![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
'About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.'
'He was illiterate his whole life...'
MY POINT (Not View): There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Saint Peter, Saint Paul to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic] ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings. And this is one among many examples, he's stated events or geophysical/ scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good. He also spoke of the sea water with different temperatures not mixing, different densities not mixing, etc, etc, all from the Quran, and he was a man who lived his life in the arid desert of Arabia. The exact phenomenon that just got discovered in 1873 AD, by the British Marine Scientific Expedition of the Challenger Voyage. It was impossible for him to KNOW these things in the first place, much less to say it in contrast to the science then. If he really wanted to convince people, wouldn't he have given the accepted version of the time, 600 AD?). These examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not.
As regards being poor, yes, he was a very successful trader and this was because he was known to be truthful. He was popularly known as As-Saadiq, The Truthful One and Al-Amin, The Trustworthy One. He and Khadija were quite well-to-do, she had her own business and was richer than he. But that was before the age of 40, when he received the call of Prophethood, an event that turned the economic tide for him. In an effort to supress his views that 360 Meccan idols be banished and one God be worshipped, they refused to trade wtih him and ostracized him and his few, poor supporters. So yes, he was extremely poor from the time he began receiving the Quranic verses, and he was a well-to-do, but not rich, trader before this event.
Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG
I cited mostly Bukhari and Muslim, how could that be Shia POV? Is everything Sunnis dont like a Shia POV? IF both Shia and Sunnis deem it as authetic, how could it NOT be NPOV?
Please tell me excatly where and MOST importatlý, WHERE its POV. -- Striver 21:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Guys, trust me, i do understand you. I would gues that you have'nt heard the Shia arguments and belive that the Sunni storry is NPOV. Well, you know what, the Sunnis version is NOT NPOV. The NPOV is what everyebody agree upon, and that is NOT that Ali didnt care for the Caliphat and that The Prophet didnt say "man kuntu mawla fa Alion Mawla" and Fatimah and Abu Bakr where best friend and that Ibn Abbas loved Umar. That is NOT the truth. And this is NOT Shia POV. This is the facts as reported in Sahi Muslim, Sahi Bukhari, Tafsir ibn Kathir and the rest of the enemys of Ahl ul-Bayt. Those are the truth, so obious that not even the most hardcore Salafi can deny they exist in ther own most trusted books. ITS THE NPOV TRUTH, its in ALL hadith collections and ALL over the place. Sunnis hate it Sunnis cant stand that Fatimah hated Abu Bakr and Sunnis cant stand that Aisha hates Ali. I Dont care for Sunni POV, The truth is THEIR book, i cited it and i gave reference to SUNNI SITES that confirmed it. ITS THE TRUTH. NOT POV.
-- Striver 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dear God people, What is that piece of rubbish. Do my eyes decieve me? Ariel Sharon could not have written a More slanted hate-filled Version of the Life of the Final Muslim Prophet. NPOV my arse!
Here is a brief List,
And on the other side of things;
Anyway, the article is rubbish.
I am currently a senior in high school and have completed my research paper. I found out that Muhammad's mother sent him to the bedouin desert, so I added it in.
There is a problem with saying that Muhammad was the founder of the first islamic caliphate; because the Arabic word "caliphate" means "successor", so the first caliphate was Abu Bakr, who became the successor of the prophet. It is widely acknowledged that the first caliphate was abu bakr, the second Omar, the Thir Othman, the fourth Ali. I have never heard of Muhammad being called a caliphate. The arabic word "caliphate" is short for "caliphate al-rasool" which means "successor to the prophet". It's like a chain of succession. It's also important to note that Muhammad didn't even nominate a successor, but it was left to the Muslims to choose their leader.
About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.
There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Saint Peter ,Saint Paul to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much
more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic]
ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as
detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings.
And this is one among many examples where he stated events or geophysical/
scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good.) and all these examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not. Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG
This word confounds linking, since there are more than four spelling variants and a large proportion of male Muslims have it as part of their own names -- Hagedis
I think he wasn't in fact poor or illiterate, but the Quran presents him as such. But I'm not positive. --AxelBoldt
Note that the article doesn't actually say that Muhammad was poor and illiterate, just that muslims believe he was. Perhaps even that isn't correct, but it was the best I could do at the time. Someone had inserted a lot of biased content under the pretext that an article about Muhammad ought to be written from the viewpoint of a believer, and I tried to NPOV it a bit, perhaps not very successfully. -- Zundark, 2002 Jan 2
AFAIK, founder of Islam is Abraham.
I understand your position, and would agree to it from historical perspective, but I am calling for fair treatment of all religions in our articles. We have two options - one of them is that Abraham is founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, or that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are founders of respective religions. Right now, we have article stating that Moses is prophet (it does not say that Jews believe that Moses is prohpet, and does not say that Moses invented Judaism, or was founder of Judaism), Jesus is central figure of Christianity (as he certainly is, but we do not claim he is founder or author of Christianity) - let's use same wording for Muhhamad as to not offend Muslims (I am not Muslim, but know very well that calling Muhammad founder of Islam is offensive to most of them).
This article is simply not long or good enough. What little it contains is redundant with sira which is where the life of Muhammad as recorded by believers is already described under the word they themselves use for that.
This article, by contrast, should be about his historical significance, which is extreme. Arguably Muhammad is the most influential man in human history, and has been defined as such by many expert non-believers, and almost all believers. Unifying the Arabs politically to sweep across half the known world in thirty years, and founding a faith that a billion people adhere to, and which scares even G. W. Bush (who is too stupid to be scared by anything else, it seems)? That is an accomplishment.
Thus, the bio of Muhammad should be a masterwork of fairness and scholarship. We should put utmost effort (" ijtihad") into it, not let it rot like this.
A start. Review:
(months later he writes) Good work! It is now pretty good.
Biggest deficiencies:
Also referring to the Islamic Caliphate as the Islamic Empire makes little sense, as, the latter usually refers to the Umayyad dynasty founded not by Muhammad but by Muawiyah, who himself said "I am the first King in Islam." Thus that "first King" would not have been an earlier figure.
---
It's entirely appropriate to add (PBUH) to any mention of Muhammad's name in a sentence THAT MAKES A RELIGIOUS CLAIM OR LINKS TO A CONCEPT THAT ONLY DEVOUT MUSLIMS ACCEPT. Out of respect for them, we should not include many such sentences. Even the sira article must take a secular point of view, those being the rules. So having it once or twice in sentences that links to sira here and there, and mentioning that a devout Muslim is obligated to respect the name, near the beginning, is fine. RK was right to remove the over-PBUH'ing but also to leave a couple. Also, "Peace Be Upon Him" is a very common English version, used by many Muslims in Britain, Canada, and America, possibly to make clear to Christians that the "Praise" is not as in "Praise to the Lord", Muhammad not being a diety. And, maybe this is also a modernist sentiment. Some note of that would be good.
The following has been removed until it is overhauled "After several such revelations Muhammad met with Khadijah's Christian cousin Waraqah. Warqah told him : this is the angel of God and you are the prophet of all mankind so u shuld start gathered people from now on."
The article, as of Oct 9/03 8:10am EST, is hostile and not neutral. Among what I noticed: The article questions whether Muhammad was really illiterate but this questioning takes the form of mere speculation and does not give any indication for this claim aside from pointing to the social status of his lineage - which does not establish literacy. The same goes with whether Muhammad was poor or not.
The article mentions the "massacre" of a Jewish tribe but does not give any details or any context. This kind of claim deserves atleast a Muslim counterpoint otherwise it makes the article one sided.
The word "razzias" - I have no idea what that is and the person who wrote it did not define it.
Lastly, it includes a link to a strongly anti-Islam site. If this kind of link is to be included, at the very least, it needs to be mentioned that it is very anti-Islam.
Expect a major edit soon.
The claim the article makes (15-22 wives) is completely false.
I don't see any point in the Incongruities section where it talks about how strange it is for a 40 year old woman to have 6 children. I don't see anything strange about this at all.
I am no medical expert but I think 40 is well within child bearing age. There are other problems too with the article and that is just two of them. For instance, the whole "Incongruities" section in general is poorly written and contains alot of speculation.
As I said before, expect a major edit.
It is generally accepted by Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not 'found' the Muslim religion. Muslims consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isa/Jesus (pbut)and earier prophets to have been Muslims. Rather, when mankind strayed from the path, Muhammad was sent as a messenger to correct their errors.
Like many religious and historical figures, there is much myth and disinformation about the life of Muhammad (pbuh). Is this article supposed to be a historical account of his actual life, or an account of what Muslims believe to have been his life? We may be stuck with the latter. The Hadiths are the main reliable source. Other sources tend to be heavily biased one way or the other (early Christian sources say Muhammad had horns!) and may be little better than political fiction. Anjouli 17:43, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Though this article has in my opinion some flaws, I still think it is a good place to start.The article could need some expansion on:
The incongruities section has been the source of some dispute, with deletions and reverting. The section raises some interesting points, but presents them in a somewhat inflammatory way. I think is possible to resolve some of the issues by removing the section and re-entering the information in a more 'condensed' fashion into the main corpus of the text. The section contains the following information:
(1) The issue of Muhammads illiteracy
(2) The issue of only Khadija bearing Muhammads children
(3) Speculations regarding reasons of (2)
(4) Question regarding Muhammads intentions for Islam as an arabic or universal religion
I believe that point (3) can be removed alltogether because (a) its speculation (b) the speculations are somewhat inflammatory (c) the issue is not important enough to deserve such amount of text in a main text on Muhammads life. My suggestions for rewriting (1), (2) and (4) are as follows:
(1) Islamic history records that Muhammad was illiterate, though some scholars argue that Muhammad is likely to have recieved some form of education, and point to his successful career as a merchant.
(2) The sira records that Khadija bore Muhammad 6 children. Muhammad had no children with his later wives, the reasons are unclear.
(4) Both the Quran and Muhammads sayings indicate that Muhammad from an early stage viewed Islam as an universal religion and not merely restricted to the arab community.
I feel the following section contains POV:
"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out in normal Arab fashion on razzias ("raids") hoping to loot Mecca on their way to Syria."
For the following reasons:
a) The word "razzia" has negative connotations. Though it is true that it has origins in an arabic word "ghazwa" which the arabs themselves used to describe such attacks on caravans, the arabic word does not carry the negative connotations and can be used to describe military attacks.
b) The phrase "hoping to loot" in the section has negative connotations, implying thievery. The attacks on the Meccan caravans were of military nature, as the muslims were in a state of war with the Meccans who had persecuted them, hence attacks on their caravans and seizure of the goods is best described as military attacks and the taking of war booty.
c) "In normal Arab fashion on razzias" implies again that these were not attacks of military nature.
I believe that the section with which I have replaced it, contains all the information in the original section, as well all keeping a NPOV:
"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out on military attacks against Makkan caravans on their way to Syria, thus striking the Makkan economy."
While I think the article does a good job of rendering the spirit of Muhammad's character/sayings/teachings, considering the complexity and delicacy of the subject, I believe that some of the statements that are made are unwarranted. For example:
"render Muhammad arguably the most influential man in all history"
A very bold statement, don't you think? I think I know what you're getting at...but I also think it would benefit from being rephrased or restated. I don't think that it is very responsible to make that statment as it stands. I will leave it up to the author to do so.
- IR
shut it -- 212.23.3.155 12:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article definetly has a POV. It is extremely favorable if not an endorsement of Muhammad, who by many accounts was a sanguine warlord who himself had no strong religious or philosophical beleifs but was a politican. And like many powerful figures during the time after his military successes had scholars pay him tribute by creating stories of divine intervention to make his authority legitimate. Most of his lasting effects come from his ability to consolidate power (mostly through bloody military campaigns). I think it would serve better to take out the entire "assesment" part of this article and give a counter-view than the one espoused. GrazingshipIV 12:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's any evidence that "most scholars" accept the Muslim line on the composition of the Koran. Obviously, in the Islamic world they do (those few who have dissented have found themselves in trouble) but otherwise we need some evidence for such an assertion. Furthermore, I qualified the claim that the hadiths and Koran should not be considered on an equal footing; to those who regard the hadiths and Koran to be of equal - or no - divine inspiration, there seems no clear reason for a distinction to be made. The qualification could, I suppose, be removed if one were to explain a good NPOV reason for making the distinction. - Quodlibetarian 21:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Quran is far better attested historically than the Hadith, and is of a completely different character both in style and in content. More to the point, though, the fact that Muslims make the distinction is in itself a reason to distinguish between the two; it's the same reason people talk of "canonical" versus "apocryphal" gospels. As for the other point, I agree that I don't know about "most"; I'll make that "some" for and "some" against, because that I do know. - Mustafaa 22:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
i did writed this : "It is remarkable that Muhammad married in its late times with many women, he married initially with khadija wiche was fourty years, and later with more than ten women,' even he married with Aisha (عائشة) when she was six years , whereas he (Muhammad) was approximately fifty-two years ,probable for Islamic "aims".
but i don't know if my translate machine do good work or not. it was "doel" in englysh , and it did give this in the translate machine "aims". but i'm not sure . is it aims or claims. Aziri 12:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not being a Dutch speaker, I'm not sure whether it's either. But I am sure that the story of his later marriages belongs much later in the article, each at its own date. - Mustafaa 22:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are plenty of references in the hadiths that prove that Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when consummated. Those who claim she was older are obviosly embarassed of this fact. Check the following hadith references: B.5.58.235, B.7.62.18, B.5.58.236, 7.62.64, 7.62.65, 7.62.88, B.8.73.151, 5.58.234, B.1.5.270, 3.28.36, 7.62.6, 3.31.148, 3.31.149, 3.31.150, 7.62.142.
do you think that i have a time to what you have the interisting ? i know that Muhammad did married with more than ten womens . and aisha was th women who Muhammad married whe she was six years , she played with her headstocks , and with shildren ... i know also that Muhammad did sex with aisha when she was neight years (but that is according to de islamic source ). why are you ashamed from what Muhammad did? Aziri 13:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To anon: "Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)" [2]. 6 is when she got engaged, according to teh Hadith; 9 is when she got married. Some have disputed this [3].
To Aziri: Aisha's age is already in the article. Read it first, and then edit - or on second thoughts, leave editing to someone who can speak English. - Mustafaa 02:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mustafaa: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
(°-°) Aziri 14:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
He was a camel driver employed by a merchant woman named Khadijah on account of his trustworthiness, he was not the rich trader, it was Khadijah whom he later married who was the rich person. Muhammad's and Khadijah's trading activities ended with the beginning of his ministry, so in essence, he was a poor man with no income, he shunned materialism to the extent that he had only one garment to wear and gave away whatever came in to his possession as an example to his community on charity. About historical evidence and such, most of it is written by muslims, the ministry of Muhammad was witnessed by arabs, and by the time of his death almost all arabs were muslims, so any early accounts of Muhammad's life will be from muslims, this does not make them unreliable tho, it is the same for Jesus, the New Testament and the Gospels in particular are the main sources on the historical figure and these pieces were authored by Christians
Islam – Submission to the Will of God. Muslim – One who submits to the Will of God. Linguistically these are accurate terms that may be applied to all Prophets, and if this is clarified then it should not be offensive to Christians and Jews. -- Omar 15:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is this really true? To my knowledge (and at the risk of oversimplifying), pretty much anything that was ever called an empire up until maybe 1800 AD was pretty much marching soldiers/cavalry/whatever in and claiming the place. For the record, I put in my original version of the text in response to the "war crimes" quip, as I havn't seen any comparisons of the actions of the Roman Empire with "war crimes." -- Bletch 03:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Comparisons need be made, thus, between the Romans treatment of those of a different Religion, Such as Jews, Christians and Norse, and that of the Caliphates, which were a significant improvement. Granted, however, the Caliph did destroy the Idols on the Tmple Mount, which was not particularly Sensitive to those who believed in the Roman religion, but the idols were mainly put there to antagonise the local jews. The Most prominent Idol on Juadisms holiest place was of a Pig.
Thats the romans.
The Caliphate did not engage in Full scale slaughter of All those within a City. The Mongols did.
I'm not that well up on the Chinese epires, so in all honesty I cannot comment.
When last I checked in with this article, before the anonymous edits of October 10, there was no use of PBUH. I have returned it to that form, since PBUH represents a religious point of view, and the encyclopedia has none. I have read the comments above, but there is no way to use the epithet without being reverent — not respectful, but reverent. Please do not reinsert the phrase; the long explanation at the beginning is enough, but to use PBUH in earnest is wholly inappropriate. I have also carefully noted that Muhammad was the founder of Islam (which is the most important neutral fact about him), but that Muslims revere him not as the founder of their religion, but as their prophet. Ford 01:08, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this article can be under total control of Islamic apologists. Whenever facts (as taken from the hadiths) are used that point Muhammad in a bad light, it is instantly removed. This article makes it look like Muhammad was some Robin Hood. This is the type of article that the PLO uses to teach Palestinian children.
Such as the line "Muhammad married approximately ten more women in his later years. Several of these women were widows who would have been left deserted and poverty stricken had they not been married to Muhammad." What it fails to mention, which was added but swiftly removed, was that several of these women were made into widows by Muhammad and his followers! Many of his wives who he "saved" had their husbands and fathers killed and were then taken as booty!
Also, on the subject of Muhammad's child bride, Aisha. Quote: "Some Muslims question the authenticity of hadith relating to the age of Aisha.*". This replaced the true facts stating that Muhammad "married" her at the age of 6 and "consumated" her at the age of 9. It is in many hadith and Aisha herself said she was 6 when married and 9 when consumated. Why does Wikipedia allow this watered-down version to stand?
Further on in the Medina raid, the article states that the reason for the raid was to gain property that was taken from them in Mecca. If that was the case, why did he continue to do this during the dozens or so of other raids? Why were women and chilren taken as booty? Also, the caravans were unarmed civilian caravans, yet the word civilian is always removed after they are added.
If we are to leave the article as it is, despite it being heavily biased, why can't we at least have a NPOV warning.
The anonymous vandal wants to insert unproven POV speculation about why Asiha couldn't have children. His other POV claim that all widows Muhammad married were made widows because of the battles initiated by Muhammad is provably false. See: Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya .. her husband was killed in Uhad, a battle clearly initiated by Meccans. OneGuy 11:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy, can you read and understand English? It was never said that ALL of Muhammad's widows were created such by Muhammad and his army of Muslims. It said some, which is correct. Several of his wives were "booty" after his raids. Please read, or have someone read to you, an article before you revert. Second, there is speculation on why Aisha couldn't have children and it was reported as speculation. Aisha was his favorite wife and had plenty of sex, and we definaly know Muhammad wasn't impotent.
Conquest of the Jewish oasis Khaybar and posison incident happened 629, and Muhammad died 632, three years latter. It's not known exactly how he died. What kind of poison takes three years to kill you? I would like to see proof that that was the cause of his death. OneGuy 09:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mention of the poisoning was only part of the contribution yet you reverted the entire thing. Why? Also, did you even read the contribution? It clearly said we do not know (read: DO NOT KNOW) what caused Muhammad's death. But the hadiths clearly report that he thought he dying from the poison. You, OneGuy, are the vandal.
I removed it because I wasn't totally sure that quote was correct. Unlike Islamic apologists, I try to be neutral in my articles. Yes, he didn't swallow, but he did put it into his mouth and was sick because of it. That would imply that he is not a true prophet. There are many, many other things to prove he wasn't a true prophet, however. Jesu, for example, never led an army, had sex (rape?) a 9 year old girl, never killed anyone and said love thy neighbor. Muhammad said kill thy neighbor, take their belongings as booty, take their women and children for ransom or slavery. Well, he didn't say it in so many words, but that's pretty much how Islam spread.
I removed the quote not because I did not think it was true, but rather because that quote was only found on so-called anti-islam sites. The rest of the article stands because it was verified in hadiths
When the article is open to editing again, I'd like to work on preparing a more scholarly article, one which contrasts the sira as accepted by Muslims with the much more limited information accepted by academics of revisionist bent, with pointers to the page on hadith where the various positions on the reliability of hadith can be laid out.
There could also be a pro-and-con section where we can see the charges and defenses laid out (pedophile, robber chief, etc.), instead of trying to erase them utterly from the article.
IMHO, the whole section on the significance of Muhammad in history can be dropped. Wikipedia readers can make up their own mind on that, just as they can on every other historical figure who gets an article. Zora 04:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not know what
User:168.209.97.34's motivations were, but regardless of them, if the article it to look scholarly it should not use peacock and weasel terms - or redundant phrases. The phrase 'For this reason, many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history' is weasel and should remain removed as they are unnecessary (see
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). Also, since the article already makes clear that Muhammad has had a great influence on the world and on many people, we should also delete 'In summary, Muhammad established the religion of Islam, practiced by circa one billion people today, and the first Islamic state, whose successors, whether unified or fractious, have had a major historical impact.' It is unnecessary, it adds nothing, and the reader does not need reminding of it.
jguk 12:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've spent several hours trimming and reconfiguring this article. I decided that the pro and con stuff would take lots of space, so I set up a link to a page that hasn't been created yet. That means it will be there, and can absorb all the debate about Aisha, Satanic verses, and whatnot, but it's not cluttering up the main article.
I haven't looked through all the links yet to make sure that they're the best possible and represent opinion on all points of the spectrum.
Phew! Zora 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. While the article certainly needed reconfiguring, I don't know that it needed such drastic shortening - and I really think having a "Muhammad Pro or Con" article is a terrible idea (guaranteed POVno matter what happens.) Much better to deal with such issues in the context of the main article. - Mustafaa 13:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article needs major revision again. It confuses between hadith and sira and wrongly claims that there are major disagreement between shi'a and sunni traditions regarding the biography of Muhammad. There aren't OneGuy 13:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is a shi'a biography of Muhammad
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/
Except vilifying the first caliphs and glorifying Ali, the biography of Muhammad is almost exactly the same as Sunni biography. Zora has inserted a fabrication that each sect ended up with his own biography of Muhammad. She has once again confused sira and hadith, even after I told her here. Plus, a claim is inserted about "substantial group of skeptical scholars." What "substantial group"? Talk about not just weasel words but false assertions too. She complained about the weasel word that "many" consider Muhammad to be one of the most influential person in history (something that is true) but now she has inserted a weasel word "substantial group" of skeptics (something that is not true). Just a few nuts like Crone don't make "substantial group" OneGuy 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More errors: "Muslims believe that the prophet, for all that he was only a man, was yet divinely inspired in his actions"
Do many believe that Muhammad was divinely inspired in his actions? I don't think so. Even though Muslims believe that prophets are sinless, they don't claim that prophets cannot make mistakes. Only the Qur'an is supposedly divinely inspired, not every action of Muhammad. OneGuy 14:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another false assertion in the article is that oral traditions regarding sira were written down hundred years after Muhammad's death. How does she know that? They might have been collected hundred years after his death in one volume, but where is her evidence that they were never written down before that? This is just a speculation and is refuted by scholars like Azami and Abbott. OneGuy 14:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nor is Azami the last word in scholarship. You can't just point to the scholars that you like and dismiss everyone else as "kooks". How much of the recent scholarship have you read? Rippin? Berg? Motzki? Gilliot? Schoeler? Rahman? I haven't read them all (which would cost me hundreds or thousands of dollars, lacking a good Islamic studies library in Honolulu) but I'm doing what I can to get current in the field. What about you? I have the impression that you've done Islamic studies at a Muslim school that gave you a slanted view of current scholarship. You say that you're an atheist, but you still haven't let go of some of what your teachers said. IMHO <g>. I'm speculating here, and speculation is dangerous!
Ibn Ishaq wrote 140 years after the death of Muhammad? Even if he wrote it just before his death, that would be 136 years. Though it's safe to assume that he wrote several years before that. He probably started writing parts of it when he was still in Medina; that would make parts of it even earlier than 120 OneGuy 21:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I won't go back through this and try to reply in the appropriate places above, but:
Mustafaa, it seems to me that you're infected with main-articalism -- that is, you want to shoehorn everything into one humongous article. That just makes articles unreadable and unusable. That's why there's a 32K limit on the size of an article. I have absolutely no objection to going into more detail as long as it's in sub-articles. That's also my objection to covering the Pro-Con matters in the main article. By the time the to-and-fro is finished, the main article is over 32K again, and lopsided.
I went looking at other biographical articles in Wikipedia -- specifically Queen Victoria and Julius Caesar. There's a great deal of documentation on both figures, and the articles could have been a great deal longer than they are. But both of them are about the same size as the current Muhammad article.
I don't think we're at odds on aims: we both want to make Wikipedia a useful tool for research and self-education. It's just a question of the best way to help the Wikipedia READERS. If we go to sub-articles, we'll have three levels of detail: summary (for the kid who just wants to know who Muhammad is and has no patience for details), the Life according to Sira, and then the sub-articles, to which people can click if they want more info. That allows readers to zoom in and out as they please. OK?
Oh, and a link to sira should take care of fine-grained detail like missing books used by later writers. A separate article re biographic controversies might also make sense. Zora 23:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - as long as the material's somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm fine with taking fine-grained issues into their own pages. But I think that principle should be applied to the "controversial" issues individually, not collectively; I still think a "pros and cons" article would inevitably be a permanent mess. - Mustafaa 23:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I checked all the links, deleted the dead ones, and added a few to round out the collection. I may not have gotten the best (in terms of representative, readable, comprehensive). Are there any directories with collections of links about Muhammad? A link to one of those would be ideal, as giving the largest collection of sources. Zora 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since I decided that Mustafaa was right in wanting the criticisms to be put in their proper time and place, I broke up the section and moved all the bits to different places. It's big change and there's new material, so please look it over. Zora 21:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"alas accused by some for allegedly violating Qur'anic verse of not marrying" .. :)) That was typo .. I meant "also" not "alas." OneGuy 10:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Were "all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza" killed by beheading? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that incestuos is inapropriate, also paedophilliac. To the anon, the word isn't needed, let the facts speak for themselves. Let readers use their own intelligence to decide whether the actions were morally acceptable or not. Adding value judgement words to the text will only slant it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy, you are constantly reverting entire articles despite the fact that you only disagree with either wording or factual error. Please in the future could you just fix what you think is wrong or not appropriate rather than starting up a revert war.
Since the Banu Qurayza episode seems to be so controversial, with an anonymous defacer trying to make it sound terrible and OneGuy trying to make it sound benign, the best thing may be to move it off to another page where the combatants can go at it in detail.
I also took out the addition of the word "incestuous" to the family life section, as it's extremely POV. Argue that one out on the page devoted to that particular wife.
Zora 11:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yabbut -- it's very clear to me that the use of the word "beheading" is intentionally inflammatory, attempting to link Muhammad to the terrorists/rebels in Iraq. It may be the accepted tradition, but at the moment it's a little much. I agree that this was probably the most humane method at the time.
As to putting Biblical kings into the "criticism of family life" section -- I understand that it's a dig at Christian critics, who venerate David but get all huffy about Muhammad, but still ... David is not contemporary with Muhammad. The obvious comparison is with other Middle Eastern rulers of the time. A Persian king would be a better example.
Also, the bit about Aisha having reached puberty at 9 is just silly. The age of menarche in developed countries tends to be 12 to 14 or so, and it's higher in poorer countries. (See [7].) Better nutrition lowers the age of menarche. Menarche at 9 would be an indication of disease or hormonal imbalance. It's asking a bit much, asking people to believe that Aisha had a disease (conveniently) in order to save Muhammad's character.
Some people have come up with what seem to me to be plausible arguments that Aisha was in fact older than 9. The only problem with that is that if this is true, then either the hadith reporting her ages as 9 are WRONG, or Aisha was lying about her age (as women have been known to do). I can just see her, as a sharp-tongued old lady, boasting about what a tiny thing she was when she was married. But Muslim scholars don't have the option of disbelieving the hadith (since a huge edifice of scholarship rests on them) or of thinking that Aisha would lie (since so many isnads go back to her). Since I'm not a Muslim scholar <g> I can believe that Aisha would lie. Zora 12:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because of denials by certain people (read: Vandal OneGuy) who wish to rewrite history, here is some proof from hadiths that Aisha was 6 when she married and got porked by Muhammad at 9
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
And done .... See Aisha now .. OneGuy 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"After the battle, all the adult males and boys over the age of twelve of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded" Was added with the edit summary that some boys were beheaded too. So which one is true - was it some or all? Was it decided by age or maturity (most boys are childlike at 12, but a few, who started puberty early might look much older) or was decided by some other means ? Also to the anon - can you provide a reference please. TIA Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also would people please read what they are reverting. I'm talking about the slavery reference. There is no reason to have it twice in the same sentance. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 13:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just checked. There is no online hadith that says that boys who reached puberty were killed (at least I couldn't find it by searching online database). This comes from Ibn Hisham, "..all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded." In Aisha article Lothario kept deleting references from Ibn Hisham, Tabari, and others, so why did he insert them here? Moreover, the other claim he inserted about recently made widows probably comes from Ibn Hisham too (unless he can post online hadith as proof). Playing by the same rule like his, I am going to wait for his answer and proofs (online) before I start deleting this stuff that is not in online reference OneGuy 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) p
Someone with just an IP address and no username removed an entire section (Muhammad as warrior) and the closing sentence of the historical significance section. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that these were deleted because they expressed doubt about Muhammad's character.
I'm certainly willing to consider changes if this person will get a username and come here to debate things with us. But I'm not happy about deleting all doubt and criticism. That's heading down the path towards the extremely "pious" article that existed here before.
Since I've been accused by some of being pro-Muslim in my edits, I'd like to make it clear that the "Muhammad as warrior" section is the strongest expression of MY own reservations about early Islamic history. As a Buddhist, I find it repugnant. Raids, seiges, captives, slaves, massacres, loot -- ugh. I know that every damn religion in the world has been used as a justification for war, but not every religion has a founder who engaged in it. At least Christians and Buddhists can claim that later rulers had misinterpreted the message.
OK, so it's possible that that section is biased in some way. But I don't think that just deleting it is the way to deal with it. Other parts of the article (Satanic verses, family life) seem to be specific and neutral enough that critics from both sides are leaving them up. Is there some way that we can edit this section so that it's more neutral?
Also, just deleting the last sentence of the historical significance section leaves the rest of it hanging without a good conclusion. I can try rewriting the whole thing if other people feel that it isn't a good summary. I thought it was a neat trick to end on a question, suggesting further thought on the matter, but maybe it doesn't work. Zora 08:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone removes it. I revert it. Someone adds extraneous detail which, however likely to be true, is covered by the summary and is clearly motivated only by the desire to add something embarrassing to Muslims. I remove it. He reverts it. Alberuni deletes the whole section again.
It's the same people who have been at work in jihad, Aisha, etc. Aargh. There's no consensus seeking, no desire to turn out a useful article. It's just using Wikipedia as a venue for surrogate warfare.
I'm thinking that the best solution for this para is to replace it with something saying "this is controversial", as in the Criticism of Muhammad's family life section, and point to another page where the arguments have room to become a battle of duelling citations, which might actually be informational. Zora 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reintroduced a para re Muhammad as warrior to the main page, but it is there mainly as a link to a new page I set up, Muhammad as warrior. I hope that the combatants will move there and instead of playing revert wars, will give each other room to lay out arguments and cite sources. Zora 08:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which Alberuni promptly deleted, claiming that -- if I recall the wording correctly -- it was Islamophobic Orientalist BS. NO hint that Muhammad might be criticized is to be tolerated? Oh dear. I reverted, but I dunno if the page will survive long. Zora 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is not very nice to delete sections without making any effort to put the relevant portions of their contents somewhere else, or discuss doing so. Alberuni, you really need to work on cooperating with other editors sometimes; not everyone is out to get you! However, he does have a point as regards one thing: having separate "criticism" sections is pretty unusual in Wikipedia. Not even L. Ron Hubbard gets one of those, let alone Jesus; Moses kind of gets one, under the less inflammatory title "Ethical dilemmas". I still think my original idea of simply presenting any relevant information at the appropriate points in the bibliography makes more sense, though I can see the practical advantages of having a brief criticism section by way of preempting Islamophobes from attempting to bend the whole article to their paranoid agenda.
One obvious way to balance it would be to have a section on "Praise of Muhammad" as (whatever), which would be extremely easy to fill... Another would be to add criticism and praise sections to some other major religious leaders' articles (perhaps not a bad idea in any event.) A third would be to retitle the sections in ways analogous to Moses' "Ethical dilemmas". - Mustafaa 02:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The sections Alberuni objects to are, in full:
One possibility I think might work is to retitle the latter section "Muhammad as warrior", and perhaps merge the former with "Muhammad's family and descendants". - Mustafaa 02:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note that I deleted "If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion?" As for the rest, it would certainly seem reasonable to give a sample of the critics' names; I suspect the early Orientalists are more what was intended than Jerry Falwell, though. - Mustafaa 02:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the critics I had most in mind in drafting those sections were the anti-Islam Christian websites and the people who feel that they tell the whole truth about Islam -- then come to Wikipedia to edit Islamic articles. Every issue discussed is one that has been raised by the um, more vociferous of the critics HERE. But it is also true that these criticisms have been leveled at Muhammad by centuries of scholars from other faiths (or no faith). It would take me a while, however, to assemble quotes.
The intent of the criticism sections WAS to divert the arguments out of the main article and into separate articles, as previously explained. To give free rein to the arguments would send the article over the 100K mark, and make it unreadable. This strategy may not have worked. Sending the argument elsewhere does seem to have worked with the Satanic verses and Aisha controversies. Perhaps because they weren't labeled as criticism?
The reference to the ethical dilemmas section in the Moses article was spot-on. Perhaps I can try to reframe some of these issues in that light.
And by the way, I've noticed that if I give a two-sentence summary of critical views, and preface the first sentence with "Critics charge that ... " other editors will leave the first sentence and delete the second as POV. It's as if they don't recognize that the second sentence follows onto the first, and contains the same implicit "critics say". It's as if people are reading sentence-by-sentence, rather than as a consecutive whole. This is hard for me to fathom. Zora 03:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the headings of the disputed paras and sorted them into the rest of the text, per Mustafaa's suggestions. I hope that this will resolve some of the problems. Zora 05:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article says "Pious Muslims consider that his work merely clarified and finalized the true religion, building on the work of other prophets of monotheism in the Near East, and believe Islam to have existed before Muhammad. "
I'd never heard of this before. Could one of our Muslim editors provide me with some more information about this?-- Josiah 03:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed that the two columns of the timeline seem to have somehow fallen out of sync? - Mustafaa 11:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous vandal added critical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad to the bottom of the article; you deleted it and noted "Removed POV. I could have added my own. Should I?"
No, just removing it was the right thing to do. Anonymous vandal didn't bother to read the article and see that both his/her critical points were indeed already mentioned, and that there are separate articles in which to debate both. Zora 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Works cited
Abdalati, Hammudah. Islam In Focus. Saudi Arabia: Al-Jumah Press, 1993.
Almadhrahi, Ali and Mareb. Personal Interview. 16 Nov. 2004.
Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. United States of America: Random House
Inc., 2002.
Dunn, John. The Spread of Islam. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1996.
Ergun Mehmet and Emir Fethi Caner. Unveiling Islam. United States of America: Kregal
Publications, 2002.
Newby, Gordon D. A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Mitcham, UK. Bell and Bain Ltd., 2002.
Stewart, Desmond. “Early Islam.” Canada: time Inc, 1967.
Small correction on "the prophet passes" I have changed it to "The Death of Muhammad." This article should remain religiously neutral. As an earlier poster put it, we should be respectful of the subjects we are writing about - not reverant. Further, this article describes Muhammad the founder of Islam, the only people he is a prophet to is muslims. To ascribe him with the title of 'prophet' with no explaination or even a nod to the fact it is a belief/opinion from a religious perspective violates neutrality.
Also, I removed the line "Who was now to lead the community? To head the new state? " from the same section, it was pointless fluff.
... and need to be discussed. (They are also riddled with typographical and style errors, which is reason enough for taking them off the page, in my opinion.)
I have already removed this text once, and it has been instantly reinserted without discussion. This is a problem that I hope others will take note of. BrandonYusufToropov 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Striver, since you have been unblocked for now because this was your first time, let me state clearly here the problem. This is not the place for Shi'a apologetics and propaganda. The article only describes what Shi'a and Sunni believe about one issue. It then doesn't go into detail to show which side is right. If you post any apologetical propaganda with the intention to show that Shi'a are right and Sunni are wrong, it will be deleted by other users. We don't care whether you are citing Sunni hadith to "show" (in your opinion) that Sunnis are wrong and Shi'as are right. The article only states what Shi'a and Sunni believe. That's it. It ends there. No apologetics (whether you think they are valid or not is irrelevant) will be allowed after that. OneGuy 00:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy, i seriosly dont get it.
Is this an article describing what the Prophet (pbuh) did and sayd or not? My question is simple: Did he say and do that or no?
Neither i or you care for Shia or Sunni bias with regards to this article. Did the Prophet (pbuh)say "Quran and Ahl ul-Bayt" at ghadeer Kumm or no?
If yes, is it nor relevant for the topic to see what he declared that he left as a prophet?
Did Umar accuse him of delirium or not when the Prophet wanted to write his will in front of Umar?
If yes, then why is his last moments, when he wanted to write is will but was prevented irrelevant?
Dont give me Shia-Sunni POV, im not talking POV, im talking HISTORICAL FACTS. Did it happened or not? and so on for the rest of what i wrote.
-- Striver 01:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Friend, im not talking about some uninportant event that might promote som sect's belif system, im talking about what the prophet of Islam said he would leave after him!
Now you tell me, what of this to is most relevant:
the existing:
"It was during this period that the episode known as The Satanic Verses may have happened. It is said that Muhammad was briefly tempted to relax his condemnation of Meccan polytheism and buy peace with his neighbors, but repented and recanted his words (see the article on The Satanic Verses). The incident is reported in only a few sources, and many Muslims do not accept it as fact."
or
One month before he died he collected 120 000 muslims in a place called Ghadeer Khumm and said that he was about to die and that he is leaving behind him "two weighty things", The Quran and his Ahl ul-Bayt He then said: "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" - For whoever I am his mawlah, 'Ali is his mawlah.". And then (according to ibn Kathir) verse 5:3 was revealed: "...This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion..."
The above on the issue of the satanic verses or the prophets legacy, his telling that Ali became Mawla and the revelation of " perfected for you your religion"?
Both have roghly the same amont of text. Now, you tell me, which of those two carry most relevant information to this article?
take a look at the episode named "Companions of Muhammad". can you Honestly say that is has more relevant information than the Prophets last speech?
Can you honestly say that the latter is some biased Shia POV when its recorded in Sahi Muslim, all Sunnis agree to the fact that it was said "man kuntu mawla..." and Ibn Kathir says 5:3 was revealed then?
Is the Prophets (puh) last address to the Muslim nation uninportant biased Shia promoting POV?
C'mon...
In that case, could you wright "I, OneGuy, have the opinion that the Prophets last address to the Muslim nation is uninportant biased Shia promoting POV"?
Am i the only one not agreeing with OneGuy?
-- Striver 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is biased Shi'a POV pushing. I am well aware of the different contradictory versions of the last sermon and other contradictory hadith that Shi'a and Sunni use to justify their beliefs. These arguments do not belong in this article. The article simply describes in a few words both the Sunni and Shi'a belief, as it describes in a few words the Satanic Verses incidence. The stuff that you are trying to insert to push Shi'a POV doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to push Shi'a POV, apologetics, and propaganda
OneGuy 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the whole excursus re "Muhammad was poisoned". It's extremely badly written and it doesn't add anything to the article.
There is so MUCH material re the life of Muhammad that if we tried to squeeze in every single bit, the article would be as long as a book. Furthermore, much of it is exaggerated or even mythical.
There is also a deplorable tendency for a community of editors to gather around a single high-profile article and fuss with it endlessly, adding and removing bits here and there, squabbling over words and sentences. That's a lot safer and easier than starting a new article on some neglected topic. Well, get out there and do Islamic history, guys. Someone start the Ridda Wars article. Zora 10:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Under most recent revision (anonymous), we now have:
In 610, at about the age of 40, he had been visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
Personally, I agree with this statement, but I don't think it's neutral.
After pondering this type of edit, which I think we can expect pretty regularly, my personal feeling is that this sentence would be better stated (and less biased toward Muslim viewpoint) as follows:
Early Muslim sources report that in 610, at about the age of 40, he experienced a vision. He described it to those close to him as a visit from the the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
It's a critical sentence, one that has to address the facts clearly and not inspire reversion controversies. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
'About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.'
'He was illiterate his whole life...'
MY POINT (Not View): There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Saint Peter, Saint Paul to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic] ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings. And this is one among many examples, he's stated events or geophysical/ scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good. He also spoke of the sea water with different temperatures not mixing, different densities not mixing, etc, etc, all from the Quran, and he was a man who lived his life in the arid desert of Arabia. The exact phenomenon that just got discovered in 1873 AD, by the British Marine Scientific Expedition of the Challenger Voyage. It was impossible for him to KNOW these things in the first place, much less to say it in contrast to the science then. If he really wanted to convince people, wouldn't he have given the accepted version of the time, 600 AD?). These examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not.
As regards being poor, yes, he was a very successful trader and this was because he was known to be truthful. He was popularly known as As-Saadiq, The Truthful One and Al-Amin, The Trustworthy One. He and Khadija were quite well-to-do, she had her own business and was richer than he. But that was before the age of 40, when he received the call of Prophethood, an event that turned the economic tide for him. In an effort to supress his views that 360 Meccan idols be banished and one God be worshipped, they refused to trade wtih him and ostracized him and his few, poor supporters. So yes, he was extremely poor from the time he began receiving the Quranic verses, and he was a well-to-do, but not rich, trader before this event.
Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG
I cited mostly Bukhari and Muslim, how could that be Shia POV? Is everything Sunnis dont like a Shia POV? IF both Shia and Sunnis deem it as authetic, how could it NOT be NPOV?
Please tell me excatly where and MOST importatlý, WHERE its POV. -- Striver 21:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Guys, trust me, i do understand you. I would gues that you have'nt heard the Shia arguments and belive that the Sunni storry is NPOV. Well, you know what, the Sunnis version is NOT NPOV. The NPOV is what everyebody agree upon, and that is NOT that Ali didnt care for the Caliphat and that The Prophet didnt say "man kuntu mawla fa Alion Mawla" and Fatimah and Abu Bakr where best friend and that Ibn Abbas loved Umar. That is NOT the truth. And this is NOT Shia POV. This is the facts as reported in Sahi Muslim, Sahi Bukhari, Tafsir ibn Kathir and the rest of the enemys of Ahl ul-Bayt. Those are the truth, so obious that not even the most hardcore Salafi can deny they exist in ther own most trusted books. ITS THE NPOV TRUTH, its in ALL hadith collections and ALL over the place. Sunnis hate it Sunnis cant stand that Fatimah hated Abu Bakr and Sunnis cant stand that Aisha hates Ali. I Dont care for Sunni POV, The truth is THEIR book, i cited it and i gave reference to SUNNI SITES that confirmed it. ITS THE TRUTH. NOT POV.
-- Striver 22:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dear God people, What is that piece of rubbish. Do my eyes decieve me? Ariel Sharon could not have written a More slanted hate-filled Version of the Life of the Final Muslim Prophet. NPOV my arse!
Here is a brief List,
And on the other side of things;
Anyway, the article is rubbish.
I am currently a senior in high school and have completed my research paper. I found out that Muhammad's mother sent him to the bedouin desert, so I added it in.
There is a problem with saying that Muhammad was the founder of the first islamic caliphate; because the Arabic word "caliphate" means "successor", so the first caliphate was Abu Bakr, who became the successor of the prophet. It is widely acknowledged that the first caliphate was abu bakr, the second Omar, the Thir Othman, the fourth Ali. I have never heard of Muhammad being called a caliphate. The arabic word "caliphate" is short for "caliphate al-rasool" which means "successor to the prophet". It's like a chain of succession. It's also important to note that Muhammad didn't even nominate a successor, but it was left to the Muslims to choose their leader.
About Muhammad being a poor illeterate man, are you sure? I thought he was a pretty successful trader who travelled many cities in Asia.
There's a problem with describing him as "illiterate". All prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Saint Peter ,Saint Paul to Muhammad were quite literate and knew much
more than common knowledge on religious, geophysical, astronomical facts that were impossible to for them to know. This could be why Muhammad is often [sic]
ascribed by non Muslims to 'derive' Islam from Judaeo-Christian books. He knew many things from the Quran that would be impossible for him to know (such as
detailed descriptions of the human reproductive process, not conforming to the accepted version then, but yes, conforming to today's well-researched findings.
And this is one among many examples where he stated events or geophysical/
scientific facts from the Qur'an that were quite in contradiction to the accepted science then, but in the light of modern proven science, stand good.) and all these examples are proof that he was, in fact, incapable of writing the Qur'an. I think what we are trying to address here is that he was unlettered. He could not read or write, till his very last breath, but this is no way is the same as being illiterate, which he was not. Sananooreen 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) SNG
This word confounds linking, since there are more than four spelling variants and a large proportion of male Muslims have it as part of their own names -- Hagedis
I think he wasn't in fact poor or illiterate, but the Quran presents him as such. But I'm not positive. --AxelBoldt
Note that the article doesn't actually say that Muhammad was poor and illiterate, just that muslims believe he was. Perhaps even that isn't correct, but it was the best I could do at the time. Someone had inserted a lot of biased content under the pretext that an article about Muhammad ought to be written from the viewpoint of a believer, and I tried to NPOV it a bit, perhaps not very successfully. -- Zundark, 2002 Jan 2
AFAIK, founder of Islam is Abraham.
I understand your position, and would agree to it from historical perspective, but I am calling for fair treatment of all religions in our articles. We have two options - one of them is that Abraham is founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, or that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad are founders of respective religions. Right now, we have article stating that Moses is prophet (it does not say that Jews believe that Moses is prohpet, and does not say that Moses invented Judaism, or was founder of Judaism), Jesus is central figure of Christianity (as he certainly is, but we do not claim he is founder or author of Christianity) - let's use same wording for Muhhamad as to not offend Muslims (I am not Muslim, but know very well that calling Muhammad founder of Islam is offensive to most of them).
This article is simply not long or good enough. What little it contains is redundant with sira which is where the life of Muhammad as recorded by believers is already described under the word they themselves use for that.
This article, by contrast, should be about his historical significance, which is extreme. Arguably Muhammad is the most influential man in human history, and has been defined as such by many expert non-believers, and almost all believers. Unifying the Arabs politically to sweep across half the known world in thirty years, and founding a faith that a billion people adhere to, and which scares even G. W. Bush (who is too stupid to be scared by anything else, it seems)? That is an accomplishment.
Thus, the bio of Muhammad should be a masterwork of fairness and scholarship. We should put utmost effort (" ijtihad") into it, not let it rot like this.
A start. Review:
(months later he writes) Good work! It is now pretty good.
Biggest deficiencies:
Also referring to the Islamic Caliphate as the Islamic Empire makes little sense, as, the latter usually refers to the Umayyad dynasty founded not by Muhammad but by Muawiyah, who himself said "I am the first King in Islam." Thus that "first King" would not have been an earlier figure.
---
It's entirely appropriate to add (PBUH) to any mention of Muhammad's name in a sentence THAT MAKES A RELIGIOUS CLAIM OR LINKS TO A CONCEPT THAT ONLY DEVOUT MUSLIMS ACCEPT. Out of respect for them, we should not include many such sentences. Even the sira article must take a secular point of view, those being the rules. So having it once or twice in sentences that links to sira here and there, and mentioning that a devout Muslim is obligated to respect the name, near the beginning, is fine. RK was right to remove the over-PBUH'ing but also to leave a couple. Also, "Peace Be Upon Him" is a very common English version, used by many Muslims in Britain, Canada, and America, possibly to make clear to Christians that the "Praise" is not as in "Praise to the Lord", Muhammad not being a diety. And, maybe this is also a modernist sentiment. Some note of that would be good.
The following has been removed until it is overhauled "After several such revelations Muhammad met with Khadijah's Christian cousin Waraqah. Warqah told him : this is the angel of God and you are the prophet of all mankind so u shuld start gathered people from now on."
The article, as of Oct 9/03 8:10am EST, is hostile and not neutral. Among what I noticed: The article questions whether Muhammad was really illiterate but this questioning takes the form of mere speculation and does not give any indication for this claim aside from pointing to the social status of his lineage - which does not establish literacy. The same goes with whether Muhammad was poor or not.
The article mentions the "massacre" of a Jewish tribe but does not give any details or any context. This kind of claim deserves atleast a Muslim counterpoint otherwise it makes the article one sided.
The word "razzias" - I have no idea what that is and the person who wrote it did not define it.
Lastly, it includes a link to a strongly anti-Islam site. If this kind of link is to be included, at the very least, it needs to be mentioned that it is very anti-Islam.
Expect a major edit soon.
The claim the article makes (15-22 wives) is completely false.
I don't see any point in the Incongruities section where it talks about how strange it is for a 40 year old woman to have 6 children. I don't see anything strange about this at all.
I am no medical expert but I think 40 is well within child bearing age. There are other problems too with the article and that is just two of them. For instance, the whole "Incongruities" section in general is poorly written and contains alot of speculation.
As I said before, expect a major edit.
It is generally accepted by Muslims that Muhammad (pbuh) did not 'found' the Muslim religion. Muslims consider Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isa/Jesus (pbut)and earier prophets to have been Muslims. Rather, when mankind strayed from the path, Muhammad was sent as a messenger to correct their errors.
Like many religious and historical figures, there is much myth and disinformation about the life of Muhammad (pbuh). Is this article supposed to be a historical account of his actual life, or an account of what Muslims believe to have been his life? We may be stuck with the latter. The Hadiths are the main reliable source. Other sources tend to be heavily biased one way or the other (early Christian sources say Muhammad had horns!) and may be little better than political fiction. Anjouli 17:43, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Though this article has in my opinion some flaws, I still think it is a good place to start.The article could need some expansion on:
The incongruities section has been the source of some dispute, with deletions and reverting. The section raises some interesting points, but presents them in a somewhat inflammatory way. I think is possible to resolve some of the issues by removing the section and re-entering the information in a more 'condensed' fashion into the main corpus of the text. The section contains the following information:
(1) The issue of Muhammads illiteracy
(2) The issue of only Khadija bearing Muhammads children
(3) Speculations regarding reasons of (2)
(4) Question regarding Muhammads intentions for Islam as an arabic or universal religion
I believe that point (3) can be removed alltogether because (a) its speculation (b) the speculations are somewhat inflammatory (c) the issue is not important enough to deserve such amount of text in a main text on Muhammads life. My suggestions for rewriting (1), (2) and (4) are as follows:
(1) Islamic history records that Muhammad was illiterate, though some scholars argue that Muhammad is likely to have recieved some form of education, and point to his successful career as a merchant.
(2) The sira records that Khadija bore Muhammad 6 children. Muhammad had no children with his later wives, the reasons are unclear.
(4) Both the Quran and Muhammads sayings indicate that Muhammad from an early stage viewed Islam as an universal religion and not merely restricted to the arab community.
I feel the following section contains POV:
"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out in normal Arab fashion on razzias ("raids") hoping to loot Mecca on their way to Syria."
For the following reasons:
a) The word "razzia" has negative connotations. Though it is true that it has origins in an arabic word "ghazwa" which the arabs themselves used to describe such attacks on caravans, the arabic word does not carry the negative connotations and can be used to describe military attacks.
b) The phrase "hoping to loot" in the section has negative connotations, implying thievery. The attacks on the Meccan caravans were of military nature, as the muslims were in a state of war with the Meccans who had persecuted them, hence attacks on their caravans and seizure of the goods is best described as military attacks and the taking of war booty.
c) "In normal Arab fashion on razzias" implies again that these were not attacks of military nature.
I believe that the section with which I have replaced it, contains all the information in the original section, as well all keeping a NPOV:
"In Medina a few emigrant Muslim Makkans, with the approval of Muhammad, set out on military attacks against Makkan caravans on their way to Syria, thus striking the Makkan economy."
While I think the article does a good job of rendering the spirit of Muhammad's character/sayings/teachings, considering the complexity and delicacy of the subject, I believe that some of the statements that are made are unwarranted. For example:
"render Muhammad arguably the most influential man in all history"
A very bold statement, don't you think? I think I know what you're getting at...but I also think it would benefit from being rephrased or restated. I don't think that it is very responsible to make that statment as it stands. I will leave it up to the author to do so.
- IR
shut it -- 212.23.3.155 12:20, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article definetly has a POV. It is extremely favorable if not an endorsement of Muhammad, who by many accounts was a sanguine warlord who himself had no strong religious or philosophical beleifs but was a politican. And like many powerful figures during the time after his military successes had scholars pay him tribute by creating stories of divine intervention to make his authority legitimate. Most of his lasting effects come from his ability to consolidate power (mostly through bloody military campaigns). I think it would serve better to take out the entire "assesment" part of this article and give a counter-view than the one espoused. GrazingshipIV 12:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's any evidence that "most scholars" accept the Muslim line on the composition of the Koran. Obviously, in the Islamic world they do (those few who have dissented have found themselves in trouble) but otherwise we need some evidence for such an assertion. Furthermore, I qualified the claim that the hadiths and Koran should not be considered on an equal footing; to those who regard the hadiths and Koran to be of equal - or no - divine inspiration, there seems no clear reason for a distinction to be made. The qualification could, I suppose, be removed if one were to explain a good NPOV reason for making the distinction. - Quodlibetarian 21:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Quran is far better attested historically than the Hadith, and is of a completely different character both in style and in content. More to the point, though, the fact that Muslims make the distinction is in itself a reason to distinguish between the two; it's the same reason people talk of "canonical" versus "apocryphal" gospels. As for the other point, I agree that I don't know about "most"; I'll make that "some" for and "some" against, because that I do know. - Mustafaa 22:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
i did writed this : "It is remarkable that Muhammad married in its late times with many women, he married initially with khadija wiche was fourty years, and later with more than ten women,' even he married with Aisha (عائش&#1577;) when she was six years , whereas he (Muhammad) was approximately fifty-two years ,probable for Islamic "aims".
but i don't know if my translate machine do good work or not. it was "doel" in englysh , and it did give this in the translate machine "aims". but i'm not sure . is it aims or claims. Aziri 12:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not being a Dutch speaker, I'm not sure whether it's either. But I am sure that the story of his later marriages belongs much later in the article, each at its own date. - Mustafaa 22:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are plenty of references in the hadiths that prove that Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when consummated. Those who claim she was older are obviosly embarassed of this fact. Check the following hadith references: B.5.58.235, B.7.62.18, B.5.58.236, 7.62.64, 7.62.65, 7.62.88, B.8.73.151, 5.58.234, B.1.5.270, 3.28.36, 7.62.6, 3.31.148, 3.31.149, 3.31.150, 7.62.142.
do you think that i have a time to what you have the interisting ? i know that Muhammad did married with more than ten womens . and aisha was th women who Muhammad married whe she was six years , she played with her headstocks , and with shildren ... i know also that Muhammad did sex with aisha when she was neight years (but that is according to de islamic source ). why are you ashamed from what Muhammad did? Aziri 13:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
To anon: "Narrated Aisha: "The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)" [2]. 6 is when she got engaged, according to teh Hadith; 9 is when she got married. Some have disputed this [3].
To Aziri: Aisha's age is already in the article. Read it first, and then edit - or on second thoughts, leave editing to someone who can speak English. - Mustafaa 02:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mustafaa: Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old. Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)' Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
(°-°) Aziri 14:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
He was a camel driver employed by a merchant woman named Khadijah on account of his trustworthiness, he was not the rich trader, it was Khadijah whom he later married who was the rich person. Muhammad's and Khadijah's trading activities ended with the beginning of his ministry, so in essence, he was a poor man with no income, he shunned materialism to the extent that he had only one garment to wear and gave away whatever came in to his possession as an example to his community on charity. About historical evidence and such, most of it is written by muslims, the ministry of Muhammad was witnessed by arabs, and by the time of his death almost all arabs were muslims, so any early accounts of Muhammad's life will be from muslims, this does not make them unreliable tho, it is the same for Jesus, the New Testament and the Gospels in particular are the main sources on the historical figure and these pieces were authored by Christians
Islam – Submission to the Will of God. Muslim – One who submits to the Will of God. Linguistically these are accurate terms that may be applied to all Prophets, and if this is clarified then it should not be offensive to Christians and Jews. -- Omar 15:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is this really true? To my knowledge (and at the risk of oversimplifying), pretty much anything that was ever called an empire up until maybe 1800 AD was pretty much marching soldiers/cavalry/whatever in and claiming the place. For the record, I put in my original version of the text in response to the "war crimes" quip, as I havn't seen any comparisons of the actions of the Roman Empire with "war crimes." -- Bletch 03:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Comparisons need be made, thus, between the Romans treatment of those of a different Religion, Such as Jews, Christians and Norse, and that of the Caliphates, which were a significant improvement. Granted, however, the Caliph did destroy the Idols on the Tmple Mount, which was not particularly Sensitive to those who believed in the Roman religion, but the idols were mainly put there to antagonise the local jews. The Most prominent Idol on Juadisms holiest place was of a Pig.
Thats the romans.
The Caliphate did not engage in Full scale slaughter of All those within a City. The Mongols did.
I'm not that well up on the Chinese epires, so in all honesty I cannot comment.
When last I checked in with this article, before the anonymous edits of October 10, there was no use of PBUH. I have returned it to that form, since PBUH represents a religious point of view, and the encyclopedia has none. I have read the comments above, but there is no way to use the epithet without being reverent — not respectful, but reverent. Please do not reinsert the phrase; the long explanation at the beginning is enough, but to use PBUH in earnest is wholly inappropriate. I have also carefully noted that Muhammad was the founder of Islam (which is the most important neutral fact about him), but that Muslims revere him not as the founder of their religion, but as their prophet. Ford 01:08, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this article can be under total control of Islamic apologists. Whenever facts (as taken from the hadiths) are used that point Muhammad in a bad light, it is instantly removed. This article makes it look like Muhammad was some Robin Hood. This is the type of article that the PLO uses to teach Palestinian children.
Such as the line "Muhammad married approximately ten more women in his later years. Several of these women were widows who would have been left deserted and poverty stricken had they not been married to Muhammad." What it fails to mention, which was added but swiftly removed, was that several of these women were made into widows by Muhammad and his followers! Many of his wives who he "saved" had their husbands and fathers killed and were then taken as booty!
Also, on the subject of Muhammad's child bride, Aisha. Quote: "Some Muslims question the authenticity of hadith relating to the age of Aisha.*". This replaced the true facts stating that Muhammad "married" her at the age of 6 and "consumated" her at the age of 9. It is in many hadith and Aisha herself said she was 6 when married and 9 when consumated. Why does Wikipedia allow this watered-down version to stand?
Further on in the Medina raid, the article states that the reason for the raid was to gain property that was taken from them in Mecca. If that was the case, why did he continue to do this during the dozens or so of other raids? Why were women and chilren taken as booty? Also, the caravans were unarmed civilian caravans, yet the word civilian is always removed after they are added.
If we are to leave the article as it is, despite it being heavily biased, why can't we at least have a NPOV warning.
The anonymous vandal wants to insert unproven POV speculation about why Asiha couldn't have children. His other POV claim that all widows Muhammad married were made widows because of the battles initiated by Muhammad is provably false. See: Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya .. her husband was killed in Uhad, a battle clearly initiated by Meccans. OneGuy 11:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy, can you read and understand English? It was never said that ALL of Muhammad's widows were created such by Muhammad and his army of Muslims. It said some, which is correct. Several of his wives were "booty" after his raids. Please read, or have someone read to you, an article before you revert. Second, there is speculation on why Aisha couldn't have children and it was reported as speculation. Aisha was his favorite wife and had plenty of sex, and we definaly know Muhammad wasn't impotent.
Conquest of the Jewish oasis Khaybar and posison incident happened 629, and Muhammad died 632, three years latter. It's not known exactly how he died. What kind of poison takes three years to kill you? I would like to see proof that that was the cause of his death. OneGuy 09:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mention of the poisoning was only part of the contribution yet you reverted the entire thing. Why? Also, did you even read the contribution? It clearly said we do not know (read: DO NOT KNOW) what caused Muhammad's death. But the hadiths clearly report that he thought he dying from the poison. You, OneGuy, are the vandal.
I removed it because I wasn't totally sure that quote was correct. Unlike Islamic apologists, I try to be neutral in my articles. Yes, he didn't swallow, but he did put it into his mouth and was sick because of it. That would imply that he is not a true prophet. There are many, many other things to prove he wasn't a true prophet, however. Jesu, for example, never led an army, had sex (rape?) a 9 year old girl, never killed anyone and said love thy neighbor. Muhammad said kill thy neighbor, take their belongings as booty, take their women and children for ransom or slavery. Well, he didn't say it in so many words, but that's pretty much how Islam spread.
I removed the quote not because I did not think it was true, but rather because that quote was only found on so-called anti-islam sites. The rest of the article stands because it was verified in hadiths
When the article is open to editing again, I'd like to work on preparing a more scholarly article, one which contrasts the sira as accepted by Muslims with the much more limited information accepted by academics of revisionist bent, with pointers to the page on hadith where the various positions on the reliability of hadith can be laid out.
There could also be a pro-and-con section where we can see the charges and defenses laid out (pedophile, robber chief, etc.), instead of trying to erase them utterly from the article.
IMHO, the whole section on the significance of Muhammad in history can be dropped. Wikipedia readers can make up their own mind on that, just as they can on every other historical figure who gets an article. Zora 04:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not know what
User:168.209.97.34's motivations were, but regardless of them, if the article it to look scholarly it should not use peacock and weasel terms - or redundant phrases. The phrase 'For this reason, many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history' is weasel and should remain removed as they are unnecessary (see
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). Also, since the article already makes clear that Muhammad has had a great influence on the world and on many people, we should also delete 'In summary, Muhammad established the religion of Islam, practiced by circa one billion people today, and the first Islamic state, whose successors, whether unified or fractious, have had a major historical impact.' It is unnecessary, it adds nothing, and the reader does not need reminding of it.
jguk 12:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've spent several hours trimming and reconfiguring this article. I decided that the pro and con stuff would take lots of space, so I set up a link to a page that hasn't been created yet. That means it will be there, and can absorb all the debate about Aisha, Satanic verses, and whatnot, but it's not cluttering up the main article.
I haven't looked through all the links yet to make sure that they're the best possible and represent opinion on all points of the spectrum.
Phew! Zora 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. While the article certainly needed reconfiguring, I don't know that it needed such drastic shortening - and I really think having a "Muhammad Pro or Con" article is a terrible idea (guaranteed POVno matter what happens.) Much better to deal with such issues in the context of the main article. - Mustafaa 13:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article needs major revision again. It confuses between hadith and sira and wrongly claims that there are major disagreement between shi'a and sunni traditions regarding the biography of Muhammad. There aren't OneGuy 13:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is a shi'a biography of Muhammad
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/
Except vilifying the first caliphs and glorifying Ali, the biography of Muhammad is almost exactly the same as Sunni biography. Zora has inserted a fabrication that each sect ended up with his own biography of Muhammad. She has once again confused sira and hadith, even after I told her here. Plus, a claim is inserted about "substantial group of skeptical scholars." What "substantial group"? Talk about not just weasel words but false assertions too. She complained about the weasel word that "many" consider Muhammad to be one of the most influential person in history (something that is true) but now she has inserted a weasel word "substantial group" of skeptics (something that is not true). Just a few nuts like Crone don't make "substantial group" OneGuy 14:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More errors: "Muslims believe that the prophet, for all that he was only a man, was yet divinely inspired in his actions"
Do many believe that Muhammad was divinely inspired in his actions? I don't think so. Even though Muslims believe that prophets are sinless, they don't claim that prophets cannot make mistakes. Only the Qur'an is supposedly divinely inspired, not every action of Muhammad. OneGuy 14:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another false assertion in the article is that oral traditions regarding sira were written down hundred years after Muhammad's death. How does she know that? They might have been collected hundred years after his death in one volume, but where is her evidence that they were never written down before that? This is just a speculation and is refuted by scholars like Azami and Abbott. OneGuy 14:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nor is Azami the last word in scholarship. You can't just point to the scholars that you like and dismiss everyone else as "kooks". How much of the recent scholarship have you read? Rippin? Berg? Motzki? Gilliot? Schoeler? Rahman? I haven't read them all (which would cost me hundreds or thousands of dollars, lacking a good Islamic studies library in Honolulu) but I'm doing what I can to get current in the field. What about you? I have the impression that you've done Islamic studies at a Muslim school that gave you a slanted view of current scholarship. You say that you're an atheist, but you still haven't let go of some of what your teachers said. IMHO <g>. I'm speculating here, and speculation is dangerous!
Ibn Ishaq wrote 140 years after the death of Muhammad? Even if he wrote it just before his death, that would be 136 years. Though it's safe to assume that he wrote several years before that. He probably started writing parts of it when he was still in Medina; that would make parts of it even earlier than 120 OneGuy 21:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I won't go back through this and try to reply in the appropriate places above, but:
Mustafaa, it seems to me that you're infected with main-articalism -- that is, you want to shoehorn everything into one humongous article. That just makes articles unreadable and unusable. That's why there's a 32K limit on the size of an article. I have absolutely no objection to going into more detail as long as it's in sub-articles. That's also my objection to covering the Pro-Con matters in the main article. By the time the to-and-fro is finished, the main article is over 32K again, and lopsided.
I went looking at other biographical articles in Wikipedia -- specifically Queen Victoria and Julius Caesar. There's a great deal of documentation on both figures, and the articles could have been a great deal longer than they are. But both of them are about the same size as the current Muhammad article.
I don't think we're at odds on aims: we both want to make Wikipedia a useful tool for research and self-education. It's just a question of the best way to help the Wikipedia READERS. If we go to sub-articles, we'll have three levels of detail: summary (for the kid who just wants to know who Muhammad is and has no patience for details), the Life according to Sira, and then the sub-articles, to which people can click if they want more info. That allows readers to zoom in and out as they please. OK?
Oh, and a link to sira should take care of fine-grained detail like missing books used by later writers. A separate article re biographic controversies might also make sense. Zora 23:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - as long as the material's somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm fine with taking fine-grained issues into their own pages. But I think that principle should be applied to the "controversial" issues individually, not collectively; I still think a "pros and cons" article would inevitably be a permanent mess. - Mustafaa 23:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I checked all the links, deleted the dead ones, and added a few to round out the collection. I may not have gotten the best (in terms of representative, readable, comprehensive). Are there any directories with collections of links about Muhammad? A link to one of those would be ideal, as giving the largest collection of sources. Zora 22:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since I decided that Mustafaa was right in wanting the criticisms to be put in their proper time and place, I broke up the section and moved all the bits to different places. It's big change and there's new material, so please look it over. Zora 21:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"alas accused by some for allegedly violating Qur'anic verse of not marrying" .. :)) That was typo .. I meant "also" not "alas." OneGuy 10:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Were "all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza" killed by beheading? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that incestuos is inapropriate, also paedophilliac. To the anon, the word isn't needed, let the facts speak for themselves. Let readers use their own intelligence to decide whether the actions were morally acceptable or not. Adding value judgement words to the text will only slant it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy, you are constantly reverting entire articles despite the fact that you only disagree with either wording or factual error. Please in the future could you just fix what you think is wrong or not appropriate rather than starting up a revert war.
Since the Banu Qurayza episode seems to be so controversial, with an anonymous defacer trying to make it sound terrible and OneGuy trying to make it sound benign, the best thing may be to move it off to another page where the combatants can go at it in detail.
I also took out the addition of the word "incestuous" to the family life section, as it's extremely POV. Argue that one out on the page devoted to that particular wife.
Zora 11:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yabbut -- it's very clear to me that the use of the word "beheading" is intentionally inflammatory, attempting to link Muhammad to the terrorists/rebels in Iraq. It may be the accepted tradition, but at the moment it's a little much. I agree that this was probably the most humane method at the time.
As to putting Biblical kings into the "criticism of family life" section -- I understand that it's a dig at Christian critics, who venerate David but get all huffy about Muhammad, but still ... David is not contemporary with Muhammad. The obvious comparison is with other Middle Eastern rulers of the time. A Persian king would be a better example.
Also, the bit about Aisha having reached puberty at 9 is just silly. The age of menarche in developed countries tends to be 12 to 14 or so, and it's higher in poorer countries. (See [7].) Better nutrition lowers the age of menarche. Menarche at 9 would be an indication of disease or hormonal imbalance. It's asking a bit much, asking people to believe that Aisha had a disease (conveniently) in order to save Muhammad's character.
Some people have come up with what seem to me to be plausible arguments that Aisha was in fact older than 9. The only problem with that is that if this is true, then either the hadith reporting her ages as 9 are WRONG, or Aisha was lying about her age (as women have been known to do). I can just see her, as a sharp-tongued old lady, boasting about what a tiny thing she was when she was married. But Muslim scholars don't have the option of disbelieving the hadith (since a huge edifice of scholarship rests on them) or of thinking that Aisha would lie (since so many isnads go back to her). Since I'm not a Muslim scholar <g> I can believe that Aisha would lie. Zora 12:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because of denials by certain people (read: Vandal OneGuy) who wish to rewrite history, here is some proof from hadiths that Aisha was 6 when she married and got porked by Muhammad at 9
Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310: 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65 Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
And done .... See Aisha now .. OneGuy 15:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"After the battle, all the adult males and boys over the age of twelve of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded" Was added with the edit summary that some boys were beheaded too. So which one is true - was it some or all? Was it decided by age or maturity (most boys are childlike at 12, but a few, who started puberty early might look much older) or was decided by some other means ? Also to the anon - can you provide a reference please. TIA Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also would people please read what they are reverting. I'm talking about the slavery reference. There is no reason to have it twice in the same sentance. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 13:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just checked. There is no online hadith that says that boys who reached puberty were killed (at least I couldn't find it by searching online database). This comes from Ibn Hisham, "..all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded." In Aisha article Lothario kept deleting references from Ibn Hisham, Tabari, and others, so why did he insert them here? Moreover, the other claim he inserted about recently made widows probably comes from Ibn Hisham too (unless he can post online hadith as proof). Playing by the same rule like his, I am going to wait for his answer and proofs (online) before I start deleting this stuff that is not in online reference OneGuy 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) p
Someone with just an IP address and no username removed an entire section (Muhammad as warrior) and the closing sentence of the historical significance section. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that these were deleted because they expressed doubt about Muhammad's character.
I'm certainly willing to consider changes if this person will get a username and come here to debate things with us. But I'm not happy about deleting all doubt and criticism. That's heading down the path towards the extremely "pious" article that existed here before.
Since I've been accused by some of being pro-Muslim in my edits, I'd like to make it clear that the "Muhammad as warrior" section is the strongest expression of MY own reservations about early Islamic history. As a Buddhist, I find it repugnant. Raids, seiges, captives, slaves, massacres, loot -- ugh. I know that every damn religion in the world has been used as a justification for war, but not every religion has a founder who engaged in it. At least Christians and Buddhists can claim that later rulers had misinterpreted the message.
OK, so it's possible that that section is biased in some way. But I don't think that just deleting it is the way to deal with it. Other parts of the article (Satanic verses, family life) seem to be specific and neutral enough that critics from both sides are leaving them up. Is there some way that we can edit this section so that it's more neutral?
Also, just deleting the last sentence of the historical significance section leaves the rest of it hanging without a good conclusion. I can try rewriting the whole thing if other people feel that it isn't a good summary. I thought it was a neat trick to end on a question, suggesting further thought on the matter, but maybe it doesn't work. Zora 08:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone removes it. I revert it. Someone adds extraneous detail which, however likely to be true, is covered by the summary and is clearly motivated only by the desire to add something embarrassing to Muslims. I remove it. He reverts it. Alberuni deletes the whole section again.
It's the same people who have been at work in jihad, Aisha, etc. Aargh. There's no consensus seeking, no desire to turn out a useful article. It's just using Wikipedia as a venue for surrogate warfare.
I'm thinking that the best solution for this para is to replace it with something saying "this is controversial", as in the Criticism of Muhammad's family life section, and point to another page where the arguments have room to become a battle of duelling citations, which might actually be informational. Zora 18:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I reintroduced a para re Muhammad as warrior to the main page, but it is there mainly as a link to a new page I set up, Muhammad as warrior. I hope that the combatants will move there and instead of playing revert wars, will give each other room to lay out arguments and cite sources. Zora 08:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which Alberuni promptly deleted, claiming that -- if I recall the wording correctly -- it was Islamophobic Orientalist BS. NO hint that Muhammad might be criticized is to be tolerated? Oh dear. I reverted, but I dunno if the page will survive long. Zora 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is not very nice to delete sections without making any effort to put the relevant portions of their contents somewhere else, or discuss doing so. Alberuni, you really need to work on cooperating with other editors sometimes; not everyone is out to get you! However, he does have a point as regards one thing: having separate "criticism" sections is pretty unusual in Wikipedia. Not even L. Ron Hubbard gets one of those, let alone Jesus; Moses kind of gets one, under the less inflammatory title "Ethical dilemmas". I still think my original idea of simply presenting any relevant information at the appropriate points in the bibliography makes more sense, though I can see the practical advantages of having a brief criticism section by way of preempting Islamophobes from attempting to bend the whole article to their paranoid agenda.
One obvious way to balance it would be to have a section on "Praise of Muhammad" as (whatever), which would be extremely easy to fill... Another would be to add criticism and praise sections to some other major religious leaders' articles (perhaps not a bad idea in any event.) A third would be to retitle the sections in ways analogous to Moses' "Ethical dilemmas". - Mustafaa 02:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The sections Alberuni objects to are, in full:
One possibility I think might work is to retitle the latter section "Muhammad as warrior", and perhaps merge the former with "Muhammad's family and descendants". - Mustafaa 02:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note that I deleted "If the prophet is to be an exemplar to his followers, what does this say about his religion?" As for the rest, it would certainly seem reasonable to give a sample of the critics' names; I suspect the early Orientalists are more what was intended than Jerry Falwell, though. - Mustafaa 02:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the critics I had most in mind in drafting those sections were the anti-Islam Christian websites and the people who feel that they tell the whole truth about Islam -- then come to Wikipedia to edit Islamic articles. Every issue discussed is one that has been raised by the um, more vociferous of the critics HERE. But it is also true that these criticisms have been leveled at Muhammad by centuries of scholars from other faiths (or no faith). It would take me a while, however, to assemble quotes.
The intent of the criticism sections WAS to divert the arguments out of the main article and into separate articles, as previously explained. To give free rein to the arguments would send the article over the 100K mark, and make it unreadable. This strategy may not have worked. Sending the argument elsewhere does seem to have worked with the Satanic verses and Aisha controversies. Perhaps because they weren't labeled as criticism?
The reference to the ethical dilemmas section in the Moses article was spot-on. Perhaps I can try to reframe some of these issues in that light.
And by the way, I've noticed that if I give a two-sentence summary of critical views, and preface the first sentence with "Critics charge that ... " other editors will leave the first sentence and delete the second as POV. It's as if they don't recognize that the second sentence follows onto the first, and contains the same implicit "critics say". It's as if people are reading sentence-by-sentence, rather than as a consecutive whole. This is hard for me to fathom. Zora 03:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I removed the headings of the disputed paras and sorted them into the rest of the text, per Mustafaa's suggestions. I hope that this will resolve some of the problems. Zora 05:54, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article says "Pious Muslims consider that his work merely clarified and finalized the true religion, building on the work of other prophets of monotheism in the Near East, and believe Islam to have existed before Muhammad. "
I'd never heard of this before. Could one of our Muslim editors provide me with some more information about this?-- Josiah 03:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed that the two columns of the timeline seem to have somehow fallen out of sync? - Mustafaa 11:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous vandal added critical comparison of Jesus and Muhammad to the bottom of the article; you deleted it and noted "Removed POV. I could have added my own. Should I?"
No, just removing it was the right thing to do. Anonymous vandal didn't bother to read the article and see that both his/her critical points were indeed already mentioned, and that there are separate articles in which to debate both. Zora 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Works cited
Abdalati, Hammudah. Islam In Focus. Saudi Arabia: Al-Jumah Press, 1993.
Almadhrahi, Ali and Mareb. Personal Interview. 16 Nov. 2004.
Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. United States of America: Random House
Inc., 2002.
Dunn, John. The Spread of Islam. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1996.
Ergun Mehmet and Emir Fethi Caner. Unveiling Islam. United States of America: Kregal
Publications, 2002.
Newby, Gordon D. A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. Mitcham, UK. Bell and Bain Ltd., 2002.
Stewart, Desmond. “Early Islam.” Canada: time Inc, 1967.
Small correction on "the prophet passes" I have changed it to "The Death of Muhammad." This article should remain religiously neutral. As an earlier poster put it, we should be respectful of the subjects we are writing about - not reverant. Further, this article describes Muhammad the founder of Islam, the only people he is a prophet to is muslims. To ascribe him with the title of 'prophet' with no explaination or even a nod to the fact it is a belief/opinion from a religious perspective violates neutrality.
Also, I removed the line "Who was now to lead the community? To head the new state? " from the same section, it was pointless fluff.
... and need to be discussed. (They are also riddled with typographical and style errors, which is reason enough for taking them off the page, in my opinion.)
I have already removed this text once, and it has been instantly reinserted without discussion. This is a problem that I hope others will take note of. BrandonYusufToropov 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Striver, since you have been unblocked for now because this was your first time, let me state clearly here the problem. This is not the place for Shi'a apologetics and propaganda. The article only describes what Shi'a and Sunni believe about one issue. It then doesn't go into detail to show which side is right. If you post any apologetical propaganda with the intention to show that Shi'a are right and Sunni are wrong, it will be deleted by other users. We don't care whether you are citing Sunni hadith to "show" (in your opinion) that Sunnis are wrong and Shi'as are right. The article only states what Shi'a and Sunni believe. That's it. It ends there. No apologetics (whether you think they are valid or not is irrelevant) will be allowed after that. OneGuy 00:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy, i seriosly dont get it.
Is this an article describing what the Prophet (pbuh) did and sayd or not? My question is simple: Did he say and do that or no?
Neither i or you care for Shia or Sunni bias with regards to this article. Did the Prophet (pbuh)say "Quran and Ahl ul-Bayt" at ghadeer Kumm or no?
If yes, is it nor relevant for the topic to see what he declared that he left as a prophet?
Did Umar accuse him of delirium or not when the Prophet wanted to write his will in front of Umar?
If yes, then why is his last moments, when he wanted to write is will but was prevented irrelevant?
Dont give me Shia-Sunni POV, im not talking POV, im talking HISTORICAL FACTS. Did it happened or not? and so on for the rest of what i wrote.
-- Striver 01:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Friend, im not talking about some uninportant event that might promote som sect's belif system, im talking about what the prophet of Islam said he would leave after him!
Now you tell me, what of this to is most relevant:
the existing:
"It was during this period that the episode known as The Satanic Verses may have happened. It is said that Muhammad was briefly tempted to relax his condemnation of Meccan polytheism and buy peace with his neighbors, but repented and recanted his words (see the article on The Satanic Verses). The incident is reported in only a few sources, and many Muslims do not accept it as fact."
or
One month before he died he collected 120 000 muslims in a place called Ghadeer Khumm and said that he was about to die and that he is leaving behind him "two weighty things", The Quran and his Ahl ul-Bayt He then said: "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" - For whoever I am his mawlah, 'Ali is his mawlah.". And then (according to ibn Kathir) verse 5:3 was revealed: "...This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion..."
The above on the issue of the satanic verses or the prophets legacy, his telling that Ali became Mawla and the revelation of " perfected for you your religion"?
Both have roghly the same amont of text. Now, you tell me, which of those two carry most relevant information to this article?
take a look at the episode named "Companions of Muhammad". can you Honestly say that is has more relevant information than the Prophets last speech?
Can you honestly say that the latter is some biased Shia POV when its recorded in Sahi Muslim, all Sunnis agree to the fact that it was said "man kuntu mawla..." and Ibn Kathir says 5:3 was revealed then?
Is the Prophets (puh) last address to the Muslim nation uninportant biased Shia promoting POV?
C'mon...
In that case, could you wright "I, OneGuy, have the opinion that the Prophets last address to the Muslim nation is uninportant biased Shia promoting POV"?
Am i the only one not agreeing with OneGuy?
-- Striver 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is biased Shi'a POV pushing. I am well aware of the different contradictory versions of the last sermon and other contradictory hadith that Shi'a and Sunni use to justify their beliefs. These arguments do not belong in this article. The article simply describes in a few words both the Sunni and Shi'a belief, as it describes in a few words the Satanic Verses incidence. The stuff that you are trying to insert to push Shi'a POV doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to push Shi'a POV, apologetics, and propaganda
OneGuy 04:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the whole excursus re "Muhammad was poisoned". It's extremely badly written and it doesn't add anything to the article.
There is so MUCH material re the life of Muhammad that if we tried to squeeze in every single bit, the article would be as long as a book. Furthermore, much of it is exaggerated or even mythical.
There is also a deplorable tendency for a community of editors to gather around a single high-profile article and fuss with it endlessly, adding and removing bits here and there, squabbling over words and sentences. That's a lot safer and easier than starting a new article on some neglected topic. Well, get out there and do Islamic history, guys. Someone start the Ridda Wars article. Zora 10:56, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Under most recent revision (anonymous), we now have:
In 610, at about the age of 40, he had been visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
Personally, I agree with this statement, but I don't think it's neutral.
After pondering this type of edit, which I think we can expect pretty regularly, my personal feeling is that this sentence would be better stated (and less biased toward Muslim viewpoint) as follows:
Early Muslim sources report that in 610, at about the age of 40, he experienced a vision. He described it to those close to him as a visit from the the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an.
It's a critical sentence, one that has to address the facts clearly and not inspire reversion controversies. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 13:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)