Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 182.182.61.24 (talk) at 07:39, 12 January 2012 (→Image poll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Good articleMuhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Why no mention that Muhammad was poisoned to death?

Why is there not even one sentence regarding Muhammad being poisoned to death by a captured Jewish woman?

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." Sahih Bukhari, book 59, hadith 713

Narrated Umm Mubashshir: Umm Mubashshir said to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaybar. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta. Sunan Abudawud, book 39, hadith 4499 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weon23snd9 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the claim was that he was poisoned and died three years later. If you want to establish that, a starting point (necessary but not sufficient) would be to find a reliable source for a poison with those properties existing at that time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you remember or not is impertinent to the Wikipedia. what if you remember incorrectly? Can you provide an authentic source to prove that Muhammad never alleged poisoning? I second the view that this poisoning bit should be mentioned (if a good source could be cited), regardless of whether it hurts your religious sentiments or not.--71.17.188.133 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are flying horses mentioned in the article. Where is the reliable source that there are/were flying horses existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.197.217 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --NWo4lifePT (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Non-Muslim views of Muhammad, especially those from the West deserve mention in this article. The non-Muslim views, by definition, reject Muhammad (as a prophet) and his message (as divine). These are important and they should stay.

In recent years there have been some extremely critical views of Muhammad bordering on Islamophobia. Geert Wilders, for example, calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile". Just like Holocaust denial is not mentioned in the Holocaust, such views should be restricted to Criticism of Muhammad and not be mentioned in this article.VR talk 02:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's best not to reproduce ignorant or malicious statements with doesn't add anything to the article. Let's just keep this article based on fact. By the way, there is already a section on "Other religious traditions". Xareen (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism section summarizes (should summarize) Criticism of Muhammad. That doesn't mean the section should be a platform for Islamophobia or fringe views. Tom Harrison Talk 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical views of Muhammad that are/have been mainstream in the west should be detailed in Muhammad#European_and_Western_views. And it seems they are (for example the article notes allegations that Muhammad was a devil). Hence there is no need for a criticism section.VR talk 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that familiar with the prior discussions, but it does seem odd that nothing in the current article summarizes Criticism of Muhammad. There are two links in the sidebars, but that's it. It would probably be worth, summary style, having at least a couple sentences, and a link to the criticism article. Having it somewhere around the European/Western views section would probably work, though the Europeans aren't the only ones who have issued criticism. --Elonka 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that best might be to add a subsection entitled "Criticism of Muhammad", which includes the following summary. What do other editors think? --Elonka 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not strange at all. E.g . Holocaust denial is not summarized into a section on the Holocaust. Furthermore, calling Muhammad a devil, currently covered under Muhammad#European_and_Western_views is also a type of criticism. I think any notable criticism of Muhammad, which probably comes from the West, should be included in the Muhammad#European_and_Western_views section.VR talk 06:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern about that, is that criticism did not come solely from Christians in Europe. There have been critics from other faiths and locations as well, especially criticism and persecution from around the Arabian peninsula. --Elonka 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(suggested section)

Criticism of Muhammad

Main article: Criticism of Muhammad
See also: Criticism of Islam

Muhammad and his teachings have been the subject of criticism, even from his own lifetime. His contemporaries persecuted him for teaching monotheism, and medieval Christians and Jewish writers condemned him as a fanatic or madman. Modern points of contention generally focus on the fact that Muhammad had multiple wives, one of whom was very young upon her arranged betrothal, Aisha; that Muhammad owned slaves; and complaints about Muhammad's treatment of Jews. Most of these complaints are taken out of context. Having multiple wives was common in Muhammad's time, and indeed, he launched a reform to limit the number of wives that a man could have to four. Multiple marriages were arranged for political reasons, as a way to form alliances. Arranged marriages and child marriage were also common in his era, and it would be incorrect to refer to it then as pedophilia. And Muhammad's negative treatment of Jews was not sweeping, but targeted towards one Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, which had allied with his enemies. In general Muhammad spoke respectfully about both Christians and Jews, referring to them as the People of the Book.

Having multiple wives was the norm in the Arabian community back then. Prior to Muhammad, one could have hundreds and thousands of wives. Him marrying multiple women is not a fair criticism because he was not doing something that was abominable or unnatural. Muhammad own daughter's Fatima was also married at a very young age (some tradition state her age was 9 or 14). And so many women back then were married at this age. I also don't agree the statement about child marriage because even girls as young as 12 or 13 were married off in the Medieval time in Europe. Marrying at young age was the way of life back then. It happened everywhere in the world. They were never consider child bride, just regular girls/women. 19:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs)
Hi Xareen, you raise good points. However, our goal here at Wikipedia is not to try and debate what is or is not true, but simply to provide information to our readers, which summarize the debates in outside sources. In other words, our mission is not to decide on the criticisms, but to describe the criticisms. Then other readers and scholars can read the Wikipedia article, to become informed on both the criticisms, and the arguments against them. Most of this information is better elaborated in the article Criticism of Muhammad. Here at Muhammad, we are trying to decide on the wording for one paragraph which summarizes the criticisms, and then readers who wish to learn more, can follow the link to Criticism of Muhammad. So, what do you think of the wording? Do you think the paragraph is a fair summary? Or if not, how would you word it differently? --Elonka 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few suggestions. We can mention about him being prosecuted for teaching monotheism because there are three major incident in his life that support this stance; i) him and his followers were outcast and prosecuted in mecca, ii) migration to abbysina and iii) migration to medina. Criticism from medieval Christians/Jews (about Muhammad being fanatic madman) should be removed because it is just duplication from an existing section- non muslim views. Please add that sentence in that section. If you wish to write about multiple marriages then please also mention that Muhammad did not introduce polygamous marriage. It existed way-way before him in the Middle Eastern community. There are verses in the Quran that limit the number of wives a man can have; the first limit was four and the second limit was only one.Xareen (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone agrees on the age of Ayesha. There is some disputed in her age. You can also mention that there is no reason to believe that his marriage to Ayesha was an eye brow raising incident since in those time frame early marriages were norm and there wasn’t much taboo against age differences between spouses. For supporting evidence you can also quote the young age of his daughter’s Fatima when she was married.Xareen (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps an easier way to handle all this then, is simply to add a "See also: Criticism of Muhammad" link in the "Legacy" section? --Elonka 05:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a closer look at the Criticism of Muhammad page and saw that a lot of points being considered here are already mentioned on that page. The only problem I see is that that page is completely one sided. Wanna make that page more interesting? Rename the page to Criticism and Counter-argument of Muhammad. One section will highlights all the negative things that has been said about him (see: Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan) and another section for scholarly views that are more balanced and neutral. Xareen (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a "See also" under "Other views" will do it, given that some of these points are already touched on in the European and Western reception section. --JN466 16:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Xareen: to do what you suggest, I'd recommend bringing it up at Talk:Criticism of Muhammad, and see what other editors think. --Elonka 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Xareen, You're right; that article needs much such improvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very knowledgeable about where things should be located as I am quite new with wikipedia. Go ahead and make necessary changes (in locations, adding references or links) that you think will improve the overall article. The criticisms of Muhammad page can be improve to include all the things that are already mention on the page and more. But it would be nice to have a section for counter-argument because there are some differences of opinions on many aspects of Muhammad’s life and teaching. The top section can be devoted to criticism of Muhammad and the bottom of the page can be devoted to explanation or counter arguments. Xareen (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Editors interested in this article should note the ongoing request for arbitration, at Wikipedia:Rfar#Muhammad_Images. --JN466 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup, an official arbitration case related to the conduct of editors involved with this topic has been opened. Anyone interested in participating may wish to offer evidence or opinions at the Workshop page. --Elonka 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belief before Islam

It's not clear from the article, but do scholars know what religious background the prophet or his family came from, before the revelation of Islam? For example, we know that Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu before founding Buddhism. 217.43.193.136 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random Thought

During the introduction it mentions the peace be upon him added when speaking about muhammad or designated prophets. Would it be appropriate to add (commonly abbreviated in internet communities as pbuh) to this section? This would be informative to the readers as it can be a little confusing the first time you ever see it places like the talk pages. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also another quick change in the intro it says he lived to 632 but in the next section says he died in 622 which is correct? Tivanir2 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He died in 632 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the passage, but thank you for the response. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention of the abbreviations in the body of the article. [1] --JN466 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahomet a humanitarian?! What?!

WP:DNFTT. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is this a joke? I do not understand why the French text has been mistranslated to glorify a man who chopped Ethiopian women into two halves calling them "she-devils" as a humanitarian. I take a strong objection to this and request the mods to translate the phrase themselves and edit the article accordingly. It is a mockery of an encyclopedia. --71.17.188.133 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak French but I see nothing in the cited quote that resembles "humanitarian" or "philanthropist".

de Lamartine, Alphonse (1854) (in French). Historie de la Turquie. Paris. p. 280. "Philosophe, orateur, apôtre, législateur, guerrier, conquérant d'idées, restaurateur de dogmes, d'un culte sans images, fondateur de vingt empires terrestres et d'un empire spirituel, voilà Mahomet!"

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Perhaps these two are dispensable. --JN466 13:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large literature on the humanitarian side of Muhammad re all sorts of things, including the position of slaves and women, etc. Try the google search on "Muhammad humanitarian". Of course there is a considerablwe literature the other way, though concentrating less on the man rather than the religion. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seljuks

Could we talk through this addition? It doesn't quite seem to match the source. The new text is the second sentence:

The earliest depictions come from Ilkhanid Persian miniatures of the mid-13th century.[1] These realistic depictions are also found in manuscripts of their contemporary Anatolian Seljuks, typically in historical and biographical genres describing the life and deeds of Muhammad.[2]

Source link: page 235. It may be because I can't see page 234, but at any rate there seems to be no mention of Seljuk(s) on p. 234. On p. 235, there is mention of a manuscript created in Konya some time between 1200 and 1250, about the tragic story of Varqa and Gulshah, that contained two depictions of Muhammad; but I can't see any reference to "historical and biographical genres describing the life and deeds of Muhammad" that were typical of the Seljuks. The source refers to a single manuscript, and doesn't actually attribute it to the Seljuks. The only mention of Seljuks on that page is that someone is well known for having written a history of them. (And it should be noted that the Ilkhanids had conquered Konya by 1250.) So, what is this wording based on? --JN466 09:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact an explicit mention of Anatolian Seljuks. Here's the first paragraph in that section (p. 234), transcribed:
ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. [2] --JN466 13:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for changing the link to the complete online version of the chapter. :) --JN466 14:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[3] I think this was a misunderstanding; Gruber on page 47 is not saying that Muhammad's figure came to be surrounded with light – this was the case in pre-Safavid depictions as well – but that the veil performed a dual function, "at once obscuring his personal traits and containing his effulgent, prophetic light" (my emphasis). I read this as a reference to the fact that the veil is typically white, so I've put "representing his luminous essence" (if you'd rather go back to Gruber's "containing his effulgent, prophetic light", I'd suggest marking it as a quote). --JN466 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re [4], there is no question that mi'raj images were popular under the Safavids as well; after all, we have veiled examples. It just looked a bit out of place where it was before, after the sentence about defacement. The place you've put it now works well, tying in well with the next sentence on the Iranian printing tradition. Cheers, --JN466 15:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in general, the section in the bio is getting more detailed than Depictions of Muhammad on some points, & maybe too long. The extra material is welcome, but maybe some could be moved to "Depictions", & the rest should be copied there. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. There's clearly been some new research; I hadn't seen references to the Seljuk images before. --JN466 15:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bakker2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Christiane Gruber. "Between Logos (Kalima) and Light (Nur): Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Painting". In Gulru Necipoglu (ed.). Muqarnas. Vol. 26. BRILL. pp. 234–235. ISBN 978-90-04-17589-1. {{cite book}}: Text "2009" ignored (help)

Wahabbism

I've just removed the following para:

In contrast to the Turkey-India region, in Arab lands a tradition of visual representation of Muhammad has never developed, instead a rich poetic tradition dominated.[1] In the 20th century, success of the puritanical Wahhabism and Salafism in the Gulf States saw a resurgence of iconoclastic practices, sometimes extending to a prohibition of all images of people.[2][3][4] Since the 1960s, facilitated by petrodollars, their influence spread to other Sunni organizations advocating a return to the roots, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami.[2] Since then, visual depictions of Muhammad have been involved in complex cultural and political conflicts, for instance in the May 1973 Book of Knowledge riots in Jammu and Kashmir, in an area where Jamaat-e-Islami was gaining influence; the riots were sparked by the discovery that this out-of-print encyclopedia, which had been stored in a local library for decades, contained an image of Archangel Gabriel dictating portions of the Quran to Muhammad.[5][6]

This is just too much -- too much in length for this article, and too much of a POV push, essentially saying that until the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia came along, trying to forbid even images of living people, the Islamic world never had a problem with Muhammad images anywhere. That's just historically inaccurate. This did not begin with the Muslim brotherhood etc. --JN466 09:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe needs rephrasing, although I don't think it implies what you say, and belongs in the Depictions article, where I don't think we have it. The context of revived iconoclasm in revived anti-Shia feeling among new-style Islamicists also needs to be given, sources permitting. Modern Islamicist iconoclasm does sometimes go beyond anything previously found - witness the careful destruction of buildings connected with figures from the family and circle of the Prophet in Mecca, and of the Buddhas of Bamiyan. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod's points about lack of implication and removal to that article. The Book of Knowledge riots were so stunning because the encyclopedia, with the picture of Muhammad (similar to the one we use) had been in the local library for decades. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete "puritanical" as confusing or OT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the 1960s, facilitated by petrodollars, their influence spread to other Sunni organizations advocating a return to the roots, like the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami. Since then, visual depictions of Muhammad have been involved in complex cultural and political conflicts ..." -- a cursory reader might be left with the impression that there were no complex cultural and political conflicts before 1960. As for the Book of Knowledge riots: it's not like everybody, Muslim and Hindu, was living peacefully in harmony in Kashmir and then, upon discovery of that image, there suddenly was a huge stink. Kashmir is like Northern Ireland, where it takes little to start a deadly riot, because mundane things acquire vast symbolism. --JN466 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the last point, and I was even considering adding "ostensibly" in front of "sparked" when I wrote that paragraph, but I was not able to find a source to directly support that nuance, so I was a reluctant because of WP:OR. What we seem to agree on is that offense over such images only raises to extraordinary levels under extraordinary circumstances such as those in Kashmir. On the other hand, I think that your removal of the distinction between Arab/Gulf culture and one in the Turkey-India region seems like throwing out the baby with the water, and could be interpreted as POV pushing too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the part removed by Jayen and I'd say it was a bit selective. A riot in an occupied region (where large groups of people endure daily humiliations) should be interpreted in its wider sociopolitical context. It may not be reflective of typical Muslim attitudes. Also which Arab state actually prohibited all images? If no answer is given, then we should avoid presenting minority views (which exist in all cultures and religions) as mainstream. Also non-Arab countries do have access to the petrodollar, and have used money for similar purposes. I would also add that depictions of the Prophet were always part of "complex cultural and political conflicts" given how most of the current crop of images we have in this article carry Shia themes (some of them even express extremist Shia views). For an assessment of each image based on sect, see [[5]].
Johnbod, many Sunni Islamists were against the destruction of the Buddha statues. A number of notable Sunni clerics like Yousef al-Qaradhawi (of the Muslim Brotherhood) even traveled to Afghanistan and tried to convince the Taliban not to do it. Also Sunnis in general are against the removal of historical sites around the Kaaba. But nowadays this is being done for logistical purposes, i.e., to build more hotels/trains to accommodate the 3 million people who attend Hajj every year (and the millions who visit for Umra). Wiqi(55) 17:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but these things still happened - and in Mecca I think there has been entirely deliberate destruction on a Wahabi agenda, of buildings that had survived for almost the entire history of Islam. I'm not saying this has general Sunni support. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably so, but I wouldn't describe these actions as Iconoclastic. The buildings that were mainly destroyed by "Wahhabi" groups were not icons, but idols (a major Wahhabi claim, regardless of whether it was true or not). According to the "Wahhabis", such buildings (shrines mostly) were thought to have "talismanic" effects. Wiqi(55) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of reliable sources, including some of those in the deleted paragraph also describe the tombs' destruction as iconoclastic, but that's a bit of a tangent here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idols are icons, but many of these were just buildings. My point is that no one before had thought to remove them on these grounds, which brings us back to the starting point of the section. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These buildings did not serve as idols throughout Islamic history. According to the "Wahhabi" narrative, it was only in the late middle ages when these buildings acquired their new idol-like functions (or it became more common). This was caused by a resurgence of idolatry in Arabia. And I used "idol" here because an "icon" is often denotes a symbol. On the other hand, an "idol" is an object with a physical connection to the supernatural world and where supernatural beings/powers often reside in. Wiqi(55) 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point Jayan but this discussion need not start out with accusation (even if totally true!). Often, an introductory phrase to a sentence (eg., In the 1960s) is just there for language flow, and a sentence is usually just trying to encapsulate what a source says. Remember, people do innocently see things differently. So, if it does not read well, just rewrite it some other way, or tell people 'there is a better way to say this,' and 'this should be moved over to that article.; No need to start out with accusation. Plenty of time for that later, if need be (and hopefully there will be no need).Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JN466, since you deleted a whole well-sourced paragraph because of your interpretation of couple of glue words, please provide examples of other 20th century incidents recorded in WP:RS over pre-existing images of Muhammad. (The JP cartoons need not apply because they were created to shock and so worked as intended.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Safi, Omid (2011-05-05). "Why Islam does (not) ban images of the Prophet". Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-12-27.
  2. ^ a b John L. Esposito (2010). The future of Islam. Oxford University Press. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-0-19-516521-0.
  3. ^ Carl W. Ernst (2004). Following Muhammad: Rethinking Islam in the Contemporary World. Univ of North Carolina Press. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-8078-5577-5.
  4. ^ Vitaliĭ Vi︠a︡cheslavovich Naumkin (2005). Radical Islam in Central Asia: between pen and rifle. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-7425-2930-4.
  5. ^ Timothy D. Sisk (2011). Between Terror and Tolerance: Religious Leaders, Conflict, and Peacemaking. Georgetown University Press. pp. 212–213. ISBN 978-1-58901-782-5.
  6. ^ Albert C. Moore (1977). Iconography of religions: an introduction. SCM Press (UK ed.) / Fortress Press (US ed.). p. 226. ISBN 978-0-8006-0488-2.

Endnote 7

When reading this article for the first time just now, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead struck me as not being of the same standard as the rest of the lead (at least, this would be one of those things that would get picked up at FAC, I feel). Whilst I note that exactly the same issue was raised only yesterday and flagged as trolling, I do feel there is a more serious point to be made here than the one made three sections above. You are putting a lot of weight on a history book from 1854 – not really a good sign, since professional history is generally accepted as having started later, and nowadays one would only quote e.g. Gibbon or Macaulay in a study of historiography; never for actual historical facts. If contextual evidence does not convince you, then one might also consider the passage itself, whose phrase 'conqueror of ideas' and final exclamation mark do not speak volumes about the objectivity or professionalism of the author; far more examples can be found in the original ('son audace à affronter les fureurs des idolâtres' [my italics], 'Il n'y a de plus grand que celui qui' [p. 281], and so on).

Besides which, you are not even using the source (even if it were reliable) properly. Firstly, the quote misses out the word rationnels (here is the page). Secondly, that paragraph does not mention diplomacy, social reform (explicitly), humanitarianism, philanthropy or merchanthood. By contrast, the lead does not mention that Alphonse also called Mohammed a 'preserver of (rational) dogmas'. And besides all of that, it just looks sloppy in my opinion to have a sentence comprised solely of a long list of adjectives.

A search of the talk page archives has not yielded anything particularly interesting as far as I can see; this was the discussion prompted by the initial insertion of that sentence into the article. I could not find mention of the issue at the article's latest GAN, despite the sentence being in the article by then. The issue does not appear to fall within the remit of the current RFAR.

The same author is quoted later down in an overview of historiography, which I consider a more reasonable use of the source, but I would suggest removing the sentence in the lead. It Is Me Here t / c 13:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with those comments. My feeling is the whole text of this article really needs a good look over. A GAR might be a good first step (there are even several citation neededs). --JN466 14:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good idea, but I would advise waiting until after the RFAR has finished. Because that way, although the ArbCom is not looking at the article text (that I can tell), we will be in a better position to talk about GAC 6 (i.e. we'll be able to say, "given decisions x, y and z, we might look to do this but not that"). It Is Me Here t / c 15:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me there. :) A GAR and an arbitration case going on at the same time would be too much. --JN466 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a week with no objections, so I'm going to remove the sentence now. It Is Me Here t / c 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone figure out?

Why the {{reflist}} on this talk page is not displaying all the footnoted references in the paragraphs included here? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{Reflist-talk|close=1}} on talk pages. It Is Me Here t / c 15:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: {{reflist|close=1}} works too; see here. It Is Me Here t / c 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--182.182.61.24 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)To Inform All here, there is no image of Muhammad (p.b.u.h), as there was no Camerea at that time, so better stop this rubbish, now I understood why wikipedia has locked this article about Muhammad, as no one can make changes into it...'[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&oldid=470931815"