Talk:Muhammad

Archives:

• Talk:Muhammad/archive 1 : 1 What do you mean shai POV? 2 WTF!?! 3 Problems? 3.1 Biggest deficiencies 3.2 Wiki to begin obeying the Shariat? 3.3 article is not neutral 3.4 General thoughts about the article 3.5 The incongruities section 3.6 Razzia section 3.7 aims or claims 3.8 Muhammad 3.9 Caliphate Expansion 3.10 Religious neutrality 3.11 NPOV warnings 3.12 death 3.13 A more scholarly article? 3.14 Major revision 3.15 References 3.16 Broke up pro and con section, moved it to other parts of article 3.17 Question 3.18 OneGuy and his reverts 3.19 Fight on another page, please 3.20 Aisha's marriage and consumation 3.21 Aisha 3.22 Boys over 12 3.23 Ibn Hisam Puberty Quote 3.24 Anonymous deleter 3.25 Edit war in Muhammad as warrior 3.26 Created Muhammad as warrior page 3.27 The criticism sections 3.28 Rearranged per Mustafaa's suggestions 3.29 Islam before Muhammad 3.30 Timeline 3.31 Your restraint is appreciated, IFaqeer 3.32 Someone unclear on the concept put these here 3.33 Latest revisions 3.34 These latest additions about Ali are seriously biased 3.35 Death of Muhammad 3.36 Describing first revelation
• Talk:Muhammad/archive 2: 1 Companions 2 Founding Islam 3 Someone revised history! 4 Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad 5 Boasting 6 Pedophile 7 Muhammad's death: Malaria 8 Battle of Badr 9 Did Mohamed attempt suicide? 10 Onward! 11 Reverting Urchid's edit 12 re:changes to this article 13 Couple things: tomb inside the mosque in Medina... 14 Proposed insertion in intro 14.1 "Claimed" 15 Amended Introduction 16 Suggested intro 17 Recent vandalism 18 announcing NPOV proposal, new policy 19 Banu Qurayza 20 Urchid's latest edits 21 Brandon's recent edit 22 POV sticker added 23 Why the POV tag 24 His name 25 Miracles 26 Michael H. Hart 27 Muhammad and his slaves section 28 Evidence for being first written constitution? 29 Order of the companions 30 Prophetic career -- prophecy 31 Striver on a rampage 32 Birth 33 List of praise names 34 Current edit conflict 35 Recent Images and Formatting Problems 36 CENSORSHIP 37 Islam series 38 Zora's Revert 39 Conflicting versions 39.1 Original Version 39.2 New Version 39.3 Discussion 40 Use of the term "pagan" 41 Copyright 42 Isn't anyone else defending this article? 43 Muhammad as influental 44 Zora's recent edits 45 Pictures and WP:Civility 46 A suggestion re picture 47 WP underattack by followers of Sina's Cult of phobia 48 Anon Sunni changing Death of Muhammad section 49 Judaism and Christianity not earlier versions (strictly speaking) 50 Birthdays 51 Battle of Uhud 52 Muhammad in Medina 53 Considering 54 Re-added OmniNerd article reference 55 Omninerd linkspamming 56 Value of OmniNerd content and quality of reference 57 One of most influential people in history 58 Recent edits by anon and Anonymous Editor 59 Aisha link 60 AE Edits 61 Okay what about something like this? 62 "Final prophet of Islam" 63 Drastic reduction of first para 64 Muslim sources report 65 Aren't there any Movies about Muhammad? 66 Iconoclasts at work? 66.1 General 66.2 POV discussion
• Talk:Muhammad/archive 3:
• Talk:Muhammad/archive 4:

---

Links to Muslim biographies of Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPA pronunciation needed

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

Wapipedia

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

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

and this:

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

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

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

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

Accuracy of encyclopedia and Pictures of prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad as "Father of Islam"?

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

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

Article morphing rapidly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Question is

should Muhammad be placed in the slave owner Cat.?

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

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

Muhammed Image

File:Muhammad at Kaba.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persian painting

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

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

BlatherAndBlatherscite

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

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

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

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

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

PBUH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet more edits by Zora

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zulfiqar/Thulfiqar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving images

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

Hair Colour

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