WTF!?!
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,
- the year of mourning. This is one of the most important Features in early Islam. It shows how the prophet Suffered, was ostracised and saw his family and friends die. None of this is mentioned. All that is mentioned is that Khadijah and Abu Talib died. Why did they die? They died of starvation and Malnutrition. It is not mentioned that one Third of the early Muslims died in that year.
- His Egyptian slave-girl, Maryam, may also have been given her freedom and become one of his wives. The early Muslim biographies are not clear as to whether she lived with him as a free wife or as an enslaved concubine. - Bull! There are over a dozen Explicit Hadiths in Muslim, Ishaq and Bukhari that says she was freed! Furthermore, He freed over one hundred slaves but lets ignore that shall we.
- Muhammad as ‘president’ I understand why that is said, but in reality he was not like a President in the American sense. He did write the constitution, but he was only in charge of Muslims. He was a judge in Inter-religious Disputes, but he had no authority to wage war for all of Medina, or prevent other clans from doing this, na din reality the aws held most power (At that time).
- The Most Accepted figures for the fighting at Badr are 950 Meccans and 314 Muslims. I don't know where the 800 came from. - But this is really just pedanticism
- Before being killed Al Nadr Ibn al Harith cried "O Prophet, who will look after my children if I should die?" Mohammad spat out "Hellfire" as the sword cut through his neck. - This is NPOV is it?
- Later commentators have claimed that the punishment of the Banu Qurayza was according to the dictates of the Hebrew Bible on warfare; however, the original sirah sources do not mention this. No, The Sira wouldn't, why would it. The Hadiths however do, and there are a lot of them.
And on the other side of things;
- 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. For this reason, many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history. - What is this? That is Certainly not NPOV either.
Anyway, the article is rubbish.
Problems?
There is a problem with saying that muhammed 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 Muhammed 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 Muhammed didn't even nominate a successor, but it was left to the Muslims to choose their leader.
About Muhammed 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. He was poor when he was being persecuted, which was in fact most of the time that the Qur'an was being dictated.
- “Say: Except! Lo! I am with you among the expectant.” While scholars may quibble over the meaning, I think one thing is clear: illiterate men ought not author scripture.
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
- By the way, even prosperity as a trader does not preclude illiteracy. I think the 'poverty' may be a reflection of his early life - he married well and prospered, but he was a poor orphan early on. --MichaelTinkler
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
- The statement about "Muslims believing" that is naturally interpreted as Muslims believing that he is the final prophet. The second part of the sentence does not connect to that in my understanding. ie - "Muslims believe that Muhammad is the final prophet sent to humankind, the "seal of prophets", a poor and illiterate man who nonetheless delivered the miracle of the Qur'an. " The article doesn't mention that he was poor as a child, all it says (in my understanding) is 'despite the fact that he was poor and illeterate he nevertheless delivered the miracle. The semantics of the sentences are somewhat conflicting. - Methyl
AFAIK, founder of Islam is Abraham.
- Historically, the founder of Islam was Muhammed. What you are talking about is not a historical claim, but rather was first an early medieval rewriting of the Bible, which was later incorporated into the Quran; this positin is a Muslim theological claim. In a similar fashion, a person can make their own religion today, and claim that both Abraham and Muhammed were the founders of this faith. But that revisionist claim would only be accepted by members of that religion. (Religions such as the Mormons and Bahai, in fact, have already done something much like this.) Nonetheless, such claims would not be accepted by the world at large as historical truth.
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).
- Good point, and I agree. I guess that because I am Jewish, this process just bothers me. When Christianity first developed, they claimed that Abraham was really a Christian, and then the New Testament even stated that the Christians are the true Israelites. Then Islam came along and did much the same thing; then the Mormon religion came along and did precisely the same thing. Then the Christian Identity movement came along and did the same thing again. And let's not forget the Bahai and others. Everybody claims that only they are the real inheritors of the Biblical prophets. It is frustrating to see well over a dozen separate religions rewrite the Bible as their own, while the descendents of the authors are often persecuted by usurpers. :( RK
- Actually, one could argue that Jews did the same thing also. The term jew refers to the tribe judah, which were descendants of a specific son of Jacob (Israel) who was a son of Isaac who was a son of Abraham. So there existed no such term as "jew" or "judaism" in Abrahams time. Thus it would seem that the muslim claim that Abraham didn't have a religion consisting of tribal names which came to be after Abrahams existance has some credibility. The Quranic claim that Abrahams religion could be best described as simply "submission unto God" (=translated into arabic="islam") and "one who turned away from idolatry" (=translated into arabic="hanif") is thus not as unreasonable as it might appear to some at a first glance.
- Wrong. The Jews did not try to take over someone else's religion, ane claim it for themselves. The term "Jew" does not refer only to the tribe of Judah; that is a common misconception. Please read the Wikipedia article on Israelite for further discussion of this issue. The Jews of today, along with those who later joined through conversion, are continuous with the Israelites of the Kingdom of Judah. They are not some foreign group who took over the religious literature of the Judean kingdom and usurped them. Also, the Muslim claim is not as minimal as you think it is; Muslim religious literature in many places deligitimizes Jews and Judaism, and usurps the Jewish Biblical tradition for themselves. RK 21:09, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)
- You are correct in saying that the term jew covers more than simply the tribe of judah, but this is clearly where this word historically originated.
- I believe that we both agree that the term "jew" hence could not exist at Abrahams time. Claiming that Abraham was a "jew" would be an example of casting a historically modern term back in history! The very same thing muslims are accused of when claiming that Abraham was a muslim.
- As for usurping history - Abraham was the father of both the arabs and the sephardic jews (whom I believe are of relatively unmixed descent - correct me if I'm mistaken here)... Thus it can hardly be claimed that the arabs were some "foreign group". Also bear in mind that the arabs had their own independant traditions of Abraham.
- If the word "jew" is taken to be have a wider meaning, covering all present and past believers in the Abrahamic religion, then so just as easily can the term "muslim". Remember that unlike the term "jew" the term "muslim" does not have a tribal origin, and simply translates into "one who submits unto God".
- I would like to emphasize that I'm not talking about jews usurping Abraham, they have of course just as must claim to him as the arabs!
- One can always argue indefinatly what religion Abraham belonged to invoking historically later terms, but I believe that no jew, christian or muslim would disagree on Abraham being a person who turned away from idolatry and one who submitted unto God.
- Peace
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:
- sira and isnah to assure yourself that there is as much truth in the story of his life as humans can manage, despite the 'doubts' of AxelBoldt, a questionable source at best.
- everything in the list of Islamic terms in Arabic
- early Muslim philosophy of which Muhammad was of course the first figure.
- Islamic philosophy describing the encouter of this tradition with the older Christian and Greek traditions
- modern Islamic philosophy describing how it is still interacting today
- Islamist describing the political character of one such movement.
- Islamic World describing the geopolitics of the faith Muhammad founded
- alleged effects of invading Iraq, which interact with some of the above, and which motivate a deeper treatment at this time, if only to help those who come here expecting serious treatment of serious and current subjects.
(months later he writes) Good work! It is now pretty good.
Biggest deficiencies
Biggest deficiencies:
- nothing on the state of Arab societies when he arrived, e.g. the debased status of women - this is important for understanding why he might accept or even require vulnerable women into his household even if he had no intent of being a real "husband" to them
- nothing on his early devotion to charitable causes, e.g. for travellers, and the role played in settling disputes. He was well known as a civic figure before his revelation in the cave
- There is now a bit on this in the summary that was added to the beginning. However this material needs to be integrated with what is below, as we don't want a summary of the whole article at the start. There is already an article on sira for "Muhammad as seen by Muslims".
- not enough quotes from historians, many of whom commented on the historical significance of Muhammad
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.
---
Wiki to begin obeying the Shariat?
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.
- Absolutely not. This encyclopedia is not a pro-Muslim religious piece. We do not folow Islamic law in referring to Muhammed, we do not follow Christian law in referring to Jesus, we do not follow Jewish law in referring to Moses. RK 11:56, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking, how about introducing the article with a paragraph stating that we will not be adding the SAW after his name, suggest Muslims to say it themselves. Thsi would be respectful to Muslims and educational for Non-Muslims... No?
- I like that.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 19:51, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
- I would also like to quote the incident at Hudaibiya, where The Prophet (that form is accepted in English dictionaries as referring to Muhammad) himself erased "Prophet of Allah" after his name in an agreement being signed with people who did not believe.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
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."
article is not neutral
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.
- razzias? i think it's a race of some sort ... but i could be wrong reddi
- razzia is an Italian word for raid, and I believe is common in historical writing in English, too. — Miguel 03:48, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
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.
- I agree, any serious claim as this needs in-depth detail and identification so it can be verified and studied for later contributors and benefit neutrality. I hope the contributor comes forth so we can research this alleged event. I have no idea what "razzias" is either.
Paragraph removed: Muhammad's participation in razzias and his execution of a Medinan Jewish clan are well established historical fact. We also know however that Muhammad was extremely courageous and resolute. He was thoughtful and prudent yet inspiring and charming.
The link for 'The Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society ' (secularislam.org) is actually against an Islamic State and seems to promote the abandonment of Islam. I'll find suitable links for Muhammad and encourage others to aid in the neutralization of this article. Usedbook 12:47, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I'll be workin on a in-depth detail of historical portions of mohammad (hopefully, as time permits) ... and more identification of the historical points (the religious points should be dealt with the same NPOV as the Christ article) ...
- I hope more contributor comes forth so we all can research all of the alleged event in Muhammad's life.
- I'm still looking into was "razzias" is ... from what i can find it's a race of some sort ... this though may be a later derived term (of a type of raid [as mentioned in the article] that arabs did in the 600s-700s) ...
- More edits to come ... reddi 10:22, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The claim the article makes (15-22 wives) is completely false.
- completely false? hmmm ... i'll look into this ...
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.
- 40 year old woman to have 6 children? umm ... most women [IIRC] go through menopause and cannot bear children past the mid-30s ... so it's odd that a female out of child bearin years will have 6 kids. Giving the benefit of the doubt, that's make her around 46 @ the time of the last child (very very old to have kids [even today; not to mention back then]). Sincerely, reddi
- Medicine says that menopause onset is from 45 to 50 years, not mid 30s at all. I personally know women who gave birth to healthy children when they were 44 years old. Also bear in mind that the Arabs used the lunar calendar, and not the solar one. This makes the 40 years 38 years or so. Also, many of his male children died in their first months, so there is ample time for 6 children for sure. -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
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.
- One of my friends - girl - was born when her parents where about 45. If it helps you. She's rather clever :) ilya 01:23, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It is generally accepted by Muslims that Mohammed (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, Mohammed was sent as a messenger to correct their errors.
- It may be that Muslims believe that Mohammed did not 'found' the Muslim religion, but it is believed by most non-muslim sources (as far as I can tell) that Mohammed did 'found' the Muslim religion.
- What Muslims consider about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jesus and other prophets should be mentioned appropriately in the article (much like the views of Christians are seperate from other's views in the Jesus article) ... reddi
Like many religious and historical figures, there is much myth and disinformation about the life of Mohammed (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 Mohammed had horns!) and may be little better than political fiction. Anjouli 17:43, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Myth and disinformation about the life of Mohammed? yes ... there probably is ... but as you state, many religious and historical figures have this ...
- I'd like to see the article be a historical account of his actual life and an account of what Muslims believe to have been his life. They can co-exist.
- Stuck with the latter? not necessarily, there should be other reconciling facets in history to delineate Muhammad's life (non-religiously).
- The Hadiths are the main reliable source? I would disagree as to being a "reliable" source [it was only finalized in the ninth century and then only accepted as reliable by Muslims ... also they varied in how authentic they are ... add to that that different schools within Islamic branches accept different hadith collections as genuine] ...
- Other sources tend to be heavily biased? YMMV on that ... other sources give a balance to a Muslim POV and should be included [and marked appropriately, as well as should any muslim source be marked appropriately] ...
- May be little better than political fiction? Again YMMV on that ... one's fiction is another's faith ....
- Sincerely, reddi
General thoughts about the article
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:
- Islams contributions to social order: the poor, orphans, women, slaves, blacks etc. as compared to the pre-Islamic period of Jahilyya
- Information on some of the most important companions and their contributions to Muhammads prophetic mission.
- The pre-Hijra period e.g. the early years after proclaiming prophethood.
- Muhammads correspondance with contemporary rulers, eg. the Byzantine Emperor, the contact with the Negus of Abyssinia with the early muslims etc.
- Those all sound like excellent suggestions. These might get done eventually, but it would be great if you made these improvements yourself (ideally you'd create an account here too, so folks can talk to you more easily). By the way, you'll notice that someone added your new addition Prophet Muhammad's Final Sermon to the votes-for-deletion list. Please don't be upset :) As that article is essentially a copy of the Prophet's sermon, it belongs on the Wikisource site rather than the encyclopedia. You could, however, change that page to be a discussion and analysis of the sermon, and of its subsequent effects. That, I think, would be very interesting. -- Finlay McWalter 23:59, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion of expanding it into an article that discusses the sermon, maybe at a later time I might do so. For the time being a changed the link to wikisource, and I'll let the VfD process remove the page as it is for the time being... --- Regards
The incongruities section
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
- Who said that? His son Ibrahim was born by the Egyptian Coptic concubine Maria, who was given to him as a gift by the ruler of Egypt. -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
(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.
- Incorrect. See comment on point 2 above -- KB 16:35, 2004 May 16 (UTC)
(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.
Razzia section
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
- Calling anyone the most influential man (or woman) in history is so hopelessly biased as to be unjustifiable in any encyclopedia. RK
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 agree with much of this. The assessment was probelmatic also because it contained off-topic discussions. Muhammed had nothing to do ith Muslim science, history, literary analysis, etc. RK 11:56, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- To the contrary - Muhammad certainly had something to do with all those things, although not perhaps as much as the previous version of this page claimed. Many Hadith directly promote the pursuit of knowledge, and the need to study the Sunna was a big influence in the development of history and sociology in the Islamic world. Those points don't need as much text as they had, but they should certainly not be neglected entirely. - Mustafaa 20:06, 3 Jul 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)
- Yeah, that reads better. I still think the entry as a whole could do with some more alternative views - it's a little hagiographic in tone, and there's hardly any deviation from the party line. If I have a bit more time later, I'll try to include some of the issues raised by Warraq et al. - Quodlibetarian 03:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
aims or claims
i did writed this : "It is remarkable that Mohamed 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 (Mohamed) 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.
- Err, what hadiths are those from? Did you just copy and paste them? There are conflicts in the hadiths as to her age, but this we know, (1.) She was previously arranged to be married. (2.) She was very Young, 6 at the youngest, apparently 12 at the oldest (altough one hadith from Tabari says she was 21.. but Tabari is not really hadith, it's mostly gibberish) (3.) 3. It was wit she that he died. (4.) She became a great hadith Orater and early Islams most important woman.
do you think that i have a time to what you have the interisting ? i know that mohammed did married with more than ten womens . and aisha was th women who mohamed married whe she was six years , she played with her headstocks , and with shildren ... i know also that mohamed did sex with aisha when she was neight years (but that is according to de islamic source ). why are you ashamed from what mohamed 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).
- How much more proof does one need? Just because some Muslims may be ashamed of this fact doesn't make it any less true.
(°-°) Aziri 14:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Muhammad
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)
Caliphate Expansion
- It is also notable that the Muslim methods for expanding empires were vastly less brutal than those in use by contemporary civilizations, such as the Roman, Mongol and Chinese empires.
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)
- Not sure if I should use this, it's not asolute proof, but;
- Another reference states; Early Roman rulers were actually quite humane. Julius Caesar only tortured his conquered enemies as an example for other potential foes (Mannix 29). Eventually, however, things would change. Roman savagery is second to none in its public appeal and widespread usage. - http://www.augustana.edu/academ/history/witchcraft/tor2.htm
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.
- Until we have further information, I've removed mentions of the Romans and Chinese from that sentence. --Bletch 21:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What kind of Information are you after?
Religious neutrality
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 would also like to quote the incident at Hudaibiya, where The Prophet (that form is accepted in English dictionaries as referring to Muhammad) himself erased "Prophet of Allah" after his name in an agreement being signed with people who did not believe.
- Maybe we should add a note to the main page requesting people that want to add that qualifier to first read this page—especially the request for Muslims to invoke blessings on their own and the reference ot Hudaibiya—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:49, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV warnings
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 Mohammad in a bad light, it is instantly removed. This article makes it look like Mohammad 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 Mohammad and his followers! Many of his wives who he "saved" had their husbands and fathers killed and were then taken as booty!
- This is not true. Go to the botom and the biography of each wife is there. Safiyya bint Huyayy and Juwayriya bint al-Harith are two examples where that claim may apply. Your claim this happened several times is just a lie. And even in these two cases, what was wrong with marrying them (much higher status) then making them slaves (as was custom at that time)? OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, on the subject of Mohammad'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 Mohammad "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?
- OK, then fix that part instead of adding NPOV. Moreover, it's just a fact that some Muslims question these hadith.OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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.
- Post evidence that there were raids on carvans not involving Mecca or a tribes not actively involved in the war, and then you can fix it OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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.
- No, you cannot add NPOV without giving reasons and trying to fix the problem OneGuy 14:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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.
- I showed you above that "several" of his wives were booties is an exaggeration. What "several"? Also, you didn't answer what was wrong with marrying the two (not "several") -- with their consent -- instead of making them slaves?
- As for Aisha, you inserted a speculation about why she didn't have children. We don't know why. We don't know whether she reached sexual maturity at that time. Even if she was nine, many nine years old girls can get pregnant. See * None of Muhammad's wife beside Khadija and Maria had children. OneGuy 10:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
death
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.
- Sign your post, dude. See this http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ulm/usenet/muhammad_poisoning.htm
- It's not true that he died by the poison. Rewrite that to make it clear. Another problem was with you spelling the name "Mohammed" unlike the rest of the article. Rewrite it. OneGuy 09:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Funny that anonymous vandal removed that quote from Jewish woman about why she poisoned the goat. She said she did it to test if Muhammad was a true prophet. Guess what? Muhammad didn't swallow and spit out; the incident implies that he was true prophet. The anon recognized the problem and removed the quote he himself inserted :)) OneGuy 11:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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.
- LOL. If you believe the story is true, then you must believe that what she said is true too. She said that if Muhammad is killed by her then that would prove he isn't a true prophet. Muhammad didn't die. Latter he went on to conquer Mecca. Anti-Islamic bigot like you obviously couldn't swallow what her quote implied and so you removed the quote you yourself inserted. Jesus never lead an army because he didn't have an army. He was weak with very few followers. He was killed only three years after he started preaching, unlike Muhammad. How about comparing Muhammad with some Biblical prophets? David was ordered by Biblical god to slaughter Amalekites, including women (pregnant women too), children, babies, and even animals. Nothing Muhammad ever did can be compared to that. Can you explain that behavior by Biblical god? Only that incident proves your Biblical god doesn't exist OneGuy 12:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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
- No, the rest of story also comes from the same traditions where that quotes comes from. I am sure you know that. You removed it exactly for the reasons explained above OneGuy 12:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A more scholarly article?
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.
- The biography of Muhammad doesn't come from hadith. It comes from sira, especially Ibn Hisham and Tabari. Sira and hadith are not the same OneGuy
- The extremely learned academic work I'm reading right now uses hadith for any tradition that has a matn and an isnad, which includes sira, tafsir, fiqh, and sunna. If you want to say that hadith is limited to sunna, well, OK. But it still leaves the question of the reliability of the oral tradition in question. Zora 07:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, then this extrememly learned work got it's facts wrong. There is no isnad in sira. OneGuy 07:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Um, they aren't all that developed, because they're early, but just about every section in Ibn Ishaq is prefaced with something like:
- "Ja'far b. 'Amr (220) told me on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Muslim the brother of Muhammad b. Muslim b. Shihab al-Zuhri from Anas b. Malik that the latter said ... "
- Also, materials for the sira tend to overlap with hadith for the other categories, because tafsir would explain the occasion of revelation, which became part of the bio, and fiqh and sunna would cite the example of the prophet, which became part of the bio. Zora 09:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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 Muhammed 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)
- No, it can't be dropped. Other important historical figures have a section on historical significance or influence, for example Genghis Khan, Isaac Newton, Caesar Augustus, Martin Luther etc., but it should be removed from Muhammad article because an anti-Islamic anonymous vandal didn't like it? I don't think so. OneGuy 05:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK, leave it then, but make it less fawning. Muhammad is not the most important man in history to anyone except a Muslim. However, anyone would agree that the religion and empire he initiated had a great effect on the world. (The Genghis Khan article needs to be edited, as I don't think anyone except a Mongolian nationalist would think Genghis Khan the most charismatic man in history. The Newton legacy statement is short and succinct, and the Caesar Augustus one has pro and con. Thanks for pointing those out, so we can see what to imitate and what to avoid.) Zora 07:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The section doesn't say that Muhammad is the most important man in history. The phrase that the anon removed was that many people see Muhammad as one of the most influential person. That statement is a fact, as can be seen in The 100. So Hart is at least one such person, making the statement true OneGuy 07:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)