spam, at least, like 99% of the links added to this article.Timothy Usher 20:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, what difference does it make? It's not like there's been much in the way of breaking news re Muhammad's life during this period.Timothy Usher 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Advances in scholarly technique have made possible re-analysis of older materials. Zora 09:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Why no picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.147.95 (talk • contribs)

That'd be something to ask Anonymous editor. —Aiden 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to a picture of Prophet Muhammad? That is because muslims believe that representing Muhammad as an image, in the form of drawing, painting, idol making etc is forbidden, because then it gives the impression that muhammad is an idolatry figure to be worshiped. This is woring. Muslims beleive Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and that he was given a divine message for all humanity. Allah (god) is the one to be worshiped. In comparison with Christianity, where Jesus is the son or a part of him, and therefore, a figure to be worhsiped for christians --Aadamh 11:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with wikipedia?Timothy Usher 11:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It has something to do with the Muhammad artcile. This is the discussion for the Muhammad article is it not? Or is it a place for discussion about wikipedia? --Aadamh 11:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. Your comments are about why some Muslims believe that images of Muhammad are undesirable, but they've no obvious application to wikipedia because wp is NPOV. If we were fortunate enough to have a photograph, we'd post it.Timothy Usher 11:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By 'we' you mean 'you'..? --Aadamh 11:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to sound arrogant like that. Though of course I'd post it. And admit it, you'd look. Who wouldn't want to know how Muhammad really looked?Timothy Usher 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Any drawing or picture would never be an accurate physical representation of Muhammad. There are descriptions of him in hadiths. But noone who is alive knows what he looked like. Those who did (that were alive during his lifetime) are dead. It is natural curiosity to want know these things, and for the purpose of academia, you could post such images as false representations, and personal imagination but it would never be accepted it as an image of the Prophet Muhammad himself; it would be just another image of any human being, anyone else. And believe me, if you posted such a picture i do not think it would be widely popular. --Aadamh 12:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing, how are we meant to accurately record the life of Muhammad if we do not relate to islamic traditions? Should we just assume and guess and put down NPOV? --Aadamh 11:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher

He thinks he owns this article. He always reverts. Admins should do something about him. RedCrescent 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I look through many of his edits and looks like he might have strong anti-Muslim bias. What a surprise. RedCrescent 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Red Crescent you cannot personalize this discussion. This is a place to discuss why you have made the edits you've made, or why some other edit should be made. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY if you haven't already. Timothy Usher 07:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't the negative stuff here?

Because we have breakout articles for all the stuff that's controversial. Muhammad as warrior, Muhammad's marriages, and Banu Qurayza. If we were to include ALL the controversies, and all the documentation and argumentation pro and con, this article would quadruple in size. It's already longer than desirable.

Trying to pack everything into one article is "main-articlism" and it's pernicious. We're a wiki, and we can have breakout articles.

This article is a delicate balance between the editors who want it to read like a mosque handout and those who want it to denounce Islam. Breakout articles let us keep the balance. Zora 07:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but the article itself still needs to be balanced. Right now it includes virtually no negative history. —Aiden 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

that has probably to do with the fact that his biographers were sympathetic. Jesus contains hardly anything negative because Jesus' biographers thought he was cool, the same goes for Muhammad. The "negative" stuff is mostly constructions by Christian critics who portray as "negative" (warfare, polygyny, slavery) what was not perceived as negative at all in 7th century Arabia (owning a slave was about as controversial as owning a car today, and it didn't contribute to global warming). We might well compare 7th century Arab values to 21st century USian values somewhere, but that appears to have very little to do with Muhammad. It is another things for followers of Muhammad to insist they want to live like in the 7th century today, but that can hardly be blamed on Muhammad himself, who has been dead for nigh 1400 years now. If I insisted I wanted to live like Chrocus today, and went about beheading people and burning towns, would that be Chrocus' fault now, or would it be my own fault? dab (ᛏ) 08:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're attributing a straw argument to my point. No one is saying Muhammad should be discussed as an advocate of slavery or any such thing, but those things that we might consider negative also shouldn't be censored. You could very well use your same point against you. If those things were acceptable at that time, why do some editors feel the need to remove things deemed immorral according to modern-day standards? Secondly, I'd recommend you read the Jesus article and reexamine your statement. —Aiden 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am missing your point then. The fact that Muhammad is reported to have had several wives and to have engaged in warfare is explicitly discussed. We even give opinions of critics, "Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of much criticism on the part of opponents of Islam. They regard it as scandalous that he should have been permitted more wives than his followers and they criticize the circumstances of some of his marriages." and "Critics claim that Muhammad expanded his realm and imposed his religion by force.". That's basically it (the "negative stuff"), or am I missing something? Clearly, discussion of details of such criticism belongs on the sub-articles, but the existence of criticism is not hushed up at all. dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well for instance, the addition (by an editor other than myself) of Aisha's age (9 years) at the time of marriage to Muhammad was quickly reverted by several editors (including an administrator). This is an undisputed fact, yet it is censored. There is not even mention of this controversy in the article, and the only way one would even stumble across it is to click the link to the seperate Muhammad's marriages article and go to the Aisha section. There are many other examples of documented facts being left out of the main article because of their negative connotations. —Aiden 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad the founder of Islam?

This whole section is unsourced. The information in the section also talk about Islam in general and has nothing to do with Muhammad. I propose removing it. Aucaman^Talk 19:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information in the section is common knowledge. —Aiden 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material is sourced, there's still another problem. The section does not even discuss Mohammad and it has nothing to do with whether or not he founded Islam. If you want the section to stay you should at least rewrite it to make it more relevant to this article/section name. Aucaman^Talk 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

this is appallingly self-centred. Just because some editors fancy to debate a point ad nauseam on talk, you figure it is encyclopedic and deserves its own section, with a header phrased as a question? Style, people, and notability, and encyclopedicity. Yes, and main-articleism. dab (ᛏ) 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not add the section nor do I favor it. The section was created by an editor who refused to allow the sentence "Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam" in the introduction. —Aiden 18:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the section was created by me (though only a portion of my prose remained after communal hacking), but as Aiden says, I did this in an attempt to put to rest the "founder" dispute by representing the POV that Muhammad was not the founder. You can say what is encyclopedic and you might be right, but we also make compromises to keep people from attacking the page. I've now no idea how to stabilize the article.Timothy Usher 11:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the section on the founder of Islam seems stable enough. It gives a fair and un-biased account of how Muhammad is viewed as a prophet and founder. It is very neurtral and well written in my opinion. We should ask the moderator of the 'good articles list' what constitutes as a 'good' article, because i think this article is very good and getting better all the time and i will do all i can to make it better. --Aadamh 11:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know who moderates the 'good articles' list? --Aadamh 11:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I feel it represents the opposing views equally fairly. —Aiden 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This section only gives a 'fair and un-biased account' if you don't go on deleting non-muslim views. 80.135.226.166 20:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: Maybe _both_ subsections (muslim views, other views) should be deleted, since they deal with Islam rather than Muhammad. Only the sentences "Non-Muslims generally consider Muhammad to be the founder or creator of Islam. Most Muslims accept that Muhammad founded Islam as a historical, political and social entity, but object to the notion that he founded the religion of Islam." should remain, under their own heading 'Muhammad as founder of Islam' (but not inside the 'Muhammad in Islam' section!). Notice that I removed the word 'strongly', otherwise it would have to say 'Non-Muslims generally strongly consider ..." 80.135.226.166 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to delete muslim views. For the purpose of learning , we need to understand the status of muhammad in islamic culture and tradition as well as opposing views because it is part of his lfe and cannot be merely pushed aside. If we just put generalised comments for the sake of non-muslims getting too confused or thinking it is too boring for them, then it will be not a fair article or accurate. However in this particular section, 'is muhammad the founder?' is more of an issue to be addressed to non-muslims , because for non-muslims there can be misconceptions / uncertainties. Therefore I am inclined to agree with you on this particular issue. --Aadamh 22:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What we need is some kind of balance. That the islamic religion considers other religions as false or corrupted may be an accurate description of it's teachings. When it is obviously directed at _certain_ other religions (Judaism, Christianity), their views warrant mentioning in accordance with WP:NPOV, just as the accused in a court of law gets the right of reply. However, the contents of islamic religious beliefs generally belong to the Islam article, not the Muhammed article. To replicate everything that's on the main Islam article here, by connecting it to Muhammad in some way or other, would be nonsensical.

To say that the section xyz is addressed to non-muslims and the section abc is addressed to muslims is completely contrary to what Wikipedia is about! The Article would be NPOV if non-muslims were presented with the muslim view, AND muslims presented with the non-muslim view. Sadly, the latter is mostly missing here! As for what are 'misconceptions', well, now, that's purely POV! 80.135.226.166 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is not talking about the issue of how Muslims see the "earlier prophets"; that aside is used only to expand on the issue of how Muslims could believe that they were teachers of Islam. No "response" is required in this case, although I've parenthesised the remark to indicate that it is less directly relevant to the section than the adjacent sentences.  JEREMY 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your change looks fine to me.Timothy Usher 03:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I reversed the re-org

Someone had reorganized the last few sections of the article into two sections, Islamic views of Muhammad and other views. That may not be such a bad idea BUT -- it was so badly implemented as to be confusing. Non-Muslim and Muslim views were mixed up through all the sections, making the headers pointless. I returned to the way it was previously.

I've already said that it may be a good idea to have a "Islamic views of Muhammad" article, just because there is no one view. Muhammadology can be just as vexing for Muslims as Christology is for Christians. If we can develop such an article, then we can summarize it briefly in the main Muhammad article. Trying to do the development IN the Muhammad article is probably a mistake.

I'd do it myself, if it weren't that I'm overwhelmed. Money-earning work to do, about a square cubic yard of books to read stacked all over my house ... isn't there anyone else who wants to write the article? Zora 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the sections (on the spur of the moment), but I agree with you now that it was 'badly implemented' (well, not _quite_ right at least), so you were right to revert that. Thanks. 80.135.226.166 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bless you for being so easy-going about this. As for writing the article -- it's more than just the stuff here. Barelvi/Barelwi views on Muhammad are distinctive. Shi'a views on the 12 Pure Souls are distinctive. There is much disgreement on just how sinful/sinless or inerrant Muhammad was. Plus some disagreement on just how much miracle to admit into the biography of Muhammad. Zora 01:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, I am really really sorry. It is just hard to start the article. But I will start the article by today(I hope I would be able to gather enough stuff). My english is not also good, so the article will have lots of mistakes :D. --Aminz 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, YOU don't have to do it. Please don't feel obligated. I'm talking to that possibly non-existent person out there with a great deal of spare time :) Zora 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, your suggestion for an article on the Islamic views of Muhammad was good and I had already promised to start the article. I had to be quick otherwise it was probable that I could never fulfill my promise.

Can you please have a look at Islamic views of Muhammad? I was thinking of three main parts:

The doctrine of Sinlessness of Muhammad When was Muhammad’s soul created? Muslim description of Muhammad

Any idea about the general structure of the article?--Aminz 04:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I should leave now, but will get back soon. Can you please let me know your idea about the general structure of the article. thx --Aminz 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad as Founder section

This section was moved and shortened due to complaints about length and summary deletion by other editors. The argument that other Abrahamic faiths don't think they're corruptions of Islam is not relevant to this section, in which Islam's views of other faiths are mentioned tangentially in order to explain how Muslims could consider people like Jesus to be followers of Islam.  JEREMY 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Other editors think it relevant. Upon which editors' behalf, specifically, do you claim to speak?Timothy Usher 08:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I speak on my own behalf. The original section was deleted on 08-April; I reverted, then took on the responsibility of condensing what Dbachmann (and other on this talk page) seemed to think was an excessively lengthy section.  JEREMY 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We could delete the whole section, since the "non-Muslims regard him as founder" bit is back in the intro. The section was written only to replace the deleted sentence. Zora 08:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence, and the response.  JEREMY 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what Zora, or I, was suggesting.Timothy Usher 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I realise that, but I don't think Zora's solution is optimal and I believe the original (ie. your proposed solution) leaves the section overly long, wordy and argumentative. I've offered this as an alternative. What do you object to about it?  JEREMY 09:52, 11 April 2006

As discussed, I don't much care for the section myself, but I care even less for those who come to POV hack this page daily. I do appreciate your appearance here, but ask that you discuss rather than *announce*. Would you please explain why the text you kept ought to have been kept while that you deleted had to be deleted? I might even agree. Just please, discuss.Timothy Usher 12:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. The section is necessary to explain the how people can believe Muhammad wasn't the first Muslim. As I have said several times, the argumentative "response" made the whole thing inappropriately lengthy. Removing both the contentious (and only peripherally relevant) sentence and the response seemed to best satisfy both information content and brevity.  JEREMY 13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Were I not to assume good faith, the current revert-pattern might seem like an attempt to tag-team me into a 3RR violation. I note that my "reverts" are actually three different versions I've offered in an attempt to find a wording solution satisfactory to all. It starts to get more than a little frustrating when my considered efforts are blanket-reverted by editors who seem to be pushing for the whole section to be deleted.  JEREMY 13:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that other faiths are 'mentioned tangentially', but that jewish and christian prophets and the christian messiah are called by name. Even if you do that indirectly, like for example '...prophets [and that's already POV] of the other abrahmic religions were muslims...' or '... teachings of the other monotheistic religions are corrupted...', you effectively bring these figures and religions into play, and then WP:NPOV demands the mentioning of other views. 80.135.255.49 18:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JEREMY, you seem to only be removing non-Muslim views for the sake of length. You cannot maintain WP:NPOV by using the section only to demonstrate the Muslim belief that Muhammad was not the first Muslim (and thus not the founder of Islam in a religious sense.) However, we can maintain NPOV by mentioning the opposite view, which by all means is very relevent to the discussion of Muhammad as founder of Islam. —Aiden 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is, frankly, a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Maintaining a Neutral Point of View means describing a situation without displaying a bias. It does not mean giving equal space to every alternate viewpoint in the same article (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight). Particularly, it does not mean describing how non-Muslim Abrahamic religions view themselves in an article about Muhammad, regardless of whether adherents to those faiths feel affronted by the neutrally reported beliefs of Muslims.  JEREMY 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I was about to argue that if all mentioning of other religion's 'personnel' was removed (and the religions themselves not even appeared indirectly), their views were not necessary in this section. But what would then be a good starting point for different "Muhammad the founder" POVs? Through clever writing you could indeed minimize the apparent need for 'the other view'. Yet that would be catastrophic for the quality of Wikipedia articles that deal with religious beliefs, because _every_ religious belief is POV by definition! What we have now (muslim views and other views), is a perfect vehicle to achieve NPOV on the founder question. This is very important, if muslims are to understand and to learn the views of non-muslims concerning Muhammad. (And yes, the length-argument is truly silly.) 80.135.255.49 20:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you completely misrepresent the nature of wikipedia's NPOV when you suggest that a "This is what Religion X believe; and this is what everyone else believes" formula for religious articles is in any sense appropriate. The idea that Muslims learn anything about the "views of non-muslims concerning Muhammad" by the retention of four sentences which say nothing more than "they disagree with all of this" is unsupportable.  JEREMY 02:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If four sentences is not enough, we could elaborate. Also, why is saying 'Adam, Moses, David and Jesus were not muslims' (which is what everybody outside Islam thinks) not a POV in it's own right? 80.135.255.49 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)