Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22

Please Open Editing
I Want Wikipedia to remove the protection from his page as this article has to be changed. there are many things in it that are wrong about Prophet Muhammad (P.H.B.H). So Therefore i request Wikipedia To Remove The Protection.Ahmedcena (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. For example, Mohamed (PBUH) was the greatest pedophile and terrorist that ever walked the earth. He had more than 10 wives and he liked talking to "angels" deep inside caves. Malbari666 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Except adding that would be considered Original Research and is a POV. Zazaban (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember something about Moses and Abraham and other leaders venerated by Western tradition having multiple wives? Heck, Abraham talked to a bush. And didn't Jesus see an angel in the Garden of OLives?--Gazzster (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mainly talking about the first two charges. But yeah, I find it amazing that Muhammad for doing things that many biblical figures have done. It's a bit one-sided. Zazaban (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think... that you may have crossed a few wires with your recollection of Biblical stories.--C.Logan (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Solomon has 700 wives. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you responding to me? I don't understand how that's relevant to my reply to Gazzster, so I'm unsure.--C.Logan (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The full protection has been reduced to semi. Jmlk 1  7  01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Better citation needed
Ottoman miniature. Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b)]] This won't help with the depiction of Muhammad issues obviously, but the images and artwork should be cited properly, something like this. --24.57.157.81 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's fine as it is. Jmlk  1  7  04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't receive full marks in a high school English class with the images cited the way they are now, so I'd say it isn't fine as it is.--24.57.157.81 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to fix this is to register for an account, which has lots of benefits, but if you'd rather not, improvements can be suggested here, and if nobody objects, implemented. Wily D 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if not, this seems like a sensible idea. We just need an article on Nakkaş Osman, then!  Lankiveil (complaints 13:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Ask and thou shalt receive. Wily D 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should ask more often! Fantastic work!  Lankiveil (complaints 05:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

لا يحل
لا يحل ولا يجوز وضع صور للنبي محمد نحن نعترض بشدة على هذا العمل الأخرق 82.201.162.74 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation: Does not solve may not put pictures of the Prophet Muhammad We strongly object to this senseless.
 * Reply: وأفهم انه لا يتعارض مع معتقدات المسلمين قد صور النبي محمد ، ولكن ، هو محايد ويكيبيديا الموسوعه ان لا يتقيد باي المعتقدات. مع الاحترام ، Keilana | Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation of Reply: I understand that it does go against Muslim beliefs to have pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, however, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that does not adhere to any beliefs. Respectfully, Keilana | Parlez ici 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the future, please post in English. Zazaban (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification
Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Roughly speaking, persistant vandalism of the page has forced us to disabling editing for anonymous editors and new accounts. Accounts older than four days can still edit normally.  Although sad, it's truly necessary, feel free to peruse the history to see what's happened when protection has been lifted. Wily D  17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is fully protected now (i.e., not even fully registered ordinary editors can edit), presumably because of a petition currently circulating against Wikipedia protesting the inclusion of images. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was fully protected due to the edit warring over the images. Nakon  21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fully protected because editors keep coming in and removing the images, changing them, or just in general creating a ruckus. Jmlk  1  7  21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So it was, I'll change the template. Wily D 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So the page is only editable by those in favour of upsetting Muslims..? If its been protected why hasnt a version that does not depict his picture be protected?

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


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

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


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

Request to improve the text below images
The text in the article below the image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg says, "The earliest surviving image of Muhammad ...". I hope it will help resolving the controversy to some extent if the text is changed to reflect the fact that the image does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the actual personality and is purely imaginary. The text at the moment, particularly "the earliest surviving" part is a bit misleading in its own right as it may suggest a false originality associated with the image, while there was surely no way of capturing the true look of Mohammad (SAW) after almost 6.5 centuries of His death. I agree that technically the word 'image' should be enough to suggest what I have explained, but keeping in view that we have a huge number of international readers, one cannot deny the connotation this text has, and we should be ready to make it clearer if possible for non-native english speakers. I hope my request is quite reasonable and shall gain some endorsement on the forum.

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


 * I believe the captions have since been improved with these concerns in mind.--C.Logan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I havent nocticed any improvments in these captions, and i perfectly agree with his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the FAQ
The problem with Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is that, since it's already in the Talk: space, there's no obvious place to discuss it. At least one person has inserted his arguments in the middle of the page, and this will probably keep happening. Maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia: space? Just a thought. Are there other articles that have editing FAQ sub-pages? How do they deal with this?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Evolution also has an FAQ page. I guess we should discuss it here. Hut 8.5 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the evolution FAQ, they seem to direct accounts that do this to talk.origins, and revert the changes. I don't think that this is really an applicable situation here.  See their history page. I'm guessing a gentle revert and a reminder that the FAQ page is not the place to do such things is probably be the best idea here for the moment.  Lankiveil (complaints 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC).

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

Archiving and Subpages (or, "Where is my conversation thread?")
If you are looking for the old conversation threads, they have been archived to Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22. If you wish to further discuss any issues from there, then open a new thread. On the other hand, all image related talk has been spun off to Talk:Muhammad/images, it is likely that any further discussions on this topic will also be moved to this subpage in order to reduce clutter. Lankiveil (complaints 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

Talk Page
Where are the talk page topics going? I know there has been a lot of activity here, and only a few of the resent talk page edits are in the archives. Have the rest been deleted? Rebelyell2006 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the activity is related to the depiction of images. There's a sub-page for that stuff.  It's at the top of the page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True, however it seems that some threads which are not related to the image controversy have also been moved there, e.g. this and the following two sections. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh... That looks like a negligent yank and paste. Somebody may have been a bit overzealous in a move.   It belongs here.-MasonicDevice (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Illiterate?
No offense to anyone but wasn't Muhammad illiterate? Shouldn't the article atleast mention this somewhere? JTBX (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * mmm, it is written in the Koran article (" The Quran states that Muhammad was ummi, interpreted as illiterate in Muslim tradition. According to Watt, the meaning of the qur'anic term ummi is unscriptured rather than illiterate as Muslim tradition has concluded. Watt argues that a certain amount of writing was necessary for Muhammad to perform his commercial duties though it seems certain that he had not read any scriptures. "), but since most people were illiterate at that time I'm not sure it is relevant enough to be added here too. -- lucasbfr  talk 10:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it relevent in that he preached from memory and rote? --Fredrick day (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It was actually incredibly common, and still is in many parts of the world.  ( to know the entire by rote ) Quaru (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

he lived in 7th century Arabia: we can safely assume, that in his day, literacy was the exception. the relevance of discussing Muhammad's literacy would need to be established based on quotable sources. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, one is free to look for sources, but for a merchant to be literate doesn't seem particularly surprising. Either way, see WP:RS & WP:V for what we'd want to discuss it in the article. Cheers, Wily D  12:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd think it deserves mention because illiteracy and memorization are two issues taken as important to show that Muhammad didn't just find Christian/Jewish scriptures and imitate them. It's generally considered rather important in contemporary Muslim biographies I've read. gren グレン 16:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence to you too mate, but in my opinion you are way wrong. The Prophet (SAWS) was not an illetrate. See i don't mean He had all the knowledge, but he had the BEST knowledge which is the Quran, and He was the first one to memorise the all 30 parts of Qur'an. He taught Islam to the muslims and other people and did whatever He could. Now certainly, an ill-literate can never do this. And one more thing, you also got to note that there were no schools, colleges and universities that time and world was not technologised and advanced as it is today. So literacy now and literacy then has got a high difference. And yeah mate, also remember that there were no engineers and scientists then. People were more into trade and agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveedahmedkhokhar (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Illiterate means he couldn't read. It doesn't mean he was stupid, or didn't have knowledge.  Illiteracy then is the same as illiteracy now; either you can, or you can't read.  --Haemo (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No engineers? I guess all of those Roman roads, aqueducts, stadia and planned cities must have built themselves.  But I digress.  Your argument from Muhammed's deeds doesn't really get at whether he was illiterate or not.  Accepting the Koran, for which of these parts would literacy be necessary:  Receiving the Word of God from his messanger Gabriel?  Memorizing it?  Telling others?  The answer is none.  All of these could be done by an illiterate man as they don't involve reading or writing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is likely that Muhammad was a literate because it would have been difficult for him to keep records as a merchant otherwise. He also came from one of the more noble of the Arab tribes. Illiteracy is a persistent myth. Also, there's no reason to turn this into some politicized issue. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends how you define literacy. If I can do some calculation to keep my business account, does that make me literate?
 * Here is a quote from Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, 'illiteracy' article that explains the concept of literacy at that time and whether Muhammad was illiterate or not:
 * "The inability to read or write any language. This inability puts a person at a disadvantage and is regarded as a defect in societies where culture transmission and human communication occurs through writing. In considering the situation in Arabia at the time of the prophet Muḥammad (d. 632 c.e.), however, quite different categories have to be applied: the common cultural and historical property of the tribes — their knowledge, crystallized in Arabic poetry, genealogies, and stories of tribal battles — was retained almost exclusively in memory and transmitted orally. Writing and literacy played a minor role, even though the “art of writing” was already known among the Arabs and used, for example, by tradesmen and in cities. Yet the early Arabic sources on the history of Islam do provide some evidence that Muhammad, especially as a statesman in Medina, used scribes to correspond with the tribes. Likewise, though infrequently rather than constantly, he probably had them write down parts of the quranic revelation he had received. These would have been on separate pages, not yet in one single book (cf. the widespread hadith, according to which the Prophet dictated, amlā ʿalayhi, qurʾānic verses to Zayd b. Thābit, who is well known in the Islamic tradition for the significant role he later played in the recension of the Qurʾān). Whether or not the Prophet was able to read or write cannot be established from these historical-biographical references. The qurʾānic evidence in this respect is also equivocal and unclear. There is, on the one hand, the divine declaration in q 29:47-8: “We have sent down to you the book (q.v.; kitāb)… Not before this did you recite any book, or inscribe it with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood would have doubted.” This would seem to indicate that Muhammad did not read or write any scripture “before” he received the revelation. On the other hand, q 25:5 points to attempts made by “unbelievers” (here polytheist Meccans) to discredit Muhammad by claiming that he was not receiving a divine revelation but simply “writings of the ancients” ( asāṭīr al-awwalīn,) which he had written down or which he had had written down (iktatabahā ) and which were dictated to him (tumlā ʿalayhi) at dawn and in the early evening. It is notable, even if this sentence refers to the opponents of the Prophet, that the medieval commentators understand asāṭīr al-awwalīn (which occurs nine times in the Qurʾān) to mean “writings” or “stories (taken from writings),” explaining them as “narratives that they (i.e., the ancients) used to write down in their books” (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, ix, 366)."
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Miracles in the Muslim biographies
I added the claim that Qur'an is the miracle of Muhammad (Imad marie (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Isra and Mi'raj
Currently, the section (at least on my browser) is sandwiched between two images (Persian Miniature and the Mosque picture). Perhaps they should be moved slightly farther apart so they don't sandwich the text? I don't know if this is just my browser or not. -Rosywounds (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Marriages and children
Currently there is a statement on the page that says:

"In the Islamic prayer, Muslims end with the second tashahhud asking God to bless Muhammad and his descendants just as Abraham and his descendants were blessed."

I think that the above statement is referring to:

"..., Allahum salli 3ala sayedina Muhammad, wa ala aal sayedina Muhammad, ..."

Which literally translates to:

"God bless out leader/master/prophet Muhammad, and the family of our leader/master/prophet Muhammad."

I am not sure exactly how to state this, but by no means "aal" in Arabic means decedents. It means from my humble understanding to Arabic family or tribe.

I think the statement above should be rephrased to reflect the literal translation of the Arabic Muslim prayer, or if it does not serve the purpose of talking about prophet Muhammad's descendants, it might be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handooos (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

self reference
the silly "disclaimer" or whatever you want to call it sentence at the end of the intro should be removed imo, as per WP:SELF. It makes the article look pretty unprofessional - it should be taken as assumed that every image be used appropriately and in a way that is relevent to the article for *every* entry on the encyclopedia; we shouldn't have to state it for this article in particular. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least it gives references and such. Jmlk  1  7  05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, to what exactly is he referring?  нмŵוτн τ  04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach.

Spelling
Muhammad was spelled Muhammed under Children & Marriages
 * Fixed, thanks for notifying us. A  ecis Brievenbus 01:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First sentence makes no sense
How can it use Gregorian month with Hijra year????--Goon Noot (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Near as I can tell, all dates in the lead are on the Gregorian calendar. Can you be more specific? Resolute 05:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please insert this book?

 * Fatema Mernissi: The Veil and the Male Elite A Feminist Interpretation of Women's Rights in Islam, []


 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.93.75 (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The book does not appear to be directly related to Muhammad, so would not be appropriate on this article in a "further reading" section, and does not appear to have been used as a citation. Perhaps you might try looking at Criticisms of Islam? Resolute 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look here: French (Original Edition) Le harem politique Le prophète et les femmes


 * German Der politische Harem Mohammed und die Frauen


 * Italian Donne del Profeta

Yes, the english title doesn't show that the book is about Muhammad, too. But from the title of the French, German and Italian editions you can see that it is. It is the same book in different languages, I think.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.49 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that in section See also there is a link to the film Mohammad, Messenger of God.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.75.79.49 (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the date in footnote 52 is in the wrong format (year at end instead of at beginning)--207.181.234.158 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

editprotected

This is my first time trying to use editprotected, so I dunno if I'm doing it right. Anyway, I spotted a couple of minor grammatical errors. This sentence, which is under "3.2.4 The rousing of the nomads":

One example is the assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a member of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir who had went to Mecca and written poems that had helped to rouse the Meccans to grief, anger and desire for revenge after the battle of Badr.

should be rephrased to ("went" -> "gone", and slightly rephrased the second half of the sentence):

One example is the assassination of Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a member of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir who had gone to Mecca and written poems that had helped rouse the Meccans' grief, anger and desire for revenge after the battle of Badr.

Hope this helps!

19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection
Perhaps we could try it again for awhile? See how it goes? :) Jmlk  1  7  22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean semi-protection or non-protection? This article hasn't been nonprotected in a long time, other than one or two accidents which were quickly undone. non-protection here is a nightmare. Wily D  14:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Semi of course. :) Jmlk  1  7  22:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't suggests that you make the document unprotected, mostly because of the sensitive nature of its contents. Regardless of how we feel about the topic, the topic should by all means contain the truth and the contents should respect the topic. That being said unfortunately there are many people that would edit the topic for amusement or to slander/aggravate Muslims, I would suggest that the topic remains protected but the contents go though a vigorous change by a small group of people that are intimately linked to the topic and would display the truth using the correct words and show respect for the topic. After all that is what Wikipedia is all about, sharing the truth and spreading respect and correct information to and for everyone.


 * To add to my suggestion I would say that the selected group should be of Muslims, that is because by the Law of Islam itself they are bound to tell the truth about Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W) and will do so in a respectful manner, hence the truth is displayed without disrespect. User: MostWantedReign (contribs)
 * Sorry, but that would go against the very idea of wikipedia. Anyone is free to edit any unprotected article.  Any editor who has registered three days ago can edit any semi-protected article.  There are no cabals here. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put the protection down to semi... let's see how it goes! Jmlk 1  7  00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a semi-protected template at the top of the article? Rabascius (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's there... it was just a smaller lock icon in the upper right. I switched it back to a larger, more visible template at the top for the time being.  Jmlk  1  7  21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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


 * How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

@Arrow740: If some body will forcibly wear you a skirt besides u are a man.so will u wear skirts all over ur life.how come you say many of them where converted forcibly.....You people only know how to critisize Islam..But GOD's Grace ISLAM is going to live for ever. You have jeliusy that how come muslims folllow their religion as it was.there is no change in our religion.unlike other religions which are changed day by day.Some of them release their new versions of their religion books... So please stop critisizing aur religion and do research ur own religion and you will find answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.97.158 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually    theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "capture" has a temporary connotation, like you're holding on to it for a while but will give it back or it could be captured back. I think conquer is the correct word and could be read as if "conquering the hearts of the audience".  Victory is acquired, not just control.  An army might capture a prisoner, but the fighting is over when the enemy force is conquered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.72.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I read here: "In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own.". Actualy in a lot of islam countries it is forbidden to practice other believes, or it forbidden to move to a different believe or no believe at all. Try to establish a church or a budhistic temple in those countries and speak of other believes, or as a christian consume alcholics it is simply not allowed. When one familiy member would change his belief, breaks tradition we read about it here in the news. The last couple of years several women and girls have been murdered because they supposedly had ‘stained’ the honour of their family. Also a few men were victim of honour killings. so think again its not that free, unless you believe thats all a kind of respectull freedom. As a side note, i'm not offensive and i'm not against muslims. just presenting some known old news fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's where you're reading too much into it. Which countries force people NOT to have any other belief except Islam? Saudi Arab? Lebanon? Egypt? Pakistan? Syria? Think again, my friend. Almost all Muslim countries have significant minorities that practice other religions beside Islam. Then again if there might be a society so hell-bent on eradicating all non-Muslims from among their ranks, you couldn't possibly tag them with the label of Islamic fundamentalism. It's like saying that the USA invaded Iraq just because Christianity teaches to spread bloodshed and gaining of material wealth through arm-twisting other people. It's wrong to attribute the doings of a people to a particular faith. And the "honor killing" term is a little over-ambitious and this is not really the page to discuss it. We could have a chat on our respective talk pages perhaps. uXuf (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally from what i have learned from sources is that no one was asked to leave and no one was killed in mecca. Also I assume this source is correct for he gave out a set of guidelines as to what the rules were for the bloodshed.  There may be no way to know the truth for certain as the victor always makes history.  However, the idea that Muhammed said that those who stood under the flag of bilal (a slave who Muhammed freed), those who stayed in their home, and those who stayed near a another object *slipped my mind, when i find the book i'll fix this*, would not be attacked.  Since no one went against the muslims, there was no bloodshed, nor was there any form of an attack that was recorded.  This sounds like the right idea, also i don't think that everyone converted in Mecca, for that was unlikely, sounds more like a generalization.  Another fact is it is possible to conquer people without slaughtering thousands arrow, there is such a thing as losing a debate. Also did the prophet have 11 wives, I was told that he only had 7, and never more then 4 at a time.  Ka$HisHere  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Top posted comment
My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I learned about Islam during 10 years and I never heard something like "They see him as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets of Islam.[8][9][10]". I agree for "the last" but I don't agree with "the greatest" what are your references for this term? Islam recognizes all prophets as “great”. 15 Februry 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexeedine (talk • contribs) 16:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You quote the text with the footnotes included ("[8][9][10]")- I suspect that those are the sources in question. Islam does recognize all prophets as "great", but that doesn't equate to "greatest", which is something that- to me- seems to be a fairly ubiquitous belief amongst Muslims. No other prophet receives the same treatment in terms of emulation and reverence.--C.Logan (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental traditions) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures under any circumstances. Most contemporary Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of the prophets generally should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad. The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry, where the image becomes more important than what it represents. In Islamic art, some visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from Persia of the Ilkhanate, and those made under the Ottomans, show him fully.
 * extracted from "Depictions of Muhammad"

Other Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Some, particularly Iranian Shi'a scholars, accept respectful depictions, and use illustrations of Muhammad in books and architectural decoration, as have Sunnis at various points in the past. However, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.

Consistency (Bahá'u'lláh disclaimer)

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editors who frequent this page have strong opinions about censorship & disclaimers. For this reasons, what are your opinions on the disclaimer used in the Bahá'u'lláh article? I feel that this article and that one should maintain the same policies & remain consistent, since it's the exact same issue. Also, note that on WP:NDA, it says that all disclaimers should be removed on sight, and consensus is to not have them. What should be done? Should we add a disclaimer here or remove the one form that article?  нмŵוτн τ  23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that they have it wrong in that article. I don't think the text used there is an out-and-out disclaimer though.  I'm also really not enthusiastic about dragging that article into this argument either, it's already messy enough as it is.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
 * We should have both articles do the same thing though. I mean, shouldn't an encyclopedia be consistent? Let's come to a decision of what to do w/ both articles.  нмŵוτн τ  23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that in theory consistency is highly desirable, I just think it's going to be even harder to get a consensus from two groups of editors on a controversial topic, than just one group. (on an unrelated matter, are you aware User:hmwith that your signature in Opera sometimes causes a large grey bar to appear on the page which blocks out your comments?).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
 * What? No, I've had this for a long, long time, and I've never heard that. Do you mind taking a screenshot? I have no idea why that would happen or how to avoid it, but I'd like to see the issue. Odd.  нмŵוτн τ  00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think that it's something that the community as a whole should discuss, rather than on the talk pages. This is a bigger issue than two individual articles. It's the idea of disclaimers & censorship as a whole.  нмŵוτн τ  00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The other article has changed, so this discussion no longer has value or relevance.  нмŵוτн τ  07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons link
There are relevant icons in the commons pages. Could the following be added under External Links?

$$\alpha$$ 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already there using - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical background
Scholars usually discuss the life of Muhammad in the context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Watt for example discusses the economic basis of Arabia, the Meccan politics and the social and moral background, and religous and intellectual background of the region. Anybody willing to pair up with me writing such a section as it seems to be too much for me alone doing it? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Article

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created another article, Muhammed (no images) which does not contain depictions of the prophet (pbuh) himself. There is now a link at the top of this article to find the article which does not contain images of offense to some Muslims, but is otherwise identical. All changes to either article must be made here. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't self-references supposed to be avoided? Also the notice is in sort of a random place within the intro. Oore (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really a self-reference, it's a compromise and a transclusion. Everything in the shadow article is here, just a few images aren't copied over. And yes, maybe the notice could be in a better place, but I didn't do it randomly, I really did think that was as close to the top as I could put it, and I think it should be close to the top (but not AT the top). Franamax (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean isn't saying "This article contains depictions of Muhammad" a considered a self-reference here? I'm not really sure, so I might be wrong. Oore (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be right there, I'll fall back on WP:IAR. It's beneficial to those faithful who might wish to research the prophet's life without viewing images of that prophet. It's respectful, everyone has a way out of the argument, and it gets the job done. There are precedents elsewhere, we don't want too many, this is one. Fair enough? Franamax (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have clarified that I do support this compromise but I just wasn't sure if it followed all the rules. Also I wasn't aware of the ignore all rules thing. Thanks for pointing that out. Oore (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest putting it at the end of the lead section (so it appears just above the TOC). That way it doesn't interrupt the prose, also it's more prominent while not being right at the top. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I picked that spot so it was visible on the first "page" of the browser, there's no chance of it being too obscure, it seemed like a reasonably good break spot in the prose. That said, I'm not married to it, compromise is compromise, the end of the lead does discuss the prohibition on depictions. Do what you think, just keep in mind the experience of the average user or newcomer to the wiki, some of whom are Muslim, whatever you think is right... Cheers! Franamax (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah... In my resolution I can see down to "3.1.5 Early years in Mecca". I'm not sure if it is average. If it wouldn't be on the first "page" of most people's browsers then perhaps leave it as is. I don't mind either way. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I can see down to "Family tree - In Mecca" under "Life" in the infobox and I thought I had a pretty good monitor, and it's at highest res. You're seeing 30% more than me, I sure hope you're not average. Doesn't matter, you'll be obsolete too in a few months :) The safe way to see the lowest-common-denominator for the world is probably 1024x768 or so. That's why I figured third paragraph would be good. Franamax (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be convenient for the majority of people so I retract my previous suggestion and now think it should be left where it is (or nearby if someone has a better suggestion). James086 Talk &#124;  Email 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Make one shadow article, you'll wind up having to make thousands upon thousands. There will never be a shortage of articles that people are offended by. In the end, this might be more of a job for a site-fork than a page fork. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Events will quite likely prove you correct Alec. This is a case where we provide information to the entire world and it's not hard to be sensitive. Perhaps there will be a need for an islam:wiki; we're not there yet. And it's not really a fork, it's a subset. We can always say "no more" and we can always say "even less", but we don't have to do it today. Franamax (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly opposed to a shadow article and feel there should be some serious discussion before implementing one. This is a slippery slope and could be a back door for censorship. I agree with Alecmconroy. It could easily lead to every person with an axe to grind demanding a separate article with their version represented. With all due respect, and I understand your intentions are honorable, we need to think and discuss seriously a potential site fork before doing it. Quenn (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the best place to raise those concerns would be at AN where the current action started. There are definitely some concerns with respect to site-wide policy, this is probably not the best page to talk about them. Franamax (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * absolute no chance this can be allowed to stand - where does it end? must be deleted. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An Islamic point of view Mediawiki-based encyclopaedia project seems to already exist - http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page .  But if this dealie will allow the issue to drop for a while, more power to it.  The text of this article is what needs the attention, not the images. Wily D  14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have AFD'd the article, I'm gobsmacked that someone thought that it would be a solution to this firestorm by creating such an article with virtually no discussion. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, more to the point, that this has been discussed, and rejected every single time. Judging by the early returns on the AfD, I doubt this POVFORK lasts the day. Resolute 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * lol I give it 'til 20:00 UTC. WP:SNOW and all that! At least I'll get points in multiple heavens for trying :) Franamax (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, heh. As Frederick stated in the AfD, the idea is noble, but the community has no appetite for such a fork.  If nothing else, at least we proved that consensus on the inclusion of images in this article remains as strong as ever.  FWIW, I've asked on WP:AN if an opt-out option could be created.  I don't believe Wikipedia should be censored for everyone, but if there is a way for users to self-sensor based on a list of flagged images, that is then left to individual choice.  Resolute 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted all my changes to this article. Franamax (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed if I deleted the shadow article? Especially seeing as how it now has the images as well? Resolute 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Franamax has already commented on the AfD that s/he has no objections to a WP:SNOW deletion. Hut 8.5 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ending of first sentence...
"...is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله).[7]" Something seems to be messed up there. I don't know whether it's the reference or template but the Arabic text seems to be changing the order of the text following it. Oore (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it has something to do with the non-latin character. Is that ref really necessary? If not couldn't we just have a comment in the code which would avoid the formatting problem? James086 Talk &#124;  Email 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

this is because '[' is a directionally ambiguous character. I'll try inserting an U+2060. --dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed Allah instead. I am a bit confused why rtl-lang should be necessary, since lang theoretically ought to be sufficient... dab (&#55304;&#56435;) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Any major event
If anybody knows of any major event that has not been included in this article, please let me know.I think the article can become GA once the section "The Arabian Background" gets completed. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Aminz. I'll take a look through the article just to see if everything has been covered appropriately. While I do agree that providing some context for Muhammad's life by mention of the background is essential, I'm not sure as to how much depth is suitable here. I would advise against GA until the images controversy dies down a little bit and we settle on something that we can all agree on.  ITAQALLAH   11:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The section "Arabia Background" requires some more work. For example addition of "Pre-Islamic monotheism" in Arabia which is very important. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the petition hubbub affects the article itself. It is blissfully free of dispute tags, and in terms of quality is easily a GA. Precisely because it will likely be the focus of wide attention in the near future it would be nice to get it to FA status as soon as possible. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the attempts of outside forces to force the hand of the community have nothing to do with the inherent quality of the article. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But we need to begin blocking the throwaway accounts on sight. Sane editing is becoming difficult. dab (𒁳) 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that new editors try to interfere with this article doesn't really prevent it from being well written; look at Barack Obama, Global Warming or Evolution. All are FA status articles, despite constant vandalism. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

towards GA?
The section titled "The Arabian Background" seems out of place. Has it been here for long? How shall we accommodate it within article structure? dab (𒁳) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That section seems like it could blend in with "Muhammad the Reformer", given that his role as reformer was driven by the environment he operated in. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the proper place is at the beginning of the article because 1. it explains how the Arabia look liked. How did Mecca and Medina look liked? How were the nomads. The rise of individualism is not per say something Muhammad did. It was a result of accumulation of capitalism. Muhammad's reform come within that context and come afterwards. So, I think we should keep it as it is. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is not yet complete. A new subsection on the monotheism elements in Arabia (together with scholarly view that it is an evolution out of polytheism; or the alternative Muslim view that they are reminiscent of the ancient monotheistic religion of Abraham in Arabia. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Researching the content of the infamous image, I came to note that neither the "the reformer" section, nor the Early reforms under Islam article mentions Muhammad's calendar reform. This is a giant hole in the article, Muhammad's role in the creation of the Islamic calendar is of the utmost importance. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I also think that the article itself is bulky in a few areas where we end up discussing too many opinions, or using needless attributions/quotes where concise narrative will suffice. The article size as it stands is ~117k, and compressing some passages may be beneficial. Despite this, there seems to be very little in terms of Muhammad's impact from an Islamic legal perspective in that his sunnah is one of the two textual sources considered, and the discussion of Muhammad from the Muslim perspective is also a bit patchy (i.e. little discussion about doctrine of ismah and the various views surrounding it, and other kinds of works about Muhammad such as Qadi Iyad's ash-Shifa). Perhaps the latter half of the article could be better organised too.  ITAQALLAH   12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, it shows that the article still requires much improvement :P --Be happy!! (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it true that the Islamic calendar starts from the year when Muhammed became a political/military leader? According to Robert Spencer, that's the case. &mdash; EliasAlucard / Discussion 01:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not referring to the calendar era, I am referring to the complete overthrow of the lunisolar calendar, the prohibition of intercalation, and the enforcement of a strictly lunar calendar, a step that is probably unique in world history (already because it isn't very intuitive. there were specific reasons why this seemed like a good idea at the time. these reasons need to be explained). dab (𒁳) 09:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dab, here is a deal :) I type the relevant quote from a source and you please add it to an article in wikipedia because it usually takes me forever to summarize it (my english is bad and it takes much energy from me to do so)...
 * Quote from :William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, ch. "Reform of Social Structure", p.299-300:

"'The abolition of intercalary months is a slight change introduced under Muhammad which has given a definite stamp to Islamic civilization. The pre-Islamic Arabs observed the lunar months but kept their calendar in line with the solar year by introducing intercalary months where necessary... [then the qur'anic verse comes]...The Qur'an implies that intercalation was in some respect a human activity infringing God's law, and contrasts the fixity of the latter with variability of human device. This makes it almost certain that, despite some of the accounts, the Arabs had no fixed system of intercalation. As reason for prohibition of intercalation there are two main possibilities. The method of settling when a month was to be intercalated may have been connected with paganism in some way of which we are not aware; it was certainly linked with the observance of sacred months. Or else there may have been a risk that the uncertainty about which months were sacred would cause dispute and endanger the Pax Islamica. Whatever the reason for it, this adoption of the lunar year shows again the non-agrarian character of Islam; Islam is often said to mould or influence every department of life; but it has not penetrated the agriculture life of the millions of peasants who are good Muslims. Their farming practices-and some of the religous ideas connected with them- continue in the traditional way regardless of Islam. A work like Georgics is inconceivable in any Islamic literature.'"
 * Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bahira
This article should have a short section about Bahira. It doesn't have to be anything spectacular, but a short section about Bahira is of major importance to this article, seeing how he was a big influence on Muhammed. &mdash; EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I glanced over Bahira and your suggestion seems valid. Why don't you add a section about it? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two in one of the currently existing sections ("Childhood" or "Early years") is reasonable (not a whole section, though). I think you mean that Bahira's role in foretelling Muhammad's role as a prophet is of significance here - the claims of influence are usually dismissed as medieval polemic (cf "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam).  ITAQALLAH   18:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive feedback. I just added a short section (Muhammed), basically covering the key points (i.e., that he met him young, that he has been in religious polemics, and how he is perceived in Islamic traditions). I think that just about covers it. If you feel like I've missed something, feel free to expand the section at your disposal. &mdash; EliasAlucard / Discussion 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The image of Muhammad prohibiting intercalary months
I suggest we move it further down the article to the Farewell Pilgrimage section because the prohibition happened at that time. The image is kind of odd, I should add, because it does not depict Muhammad in the scene of Pilgrimage. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And we should also move the picture of Muhammad with the Black Stone further up, right to the top, because this incident happened long before his career as a religious leader. TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That image is much more notable as the earliest surviving image. The story of Black Stone is not considered historical by many scholars nor is it significant in later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on how to improve this article
So I'm a casual philosopher, by no means an expert, and I'm consider myself neutral concerning matters of religious scholarship.... I'm sure that there are people who are going to read this who are experts, so please consider that I have one suggestion as a casual reader, and one suggestion as a wikipedian, in the spirit of hoping to improve the article.

The casual reader in me, would like to see the timeline of Muhammad's life sooner. I understand that this may not be possible with the current arrangement of images. But if I'm going to read a longer article, I would like to see a timeline, such as this, sooner. I think it would assist the casual reader in getting some contextual reference regarding what age he was, how long he stayed in any given location, and perhaps a synopsis of significant events.

My second point is criticism, one that I feel is significant, serious and should be addressed; especially considering the importance of this article.

This article references the works of scholar William Montgomery Watt extensively, almost to the point where the article violates WP:UNDUE. Doubtlessly Dr. Watt is an expert, but he's not the only one, and the level this article relies upon his references is unhealthy. The article is using his research as a crutch, and if it wasn't there, the article would topple.

Another criticism of William Montgomery Watt has nothing to do with him. But his own article. For a man of such scholarly accomplishment his own article is a joke. Barely more than a stub. If Dr. Watt is an expert concerning historical Islamic theology and it's people, his page should indicate the scope of his expertise... and it doesn't. For those of you who care about this article please pay a little respect to the giant you stand upon, and develop his article, whomever he may be.

My suggestion to the experts working on this page is too diversify references, fix citation style, link the references to Watt, and develop Watt's page to reflect his notoriety. Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. One reason that Watt is much used is that Watt's biography of Muhammad is the most comprehensive one (cf. Daniel W. Brown, A New Introduction to Islam, p.83). The guardian article about him says:"Of his many publications, he is most famous for three books on the Prophet Muhammad, acknowledged by experts to be classics in the field."
 * Furthermore, many of the statements attributed to Watt are not controversial at all.
 * Another source that is used a lot is Welch's article in Encyclopedia of Islam. See reference number 18: "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax "Muhammad", Encyclopedia of Islam Online"
 * Lastly, I didn't understood what you meant by "Watt's page to reflect his notoriety"? He is a very respected scholar of the field.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, don't get me wrong. I believe you, I think Watt's work is comprehensive, which is why his article William Montgomery Watt should be too. I attest that Watt is an expert and should be referenced.
 * Watt is an expert, a great thinker in his field, but his article is just a stub. Why doesn't his page look more like, Carl Sagan or Alan Turing who were also experts in their field. Sagan and Turing aren't any more important that Watt, they just work in different fields. If this page is going to rely on Watt and Welch heavily, then it's editors should make sure Watt and Welch's articles reflect who they are, their lives, their histories and they're credentials.
 * I recognize that their are other references that need attention too, such as Welch and possibly John Esposito. But this article needs to be comprehensive, not just in material, but in references as well. Just imagine what the page would look like if Watt, and Welch were taken off the page. This article needs to diversify it's sources.--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sparkygravity, I agree that we need to work more on Watt's article.
 * While it is true that each scholar does have his/her own interpretation and speculations based on the underlying facts, our effort has however been to avoid mentioning those interpretations and speculations but rather simply mention the underlying facts. It is of course true that the scholar's way of looking at things influences the credit he gives to certain reports. As such when a narrative had been rejected by some scholars, we simply say that some have rejected this without going into any further details in this article. The details usually are expected to be covered in main article.
 * Therefore many of the quotes attributed to Watt are simply narrating the story and his own interpretations and speculations of the narrated facts are usually excluded. In a few cases however different opinions are mentioned and contrasted with each other; in such cases, it has been tried to provide the range of scholarly views available though the article might be lacking in that respect. Having said all these, if one thinks that the narration of an incident involves Watt's own interpretation & that interpretation is not shared by others, we can either mention both or find the common part between the two, i.e. the underlying historical information.
 * The above mentioned approach is a necessity because all these incidents in Muhammad's life and the motif behind them, and their meaning varies greatly between when one listens to a secular historian or to a devote Muslims. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree which is why I believe the references should be diversified.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

About The 100
Dear Aminz, I do have respect on you and your edit and given the fact that your significant contribution in different articles including Islam, I am not going to revert your edit once again instead I prefer to have a discussion about this issue.


 * 1) You wrote in your last revert that Exactly because we don't include "popular" books - the judgment is not scholarly - it is very personal- IMO the guy who invented agriculture was far more influential on human race. With due respect to your comment I have to say, who is the judge here over the judgment of this book? You ?
 * 2) This is a third party reference, a book written and reviewed in last thirty years.
 * 3) That specific section where I placed this information showed that as if Western has only negative opinion on Mohammad which is not true at all. This particular example shows that western is also providing positive opinion about Mohammad.
 * 4) If this information is not encyclopedic (you reverted my edit first time with this lame excuse), then could you please tell me how other opinions are encyclopedic? And what is your definition for a content to be encyclopedic?

Hope you'll response here very soon. -- Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  14:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Niaz,
 * Thank you very much for your kind words.
 * Two points:
 * 1.There is no reason to think that it can stand as a summary of what Modern West as a whole thinks about Muhammad.
 * 2.
 * The author of the book is an astrophysicist not a historian.
 * Even if it were from a historian like Watt, we would not have included it because that's an interpretation of one author. Niaz, there are many authors around who interpret the facts in a quite wide way. In this article, we aim not to engage in any sort of interpretation. We rather try to explain the facts that have led scholars to the interpretations they make. Please check the 100 book and see what kind of notable evidences he is bringing up and see if everybody agrees with them, then we can discuss inclusion of those evidences to see if they were relatively significant in Muhammad's life. But I disagree with inclusion of the opinion of one person; the interpretation of one person based on facts. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad's other roles: Lede worthy?
I noticed that the line regarding Muhammad as Diplomat, General, Merchant, etc. was removed, with the comment that it was tangential to Muhammad's role as prophet. I beg to differ. Were it not for his skill at those, it is unlikely that the faith he professed would have swayed his neighbors. Should the line go back in the summary as a great deal of the article has to do with the relatively secular acts of trading, conquering and cajoling? -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think it looks out of place. I didn't say they were tangential to his central role, I said they were generally secondary to it. IMO it unnecessarily distinguishes his role as a prophet from his activities as a general, orator, diplomat, and so on, when in many instances we see them inexorably connected. So I don't think it can be simplified so easily in this manner. Some of them don't fit well, like philosopher. Muhammad didn't engage in the Greek or Aristotelian dialectic you associate with philosophers from that era, it only entered Muslim thought some time afterwards. Apostle/Rasul needs not be listed again for obvious reasons.  ITAQALLAH   23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "tangential" was the wrong word. I apologize.  I did mean to quote, not paraphrase badly.
 * On the issue, I think most of the changes you made were good. They tightened up bits that were klunky and just didn't flow.  However, because of the historical POV the article takes, it is important to note Muhammad's multifaceted skill set in the lede summary.  After all,  had he been a lousy general and gotten himself and his followers killed and his book destroyed, this article would be a lot smaller. ;-) -MasonicDevice (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MasonicDevice, the purpose of that sentence was not to show the skills Muhammad had that helped him in his mission. And I am not sure if any such information should be added to this article because it becomes very subjective and personal. If being a good general was the key to his success, we should let the readers themselves to come up with that conclusion. We don't take any instance on that. If that sentence carries that kind of connotation, I think we should avoid it per neutrality policy. As an aside point, I think the Qur'an itself at one point mentions a reason of Muhammad's success (Qur'an 3:159):"Thus it is due to mercy from Allah that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust."--Be happy!! (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call it subjective as half the article deals with military campaigns. Pray-tell though, what was the point of that sentence if not to show the skills that helped Muhammad on his mission.  We cannot "let" readers "determine" what was important.  If it isn't in the article, they won't "determine" anything at all because it's just not there.-MasonicDevice (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since half of the article deals with military campaigns, it is already shown that he was a good general. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's no reason to remove it from the summary. -MasonicDevice (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MasonicDevice, is there any reason not to add a summary of Muhammad to the intro? This seems to touch the issue of Muhammad's means of success as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wha? I must say that you have me a bit baffled as to your point as it is a little bit red herring and a little bit distortion.  It seems you picked a small, random section of the article to suggest that I am demanding that all sections be represented in the summary?  Is this the case?  If so, please understand that this is not what I am suggesting in the slightest, as there is a very big difference in size, scope, and historical importance between my examples and your counter-examples. I am merely suggesting that the summary and lede follow the style guideline WP:LEAD and accurately establish some of the many roles of Muhmmad.     Perhaps the sentence in question shouldn't stand as a paragraph of it's own.  It was a bit clunky that way, ugly to look at, and was set off as too important.  Sticking it to the preceding paragraph would work wonders.  Then, after reading how he is the last and greatest of the Prophets of Islam, a Prophet to the Druze, and manifestation of God to the Bahá'í, there follows a brief listing of the skills that allowed the man to get the job done.  I think you might not be giving the readers enough credit.  Write it well, and in the proper order, and they'll be able to figure out which is the most important.  Please riddle me this: were Muhammad an unsuccessful diplomat/general, would his role as Prophet still be as important?-MasonicDevice (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MasonicDevice, I would not personally revert if one makes that additions but I would not make it myself. One reason of avoiding such attitudes in reference to Muhammad is that in Muslim tradition he sometimes appears as God's channel; he is thus not an orator but reciter of what God has told him to say to people. To me however it is say fine to report Muhamamd's military strategies but to summarize it as Muhammad's own skills might be POV... Secular historians surely do that all the time... I dunno. I am also not sure about the reliability of the source used there to attribute those stuff to Muhamamd. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno.... I think attributing Muhammad's millitary skills to divine intervention might be a little bit more POV than summarizing them as his own skills. The article touches on Muhammad's role in Muslim tradition as well as his historical role.  I'm adding the sentence back in so that the summary doesn't ignore what is also an important attribute.-MasonicDevice (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See, part of the problem I think lies in how it's being presented. You refer to some of them (i.e. diplomacy or military) as secular, whereas in many instances his activities in these fields had a distinctly religious motivation or foundation (letters to rulers, constitution of Medina; ghazwa/battle of Badr, and so on). I don't think it's accurate to necessarily "secularise" these qualities by presenting them as separate from his role as prophet. I think a better solution would be to just overview the diplomacy/military aspects (i.e. quickly summarising the battles and treaties/agreements/charters/letters etc.) and let readers judge for themselves. But I'll remove "philosopher" and "apostle" as per the reasons explained above.   ITAQALLAH   16:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the removals you mentioned. Those are obviously redundant.  The rest, should stand, as they are not redundant to "prophet".  While Muhammad's motivations may have been religous, the actions themselves, and skills demonstrated, are not.  All the faith in the world won't help bad stratigic thinking or tactical generalship (Examples of bad tactics or strategy leading to defeat in spite of divine inspiration : Hirohito, David Koresh).   While wars and battles may have religous motivation, solidering and generalship is a secular activity.  Again I ask:  Had Muhammad been a lousy general, would his role of prophet be important?  I think that as the article stands now, a reader would be able to see that Muhammad combined a strong faith-based motivation with good tactics of his own creation.  Much as we might like to invoke them, gods don't fight wars.  Men (and women) do.-MasonicDevice (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (un-indent)~Itaqallah - while the roles aren't "seperate", they are "distinct" and those of which his importance is substantial should probably be mentioned in the lead. That he was a merchant - maybe not, as historical merchants go, he's not terribly important.  That he was a religious leader is - as historical religious leaders go, he is terribly important.  I'll argue that as a political leader/general, he is historically important, but I'm not sure I can back it up without using my own perception.  It's worth noting that the American Supreme Court's fresco of eighteen important historic lawmakers picks him as one of these eighteen, although it was carved in 1930s America (not exactly a hotbed of respect of Islamic culture or thinking).  His roles as religious leader, political leader and lawmaker, while intertwined, all independantly make him a historically noteworthy person.  They all should be acknowledged from the get-go. Wily D  17:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see both of your (MasonicDevice and WilyD) points. I don't think it's much of a big deal really, perhaps I'm just being pedantic. I'm happy to let it stay though.  ITAQALLAH   17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Muhammad probably wasn't even the best Arab general of his time period; Khalid ibn Walid is generally considered the greatest Arab general after his victories against the Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire, with the Battle of Yarmouk, Battle of Walaja, and Battle of Firaz being perhaps his greatest victories. Muhammad wasn't a terrible general, but I don't see why this has been made into a big deal when it seems like a rather innocuous edit. Certainly he was a good general, but I'm not sure whether or not people here are pushing this for the sake of implying that Muhammad "spread his faith by the sword," which is just as POV as insisting divine intervention was the reason for his success. I would not care about this edit either way, IMO. With that said, Muhammad was a messenger before he was a general; that is probably how he saw himself, but without a doubt that is how his followers saw him. Secularizing Muhammad's history simply makes no sense. Muhammad was not a secularist. Secularism as an ideology did not exist in pre-modern society. Even when one looks at military campaigns, I believe the Qur'an discusses the Byzantine-Sassanid wars, and describes the Byzantine (Christian/Roman) victory in one of the later campaigns as a victory for believers, due to Islam's recognition of Christianity (there is a Hadith I believe that predicts the Byzantine victory, but I don't think its reliable). -Rosywounds (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming he was the "best" general, as that's a judgement call that's not supported by included sources, and doesn't really matter to the scope of the article. It might matter in an artcle on Muslim conquests of Arabia.  I'm only suggesting that the lead accurately reflect the rest of the article.  You're right that "speading faith by his sword" is POV, but in the limited sense it's being used here, it is the POV supported by the evidence and the construction of the rest of the article.  He's recognized as a skilled enough general and diplomat to not get himself and his follwers killed.  He's recognized as a skilled enough legislator to earn a spot on the SCOTUS frieze.  Whether he had religious motivations is really beside the point, because the role of Prophet and the role of General, Diplomat, or to a lesser degree, Legislator are distinct roles.  And yes... while secularism as a concept may not have existed before the modern era, history critizies generals who ordered their troops slaughter, not the gods that inspire them. -MasonicDevice (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

' ` and ʿ
This article represents ʿayn in multiple ways. Can we agree that ʿ is the standardized form of this? ' is obviously a poor choice because it doesn't differentiate ʿayn from hamza (ʾ). I know Wikipedia is a rather hard place to standardize such issues but--let's get it straight on this article and try to keep it up. gren グレン 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Go for it!  нмŵוτн τ  02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * use ʿ. Anything else is just laziness. I do use ` sometimes, but only because I cannot always be bothered to dig for the proper character. Standardization cleanup work towards ʿ is always appreciated. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Images on the Arabic Wikipedia
I have made some edits on the Arabic language Wikipedia, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Wikipedia is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images

One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.

Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden. (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)

Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article. I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate. I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Wikipedia is not censored".

I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Wikipedia does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution. If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Wikipedia censored. Resolute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The only solution which has been offered upto this point was to not show any images at all. I like the opt-out solution, and I can agree that an opt-in solution would be objectionable to many. Could we define an additional skin, which has a class "sensitive visual material" to be used on each image, which in the normal skin is "collapsible" and in the additional skin is "collapsible collapsed"? Then a warning at the top of the article for users to select a different skin could do the trick. Or am I mistaken?  &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 09:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an was not authored by Muhammad
The Qur'an is not the sayings of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)as mentioned in the wikipedia article 'Muhammad'. The qur'an is the word of God and was revealed to Muhammad through angel Gabriel who delivered the divine inspiration to Moses, Jesus, etc. before Muhammad (PBUH).

Muhammad's sayings are called 'Hadiths' and they are extremely respected by Muslims and are considered the second source for the Islamic faith after the Qur'an. But unlike the Qur'an which is preserved from error and corruption by God Himself, some changes happened in some 'Hadiths' and these changes are known. There are sayings that are 'Sahih' completely accurate, 'Da'if' the source of narration is not very trusted, and 'mawdoo' which are completely false and were never told by Muhammad (PBUH). The Qur'an contains 114 chapters. Although Muhammad was knows as the honest and the trustworthy even before the message of Islam was revealed to him and that he never committed major sins, Some verses of the chapters of the Qur'an contain admonition from God about the way Muhammad (PBUH) handled a certain situation.

If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?

Chapter(80.1-12)

"ABASA" (HE FROWNED)

'(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,

Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).

But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-

Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?

As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,

To him dost thou attend;

Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).

But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,

And with fear (in his heart),

Of him wast thou unmindful.

By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:

Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.'

These verses of this chapter treat a certain incident which took place in the early days of Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) was busy with a few dignatories of the tribe of Quraish, explaining to them the message of Islam, when Ibn Umm Maktoom, a poor blind man, interrupted him. Unaware that the Prophet was busy with those people, the blind man asked him repeatedly to teach him some verses of the Qur'an.

The Prophet (peace be on him) was not very pleased at this interruption. He frowned and turned away from Ibn Umm Maktoom.

This chapter opens by criticizing the Prophet's behaviour in this incident. It lays down clearly the values and principles upon which Islamic society is founded and states the true nature of the message of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashaanwar (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "If Muhammad was the author of the Qur'an why would he document a blunder of his and also blame himself?"
 * What? Don't Muslims have the concept of a tell-all auto-biography?  I kid.  But more seriously, I don't think we say that "Muhammad authored the Qur'an".  What we do say is that "the relevations (or Ayats, lit. Signs of God),  Muhammad reported recieving until his death, form the verses of the Qur'an."  Is there something wrong with that, or something I'm missing?  -MasonicDevice (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?
Is there any general agreement (for instance between islamic scholars) to how "consumation" (sp.?) of the marriage with then nine year old girl should be interpreted? I heard someone claim that it clearly means he had sex with her, but the person claiming this is strongly anti-islamic, so it would be interesting to know what other interpretations would be possible (if any) and how moslems (sp.?) would typically interpret it. / JBobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.62 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it honestly even really matter in the end? Time's were a lot different 1400 years ago in terms of taboo and sexual encounters with an age of consent.  I can't find much information in either direction personally, and I doubt that anything could be added without sounding POV.  Jmlk  1  7  21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article discusses this topic. The article talk page is not the forum to raise such questions that do not deal specifically with article edits, adding, or removing information from the articles.  See WP:NOT. --Veritas (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an article about Muhammad, the person (and not a theological treatise). If he had sex with a nine-year-old girl it is most certainly worthy of note. And all the sources - including Aisha herself - say that he did. Do Muslims deny this? TharkunColl (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the initial comment, and then look at what Veritas said. This is not a forum to discuss the general issue, nor whether or not Muslims deny it.  ITAQALLAH   23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. This article is about Muhammad, and should give equal weight to those opinions that are against him as for him. He has been criticised for being a paedophile in many places, and the article should discuss this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can show us quality material from scholarly journals, textbooks where the matter is discussed - bring them to the table, in many places tell us nothing. what quality material specifically do you feel should be added to the article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try these images - many of them play on Muhammad's paedophilia in some way. Incidentally, your insistence on only using academic sources is POV. An encyclopedia should address all relevant views of him. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just used scholarly journals as a short-hand and you can present any quality sources you have - Is that website the idea of a quality source when dealing with one of the most studied men in history? a site that starts it's articles with titles like Where's this bitch? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It would come under "Muhammad in popular culture". Why doesn't this article have one of those? TharkunColl (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because that is a quality notable site that we would report on in such a section? Is that your proposal? that's the source you want us to consider for inclusion in such a section? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, why isn't there such a section? Is this article already censored? TharkunColl (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's actually requires a separate article because of the length it would reach, feel free to start the section here or a new article on the matter. So, back to my question - is that site the sort of material you consider to be a quality source that should be included in an article? --Fredrick day (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * and it seems the marriage issue is covered here --Fredrick day (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fredrick, given this, it might be best to just not feed him.  ITAQALLAH   00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was called a hypocrite by another user, and responded in kind. He didn't even have the honour to do so in English, but insread used an Arabic term that I had to look up. TharkunColl (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A primary source of opinion (such as the images on the website you linked) does not fall within the bounds of reliable sources, and so runs afoul of Wikipedia policies on original research and neutral point of view. If you really feel that those images have a place in this article, find a secondary source, i.e., one that discusses those images in a neutral context.  In terms of "Muhammad in popular culture", you would still need secondary sources that establish the notability of those images in a popular culture context.  You don't achieve entry into popular culture simply by doing something avant garde or anti-establishment - if something is truly a part of popular culture, then it will be popular enough to have ample secondary sources discussing it.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. I was already pretty sure that there'd be some really good reason why we shouldn't include such things. TharkunColl (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be trolling - you are a long-term editor, you know our policies on sources, you know how we write articles. So put up or shut up, you want to write such a section - you write a section and you provide RS for it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * trivia (Trivia sections) says we discourage trivia ("in popular culture") sections. Nothing to do with censorship. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this really more than footnote worthy? It doesn't have much to do with Muhammad's role in history.  It might fit in a section on his family/clan but anything more than a sentence on the subject is clearly pushing a POV.-MasonicDevice (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It has more to do with Aisha than it does with Muhammad. Even so, it is rather irrelevant to Muhammad's importance in history. The Virgin Mary didn't exactly give birth to Jesus when she was 18+, did she? Let's be a little realistic, rather than politicizing this issue. Up until 19th century Europe, it was still commonplace for women to be married off "as minors." -Rosywounds (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

1400 years ago women were married once the entered puberty, and it was normal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.205.119.197 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The archives of Talk:Aisha are full with trollbaits regarding this issue. It's a tired subject inflated out of proportion by Jack Chick and friends. It's the 7th century. If you want to discuss early medieval marriage customs comparatively, do it under some relevant title. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * the current mention of her age (" Aisha, who became Muhammad's favourite wife of his later years, was six years old when he married her and nine when he consumated the marriage...") is just fine (though perhaps requires a source in the sentence such as "accordig to the koran" or "according to muslim scholars"... i'm no expert on the mater. theres nothing "wrong" with this, according to some biblical traditions, Isaac's wife was only 3 years old when they married, this isn't mentioned in the article on Isaac, it probably should be.  SJMNY (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's from the Aisha article. In any case, it's not a pressing issue on this article... especially as we provide no ages for any of the other wives.  ITAQALLAH   20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arabian Background
In my opinion, this paragraph is really lengthy, and it's not strongly related to Muhammad, maybe it is more related to the Islam article? it discusses the spread of Islam in it's early days. Imad marie (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is lengthy but I think one needs to carefully summarize it. I think it is kind of relevant because it talks about the situation of pre-Islamic Arabia (background here is about the background of Arabia and not Muhammad's own background) which is setting the stage for the later career of Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about renaming the section to "Muhammad 's character impact on Arabian Peninsula", or something like that. And the section discusses how Muhammad was able to influence the Arabian Peninsula, and turn its people from unorganized tribes to more organized people in the Islamic civilization. How does that sound? Imad marie (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Imad, the section is not about the impact of Muhammad's character but rather about the economic and social circumstances that favored (or caused according to Marxist historians) the rise of Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But that wouldn't shorten the length of that para. What about making a new article for that and writing here a summary of that article? -- S M S  Talk 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the length of the content to be added. Do we have enough references to create a new article for it? Imad marie (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did have the idea of creating another article in mind. But it may take sometime... But if one can make a fair summary of the current section, that would be appreciated. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the section. Hope it looks good now. Will create a main article for that as soon as I get enough material for that. Right now, it is here User:Aminz/Arabian_Context --Be happy!! (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for the FAQ
I've been reading the petition, and I've noticed that more and more people are asking why, with so many signatures to the petition, the images still haven't been removed. Should we add an explanation about this to the FAQ? And if so, what arguments should we use? I would recommend two: 1. Consensus on Wikipedia is formed through civil discussion on Wikipedia, not through outside petitioning and voting; 2. We have no way of verifying that the people who signed the petition are who they say they are. It is very well possible to create a bot to stuff the petition with fake signatures. A ecis Brievenbus 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Second point, should we use the FAQ to address some of the arguments by the signatories? Arguments such as:
 * "This is not allowed in Islam"
 * Suggested reply along the lines of: "Whether this is allowed in Islam is a matter of debate, see our article Depictions of Muhammad. But even if it were not allowed in Islam, Wikipedia is not bound by the Islamic law."
 * "Islam should be respected."
 * Suggested reply along the lines of: "Wikipedia is not in the business of respecting or disrespecting Islam, or any other religion. We are an encyclopedia, and we strive to give a comprehensive and neutral description of any subject. But respecting a religion does not mean abiding by its rules. Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic law, or by the laws of any religion for that matter. Wikipedia may contain content that followers of a religion may find inadmissable. See for instance our article on Xenu."
 * Any thoughts? A  ecis Brievenbus 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that your first point is all you would need. This "2. We have no way of verifying that the people who signed the petition are who they say they are. It is very well possible to create a bot to stuff the petition with fake signatures." may encourage them to try and justify petition which is in fact irrelevant because of WP:DEMO.--Garycompugeek (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to know how you get those pictures, because they are in farissi language, and they show some cartoons..... I think wikipedia has to show the real things. I know you dont have any pictures about the prophet mohammed. so you have to be sure of the origine of anything in your website.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisouad (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What petition? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea... with countless randoms or single-purpose accounts beating up on the page over it, it could help. Jmlk  1  7  21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This petition, which has been covered i.a. by the New York Times. A  ecis Brievenbus 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

fix this typo
In the "Muhammad in Medina" section, subsection "Hijra to Medina" there is the following typographical error:

"Muhammad instructed his followers to emigrate to Medina until virtually all of his followers had left Mecca. Being alarmed at the departure of Muslims, according to the tradition, the Meccans plotted to assassin Muhammad." Of course this should read "assassinate." I would correct this myself, but this article is locked. Thank you.


 * Fixed. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this external link
I came across this well written short biography of prophet Mohammed, it seems neutral, objective, and addresses some controversies in his history. http://www.islam4women.org/?page_id=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.178.49 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

this article is not following NPOV guidelines
i think this article on wikipedia is not following the wikipedia guidelines on Neutral point of view, and only represent one sided view of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). we we should put a big warning label to show this to our readers.--78.149.98.252 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take action without actionable feedback. Could you be more specific? Resolute 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will gladly add the tag if you give sufficient reason that it needs to be there. I don't see it personally, but that's just me. Peter Deer (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any NPOV issues myself... Jmlk  1  7  00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not guess but maybe the IP is referring to over-emphasis of the historical aspects of Muhammad's life rather than his sayings. If so, there is a section on "mission" that summarizes the matter. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'll add my 2 cents and say that some historical events like say how the battle of Badr was brought about; I've read versions of it which heavily differ from the one given in the article both in Muslim and non-Muslim authors books. But I see the "simple" problem with that is that if a user has a problem with something like that, its his duty to search the authors which say different and comment in the article on those differences or bring them to the talk first for discussion and addition. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If you can cite reliable and credible sources on these differing accounts it would certainly help to balance out something in advance before it becomes an issue in itself. Peter Deer (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I might another time, maybe during spring break, but otherwise I was just citing an example of what he might have been talking about as well as a solution for him to work by if he sees it as a big issue. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jedi Master MIK, can you please clarify one big difference in the narrative presented here and the ones you have read.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok fine but like I said I was only making a personal observational example with what he might be talking about and I have no intention of changing anything w/o sources or debate. The citation by Rodinson states that the Muslims were already set up at Badr to sabotage the Meccan caravan w/ 300 strong.  However, whenever I've read that accounts of the battle of Badr, they state there were Muslim scouts who gave away their position and Abu Sufyan looking out for the safe passage of the caravan sent ahead a messenger to send back an army and when Muhammad heard of that, then he sent 300 (313-315 in other accounts too) to Badr where they met and fought.  There are also other accounts w/ small detail changes here and there but they don't ever make the Muslims look this belligerent and on top of everything.


 * On a side note, many of you might not agree and will probably consider this my POV and thats fine I'm not here today to change hearts and minds but I think Rodinsons as partial as Muir or Washington which judging from them not being used isn't much and if anyone's ever read his work and noted the tone, usage of words, etc., they might agree too. Also this isn't the only citation I see by him in the article I speculate. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 78.149.98.252 is refering to the fact that, in line six of the article, the quote "The principal and most credible source of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an"[12][13], implys that any source cited in the remainder of the article, that is not in fact the Qur'an, is somehow unreliable, and in my opinion, refering to a religious text as "the most credible" in any way is a blatant use of Peacock terms, But then again I can't speak for 78.149.98.252 and perhaps that is not what he means at all.Pappin76 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not everything that is written in the early Muslim writings is authentic. The earlier it is, the more reliable it is. Just as a 3th century book on Jesus is less reliable than a 1st century book. The Qur'an is most credible source because it is closest in time to the real incidents and has been faithfully transmitted to us. The traditions on the other hand while containing a lot of useful data, should be carefully analyzed sentence by sentence in a quest for historical Muhammad. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The authenticity of the Quran is so widely accepted as to make it a reliable, if perhaps less than what some would call 'neutral,' source. The sayings within the Quran can be with little doubt attributed to Muhammad. As for the Quran as a source of historical records, really there aren't many historical records in the Quran, most in that regard are recorded in hadith. Peter Deer (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Mighty powers of our world... the guy wrote something partial two days ago, barely making a statement, and didn't say anything else and now you guys have been trying to second guess what he is referring to... catch your breaths instead and just wait and see if he comes back to be just a tiiiiny little bit more specific ;-) PureRumble (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This guy has said nothing other than that the article was not neutral, and we are examining the neutrality of the article. There is nothing wrong with that. Peter Deer (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * May be this guy was saying was raising the same old pictures issue again. Because the petition has more then 400000 votes, that show drawing of Muhammad is one a word of extreme left, so by publishing these images Wikipedia is giving undo weight to these leftist peoples. --82.12.121.230 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, that petition in quite flawed and we don't have any cause to report to it. Jmlk  1  7  23:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if we were to take such petitions into consideration, the arguments there are seriously flawed. Please count the vote stuffing. I don't think it's very likely for people from three different countries to make the exact same comment with exactly the same typos and punctuation errors in about 10 seconds time. This happens very often in the petition. Then count the trolling, of people trying to insult the signatories. Then discard the threats that we will be killed, not a persuasive argument. My guesstimate is that about 150,000 to 200,000 of the signatures are valid. Then discard the vague signatures without comment. Then look at what remains. There are basically two arguments in the petition: 1. this is not allowed in Islam. Rebuttal is that Islamic laws and regulations don't apply to us; 2. these pictures are no accurate representation of Muhammad, we have no way of knowing what he looked like. As far as I'm concerned, this is the only valid and on-topic argument in the petition. But it has been established that these depictions were intended by the artists to depict Muhammad, which is sufficient. Whether these artists did a good job at it is irrelevant. A  ecis Brievenbus 09:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here, here! I think the above comment is one of the most intelligent bits of writing on the internet today. Well said Aecis! RaseaC (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A note to the unwary
Do I detect some hysteria developing here ? Hysteria can often be more dangerous than the thing that generates it. The current concerns of image usage should be handled by standard Wikipedia procedures. In my opinion this article can achieve what Wikpedia does so well. It can educate people about why images of Muhammad have become to be frowned upon in the first place. This is why the wonderful geometric Islamic artwork was developed...because actual depictions of Muhammad were verboten. Maybe if more people can understand this then the dispute can be resolved. DJ Barney (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article makes mention of these facts.-MasonicDevice (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

re Talk: Muhammad/FAQ
This is about the last section of the FAQ, where a bunch of disturbing and unpleasant images are listed, with the alleged purpose of convincing readers that Wikipedia is not censored.

I edited this:


 * Changed title from "Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?" to "Isn't censorship already employed in Wikipedia?"
 * ("protect the masses" is a tongue-in-cheek title, IMO. Are we trying to give further offense?)


 * I expanded the explanation of why the images are listed there.


 * I added a fuller warning about the nature of the images.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although what you say does have some merit I do agree with the editor that reverted your changes, frankly I don't see any need for them.
 * I'm not sure that protect the masses is tongue-in-cheek and so there is no reason to change the title.
 * I think the explanation already there is quite sufficient.
 * The warning seems a little OTT and, at the very least, poorly worded.
 * Until we have any major complaints about the FAQ I think it should stay as is.RaseaC (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

The first change is entirely appropriate. The line "Isn't censorship already employed to protect the masses?" is pretty well tongue in cheek, not to mention that it doesn't jive with the answer given, which is "No." There ARE quite a few countries (China springs to mind) where censorship IS used to "protect the masses." This FAQ isn't about protecting the masses; it's solely about Wikipedia policy. The second change is also a pretty good idea, in my opinion; it's a good clarification. The third change, on the other hand, is a bit much. The bright red warning is certainly attention-grabbing, but the section headings of each type of picture (blasphemous, racist, gruesome, pornographic) render it redundant.

Dr.  e  X  treme  20:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a 3O, since I've edited this page before, but I agree with the changes as described (warning about the nature of the images, removal of "protect the masses" and developing the explanation of why any images are listed at all). It doesn't seem like a big deal, and unless there are substantive reasons not to do it (aside from it seeming unnecessary to some) it should remain or be put back. Avruch  T 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion


I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The discussion seems to be about the content of another talk page. Is there an unresolved dispute? I will watchlist this page for replies; please respond here. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉  04:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I offer third opinions if anyone's interested. Please inquire if so. BoL (Talk) 04:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re third opinion. The discussion is about Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. That page is being used to provide supplementary information about the article Muhammad and is linked from the "important notice" template at the top of this page. (Since that page is being used as an information page, discussion about that page was put here. There is also some discussion in the edit summaries on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ)


 * The discussion is about the wording in the last section. The purpose of that section is to address the question of whether there is censorship in Wikipedia. The section asserts that there is not and goes on to illustrate that point by providing links to a number of images.  The images have been selected to make the point "if there was censorship, these images probably would not be in Wikipedia, ergo, there is not censorship."


 * There's been more discussion since the 3rd opinion was requested so it is not now a 3rd opinion situation. More like a 5th. However, the discussion has not been totally conclusive. I believe further input would be helpful.  Thanks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is your first time doing a 3O, the case will be on the IRC channel (Link). If you wish, the mediation may commence on 03:00 (UTC). BoL (Talk) 01:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm...mediation is not third opinion, and no informal mediation has been requested nor agreed to. "Third opinions" don't have "cases" - it's simply you give your opinion about how best to resolve the dispute. Daniel (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, all I know about this is about some image. I would say just...ahhh...damn. To be honest, I really don't know. I believe Daniel's a good mediator or...erm...yeah...bye. BoL (Talk) 03:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and why would it occur off-wiki on an IRC channel? -- Fredrick day 10:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not even really a dispute. Rather, more of an issue with an unusually large number of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED. Jmlk 1  7  08:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jmlk: As the person guilty of beginning this increasingly confusing conversation (with the section "re Talk: Muhammad/FAQ" just above), I have to say it is NOT about the "no censorship" policy. It is merely a discussion about the wording used in the last section of Talk: Muhammad/FAQ. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's my bad there. :) Jmlk  1  7  21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Birth Date of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH):
In all sources I have seen, the birth year of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is 571 instead of 570. The actual date is 20th of April 571, 20.04.571. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirfan (talk • contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia Britannica says he was born in 570.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there an authoritative source that would indicate the alternate date then it should be considered, but Britannica is pretty hard to top, they tend to do things by the book as far as authentication. Peter Deer (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Encyclopaedia of Islam is the authorative source in this matter, not the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (they even refer to Karen Armstrong - that is definitely not a fitting source for that matter!). As Albrecht Noth points out the sources giving an exact birthdate of the prophet don't refer to any source. The fact is that we can't tell exactly when he was born.

From the Encyclopaedia of Islam (article "Muhammad"): ''The very first question a biographer has to ask, namely when the person was born, cannot be answered precisely for Muhammad. We have no certain chronological data for the Meccan period of his life. His activity in Medina covered approximately ten years, from the Hidjra ... in 622 A.D. until his death in 632. Most of the sources say his activity as a prophet in Mecca also lasted ten years, but there is considerable difference of opinion on this question. A statement in a poem ascribed sometimes to Abu Kays b. Abi Anas and sometimes to Hassan b. Thabit (ed. Hirschfeld, no. 19) says that his prophetic activity in Mecca lasted “ten and some years”. Muhammad's biographers usually make him 40 or sometimes 43 years old at the time of his call to be a prophet, which, taken with the statements on the length of the Meccan and Medinan periods of his prophetic activity and his age at the time of his death, would put the year of his birth at about 570 A.D. When, however, tradition says that he was born in the “Year of the Elephant” ... this cannot be accepted, since Abraha's attack on Mecca must have taken place considerably before 570. There is better reason to believe that he may have been born later in the 570s. Since the traditional accounts differ widely and also contain elements that are clearly based on later legend, it is best to leave open the question of the year of Muhammad's birth. For the period of his life before he came forth as a religious reformer the Kuran has only the indefinite expression umr, in sura X, 16: “I lived among you an umr before it”, where the term is usually interpreted “a lifetime” and could just as well mean 35 as 40 or 43 years.'' --Devotus (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough. Peter Deer (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a great great amount of uncertainty, Alford Welch, tells us. But...
 * But one has also take into account the fact that the academics have to publish papers in order to get a career and fame. In order to publish a nice paper, one needs to show others that "you were all wrong" or come up with a new theory. Islamic history is not something like science that new data would be created everyday. The original sources are all there. Academics are very fortunate though that for much of the history there is not enough sources (and it is the academics themselves who define "enough"). Here is what makes academics look innocent: if something happens today, witnesses after some time start saying different things; what can we then say about something that happened 1400 years ago. This sad truth has given the academics enough flexibility to create their own curious theories; to project their own cultural tendencies and secular views back into the history. What Moulavi (Jalaluddin Rumi) said in relation to the philosophers of his time can be more accurately applied to current academia:
 * "'The rationalists' legs are wooden Wooden legs are very fragile."
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That was rather eloquently put, Aminz. And yes, I certainly agree that both in the realms of science and religion human beings have a spectacular capacity to take a little thing and run with it completely away from the actuality of what it suggests.
 * I think, however, that's one of the interesting things about Wikipedia, is that baseless arguments and unverifiable claims have so much less weight than they do in IRL discussion, where people are able to excuse a lack of an individual encyclopedic memory of references and sources. But I digress quite a bit; indeed it has not been credibly proven that God's Messenger was born on a specific date, and to assert such a thing would be unencyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution may then to say that "According to the tradition, he was born in ..." - Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aisha
This wikipedia article states that Aisha was 6 when she was married to the prophet and 9 when that marriage was consumated. Many historical accounts including Ibn Hisham as well as Ibn Ishaq point to aisha as being at least 16 because she was allowed to fight in Battle of Uhud and Badr, which for women under the age of 15 was not allowed. This is also referenced in many Hadith in both Sunni as well as Shi'a literature. In conjuction, a reasonable assumption is that she was promised to the prophet at the age of nine (an age which is often referenced in hadith when talking about aisha and the prophet) and the marriage was not consumated until after puberty. This was a rule the Prophet proposed himself that women must be sexually mature before consumation of marriage, why would he violate his own laws? I completely dont understand why there is even a mention of her at age 6, the prophet did not meet her until she was nine. Furthermore, this article doesn't reference that claim..which is often disputed between muslims even today. Many muslims feel she was 14 when the prophet both married her and consummated the marriage others feel he married her at 9 but did not consumate the marriage until she as 14. Clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.42.63 (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, above comment was made by me. forgot to sign in. --RafiMando (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, quite a difference. If you happen to have any good sources, that would help a lot. :)  Jmlk  1  7  18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Gladly. I do not have online texts of Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq located but when I do I shall reference the specific points I'm talking about. For now I will quote Maulana Ali who in the 19th century retraced Isnad of the hadith (he re-examined its authenticity) and upon doing so discovered accounts that were largely ignored when speaking of Aisha's age. The evidence shows she was 9 or 10 at betrothal and 14 or 15 at consumation. Here is the quote: “A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”


 * This excerpt was taken from Maulana Mohammad Ali, Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad, 1992 U.S.A. edition, p. 30, note 40. Ali is well referenced by Islamic sources of both west, sunni, and shi'a origin as being of high academic quality.--RafiMando (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Caption
There's something that looks like a caption box midway down the page that looks wrong. It extends the entire width of the article and is occluded on the right hand side. From the text inside it looks like it has something to do the the image issue. I've not been a part of the argument, so I'm not sure if the consensus would be to reinsert the image or remove the now pointless box. I'd just like to bring it to the attention of those familiar with the article. It appears below the "Conquest of Arabia" heading and begins with "17th century Ottoman copy..."142.151.138.241 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. RaseaC (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammed In Hindu Scriptures
Hello, I have been hearing a lot of talks on T.V, Mosques, Masjids, Religon Leader Speeches (even on T.V.), Schools etc ... That P.Mohammed is mentioned in Hindu Scriptures. I did some research and came up with some links perhaps you might want to go through.

Personally I believe Muhammad was mentioned in Hindu Scriptures because a Hindu could believe any religon like Christianity, Judaism or what ever a Hindu chooses (see ) and many Hindus that are followers of Christianity also have some kind of way relating back to Hinduism (which i will get into later). Further more, Prophet Mohammed made movements to Asia as well, and perhaps mentioned about Islam to Hindus and his position which gained trust and eventually became an book about him in Hinduism. Im not saying that Hindus are Muslims or we are followers of Islam, Hindus are Hindu and have their own way of beliefs and have over 1 billion prophets.

Prophet Mohammed is known to be the Kalki Avtar in Hindusim known as the God of the Worlds. The Kalki Avtar

The Bhavishya Purana is a Holy Book that contains prophets like Jesus, Mohammed etc.. further more Prohpet Muhammad is also metioned in the Bhavishya Purana (see ) - Image of PMuhammad in the Bhavishya Purana.

Here are some sources i gatherd from watching Religous T.V shows and browsing through Google:


 * http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/188/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-Prediction-of-Islam/
 * http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/187/1/Bhavishya-Purana-The-History-of-the-Bible/
 * http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=275
 * http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Hoaxes/kalkiavatar.html
 * http://www.asnislamicbooks.com/title_list1.htm
 * http://www.central-mosque.com/compreligion/MuhammadInHinduScripture.htm
 * http://answering-islam.org.uk/Mna/hindu.html
 * http://darulislam.info/Sections-article9-p2.html
 * http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/mhindu.htm
 * http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
 * http://www.islamherald.com/html/interfaith/hinduism/kalki_avatar.htm
 * http://www.geocities.com/indiafas/Hindu/purana1%5B1%5D.gif - Photo of Bhavishya Purana

There seems to be a lot of Refs and Videos (even Al Jazeera) and It also gets presented on local T.V. by Faith Channels.

So, if in this Muhammad article people can mention their views like (Christianity view of Mohammed) and (Jew view of Mohammed) i think a Hindu has a right to also create an article of their view of Prophet Muhammad and should also be mentioned on Muhammad Wiki page as well. --DWhiskaZ (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So can me and my team create the article ? and will it be added on the Muhammad page.? i mean if you can put (Christian view of Muhammad) and (Jew view of Muhammad) i think an Hindu has every right to add their prespective as well. so do we have permission ?--DWhiskaZ (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The things that need to be considered in this regard are neutrality, verifiability, notability, and a quality encyclopedic presentation. If you can provide these things then I see no reason why it could not or should not be included in wikipedia, and would in fact be a valuable resource of information for people seeking to better understand the relationship between Hinduism and Abrahamic religion. Peter Deer (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad is not the founder of Islam.
Hello there, This is my first comment on wikipedia and I think it deserves to be noted. Firstly, the article is a primary source for both non muslims and muslims from different parts of the world. In the introduction of this article, it claims that Muhammad is the founder of islam. In fact, this statement is shown in the first sentence. "Abu l-Qasim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh al-Hashimi al-Qurashi (Arabic: أبو القاسم محمّد; Transliteration: Abu l-Qāsim Muḥammad[2]; Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)[3][4][5] (c. 570 Mecca – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] was the founder of the world religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh)"

So, let us investigate how Muhammad is indeed NOT the founder of Islam. All the prophets before Muhammad: Abraham, Jesus, Moses, etc. were sent for one purpose- to make people know about God (or "Allah" which means God in arabic) and to make people worship only him. And, as the wikipedia article on Islam says: The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God So we can say that Islam has been taught by many other prophets; the outcomes of which are new religions.

In a Muslim's point of view, Islam is the same religion which has come forth from God and He uses the different prophets as guidance to Him.

However, I can see why the article has claimed this. All other religions have a name "christianity", "judaism", etc. and Islam has the name "Islam"; but this does not mean that muhammad is the founder of Islam. Islam already exsisted long before Muhammad was there, for example, Angles would be classified as Muslims, since they all submit to God: "An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim, meaning "one who submits (to God)"."

Thanks for your understanding

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.234.252 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All new religions have claimed to be reformed versions of previous ones. Doesn't mean it's true. Wikipedia adheres to facts, not theology. TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims of the religion are entirely pertinent to the article. The claims can be displayed in a factual form. Peter Deer (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If Islam, as a religion, existed before Mohammed, please provide a source demonstrating an example of the Muslim religion existing prior to Mohammed, either in name ("Muslim" or "Islam") or in its practices. Otherwise, I think this is just an attempt to add a Muslim POV to the article. fraggle (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

not again. This is an old discussion. It has been rehashed several times over. See the archives. We may need a FAQ for this. It boils down to this: it's a terminological problem. "Islam" in English is used for the religious institution, the Ummah, which was indeed established by Muhammad. Islam in Arabic means "piety" or similar. "Muhammad is the founder of piety" is, of course, not the intended reading of the statement. In English (unlike Arabic) Islam is not synonymous of piety. Islam is another term for the more old-fashioned Mohammedanism, viz., the religious tradition established by Muhammad. Saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam is pretty much a tautology because the English term "Islam" is so defined. This must be at least the fourth time I point this out here. Seriously, we need a FAQ page, this isn't "article improvement", it's just going round and round in circles. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arabian Background (again)
I'm bringing this up again because I think this section needs to be extensively discussed. I think providing an introduction to the setting of 7th century Arabia is certainly important, but it must be brief. Ideally, I would like to see the Arabian Background section trimmed and moved into the Geneology section (which itelf can be renamed to background, as it too concerns setting the scene pre-Muhammad). Hence we can have the discussion of the Arabian context and Muhammad's lineage in ~3 paragraphs. If anyone has any other ideas please do share them. By compressing the text here, I don't mean to remove any important information, but I really think we can employ something more resembling summary style here and expound in greater detail in a daughter article. This is especially important if we're interested taking the article above and beyond GA status. Feedback?  ITAQALLAH  18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I however couldn't myself do it. Please do give it a try. Regarding the Genealogy section, I think there is no need to provide a detailed genealogy; simply saying that in X number generations Muhammad is traced back to Y who is believed to be a son of Ishmael son of Abraham. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Historiography of the Prophet's life
I don't think this issue deserves to be in the lead. That is The principal and most credible source of information for the life of Muhammad is the Qur'an.[12][13] Next in importance are the historical works by writers of third and fourth century of the Muslim era. -- Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, per WP:Lead, the intro should contain something of each section. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article and Imam Ali one has similar problem as User:John Carter told there. -- Seyyed(t-c) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the problem with it myself, as perhaps it's better to start off the article acknowledging the primary source and chief written account. But that's just my humble opinion, I do not object if you feel it needs changing. Peter Deer (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it does... it's important to know what sources are considered reliable... and universally the Qur'an is considered the source closest to contemporaneous to Muhammad. Followed by the hadith collections and other later sources.  So, you don't seem to be arguing its accuracy.  But why does illustrating what the primary sources of his life are not belong in the lead? gren グレン 07:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud123's edit
Mahmoud, the section "conflict with Mecca" is about "conflict with Mecca ". The material you are adding is copy/pasted from "Hijra to Medina" section and "The Arabian background" section. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Edit seems to be in place. --C149 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mahmoud123, a new sockpuppet? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the size of the article
I suggest we remove the "Companions" section. It is not directly relevant to the bio of the article. Any objection? --Be happy!! (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest removing the following paragraph: "According to the Muslim tradition the young Muhammad played a role in the restoration of the Kaaba after parts of it had been destroyed by one of Mecca's frequent flash floods.[56] When the reconstruction was almost done, disagreements arose as to who would have the honor of lifting the Black Stone into place and different clans were about to take up arms against each other. One of the elders suggested they take the advice of the first one who entered the gates of the Haram. This happened to be Muhammad. He spread out his cloak, put the stone in the middle and had members of the four major clans raise it to its destined position. The cloak became an important symbol for later poets and writers.[57]"

This detail is discussed in Muhammad in Mecca --Be happy!! (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The size of the article is now 99KB. I reduced it by at least 10KB. I think this can be a reasonable size for a good article (Jesus is 120KB). --Be happy!! (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think much of the Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina sections can be summarized, with the content moved to the prospective articles (Muhammad in Mecca and Muhammad in Medina).  Yahel  Guhan  07:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected ?
Is the article really protected against unregistered or newly-registered users ? User:Police99 registered not more than 20 mins. ago and has made a substantial edit!!! MP (talk•contribs) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did you get 20 minutes ago from? The log says the account was created on 22 March 2008. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake. The account was created 4 days ago, but User:Police99 has only made 3 edits, the first one of which was about 20 mins. ago when I wrote my first comment above. Still a rather new user. Police99 has made a major edit involving many references. Since I have been away from this article for a while, I want to know whether Police99's major edit is a useful addition to the article - the references have been changed quite a bit. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah has just answered my last query (thanks Itaqallah!). QED. MP (talk•contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Police99 seems to have mass-reverted a lot of edits made over the past few days. We've been attempting to cut things down and make the prose more succinct in preparation for a possible GAN (see above). I don't understand why that was indiscriminately reverted, nor was any explanation for it given...  ITAQALLAH   18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Police99 seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Mahmoud123 and others as reported here. -- S M S  Talk 19:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed he is. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

References cleaned up
I have cleaned up the references. Some errors may have crept in during the process. Please check if the statements are supported by the sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mahmoud123's edit (Again)
Mahmoud has taken the information from different parts of the article and added it to the "conflict with Mecca " together with his own WP:OR synthesis. This synthesis is in fact not comprehensible. The section is about military conflict with Mecca following the battle of Badr. Meccans were pagans and not Jew or Christian. The Jewish community were in Medina and that stuff is mentioned in the article in its own place.

Mahmoud has also taken a quote from the previous version of "The Arabian background" section that I had written sometime ago without any attention to what the section was saying. The type of conflict we were talking about there is part of the modern theories of materialistic interpretations of Islam and is somewhat Marxist in nature. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the military conflicts. That type of conflict, if one accept it, did not began after migration to Medina. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats the correct place for that content. thats the way the article was a couple of months ago. Nothing is wrong by putting it back up and adjusting it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate your claims instead of saying they are correct. That piece was never in that place. Please provide the link to the version you are referring to.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats why the Expand Link is put up. You can expand it if you want, I think it seems to be in place just the way it is. If you want to get into more detail about how it happend or when they came this and that you can go on and expand it. --Mahmoud123 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody talked about "Expand Link"? Please substantiate your claims.--Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Muhammad talk page i noticed people brought up issues about the current article. The edit seems to be part of Muhammad in Medina section and that information was just cut and pasted in same section just couple of lines down and then linked with expand because it mentions about Mecca. Anyways, if you believe it should be put up higher by the Muhammad in Medina before (Hijra to Medina) section it can be twisted. I just think because it mentions Mecca and Muhammad along with associates and then leads about the war seems to be right on. If it was in the old area where it just talks about Jews and their ways behind Prophet Muhammads back doesnt make sense. So its a debate between Conflict with Mecca which is the main reason or Hijra to Medina that mentions Jews and their ways behind Muhammad back and just Quoted where nobody can see and know the truth. --Mohun (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mahmoud, a lot of things happened in the Medina period, but that does not mean that we should mention them in all places. The Jewish tribes of Medina were not directly involved in the battle of Uhud. There were some connections (Ka'ab going to Mecca and exciting people to attack) but these are mentioned in their own place. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

so mention them. So far the section seems to be alright however it can be more improved and more things could be mentioned and as well as in other articles relating. we should put more content into it and build it more stronger. just because of the article having to much information and had to be reduced thats why i believe that section should remain the way it is. --Mohun (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The relationship between Muslims and Jews looks irrelevant to Conflict with Mecca. I think there can be better place, if you insist on inserting it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mahmud, historically, the conflict between Muhammad and the Jews was not viewed as something significant. Muslim have been traditionally relaxed about it; it is only after the recent political developments that the Muhammad-Jews of Medina thing has become significant. But that is irrelevant to the conflict with Mecca section: yes, after sometime the Jewish communities and Muhammad were clearly enemies AND we have mentioned that "the Jews also began secretly to connive with Muhammad's enemies in Mecca to overthrow him" in its own place --Be happy!! (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, The Muhammad article is all messed up with information here and some there and some in quotes and some hidden needs to be shaped up --Mohun (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Then lets make an new section containing Prophet Muhammads views and relations with other tribes and groups. Seems to be an positive resolution. --Mohun (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If such a section is to be created, I recommend drafting a list of the basic information such a section would contain on this talk page. Which are the relevant tribes and groups? How did Muhammad view them? How did people in later times perceive Muhammad's views? Sorting this out here would help prevent edit warring and improve sourcing of such a high-profile article right away. A  ecis Brievenbus 20:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok than whats an good name for the section, 'Muhammads view towards other religons', 'Muhammads relations with others' or something ? --Mohun (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a correct style i wikipedia. I prefer "Relationship with Ahl al-Kitab" or "Relationship with Abrahamic religions"-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

POV check:Beginnings of the Qur'an
Few months ago Aminz asked me to tell Shia view about this part and I sent him some articles. What has written in this section is in accordance with Sunni histories and reports. But Shia has different view. You can find Shia view in Restatement of the History of Islam & Muslims C.e. 570 to 661. There's an online version of the book. Razwi writes In their respective accounts of the reception by Muhammad of the First Revelation, the Sunni and the Shia Muslims are not in agreement. Then he explains the differences.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the sources in question are reliable. If the Shia view differs with the majority view (that is, the Sunni and academic perspectives), then mention of it should be minimal, if it's even at all significant.  ITAQALLAH   17:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only do Shias but Islamic philosophers have different idea. However I didn't mention them because they're explanation isn't relevant to historic context of the article, but in brief they think nobody else could be more certain about the prophecy but the prophet.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There're also another sources such as The Life and Religion of Mohammed as Contained in the Sheeah Traditions-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination
I think the article is almost ready. Its size is less than other comparable GA articles (Jesus 125 KB). Any feedback? --Be happy!! (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's still a few things missing. There's no mention at all about Muhammad's legacy in the form of sunnah, its importance to Muslims and its role in legal theory. I'm going to go through the article and tighten up any language, and I'll quickly run through the bio and see if any key aspects are missing (I did note the absence of the fatra period a while ago, I'll include this if this hasn't been done yet). But overall it does seem to be shaping up nicely. I would have liked some information about Muhammad's companions to have been retained though.  ITAQALLAH   15:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought putting a list of names of the companions when the reader is told nothing about them except their name is kind of unhelpful. But it is just me...--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we can make a "Legacy" section in which we can have the sub-headings about "Reforms," "Sunnah and Islamic law," and anything else which is pertinent. Also, we really need to reduce the number of inline and block quotes we ae using... if we can summarise them efficiently it will be much more succinct and encyclopedic.  ITAQALLAH   16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to know whether it's completely necessary to have the timeline in the article because it takes up quite a bit of space and pushes down several images.  ITAQALLAH  16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job summarizing the background section. IMHO, having a timeline is very helpful. but let's see what others think. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A better option might be to have two timelines, one for Mecca and one for Medina so that it does not pushe down the images that much? --Be happy!! (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Splitting the template up seems like a good idea.  ITAQALLAH   15:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about putting the timeline in a Template:Scroll box? Imad marie (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway the splitting of the timeline looks very good now. Imad marie (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is of a high enough quality to be a GA, but how do we plan to deal with attribute 5 of the good article criteria? Even though the controversy around this article thankfully seems to have died down, I'm sure that this will be brought up.  Not saying I agree with that viewpoint, but we should be ready for it if it is raised.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
 * I think long-term stability should be a factor. If things can stay relatively quiet for a week or two more, then I think it's evidence that most of the furore has passed over. Obviously, the issue will be raised once in a while, but it shouldn't prevent the article from reaching a high standard and being recognised as such.  ITAQALLAH   17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be improved more to reach good article criteria especially the 3rd and 4th ones. -- Seyyed(t-c) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In some cases such as "Siege of Medina" the text include too many details while in some others like "The Farewell Pilgrimage" it doesn't focus on the issue.
 * Some sections don't cover all of the viewpoints.
 * Some parts like "legacy" should be expanded.
 * There are disagreements about several issues and we should reach consensus before nomination.

Ghadir khum
Dear Itaqallah, Please explain why do you revert this issue. You've told ''the last part of the bio is quite Shia-centric. this is not the place to implicitly assert one sect's claim over another. rm more tendentious aspects re: disputed quote. and  there were many things discussed, can we please have a more rounded summary than menitoning only that of sectarian/polemical importance''

I know this is not a place for sectarian issue. But neither does my source a sectarian one nor this issue. As Dakake shows in his book you can find the issue in Shia and Sunni sources. Furthermore I see it completely sectarian to omit the issue. I reverted your edition but hid it until we reach consensus here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seyed, in the farewell pilgrimage speech, other things happened as well: Muhammad also "abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. Chief among these was the nasīʾ, or intercalary month. From then on the Muslim community would operate on a strictly lunar calendar that would not be adjusted to bring it into alignment with the solar calendar. The Prophet abolished all old blood feuds, implying that the creation of the Islamic umma had made all disputes based on the former tribal system obsolete. In addition, all old pledges were to be returned, another indication of this new beginning. The Prophet informed his followers that they were entitled to discipline their wives but should do so with kindness. He commanded that one could not leave one's wealth to a testamentary heir; that one could not make false claims of paternity or of a client relationship. The tradition of holding four months of the year, Dhū l-Qaʿda, Dhū l-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram (months 11, 12, and 1) and Rajab (month 7) sacred was upheld at this time. This measure seems related to the Islamic adoption of the pilgrimage itself, along with the understanding that the shrine at Mecca lies on holy ground."
 * See, Itaqallah has a point. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should wrote a brief introduction here and complete detail in the main article. i.e. The Farewell Pilgrimage. But unfortunately you can't find nothing here as well as in the main article. We can write Prophet abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. and refer to the main article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seyyed, I think the purpose of mentioning thaqalayn and mawla is primarily to forward the notion of Ali's superiority and make it a Shia-centric view of events. The mawla passage, in particular, is hardly a significant in the context of Muhammad's life, except as a device used by Shia to establish their particular perspectives. There's many things that were said at the farewell sermon and later, yet we focus on those aspects important to Shias. That's not a neutral or sensible handling of the biography. All the intricacies of the debate can be fleshed out at Succession to Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how can judge that putting it is based on a sectarian tendency while omitting it is not. If The prophet really wanted to introduce somebody for his successorship, then wasn't it worthy enough to mention. Furthermore I don't want to write something which shows Shia viewpoint, but I do want to say something has happened which has been too important during Muslim history as well as today. However we can write the other side of the story in Aftermath.


 * We can write With Muhammad's death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad's intimate friend and collaborator. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor. .-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to allow brief discussion in the aftermath about the dispute over successorship because obviously the dispute was significant (but it should not overshadow all of the other things occuring at the time like the Ridda wars, campaigns against Byzantium and Persia, etc.), but saturating the farewell pilgrimage section with material designed to promote a particular perspective is something I don't think we should be doing.  ITAQALLAH   16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why we have focused on some less important issues such as the battles in details. We have described "Beginnings of armed conflict" in about 30 lines while neglected all of the important events of the last year. -- Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think the article is oversized in many areas still, which is why I feel GAN should probably be held off until we achieve a near-perfect balance with regards to coverage. Ideally, each section should be ~ 2-3 concise paragraphs. This rests upon good copyediting, reducing usage of direct quotes, and leaving more aspects related to individual scholarly perspective aside. I've only managed to do this for a small part of the article, I intend to do the same for the rest of it.  ITAQALLAH   00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reforms
Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. -- Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the article
I think in some cases too many unnecessary information has put in the article. While the article is too long and some important issues and viewpoints haven't been mentioned. These are the cases which I propose to remove or summarize:
 * Sources for Muhammad's life:Do we need too many details while there are especial articles for this issue.
 * I think we are not providing too many details, are we? --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Muhammad also adopted some features of the Jewish worship and customs such as fasting on the Yom Kippur day. According to Alford Welch, the Jewish practice of having three daily prayer rituals appears to have been a factor in the introduction of the Islamic midday prayer (previously Muhammad was keeping the morning and evening prayers).

We can replace it with a sentence which says ''According to ... the Prophet has derived or affected by some Jewish worship such as fasting while Muslim believe this is the case which ordered by God in all religions.''
 * The reason for adoption of 3 daily prayer ritual bit is an opinion rather than a fact and hence can be covered in the articles on prayer and not here. The addition of "while Muslim believe this is the case which ordered by God in all religions.", while true, requires a source. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this a good source to show Muslim belief:Tafsir al_mizan,V.3-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the weeks following the battle, Meccans visited Medina in order to ransom captives from Badr. Many of these had belonged to wealthy families, and were likely ransomed for a considerable sum. Those captives who were not sufficiently influential or wealthy were usually freed without ransom. Muhammad's decision was that those who were wealthy but did not ransom themselves should be killed. Muhammad ordered the immediate execution of two men without entertaining offers for their release. One of the men, Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt, had written verses about Muhammad, and the other had said that his own stories about Persians were as good as the tales of the Qur'an.

I think the introduction of Jihad as an Islamic duty is far more important than such details.
 * This can be summarized of course. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * During the Battle of the Trench, the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza who were located at the south of Medina were charged with treachery. After the retreat of the coalition, Muslims besieged Banu Qurayza, the remaining major Jewish tribe in Medina. The Banu Qurayza surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while all the women and children were enslaved.[114][115] In dealing with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina, aside from political explanations, Arab historians and biographers have explained it as "the punishment of the Medina Jews, who were invited to convert and refused, perfectly exemplify the Quran's tales of what happened to those who rejected the prophets of old."[116] F.E. Peters, a western scholar of Islam, states that Muhammad's treatment of Jews of Medina was essentially political being prompted by what Muhammad read as treasonous and not some transgression of the law of God.[82] Peters adds that Muhammad was possibly emboldened by his military successes and also wanted to push his advantage. Economical motivations according to Peters also existed since the poorness of the Meccan migrants was a source of concern for Muhammad.[117] Peters argues that Muhammad's treatment of the Jews of Medina was "quite extraordinary", "matched by nothing in the Qur'an", and is "quite at odds with Muhammad's treatment of the Jews he encountered outside Medina."[82] According to Welch, Muhammad's treatment of the three major Jewish tribes brought Muhammad closer to his goal of organizing a community strictly on a religious basis. He adds that some Jews from other families were, however, allowed to remain in Medina.[15]

There are too many details about relationship with Jews while there are especial articles for these issues. We can summarize it and let who wants to know more refer to the sub-articles.
 * I'd like to see the summary first :) --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The benediction upon the Prophet punctuates daily Muslim life, and traditional Islamic life reminds one at every turn of his ubiquitous presence. He even plays a major role in dreams. There are many prayers recited in order to be able to have a dream of the Prophet, who promised that the Devil could never appear in a dream in the form of Muhammad. Not only for saints and mystics but also for many ordinary pious people, a simple dream of the Prophet has been able to transform a whole human life. One might say that the reality of the Prophet penetrates the life of Muslims on every level, from the external existence of the individual and of Islamic society as a whole to the life of the psyche and the soul and finally to the life of the spirit.

Can't we summarize this quotation.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course we can. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern here is that details will be removed entirely from this article and not replaced anywhere else. If there are, for example, other articles about Muhammad adopting certain details from Jewish religious practices, then when those details are removed from this article, they should be replaced with a link to those other articles.  If the details aren't yet in the other articles, they should be added there, of course.  If you're moving material to a different article, please mention it in the edit log so we know what's going on.  Thanks.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At present you can find all of them in Muhammad in Medina.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification needed
Please check the qur'anic verses and the sourcing of "Muhammad subsequently delivered Qur'anic verses Qur'an and Qur'an  indicating that the loss, however, was partly a punishment for disobedience and partly a test for steadfastness.  " --Be happy!! (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see this:Tafsir; al-Mizan -- Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been taken from this section I wrote. I believe it's all verified, but I'll double check if you want.  ITAQALLAH   18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Verses 3:133-135 AND 3:160-162 do not seem to refer to the battle of Uhud. The section Battle_of_Uhud#Muslim_reaction]] refers to 3:152 instead. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Tafsir verses 130-138] in al-Mizan. Allama says The clause, "it is prepared for the pious ones"(133), paves the way for description of the characteristics of the pious ones which is given in the coming verses. The main idea is to describe those characteristics of the believers which are relevant to the present situation, i.e., after the battle of Uhud (when they had displayed, and suffered from, weakness and disobedience), because they were expected to participate in other similar battles and undergo similar situations, where they would be in great need of unity, harmony and solidarity. However the later verses looks more relevant.
 * He also says about verses 156-164 It is the continuation of the verses revealed especially about the battle of Uhud. It deals with another affair affecting them ...-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghadir khum
Dear Itaqallah, Please explain why do you revert this issue. You've told ''the last part of the bio is quite Shia-centric. this is not the place to implicitly assert one sect's claim over another. rm more tendentious aspects re: disputed quote. and  there were many things discussed, can we please have a more rounded summary than menitoning only that of sectarian/polemical importance'' I know this is not a place for sectarian issue. But neither does my source a sectarian one nor this issue. As Dakake shows in his book you can find the issue in Shia and Sunni sources. Furthermore I see it completely sectarian to omit the issue. I reverted your edition but hid it until we reach consensus here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC) -
 * Seyed, in the farewell pilgrimage speech, other things happened as well: Muhammad also "abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. Chief among these was the nasīʾ, or intercalary month. From then on the Muslim community would operate on a strictly lunar calendar that would not be adjusted to bring it into alignment with the solar calendar. The Prophet abolished all old blood feuds, implying that the creation of the Islamic umma had made all disputes based on the former tribal system obsolete. In addition, all old pledges were to be returned, another indication of this new beginning. The Prophet informed his followers that they were entitled to discipline their wives but should do so with kindness. He commanded that one could not leave one's wealth to a testamentary heir; that one could not make false claims of paternity or of a client relationship. The tradition of holding four months of the year, Dhū l-Qaʿda, Dhū l-Ḥijja, and Muḥarram (months 11, 12, and 1) and Rajab (month 7) sacred was upheld at this time. This measure seems related to the Islamic adoption of the pilgrimage itself, along with the understanding that the shrine at Mecca lies on holy ground."


 * See, Itaqallah has a point. --Be happy!! (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should wrote a brief introduction here and complete detail in the main article. i.e. The Farewell Pilgrimage. But unfortunately you can't find nothing here as well as in the main article. We can write Prophet abolished a number of pre-Islamic customs. and refer to the main article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seyyed, I think the purpose of mentioning thaqalayn and mawla is primarily to forward the notion of Ali's superiority and make it a Shia-centric view of events. The mawla passage, in particular, is hardly a significant in the context of Muhammad's life, except as a device used by Shia to establish their particular perspectives. There's many things that were said at the farewell sermon and later, yet we focus on those aspects important to Shias. That's not a neutral or sensible handling of the biography. All the intricacies of the debate can be fleshed out at Succession to Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please tell me how can judge that putting it is based on a sectarian tendency while omitting it is not. If The prophet really wanted to introduce somebody for his successorship, then wasn't it worthy enough to mention. Furthermore I don't want to write something which shows Shia viewpoint, but I do want to say something has happened which has been too important during Muslim history as well as today. However we can write the other side of the story in Aftermath.


 * We can write With Muhammad's death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr, who was Muhammad's intimate friend and collaborator. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor. .-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to allow brief discussion in the aftermath about the dispute over successorship because obviously the dispute was significant (but it should not overshadow all of the other things occuring at the time like the Ridda wars, campaigns against Byzantium and Persia, etc.), but saturating the farewell pilgrimage section with material designed to promote a particular perspective is something I don't think we should be doing.  ITAQALLAH   16:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why we have focused on some less important issues such as the battles in details. We have described "Beginnings of armed conflict" in about 30 lines while neglected all of the important events of the last year. -- Seyyed(t-c) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think the article is oversized in many areas still, which is why I feel GAN should probably be held off until we achieve a near-perfect balance with regards to coverage. Ideally, each section should be ~ 2-3 concise paragraphs. This rests upon good copyediting, reducing usage of direct quotes, and leaving more aspects related to individual scholarly perspective aside. I've only managed to do this for a small part of the article, I intend to do the same for the rest of it.  ITAQALLAH   00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reforms
Please explain for me why do you separate reform from "Muhammad in Medina". I think socio-political activity is a major activity in The Prophet's life, but this article underestimates it. -- Seyyed(t-c) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath
In Aftermath: "While Ali and the rest of Muhammad's close family were washing his body for burial". Is this necessary? and is this agreed upon between resources? Imad marie (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem has been solved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Inheritance
Hi Seyed,

I am sorry but I reverted your edit not for sectarian reasons but because I think it misses the point and does injustice to the character of Ali (Ali for example said "Knowledge is inheritence of Prophets while wealth is inheritence of Pharohs"). Your edit for example does not explain the symbolic meaning of this particular inheritance at all and presents it as a fight over money. Not only that but the current presentation of dispute over Ali's successorship of Muhammad is completely inappropriate and stands in contrast with say the following Hadith: "Ibn Abbas says: 'Once when I visited Imam Ali, he was mending his shoes. The Holy Imam asked me, 'What do you think will be the price of this shoe?' I said, 'It has no value at all'. The Holy Imam then said, 'By Allah! To my mind this torn shoe is more valuable than my ruling over the people provided I enforce the right and eradicate falsehood'."

--Be happy!! (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what has been narrated by scholars such as Madelung should be narrated. I don't want to narrate interpretations, etc about it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki1609's edit
Hi Wiki1609,

I changed your edit because we are writing here about western and European view as our main source for this section deals with it, not with those living in lands ruled by Muslims in Middle east in Syria in 634. There are more important works by Syrian writers such as the polemical work of John of Damascus. If there is one work to be mentioned by these writers, it is the treatise Epistola Saraceni or Rescriptum Christiani, the translation from Arabic  of a polemic which is dated before the year 1000 and composed by an Oriental Christian; this work had considerable influence on later European Christians. In any case, I think we should keep with the general dominant view rather than mentioning one particular work or the other. To be sure, the main source for west about Muhammad was those transmitted by non-Muslim writers that had lived alongside Muslims. Also, this section is not about Jewish view and I don't think you are correct in characterizing the early Jewish and Christian attitude of Syrians toward Muhammad as one from whom nothing came except bloodshed. According to Bernard Lewis, "Some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preffered the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines. A Jewish apocalyptic writing of the early Islamic period makes an angel say to a rabbinic seer: 'Do not fear, Ben Yohay; the Creater, blessed be He, has only brought the Kingdom of Ishmael in order to save you from this wickedness [i.e. Byzantium]...the Holy one, blessed be He, will raise up for them a Prophet according to His will, and conquer the land for them, and they will come and restore it...' We may compare with this the words of a later Syric Christian historian: 'Therefore the God of vengeance delivered us out of the hand of the Romans by means of the Arabs...It profited us not a little to be saved from the cruelty of the Romans and their bitter hatred towards us' The people of the conquered provinces did not confine themselves to simply accepting the new regime, but in some cases actively assisted in its establishment. In Palestine the Samaritans, according to tradition, gave such effective aid to the Arab invaders that they were for some time exempted from certain taxes, and there are many other reports in the early chronicles of local Jewish and Christian assistance." You might want to compare this with the view of your source "[Y]ou will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed". Please note that most of Syrians Christians were non-Orthodox and that's why they were under pressure from Byzantium empire. It seems your source is presenting a minority view. --Be happy!! (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong resources
i reviewed the mentioned resources about the illustrations in the article, like Al-Biruni's book "Al Athar Al Baqya" .. and there is no such illustrations .. and its clear and obvious to anyone saw the illustrations that they look like each other, means that the same artist .. but the article mentioned different resources, which drives us to the fact that there are fake and none - Muslim made vandalism, and wikipedia is putting them there without any accuracy of the resources .. so please check the mentioned resources. there is no such illustrations. Basem

Which illustrations, and which specific citations are you challenging? Beam 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

three Meccan goddesses
In the section “Opposition in Mecca” there is a sentence that states:

“The account holds that Muhammad pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, praising them, and appealing for their intercession.”

I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters and I am pretty sure that these are them. Yes? Or is this statement saying that Allah and the Arab moon god is the same god? If they are the daughters of Allah then who are they because I don’t remember Allah having any daughters. Thanks for your time. Bluetd (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Allah. There was never such a thing as "an Arab moon god". --Be happy!! (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. What a Topic to discuss. See Islam for more details on the so called "moon god". Ignorance is a very foolish thing.  Also Allah never had any daughters or family. LOTRrules (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some would argue that arrogance is worse than ignorance. To what were you referring to as ignorant or as displaying ignorance? Beam 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "I am pretty sure that the Arab moon god has three daughters" - And I wasn't being arrogant. I provided the link to get him started and I was criticising the theory not him. Sorry if I came across that way! LOTRrules (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Goddesses in question are, Al-'Uzzā, Manāt and Allāt. When Islam was invented then these existing God would have more or less been subsumed. It does seem that their names were simply cobbled into the '99 names of God. Ttiotsw (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please remember not to make this a personal discussion. Unfortunate as it is, this 'moon god' theory has been widely promulgated, in particular by certain persons wishing to associate Islam with pagan religion to undermine its truthful claims of being worship of the same single omnipotent creator God of Christianity and Judaism. However, many persons have of no fault of their own come to be of the mistaken impression that this accusation is true, so I hope that all of you will remember to assume good faith and not be so quick to judge such persons, as we all have misunderstood something at some point in our lives. '' May you go in God's care. '' Peter Deer (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Captioning
Below are two image codes and their captions quoted from the article. (I removed the    stuff so the images are not shown.)

The captions are correct that the face is veiled in the first and unveiled in the second.

The second caption seems to me wrong or at least confusing. "Muhammad's face is not veiled; there is no such image available with unveiled face in Islamic art from the 16th century onwards." This seems in effect to say "we are showing an image which is not available". ???

Image:Siyer-i Nebi 151b.jpg|thumb|right|Nakkaş Osman [c. 1595]. Prophet Muhammad at the Ka'ba, The Life of the Prophet Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul (Inv. 1222/123b).


 * CAPTION: Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century. ]]

Image:Maome.jpg|thumb|right|Muhammad  prohibits intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage . 17th century Ottoman copy of a 14th century (Ilkhanate) manuscript (Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's al-Âthâr al-bâqiya.


 * CAPTION: Muhammad's face is not veiled; there is no such image available with unveiled face in Islamic art from the 16th century onwards. ]]

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about


 * CAPTION: Muhammad's face unveiled; there are no known instances of Muhammad unveiled in Islamic art after the 16th century.
 * I'm going to make the edit, and if you disagree simply state so in this section and we'll discuss it. Beam 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * These "captions" seem to me to be synthesis of information. The reference supplied also says that "As far as we know the Prophet was never depicted with an open face since the 16th Century". The reference is talking about a manuscript not this one picture. The caption should just contain the details about that picture not mix in some conjecture which is not referring explicitly to this image but all images related to a manuscript. Mixing information like that is WP:SYNTH. Ttiotsw (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...in other words...I'm going to delete the captions unless they just refer to the image or the reference specifically refers to the image. Also this article has had some 'minor' edits done to it which are major and it has broken wikicode ! WTF is going on !?Ttiotsw (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ali and Kalam
Kalam in Islamic discourse refers to Aristotelian dialectic adapted by Muslim philosophers, which occured probably sometime in the Abbasid period. Those who practiced this dialectic were known as mutakallimun, some of whom al-Ghazzali famously attacked in his tahafut al-falasifa. As this is something pretty well known in scholarship, this assertion about Ali founding Islamic theology/Kalam doesn't make sense at all. And if we're talking about `Aqidah, I don't think that was founded by Ali either.  ITAQALLAH  12:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Britannica says:"'Nevertheless, this discipline, usually translated in Western sources as scholastic theology—popularly held to have been founded by 'Ali—has its roots through 'Ali in some of Muhammad's teachings. At the same time, all schools of kalam address the question of revelation and the relation of the words of the Prophet to religious truth on the one hand and rational discourse on those truths on the other. Moreover, if theology is understood to be general religious thought, then Muhammad's teachings are even more central.'"
 * Does this fit the definition of "Aristotelian dialectic adapted by Muslim philosophers"? It seems that this is Kalam in its later stages, not a definition of Kalam. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's strange. If you want an idea of what I'm talking about, read the first 7 pages of "The Physical Theory of Kalam", Alnoor Dhanani, Brill publishers. Essentially, it describes how Hellenistic intellectuallism influenced Muslim mutakallimun and philosophers in ~ 3rd century AH, forming a new dialectic tradition known as kalam.  ITAQALLAH   13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading it. According to this reading, Kalam seems to be a mixture of Islamic teaching and other things developed in a certain context for a certain purpose. The above quote seems to talk about a certain aspect of Kalam "the question of revelation and the relation of the words of the Prophet to religious truth on the one hand and rational discourse on those truths on the other"
 * Moving from Kalam to theology makes it a bit more precise but I dunno. What do you think?--Be happy!! (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kalam as it's traditionally understood in Islamic studies was the adaptation of rationalist logic in attempting to understand or establish the existence of God in greater detail. See: Kalam cosmological argument (not sure about its neutrality though. Also see Argument from contingency). So from that perspective, it'd be inaccurate to say that Ali founded Kalam. I think suggesting that Ali founded Islamic theology in general is also contentious, because the Islamic theology is already codified within the primary Islamic texts. Do you think we can do without this sentence for now?  ITAQALLAH   16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is a matter of definition. Of course we can do without the sentence. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry Corbin says  After the Quran and the hadith of the Prophet, it is the most important work not just for the religious life of Shiism in general, but for its philosophical thought. Indeed, the Nahj al-balaghah may be regarded as one of the most important sources of the doctrines professed by Shiite thinkers, especially those of the fourth period. Its influence can be sensed in the logical co-ordination of terms, the deduction of correct conclusions, and the creation of certain technical terms in Arabic which possess both richness and beauty, and which in this way entered the literary and philosophical language independently of the translation into Arabic of Greek texts.
 * The theological sermons of Ali aren't restricted to Nahj al-Balagha. For example he says The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him. 
 * There are other books such as Al-Tawhid by Shaykh al-Saduq which have compiled them with Asnad before Sharif Razi. As Shia theologians and Philosophers believe, not only Ali begins description of these issues but his words are far more better than what anybody else have said. You can also refer to Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib: The First Intellectual Muslim-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New change in WP:MOSISLAM
Three weeks ago I put a comment in the talk page of MOSISLAM and proposed using "The Prophet" in especial cases and about two weeks ago I changed WP:MOSISLAM. Then I asked some wikipedians to tell me their ideas but nobody disagrees with me. Thus I want to insert it in the related articles. Now if you disagree with it, please write your idea |here.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My only suggestion is that you tread lightly so as to apply it in a fashion that does not suggest a particular religious point of view, but then you knew that anyway. Also, I'm thinking that if the quote used the term that it should probably include specification to show that the assertion is that of the quote and not that of the article's writing itself. Example: In an address to the Hague, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is quoted as saying "The Prophet (Muhammad) has commanded..." But that's just my suggestion. I'm still not able to think off the top of my head of a place where "the Prophet" could be included in a way that won't step on toes though, so best to avoid it if at all possible.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add your comment |here. Please remind that we don't discuss about quotations.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aisha's age
Is it necessary to include Aisha's age, at the time of her marriage to Muhammad? It doesn't matter to me personally; but avoiding the locking of the article (over edit warring) does. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is supposed to be neutral, and must therefore include mention of Muhammad's marriage to a little girl because this has been a major criticism of him. This is not an exercise in Muslim apologetics. TharkunColl (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to explain the significance of Aisha's age a little more clearly. It's certainly not one of the most significant things about her. There seems to be little rationale behind singling her out whilst you apparently have no problem with "hiding" and suppressing" information about the other wives' ages. To rehash your final comment: this is not an exercise in recentist, anti-Islam polemic.  ITAQALLAH   00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And the major criticisms are indeed covered, as can be seen here.  ITAQALLAH   00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Off hand, I'd suggest that her age at the time they married is important. Her age at the time they consummated it seems superfluous. Resolute 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jmlk  1  7  01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Why is this detail important? Aisha was supposed to marry someone else before Muhammad but that was changed at the suggestion of someone to Muhammad to marry Aisha. Why say is that detail less important? Why the consummation age not important? Where does the criteria comes from?
 * Such details are important in the criticism of Muhammad article because they appear frequently in polemics and that is indeed included in the criticism of Muhammad article as Itaqallah pointed out. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I think the rationale for inclusion needs elaboration: why is Aisha's age here significant? Is it one of the most important facts about her? Not really. Why is it more significant than say, Khadijah's age at marriage, or Sawdah's age at marriage, or Hafsa's age at marriage (none of which are mentioned)?  ITAQALLAH   14:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Aisha's age is more important than the others precisely because she was so young. I have heard the argument that this was not unusual for the time. Yet Muhammad was a great social reformer. He of all people was in a position to change the practice of child marriage, but evidently felt it didn't need changing. This says something important about Muhammad. TharkunColl (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not an argument as to why Aisha's age is significant, it's an argument as to why it's important to you. This wasn't seen as significant among Muhammad's contemporaries (and enemies), it's not been seen as significant in the centuries since, and it's still not seen as incredibly important in modern scholarship. Its only significant lies in recent anti-Islam polemic.  ITAQALLAH   16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I implied absolutely nothing about Muhammad. I stated quite clearly that he married a six year old girl. Has it come to such a point that stating fact is regarded as anti-Islamic polemic? TharkunColl (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked why her age in particular was uniquely significant, to which you explained what it apparently says about Muhammad. Hence my comment above, in which I said that it's actually not significant at all.  ITAQALLAH   16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To say it is not significant is just POV. All we can do is state the facts. The reader can then decide which are significant and which are not. But not to state the facts removes that choice. TharkunColl (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole article is written in summary style, hence we make content decisions about what's noteworthy by default. Thus, the question of whether this is actually significant is highly pertinent. Its inclusion here naturally implies that it's one of the most important things to be said about Aisha in the sentence she's allocated (and it's not). The "facts" are all available in the other articles (Aisha, Criticism of Muhammad), the issue here is therefore about which facts are most significant.
 * There are many facts available about Aisha, you need to explain why this one in particular is more significant than the others. To claim it's insiginificant isn't really a POV, as the basis for the claim is the lack of any evidence asserting genuine significance. The notion of insignificance is supported by the fact that it wasn't an issue in Muhammad's time, it wasn't an issue in the time since, until the past decade or so - and even then it's not really much of an issue in modern academic scholarship. So there needs to be some substantiation of why this fact should be mentioned over the many other more significant facts about Aisha, and why her age needs to be mentioned yet other wives' ages don't need to be.  ITAQALLAH   16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If she hadn't been so young, and Muhammad so old, she would not have survived him by decades and the Hadith might never have come together. I think that's pretty significant. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the age of marriage and consummation got to do with the compilation of hadiths? They were only married for 9 or 10 years. Had she married him at age 18, 28, or even 38, she would still have lived for a lengthy time after his death. Why is Umm Salama's age at marriage not important? She married Muhammad too, narrated many hadiths, and she outlived both Muhammad and Aisha. While Aisha narrated many hadith, it wasn't as many as those like Abu Huraira. To clarify, she played no actual role in the compilation of hadith material.  ITAQALLAH   17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * She was also Muhammad's favourite wife, and probably the only one whose name would be even vaguely familiar to most non-Muslims, mainly through the heroine of the Rider Haggard novel (She) who was named after her. TharkunColl (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, she was indeed Muhammad's favourtie wife. How does it relate to the ages of marriage/consummation though?  ITAQALLAH   17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he liked her so much because she was so young. Who knows? But we should let the reader decide, and not suppress this information. TharkunColl (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But the whole premise is based upon original research. Why not just mention any random fact about Aisha alongside her status as a favourite wife, and let the reader 'decide'? Original research includes implying connections that aren't actually verified.  ITAQALLAH   18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just base the inclusion on what the majority of reliable sources on the subject say, being sure not to give undue weight to fringe sources. No need to argue, just go back to the basics of NPOV. undefinedUntil  14:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here; the issue of Aisha's age stems from a decidedly Western-oriented, right-leaning agenda of painting Islam in general and Muhammad in particular in the worst light possible. That does not make it any less notable of course, which is why a section of the "Criticism of..." article is devoted to it, Criticism_of_Muhammad.  But placing it on this page serves no purpose other than to criticize, and that is quite inappropriate and out-of-place. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The elephant in the room is Muhammad's marriage to a six year old girl. TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tomayto, tomahto, whatever. Bringing up her age is done with the intent to criticize, not to inform, and there is already a separate article for that. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you assuming bad faith on my part? My inclusion of it was intended to inform, and to attempt (unsuccessfully, it seems) to override religious censorship. TharkunColl (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments suggest that you inserted the passage as a device to imply "something" about Muhammad.  ITAQALLAH   16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if it was, then you just matched it with a bad-faith assumption of "religious censorship" regarding those that do not feel it belongs here, which would make us Even Steven. :) Tarc (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Having sex with a nine year old girl when you are 56 is inherently notable. Many commentators write about this and the effects it has on Islam. I see no reason to erase this fact other than religious censorship. Matamoros (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So that whole crazy NPOV idea I had is not getting much attention ehh? Nobody considering the idea of basing inclusion on what the majority of reliable sources on the subject say, being sure not to give undue weight to fringe sources? undefinedUntil  17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a question of due weight... is this issue more significant than, say, other incidences that happened in her life like the story of Ifk, the story of the honey, or her later prominence as one of the greatest female Islamic scholars? Reliable sources mention her age at marriage, just like they would for any of the other wives. Is it given special significance? Not really. Does it outweigh the real controversies that happened in the time of Muhammad/Aisha? No. Compared with that, her age at marriage is pretty trivial. So it's a question of deciding what is most significant to mention in the summary-style coverage about Aisha.  ITAQALLAH   17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really hope to include everything reliable sources say about Muhammad in this single article - it'd be megabytes if not gigabytes of text, and entirely unreadable. Wily D 19:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before the death of Muhammad's first wife, Aisha was already betrothed to a Muslim named Jubayr ibn Mut'im. After the death of Muhammad's first wife, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim that he should marry Aisha. Matamoros, this is not the kind of story you expect if Muhammad was breaking with the tradition of the time. The very fact that only very recently, some Muslims have looked again at the original sources trying to make a case for Aisha being much older shows that they did not find that particularly remarkable in the past. Also, put this fact together the raising of the minimum legal age of marriage in U.S. from 7-8 in 1880s.--Be happy!! (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's beyond patently absurd. We'll never know the names of most of the 50-something year olds who had sex with 9 year olds in 625, whether there were a mere ten thousand or a million.  In context its an act so mundane that there's nothing said about it for centuries because its unremarkable. Wily D  19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Including Aisha's age in this section would be WP:SYN. Imad marie (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note, if I may, that I get the impression that the dispute in regards to editing this article have been in part because of biases one way or the other in regards to Muhammad and Islam. From a neutral perspective, the unremarkable nature of the marriage at the time is a strong case for it not being a notable inclusion to the article, save in its inclusion in a separate article regarding the modern-day controversy over Mr. Vines' statements, which it already has. It's a hard subject to remain neutral on (I speak personally regarding this) but it's important that we put our individual considerations aside and consider the neutrality, notability, and verifiability of the information provided.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have two talk threads on "Aisha's age" on this page, so I would say this topic is very important to many of the editors here. I wish we could somehow merge the two, this is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow... so Muhammed was a pedophile! That's very shocking. And funny too. --James599 (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
If the reverting back and forth continues I will either protect the page or start giving out blocks for edit warring. undefinedUntil 19:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just put in a 'Page protection request'. The edit warring seems to continue. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now I have protected the page. Using the edit summary "per talk" does not mean you aren't edit warring unless a consensus has formed, which I do not yet see. The protection will last 2 days, in that time I suggest you seek a consensus on this matter. If a consensus forms before then let me know and I will lift the protection. undefinedUntil 20:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Aisha's age important to Islamic theocracy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it true that Ayatollah Khomeini, after the Iranian Revolution, ruled that it was legal for a 9-year-old girl to marry, based off of Muhammed's marriage? I feel this would argue that the age is indeed notable, and not just from a negative anti-Muslim perspective. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of this but I'm not surprised. But then, that would go in an Islamic Theocracy article, then, wouldn't it?  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the sunna section in the article, a lot of things in the Sunna set religious standards; there are thousands of them indeed; many these we have not even touched in this article. They should be covered in their own articles.
 * Regarding your point: the fact that Muhammad delayed the marriage to the onset of menses, did set a religious standard for the appropriate age for marriage of females just after the onset of menses. "Engagement or betrothal, however, often took place much earlier. This pattern of female marriage soon after reaching reproductive capability is typical of premodern societies in many parts of the world. In those settings, fertility is central to adult female identity; childhood ends and adult responsibility begins with physical maturity. When Arab nations emerged into statehood in the middle of the twentieth century, they often enshrined in law the low marriage ages allowable under Muslim Sharīʿa law. Thus, marriage is legal for females at age 11 in Sudan, 14 in Yemen, and 16 in Egypt. (But there are exceptions: Syria and Jordan set the legal age at 18, while it is 21 in Libya.) Meanwhile, understandings of what constitutes childhood and how children are to be protected have evolved rapidly in recent years. Countries such as Egypt have adopted comprehensive legislation to protect children and enforce their rights to such social benefits as education and health care. Governmental agencies now exist in nearly every Arab country to protect the interests of children, and girl children are often subject to special remedial programs and protections. Childhood in these recent legal codes is commonly defined as extending to the age of 18, following international United Nations standards."
 * Thus, as you can see Muslim nations are not in practice behind European ones. Until 1880s in the US, the minimum legal age of marriage was 7-8 years old.
 * Why such changes in the minimum legal age of marriage? I think Marx's theory of historical materialism may provide an answer to that. What is clear is that such global changes happened independent of religion.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is clear is that such global changes happened independent of religion." Agreed, but those groups who have not made such global changes have rationales dependent on Muhammed's life. My main point was that it's not just anti-Muslim Westerners who feel her age is significant. Your first point (and Peter Deer's) about the article not having everything that affected theology is compelling, of course, and I don't feel terribly strongly about this issue. However, in all our other biographical articles, this kind of thing is mentioned. FDR's article explains that he and his wife Eleanor were cousins, even though this was culturally irrelevant at the time. Joseph Smith's article has an entire section devoted to the ages of his wives. Could this issue be resolved similarly by listing all the ages of Muhammed's wives, so that it is not just Aisha being singled out? -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it seems that a few other articles following a theme that we're discussing as being inappropriate does not seem like an argument for making another article follow that theme. If it is felt that it is indeed a relevant and encyclopedic thing to include in biographical articles then perhaps a revision should be made to MOS:BIO on the matter to clear up further discussions of a similar nature.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "those groups who have not made such global changes have rationales dependent on Muhammed's life" I think any system has some inertia which is not only dictated by cultural and religious concerns but also more importantly by the economic and social parameters. In west, people have now reached a relatively high living standards so they talk more about secondary issues like "something" rights. These are of course important but only after other concerns have been relieved. A few generations is enough for people to forget how they come to where they are. They then look at less developed countries and ask why they do not care much about such issues. Some honest and some politically-motivated people would then attribute everything to religious traditions but in my humble opinion, that answer is one-dimensional and simplistic. In any case, in my view this is a relatively recent phenomenon, and I personally do not think it would be a good time to make such judgements about the role religion has to play in it.
 * Regarding Joseph Smith, I think it is different since his polygomy in itself was against the social context of the time while for Muhammad, it was the converse and the ages in its context was not notable; look, I think by all means we should add that to article talking about Muhammad's wives or Criticism of Muhammad. I doubt anyone interested in Islam would miss them, believe me :) --Be happy!! (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Western societies have tended to regard paedophilia as a bad thing quite independently of their dislike for Islam. That it turns out that by modern Western standards Muhammad was a paedophile, is not a pre-arranged attack on Islam, but in fact is a product of the West's moral code. It is a very good example of how the West and Islam have different standards. Given that this article is not an Islamic tract, then we really should mention this, as it impacts quite greatly on Muhammad's legacy. TharkunColl (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedophilia implies being a "sexual predator" because in the 19th century the minimum age of marriage was increased, and it is now illegal. Please avoid offensive language and see WP:CIVIL. And your concerns have been very well addressed in the above section.--Be happy!! (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. You're wrong. Paedophilia is having sex with children. It is not offensive to state the facts. Just out of interest, do modern Muslims think it's okay to follow Muhammad's example and have sex with girls when they're nine? TharkunColl (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To call it paedophilia is to assume that the purpose for the marriage was to indulge a sexual preference which, if considering the age of Muhammad's first wife and the fact that the marriage to Aisha was suggested to Him, and considering that the marriage was a common practice not limited to persons of that particular sexuality, does not appear to be applicable. Such an assumption is not encyclopedic, and to draw that conclusion is not Wikipedia's job or territory.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out above, the "common practice" argument is tendentious, because Muhammad of all people, as a great social reformer, was in a unique position to change the custom - had he felt that it needed changing. That, on the contrary, he practiced it himself, is surely worth mentioning. Your non-paedophilia argument likewise holds no water I'm afraid, inasmuch as Muhammad could have married her and waited till she had grown up before consumating the marriage. That he instead only waited till she was nine is, again, highly significant. TharkunColl (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good, so you a criticism to make, you can add it to Criticism_of_Muhammad, adding it elsewhere would be WP:SYN. Imad marie (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * TharkunColl, you're starting to border on trolling here with these paedophilia jibes. Please keep your personal views out of the discussion.  ITAQALLAH   16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aisha’s age at consummation of the marriage with Muhammad is hugely important not only for the reasons already listed here by others but also because the law in Islamic countries as to the earliest age a girl can get married is normally set by this consummation age, 9 years old. This has huge ramifications for women in the Islamic world who are forced into marriage at such early ages. A few countries also allow marriage at 6 years of age while others have no age limit at all, such as Yemen. Not including this information would be anti-women’s human rights. It is also very important to men who like to have sex with children. ref: 8-year-old girl asks for divorce Islamic marital jurisprudence Bluetd (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That might all be of primary relevance in Islamic marital jurisprudence, but it's not so in a section on Muhammad's family.  ITAQALLAH   16:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing this discussion when the protection expired instead of edit warring. This is a good sign, please continue. I know that controversial topics can lead to a slow consensus, but in time it will result in a better article. undefinedUntil 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only two people ever knew for sure the age at which the marriage was consummated and neither of them are going to tell us. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well let's give up writing an encyclopedia and all go home then, shall we? By your reasoning we can never know anything that happened in the past or to other people. But in this particular case you're wrong, anyway. Aisha did tell us. That's how we know. TharkunColl (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The subject matter already exists at Criticism_of_Muhammad. You have yet to explain why this is insufficient, and why discussion of the controversy is needed in this article. Tarc (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads: "After the death of Khadija, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim, that he should marry Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow, or Aisha." At this point, an unknowing reader might ask, "Who is Aisha?" Shouldn't there be some parallel against "Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow"? Some context on why Aisha was recommended? It wasn't because she was six years old. We don't have to present this as a criticism of Muhammed for marrying a young girl; in fact, it's been pointed out here before that he waited until she was older before consumating (an action no pedofiliac would do). The fact that he waited three years, AND the fact that none of his other wives were near this young age, would seem to verify that it was significant to his life. Do we actually believe that the very fact of Aisha's age constitutes criticism itself? Surely the Muslims on this site can't believe that there is no way to present this without it being an argument against Islam? -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note here it could read After the death of Khadija, it was suggested to Muhammad by Khawla bint Hakim, that he should marry Sawda bint Zama, a Muslim widow, or Aisha, the young daughter of Abu Bakr who's previous betrothal had not been honored. That would seem to provide the context requested, mention of her young age, and give mention of her notable family ties in an acceptable and encyclopedic manner. Does anyone object to this addition?  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than a mere "whose", I think it's excellent. It also has the benefit of clarifying another dimension to Muhammad's relationship with Abu Bakr. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's something I can agree to, I've implemented the change along with the correction.  ITAQALLAH   22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, twofold. "Whose", not "who's". Also, saying she's just "young" comes across as white-washing it. I see no shame in mentioning her age. Nobody's so squeamish about Zeus's many flings. --Badger Drink (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of see what you're getting at, but it seemed preferable to the alternatives. If you were to say "Abu Bakr's approximately/allegedly 6 year old" or something like that it would seem like overemphasizing that aspect of it, but to not include it would seem to be omitting that aspect which is a note of interest and concern to people. To me it seems sufficient, but if the consensus is otherwise I won't belabor the point.


 * And yes I apologize about 'whose.' That was a mistake on my part.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No biggie with who's and whose =) As for the real issue... ideally, it'd say "the (x)-year-old daughter of Abu Bakr" and leave it at that. This would be a truly objective account, and any "judgementalness" would be in the reader's own neurosis. Of course, just like there'll be sensitive folk removing the pictures for years to come, there'll be enough of an outcry that either a mess of qualifying words will be added ("the daughter of Abu Bakr who, by most contemporary accounts, was (x) years old (although marriages of this sort were common at the time, and Muhammad did not sexually consummate this relationship until she was (y) years old)") or a string of citations ("the (x)-year-old [55][56][57][58] daughter of Abu Bakr"), either of which would only serve to draw more undue attention to this. I'm not fully sure what the best solution would be, myself. I'll mull it over for a bit. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is why the age is even significant at all, which is what's implied when you consider that none of the other wives' ages are noted. I thought that Peter's suggestion was a compromise, even though I still maintain that her youth has little do do with her primary significance as Muhammad's wife and as a prolific scholar.  ITAQALLAH   17:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Watch out for erased comments; the typo you mentioned is already addressed. As for your second concern; how specific do you expect the editors to get? I think mentioning the fact that she was young is plenty. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl, my point is a serious one. Some editors here are Muslims, others are not. Whatever, we must put aside our beliefs while editing and follow the standards of modern historiography. No recent historical account treats Aisha's age as simple fact. Historians point out that the account comes down through Islamic tradition without any corroborating evidence. Similiarly, we do not treat the statements of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as simple fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above statement.Bless sins (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring again
If the edit warring continues I will give serious consideration to blocking the people edit warring instead of protecting the page. It is not fair that editing be prevented because people insist on arguing in the article itself instead of on this talk page. Consider this fair warning. undefinedUntil 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that might be the only way to stop the reverting frenzy. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it will likely have to head for some form of dispute resolution then, as the decidedly POV-centric push to make her age a central issue to this article shows no signs of letting up, and no signs of voluntary compromise either as the previous idea floated of using the term "young" was completely ignored. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most editors have been inclined towards Peter Deer's proposal; those few who are still insistent on inserting Aisha's age have done a poor job of establishing why it's even remotely significant. Then we have Yahel Guhan/Sefringle, who has made not a single contribution to the discussion, but proceeds to revert and make accusations of censorship.  ITAQALLAH   22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, I maintain that the age is significant, but I was content with the compromise pointing out that she was "young". The main reason I was okay with this can actually be summarized by Badger Drink's comment above. If we put the actual age in the article, it'll get bogged down with disclaimers about how the exact age is only verified in ancient sources, and how that age was appropriate in the cultural context, and how Muhammad waited before consummating. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Baron on this. Further, it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To the user who made the threats concerning blocking at the top: did you wait until there was a version that did not mention Aisha's age, or was it pure chance? TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it was pure chance; the current version was discussed here on the talk page. TharkunColl, you have a valid point that the age is significant when compared to that of Muhammed's other wives. But what do you think about how awkward the article would sound if we made a section talking about Aisha's exact age, why the age is disputed, the age of their consummation, and how this was the social norm at the time? That type of stuff is already on Aisha's page and on the criticisms of Islam page. Would you still prefer all that information here? -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * TharkunColl has been asked that question several times now, but has been either unable or unwilling to respond to it; what justifies its inclusion here ? It is a pretty simple situation ; there are those that are highly critical of Muhammad marrying such a young girl, and this criticism is  is well-known and notable.  That is why the controversy has its own section on an article on the Wikipedia, Criticism of Muhammad.  There is simply no call or basis in rationality to do it all here, too. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, she was young. Six years according to the hadith, and most reliable sources. This is well known, reguardless of whether or not it is technically "criticism." And I have no problem with recopying or summarizing that paragraph here, because it is important.  Yahel  Guhan  23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Important to you, yea, we get that loud and clear. But your personal opinion doesn't override guidelines on undue weight, which is precisely what including this here runs afoul of.  All it is is a pushing of the "Muhammad as pedophile" criticism, all of which is already duly noted into the aforementioned section. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the sinking feeling that the version I proposed as a compromise is actually causing further dissension. I know it's impossible to please everyone but can't we even come close? '' May you go in God's care. '' Peter Deer (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a fair compromise, honestly. A shame that others cannot bridge the gap to compromise from their end. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How is a fact criticism? Her age is a fact, not criticism. Bluetd (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a fact. The age differs between the sources.  Try reading a book - particularly, Spellberg's Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr. Another secondary source would be Goldschmidt's A Concise History of the Middle East which gives a different age entirely. You seem to be attempting to cite from Bukhari which is a primary source and crosses the line into original research because it requires the author(s) of the article to interpret the sources and pick and chose which ones are the best.  --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if her age isn't a criticism, shall we delete Criticism of Muhammad. ? Tarc (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To include the age would need, to maintain neutrality, to include the other possible takes on the age insofar as the age isn't unanimously agreed upon. Frankly, this isn't the Aisha article, or the Criticism article, this is a passing reference to her approximated age in an article stating simply that the Prophet married this girl. It is rather debatable in itself whether or not a reference to her age is appropriate here at all, as previous discussions on this will attest. Nevertheless, I won't deny the current notability of her age insofar as it is a subject of controversy, though I highly suspect the main motivation for the support of its inclusion is to promote a misleading conclusion. But then, in order to assure my own neutrality on that matter, I cannot act upon what I worry people "might" think, only that the information provided is accurate and encyclopedic. Therefore, I remain firmly of the opinion that to state that she was "young" is more than sufficient for this article, and that further elaboration on her age would be better suited for either her article or the criticism article.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The existence of an article concerned with criticism of Muhammad does not mean that no criticism should be included here. On the contrary, since we are supposed to be objective, criticism of Muhammad must be included here. Please take a look at the article on Adolf Hitler for an example of a very fair article written in a neutral style but not failing to mention the bad things he did. As for the inclusion of Aisha's age being "misleading", in what way is it "misleading"? If Muhammad had sex with a nine-year-old girl, and we state this, just who, precisely, is being misled? And if we don't state this, who then is being misled? TharkunColl (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The persons being misled are the persons presented this fact as if it were notable in itself and remarkable for the time. Furthermore, I don't recall there being reliable accounts of the consummation so the consummation itself and how it proceeded is purely speculative. My concern is not with having that information available, quite the contrary I think that all persons Muslim or otherwise should investigate that issue personally, but that there is undue pressure to indicate that Muhammad was a parallel to a modern sexual predator as opposed to engaging in a customary marriage common in His culture to the daughter of one of His disciples whose (got the 'whose' right this time) previous betrothal had not been honored, and that the notability and neutrality guidelines are being challenged in order to suggest that impression in an inappropriate place. Tell me, who is being mislead by calling her "young?"  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as I have stated, the age is not unanimously agreed upon, so stating that particular age would be misleading in that it would suggest that account is verifiable in it's accuracy.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that all of these are wrong? They all say six years old. Sahih Bukhari 5:58:234, 5:58:236, 7:62:64 7:62:65,7:62:88, Sahih Muslim 8:3309, 8:3310,8:3311,Sunnan Abu Dawud 41:4915, 41:4917 Bluetd (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources - not just the ones you are citing - that need to be taken into consideration. Further, you are simply citing primary sources that have been interpreted by scholars who have also weighed other primary sources.  Note that the age of Aisha is a small part of a very large historiographical debate upon which few scholars agree.  For us to accept one or the other as fact - or combination thereof - would be original research.  Moreover, the bottom line is there is no agreed-upon age according to the sources available.  For the inclusion of an exact age to be properly NPOV then we would need to include the entire context of the age debate which would be a blatant violation of WP:UNDUE in this article.  There is however, no contest to calling her "young." --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling her "young" violates Avoid weasel words, in that it is deliberately designed to be ambiguous. "Young" is a relative term and anyone, no matter how old, can be young to someone or something. Since her age is almost universally agreed on, I don't see what's wrong with including it, but if it is deemed unacceptable then how about a term such as "prepubescent", or simply just "child"? These at least would state the facts without being specific about the age. TharkunColl (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Prepubescent is incorrect in itself, as the consummation took place after she entered puberty, and 'child' is just as relative, as our conceptions of childhood and adulthood are obviously different than sixth-century standards. As for "young" being a weasel word, the wikipedia article on "child" defines child as such "A child is a young human being, a boy or girl." So replacing the term "young person" with a term that means "young person" does not seem to be a great improvement to me.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't use terminology in one Wikipedia article to back up another. A child is indeed a yound person, but not all young people are children. For example, when John Major became prime minister everyone was going on about how young he was, which is true - he was indeed young for a prime minister. But he was not a child. Aisha was a child, and we need to say this. TharkunColl (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you're not satisfied with me using an article in discussion lets look at some dictionary definitions (taken from dictionary.com if you need to check for yourself)
 * a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl.
 * a baby or infant.
 * a human fetus.
 * a person between birth and puberty.
 * a person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
 * one who is childish or immature.
 * a young person of either sex
 * If we examine these, the only ones that can be applied in this manner are the first one (a person between birth and full growth) which can apply to anyone under twenty-five, the sixth one (only in a subjective sense as it has been established that legally she was considered mature), the seventh one (also relative and subjective) and finally, the term "a young person" as stated before.
 * So no, I do not see any logic behind your insistence that the term "child" is required or even appropriate given the standards of childhood and adulthood at that period of history.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that it's okay, and therefore not worth commenting on, for men in their 50s to have sex with 9-year-old girls as long as they have begun menstruating? And please don't come out with the same tired old argument that it was normal in that culture. Muhammad, of all people, was in a position to change that custom (like he had changed many others), so he obviously didn't think it needed changing. And because of his example, Islamic countries still allow child marriage. TharkunColl (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And that is precisely why we have a "controversy" section devoted to this already. These circular arguments are getting rather tiring. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tharkun seems to be the only one using circular arguments. Everytime it looks like progress is being made s/he brings it back to the beginning in a completely unproductive manner. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided multiple sources that she was six, but I haven't seen anyone provide sources that say she was older when she was married to him. Can someone provide them? If not, then we should let six stand. Bluetd (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided two above. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what if we keep the word "young" but put a footnote beside it that explains the age debate in the reference section of the article? This is similar to what was done to explain the controversy over the birthplace of Yasser Arafat. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Of course there should be a link to Aisha anyway, but I don't see any problem with adding a footnote that says that Aisha's age at marriage has been the subject of debate and referring readers to the relevant article(s). Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Judith. I figured this way we can avoid violating WP:UNDUE in the article body yet also explain the controversy. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the increase in the minimum age of marriage has occurred recently (1880s in US), some have looked into the sources again for other primary sources that would indicate an older age; this has been achieved by computing the age of Aisha through the age of his sister-to this is added reports of Aisha knowledge at the time of marriage; the proponents of a higher age use the widespread acceptance of age 9 at a certain period in the Muslim history to suggest that the Muslims at that period did not view it as inauspicious and so they would not have been adverse to inventing it. The earliest Muslim source that I could find and argues for Aisha being older dates back to around 1900.
 * Secular historians however argue that as much as one can give credit to the reliability of the primary sources, the primary sources say 9, and since it was not abnormal in that society, there is not enough reason to reject it. I only know one academic source that reports the existence of this dispute; age higher than 9 being supported by a non-conservative fraction of Muslims. All other secular sources I have seen simply narrate the traditional view. I however think this new view regarding the age of Aisha may gain support from some secular scholars if someone (with the honest (and not apologetic) conviction of the reported age being wrong) could show its actual utility to the jurists of the Muslim community (utility in sectarian, or gender-related contexts may not be enough); this is because the traditions touching legal matters were much more vulnerable to distortions.
 * --Be happy!! (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Central human figure
Who put this line in? Because I'm afraid that it too violates Avoid weasel words. We need to tell our readers the truth, namely that Muhammad founded Islam. All they've got at the moment is "central human figure", followed by the assertion (twice) that Muslims think he's the last in a long line of prophets and didn't really found Islam - which is, of course, a description of Muslim theology rather than factual history. TharkunColl (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a rather POV assertion that the beliefs of Islam are not fact.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So we should write this article as if the beliefs of Islam are true? What an extraordinary thing to say. And are you trying to imply that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam? TharkunColl (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's common knowledge and a key part of Islamic theology that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, rather the religion is part of a longer continuum of religions. This is the same in Christianity where Jesus is not the founder of Christianity but one attempting to reform the Jewish faith. This concept is explained in that article as well. Note that the article on Jesus also calls him "the central figure of Christianity."  The word "human" was omitted there because of the theological-secular debate over whether or not his nature was divine. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tharkun please refrain from making this personal. Even though we may disagree it is important to be civil and discuss things rather than getting hostile.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Most Christians consider Jesus the founder of their religion as well as its central figure, as he expanded on Judaism to make it something new. I'd wager that omitting "founder" from his page is more to address both secularists and non-Christian religions who'd throw the blame on St. Paul. But, that's a different page. With Muhammad, it seems most Muslims feel that "founder" implies a religion is just made up on the spot. Even if Islam "originated with the teachings of" Muhammad (as the Islam article states), in Islam the big "F" word carries a negativity not shared by other religions&mdash;even the other ones started-up by human "prophets" who consider themselves restorers (e.g. Joseph Smith, Jr., Hong Xiuquan, Bahá'u'lláh). But there's no need to use "founder" on this page; I don't think anyone's going to read this article and think that the word "Islam" was floating around before Muhammad's life. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this.  May you go in God's care.   Peter Deer (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So we shouldn't use the word "founder" just because Muslims don't like it? And should we expect readers to plough through the article to discover that he did, in fact, found Islam? If so, why can't we write it in the lead? TharkunColl (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop baiting, you've been warned and blocked for that in the past. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you recommend the Jesus article say that Christians believe him to be a demigod (as suggested on the talk page), since, as son of a deity and a mortal, he fits the technical definition? No&mdash;sometimes even technically correct words have misleading connotations, and so they are avoided. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we do what we always do, and report who says what: something like "He is often called the founder of Islam although Islamic theology does not consider him to be that." DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "He is called the founder of Islam by non-Muslims while the Islamic theology does not consider him to be that" ? --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Maybe a qualifier such as often, sometimes etc. before 'founder'; or that too weaselly? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Always wise to add references: here are a few    DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems like the same weasel problem again. If we're going to go with that, why bother changing it from 'central human figure' in the first place? If we're going to change it, lets change it in a way that fixes something.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Link FA - Update
My bot just passed this page (and couldn't edit it, naturally). Thus, could somebody please add ? Thanks in advance --Guandalug (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible images
I see that this is fully protected these days, and I remember once upon a time someone suggesting opt-out type collapsible images you could click to make disappear (but so they appear by default), and others thinking this might be an acceptable compromise. I saw this sort of technique at another article where this was implemented to allow readers to hide a distracting animated image. What would people think of something like this? Mangostar (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would have no problem with this solution being used more broadly, e.g. in medical articles where it is important to have images available but I find them horrible to look at and would rather not see them while I view the text. Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could just be me, but I don't see the option to collapse the image. The sample is provided at Shallow water equations (I have tried the code in the sandbox, it seems to work fine, might be a factor of the talk page). This seems like a good compromise to the Muslim (Islamic?) viewers of the site. Biccat (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image discussions should be placed here Talk:Muhammad/images, however this has been discussed at length and is still considered censorship. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really appear that that page is being edited actively anymore, and I wanted to make sure that this proposal got more viewers. And I don't think this has ever been discussed at length; most proposals had to do with the default being hide. (If you want to convince me otherwise, point to the relevant archive page.) I actively monitored the discussion for some time and people seemed receptive to this idea, but no one knew of any code that would implement it. Mangostar (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion I could see is at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_9, and I don't see a great deal of receptive responses. I would be highly opposed to this, for the record. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion only addressed opt-in images, not opt-out images. Mangostar (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant. The idea of collapsible images in general has been discussed, and declined. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More recently this has been implemented and reverted at Rorschach inkblot test. Editors used code to hide the image unless clicked.  Review the discussions and archives if you wish.  It violates a number of policies which is why it may not be done here or anywhere else. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW Talk:Muhammad/images has had 5 edits within the last 2 days and watched by many. This discussion will be moved there inevitably. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal so long as the default option is to show the images. I still don't believe this will be an acceptable compromise for the anons that come to the site and will likely continue to vandalize it in an attempt to censor the article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A show of hands on who'd find this acceptable and finds the current situation unacceptable would be instructive. Wily D 21:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I see no reason why this is even an issue so long as the default still displays it normally.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as long as default is set to display rather than hide the pictures. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it would set a dangerous and harmful precedent, to allow religious predilections to dictate what appears or does not appear on a Wikipedia article. In my opinion, WP:CENSOR is the decider here, and if users are offended then they can follow the appropriate suggestions found in Options to not see an image. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Obviously I opposed this. The precedent would wreak havoc.  Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Garycompugeek (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia should not censor minority views.--Goon Noot (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think you meant to say "oppose." And honestly, if it doesn't prevent people from seeing it it's not censorship.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This matter has been long settled and the current state of the page's images reflects both consensus and policy. 1  !=  2  21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not so sure if this is even the right venue to suggest this, beyond a simple thread. This has the implications to rewrite Wikipedia policy, and shouldn't be decided on an article talk page. Beyond the censorship and NPOV issues, this creates innumerable footnotes to countless Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This conversation should probably be at the village pump. Jmlk 1  7  05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although it has little to do with WP:NOT censored if they default to show... but, it's overly cumbersome and solves very little in my opinion... gren グレン 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can say in comment to this thread is, I've never seen an image of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him (that addition should place me religiously) before today, and it just literally blew my mind. I've been alive for 30 years and I've carried a ghost image of him in my mind for that entire time.  Now my brain has just been given something it really can't process.  If for that fact alone, I wouldn't want others to have to deal with similar psychological strife, and think a hide function would be ideal.  Of course, it's my own fault for enlarging the image. Bozatlim (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion over wording in article
I'm a little confused as to how to read this quote in the article in the ==Farewell Pilgrimage== section: Analogizing the status of women in his society to that of powerless slaves It reads as a POV that is in no way concurrent with the quote is is prefixing, yet it doesn't look like it was added to the article recently, so I wonder if I'm misreading it or if it's slipped through the cracks. Bozatlim (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only in the Arabian culture but also throughout history, women were treated unfavorably. This is a practical reality dictated by economic factors. To analogize the practical status of women with that of powerless slaves and thereby asking men to come to their senses and show kindness to women looks comprehensible to me. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, in that quote, Muhammed is making an analogy to women as powerless slaves? How so?--24.57.150.2 (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the practical situation that women were in, a result of the powerful economical forces. Women, like slaves and orphans, are recognized as important oppressed and weak classes of the pre-Islamic tribal society, the society the Qur'an emerged from and aimed to reform. Thus many of the Qur'anic references to slaves, women and orphans come together or in consecutive verses.
 * In any case, this is not the place to discuss the content of the article but rather its factuality. I don't think we should discuss interpretation of the text here.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't assume I disagree with that. Now, back to Muhammed's supposed analogy: where is he making that analogy in the quote? Where is the source that argues that he was? Consider

Analogizing the destruction of the Reichstag, Bush said "After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."
 * It's the same kind of original research. Where is Bush making that analogy? Where's the source that argues that he was?--24.57.150.2 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that up. Here is what one of the two sources says:
 * "Finally, in his famous last speech, Khutbat al-Wadaa’, the Prophet emphasized that all believers, whether free or enslaved, were siblings, and that no Arab was better than a non-Arab except to the extent of one’s piety. In the same speech, the Prophet analogized the status of women in his society to that of powerless slaves, and he beseeched his male audience to treat them kindly, saying: “Be good to women; for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You took them in God’s trust, and legitimated your sexual relations with the Word of God, so come to your senses people, and hear my words....”. He also admonished them: “Let not one of you whip his wife like a slave, then have sexual intercourse with her at the end of the day."
 * I don't think I misrepresented this. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You took out "..." the part of the quote that was the analogy! for they are powerless captives (awan) in your households. You can't take that part out otherwise it's not an analogy, so that part should go back in.


 * But really I think it should be reworded. I think people will misinterpret it and think Muhammed means "women should be slaves." Being "powerless" and being "captive" are seen as very negative things in Western society. Put them together and people think of actual slavery. I think the word "awan" is one of those words that is hard to translate. I will try to think of another way to word the sentence (not the quote, of course) to give it a more context. Maybe start it off with "Commenting on the vulnerability of women in 7th century Arabia, Muhammed advised..." --24.57.150.2 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the change you proposed. Hope you are happy now. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If women had it so bad before Islam then tell me why Muhammad's first wife was wealthy and independent before she met him. She could come and go as she pleased and marry whoever she wanted. Seems like Islam was a big step backwards for her and other women. Bluetd (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should reserve your own personal perspectives for a blog or a forum - something which Wikipedia is not.  ITAQALLAH   12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Hi, I have added the pronunciation of Muhammad in Standard Arabic in the intro line.Cygnus_hansa (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

infobox
Does anybody really think the "infobox person" that was just added makes any sense for this article? "Occupation: Prophet"? I think it should be removed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if Jesus gets an infobox, why not Muhammad? Just edit the fields appropriately, which means Occupation should be axed as it comes out kind of silly. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, Jesus to the rescue then... looking at that article, which is quite good, we should also move the "part of a series" infoboxes in this article lower so they don't look like they're crowded. And "occupation" should be something more NPOV, like "preacher, political leader, general", not "prophet". - Merzbow (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh. This article is already so full of pictures and timelines on the right that I don't see room for uncrowding... and if I recall MOS correctly it's not recommended to sandwich text between two pictures/templates. - Merzbow (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing it. If it is re-added there needs to be consensus on the talk page first.  The infobox is problematic for a number of reasons foremost among them emphasizing the illusion of portraiture. gren グレン 09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly does the "the illusion of portraiture" mean? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just taking a guess here, but the 'illusion of portraiture' probably means giving the impression that this was a portrait of the person and not just a depiction of what the artist imagined he might look like. Peter Deer (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More or less... an infobox is like "vital facts" about a person... the problem is we have legend and cloudy history around Muhammad. I don't mind depictions but they need good context since they aren't picture or portraits... they are products of the minds of artists centuries later drawing on hagiography and tradition.  I think that makes an infobox rather misleading. gren グレン 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not particularly necessary IMO.  ITAQALLAH   23:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What was Muhammads last name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.37.24 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Arabic name. There is no real last name scheme like developed in Europe. gren グレン 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA nom
I think the work done on the article in recent months (barring the endless disputes about images etc.) has been generally good, and, reading through the article - everything seems roughly in the right place content wise. There might be slight issues with presentation or one or two areas where it's not comprehensive but I think these are more FA-related criteria. The content is generally thorough, citations are employed well, there is no original research so far as I can tell (I've only read through the bio section thoroughly though), there aren't any major omissions or neutrality issues I can see, and, well, stability-wise... this is probably as stable as we're going to get it. I do think the article needs improving in areas (I'd like to see the Western/European views section incorporate better structure given the presentation of the topic in the Muhammad article in EoI), but I do think it's near-GA standard if not already there.  ITAQALLAH  23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Aisha's age has yet again been suppressed (why, if it's okay?) and the images showing Muhammad's face have been relegated to the bottom of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's a big can worms, I'm not willing to open. Besides, being an atheist, my opinon on any religion article, isn't much help. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as was repeated ad nauseum, there's nothing remotely significant about Aisha's, Umm Kulthum's, Khadija's, Sawda's etc. age at marriage. You personally find it significant for motives you have already divulged. The current status of the images in the article appear to reflect a general consensus, not that I agree with it.  ITAQALLAH   23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aisha's age is sigificant, unlike the others, precisely because she was a child. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant to you, yes. Encyclopaedically or historically significant, not really. We already discussed these points to a significant extent, the end result being that you didn't provide any academic references demontrating or explaining that Aisha's age was uniquely significant, and, more preciesly, one of the most important things about her that it required mention in the sentence allocated to her. The discussion is there in the archives for you to review, and no consensus for inclusion materialised from it.  ITAQALLAH   00:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's completely irrelevant in such a short section where the names of each wife isn't even mentioned. gren グレン 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two perspectives on this one is a perspective of a faithful and other is a perspective or regular reader. ITAQALLAH represents one side User:GoodDay represent the other side. She was a child and a minor child, that is a significant fact (to the other party) that is not addressed as yet in the article and I believe its misleading to say she was young. I would want to have clarity to this issue that may destabilize the article at any minute. In other words I will look at a compromise of 50%-50% for both sides - faithful and regular readers. I would recommend at least in a footnote providing sufficient information to make sure the above concern is addressed. I believe for a majority of (only) English speaking readers this information can be considered of a sufficient significance for inclusion in the main text if not in the lead. In other words if its not included and someone includes it after article is GA (and there are plenty reliable sources for such inclusion) it will destabilize the article and will result in the edit war, this discussion needs to be concluded to ensure article is stable. Please provide options of how to word it to make sure its sensitive to the views of the faithful. Wikidās-ॐ 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your characterisation a little offensive. I'm arguing from a Wikipedia policy perspective, not from a 'faithful' one.
 * The whole debate has been about whether this tid-bit of information about her age is significant. If so, where are the sources establishing its significance? Where are the sources showing us that it's one of the most important things about her, that it must be mentioned in the one-sentence overview? Note that the ages of other wives aren't mentioned (some wives are only mentioned in passing), and note that Aisha's historical significance is established by her role in the Muslim community as a leader and a scholar - not by the age at which she married. In fact, her age at marriage has never been historically significant, nor is it particularly significant amongst academics.  ITAQALLAH   20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidās, understand that I agree with you, but compromise is really a tall order if we insist that Aisha's age is a "significant fact" that needs to be clarified for the sake of stability. The "young girl" was the compromise... if we must further clarify Aisha's age, then we are siding with those of us who feel it's important. It'll be more like 90%-10% at best, not 50%-50%. As for a footnote, I personally think a footnote mentioning her age would look messy and random, but that's just me. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This argument is fallacious. Your assertion presupposes the notion that persons who support a position (as opposed those who reject that position) are absolutely incapable of making edits without basing them on prejudice and their own personal motives as opposed to the objectives of Wikipedia.
 * As to your statement of her being a "child" and a "minor", just as we do not state that Buddha was from Nepal but was from Ancient India, we do not presuppose our current standards of adulthood and legal minority status upon ancient examples. In regards to her being a "minor" she was old enough in that society that the marriage was not considered extraordinary, as for her being a "child" she had reached puberty by the time that Muhammad began living with her, thus biologically (and legally at that time) making her an adult, not a child. The objections are based entirely on todays conceptions of propriety and maturity, not on legality or biology.
 * Continuing to assert that she be labeled as "child" is dubious and POV. If her age is to be expanded upon, including the sources which discuss what her age purportedly was according to primary sources, then it should be in her article, not in this summary here. Its notability insofar as the criticism of Muhammad is concerned is contained within its own section. I can see little reasonable reason why you are continuing to pursue this be included here as well, as it already receives significant Wikipedia coverage, and I have a hard time seeing how I can assume this is for the sake of improving the encyclopedia. Peter Deer (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See? Referring to Aisha as a child is apparently too dubious and POV, but stating her age in a less dubious form is apparently even more POV! I really don't know how to satisfy the anti-mentioning side, other than just pretending that Aisha's age has had no impact whatsoever on Muhammed's life or his legacy in history. Which is&mdash;I'm sorry, but&mdash;erroneous, considering that even Muhammad himself waited before consumating the marriage. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, I actually do not want to include or exclude anything, but its necessary to see if a compromise can be achieved. I do not think its critical for the article, but I guess whoever wants to include information on it will have a hard time. Some primary sources give a different perspective to what you are suggesting:

"Aisha reported: Allah's Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.""

- -Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310

"The Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years"

- -Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64


 * Do you have a proposal on how to deal with this issue? As BaronGrackle states that word 'child' is somewhat dubious and POV. Okay but why stating her age in a less dubious form is apparently even more POV? Wikidās-ॐ 07:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba
I added some information about Second Pledge of al-`Aqaba to clarify Last years in Mecca. On the other hand it's written something about the issue in Hijra section. It may cause people think these are two different issues. Can you help with this problem.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Influential Man
Muhammad was named the most influeantial man alive by Michael H.Hart. This has to be included in the earlier part of the article. 59.152.90.68 (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is a neutral, verifiable, notable source go for it. Personally though I get the impression this isn't going to get far. Peter Deer (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Muhammad is not "the most influeantial man alive"
 * 2. There is no objective criterion for determining who is the "most influential man".
 * 3. It does not add anything to the article. If he was indeed the most influential and the article is well-written, it should show it. We don't need to explicitly say it. --

Be happy!! (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't he also illiterate?

Picture
Its removed again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.163.14 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes by Wikidas
You need to discuss your changes Wiki[d]as one by one and seek consensus here on the talk page before making them. Thanks --User:AAA765 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For example to point out a few initial changes: "uncorrupted" was removed. Please explain why? "Early reforms under Islam" is linked to "restorer of faith"; the two do not seem connected to each other in a way I can see. The link to Common Era from "CE" is removed. "CE" directs to a disambiguation page. "After the death of his first wife and to" was added to "After the death of his first wife and to escape persecution Muhammad and his followers migrated to"- this adds the claim that the migration had something to do with the death of his first wife. Please cite the reliable source for this claim. That Qur'an is the most credible source is accurate and what the sources say. Why was this replaced with "main"? The original name of Medina was Yathrib but later changed to "Medina", why was the sentence "(then known as Yathrib)" removed? As you can see Wikias, you need to discuss your changes and seek consensus for them before making them. --AAA765 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 "uncorrupted" is not neutral, meaning does not change without this word.
 * 2 "(then known as Yathrib)" - is a repetition of information given previously in the article, see lead section.
 * 3 "restorer of faith" - is the literal translation of French quotation in reference.
 * 4 "After the death of his first wife and to" - as discussed before, is a simple statement of chronological fact;
 * 5 most credible is a POV statment, as the next sentence clearly states that Qur'an does not provide much details.
 * I do not need to discuss the changes as per WP:GAN procedures. I just state the fact, that to have article neutral, you need to have these changes. You can discuss each and improve on the areas of the changes. All changes relate to neutrality as per above review. Wikidās ॐ 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The article says that Muslims believe "...uncorrupted". It doesn't make any such claim on the part of others. By not neutral do you mean, there are Muslims who think otherwise?
 * 2. Lead is summarizing the content of the article. Not the reverse. I think the first time that we mention Medina in the article, we should mention "(then known as Yathrib)".
 * 3. The link you have provided for "restorer of faith", that is "early reforms under Islam" is your own decision and in my view incorrect.
 * 4. No, by adding this with the opposition, it is serving as a reason for the migration.
 * 5. Do you have any reliable source saying that there are other sources more credible for historical analysis of Muhammad than the Qur'an? Your personal view, nor that of mine count. Historians, as a matter of fact, do consider the Qur'an the most credible source. See for example William Montgomery Watt's book. Also please see Historicity_of_Muhammad. Everything beside the Qur'an are only secondary for the reconstruction of the historical muhammad.
 * Lastly, you do need to discuss your changes to the article. Your reading of the GAN process is incorrect. You can judge whether the article passes the requirements as an outside reviewer. But if you would like to make any edit, you should join other editors and then let another outsider review it. --AAA765 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I welcome your discussion on all points and elements of my review and GA version edits. I am not going to take part in this discussion, but will just note that I certainly agree that he first time that we mention Medina in the article, we can mention "(then known as Yathrib)", but not twice. I have no interest in the article, and I would hope it makes it. I may suggest that you review all my changes individually. I have a copy here of my work for the current GA version, and I hope its not going to be called off, thus if you choose to change, make each case at a time. I would welcome further improvements to all elements that you have raised and do not consider them written in stone. Wholesale revert of the GA version may result in a need pf desisting under WP:GAN. -- Wikidās ॐ 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikidas, the most important point is not becoming GA. It is becoming neutral and factual. You seem to have serious points which needs to be discussed. For example, addition of Hindu views of Muhammad is a very important point but how much space should be given to it. We can work it out here on the talk page and add a summary there. We can even create articles specifically on the topic. It would be best if you can stay here and continue discussion. Yes I think the article needs to be delisted given the current disagreement over its neutrality. --AAA765 (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel that article fails on criteria of WP:GA listed above please use process: Good article reassessment. I did everything I could to ensure no party will be interested or motivated to do it. I am sorry, I do not have a specific interest and am not an editor of the article and I suggest you take all my bold additions and review them. I am convinced that as result you will get an even better good article. Procedurally I am not required to go any further on this, unless you want to increase my salary. Wikidās ॐ 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This user is going around posting content about Hindu views of Muhammad with poorly sourced information and not scholared. This user needs to research more into the information with proper sources. --Veer87 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, some of the insertions by Wikidas on the topic of other religious views (namely Hindu) of Muhammad were well sourced and covered areas not previously mentioned. I removed some parts which were more about theology in Hinduism and Islam as I thought they were tangential, but other than that I really see no problem.  ITAQALLAH  21:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, I thought some of the changes to the lead in particular needed reconsidering (I've made the changes to the areas most pertinent). 'Uncorrupted' is fine given the 'Muslims consider' caveat - the term urreligion is inappropriate here unless properly sourced. "Restorer of faith" is redundant as we already mention that Muslims consider him the restorer of the original monotheism of Adam etc. And it was improperly linked IMO to an article about societal reforms brought by Muhammad, which is more an aspect of academic study than Muslim belief. 'Was' is incorrect tense, he still is the central human figure. Mentioning the death of Khadija here is not really necessary, especially as it appears a little abrupt given that it's in between passages discussing the progression of persecution and the eventual migration. The placement may imply some sort of indirect link as well.  ITAQALLAH   22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

request to wikipedia and wikipedian
the picture should be removed. because muhammad comes because of islam and this muhammad is related to islam if article is written related islam then the article should be related as the islam rules and regulation and the rule is muhammad has no picture and no one can draw picture of muhammad. So I request to wikipedian that the picture shoul be removed as the Islamic rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Muhammad comes of Islam, but he is important outside of Islam as well, so the non-Islamic view on him has the right to be represented too. Wikipedia is not bound by Islamic laws, nor by laws of any other religion or country (other than the one where its servers are located). If this were not the case, then articles like the one on Holocaust Denial and Pornography would not be permissible, as the respective topics are not allowed by the laws of certain countries.


 * Furthermore, the pictures were drawn by Islamic artists, underlining the fact that the prohibition is not as universal as you say.


 * Also, this is all covered in the FAQ.
 * VigilantPuma (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Views of Muhammad
Perhaps there should be one section for the Dharmic views of Muhammad, that can include Parsism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. At the moment i've added some text however theres a lot more to be done. Anybody want to participate ? --Mujahideen54 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

add muhammad article as non islamic view
So then please categorize this article as non islamic view then it will no be mixed with the Main Islamic View it will a good thoughtful work to do it. Then the islamic and non islamic view article can be identified easily and no one will be confused as we some people have done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that those miniatures were drawn by Islamic artists, they seem to fit well into an Islamic view of Muhammad, even if the article were separated into two, which I doubt it will be.VigilantPuma (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, Wikipedia does not split up articles based on views (there are some exceptions, mostly on less viewed articles that don't get attention). Our goal is not to confuse anyone on whose views they are--and the article makes clear that a vast number of Muslims don't accept these drawings but that does not mean they haven't existed.  We hope to make this point clear. gren グレン 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editting Muhammad Articles
As an donation advertisement there is said that anyone can edit the wikipedia's article but somewhere is exceptional. Why it occurs?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone may edit Wikipedia however they must follow the rules and policies of the encyclopedia, otherwise we would have chaos... Garycompugeek (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because protection is necessary sometimes. Celarnor Talk to me  04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is semi-protected. Anyone with an account which is over 4 days old, and has made more than 10 edits is automatically able to edit this page. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

views on Jesus and Muhammad
ok. I am not a writer here but the way this is written. This article is written of his life as a real person, But if you read the one on Jesus it is as if he never lived and it was just stories made up, It has alot of "according to" on "noted in" in it to me that smells of racisism or at least politics can this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba1500 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Muhammad was a real, historical person whose historical veracity is undisputed. Much is known and uncontested about Muhammad.  Jesus: not so much.  Not comparable.  Think of Muhammad as Aristotle and Jesus as Socrates. Wily D  20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, just so you know, Jesus' existence is not disputed, it is historical fact that he was a real person. Having any belief that Islam is somehow superior to Christianity is completely ridiculous, and not to mention ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theterabyteboy (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * jesus isnt very well documented compared to many MANY other religious teachers from the same period. the stories that exist are often conflicting.--66.158.232.107 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, alright, calm down. The nature of the article is certainly not intending to be racist; I must say, however, that Jesus' existence is not in dispute - I thought it was obvious that merely his divinity is rejected by some/many. I must also say that there's not much doubt that Socrates existed, there are several mentions of him in Ancient Greek texts. The Bible is a historical source just as other texts are, but I must admit it's not totally reliable. Take the Meeting at Nicea for example. Deciding what is and isn't God's word is not up to the Pope or anyone else. NIN (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

about non-islamic view
VigilantPuma this user said that this is non islamic view article then I requested to the user then it can be categorized in non islamic view category but now this user saying it is islamic view. I dont know whether this wikipedian has knowledge of Islam or not. I think he/she doesn't know Islam very well. Actually it is not concern about knowing islam it is concern about category. So this article can be categorized in Non-Islamic View as well. I dont know very much about biruni though I know that he was a great muslim in Islamic History. His picture of muhammad is added to the muhammad article but his this kind of picture is not added to its own article albiruni. Why it happened?????????? May be biruni wanted to picturize something else and now this picture is used in different way. I want to suggest you people first study the picture history and picture's whole things after that think about that this picture should be on this article or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaish (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not written from either an islamic point of view or a non-islamic point of view. They are written from a neutral point of view. --86.148.57.140 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no "views" here. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.  It is one of our core policies.  Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I admit that is neutral point as you people are saying but 1st I didn't say that this is non-islamic view that is said by you people then I requested to you people that can be categorized by non-islamic view.

You know because of this article in the whole world many muslim community like orkut, facebook, hi5 there is discussion going on and all muslim people give the negative opinion about this article. Just I said to categorize this article in non-islamic view, just do it. Muslim community's peoples are also men they have also opinion and they have a think though it is written in a neutral point but it hurts the muslim people. I said that this picture is used in muhammad article but it is not used in albiruni article why? no answer I have got. I have said that albiruni picture should be studied very well but there is no answer but one answer I have got that this is neutral view. WoW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have a written an article about a university there was written about surrounding environment of this university after that one wikipedian has deleted the description about the surrounding environment and tagged that the article needs to cleanup to meet the wikipedia's quality. If my surrounding environment can be deleted then I suggest the wikipedian that they can delete the picture because that is also a surrounding environment as lik the university article. I think I could make understand the point. I hope so. I know that is maybe an article of a moderator of wikipedia who walks on his/her way and he keeps the power to protect his own article safe If so then every wikipedian should have this. Then it will be equal............--MD. Kais Haider Chowdhury 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussions about Muhammad's image should take place at Talk:Muhammad/images. Please read the top of this talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think VigilantPuma (above) was not saying that images of Muhammad were Islamic or not; only saying that the images were drawn by Islamic artists. If we have pictures of Muhammad in the article, then these are the least offensive images available. I don't understand your point about albiruni - the Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī article has pictures of Biruni. Many Wikipedia contributors do not like to remove text or images for any group, even large groups. Talk:Muhammad/FAQ lists some reasons why. Mostly they suggest that if we remove text and images for one group, others groups will demand we remove other content, and there will be very little remaining.
 * Tags on articles are very common and are designed to help us find articles we can improve. Using tools like suggest bot, I can find articles which I am interested in and which I can fix. Cleanup means making small changes so all pages look similar - for example changing the heading "Teachers & Staff" to "Teachers and staff". The user removed some of your changes because they describe Jinggangshan and not Jinggangshan University. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Names and appellations in the Qur'an
Under the above header in the article, and based on e.g. http://www.christoph-heger.de/ya_muhammad_no_o_Mohammed.htm#_ftn4I and http://www.phil.uni-sb.de/projekte/imprimatur/2007/imp070704.html I added this text (Header plus one line):

Earlier use of "Muhammed"
Some mean that a title "Muhammed" was used in Syro-Aramaic, before it was used in the Quran.

The text was however removed. Please explain. St.Trond (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the "See also" header I had made a reference to the "The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran" page. It was also removed. Please explain.St.Trond (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st of all, who do you mean by "some"?!
 * 2nd, you need to reference a reliable source.
 * 3rd, can you explain why you added a link to The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran page?--Xevorim (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed in the Hindu Scriptures?: A misleading article
Okay, Why do we have a sub-section which claims that Mohammed has been mentioned in the Hindu scriptures? refer this wiki section: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Muhammad#Views_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures

There have been many false claims around the net, but it's irritating and sad when Wikipedia also says so. Let's look at the claims:

1. Mohammed has been mentioned in the Bhavishya Purana. (cannot be taken seriously, since this work saw a lot of editing in the 19th century. In fact, one can even find words like "Victoria", "Mohammed" etc in this book!)

2.He has been mentioned in the Vedas. (Excuse me...where? The word "Narashan rishi" does not refer to Mohammed at all.)

3.Mohammed is supposed to be the "Kalki Avatar" (the last avatar of Lord Vishnu). Again, it lacks logic. Lord Kalki : 1. Exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma 2. Is the beginning and the end 3. Comprehends all things 4. Will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent Brahmin of Sambhala village 5. Will be endowed with the eight superhuman faculties

You can see that none of these "attributes" are applicable to Mohammed at all.

Therefore, this sub-section is very misleading. I wouldn't mind deleting it at all since most of these theories are false and have been proved to be wrong. Here are the websites which have proved the "Hindu theory" wrong:http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1913 http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/kalkiavatar.html

I'm awaiting for your reply. If you don't want to delete the article, please tell me how I can modify it. freewit (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support removing the section. It seems that only a handful of "scholars" (namely Abdul Haq Vidyarthi) propagate this belief.
 * Indeed, it's not a mainstream view not even amongst muslims that Muhammad is mentioned in scriptures of people not considered to be "people of the book" (Jews and Christians). And the vedas aren't considered divine revelations by muslims. I think it's an attempt to fulfil some objectives by mistranslating and misinterpreting scriptures (similar to the book by Gabriel Sawma, The Quran: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread). --Xevorim (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, this stuff is back??! I think it was 1.5 years ago some one person was creating articles and stuffing references here on just this same claim. Has anybody gone back through the archives to find references to the insertion of this same doubtful material? Plus undue weight and all that.  I'm beginning to think that alongside each article there needs not only to be a talk page (and archives) but a cross-reference with abstracts of prior issues and conclusions.  As the top of the page testifies, there are a few. Ah, I see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ has been added. (good (sigh)) Shenme (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assistance required

Thanks for the replies guys! Please bear with me as I'm a wiki novice (at least with this editing stuff):). Some of my questions might seems stupid:

1. Okay. What do we do next? Do I leave the article as it is and add some stuff like:

"There have been attempts to prove that Mohammed appears in the Hindu Scriptures. However, these claims have been proved to be wrong" and then add the relevant stuff?

2. I understand that to delete this article some kind of "permission is needed"? How many people need to approve to delete this sub-section?

3.One more thing, for articles which do not require any kinds of "updates" at all, would it not be possible to permanently "lock" (red lock) the article so that any kind of "Vandalism" or "mischief" can be prevented? For example, what further updates can we include about Mohammed the prophet? He was a man who lived, preached a religion and died. The same would go for Abraham, Zoraster, Krishna and similar figures.

@ Shenme: Tried the archives but I was unable to find anything relevant. Your guidance here would be much appreciated since I'm a....novice (sigh! I feel terrible:)freewit (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try to go through the archives also (as time permits). I asked someone and they thought there had been some discussion here previously.  There must have been some to have this much text. (Must, because it is striking multiple people as egregious, witness another new comment subsection below, Talk:Muhammad
 * Then I'd love to go back and find the Afd's I think I remember. (Afd = WP:AFD - Articles for Deletion - a process when an editor thinks an article should not be kept in Wikipedia and requests that multiple editors review and comment) I'd like to review those for clues as to 'proofs' put forward for this whole area.
 * Basically, my first reaction upon seeing the bloated section as it is now, is that it violates WP:UNDUE. Thus I'd like to go back through the page history and see how the "other views" subsection used to look, and how much space was devoted to any such marginal view.  It may be that, having been frustrated at creating a separate article, the editor has been adding bits here.  I just have to wonder if it warrants much more than a sentence, if that. Shenme (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The publisher of Muhammad in World Scriptures (by AbdulHaq Vidyarthi) is "Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam Lahore" (literally, Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of Islam). Which can't be considered a "reliable" 3rd party publication (see Reliable sources). And since, according to wikipedia, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (see WP:REDFLAG); I would recommend not using AbdulHaq Vidyarthi's book as a source in this issue.
 * Sikand in his book "Muslims in India since 1947: Islamic perspectives on interfaith relations" explores such beliefs but does not propagate any. It would be more appropriate to either remove that section or to revamp it to reflect beliefs held by some (not representing mainstream Islamic scholarship) in the Indian subcontinent. Another option is to post a query in the Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Xevorim (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole section should be radically rewritten or simply removed. These views are being pushed by a virulent Ahmadiyya sockpuppeteer, who is constantly misrepresenting sources to push his fringe POV. See the Reliable Sources noticeboard for details. Muhammad is indeed mentioned in Bhavishya Purana, but in a derogatory way. Here is a link which shows the actual text . This blog is not, of course, a citable source, but sadly is seems to be the only one that has the correct text; for citable sources see the academic literature on the topic. In fact the passage portrays him as a dharmadūṣaka ("polluter of righteousness"), a preceptor of paiśācadharma ("ghoulish religion"), and a reincarnation of Tripurāsura, a demon whom Lord Shiva will destroy again. See Ramanujan, A. K., "Folk Mythologies and Purāṇas" in: Doniger (1993), Purāṇa Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in Hindu and Jaina Texts. Albany, New York: State University of New York. ISBN 0-7914-1382-9, p. 105. All scholars believe that this text was probably written in the nineteenth century. It's not an ancient text "predicting" Muhammad, but anti-Islamic propaganda. By a remakable twist it has been turned into pro-Islamic (or at least pro-Ahmadiyya) propaganda by being mistranslated. This whole section ignores mainstream scholarship to push wildly fringe theories by obscure persons as mainstream views. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally removed. Thanks for all your assistance, guys! 17:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewit (talk • contribs)


 * Hope it remains that way.--Xevorim (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad and slavery
Why an article subsection on his wives and children, yet not on his slaves? He exercised ownership of at least 12 females (including concubines, one at least he married and another at least bore him a child + Rayhana bint Zayd (yet another concubine if not wife)} and 26 males during the course of his life. His wet nurse (Umm Ayman), who raised him and to who he was extremely close throughout his life, was also his slave. Surely all notable information, which sadly also seems to been covered over and unmentioned in this article to date. Also, the cited observation of Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya, that he "had many male and female slaves, he used to buy and sell them, and he purchased more slaves than he sold" warrants consideration for inclusion, as well as the maggot's exploitation of a fair number of his male slaves to fight his battles for him. Comments? 79.130.162.229 (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) By informed reckoning he owned at least 12 female and !31! male slaves through the course of his life .. buy you'd have no inkling of it from reading the article as it stands presently. George Washington's article surely mentions his slaves. & rightly so. What's behind the coverup here and how much longer is it going to last? 79.130.162.229 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's good idea to ad something about this issue in the reform section.-- Seyyed(t-c) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Images
The "warning" at the top of the discussion page indecates images of Muhammad will not be removed, yet apperently they have been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.30.121.23 (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They're still here, just further down the page. Zazaban (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have they been moved further down the page and replace with pictures of ancient text in a forign language? (this is English Wikipedia) These pictures of Forign language are irelevant and should not be here. They should be replaced by the relevant pictures with were once in an relevant place. Fanatics appear to have taken over this place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.222.64 (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This was part of the consensus, and if you had bothered to read the article, you might realise the pictures are not irrelevant Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had read what I just wrote you would realize that the "pictures" are irrelevent. Howether the incorrect desision was made it has obviously been influenced by Fanatics who we should not be appeasing as a supposedly unbiased source of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.218.84 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. We were simply unaware that your wisdom trumped our editorial consensus policy. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We try to represent historical representations in a way that reflects their prominance. Hence a textual representation in the lead, with more pictorial representations in less prominant positions, where they better compliment the text. Wily D  20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a section that addresses the freakish reactions muslims have to graphical representations of mohommad, or what happens when you name a teddy bear mohommad etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.114.180 (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Niema
Hello, at the timeline box, it says "622 	Emigrates to Medina (Hijra) 623 	Changes his name to Niema"

What the heck is Niema? I've never heard of that before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.188.19 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look like vandalism to me. I've removed it.  ITAQALLAH   19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add category
Please add the category tag. Someone may mistakenly believe that this article should not be in that category, because Category:Muhammad is already there; however, Categorization and subcategories clearly says "If [a] topic article and [a] similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, makes sense to me. Thanks ~ mazca  t 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hindu scripture section
This whole section is a tissue of errors and misrepresentation, entirely dependent on the fringe theories of Abdul Haq Vidyarthi, which are being presented here as fact. This is a serious blot on this article. Footnotes wholly misrepresent scholarship on this topic. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And as an update, I've deleted this section. Let's hope it stays that way.....

Thanks for your assistance, Paul! If anyone has any further clarifications on this issue, please take the discussion here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mohammed_according_to_Hindu_Scriptures:_False_Claims freewit (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * - According to the Hindu scriptures the information seems to be in place. --.alchin007 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article you link to says no such thing. Since your only other edit has been to claim that the word "Buddha" is Arabic, I don't think you are being helpful. Paul B (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu scripts have their own Hindu section. That seems like a more appropriate place to put them.St.Trond (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing is wrong with adding Views. if the Hindu scriptures say that than i see no problem with adding the content. How come delete the entire section including Bahas, Hindu, Sikh point of view ?

Perhaps change the name of the section to Other Religion Views ? --CMJTHY (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? what are you guys (St.Trond and CMJTHY) talking about???? Where does it say about Mohammed in the Hindu scriptures? Let's be serious....this is an encyclopedia not your personal blog where you can rant about whatever crap you want to....

If you guys simply want to spam or air your own views, there are thousands of blogs and forums out there....

@ St.Trond: Where exactly does it say about Mohammad in the HIndu scriptures? Do not quote from the Bhavishya Purana or try to misinterpret something from the Vedas or the Upanishads....Nothing is wrong in adding "your views" or "my views", but this is an encyclopedia which depends on FACTS...Not vague theories or propaganda stuff...There are even one or two theories floating around that Jesus came from India!!! Obviously, we can't include that in an encyclopedia. Please be more serious....We had a hell of a time trying to delete that sub-section.

We will be forced to delete this section if it keeps coming up.freewit (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whos we? your not even part of the Islam Community. Neither is your dear friend Paul Barlow. Anyways are you trying to say that the Bhavishya Purana is not part of the Hindu scriptures? please revise your comments before you go off about whats in scriptures and whats not. Perhaps you want to do some research and find out what is part of the Hindu scriptures. --CMJTHY (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say? it clearly says Muhammad in Hindu scriptures even according to Abdul Haq, Zakir Naik or any other scholar. Compared to the Christian View of Muhammad the Hind scriptures have more sources and scholar research.--CMJTHY (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

CMJTHY like |.alchin007 is just another sockpuppet. One of his tactics is to fill talk pages with semi-gibberish and attacks on other editors. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi all. While it's clear the view is of a minority and probably even a fringe one, I was under the impression that some coverage would be adequate upon seeing the source used (published by Routledge Curzon, which is quite reliable). If it's the case that the source has been misrepresented, are there any details as to where and how? If it's the case that the attribution is correct, but it's just a dismissed theory, then isn't it appropriate to mention the theory alongside its dismissal by scholars?  ITAQALLAH   12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor in question is essentially concerned to push his views about the Bhavishya Purana, which are not cited to legitimate sources. The rest is designed to make the Purana passages seems legitimate. The Yoginder Singh Sikand book is indeed an entirely legitimate source, but it is about the very complex and obscure details of interfaith dialogue in India in which various religious leaders have attempted to interpret aspects of Muslim and Hindu scripture in ways which would imply some legitimacy to both. Of course so many suggestions have been made by so many pundits of one sort or another that it is terribly selective to pick these out. For example Siddiq Hussain was mostly concerned to prove that he was Kalki, not Muhammad, but the section as written here misrepresented that fact. Sentences like "In a variety of views of Hinduism held on Muhammad, scholars assert that the prophet was none else than the Narashan rishi of the Vedas" misrepresent extremely obscure views as if they are widespread among "scholars". Paul B (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for the explanation. So am I right in assuming there was nothing vaguely salvageable in the removed text, even if alternative reliable sources were to be located?  ITAQALLAH   17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The section name was misleading, there are other views, where as Bhavishya is irrelevant, the relevancy is to account for many perspectives and make sure the sources are WP:V and reliable. Wikidās ॐ 11:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again...How can the following sources be reliable?:

1.Siddiq Hussain. This guy seems to have found a sect. More here:

http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20000731/states.html

2.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. This guy is the founder of the ISKCON movement. This again seems only to be the fringe view.

3. As a final note, we have the same "Narashan" rishi stuff. Where does it say in the Hindu scriptures that a person called Mohammed came and preached a religion called Islam?

Please explain. The section name is still misleading.freewit (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh....I've removed the stuff (again). TO ALL who "insist" that Muhammad is part of the Hindu Pantheon:

We do have some people claiming that Christ and Muhammad were rishis. These are extremely biased views. They cannot be considered "reliable" at all.freewit (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop spamming the wiki.
 * 2) Please do not quote from some "vague" or "obscure" source.
 * 3) Nowhere in the Hindu scriptures do we have a description of Muhammad or for that matter, Christ.
 * I think you assume that Hinduism is some sort of centralized form of religion, maybe worth have a look of what is Hinduism before showing your ignorance once again. You have to accept a variety of views, not only views that (you) for some reason select and consider to be 'good'. Wikidās ॐ 10:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I never assumed that "Hinduism" is a sort of centralized religion! Far from it....Wikidas, I see that you're a senior editor here and probably know about ignorance better than me. However, you should also check out your Dashavatar section.

Using the same criteria, would you consider the user, nemonoman also as "ignorant"? He has also disagreed with your "Islamic" inclusions in the Dashavatar article.

I have no problems if Mohammed, the prophet was mentioned without doubt in the Vedas and/or Upanishads. The only book he is "mentioned" is the "Bhavishya Purana", which was heavily edited during the 19th century. In fact, it even contains words like "Jesus", "Victoria" et al!

If you insist on including Mohammed in Mainstream Hinduism, then please consider including:

Mecca was actually a Vedic Shrine! More of this stuff here: http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

Obviously, each of us have a thousand viewpoints, but all these viewpoints cannot be included in an encyclopedia which deals mainly with a collection of irrefutable facts. These fringe views are nothing but "desperate Islamic propaganda" designed to confuse the layman.

You might have renamed the whole section with a title like "Exploded and misleading views of Mohammed in Hinduism" or even something like "false views of Mohammed in Hindu culture".

Let me quote your write-up in the Mohammed sub-section:

Representatives of Hinduism held a variety of views on Muhammad, some with an assertion that the prophet was none else than the Narashansrishi of the Vedas, predicted in the Atharva Veda.[183] One of the prominent Vaishnava proponents, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada maintained that Mohammad and Jesus, were empowered representatives of God, saktiavesa avataras.[184] In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad.[185] In 1926 Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures, however this view is not a widely accepted doctrine.[186] On the other hand Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[187] Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death".[188]


 * 1) Representatives of Hinduism? who? Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the ISCKON movement is definitely not! The others mentioned are Siddiq Hussain and Mirza Ghulani Ahmad.


 * 1) How can the term "Last Prophet" refer to Agni, a Vedic Deity? Mohammad was born in 570 AD, while the Vedic hymns were composed around 1500 BC. What am I missing here?
 * 2) Where exactly is it written that Rama and Krishna foretold Mohammed's arrival?
 * 3) Last but not least, Siddiq Hussain was just the leader of a cult "Deendar Anjuman".

'''I confess that due to my "ignorance" I've written the above points. So profound apologies!'''

To requote your words, You have to accept a variety of views, not only views that (you) for some reason select and consider to be 'good

It's quite sad that you did not read the entire thread/discussion that we (Paul, Xevorim and myself)had before removing this section.freewit (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sure did your discussion, and your argument is that "Hindus do not represent views of Hinduism"? Leaving aside it being scriptures, so many do represent views of Hinduism and its various sub-sections. You seems to propose that the views here are not appropriate, while other views or other religions are. What is your criteria for inclusion of views of the representatives of Hinduism then? For what I can see you just do not want these represented, because you can not understand how a Hindu can see Agni be represented in Mohammed. Yes there is a relevance as to the Dasavatara article on Islamic sub-sects such as Suffies and possibly others as they are closely linked to Hindu thought. Just as Muhammad will be considered Agni or avatara by some in Hinduism sources confirm that some of the leaders of Suffism were considered avataras. You just have not done a research and academics did. Let me hear what are your views of who of Hindu leaders should be represented in this article, if you do not like for some reason the list above? 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Let me applaud the above comments and also please sign when you leave your comments as it will be easier for the rest of us to know what is going on.....


 * 1) Let me hear what are your views of who of Hindu leaders should be represented in this article

I'm no expert, but how about Swami Vivekananda or Swami Dayanand Saraswati?


 * 1) Just as Muhammad will be considered Agni or avatara by some in Hinduism sources confirm that some of the leaders of Suffism were considered avataras.

First of all, who in Hinduism considered Mohammed to be Agni???? Some of the Sufi Leaders were considered to be Avataras. Who, my friend? Let's be more clearer.


 * 1) You just have not done a research and academics did.

I'm no "scholar" I admit that:). But obviously, even a novice will be unable to understand how Mohammed and Hinduism can be connected. Ah yes, some scholars WILL twist any scriptures to prove their point. The point is: Have you SERIOUSLY researched into the article before including it? I'm not the only one. Take another look into the discussion thread and you will notice that the user Paul B has also protested. Another user, nemonoman has also criticized of "The inclusion of such ideas as Bahai versions of Avatar speculation, or Muhammad/Kalki speculation, is doubtful." https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra#The_.22Islamic.22_avatars_of_Vishnu.21

It's not just me who thinks that this section should not be included.....

For what I can see you just do not want these represented, because you can not understand how a Hindu can see Agni be represented in Mohammed.

Actually, we wouldn't have any problems at all if Mohammed has been mentioned without doubt in the Hindu Scriptures. So, how can we include "vague theories"? Is this not an encyclopedia? Like I said previously, why not then include that "Mecca was a Vedic shrine before Mohammed"? Here (I'm including the links again!):http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm freewit (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such, its about how from the point of view of Hinduism this particular person is viewed. For some 300 years Islamic rule was present in many orthodox areas of traditional Hindu areas, areas of Gaudiya Vaishnavism including. The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented. If it is not done and considering many other problems with this article, it should be reassessed. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected. I am seriously considering this. Wikidās ॐ 07:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)