Talk:Muhammad

Names of Muhammed

Strikes me as odd that there isn't a list of his 99 names (such as can be found here http://itgateway.tripod.com/html/nameofprophet.htm) or an article dealing with the historical process of his aquiring of these names and their uses in worship/caligraphy

Actually there is. Peter Deer (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon link

I removed this from the 'See Also' section. It does not help the article, and there is already a link to 'Depictions'. Unflavoured (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"muhammad" used for Jesus claim

" The title "Muhammad" (meaning revered and praiseworthy) is used for "Jesus"[1] on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem c. 692 CE. [2][3] "

This fringe view addition is also completely irrelevant in this article, which is not about Jesus, but about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. I am not removing it from the section non-Arab sources, but I hope someone else will, if they agree. Antipastor (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus for relevant discussion, including reference that discards the theory, I am removing this. Antipastor (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Muhammad PBUH did not have slaves, its forbidden in Islam, and MUhammad PBUH fought that tradition and he and his followers liberated most of slaves. So plz change that part as its wrong. Thank you

Slavery is forbidden in Islam? That seems to run counter to history. Weren't the Mamluks, simply to mention one group, former slaves? Cutugno (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhhamad was the owner of slaves, both male and female, including concubines, wetnurse, and his adopted son Zayd[157]. Other slaves assisted him in his military campaigns.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.151.106 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember that being a problematic statement it was discussed

here While the first part of the statement is referenced the second part is not well referenced I think it should be removed--NotedGrant Talk 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the sources I have found mentioning Muhammad in the context of military slaves refer to different military leaders also called "Muhammad" who lived after the prophet. =Axlq 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember to keep this on-topic with the article, as Wikipedia is not a forum. There is a whole article on this very subject, which I highly recommend perusing (it has a wealth of sources that could be cited here) but I think I can clarify that the notion that slavery is forbidden in Islam may largely stem from the verse in the twenty-fourth Sura stating "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of manumission, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you." (which essentially means that you can have slaves but have to free them--and pay them--if they request it) functionally, if not explicitly, ending compulsive slavery. However, this should only be included in the article if reliable third-party sources can be found and cited on this, and we do not want to create improper synthesis from primary source material. I hope this resolves it! Peter Deer (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that Muslims did raid Christian lands as well and took many slaves, about 5 million. Norum 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic with discussion of the article. Peter Deer (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is on topic. Cheers. Norum 06:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslims raided lands and took slaves, christians raided lands and took slaves, hindus raided lands and took slaves, pagans raided lands and took slaves, atheists raided lands and took slaves, the list goes on. Zazaban (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that Muhammad did this and this and also this and I know Muhammad did this...oh wait none of this is sourced and none of this is discussion of how the article can be improved.

Guys, come on, if you want to talk with people about stuff like that there's places for it, but we're trying to run a damn encyclopedia here. Peter Deer (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should discuss the slavery section. As of now it is a single sentence sourcing a 14th century author's religious book. Clearly this is not a reliable source and it wasn't even written as history. This doesn't mean that I am trying to defend the assertions of this section's creator, merely that proper citation for such a view involves consensus (or dissenting views) of notable historians--not a religious treatise.

But, before we get to proper citations I do want to question the point of the section. Why does a one sentence section which states that Muhammad owned slaves and then telling us the types of slaves deserve to be in this article. Is there a reason this has a stand alone section? I think the answer is what we currently have does not deserve its own section, it should become evident in his biography his relationship with slaves of his own, freed slaves, slaves of the community, etc. But, obviously this is a political issue which has all kind of NPOV implications so I think we should at least come up with a few options for how to present slavery in this article. Here are my suggestions:

1. Integration: All issues of slaves are organized temporally in the prose of his biography. This means rather than reading about Zayd or Maria out of any context year you read about his relationship with them as it fits into the context of his life, battles, adoptions, etc.
2. "On slavery": Similar to Thomas Jefferson, most of the personal interactions with slaves would be integrated into the biography as appropriate but a more extensive section discussing Muhammad's views--or, more likely, later Muslim's interpretations of Muhammad's view--son slavery would be added. This means we separate and leave the more value-neutral discussion in the life summary section but discuss the contentious issues of did Muhammad really want to ban slavery in the long run? Did he challenge the institution of slavery? How did he think slaves should be treated? can be discussed where they can get proper discussion around the many differing opinions of Islamic scholars (and to a lesser extent historians).

Those are my two suggestions and I suggest option 1 for now and then option 2 if an enterprising editor sees fit to craft an NPOV, well sourced section about slavery at Talk:Muhammad/slavery that editors can agree on. In any case, we need a serious discussion of this issue and find that happy medium of not obfuscating the views about Muhammad and slaves nor elevating them to undue prominence because of moral outrage over slavery. We are supposed to be value neutral and properly contextualize in a way that allows readers to make their own value judgments. gren グレン 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

References for the beginnings of armed conflict

For the refrences [83] and [84] it must be mentiond (and cited) from which source Lewis and Watt get the information. This is because an important "claim" is made in that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.31 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad (pbuh) Founder of Islam... This is incorrect

Muhammad (pbuh) is not the founder of Islam but the last and final Messenger, to understand this please note that Islam in short means - to aquire peace by submitting your will to Almighty God, and that Islam is not a religion but a way of life which all the Prophets of Almighty God followed. --Yasin K (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)