This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Diplomatic career of Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Diplomatic career of Muhammad was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 4, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
Muhammad had
engaged as a diplomat for a time during his
call to
Islam? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm sorry to fail the second GA nomination of this article. The main issue is that the article's content is not in agreement with its title. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. This article discusses the following episodes of Muhammad's life:
Thus, I did not review those sections that do not fit into the article; the comments on the rest are below.
Well written: Fail. The article contains quite a few pieces of awkward writing, for example: Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat, One of the ways this was achieved was through the Constitution of Medina, The nature of his communication with leaders was broadly to establish correspondence on the premise of calling them to accept Islam., The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then., In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad (non-parallel structure), he would pray in the hopes of preceding generations of at-Ta'if coming to accept Islamic monotheism. (do you mean "succeeding generations"?) At this point, I simply grew tired. Please do a thorough copyediting of this article.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. The article is verifiable to reasonably good sources, but I have noticed several inaccuracies. The treaty of Hudaybiyya stipulated returning to Mecca not only minors, but also women. His followers were greatly disappointed at the conclusion of the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaybiyya; this is an important fact that the article has omitted. A Meccan being murdered by a Muslim sounds like an innovative casus belli for Muhammad's attack on Mecca; all the sources I know say it was a skirmish between two Bedouin tribes allied with Muhammad and the Meccans respectively.
Broad in scope: Pass. The article is actually too broad in scope, see above. The sections under review are fine.
NPOV: Fail. The article has several POV issues. One of them is the consistent usage of words like "call" and "message", which are inappropriate outside of religious context ("preaching" should be fine). Probably, the most significant POV issue is the exaggeration of the "controversy" on the authenticity of the letters sent by Muhammad. Every non-Muslim academic source I'm aware of dismisses them as forgeries, so we can safely speak of a consensus. I didn't check Irfan Shahid, but then this would be the only source arguing for the authenticity of letters. This problem afflicts the whole section on letters, not just the lead paragraph.
Stable: Pass. No significant changes or edit warring has been noticed.
Pictures: Fail. Some captions are not NPOV, insofar as they assert the seals displayed were actually used by Muhammad. For example, Imprint of seal stamped on letters sent by Muhammad. and Another rendering of the seal used by Muhammad. assert that the seals are authentic, which is POV.
Feel free to nominate the article again after the problems are fixed. Beit Or 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
His presentation, however, could have been more effective (1) the pre-Islamic material should have been clearly separated from the islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammedan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pre-Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity... ... (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Muhammad's letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected.
The authenticity of the letters of the prophet Muhammad to the Emporer Heraclius, the Persian Kind Chosroes, the Negus of Abyssinia and to others have been the subject of great controversy. Muhammad Hamidullah believes in the authenticity of the letter of the prophet Muhammad and has reiterated his position more recently.
she then goes on to outline Serjeant's rejection and provides quite substantial footnotes over the pages referring to a number of Hamidullah's works. she also says that Arab chroniclers/historians did not doubt the authenticity, and she notes that the different versions of the narrative are very similar. after providing the text of the letter, she writes:
The letter sent to Heraclius was very similar in its phrasing and content to letters which the Prophet had supposedly sent to other contemporaneous rulers. A letter bidding the Persian king to embrace Islam or do battle (26) infuriated Chosroes who tore it apart and wrote to his governor in Yaman ordering him to march on Medina, fight Muhammad, and take him prisoner and send him to the Persian capital (27). The arrogance and total rejection of Islam by the Persian ruler as well as his outright insult to the Prophet is contrasted with the respectful behaviour of Heraclius, who is said to have read the letter and then placed it between his thighs and ribs (28).
the footnote (26) again mention Hamidullah and a work of his in a journal (see below) as well as the work of another author, the other footnotes are citing sources containing the narratives. her narrative of events continues (quite extensively, for essentially the rest of the 18 page article) all under the premise of authentic communications between Muhammad and Heraclius.
Thank you, Itaqallah, for the quotes. What I see from here and from the sources I'm aware of is that Hamidullah claimed to have discovered an authentic letter to Heraclius and that Irfan Shahid finds his claims credible. Other scholars continue to reject the authenticity of the letters. Beit Or 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
please see the references given at the end of the paragraph. Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. EoI is more explicit, stating: "A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina." ITAQALLAH 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. Beit Or 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
furthermore, we have RB. Serjant (in his article analysing the text of the 'Constitution of Medina') who asserts, essentially as Watt has done, that the Constitution is a culmination of a series of agreements between Muhammad and the various parties of Medina. he explicity mentions the Jews as those who dealt with Muhammad in this constitution. Serjeant divides the agreements into eight seperate documents, labelled A to H (p9) some of which are sub-articles dealing with Jews. Serjeant explicitly refers to the Jews as literal signatories, stating that Ibn Ishaq probably transcribed the constitution from a rendering which had omitted the exhaustive list of signiatories (p10):
... The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi to document F. I am inclined to view the 'Constitution' as preserved by Ibn Ishaq as having been transcribed from a sort of reference copy already omitting tiresome lists of signatures. Had the full copy been available to Ibn Ishaq I postulate that he would have either given the list of signatories or commented upon them- perhaps therefore the reference copy was made even by Ali himself
Serjeant also explicitly states (p4): "The three tribes with whom Muhammad had political dealings were Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayzah, the first silversmiths, and the two latter owning palm-groves and being known as the two kahins and also as Banu 'l-Sarih."
so there is plenty of scholarly evidence available that the constitution included agreement between Muhammad and the main Jewish tribes, and as far as i am aware this is the mainstream scholarly view. i have cited EoI, Watt, Wensinck and Wellhausen (through Uri Rubin, i have not read his article completely so i do not know his view yet), Serjeant, and Forward whose narrative is sedate and conventional. i also believe the statement of Lewis has been misinterpreted, 'unilateral proclamation' or not, there is no evidence of him suggesting that the Jews did not agree to the constitution, only that it was drafted and established by one party (i.e. Muhammad's). i don't know what mention, if any, fringe narratives merit. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties. At the Hudaybiya treaty the names of the Muhajirun and of Meccan Quraysh were written at the top. This practice persisted in south Arabia until recent times, and documents carries a row of seals or signatures at the top of the paper above the written text. Such south Arabian agreements often employ with signatures the term aqarra bi... which appears in document B/3a.
As signatories on behalf of the contracting parties we may confidently restore Muhammad's seal and names of leading Quraysh Muhajirun, the names of the naqibs representing the Khazraj and three Aws tribes with whom Muhammad had to deal in matters affecting the tribes of Yathrib, and most probably certain Munafiqun such as 'Abdullah b. Ubayy of a group belonging to Banu Awf of Khazraj- indeed the conclusion that his name appeared among the signatories seems inescapable. The documents relating to the Jews... (see above for rest of quote)
Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito) -- Aminz 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It also worth pointing out why Muhammad came to Medina. Watt in the Cambridge History of Islam states: The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the great battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless "there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases." A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. Among the things Muhammad did in order to settle down the longstanding grievances among the tribes of Medina was drafting a document known as the Constitution of Medina, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities). -- Aminz 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is marred by poor writing at every turn. Examples include:
If any votes are being taken, please add mine to the opinions that this Article is quite bad. Besides the bad writing (and it really is bad), it comes across to me as nothing as much as a Propaganda Piece. Wikipedia readers deserve better. Cutugno ( talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
One of many examples demonstrating why this salafi religious tract should not be used: "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped." Proabivouac 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
that is another absurd conclusion, for there would then be no reason for EoI to state right afterwards:
A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from Muhammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and Muhammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved.
this demonstrates that the Jews, as well as polytheist Arabs of Aws/Kharaj were a part of this "formal agreement", this "Constitution". ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
<r-i>i think when you put things in context, it's rather clear what Serjeant says. this is why he also states:
The Jews, when Muhammad made the confederation pacts after his arrival in Yathrib, were included in the ummah; through peace which took place between them and the Mu'minun they became like a collective body of them, with a single word and hand. By binding the Aws and Khazraj in a confederation to which the Jews were adjoined, Muhammad became himseld a mujammi, or unifier, Allah healing schism through him like his ancestor Qusayy who unified Quraysh.
it's clear what Serjeant meant. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It was natural that Mahomet, holding these sentiments, should desire to enter isato close union with the Jews. This he did in a formal manner shortly after reaching Medina; for he associated them in a treaty of mutual obligation, drawn up in writing, between the Refugees and the men of Medina, in which he confirmed the Jews in the practice of their religion, and in the secure possession of their property. The main provisions of this Contract, as given to us by Ibn Ishac, are the following:-
(he quotes the text of the Constitution)
It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms.
We need to make it clear that Medina was only forged into a political unit after Muhammad killed or drove out all the Jews. Arrow740 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118). Arrow740 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Watt:
F.E. Peters
Reuven Firestone
Serjeant:
and (page number please):
and a scholar who is himself part of history (Muir) states:
(he quotes the text of the Constitution)
It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms
EoI:
Request: Please provide context as to the "early arrangements."
Beit Or's hearsay: Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. If memory serves, this argument is advanced by Moshe Gil in "The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration" Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974). Anyway, as Proabivouac has pointed out, the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral document. If Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis is not enough, see also The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>
Itaqallah's hearsay: according to Uri Rubin (in Studia Islamica), Wellhausen and Wensinck both thought the references to Jews in the Constitution referred directly to the three main tribes, that is: Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa. also according to Rubin, "One of the main objects of the 'Constitution' was to determine the relations between the Muslims and Jews of Medina within the framework of a new kind of unity." <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>
Proabivouac's hearsay: Lewis' narrative is hardly a "fringe" one, nor is it being misinterpreted. He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation. I'll share more from this book if you like. He asserts that Muhammad didn't enjoy broad support even among the Aws and Khazraj, and mentions the Jews as opponents only. At best, the recitation you are putting forth as fact is very much in dispute. <full quote needed>
Aminz's hearsay: Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito).
My comment: Itaqallah is claiming that the scholarly consensus is that the following are fact: A) The Constitution of Medina was written shortly after Muhammad's arrival at Medina. B) The pre-Muhammad Jews consented to it. However, I believe the sources indicate strongly that there is no scholarly consensus that either A or B is a fact. Arrow740 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite the theocratic tone of this statement*, the agreement established a single, common, political community made up of Muslims, Jews and idolators. It details no religious requirements but, rather, outlined political and military responsibilities ranging from the payment of blood money to mutual defense against outside aggression. As Peters describes its nature "[T]he contracting parties did not embrace Islam: They did agree to recognize the authority of Muhammad, to accept him as the community leader and abide by his political judgements. In doing so they were acknowledging, as was the Prophet himself, that they were one community, or umma, under God, Muhammad's God, not yet uniquely composed of Muslims., but committed to defend its own joint interests, or what was now newly defined to be the common good."
end quoteThe muhajirun, along with the various kinship groups making up the residents of Medina (whether ansar, Jews, or idolators), were all parties to the agreement.
... a document, or, more likely, a collection of documents, 28 that purports to record the political arrangements contracted not, as Ibn Ishaq seems to emphasize, between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, but rather dictated by Muhammad and regulating the political arrangements between his partisans from Mecca and all the inhabitants of Yathrib, Muslims, pagans and Jews:
There is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this collection. Its earliest and central elements represent a type of political contract where Muhammad unexpectedly - from the point of view of a later Muslim - agrees that the signatories, the Muslims, the pagans, and Jews of Medina, shall henceforward constitute a single political community, albeit under the supervision - one scarcely knows what word to use in describing Muhammad's own role- of someone who is patently a holy man (nabi). It reveals why in fact Muhammad was invited to Medina in the first place, to reconcile the murderous differences between the two chief Arab factions and their respective Jewish allies, and how he attempted to accomplish it. In place of the old tribal units he fashioned a new community united by little else, it appears, than their willingness to accept his divinely derived authority: "Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and Muhammad."
After all is said and done, I'm still bewildered why the article states everything about the Constitution of Medina as a matter of fact. There are considerable disagreements among scholars. Some say it was signed, some are silent on that matter; some say it was an agreement, some call it a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad, some believe it to be an early document, some argue that it is a collection of documents, at least partially dating from a later period. There is, however, a tendency on part of some editors here to try to navigate between the sources so as to reduce them to some highest common factor and make the reader believe there are no disputes at all. Whenever there are disagreement between scholars, they must be acknowledged and presented rather than swept under the rug.
Most importantly, however, Constitution of Medina does not belong to this article at all, as it is not an example of diplomacy; I have also explained above what other events do not constitute diplomacy either. Furthermore, I agree with Alecmconroy that the topical presentation of Muhammad's life makes no sense; this article is basically a string of unrelated events and thus hardly encyclopedic. Beit Or 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is now locked in bad faith by a tool at the behest of POV-pusher Itaqallah following my complaint to WP:ANI about Itaqallah's blatant lying in his revert edit summaries. RunedChozo 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, everyone take a deep breath and realize everything is okay. If there is ever going to be an article where good-faith editors are going to have a hard time agreeing-- this is it. This is going to be one of the hardest topics on all of Wikipedia to get right. And really, what we are doing on this article is unparalleled in human history-- average citizens from all across the world, coming together and trying to write a consensus article on what is probably one of the top five most controversial topics in all the world. There have been hundreds of wars amongst people trying to come to consensus on what the content of this article should be. Centuries ago, all our ancestors were killing each other over this, and now we're all having a reasonable chat about it. :) Things are good. Just be civil, be extra careful to assume good faith, and we'll get through it eventually. Which of course, is easy for me to say, because I havent' been a part of it, but say it I shall. :) -- Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
May I humbly suggest that one first step to solving the problems here might be to merge Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general together into Muhammad as a political leader or the like. At least that would quell all the debates about whether something was diplomatic, military, both or neither. There'd still be lots of issues to work out, but that would, to me, be a step towards a bettter title, and it would stop us from having debates that we can't win.
I'm far from an expert, but the gist I'm getting here is that some of the issues on the page stem from the fact that there is no NPOV/verifiable way to determine whether some events were peaceful diplomatic agreements (belonging on Muhammad as a diplomat) or whether they were militarily-influenced armistice agreements (therefore belonging on Muhammad as a general). From what I'm hearing, it sounds like both views are present in the sources, and so trying to decide amongst ourselves which one is "true" isn't going to get us anywhere. Trying to come to one single consensus reality on religious figures is a no-win scenario. Like nuclear, this is a game where the only winning move is not to play.
If we merge the two pages, then we don't have to decide, once and for all, whether something was diplomatic or military. Common sense alone suggests that for many instances, the answer will be "both". Let's merge them, reflecting the wisdom that the two go hand in hand, and say ourselves one series of disputes. -- Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The topics appear to have been chosen to present Muhammad as a multifaceted Superman, the Diplomat, the General, the Husband, the Reformer, all with decidedly positive connotations, according to the logic of the template. I wonder, Itaqallah, if your opinion about this method of organization would change if we created articles such as Muhammad the Caravan Raider, Muhammad the Slaver or Muhammad the Executioner, with prominent links from the template, naturally. Events such as the fate of the Banu Qurayza have been kept out in this article on the narrowly-correct ground that this conduct isn't characterizable as Muhammad engaging in diplomacy (nor is it generalship); that it represents either the failure or the incincerity of his diplomacy seems not to matter. It is obliquely mentioned as "rapidly changing conditions in Medina, with certain tribes having been accused of breaching the terms of agreement." The organization suggested at the top of the template, broken down by period, is the most natural and neutral way of organizing this material, without providing more excuses (as if we've not enough of these) to produce biased material. Proabivouac 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bro, ALM, cool down. I know the feeling, and i also know that it is not productive. As for the others, there is nothing wrong with this article. It is a hub/summary/compilation of event that are present as separate events. I see no argument that is remotely compelling me to shift my view in support of a merge. Now, if you would like to create a new article but you are hesitating, why not make a blueprint so other editors can weight in? -- Striver 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, could those who do not support splitting material in different articles please explain why it is "unencyclopedic". I have seen Encyclopedias focusing on the relation of particular subjects. For example, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an specifically talks about relation of Qur'an with different topics. Are you sure that all bios of Muhamamd explain things from first to last in such a high details in a timeline? -- Aminz 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I like "X as a ...". It's an interesting way to present a person of this stature. If you can't decide whether something is "diplomatic" or "military", put it in both articles. Problem solved. Next. Grace Note 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comparing
This and
This is interesting. --
Aminz
23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge-- Sefringle 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge also, on the grounds that it is too difficult to separate the diplomatic and military aspects of Muhammad's life. The only way to avoid duplication if both articles are kept is to necessarily omit important contextual information from one article or the other. For example, diplomacy often leads to military action. If you leave out the discussion of military action, the reader is left with an incomplete picture. Likewise if you leave out the discussion of the diplomacy that led to the military action. - Merzbow 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Support merge Muslim migration to Abyssinia (615) is not diplomacy: Sending your followers elsewhere to hide has nothing to do with conducting negotiations with representatives of other groups. al-`Aqaba pledges — this story on conversion of some people to Islamis is not diplomacy. Reformation of Medina — this is not diplomacy. Lawmaking, perhaps, but not diplomacy in any event. With what remains I would find cause to merge with Muhammad as a general into Muhammad as a political leader. Can there be a final outcome to the merge proposal now? The tags are still there. Cheers, DavidYork71 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
From Muhammad as a diplomat#al-`Aqaba pledges (620—621), with blatantly POV language in italics:
-- Striver - talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
why are there too many tags in this article? why is this unencyclopedic? Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it's unencyclopedic because it has nothing to do with reality. Secondly, it's completely biased and the whole article is written like propaganda. RunedChozo 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right and right, unless you're trying to whitewash Mohammed's image. But WP:NOT A SOAPBOX. I'm going to suggest some changes later, but first I want a promise from you and your friends that you won't try to start up some edit war again, because I'm not in the mood for it and would only report you to the ANI page if you do. RunedChozo 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You obviously are incapable of holding back from edit warring. Until you make that promise and stick to it, I'm not dealing with you. I have no desire to be in the crosshairs of your power-abusing friends again. RunedChozo 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been rather unreasonable in the past, you have lied in edit summaries, you have had your friends badmouth me when I reported you for it, and you refuse to promise not to edit war. I think that accurately sums you up. Until you are willing to contribute in good faith, I'm not going to deal with you. The tags are not baseless. RunedChozo 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Promise not to edit war like you did last time first. Otherwise, you're just being an obstructionist, which I don't put past you at all. I'm not touching the page other than the tags until I have a promise that you and your friends aren't going to try to harass me like you did last time, because I'm not giving you any chance to pull that again. I find it really hilarious as well as entirely in-character for you to NOT want to make the promise that you won't do this, but it just shows what bad faith you and your propaganda friends edit in. RunedChozo 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you REFUSE to promise to FOLLOW THE RULES? Gee, I wonder. You lied about me last time, no go. Either promise to follow the rules, or I'm not dealing with you because I know you're just going to break them. RunedChozo 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There you go again. Will you promise to follow the rules, or won't you? If not, why is it so hard for you to promise to follow the rules? Well? Your bad faith is showing like the holes in your underwear, boy. I'm not going to deal with you until you promise to follow the rules, and that's final, because your refusal shows me you're just going to turn around and break them first chance you get and you have no intention of actually working in good faith. RunedChozo 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
i see no reasonable justification as to why the Constitution of Medina cannot be considered an act of diplomacy. as i said earlier, there is no basis at all on this talk page, except for OR arguments about the nature of the constitution. Lewis' quote simply confirms the notion that it was diplomacy, which other scholars similarly imply. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Formal request has been received to merge Muhammad's letters to the heads of state into Diplomatic career of Muhammad; dated: September 14, 2021. Proposer's rationale: The later article only has 3500 words of prose, considerably below the size limit, while there is already considerable overlap between the former and the later, with the former including minimal information that the later does not. Pinging proposer @ BilledMammal: Richard3120 ( talk) 14:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Diplomatic career of Muhammad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Diplomatic career of Muhammad was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 4, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that
Muhammad had
engaged as a diplomat for a time during his
call to
Islam? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I'm sorry to fail the second GA nomination of this article. The main issue is that the article's content is not in agreement with its title. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. This article discusses the following episodes of Muhammad's life:
Thus, I did not review those sections that do not fit into the article; the comments on the rest are below.
Well written: Fail. The article contains quite a few pieces of awkward writing, for example: Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat, One of the ways this was achieved was through the Constitution of Medina, The nature of his communication with leaders was broadly to establish correspondence on the premise of calling them to accept Islam., The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then., In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad (non-parallel structure), he would pray in the hopes of preceding generations of at-Ta'if coming to accept Islamic monotheism. (do you mean "succeeding generations"?) At this point, I simply grew tired. Please do a thorough copyediting of this article.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. The article is verifiable to reasonably good sources, but I have noticed several inaccuracies. The treaty of Hudaybiyya stipulated returning to Mecca not only minors, but also women. His followers were greatly disappointed at the conclusion of the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaybiyya; this is an important fact that the article has omitted. A Meccan being murdered by a Muslim sounds like an innovative casus belli for Muhammad's attack on Mecca; all the sources I know say it was a skirmish between two Bedouin tribes allied with Muhammad and the Meccans respectively.
Broad in scope: Pass. The article is actually too broad in scope, see above. The sections under review are fine.
NPOV: Fail. The article has several POV issues. One of them is the consistent usage of words like "call" and "message", which are inappropriate outside of religious context ("preaching" should be fine). Probably, the most significant POV issue is the exaggeration of the "controversy" on the authenticity of the letters sent by Muhammad. Every non-Muslim academic source I'm aware of dismisses them as forgeries, so we can safely speak of a consensus. I didn't check Irfan Shahid, but then this would be the only source arguing for the authenticity of letters. This problem afflicts the whole section on letters, not just the lead paragraph.
Stable: Pass. No significant changes or edit warring has been noticed.
Pictures: Fail. Some captions are not NPOV, insofar as they assert the seals displayed were actually used by Muhammad. For example, Imprint of seal stamped on letters sent by Muhammad. and Another rendering of the seal used by Muhammad. assert that the seals are authentic, which is POV.
Feel free to nominate the article again after the problems are fixed. Beit Or 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
His presentation, however, could have been more effective (1) the pre-Islamic material should have been clearly separated from the islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammedan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pre-Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity... ... (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Muhammad's letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected.
The authenticity of the letters of the prophet Muhammad to the Emporer Heraclius, the Persian Kind Chosroes, the Negus of Abyssinia and to others have been the subject of great controversy. Muhammad Hamidullah believes in the authenticity of the letter of the prophet Muhammad and has reiterated his position more recently.
she then goes on to outline Serjeant's rejection and provides quite substantial footnotes over the pages referring to a number of Hamidullah's works. she also says that Arab chroniclers/historians did not doubt the authenticity, and she notes that the different versions of the narrative are very similar. after providing the text of the letter, she writes:
The letter sent to Heraclius was very similar in its phrasing and content to letters which the Prophet had supposedly sent to other contemporaneous rulers. A letter bidding the Persian king to embrace Islam or do battle (26) infuriated Chosroes who tore it apart and wrote to his governor in Yaman ordering him to march on Medina, fight Muhammad, and take him prisoner and send him to the Persian capital (27). The arrogance and total rejection of Islam by the Persian ruler as well as his outright insult to the Prophet is contrasted with the respectful behaviour of Heraclius, who is said to have read the letter and then placed it between his thighs and ribs (28).
the footnote (26) again mention Hamidullah and a work of his in a journal (see below) as well as the work of another author, the other footnotes are citing sources containing the narratives. her narrative of events continues (quite extensively, for essentially the rest of the 18 page article) all under the premise of authentic communications between Muhammad and Heraclius.
Thank you, Itaqallah, for the quotes. What I see from here and from the sources I'm aware of is that Hamidullah claimed to have discovered an authentic letter to Heraclius and that Irfan Shahid finds his claims credible. Other scholars continue to reject the authenticity of the letters. Beit Or 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
please see the references given at the end of the paragraph. Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. EoI is more explicit, stating: "A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina." ITAQALLAH 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. Beit Or 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
furthermore, we have RB. Serjant (in his article analysing the text of the 'Constitution of Medina') who asserts, essentially as Watt has done, that the Constitution is a culmination of a series of agreements between Muhammad and the various parties of Medina. he explicity mentions the Jews as those who dealt with Muhammad in this constitution. Serjeant divides the agreements into eight seperate documents, labelled A to H (p9) some of which are sub-articles dealing with Jews. Serjeant explicitly refers to the Jews as literal signatories, stating that Ibn Ishaq probably transcribed the constitution from a rendering which had omitted the exhaustive list of signiatories (p10):
... The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi to document F. I am inclined to view the 'Constitution' as preserved by Ibn Ishaq as having been transcribed from a sort of reference copy already omitting tiresome lists of signatures. Had the full copy been available to Ibn Ishaq I postulate that he would have either given the list of signatories or commented upon them- perhaps therefore the reference copy was made even by Ali himself
Serjeant also explicitly states (p4): "The three tribes with whom Muhammad had political dealings were Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayzah, the first silversmiths, and the two latter owning palm-groves and being known as the two kahins and also as Banu 'l-Sarih."
so there is plenty of scholarly evidence available that the constitution included agreement between Muhammad and the main Jewish tribes, and as far as i am aware this is the mainstream scholarly view. i have cited EoI, Watt, Wensinck and Wellhausen (through Uri Rubin, i have not read his article completely so i do not know his view yet), Serjeant, and Forward whose narrative is sedate and conventional. i also believe the statement of Lewis has been misinterpreted, 'unilateral proclamation' or not, there is no evidence of him suggesting that the Jews did not agree to the constitution, only that it was drafted and established by one party (i.e. Muhammad's). i don't know what mention, if any, fringe narratives merit. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties. At the Hudaybiya treaty the names of the Muhajirun and of Meccan Quraysh were written at the top. This practice persisted in south Arabia until recent times, and documents carries a row of seals or signatures at the top of the paper above the written text. Such south Arabian agreements often employ with signatures the term aqarra bi... which appears in document B/3a.
As signatories on behalf of the contracting parties we may confidently restore Muhammad's seal and names of leading Quraysh Muhajirun, the names of the naqibs representing the Khazraj and three Aws tribes with whom Muhammad had to deal in matters affecting the tribes of Yathrib, and most probably certain Munafiqun such as 'Abdullah b. Ubayy of a group belonging to Banu Awf of Khazraj- indeed the conclusion that his name appeared among the signatories seems inescapable. The documents relating to the Jews... (see above for rest of quote)
Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito) -- Aminz 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It also worth pointing out why Muhammad came to Medina. Watt in the Cambridge History of Islam states: The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the great battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless "there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases." A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. Among the things Muhammad did in order to settle down the longstanding grievances among the tribes of Medina was drafting a document known as the Constitution of Medina, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities). -- Aminz 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is marred by poor writing at every turn. Examples include:
If any votes are being taken, please add mine to the opinions that this Article is quite bad. Besides the bad writing (and it really is bad), it comes across to me as nothing as much as a Propaganda Piece. Wikipedia readers deserve better. Cutugno ( talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
One of many examples demonstrating why this salafi religious tract should not be used: "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped." Proabivouac 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
that is another absurd conclusion, for there would then be no reason for EoI to state right afterwards:
A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from Muhammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and Muhammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved.
this demonstrates that the Jews, as well as polytheist Arabs of Aws/Kharaj were a part of this "formal agreement", this "Constitution". ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
<r-i>i think when you put things in context, it's rather clear what Serjeant says. this is why he also states:
The Jews, when Muhammad made the confederation pacts after his arrival in Yathrib, were included in the ummah; through peace which took place between them and the Mu'minun they became like a collective body of them, with a single word and hand. By binding the Aws and Khazraj in a confederation to which the Jews were adjoined, Muhammad became himseld a mujammi, or unifier, Allah healing schism through him like his ancestor Qusayy who unified Quraysh.
it's clear what Serjeant meant. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It was natural that Mahomet, holding these sentiments, should desire to enter isato close union with the Jews. This he did in a formal manner shortly after reaching Medina; for he associated them in a treaty of mutual obligation, drawn up in writing, between the Refugees and the men of Medina, in which he confirmed the Jews in the practice of their religion, and in the secure possession of their property. The main provisions of this Contract, as given to us by Ibn Ishac, are the following:-
(he quotes the text of the Constitution)
It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms.
We need to make it clear that Medina was only forged into a political unit after Muhammad killed or drove out all the Jews. Arrow740 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118). Arrow740 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Watt:
F.E. Peters
Reuven Firestone
Serjeant:
and (page number please):
and a scholar who is himself part of history (Muir) states:
(he quotes the text of the Constitution)
It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms
EoI:
Request: Please provide context as to the "early arrangements."
Beit Or's hearsay: Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. If memory serves, this argument is advanced by Moshe Gil in "The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration" Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974). Anyway, as Proabivouac has pointed out, the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral document. If Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis is not enough, see also The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>
Itaqallah's hearsay: according to Uri Rubin (in Studia Islamica), Wellhausen and Wensinck both thought the references to Jews in the Constitution referred directly to the three main tribes, that is: Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa. also according to Rubin, "One of the main objects of the 'Constitution' was to determine the relations between the Muslims and Jews of Medina within the framework of a new kind of unity." <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>
Proabivouac's hearsay: Lewis' narrative is hardly a "fringe" one, nor is it being misinterpreted. He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation. I'll share more from this book if you like. He asserts that Muhammad didn't enjoy broad support even among the Aws and Khazraj, and mentions the Jews as opponents only. At best, the recitation you are putting forth as fact is very much in dispute. <full quote needed>
Aminz's hearsay: Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito).
My comment: Itaqallah is claiming that the scholarly consensus is that the following are fact: A) The Constitution of Medina was written shortly after Muhammad's arrival at Medina. B) The pre-Muhammad Jews consented to it. However, I believe the sources indicate strongly that there is no scholarly consensus that either A or B is a fact. Arrow740 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Despite the theocratic tone of this statement*, the agreement established a single, common, political community made up of Muslims, Jews and idolators. It details no religious requirements but, rather, outlined political and military responsibilities ranging from the payment of blood money to mutual defense against outside aggression. As Peters describes its nature "[T]he contracting parties did not embrace Islam: They did agree to recognize the authority of Muhammad, to accept him as the community leader and abide by his political judgements. In doing so they were acknowledging, as was the Prophet himself, that they were one community, or umma, under God, Muhammad's God, not yet uniquely composed of Muslims., but committed to defend its own joint interests, or what was now newly defined to be the common good."
end quoteThe muhajirun, along with the various kinship groups making up the residents of Medina (whether ansar, Jews, or idolators), were all parties to the agreement.
... a document, or, more likely, a collection of documents, 28 that purports to record the political arrangements contracted not, as Ibn Ishaq seems to emphasize, between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, but rather dictated by Muhammad and regulating the political arrangements between his partisans from Mecca and all the inhabitants of Yathrib, Muslims, pagans and Jews:
There is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this collection. Its earliest and central elements represent a type of political contract where Muhammad unexpectedly - from the point of view of a later Muslim - agrees that the signatories, the Muslims, the pagans, and Jews of Medina, shall henceforward constitute a single political community, albeit under the supervision - one scarcely knows what word to use in describing Muhammad's own role- of someone who is patently a holy man (nabi). It reveals why in fact Muhammad was invited to Medina in the first place, to reconcile the murderous differences between the two chief Arab factions and their respective Jewish allies, and how he attempted to accomplish it. In place of the old tribal units he fashioned a new community united by little else, it appears, than their willingness to accept his divinely derived authority: "Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and Muhammad."
After all is said and done, I'm still bewildered why the article states everything about the Constitution of Medina as a matter of fact. There are considerable disagreements among scholars. Some say it was signed, some are silent on that matter; some say it was an agreement, some call it a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad, some believe it to be an early document, some argue that it is a collection of documents, at least partially dating from a later period. There is, however, a tendency on part of some editors here to try to navigate between the sources so as to reduce them to some highest common factor and make the reader believe there are no disputes at all. Whenever there are disagreement between scholars, they must be acknowledged and presented rather than swept under the rug.
Most importantly, however, Constitution of Medina does not belong to this article at all, as it is not an example of diplomacy; I have also explained above what other events do not constitute diplomacy either. Furthermore, I agree with Alecmconroy that the topical presentation of Muhammad's life makes no sense; this article is basically a string of unrelated events and thus hardly encyclopedic. Beit Or 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The page is now locked in bad faith by a tool at the behest of POV-pusher Itaqallah following my complaint to WP:ANI about Itaqallah's blatant lying in his revert edit summaries. RunedChozo 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, everyone take a deep breath and realize everything is okay. If there is ever going to be an article where good-faith editors are going to have a hard time agreeing-- this is it. This is going to be one of the hardest topics on all of Wikipedia to get right. And really, what we are doing on this article is unparalleled in human history-- average citizens from all across the world, coming together and trying to write a consensus article on what is probably one of the top five most controversial topics in all the world. There have been hundreds of wars amongst people trying to come to consensus on what the content of this article should be. Centuries ago, all our ancestors were killing each other over this, and now we're all having a reasonable chat about it. :) Things are good. Just be civil, be extra careful to assume good faith, and we'll get through it eventually. Which of course, is easy for me to say, because I havent' been a part of it, but say it I shall. :) -- Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
May I humbly suggest that one first step to solving the problems here might be to merge Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general together into Muhammad as a political leader or the like. At least that would quell all the debates about whether something was diplomatic, military, both or neither. There'd still be lots of issues to work out, but that would, to me, be a step towards a bettter title, and it would stop us from having debates that we can't win.
I'm far from an expert, but the gist I'm getting here is that some of the issues on the page stem from the fact that there is no NPOV/verifiable way to determine whether some events were peaceful diplomatic agreements (belonging on Muhammad as a diplomat) or whether they were militarily-influenced armistice agreements (therefore belonging on Muhammad as a general). From what I'm hearing, it sounds like both views are present in the sources, and so trying to decide amongst ourselves which one is "true" isn't going to get us anywhere. Trying to come to one single consensus reality on religious figures is a no-win scenario. Like nuclear, this is a game where the only winning move is not to play.
If we merge the two pages, then we don't have to decide, once and for all, whether something was diplomatic or military. Common sense alone suggests that for many instances, the answer will be "both". Let's merge them, reflecting the wisdom that the two go hand in hand, and say ourselves one series of disputes. -- Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The topics appear to have been chosen to present Muhammad as a multifaceted Superman, the Diplomat, the General, the Husband, the Reformer, all with decidedly positive connotations, according to the logic of the template. I wonder, Itaqallah, if your opinion about this method of organization would change if we created articles such as Muhammad the Caravan Raider, Muhammad the Slaver or Muhammad the Executioner, with prominent links from the template, naturally. Events such as the fate of the Banu Qurayza have been kept out in this article on the narrowly-correct ground that this conduct isn't characterizable as Muhammad engaging in diplomacy (nor is it generalship); that it represents either the failure or the incincerity of his diplomacy seems not to matter. It is obliquely mentioned as "rapidly changing conditions in Medina, with certain tribes having been accused of breaching the terms of agreement." The organization suggested at the top of the template, broken down by period, is the most natural and neutral way of organizing this material, without providing more excuses (as if we've not enough of these) to produce biased material. Proabivouac 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bro, ALM, cool down. I know the feeling, and i also know that it is not productive. As for the others, there is nothing wrong with this article. It is a hub/summary/compilation of event that are present as separate events. I see no argument that is remotely compelling me to shift my view in support of a merge. Now, if you would like to create a new article but you are hesitating, why not make a blueprint so other editors can weight in? -- Striver 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, could those who do not support splitting material in different articles please explain why it is "unencyclopedic". I have seen Encyclopedias focusing on the relation of particular subjects. For example, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an specifically talks about relation of Qur'an with different topics. Are you sure that all bios of Muhamamd explain things from first to last in such a high details in a timeline? -- Aminz 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I like "X as a ...". It's an interesting way to present a person of this stature. If you can't decide whether something is "diplomatic" or "military", put it in both articles. Problem solved. Next. Grace Note 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Comparing
This and
This is interesting. --
Aminz
23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge-- Sefringle 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I support the merge also, on the grounds that it is too difficult to separate the diplomatic and military aspects of Muhammad's life. The only way to avoid duplication if both articles are kept is to necessarily omit important contextual information from one article or the other. For example, diplomacy often leads to military action. If you leave out the discussion of military action, the reader is left with an incomplete picture. Likewise if you leave out the discussion of the diplomacy that led to the military action. - Merzbow 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Support merge Muslim migration to Abyssinia (615) is not diplomacy: Sending your followers elsewhere to hide has nothing to do with conducting negotiations with representatives of other groups. al-`Aqaba pledges — this story on conversion of some people to Islamis is not diplomacy. Reformation of Medina — this is not diplomacy. Lawmaking, perhaps, but not diplomacy in any event. With what remains I would find cause to merge with Muhammad as a general into Muhammad as a political leader. Can there be a final outcome to the merge proposal now? The tags are still there. Cheers, DavidYork71 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
From Muhammad as a diplomat#al-`Aqaba pledges (620—621), with blatantly POV language in italics:
-- Striver - talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
why are there too many tags in this article? why is this unencyclopedic? Peace. -- Nielswik (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, it's unencyclopedic because it has nothing to do with reality. Secondly, it's completely biased and the whole article is written like propaganda. RunedChozo 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right and right, unless you're trying to whitewash Mohammed's image. But WP:NOT A SOAPBOX. I'm going to suggest some changes later, but first I want a promise from you and your friends that you won't try to start up some edit war again, because I'm not in the mood for it and would only report you to the ANI page if you do. RunedChozo 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You obviously are incapable of holding back from edit warring. Until you make that promise and stick to it, I'm not dealing with you. I have no desire to be in the crosshairs of your power-abusing friends again. RunedChozo 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been rather unreasonable in the past, you have lied in edit summaries, you have had your friends badmouth me when I reported you for it, and you refuse to promise not to edit war. I think that accurately sums you up. Until you are willing to contribute in good faith, I'm not going to deal with you. The tags are not baseless. RunedChozo 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Promise not to edit war like you did last time first. Otherwise, you're just being an obstructionist, which I don't put past you at all. I'm not touching the page other than the tags until I have a promise that you and your friends aren't going to try to harass me like you did last time, because I'm not giving you any chance to pull that again. I find it really hilarious as well as entirely in-character for you to NOT want to make the promise that you won't do this, but it just shows what bad faith you and your propaganda friends edit in. RunedChozo 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason you REFUSE to promise to FOLLOW THE RULES? Gee, I wonder. You lied about me last time, no go. Either promise to follow the rules, or I'm not dealing with you because I know you're just going to break them. RunedChozo 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There you go again. Will you promise to follow the rules, or won't you? If not, why is it so hard for you to promise to follow the rules? Well? Your bad faith is showing like the holes in your underwear, boy. I'm not going to deal with you until you promise to follow the rules, and that's final, because your refusal shows me you're just going to turn around and break them first chance you get and you have no intention of actually working in good faith. RunedChozo 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
i see no reasonable justification as to why the Constitution of Medina cannot be considered an act of diplomacy. as i said earlier, there is no basis at all on this talk page, except for OR arguments about the nature of the constitution. Lewis' quote simply confirms the notion that it was diplomacy, which other scholars similarly imply. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Formal request has been received to merge Muhammad's letters to the heads of state into Diplomatic career of Muhammad; dated: September 14, 2021. Proposer's rationale: The later article only has 3500 words of prose, considerably below the size limit, while there is already considerable overlap between the former and the later, with the former including minimal information that the later does not. Pinging proposer @ BilledMammal: Richard3120 ( talk) 14:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)