Talk:Muhammad

Please note that discussion on this talk page has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article and any removal of the pictures without discussion here first will be reverted on sight. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of pictures in the article, please read over previous discussions here, here, and here, and discuss your objections here instead of creating another section. Please ensure that your proposal adheres to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Image archive Images archive 2 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism

Muhammed is one of the most important prophet in Hinduism. Many Hindus pray to Muhammed and many Hindus were also forced to follow Islam, to this date. Hindus believe in Muhammed and also follow their way in Islam. according to where you live you must follow most prominant religon or would result to conflicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamil33 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Depiction

At the end of that part of the page, it says that sufis create an image, this is NOT true, they are simply using calligraphy, NOT to create, but to praise, you are NOT actually forming an image by calligraphy. This is completely wrong, please CHANGE this, because calligraphy is writing in the form of art.

Summary so far

It seems that there is still some disagreements on the wording of the Qur'an speaking shamefully of the idols but I suggest we move on for now. The SV incident is currently mentioned in the "last years in mecca" section where it does not certainly belong. I've summarized previous discussion here. Let's move on to new sections and discuss the further disagreements in the second round.I've made the change "Some scholars suggest".

Early years in Mecca

According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.

Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.

According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he [Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor. Religious duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls.

Opposition in Mecca

According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped besides God... and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief." According to Watt, as the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.

The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage. Some scholars suggest that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below).

Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion. Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim.

In 615, some of Muhammad's followers emigrated to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king. While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."

The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," which recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah. Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had instructed him to do so. Starting in the tenth century AD, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated.

According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. The boycott lasted for three years.

--Aminz 03:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing" -> "was tortured by Umayya ibn khalaf who." Also it's not clear how a goddess could be "valid." So "validity" -> "existence." Otherwise it's pretty good. Arrow740 05:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Both changes are good. I suggest two more changes: 1. switching "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated." with the historicity discussion as this bit belongs to the incident. On historicity, EoQ on SV says that "Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century", so I suggest "Starting in the tenth century CE, Islamic scholars began to reject the account." --> "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the fourth/tenth century". --Aminz 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth/tenth century is likely to be confusing for readers not particularly familiar with Islam (and we might well expect people with only the vaguest familiarity to be interested in Muhammad). Using an Islamic dating system is fine, but any phrasing should probably be more explicit. WilyD 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. So,how about "Strong objections to the historicity of the incident were raised by Islamic scholars as early as the tenth century CE"--Aminz 19:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Strong" is POV. Modern scholars reject them, so they're not that "strong." It's better to state the facts. The fact that Islamic scholars reject this story is already somewhat tangential. Arrow740 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a fact that they strongly disagreed with. If X strongly disagree with Y, saying that "X strongly disagreed with Y" is reporting a fact; to say that their disagreements were correct or not is an opinion. The exegesis of the first two century (not all, e.g.Ibn Hisham) include that. In 4th century strong disagreements happened the author says. It doesn't say there were no scholar before that who rejected it. --Aminz 23:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with reading comprehension on your part. Adjectives are not the same as adverbs. Your version calls the objections "strong." This is saying that they are persuasive, correct, etc. It is different from saying that some Muslims "strongly objected." It is describing the objections themselves, not the act of objecting. Arrow740 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So how is "Islamic scholars strongly objected to the historicity of the incident as early as the tenth century CE"? --Aminz 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think "strongly" and "as early as" are needed? Arrow740 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "vigourous" as an alternative adjective to "strong". "Strong" in this context can mean either the objections had good merit (not a conclusion we should draw) or that the objections were strongly worded, considered of significant importance, et cetera. WilyD 17:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"vigourous" seems good too. It is needed because an active type of disagreement could be observed at that time (i.e. one including persuasion of others) --Aminz 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baha'i

Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) preached Islam not the Baha'i nor Druze religions. Their views of him are hence secondary compared to that of his Muslim companions. Hence, the Islamic view should hold the center point of this article. To that extent it is important to remind people how the prophet (PBUH) spent every effort to avoid him being revered as a god, he even said to a nomad who called him Master, "Al Sayidu Allah" meaning "The Master is God", further more he forbade his companions from standing up when he arrived at their meetings, just to sight a few examples off the top of my head. So after all these efforts it would be outright against him to proclaim that he is a manifestation of God (verily God is above their descriptions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.178.206.121 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is considered a Manifestation of God by the Baha'i Faith, and a prophet by the Druze. This information is noted at the bottom, but it should appear at the top. Muhammad is a primary figure in both these religions. The fact that the largest religion his is a figure in is Islam should not matter, as this page is about the figure Muhammad, not Muhammad specifically in relation to Islam. Can the top paragraph be changed to appear as such? Aeroplane 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As you might know, this is a delicate subject. Try to seek a concensus first. Though if I were you, be bold. Tourskin 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose a wording and see if anyone objects. WilyD 00:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aeroplane in as much this should be briefly mentioned in the intro (just mentioned) but it should be covered in fullness at the bottom. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

the name Muhammad

The name of the holy prophet has to be accompanied with "peace be upon him (PBUH)"...

like the Muslims say Muhammad "sallala hu alaihi wa sallam"

(Suhayl's 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

No, it doesn't. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) --Wasell^(T) 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Pics of Muhammad

Muslims strongly believe that Muhammad (peace be upon him)is the last messenger of Allah, all mighty. No one is allowed to make pics of Muhammad (peace be upon him)or make any sketch that relates to Muhammad (peace be upon him).It is humbly requested to remove these pictures from the article as it can cause serious reactions from the muslim community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifgil (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no humility in your request, given the longish discussion we had on this, and also seeing that you couple your request with a threat. No-no! Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, come to us on hands and knees, and the editors of the Muhammad will forgive your sins. Atifgil, we had long and horrible discussions about this. Make sure you read Wikipedia is not censored, WP:NPOV, and our policies in general before trying to argue against pictures. I argued for fewer pictures for the sake of more accurate representation. But, please don't argue that they shouldn't be here because they offend some Muslims, because that is not a good justification. gren グレン 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Atifgil, if you would like to comb through the discussion, please see Talk:Muhammad/images/archive. If you can find a new point to make, then feel free to voice it. --Hojimachong^talk 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do realize that its your ideology and belief, I dont think religious laws or censorship is followed on wikipedia. If that be the case then each group will start demanding removal of pictures offensive for them. For example, atheists will ask for the removal of Jesus article and pictures. Then Muslims will ask for removal of pictures of pork as its offensive to them. Then we might have the request for the removal of the pictures of all kinds of meat because vegans might find it offensive. I dont think this works. If someone doesnt like it, they can prevent the images from showing in the browser. Images of Mohammed are available all over the internet anyway. NapoleansSword 06:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In actuality, NapoleansSword (Napolean for short?), the arguments presented by both sides were much more complex, thought-out and valid than the simple manner you presented. The link I provided in my last edit may be of interest to you, as it presents these arguments. --Hojimachong^talk 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that pictures should be removed instantly because they are offensive to Islam and to Muslims. Besides, whpever wrote the article should be a Muslim expert or at least a muslim for that matter! I strongly suggest the pictures showing our beloved Prophet Muhammad's face must be removed. If a strong-powered Muslim defender sees this article, there might be some problems that will face Wikipedia and its owners. This is not a threat! This is a something to make you think of what may happen if these pictures are kept on the article further more. Please keep this in mind, and I hope you remove them as fast as possible. - Simsimtigger 28 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Simstiger, please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 15:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If the policy is a problem, then change the policy. Even the current policy itself states that images should only be added if they help the article. Frankly, I question how an image would help the article. It seems just the opposite that its inclusion is only a source of friction and pain. I reject the "no censorship arguement." There are no authoritative pictures of Muhammad.--Bill Bisco 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest removing the facial pics of Muhammad (PBUH), it is strongly against faith to see his face since it can never be accurately depicted. Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.48.48 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Please Remove the Facial Picuture of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H), and respect all religions..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarmaan (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldnt there be a section on Criticism of Muhammed? I see that there is an entire article about Criticism of Muhammed but shouldn't there be a section with a brief introduction with further link to the entire article? I feel that this section must be included.

I'll assume that you are just another one of those trollers...216.99.54.18 00:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why must he? It's a valid point.

Sorry bout my previous trolling... I'm a wikinoob, so to speak. I would like to suggest that we include more than just Western opinions of Mohammed in modern times. It is a shame that this section does not include over 1.5 people's views (and that's just the Muslims). ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.36 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Emigration or exile?

Did Muhammad emigrated to Medina or was he exiled (i.e. did he leave voluntarily or was he forced to)? There seems to be a confusion about this throughout various articles on Wikipedia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He emmigrated of his own volition and for a number of reasons. One was b/c the threat to his life had increased greatly with the death of 2 of his most beloved kin. The other was b/c he was planning to move the community anyways due to the increasing persecution demonstrated by the boycott of Banu Hashim. He had met with people from Medina twice in the 2 pledges of Aqaba IIRC, gained converts and a covenant from them that they would take him and his followers in.

It is further evident that he himself was escaping b/c on the night he left, people sent by the Meccan chiefs entered his house and tried to kill whoever was in bed. There is also the account that they tried to hunt him down but he and Abu Bakr had hid in a small cave which the Meccans overlooked. Jedi Master MIK 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be careful in usage of the words. Mentioning "emigration" and the reasons/details of it certainly works and seems appropriate. A dictionary defines "exile" as [1] Enforced removal from one's native country.

Since in all the emigrations, the starting point were Muhammad's native city, Mecca, I don't think the reader will become confused with the usage of "emigration" once the article makes clear the reasons for emigration.

So, I think it is best not to use the word "exile". --Aminz 17:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

From the years of teaching I have recieved from muslim seekers the prophet's Hajj from Mecca was an emigration not an exile, as the murderers that pursued Muhammad(saw) were not intent on driving him out, they were intent upon murdering him...In fact I came to this wiki looking to see to what extent this adventure was covered because I have always admired the miraculous story of the spiders web in the Cave of Thuar! In brief the cave of Thaur is commemerated because The Prophet and his companion took refuge in this snake, spider,and other poisonous creatures infested cave the night these pursuers were about to overtake them. It is said that the pursuers where about to explore this cave to search for them but that only moments after Muhammad and his companion entered the cave a spider guided by Allah began to spin a huge and complex web over the entrance, The spider completed the web only moments before the Meccans reached the cave, and the pursuers discussed the possibility of the refugees having gone into this deadly cave. The story relates that they were decieved by the web, having decided that Muhammad and his companion would not have dared to enter such a dangerous cave and that the web was so great and complex that it had to be ancient and that it would have been completely disturbed. consequently the Meccans gave up the idea of searching the cave(I'm not sure wether they decided that the muslims had not stopped and gave up the search or wether they just gave up out of frustration.I hope to see a reference to this story here on the wikipedia, maybe I'll find some sources for it and edit it in, perhaps under the miracles section...I guess when the debates are ended. One great source for information I would suggest is here that can offer orthodox (though probably hotly contested by the modern mainstream muslims) views: http://www.alislam.org/ I urge all serious wikipeians to refer back to this site(in addition to any others you may check) for any real hope of logical information sources and Islamic POV and NPOV facts, and explanations that will not be infused with irrational passions,threats,and stonewalling. an interesting Muhammad link: http://www.alislam.org/books/in-bible/index.html

On the first paragraph...

"Muslims do not believe that he was the creator of a new religion, but the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others" Who are the others? They are all the prophets mentioned in the Qur'an, specifically relating to Judaism & Christianity, namely Sir Jesus and Sir Moise. I think it is important to stress out this commonness, that muslims do actually beleive in. This is my point of view, quranic verses available on demand.

Peace hkernel 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Most non-muslims know very little about Islam to begin with anyway...

"They see him as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets."

Muslims do see him as the last in a series of prophets, but they DO NOT see him as the greatest prophet, as God states in the Qur'an '...Each one believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, "We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers'..." Qur'an, 2:285, http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=2&translator=5&mac=&show_arabic=1#285

So the true thing to say would be "They see him as the last in a series of prophets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khasawneh7 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When the Quran says there is no distinction between them, it is meant that there is no distinction made in their validity and piety as being men of God.

On "ranks" of prophet-hood:

[2:253] These messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those to whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank...

On the exalted rank of Muhammad:

[33:40] Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

Jedi Master MIK 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

swords

http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/swords/swords_index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvdham (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

bios

Obviously, both positive and negative biographies should be added. But they have to be reputable, and accepted by either the public or the academic world It is clear from the article on the Craig book that it is not considered reputable or reliable, and is written for the purpose of attacking Islam, not providing a biography of Mohammed. Perhaps it might be good to indicate the orientation of the ones that are there. If all responsible views are not represented, then good ones can be found to fill the gaps. DGG (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

'Ibn' == 'Son'

It Looks quite funny that in Muhammad's (PBUH) genealogy the word 'ibn' is used as if, for example, Qusai ibn Kilab meant an augmented name rather than simply meaning "Quasi, son of Kilab". As a native Arab, I guarantee you all the ibns can safely be replaced by son of's, and... that's pretty much it! -- 213.6.8.24 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

uniformity of Kaaba

Can someone PLEASE change the spelling of Ka'aba under "opposition in Mecca" to Kaaba.

The rest of the article uses Kaaba, that one time is the only deviation.

This will help with confusion and uniformity.

Thank You. (Run4fun 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Prophet Muhammad's full name!?

I have always thought that Prophets full name was 'Muhammad Mustafa.'

Where did 'Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh' come from?

Can someone confirm this????

As traditional Arab naming goes, AFAIK he technically would've been Muhammad ibn Abdullah. However, people were given honorary titles as in many cultures no doubt people do based on merits, personality, looks, etc. Muhammad was known as siddiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy) to his fellow tribesmen. Finally he was also known later as Mustafa which according to wiki means "chosen one" and as you should probably know, he proclaimed to be a prophet of God for all of humanity so you can gather where that could/would/should come from. Jedi Master MIK 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Life based on Islamic traditions"

Resolved

The title of the section Muhammad#Life_based_on_Islamic_traditions is misleading and unnecessary.

First, and foremost the section contains a lot of information from non-Muslim secular sources. For example in section Muhammad#Childhood there is a discussion of Western critical analysis. If we do choose to keep the section title as such, then we should remove all non-"Islamic tradition" material and put it in a separate section. But that would not be a good idea, and I favor changing the title instead.

Secondly, the inclusion of "Islamic traditions" is unnecessary. The sources of Muhammad's life are already discussed in Muhammad#Sources_for_Muhammad.27s_life. To label the diverse set of sources as "Islamic tradition" is an oversimplification that best be avoided.Bless sins 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Western scholars may use pre-Islamic sources or knowledge they have from other area too. So, Muhammad#Life would be better. --Aminz 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wily, can you please apply this change if you nobody disagrees. Thanks --Aminz 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll give people a little while to disagree, and if no one does, I'll apply it. Cheers, WilyD 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I had made this change. as a note, I found the actual title wasn't really discussed, so I put in something a little more grammatical than "Life". If any objects I'll change it. Cheers, WilyD 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Madina/Medina?

It's pretty trivial, but did Muhammad die in Madina or Medina? Clicking on the Madina link directs you to the Medina page, so is it just a spelling error? Wkpdia rox 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Medina (which is also spelled as Madina). That's where his tomb is as well (since he was buried on the spot). An administrator should change "Madina" to "Medina" in accordance with WP:MOSISLAM.Bless sins 11:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

View of Muhammad by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

{{editprotected}} I recommend the following be placed in the Muhammad article under the section on Christianity:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad as one of the great religious leaders of the world who received a portion of God’s light and that moral truths were given to him to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. Alanraywiki 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask for a couple more people to comment here as to whether or not this change should be made. If there is a consensus in favour, the {{editprotected}} tag can be re-added. Tra (Talk) 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The link above references a statement from the Mormon leadership from 1978. The full text is "The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal Welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father."

A search of the word Muhammad on Mormon.org (an official LDS website designed to answer basic questions about the LDS faith) comes up with zero hits. A search for Muhammad on LDS.org (the official website of the LDS church) gives 21 hits including one entitled "A Latter Day Saint perspective on Muhammad." The article was published in the official church Magazine. Full text at [2] The concluding statement of the article is "... we belong to a church that affirms the truths taught by Muhammad and other great teachers, reformers, and religious founders. We recognize the goodness reflected in the lives of those in other religious communities. While we do not compromise revealed eternal truths of the restored gospel, we never espouse an adversarial relationship with other faiths. Rather, in accordance with modern prophetic counsel, we seek to treasure up that which is virtuous and praiseworthy in other faiths and to cultivate an attitude of “affirmative gratitude” toward them. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that it is vital to respect and benefit from the spiritual light found in other religions, while seeking humbly to share the additional measure of eternal truth provided by latter-day revelation".

Early church leaders writing in the Times and Seasons (the official LDS publication of the day) occasionally vilified Muhammad. Articles such as "Last Hour of the False Prophet," [Apr. 1, 1844] and "Mahometanism," [Jan. 15, 1845] support this view.

In 34 years of attending Mormon Church services I cannot remember a time when Muhammad was ever referenced as a doctrinal source or as a teacher of currently adhered to Mormon doctrine. While we may consider him as "a great religious leader" we do not consider him any more significant than "Plato, and Socrates".

I think to place a reference to Muhammad as a great religious leader of the Mormon community would misrepresent the Mormon position on Muhammad--KidDocMD 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KidDocMD that LDS do not consider Muhammad as a great religious leader of the Mormon community. He is not villified, however (at least in this century). I was trying to bring some balance about the view of Muhammad by Christian churches. Maybe using the full quote would clarify the role of Muhammad in the LDS church, i.e., among the great religious leaders of the past and one respected for his contributions, but not as a source of doctrine. Would using the full quote work and be clearer? Thanks, Alanraywiki 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think including the full quote or even just a minor modification of the originaly recommended line "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers Muhammad along with other historical figures such as Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Confucious, as leaders of the world who received a portion of God’s light and that moral truths were given to them to enlighten nations and bring a higher level of understanding to individuals."--KidDocMD 13:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading Addition

I think it's worth putting down 'The Sealed Nectar' by Saif-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri as part of the further reading. It's an execellent biography of the prophet Muhammad, and a credible source in my opinion.

Quote from The Sealed Nectar article:

" It was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, at the first Islamic Conference on Seerah, following a world-wide competition for a book on the life of Muhammad in 1979."

Aadamh 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

This article needs a summarized criticism section. I'll add it when the article is unprotected. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't think it does. if there's any noteworthy criticism, it should be diffuse wherever relevant throughout the article. in this case, both positive and negative views can be covered in sections like these. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, tell me why its ok to have a Criticism section in Islam but not Muhammad. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism in a "Criticism" section, and Talk:Islam#Criticism_section. ITAQALLAH 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world would we need to criticize him? Is that the theme of every article? To look up dirt on a person and expose for all to see for the sake of a "good" article?63rd 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a criticism right on the Moses article so there should be a criticism section right on the Muhammad article.--Java7837 02:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it just means the very small criticism section in the Moses article should be removed and the text incorporated into the main body. It's only a few lines related to some of the OT Moses law and 1 of the lines is uncited anyway.Ttiotsw 05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost every article on notable persons contemporary or hitorical contains a criticism section. Avoiding this crucial element in Muhammad's case for the sake of political correctness is wrong. According to history, Muhammad was a man, a leader, not a prophet, not a saint to be revered. The article should give the facts, including the relevatn historical interpretations (positive and negative).--SCJE (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Name

{{editprotected}} It would help to have Muhammad's entire name written in Arabic as well. Also, Muhammad's full name is Abu-l-Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd-Allah (thats attested in several sources), so updating that would be nice too. Sicarii 17:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Muhammad's full name in arabic script: ابو القاسم محمد عبدالله The source for that full name is Marshall Hodgson, The Venture of Islam volume 1: The Classical Age of Islam, University of Chicago Press. I'm going to make this an edit-protected request, because I think that having the full name in both english and arabic script is useful. The edit would look like this: Abu-l-Qāsim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد بن عبدالله Thanks. Sicarii 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable making this change while the page is protected. If there are other editors that support the change, please speak up, and I'd gladly make the change. However, this seems a bit like word soup, and I know that filling the lead of the Jesus article with different translations of his name was opposed by some users, so I figure someone may oppose adding this extra text. However, if I'm wrong, please speak up to support this change. We need more input before I'm comfortable with the notion of this edit being non-controversial.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there isn't a great deal of clamor for this change, I agree with Andrew it is better not to make it while the page is protected. I will disable the editprotected request. When the issues that led to the disagreement in September are resolved, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Pics of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) & about this page..

With reference to the discussion about pictures depicting the Prophet (PBUH) below, I'm sure that all of my fellow Wiki-users will admit to the fact that the Wiki foundation really does a lot of homework & that in Wiki's process of letting the masses access such information without any hindrances, they have to let go of certain rules which may openly flout Islamic teachings/ law. One of the pillars of Islam which form what Muslims call 'Iman' is 'Shahadah' or in other words, Muslims all over the world testify to the fact that there is no other God than Allah & that The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is his Messenger. It vehemently condemns & prescribes severe punishment for those Muslims who associate anything/anyone with Allah. It also strictly forbids the reproduction/creation of any live creatures created by the Almighty. Now, when we talk about a Muslim's, let alone the Prophet's pictures being taken, created & distributed, it can be plainly termed 'haraam'. One must try & understand that the Prophet had the same restrictions/freedom as a normal Muslim had & has till date. As per a user's comment that tomorrow, a Muslim might claim that pork is forbidden in Islam & that they might request removal of pictures depicting swines from the Wiki pages. My friend, Muslims are forbidden from consuming pork & not viewing them through what we call 'eyes' , bestowed by the Almighty. Any questions on the above is welcomed.

I would also like to add, if this page is ever unprotected, please include a disclaimer that would hold individuals who edit information otherwise not included in this article by Wikipedia or any other allied subsidiary/partner, for the authenticity of the information that they append. For the general public: Please try to understand that any wrong facts stated herein may hurt people of various religions - Christians, Muslims & Jews and all others that follow the same ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.mzq (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you combed through Talk:Muhammad/images/archive? --Hojimachong^talk 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that what is needed is an analysis of why these pictures are justified and included. Images of the Prophet is a special case and deserves more than just a simple statement of consensus since I think it is safe to say that Islam is underrepresented among Wikipedia editors. There are many examples of major mainstream media observing this practice of avoiding images of the Prophet or his immediate family members. Is it too much to ask that a coherent statement be composed so that those who do not prevail can be referred to some coherent statement of judgment? If such a statement were coherent and fairly comprehensive, I expect that such a statement would go a long way towards building a genuine consensus and mutual understanding.--Createinfo2 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what an analysis will reveal that hasn't been revealed by the constant discussion that goes on about this. No new information or justification for censoring pictures of Muhammad have yet been presented. What the "major mainstream media" does is irrelevant to how we do things on Wikipedia. Mainstream media is notorious for censoring things for the sake of political correctness. We don't do things like that on Wikipedia nor do we candycoat things. Unless something new and compelling comes up as to why pictures of Muhammad should be censored, this subject should be considered settled. Frotz 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

this article is far too long

This article seems quite long compared to the other articles in wikipedia.Hasseniqbal192 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are many conflicting agendas on this page, eh? Thus, a long article --Bill Bisco 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

يحرم وضع صور للرسول ولو كانت افتراضية لذلك أطالب بحذف صورة المنقبة بجوار الكعبة--82.201.162.86 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia . . . please translate. Thanks, Alanraywiki 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That last Arabic line had something to do with "Pictures of depriving a messenger" and "delete the image excavating near". --Hojimachong^talk 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

lrm

{{editprotected}} Can we have a left-to-right mark (&lrm;) after the Arabic text of Mohammed's name in the first line please, before the <ref> tag? Otherwise, at least on my browser, the Arabic version of the script ends up "crossed out" by a broken footnote marker. Thx. Jheald 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REMOVE PICTURES OF THE BELOVED PROPHET(peace and blessings be upon him)

In the Name of God, the Beneficient, the Merciful Excellence Belongs to GOD As Salaam Alaikum and peace be upon all of you who view this article. I am writing as a concernced human being and a concerned striving Muslim. These pictures are a defamation to humanity, Islam and Muhammad(SAW). It was previously addressed to remove the pictures but No attention has been given to this Great Concern. We kindly ask both pictures be removed, due to the fact that it is strongly fordidden in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Pictures of true messengers and servants of GOD create barriers, SUPERIORITY COMPLEXES, stereotypes, and many other vices that hinders one's perception of truth and justice. We all know history and seen what false images of the prophets have done to the minds of billions of people. Please honor this request. All PRAISE is for God, creator of all creation wa salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh and peace be with you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.43.1 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

short answer. No. We have discussed this extensively; it isn't going to happen. If you want to know why, read the archives. Yahel Guhan 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important for all parties to remember that these are obviously not pictures of Muhammad. They're not even paintings of Muhammad, not unless you believe you can paint the picture of someone you've never seen, without so much as a drawing or much of a description to go by. At the utmost they can be said to be illustrative historical fiction about Muhammad, if that. 70.15.116.59 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that they are about Muhammad. Good, thank you. It can thus be logically deduced from that point that these images are of Muhammad as the author imagines him. Fortunately for everyone the images are preserved in that context and no claim is made that they are an exact likeness of Muhammad as he was. --Strothra 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor-- please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/images/archive. --Hojimachong^talk 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe they're still bringing this up every now and then. The more you ask us to remove the pictures of your beloved prophet, the more pictures we're going to add. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What a childish attitude!Itsmejudith 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... No. It's understandable that new people will keep bringing it up. We should expect this to continue indefinitely, and we should try to be as kind and understanding as possible. It's a wonderful thing, two completely different cultures communicating so totally for the first time. And even if we can't conform to their customs, we should try to be respectful of them insofar as possible. (comment continued below) -Alecmconroy

Childish attitude is to complain and nag for over a year about pictures of their "beloved prophet" who happened to kill people who opposed him. Seriously, get over it, we have pictures of Muhammad here on Wikipedia, and they're not going away, whether you like it or not. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-- this is a perfect example of what we SHOULDN'T be doing. --Alecmconroy 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My grandfather has this crazy idea that wearing a hat indoors is a horrible insult to the homeowner. If someone in the teens or twenties should ever walk into his house and not take off their hat, he feels deeply offended by the hat. Where he got this tradition I have no idea. The teenagers who on occasion offend him through their hatwearing have no clue that a hat indoors is offensive-- but he gets offended all the same. So when I go to visit in his house, I try to remember his bizarre hat etiquette, and do my best not to upset him without need. Although we are from the same nation, he and I are not from the same culture, and I try my best to be considerate of his culture, in so far as is possible-- even though I can't imagine how he got it in his head that my wearing a hat would be an insult.

The people who come here complaining about pictures of Muhammad are somebody else's grandparent, or parent, or sibling, or child. They care about Muhammad far more than my grandfather cares about hats. They live in a culture where what we are doing on this page is seen as a horrible insult. When they ask for removal, we must decline-- but we must decline with politeness, empathy, and consideration. We must underscore we're not trying to insult. We must try to be understanding, even if we can't really can't truly understand. And we must never ever present are actions in displaying pictures as signs of animosity. --Alecmconroy 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone's clearly wearing rose-colored glasses. Anyway, get back to a discussion of the article and article edits. This discussion should have been over once the policies were reiterated. If you want to change the policies, go to the respective policies and discuss the issue on those talk pages. --Strothra 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that we must collaborate in a fair and friendly manner is always acceptable. Itsmejudith 17:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is also a key policy along with the guidelines WP:AGF & WP:BITE which should be followed - and there really is no excuse for longstanding editors to ignore these. → AA ^(talk) — 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge fat warning sign at the top of the page, saying, and I quote: This has been discussed extensively and consensus was to include the images. Please see the archives for why the images will not be removed; comment here only if you have something new to say. — Seriously, this topic has been discussed to death. Some of us are sick of reiterating it. We just want to move on and edit the article professionally. — Mega Man (talk · contribs) 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mega Man, Paul and whoever doesn't understand a simple clear message. Do not place pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) on this website! If your sick of hearing this then it means its quite serious and offensive to muslims. Also you will not even find an accurate picture of him anyway, as he was against any portrait being made of him in his lifetime. Anyway, you people are not important or significant enough to be making comments and decisions on whether to view pics of prophet mohammed(pbuh) or not, and it doesn't matter how you feel about this so I suggest keep to your lower places and move onto other things than meddle in things that you don't know! EddyJawed 01:22, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

Please make your points rationally, respectfully, and civily. Your rancor is not doing you or your position any good. Frotz (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the topic "has been discussed to death" is no justification for biting the newbies, please read WP:BITE. Paul August ☎ 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it bothers you, don't respond to them. I fought hardest to have the image on the page-- I feel like it's my duty to (try my best to) personally respond to each unique individual at least once to try my best to politely explain just why the image is here. If they protractedly argue, that's one thing-- but if somebody makes an account to politely ask us to make a change that's super important to them, they deserve one uber-polite reply saying why not. --Alecmconroy 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frotz (talk • contribs)

I still think that the best course of action is to politely refer them to image discussion archives, and be accommodating as to their questions as per Alecmconroy. --Hojimachong^talk 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion of Muhammed vs. later events

I think much of the friction in the editing of this article results from a complete lack of distinction between Muhammed and people much later in history. How much relevance do Christian diatribes from the twelfth or eighteenth century have to the actual topic of this article? Meanwhile much of the most relevant content - regarding what Muhammed did and when he did it and whether he really did it and who saw him do it - is scattered among little articles like historicity of Muhammad, Muhammad before Medina, Migration to Abyssinia, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca, several articles on specific events, and Allah alone knows how many other itty bitty articles composed mostly of summaries of one another.

I suggest that this article be split into two, into which smaller articles would be merged:

• Events of Muhammad's life, which should be merged with most if not all of the articles I name above
• Cultural references to Muhammad, which would be like the garden-variety "Cultural References" sections of many other articles, except with sections for many different eras, religions, and perspectives - everything from "Traditional views of Muhammad" onward, including the Christian view of Muhammad, the Mormon, Baha'i, and Druze views mentioned in the article or above.
• Muhammad should either be a disambiguation page or be used as the name for the former article, with the disambiguation line "This article describes what is known of the events of Muhammed's life. See cultural references to Muhammad for subsequent reactions.

It greatly disappoints me to see permanent full protection becoming the norm for Wikipedia. 70.15.116.59 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just second that the organizational scheme employed here is very, very odd. The Before Medina, Migration, In Medina, and After Medina at least have some sort of sanity to them, although they could be vastly improved. Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general are just a mess, and I can't believe that structure has survived as long as it has. I took a stab at trying to fix it once, but it didn't take. --Alecmconroy 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus to Christians and Muhammad to Islam

Should the article on Jesus be written with an Islamic perspective? Why is it that Jesus is quoted according to the bible and not according to Islamic scholars?. While there is a small section with the Islamic perspective on Jesus, I think there should be a Christian and seperately Western perspective of Muhammad listed. The Muhammad article is filled with perspectives and refereances of western scholars, while these perspectives should be welcomed, there should be a seperate view of this and it should be listed under the title of according to western scholars, and the Muhammed article should be re-written according to muslim scholars and other scholars can have their quotes in a seperate section, after all Muslims do not learn about Muhammad's life according to the Oxford dictionary, Watt and or Richard Bell, Muhammed's life, while quote well recorded as a historical figure is not taught to muslims according to western scholars. This article needs to be completely re-written according to Islamic history by Islamic scholars, and other views should be listed as well, under the sub-heading Muhammed according to western tradtion. The is how Jesus and all of the other prophets are listed on Wikipedia, written by their own subsequent scholars, with limited quotes being seperately listed under sub headings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.106.198 (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe you missed Islamic views of Jesus. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

...and Christian view of Muhammad. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

proper sources

To tell us "Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad" is not good enough. The article - and the cited section in particular -- is signed: do have an author with a name. Please provide it. (I am referring to footnote 21)

REMOVE IMAGES

Please: remove the alleged images of the Prophet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.87.183.204 (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor-- please understand that Wikipedia means no disrespect to Muhammad or Islam by including images of him. We here at Wikipedia have taken a vow to try to treat all subjects and all articles the same way. We have promised our readers that we will do this. This means we try to show images of ALL biography subjects, even though we know our Muslim readers very much wish we didn't include pictures of Muhammad. We don't mean to insult Islam or its rules regarding depictions of Muhammad-- but we can't obey those rules ourselves and still be true to the promise we have made to our readers. See Wikipedia is not aniconisitic. --Alecmconroy 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy-- Please do not patronize us by saying that the wikipedia community does not want to insult Islam. There were no pictures on this page for a very long time and when we tried to remove the one image posted the community responded by posting multiple images. By the admins enforce the posting of unnecessary images the are willfully and purposefully insulting the Muslim community. I understand the images are going to stay but just be honest and say it the way it is. --Autoshade (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles that have grown past the stub stage typically have pictures. Frotz (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. And please read to top of the page were it clearly states that any requests to remove images of the prophet will be ignored/deleted. (Butters x 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

De-protected

Since it seems the dialogue has dried up, I'm going to reduce this page back to semi-protection. WilyD 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, if you're going to protect an article as prominent as this one for the incredible length of time you did, you should take a more active role. Arrow740 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll apply the changes that were discussed above in the "opposition" section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Summary_so_far). For the rest of the disputes, I'll continue discussion here before making any changes. --Aminz (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

the job of a mediator is to oversee dispute resolution and help facilitate discussion (which i think he did), not to force a hand in the debate. WilyD's intervention was certainly welcomed, and i request he continues to monitor these pages more often. ITAQALLAH 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An addition

Fazlur Rahman, in Islam, p.21, mentions several reasons for the existing state of war between Mecca and Medina. He says:"But, besides all this, the most urgent and immediate reason for the Prophet's measures against the Meccans was the hostility of the Meccans themselves against the Muslims even when these latter had emigrated to Medina. The Meccans had not only seized the properties of these emigrants whom they had virtually expelled from their homes, but ..."

I'd like to add "The Meccans had seized the properties of Muslim emigrants in Mecca." to "the beginning of armed conflict" section. --Aminz (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pure POV. Adding this fact there is original synthesis because you are implying a connection, and that is pure POV. Arrow740 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

it's not an original synthesis, he is talking in the context of action taken against Mecca. at the same time, Aminz, if you find corroborating sources suggesting Meccan seizure of Muslim property (related in some primary accounts i think), then it may add more weight to the rationale for inclusion. ITAQALLAH 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, I can not understand your point. If you read page 21 from Rahman, you'll see he is talking exactly about what we are writing here. Rahman is making the connection between the warfare that followed and seizing the properties of these emigrants. --Aminz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

Itaqallah has recently added uncited material claiming Muhammad passed some kind of "prophethood test." Further, his "skirmishes continued from both sides" attempts to summarize material which only mentions attacks initiated by Muhammad. Next, the POV about Muhammad only marrying women to contract alliances must be removed. Just the facts. He actually married them because he was quite fond of many women. Rodinson mentions his "violent attraction" to Safiyya (maybe Rayhana, I can't remember right now), and his splitting up his son's marriage so he could marry his beautiful wife. Rodinson also finds Watt's dismissal of Muhammad's attraction to her as ludicrous, this will soon be added in the relevant places. So you see it is better to leave the facts.

Also "was to be taken" is quite bizarre. Read the original Rodinson who produces the arguments of Muhammad's critics in quite strong language. Clear writing is certainly a good compromise here. About the Ali thing, it's not irrelevant because Muhammad had to make a decision and he asked people for advice, and that's how Ali responded. The assasination connection can be left out.

Regarding Mormonism, get an RS please. Arrow740 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

let's get our facts right Arrow.. you removed a passage because you considered it uncited (not necessarily the case) and because it needed clarification. instead of identifying it for others to fix (as you weren't able to do so), you simply removed it, and have continued in that vein. as for the skirmishes -attacks occured on both sides after Badr. you have tried to precede Uhud with one specific caravan raid to push your unsupported POV that it was the causation of Uhud (and hence the tendentious underlying theme of Medinan provocation/Meccan reaction). some of Muhammad's marriages were for political reasons, that's just plain fact. it isn't an excuse for you to threaten POV-pushing Rodinson's speculations, your abstinence from which being presented as some sort of bargaining chip.

this opposition to "was to be taken" isn't a convincing pretext for reverting to your version from months ago. you could easily have changed that phrase alone, as i have now done. i expect no further qualms regarding that passage. Ali's comment is irrelevant once it has been disjointed from its significance (held by only a minority view), unless you'd like to neutralise it and add some of the more positive comments she obtained. ITAQALLAH 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, I added a fact about the general Arab customs of marriage and the general emphasis on virginity. That's a fact. That Muhammad's marriages were based on forming alliances is mentioned as the opinion of Watt and Esposito. So, everything is perfect.

Regarding Ali's comment: it is irrelevant because many other people had reactions, Abu Bakr, Aisha herself. You have picked a piece of the story that is completely irrelevant to Muhammad's biography here. --Aminz (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Under Marriages and Children section, please add some detail on wifes

Please add detail about Zeinab, one of Muhammad's wives. The current entry says "Later, Muhammad married additional wives, most of them widows, to make for a total of eleven, of whom nine or ten survived him".

Zeinab was definitely an exception to the 'widows' comment. She was not a widow.

I would propose that we should add the following to the section "Marriages and Children" after the existing text:

-- Muhammad fell in love with Zeinab, the wife of Zeid. Zeid is the adopted son of Muhammad. Then Muhammad received a revelation from Allah that it was permissible to marry the wife of an adopted son. Zeid divorced Zeinab. Muhammad married her. --

The source of this information is Quran itself as well as Haditha, and hundreds of historical and theological texts from Islam. There is never any dispute about the facts of the marriage of Muhammad to Zeinab. There obviously is a lot of discussion on the morality of it. Islamic purists insisting devine decree is beyond moral critique, and others pointing out that the 'revelation' sounds too convenient. I am not suggesting we put this discussion on the article. Let's just put the facts.

Dharmateja (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the Illustrations

Good Morning.

It would be very considerate and kind of you, if you could remove all the Illustrations depicting Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) that you have included in your article.

I very much appreciate that you are very respectful in the development of this article, and I believe that by you being kind enough to remove the illustrations I am refering to, would be a gesture of further respect towards Islam.

I came to this article with much happiness, but as soon as I saw the illustrations, I had no alternative but to leave. It is for this reason that I have not even been able to read the atricle yet.

At the end of the day, you are writing an article related to Islam, and you should be considerate towards the teachings of Islam and feelings of the believers.

By removing the Illustrations, you will not be making the article incomplete - it does not make any difference to this article if the illustrations are not there.

In Islam we know that Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W S.A.W S.A.W) has no shadow, no photograph or portrait was ever made of Him, and the same goes for any illustrations. Therefore, HOW can you put illustrations that have no authenticity?

Warmest Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.65.57 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the images have no authenticity, then what do you care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so polite. But were still not going to listen to you. (Butters x (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Unfortunately, conforming to stringent Islamic requirements regarding pictures would be the end of Wikipedia Commons, as not just pictures of Mohammed are forbidden, but all pictures of things with a soul. Please see Kitaab At-Tawheed Ch.58 and Sahih Bukhari V7B72N833-846 for some information regarding that. I hope that Mohammed's face being veiled in most pictures and your ability to not look directly at these pictures will be enough to allow you to visit and read this page (and others). Apologies for the inconvenience. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

can u plz make sure that u delete all the picz which mentions or potrays MUHAMMED (PBUH) because that completly forbidden in islam. do this ASAP. thankz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaiz1 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is making a very big mistake by not removing these pictures of our prophet! This issue has already created many problems, as another muslim i am requesting Wikipedia to remove these pictures of our prophet as this is very offensive to the entire muslim community at large! Muhammed could be described as long as its accurate but this is an extreme offense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.145.253 (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the replies above and do not create new sections. Thank you. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 09:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In Regards to Sections 2 + 3 Titles

Hello, I've been taking a glance at the article here for recreational purposes, but sections 2 + 3, or more accurately, their titles, I have a small concern. Be assured my concern is a purely neutral one and am not trying to assert any point of view in particular, but in these titles are contained the following honorifics: "The Holy Prophet" "peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah upon him" "The Holy Life" and "(pbuh)". This is a concern to me because of the following section of the manual of style: WP:MOSISLAM#Muhammad, which specifically states to remove "The Holy Prophet" and "(pbuh)" due to their POV, and also states: "There are several honorifics for Muhammad which should generally not be used in articles", which would lead to the conclusion that the two other honorifics which, while not explicitly mentioned in this section of the Manual of Style, should also be removed based on their POV. I would have moved myself to remove these but considering the volatile nature of pages like this, I did not want to spark a heated debate/flaming, and also was not sure whether some prior consensus had been reached on the matter; therefore, I bring the matter here to ensure the proper course is taken. Thank you. (A note: I did not read the article thoroughly, so I do not know whether other honorifics are contained within the text, but this is something that should be checked upon as well). DoomsDay349 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

remove the critism section

this section should and has to be removed. muhammad is beliveed as a prophet to muslins, critising him mean rasism. it is like insultind a religion. this artical has to be removed. those who believe in him will be hurted like me. so remove it. how would you feel if someone insult your religion.

critism section is located at the ight side of the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alam100 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel any part of the criticism article is incorrect then feel free to go there and discuss it on its respective talk page. Furthermore, criticism is not an insult, and trying to ban criticism leads to tyranny. --144.32.177.145 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about the seccessor.

An article of an encyclopedia should bear all references, concepts and beliefs of all the sects of Islam. In the information box showing the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws), only one name of Abu Bakr is mentioned which is incorrect. The belief of the Shi'a sect should also be considered and the name of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) should be added as the 'Successor' of Mohammad (saws). --Ya 'Ali Ya 'Azeem (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa

Arrow, please read the original article. According to Watt, Muhammad's insistence was on having the Qaynuqa must leave the city, but was prepared to be lenient about other conditions; Ibn Ubay argued that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help in view of the expected Meccan onslaught. The opinions should be explained in the main article. Here only comes the facts. --Aminz (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, what's your point. Watt says: Muhammad's insistence was on having the Qaynuqa must leave the city, but was prepared to be lenient about other conditions; Ibn Ubay argued that presence of Qaynuqa with 700 fighting men can help in view of the expected Meccan onslaught. --Aminz (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't contradict Rodinson. Arrow740 (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

YES, it does. was prepared to be lenient about other conditions - his insistence was that Qaynuqa must leave. Watt does not say Muhammad wanted to have them killed, only that wanted them to leave. --Aminz (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say that Muhammad wanted to have them killed. He doesn't say that Muhammad didn't want to have them killed. Do you understand? Arrow740 (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt clearly says that he wanted them to leave the city? How can they leave the city when they are dead? --Aminz (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had paid attention to Rodinson you would not have asked those questions. Muhammad wanted to have them killed, then changed his mind and said that they only had to undergo exile. Arrow740 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Arrow. Watt's reading and Rodinson's reading of Ibn Ubay's later involvement is different. In Watt, Muhammad never gets close to wanting to have them killed. In Rodinson he does. Each person is telling his own narrative. Smashing the two narrative together is like combining the view of two witnesses of an incident together and pretending as if both are saying the same thing. --Aminz (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that you are correct as to what Watt was thinking but did not write. As such you cannot remove sourced facts. Arrow740 (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Watt's narrative is quite clear and stands on its own. In Watt's narrative, the intervention of Ibn Ubayy happens after the decision for expulsion of Qaynuqa was made. (see page 131, Muhammad the Prophet and Statesman) --Aminz (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aminz' reading of Watt here is sound. Watt is saying that Ibn Ubayy's vehement opposition was to the expulsion. it is in that context that the later pleas of Ibn Ubayy (who tries to convince Muhammad to not expel them) is given. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Aminz' reading of Watt appears to be sound (Watt said that "Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy attempted to stop the expulsion".) I disagree, however, that Watt's reading is sound. This may seem a rather shocking statement to accuse a well-known historian of being inaccurate, but I'm afraid it is the only conclusion I can come to, and since this issue cannot be resolved without accusing one of either Watt or Rodinson of inaccuracy, it seems to me to be more justified to accuse the former. Before I explain myself, I just need to mention that the premise for my conclusions is that it is better rely on source material for factual statements where possible rather than various people's interpretation of it and that, if there is a dispute over the facts, source material should be consulted to resolve it. I hope this seems logical enough. Okay, so here's where I get off accusing Watt (!):

• According to Ibn Ishaq, when Abd-Allah finally managed to get the enraged attention of Mohammed, he protested Mohammed's planned fate for them by describing it like this: "you would mow them in a single morning". Aminz quite reasonably pointed out that it is a step to take the metaphor "mow them" to "execute them". However, it is a veritable leap off the precipice of rationality to take "mow them" to "exile them". "Mow them down" is a recognised euphemism for massacre. The reason for this is that "mow" evokes the image of cutting things down. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "(historical) cut down (grass or a cereal crop) with a scythe or sickle". The image being evoked in Ishaq's historical description is one of cutting down individuals (like blades of grass) with a blade (like the farmer's scythe.) I see no possible way to interpret "mow" as "exile". The metaphor just ceases to make sense interpreted that way.
• Why would Abd-Allah say, "I do not feel safe" (according to Ibn Ishaq) if what was being threatened was only exile, not death?
• Additionally it contradicts Watt's own description to interpret it this way. Even if we were to lose our marbles and pretend that "mow" meant "exile", the "in a single morning" is problematic because, as Watt states, "Three days were granted to them".
• Watt suggests that Abd-Allah's attempt to change Mohammed's mind was unsuccessful: "He urged upon Muhammad [their] important contribution ... But Muhammad insisted they must leave"; "This failure of their Medinan allies to support them, and the indication of the comparative weakness of 'Abd-Allah...". This is not true though. According to Ishaq, Mohammed's response to Abd-Allah was not continued insistence that they must leave: So the Messenger of God said, "They are yours." The So indicates that Mohammed's change of heart was a direct result of Abd-Allah's pleas. It also indicates that Mohammed completely forfeited his authority to decide the manner of their punishment. That is a far cry from insisting on their exile!
• Watt is factually incorrect on another part of this account: "He urged upon Muhammad the important contribution Qaynuqa could make to his forces in the event of further fighting with the Meccans — they were said to have 700 fighting men, of whom about half were armoured." Watt misinterprets. Ibn Ishaq records Abd-Allah as saying, "No, by God, I will not let you go until you treat my mawali well. Four hundred men without armour and three hundred with coats of mail, who defended me from the Arab and non-Arab alike, and you would mow them in a single morning?" Sir William Muir (Ch.13) records Abd-Allah as using a similar argument in appeal to Obada: "What! art thou free from the oath with which we ratified their alliance? Hast thou forgotten how they stood by us, and shed for us their blood, on such and such a day? "- and he began enumerating the engagements in which they had fought together. As you can see, Watt gets his "700" number from adding together the 400 and 300 that Ibn Ishaq mentions, but Ishaq was quoting Abd-Allah as talking about events in the past! He was not attempting to convince Mohammed and Obada about the potential future usefulness of the Banu Qaynuqa, but instead, to remind them of their bravery and loyalty in the past. While this does not appear to bear direct relevance to the issue of what it was that Mohammed wanted to do to the Qaynuqa, it does bear direct relevance to the question of whether Watt's interpretation of this incident should be trusted. Watt misread the source material and made false conclusions from it on the point of what Abd-Allah said to Mohammed. Can his conclusion about what Mohammed said in response be trusted then? And please continue reading to the end to see why it is that Watt made this mistake, because I can directly tie this misinterpretation to Watt's description of Mohammed's intentions!
• Tabari vol.VII p.87 records Mohammed as agreeing to let them go and cursing them and Abd-Allah.
• In Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir v.2 p.32, Ibn Sa’d records: They shut themselves up in their fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their hearts. They submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them. Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs. The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa’d Ibn Khaythamah to tie their hands behind their backs. Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated him (to release them). Thereupon he (Prophet) said: Leave them, may Allah curse them and curse him who is with them! He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished from Madinah.

From all this, I conclude this chain of events:
1) Mohammed besieged the Qaynuqa (source: Ibn Sa'd agreement: Watt)
2) Mohammed made an agreement with the Qaynuqa that, upon their surrender, they would take their women and children away with them (in exile) and leave Mohammed their property, and Mohammed would give them three days' grace to sort out their affairs. (source: Ibn Sa'd agreement: Watt)
3) Once they had surrendered, Mohammed reneged on his agreement and ordered them to be tied up and killed (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq agreement: Rodinson)
4) Abd-Allah intervened repeatedly on their behalf, begging for their mercy, citing their bravery and loyalty in the past and expressing disbelief and fear that Mohammed would turn against them now. (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, agreement: Sir William Muir)
5) In response to Abd-Allah, Mohammed agreed to release the Qaynuqa from their bonds and desist from his plan to kill them, and pronounced a curse upon them and Abd-Allah. (source: Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Ishaq, Tabari)

So Watt misread the situation. It probably confused him that Mohammed originally agreed to exile; after all, if Mohammed's response to Abd-Allah was (to paraphrase) 'fine, I'll exile them' and if you miss the part where he reneged on his agreement with the Qaynuqa (as Watt did), then it looks like Mohammed's plan did not change and therefore he did not compromise with Abd-Allah (as all relevant sources insist he did) but instead ignored him (as Watt mistakenly and single-handedly concluded.) I hope I have clarified it to a point where you can see how it is that Watt's mistake on what Mohammed intended to do to the Qaynuqa manifested itself in (or dominoed into, I guess) the peculiar factually incorrect and easily refuted assertion that Mohammed ignored Abd-Allah and insisted on his plan of action. Whew! That was a lot of text. Sorry to put you through all that. Comments? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 20:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)