Talk:Muhammad

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Sabotage by FayssalF (Szvest)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_.2F_Muhammad

Editorius 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid such future vandalism I vote we bring this article in line with other article on religious figures such as Jesus and Moses and simply alter the paragraph structure to equate Muhammad with Islam without requiring the use of language that has been the source of contention or requiring footnotes etc. and expansive declamations. I am not sure why this was not proposed before since it seems to smack of simplicity and effectiveness. Proposed (changes in bold):

Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar Template:ArabDIN; also Mohammed and other variants) 'is the central figure in Islam. Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia.

The rest of the Intro can go into subsection Etymology to make the intro succint.

--Tigeroo 13:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were a Muslim, I'd object that God is the central figure in Islam, not Muhammad.--Editorius 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Call it central or the most marginal figure. Call me a vandal or a sabotteur. What matters is that there are 2 historical views (history documents) that must be defined and included here:

• Non-muslim historical views.
• Muslim historical views. -- Szvest 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is just one historical view: the scholarly academic one. The Muslim view is by definition religious rather than historical. Pecher ^Talk 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the ridiculous implication that Muslims can neither be scholarly nor academic. There are differing fields of academia holding different views altogether. The 'nonMuslim' academic view is entirely based on western reviews of Arabic sources. To suggest that such a review is categorically superior than the sources such reviews rely on is ludicrous. His Excellency... 23:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reference about your statement Pecher? -- Szvest 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need a reference for Islam being a religion, look up the basic reference texts. Pecher ^Talk 14:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am refering to your statement about the Muslim view which may refer to works by Academics who lived or live in Muslim societies. The Muslim view can refer to a secular view. Any reference? -- Szvest 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not swallow Szvest's bait!--Editorius 14:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Szvest 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are always two (or more) points of view: For example, there are the coffeeists, who claim that the moon is made of coffee, and the non-coffeeists (such as the physicists), who deny that the moon is made of coffee ... --Editorius 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John Esposito in his book "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam" p. 4-5 writes: As Christians view their revelation as both fulfilling and completing the revelation of the Old Testament, Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad received his revelation from God through the angle Gabriel to correct human error that had made its way into the scripture and belief systems of Judaism and Christianity. Therefore Muslims believe that Islam is not a new religion with a new scripture. Far from being the youngest of the major monotheistic world religions, from a Muslim point of view Islam is the oldest because it represents the original as well as the final revelation of the God to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. "He established for you the same religion as that which He established for Noah, that which We have sent to you as inspiration through Abraham, Moses and Jesus namely that you should remain steadfast in religion and make no divisions within it" (Quran 42:13)

Therefore "Non-Muslims believe he established the religion of Islam and the Muslim community... Muslims believe him to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed." is more accurate but it is better to be clarified even further. --Aminz 01:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the scientific historians (i.e. the non-mythologists) know that Muhammad established/founded the religion of Islam.--Editorius 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And are you their representative? --Aminz 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorius, are they the same who state that God exist or doesn't exist? That Jesus established Christianity? That Satan invented evil doing? That Darwin is wrong or right? If they say the same than we only have one academic source, if not than we have many. -- Szvest 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Reworked version; removed reference to central figure as per comment. Aminz quote paves the way for an academic reference to Szvest's contention of a different POV vs. established/founded. In the new version the Second sentence still maintains and creates the desired strong link between Muhammad and Islam.

Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar Template:ArabDIN; also Mohammed and other variants) is believed by Muslims to have been God's (Allah) last and final prophet of Islam, to whom the Qur'an was revealed. According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. 570 in Mecca and died June 8 632 in Medina, both in the Hejaz region of present day Saudi Arabia.

Continuity can be referenced and appropriately incorporated elsewhere describing Muslims and their beleifs on Islam or Muhammad.--Tigeroo 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Szvest, Aminz, what is your bloody point?!

That Muhammad founded/established Islam (in the non-etymological sense of the word!) is unquestionably part of our historical knowledge.--Editorius 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

MY point is your using the word "Sabotage" if you haven't noticed yet. --Aminz 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We have no bloody points Editorius. I don't know why this makes you furious toward my point! Calm down and have a deep breath then relax. You don't have to make it a big deal. What i am saying is that i am not saying he didn't establish islam but i am saying why your historians are keen to point out that he did when Jesus in WP is almost considered as God. All i want to clarify is that we have to suggest that all articles about theological figures should follow the same standard. Otherwise, i am considering this as a total bias. If you agree w/ me about my suggestion than we are in harmony. I hope i made it clear. -- Szvest 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like saying after Editorius: "What's the bloody point here?" If there is any logic in the posting above, then I have failed to grasp it. Pecher ^Talk 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still cannot discern your point clearly. I glimpsed at the article on Jesus, which begins as follows:

"Jesus (8–2 BC/BCE — 29–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity."

Well, this statement is certainly not incorrect. But we cannot simply copy it by writing that Muhammad is the central figure in Islam, since Jesus is religiously central for the Christians in a different sense than Muhammad is for the Muslims, even though in Muslim folklore he is often venerated like a "Übermensch" ("superman"). But from the strict theological point of view, Muhammad is not god-like, and the central figure in Islam is God and nobody else but God. — You're talking about some sort of common "standard", but this cannot mean that always the same formulations should be used, can it?!--Editorius 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my fomulation please, it is formulated to acheive the goals of both, it makes all the necessarry linkages while avoiding all the objections, while at the same time being very simple to read and comprehend in comparison to the current version. At least thats the intention.--Tigeroo 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is Editorius using Nietszcheesque terms like "Übermensch"?--Irishpunktom\^talk 15:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Give us an answer!--Editorius 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal simply endorses a Muslim POV and is very confusing. Pecher ^Talk 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it endorses a Muslim POV and which part is confusing so that we fix it, because I don't see it.--Tigeroo 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Matter resolved? Will make the change soon then.--Tigeroo 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC SUmmary

Could someone write a short summary about the recently placed RfC? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Article size

The article is now 60+ kb, more than the prefered 32 kb. Should we move some of the text in the biography to the sub-articles i created? --Striver 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

--Tigeroo 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam template -- poses POV threat

Having the Islam template placed at the beginning of this article and not in the "Islamic views" section is in violation of NPOV. Doing this asserts that Muhammad is essentially not a stand alone historical figure, but a mythical Islamic figure. At Jesus, the Jesus template is placed at the top of the article, while the Christianity template is placed in the appropriate sub-section. As with Jesus, Muhammad is a historical figure whose historical existence is verified (or at least widely recognized), and thus is viewed upon by non-Islamic religions, as well as secularists. Until a Christianity, Judaism, atheist, and all other beliefs' templates are placed at the top of this article, it is POV to place the Islamic template accordingly. Please view the Talk:Jesus archives for detailed discussion on the Christianity issue. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a better link, can't find want you want us to see.--Tigeroo 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have followed that discussion, and i have to say that the consistent thing would be to treat both article in the same way. --Striver 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Material from http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Muhammad.htm has been used without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookwormUK (talk • contribs)

Please see the bottom of that page, where they acknowledge they copied it from us, not the other way around. Dragons flight 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You got to know that it's the opposite. Try this out http://experts.about.com/e/m/mu/Mexico.htm. -- Szvest 02:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Was the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) a homosexual?

No, this is nonsense.Peter Agga

Please do not open this title discussion. This title is considered very offensive and does not show respect towards Islam and also towards Our Beloved Muslim Prophet. — Emrrans 13:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick quiz

How is the Muhammad article different from every single one of the following articles about important figures from antiquity:

• Jesus
• Buddha
• Charlemagne
• Alexander the Great
• Zeus
• Thor
• Homer
• Sophocles
• Moses
• Adam

That's right... there's no picture at the top of the page.

As this list shows, moving the picture to the top wouldn't be something that was undertaken just to annoy Muslims; it would simply be in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. On the other hand, deliberately keeping the images shoved below the fold must only be to avoid annoying certain religious people, which is odd, since we don't give Christians a similar heckler's veto over Evolution, for example. —Chowbok 04:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And which picture would you like to use? Traditionally, there are no pictures of Muhammad. I suppose the article could use one of the images from Persian texts that shows him as a figure with a veil over his face... - unsigned

There are plenty of pictures of Mohammad. See the Mohammed Image Archive. Lack of available images is not the reason there isn't one here. - Nunh-huh 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC) - It's probably worth adding to the list above the article of Bahá'u'lláh, as he represents an instance of a religion with a similar taboo against such images, which Wikipedia has chosen not to respect. - Nunh-huh 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Early history about Muhammad is written by Muslims and they do not put any picture of Muhammad. Hence any picture you present will be just a picture which has nothing to do with Muhammad. It is just like you create a new one today. I will use my right to revert any such change. --- Faisal 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that different from Jesus, Homer, Sophocles, Moses, or Adam? There are no known pictures from their lifetimes in existence; all images of them are by later artists. By your logic, the images have "nothing to do" with the subjects. Why aren't you removing those images? —Chowbok 16:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The diff is simply what Faisal's explained. The first ever picture of Muhammad dates back to centuries after his death. It cannot be real. -- Szvest 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? That is also the case in the examples I gave. The depictions of Homer, for example, are even farther removed in time. So why don't you remove those images as well? —Chowbok 17:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was debated in depth few times over here. I may advise you to read them at the archives first so we won't waste time discussing them every single moment. -- Szvest 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through the archives. I see several people making the same point I did, but I don't see anybody refuting it. Can you answer my question or point me to where somebody else did? —Chowbok 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If I could then I will remove all those images too. Hence if you support me then lets start ? --- Faisal 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Start with Homer. Let's see what happens. —Chowbok 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know! I cannot but the point I was trying to make was that if one cannot correct something wrong in other articles then it does not implies that all other article should have wrong thing in them. So your reason that if other articles have it then this should have too is very wrong. Btw I am going to deleted the picture at Homer page now, just to make a point (I already know what will happens). --- Faisal 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Marhaba

Was Muhammad illiterate? UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:Peter Agga

The article says yes. Please stop trolling! -- Szvest 17:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Issue?

I'm currently running Firefox v. 1.5.0.6, and the "Timeline for Muhammed" is conflicting with other objects on the page. I've provided a link to a screenshot to give you a better idea of what's happening. http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2056/screenshotmuhammadrz7.jpg

My resolution is 1440x900 pixels (widescreen monitor). Just thought I'd throw it out there if someone knows how to fix it.Hanzolot 03:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the page today, the problem appears to be fixed. Hanzolot 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Muhammad a paedophile?

He married Aisha when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9. TharkunColl 11:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey wait a minute. Is it my imagination, or has this come up before? BYT 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a very good reason for that. TharkunColl 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a very good reason the partisan attacks never seem to stick around in the actual text: They're vandalism. In this article, we clearly enunciate Watt's view of Aisha's likely age at the time the marriage was consummated. If the label "pedophile" is important to you (and why would that be, I wonder), then what you're doing is proposing your own personal retroactive psychoanalysis of a historical figure. He married an over-the-hill widow, as well -- perhaps we should figure out what the dysphemism for that is, while we're at it, or would that muddy the rhetorical waters for you?

The prevailing academic opinion on this is not exactly hard to come by: he used marriage as a political resource. If you see clinically diagnosable misbehavior in that ... start a blog. If you want to put something that backs up your blogging in an encyclopedia: reliable, neutral sources, please. BYT 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is gerontophilia - sex with old people - but unlike paedophilia it is not illegal because the person concerned is a consenting adult. The fact is that Muhammed had sex with a 9 year old child. That may be acceptable in Muslim society, but it sure as hell isn't in the West. TharkunColl 13:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought you were proposing changes to the text. If it's just a rant ... again, you might consider a blog. BYT 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What I find most annoying is all the attempts to excuse his behaviour, just because he happens to be the founder of Islam. TharkunColl 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem, if you're really interested in discussing this, is the (often-cynical) attempt to apply 21st-century European/American social standards to the political and social processes of seventh-century Arabia. If you read the history, you'll find that it was not at all unusual for girls to be betrothed before puberty, and not at all unusual for the marriages to be consummated shortly after the first menses. This culture, in other words, had a different way of defining sexual maturity than yours does. I can understand your discomfort with that, and I celebrate your right to express that discomfort, but I find it a little disingenuous when people who should know better imply, or state outright, that Muhammad (pbuh) was the only one defining female sexual maturity in this way at the time in Arabia. He wasn't. BYT 13:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov is making extremely valid points here. Applying the moniker of "pedophile" to Muhammad is anachronistic. A similar anachronism would be to call the colonists of the original Thirteen Colonies involved with the Boston Tea Party "terrorists". See this talk. (→Netscott) 13:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is boring to rehash such placative 'monikers' every couple of weeks. I see no intent of real debate here, let alone of improving the article. This has been discussed before, see the archives. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum where people can stop by whenever they feel like discussing the "M was a pedophile" topos. Stick to discussing the actual article, make good-faith suggestions (informed by what has already been discussed, we archive talkpages for a reason!). Changing evolved articles takes some dedication and effort on the part of the editor wishing to introduce the change. just don't bore us by listlessly kicking a dead horse now and again. Comments such as the one at the top of this section should not be considered constructive contributions, and should remain unanswered or even be removed per WP:NOT. (ᛎ) qɐp 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have responded to it -- my bad, I guess. Sorry. BYT 16:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of re-dedication

As the person who implemented the above-named picture, I'd like to express that I find it's deletion without discussion rather rude. This even more as the picture is deemed "useless" and someone flatly stating that it has "no consensus". In addition, I'm being attacked ad hominem as "a new user" (the point being?) for inserting the image.

What kind of discussion is that? If you want to evaluate the image's worthiness: Fine, go ahead; and best with the image, so that other participants in this discussion can judge for themselves, and without having to search the page history. Is there any compelling reason for pulling the image before a discussion has taken place? Even before it has started? I frankly just don't get it.

To start a discussion concerning the image itself:

1. It depicts an important historical event
2. It is penned by someone from the very culture of the event - giving it additional authenticity
3. It is part of a truly masterful historical compendium - while all those self-shot flower photos and DIY-SVG-coats-of-arms are well done, Wikipedia can only benefit from featuring some examples of superbly crafted medieval art from centuries ago.

--The Hungry Hun 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hun -- you can start the discussion anytime, and you just did, so no worries. I apologize for mistaking you for a new user. I glanced at the redlink on your name, and at your history of contributions, which was under a dozen, and made an error. It turns out those edits were made over a period of two years or so. My bad. Certainly no ad hominem intended. Personally I'm reserving judgment on the image until we hear how other editors feel about it. BYT 23:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No harm done; I was just irritated that my contribution got deleted before even the first sentence of a discussion was written. I'm interested in other editors' comments, too. --The Hungry Hun 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not get what is the historical or informational significance the picture has? Is it portrait real Muhammad? No! Secondly, one should discuss before making a contribution. Instead of thinking that other should discuss before deleting things added without discussion. --- Faisal 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes it is also offensive (and very disrespectful) to me too being a Muslim. Hence if it is not important for the article and gives no important new information then it should not be there. Add it on pages like Depictions of Muhammad, but please not here. You can say it is given by a Muslim author but does not matter as it is against Islam (most Muslims will feel it offensive). --- Faisal 00:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking out loud, here.... surely we wouldn't choose to include an image along the lines of Piss Christ at Christianity, and surely the fact that Christians would consider it offensive would figure into that choice.

Wikipedia is not censored, of course, which is why it would be appropriate to include it at Depictions of Muhammad. BYT 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that Piss Christ is offensive (although it is, by design), but that it's unrepresentative. It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to use this in this article. But this does not apply to the portrait being discussed here. —Chowbok 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal: With all due respect, I don't really see why we should avoid offending you. That sounds a bit rude, and I apologize for that... but a lot of people are offended by a lot of things, and I don't think Wikipedia should start down the road of not offending people. Of course, we shouldn't go out of our way to deliberately offend people, but we're not doing that by adding a picture here, just following standard practice (which was my point above). If you're offended, then I think you should just not look, rather than forcing your beliefs on the rest of us. You don't have to use Wikipedia. And, if you're feeling ambitious, there's nothing stopping you from creating a Muslim-friendly Wikipedia fork. You can mirror all the data and add a script that removes images of Muhammad and inserts PBUHs after his name. —Chowbok 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What does Piss Christ have to do with anything? Piss Christ would add nothing to the Christianity article as it is satirical, purposefully offensive art. The art in question in this debate is Islamic art that depicts an event according to Islamic sources. In that sense, there is no comparison between Piss Christ and Mohammed widmet die Kaaba um. Again, this image adds to the article as millions of images across hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia do. There is no reason why an image should be prohibited from being used because some people find it offensive. Such policies would lead us down a slippery slope. Hence, Wikipedia is not censored. —Aiden 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, Aiden -- if "It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity," and I agree that it would, there is some point at which we might ask what makes it anti-Christian. Maybe the perceptions of a cross-section of Christians about the image in question would count for something. BYT 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to ask Christians about it. Piss Christ is pretty objectively anti-Christian. Anybody would agree with that: Christians, Muslims, athiests, or the artist. —Chowbok 04:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any compelling reason for pulling the image before a discussion has taken place? Even before it has started? I frankly just don't get it.

Are you then saying you had no idea that pictorial representations of Muhammed are insulting to most Muslims? I guess so, because if you had known any of this, you would have discussed before adding the picture. You might have read the archives of this page. You might have read the article Depictions of Muhammad. Please consider that there is much background behind this matter, and that you might have, unintentionally, been rude. Please do go read the archives. Shenme 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course I was still aware of the controversy regarding the Muhammad cartoons in that Danish newspaper; I didn't know of the extensive discussion here, though.
Since the whole discussion is already getting a little unstructured and confusing, I’d like to make my point right here, while it addresses the several sub-threads above. There’s basically two questions here IMO: a) Is the picture worth keeping? and b) Should certain pictures be included at all?

Shenme, whether Muslims are offended by the picture (or claim to be) is not relevent. There are many things on Wikipedia which a huge number of people, whether Muslim, Christian, atheist, communist, or any faction or group may find offensive. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not censored. The fact that you are offended by relevent content is no reason to remove it. —Aiden 18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the specific picture

1. It helps people understanding and imagining the concrete event that is described. Many readers appreciate some visual assistance on complex and difficult matters, especially schoolchildren, who are an important target audience of Wikipedia.
2. In general, it is considered good style to enrich a textual wasteland with some visual hookups.
3. Such pictures simply help understanding the historical context, both the contexts of the event and the depiction itself. That’s specifically why these illustrations were crafted after all, to help posterity understand their history!
4. This specific picture is of an immense historical value: It is, as stated in the article, part of the Jami' al-Tavarikh by Rashid Al-Din, a veritable cultural treasure of immense richness. Wikipedia can surely only benefit from such references.
5. Reasoning that the image doesn’t depict the historical Muhammad is slightly awkward to me. Would you only accept detailed portraits or photographs to supplement an article? As mentioned, this is not about giving an impression of bodily characteristics but of the historic dimensions and events.

Regarding pictures for this article in general

1. As far as I can tell after a quick glance in the archives & researching the internet, different schools of Islam have different interpretations of the picture ban (actually, right now, there are Muhammad icons being sold in Iran to believers - with full face and everything). If Muslim law were applied to Wikipedia (to which I strongly object, since Wikipedia is not a religious project), why should it be the strictest interpretation which is being adopted. not only banning derogatory, but any pictures of Muhammad?
2. The latter is probably the more important point, too: An encyclopedia is by definition a project in the spirit of enlightenment - knowledge being collected, edited and published in absence of restricting or censoring powers, be they of religious, governmental or whatever else nature. I can imagine that you feel embarrassed by something that you consider a violation of your beliefs. But actually, those beliefs are not the standard to apply here - Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic or any other religious law.
   Christianity, for example, has a similar ban on pictures, the Second Commandment. Yet, if some hard-core evangelical zealots demanded enforcement of this Commandment in Wikipedia, nobody would even consider it seriously for a second. Why should other beliefs be granted a preferential treatment?
3. I, too, find a lot of things rude, especially on Wikipedia. What do we need an article on butt plugs for? What gain of insight does it deliver? How does it help us understand our world in a better way? Actually, I consider that article gross, perverted and dispensable. Yet, the object undeniably exists, and it wouldn’t go away if the article was scrapped. So, if some perverts want to describe their favorite toys, well, have fun.

The beautiful thing about WP is, though, that if you don't want to look at the article about butt plugs, you don't have to visit that article. If you don't want to look at images of them at all, you won't find them at Anatomy. They're not appropriate there. BYT 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And on a final notice: If someone wishes to delete the picture, they should do so after a consensus on deletion is reached. This is the due process on whole articles and there’s no reason to change this course for constructive additions to an article! I invested some time, both for research and integration into Wikipedia. Negating these efforts by deleting my contributions without comment and without discussion is, all arguments of the contents aside, simply a sign of bad manners to me.

--The Hungry Hun 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an "off-topic" curiousity that has nothing to do w/ the pics. You claim I invested some time, both for research and integration into Wikipedia. I see that the comment above is your 15th edit! Is that sufficient to what you call research or you are just someone who used to contribute under another username? -- Szvest 11:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I exactly understand your question: I didn't mean to boast about some incredibly glorious WP contributions of mine in the past, but talked about this specific addition - I had to work a little into the MediaWiki engine & syntax, looked a little into the source and its writer, streamlined the description with the article text, had to find a good position inside the article and so on... And all of a sudden, an hour or something has passed, everything's neat & the next thing I know is it getting deleted with some generic "Nah, dinna like it" boilerplate - that's what I meant, not that I'm some kind of secret WP hack who must not be annoyed by mere human beings. --The Hungry Hun 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer HH. -- Szvest 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we place a picture of Muhammad in this article?

I wrote:

Chowbok, Aiden -- if "It would be inappropriate to use an anti-Christian image to represent Christianity," and I agree that it would, there is some point at which we might ask what makes it anti-Christian. Maybe the perceptions of a cross-section of Christians about the image in question would count for something. BYT 02:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok wrote:

I don't see why we need to ask Christians about it. Piss Christ is pretty objectively anti-Christian. Anybody would agree with that: Christians, Muslims, athiests, or the artist. —Chowbok 04:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Pretty" objectively? Hmmm.
• I'm not at all sure "anybody" would agree with this assessment. I've known some Unitarians who took inclusiveness and theological vagueness to surrealistic heights.
• Problem is, by the same reasoning, a sizeable group of people would view the inclusion of an image of Muhammad here as "pretty objectively anti-Muslim."
• The fact that not everybody would view it that way may not be all that relevant. Arguing for unanimity on such a point seems to me akin to holding that some editors -- and there would be some -- would go along with including Piss Christ at Christianity, as, say, an example of how the religion's symbolism has affected popular art and culture. And that we therefore should put it at Christianity.
• Look at it this way. We wouldn't include Piss Christ as an image at Christianity. Why not?
• Because it would be seen -- whether inaccurately or accurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities of Christians, even though the image is arguably relevant to a discussion of (for instance) the ways Christian imagery, and the Christian faith. is portrayed in the mass media. Translation: The fact that it would p*** people off would enter our calculation.
• In the case of Muhammad, there is a long-standing (and bitter) series of controversies over representations of the Prophet (whether the representations are reverential or not).
• So here's my question. Is including the picture here likely to be perceived -- whether accurately or inaccurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities of Muslims? BYT 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not want to adopt a standard that we don't include material that is "likely to be perceived -- whether accurately or inaccurately -- as a deliberate attempt to assault the sensibilities" of anyone. If the picture we are talking about adding here were reasonably thought to be an accurate likeness of Muhammad, there would be a good case for including it. But the caption says it was painted in 1315. (Who painted it? Do we know?) We have the article Depictions of Muhammad, which is clearly the appropriate place for this picture. I don't think the picture adds enough to this page to justify annoying several good editors, so I oppose including it here, on a purely pragmatic basis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Tom. -- Szvest 14:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

The strongest reason I can see for including this image would be as a lead-in to the Depictions of Muhammad article but there already is an image that does this (and that image's inclusion in this article has already been quite contentious). Tom Harrison makes a good point about being pragmatic only I would extend it additionally in that removing the image would likely save later edit warring/long protracted discussions over having an additional image in the article. The primary difference between this new image and the image that has been included in the article for some time is that the existing one does not show a face (and the figure of Muhammad is very small). I prefer the newly added image as it evokes the story of a key point in Muhammad's youth were he solved the issue of what Meccan clan would have the honor of raising the Black Stone in its place after the rebuilding of the Kabaa and as well there's more to see. (→Netscott) 14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning against inclusion of the picture is getting slightly unitarian, as someone might have said ;-)... IMO the applicable standard shouldn't be the lowest common denominator (i.e. will anyone object) but common sense (is there a valid reason to object).

To apply this to the Piss Christ example: Covering an effigy of a person in urine will be universally considered as deeply humilitating towards the person, be he revered by other people or not. Contrary utilitarian shenanigans would simply constitute a weird case of derangement syndrome, let's face it...

The depiction of a person in itself would not face such a universal revulsion. Wikipedia is meant to be universally accessible, so this universal standard should apply here.

Besides, as mentioned above, the rejection of such depictions is anything but universal in Islam - adopting the strictest of all possible interpretations would implicitly mean to prefer a certain variety over others - something I don't consider justified. --The Hungry Hun 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• First, there is manifestly a "valid reason" to object, even if you happen not to care how people feel about this. It is this: The article will be subject to even more vandalism and edit warring than it already endures if we include this, which is a significant consideration in terms of the workload alone. (Why will it attract this trouble? Because the image will be perceived as offensive.)
• I might add that, given your edit history, it looks like you haven't been doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to cleaing up this article after these conflicts and graffiti-fests, so you may not be familiar with this process.
• The picture is also, in my view, an unnecessary distraction that prevents us from focusing on more meaningful editing work. Listening to this discussion, I hear nothing that this picture adds to the article -- beyond, I suppose, lost time, aggravation, and needless ill will toward a substantial portion of the reading audience. BYT 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not-censored. Is that means that we should start offending a large community purposely with the things that does not add significant value in the wikipedia? It is just like you start doing all the things that law permit you but your friend or a neighbor does not like. Even if you know that by not doing those things you will lose nothing and your neighbor/friend will be annoyed. In that case when your neighbor/friend will complain you than you will reply that laws allows you ... so he should shut up. Such a city will be a filthy and ugly city to live in, even if all the people in that city follow the law. Please do not make wikipedia such a place. --- Faisal 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

there are indeed cases of wikilawyering that qualify as WP:POINT: i.e. insisting on the letter, not the spirit of policy. For example, it would be WP:POINT to insist on having the JP cartoons on this page, invoking "WP is uncensored". Such a suggestion would be legitimate prima facie, but it would be turned down as an obvious attempt to provoke, per Wikipedia:Recentism and per Wikipedia:Notability. The image suggested at present is an entirely different matter, since it is obviously of historical interest and does illustrate the subject matter. As such, these reasons trupm concerns of offending hyper-sensitive religionists. Otherwise, we'd have to delete half the images on Wikipedia. (ᛎ) qɐp 17:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The image in question is Islamic art which depicts a historical event held very high in regard within Islam, the religion to which Muhammad is considered the founder. Thus, the picture has complete relevance and provides both historical and theological context to the article. It is not thrown in to "distract" editors or offend anyone--the artist who made it had no concept of Wikipedia or sought to use it as an anti-Islam tool. But whether it does or does not offend is not relevant; being offended by content is not grounds to remove it. There are thousands of images in thousands of articles which various groups may find offensive. Creating an "Islamic forbidden zone" like many editors want to do by confining all images of Muhammad to one specific article equates in my mind to a form of censorship, in that all other articles which may benefit from such images are prohibited from using them. One should not have to view a separate article to find images which are completely relevant to the first article. This amounts to nothing more than censorship of Wikipedia, and as we know, Wikipedia is not censored. —Aiden 18:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would editors kindly not edit war over this? As appears to be the case there is not consensus for this change. Normally when that is the case the original version is what remains. Am I wrong? (→Netscott) 18:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what is Islamic art. Who invented this terminology and when to use it? If 1000 books are written about Muhammad without any image in them and one book give some image of made by so called Muslims then 1000 books are rejected and that single image is label as Islamic art. For me that is a "non-Islamic Art". --- Faisal 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is getting somewhat embarrassing: First, you reasoned that this picture was not worth including in the article. Then I made my case, arguing that this is a worthful addition to the article. My reasoning has never been answered. Instead, the new rationale is that no pictures at all should be allowed, no matter how relevant or valuable! And while the discussion is still underway, the picture gets deleted - plus, funny enough, the person deleting the picture warns of an edit war, in case the picture is re-inserted. This is not about arguments but about the sheer personal urge to delete the image at all costs, whatever the discussion.
BTW, how are people supposed to judge the picture without the picture? Whole articles can be deleted upon request, too, but this doesn't happen preemptively but after a lengthy discussion has taken place. It is unacceptable to let someone bully the form of the discussion into a way he considers favorable at the expense of the other participants.

The stated number of x percent of (English-speaking) Muslims and ultimately y percent of all English-speaking people objecting these pictures seems highly flawed to me. Are all formally Muslim people deeply obedient and as passionate re Muhammad pictures as their religious leaders and officially articulated views? In Christianity, ordinary people are usually by far less zealous & principle-stricken than their spiritual leaders, and I doubt that this is much different in Islam.
BUT: This doesn't matter anyway; you brought in the example of legal but unjust behaviour, i.e. doing something just for pestering someone else - but this is not the case here, and I hope you didn't mean to insinuate that. The image is a valuable contribution to the whole article - I made that case above and nobody bothered objecting my reasoning. Let me specify:

• Example 1: You're having a perfectly legal barbecue in your garden, but your neighbour is bothered by the noise & smell. He complains to you, but as a reaction, you turn up the volume & nudge your grill even further towards his garden. The case is clear - someone doing this is a rude and annoying jerk! But did this happen here? No, because:
• Example 2: Point of departure as above, but this times your neighbour complains about barbecuing steaks & burgers as such because he is a hardcore vegetarian. He considers killing animals murder & eating them the devouring of rotten corpses. His stomach turns on seeing you flipping your burgers and consuming them. Addressing his complaints you tell him “Sorry dude, but I'll keep on doing what I'm doing” - so, is the barbecue guy a rude jerk just like the guy from Ex. 1? I don't think so. He has no obligation to quit grilling, his actions are both legal and justified, i.e. in accordance with generally accepted social norms. It might be considered polite to stop your barbecue because your neighbour already feels nauseous - but get real, the guy obliged to give in is the neighbour, not the barbecue guy!

And this is exactly the case! It's not some nasty actions, which are leading to frictions here, but the individual perception of an otherwise perfectly acceptable behaviour. So, this is, in a nutshell, why I object to deletion of the picture and strongly reject grounds like “It's rude” or “You do this just to bother me”.

In addition, I don't quite get the points a) “there would be attacks on the article if the picture were permanently integrated” and b) “we would intimidate some good editors what might cause them leaving WP”:

1. The first could sound to a sensible person like a kind of mer a boire threat - I sincerely hope that I'm misinterpreting here. So far, the only objections (and first throes of an edit war) happen to come from the very editors who are warning against such an edit war! Technically, the article can simply be protected until the dust of an (alleged) outrage has settled. Plus, the WP concept discourages vandals over time, as reverts are faster executed than vandalisms. And finally, giving in to vandals should never be accepted and will only encourage them to try flexing their muscle again.
2. And regarding the second point: Well, maybe editors are not that good if they consider articles a kind of private property or personal responsibility & have trouble accepting dissenting opinions. I sincerely hope that everybody around accepts that WP is public domain as a whole - both regarding the articles and the entitlement to edit them.

--The Hungry Hun 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the editors wanting removal of all pictures (or just this one) are advocating outright censorship due to their religious beliefs. This is not in keeping with the policy or spirit of Wikipedia. —Aiden 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting several days & none of my arguments has been addressed convincingly. I assume that there is either a consensus to reinsert the picture or a lack of valid, i.e. objective, reasons to do so (the latter is probably true). Therefore, I included the image inside the article again. --The Hungry Hun 09:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Hun. It seems to me there is no consensus to insert this image. BYT 11:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Freaking Propoganda

Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, while Muslims differ as to whether or not visual depictions of Muhammad are permissible[citation needed]: Some Muslims believe that to prevent idolatry and shirk, or ascribing partners to Allah, visual depictions of Muhammad and other prophets of Islam should be prohibited. Other Muslims believe respectful depictions should be allowed [citation needed]. Both sides have produced Islamic art — the aniconists through calligraphy and arabesque, the pictorialists through book illustration and architectural decoration [citation needed]. Negative portrayal of Muhammad, whether spoken, written, drawn, or filmed, may be taken as a great offense by Muslims, see Muslim veneration for Muhammad.

I have not seen any Muslim scholars that say it is good to represent Muhammad. There might be few black sheep. But if you still want to write above misleading claims. Than provide each line with multiple references please. Otherwise do not make huge claims without giving a single reference. ---- Faisal 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I believe User:Zora was the primary author of that text on the Depictions of Muhammad article (that text is the lead there). (→Netscott) 18:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It does NOT matter who is the author. I will still like to see proper references. Am I wrong in asking for them?? I do not believe that main stream scholars says that it is okay to have pictures of Muhammad (may be very few might say so). If above claim is true than I would have found at "least a single picture of Muhammad" in the houses of thousands of Muslims I met (from Indonesia to Africa). But I have never seen a single picture in Muslim house or Mosque. It is an extremely extra ordinary claim hence where are references. --- Faisal 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. We keep treating this like a "majority is X, but there is a minority school that holds Y" issue. That's simply not my experience. In Shia literature, I've seen lots of imagery, but ... no Prophet. In Sunni, you see only calligraphy and geometric design inside a masjid, never any living being, and certainly not the Prophet. BYT 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has to say may surprise you then. (→Netscott) 18:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied the lead without even looking at it. If you have an issue with it, go over to Depictions of Muhammad and change it. Once you get your changes accepted, adjust the text here. There is no point in arguing about the same piece of text in two separate places. Faisal, I am not sure if "from Indonesia to Africa" includes Afghanistan, but I hear that devotional images of Muhammad are quite popular there. Reading the text, I agree with BYT insofar as the aniconists should be portrayed as a clear majority. As usual in cases of Islamic demography, it will be impossible to get any reliable statistical data, of course, so "majority" must suffice. (ᛎ) qɐp 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an impossible task for me set by you. That if I have to correct Muhammad article than I should correct other articles first. I have really less time these days to fulfill such a task. However, I will try to fix this above text with lots of references from Sunni and Shai scholars. That will be still a difficult task but I will give it a try. But remember that burden of proof lies on you as you have added the text. I have the right to remove that unreferenced text otherwise give proper acceptable references. --- Faisal 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that's right, and I'm not defending the text; I'm just saying, if you're going to edit it, maybe adding {{fact}} tags, why not do it at Depictions of Muhammad at the same time? It the text is objectionable here, it is just as objectionable there, and so far, that article wasn't graced with any warning tags. (ᛎ) qɐp 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I just cited Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who made a fatwa in reference to films, television and theatre that said, "If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem." (with respect to portraying Muhammad). That one line goes a long way towards verifying the text in question here, does it not? (→Netscott) 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only issue under discussion, though. BYT 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that... but Faisal's tagging up the text as though there's no basis of truth to it and I'm showing that there is indeed basis for truth in it. The other issues are sill left unaddressed. The majority of the above text was arrived at by User:Zora and User:Joturner two rather highly respected Wikipedia editors who tend to focus on Islamic topics. (→Netscott) 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your reference, Netscott. I think it is still undisputed that aniconists are a clear majority. I do not know if "an-aniconists" should be described as a "sizeable" minority, however, but you certainly established that the position has notability. (ᛎ) qɐp 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if Shia Muslims represent 10% of the Muslim population (and you surely know they tend to go by what Sistani is saying) then we're talking about ~ 150 Million individuals which is certainly "sizeable" in the context of Wikipedia. (→Netscott) 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I don't know that "they" tend to go by what Sistani is saying. Have you got some reason to believe that this is the "default" Shia position? (Not being sarcastic, I've just had very little exposure to Shia practice.) I can tell you that we'd be waving a rather defiant red flag in front of large number of Sunnis ... for the good reason that .... ? BYT 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is not obvious that this is the "default" Shia position. It is true that Shiites don't seem to care too much. Maybe their default position is something like "strictly speaking there shouldn't be any images, but whatever man, this isn't the 7th century" (and cheers to them if it is). The question is, does your average Shia Muslim accept Sistani's position? (ᛎ) qɐp 21:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

When the man is a Twelver Marja his word is what goes (save for perhaps 20% of the Shia population). Did either of you need more proof? (→Netscott) 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

so we'd arrive at a minimal estimate of some 8% of Muslims. That's not a "tiny" minority, but I don't know if it should be described as "small" or "sizeable". (ᛎ) qɐp 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

1.5 Billion x 8% = 120,000,000 that's equivalent to more than 1 in 3 of the population of the United States. That is a sizeable population. (→Netscott) 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

that's not the point. the question is the position's relative notability within Islam. If it was just Shia, it would have to be briefly mentioned on articles on Islam in general, as a minority position, and treated in greater detail in Shia-specific articles. (ᛎ) qɐp 22:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree but the point of this discussion was to show that there was a significant population of Muslims who based upon the fatwa of Sistani would have no problem with an image portraying Muhammad (which BYT and Faisal seemed to have doubts about). (→Netscott) 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the only active Shi'a clear things up: Not all Shi'a belive in the consept of marjas, but the great majority of them does. The others simply view the marjas as learned people. The people that do follow marja, start by choosing one, the one they view is the most knowledgeable (not popular or anything else). Then they view themselves as being obliged to follow any verdict that marja gives, for as long as they choose to follow him. Sistani is one of the biggest Marjas, and holds a huge power. He singlehandidly thwarted the US plan of having a a great Shi'a-Sunni war by vedicting that "we will not fight, even if you kill the last one of us". Thus Shi'a refused to swallow the false flag US bait, not even when they blew up the al-Askari shrine. That much for Sistanis power. So now you have it: Those who follow marja, follow their verdicts, and Sistani has a large amount of followers. Those who do not follow sistani dont care for his verdics, in theory.--Striver 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it; what do you mean by "the US plan of having a a great Shi'a-Sunni war" and "they blew up the al-Askari shrine"? --The Hungry Hun 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly new to this debate, but as an historian I feel it encumbant on me to make a contribution. Wikepedia is not about censorship - if Muslims feel offended at an historical, accurate and verified portrayal of Muhammed, then that is no part of our concern - after all, we don't take into account whether Nazis might be offended at our portrayal of Hitler. The Hitler article is very fair, and so should be our article about Muhammed - portraying both the positive and the negative opinions about him. TharkunColl 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law? So soon in this discussion? Personally, I would not compare Hitler to Muhammad (even in this type of a context). (→Netscott) 23:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was very careful not to fall foul of Godwin's Law. Hitler is a perfect analogy insofar as he is the founder of a movement that has been hated by many, but loved by some. TharkunColl 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler --- Nazis, Muhammad --- Muslims ... Good point with good example is made TharkunColl. Netscott, I will contribute after some more research. Although being a Sunni Muslim, I dislike all the representation of Muhammad but I am not fully aware of Shia view about this. Hence I must do some research before taking part in this discussion. Even if some Shias believe in what you said, things could have been written in much better way than they are written now. --- Faisal 23:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if every Muslim on earth objected to us having a picture here, it should still cut no ice. This is the English language Wikipedia, and every single English-language speaking country on earth has an ancient and unconditional tradition of free speech. This means that we should be able to include whatever picture we like to depict the written content, whatever the consequences. TharkunColl 23:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really, is that so? --Striver 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria isn't an "English-language speaking country", so your argument isn't that sound. --The Hungry Hun 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Faisal, I tend to have a bit of faith when it comes to the edits of User:Zora and User:Joturner on Islamic topics. But perhaps my faith is misplaced? (→Netscott) 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

please try to keep the discussion "what images should we display here" separate from the discussion about the accuracy of the lead of the "Depictions" article. This section discusses the latter (is it fair to say "some Muslims [are aniconists] -- some Muslims [aren't]" when the ratio is 95:5? 92:8? 85:15? (ᛎ) qɐp 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the above text is a bit weasel worded. While maintaining such language it would be more accurate to say most Muslims subscribe to an aniconistic view when it comes to portrayals of Muhammad but some do not. Or, ~92% (90% Sunni and 2% Shia?) of the world's Muslims subscibe to an aniconistic view when it comes to portrayals of Muhammad while 8% (Twelver Shia) do not (based upon a Fatwa by Ali Sistani). (→Netscott) 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

something like that. But keep in mind that these numbers are just pulled out of our sleeves. I would recommend a wording like "large majority" for the aniconistic position. (ᛎ) qɐp 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, that quote from Sistani is actually very very vague on what that means there was a movie called the message and as well as an animated movie done as well on the life of the prophet that can easily fit the bill here or what he could be referring to, and they did this by not showing the prophet at all. There maybe another ruling by him granting allowance, but that's too vague to work off. So while there may be pictures representing him around, they would likely be there inspite a concensus agaisnt it. I think the sentences should be altered to reflect this, unless ofcourse you can source a clearer notable allowance.--Tigeroo 10:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The Message strictly avoided showing Muhammad - but no matter how large the concessions, it's never sufficient for all: In 1977, stirred up by this very movie, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis - interestingly enough a former Seventh Day Adventist - still considered it an abomination, even without directly depicting Muhammad, and together with a dozen fellow Muslims he seized three buildings in DC and took 120 hostages (one of them being Marion Barry). Several dozens were hurt, Jewish hostages were abused and one reporter was killed. Lesson learned: There's never enough enough appeasement to appease everyone. If you say “Okay, we won't show him”, there will still be some embarrassed by the overall representation. --The Hungry Hun 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I do not like to believe blindly on any person when its come to Islam teaching. As anyone could be mistaken. I do not believe on Imam-of-Kaba, Or Imam-Hanfi or Imam-Malik etc. I wish to know different people reasoning that they had given according to Islamic text (Qruan/Sunnah/ijma) and then choose one that I feel is more convincing (based on its sources). That is the way I want to find my way out being a Muslim. So even if Zora and Joturner are good people and I like/respect them. But I want to know how they have written what they have written. I want to know there sources. --- Faisal 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is understood but the way you've tagged up the above text as though it coudln't possibly be true is why I wanted to show you that yes indeed it is true. You've seem to have taken what I was saying into consideration which is good. I suggest you and BYT both try to learn more about the Shia faith. (→Netscott) 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be improved and MIGHT not be very "true". The text read like the two groups are of equal sizes. I do not know Shia offical position but still think that above text might not represent Shia's offical position. In case it does not represent two groups offical position then it is a big blow for above text. --- Faisal 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes dab and I pretty much came to the same conclusion about the lack of propotionality in the wording. As far as the Shia view you might try posting a question over on User:Striver's talk page, I think he's a Twelver. (→Netscott) 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My hunch as a Shi'a is that we should not depict him, nor the Imams. But some people still depict the Imams. There is some internal diputes among Shi'a about the issue of depicting immas, mainly due to the multi-marja system (i guess). But i can't recal any Shi'a depiction of Muhammad (as)... im not 100% of that, but my guess is that no mater the verdict, Shi'a strongly tend to avoid depicting Muhammad, even more than they tend to avoid depicting Ali (as).--Striver 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary style

This may be a level of detail that should be worked out at Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. Then summary style can be used to frame the section here. Right now the section has the Persian miniature of the Miraj. Are there any big objections to that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Header edit war - reaching consensus

Unfortunately, a cursory glance over the above discussions did not reveal to me any form of consensus over the header. So let's either reach that consensus here, or if it has been reached, it will certainly harm no-one to make sure this is clearly defined somewhere under a recognisable title.

BrandonYusufToropov prefers:

'''Muḥammad''' ({{ArB|محمد}}; also '''Mohammed''', '''Mahomet''', and other variants),<ref>Mahomet etc.; [[Turkish language|Turkish]]: ''Muhammed''; {{Audio|Ar-muhammad.ogg|click here}} for the Arabic pronunciation</ref> [[570]]-[[632]] <small>CE</small>,<ref>According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. [[570]] in [[Mecca]] and died [[June 8]] [[632]] in [[Medina]], both in the [[Hejaz]] region of present day [[Saudi Arabia]].</ref> is the pre-eminent [[prophet]] of the religion of [[Islam]] and the leader of the early [[Muslim]] community ([[Ummah]]) at Medina. [[Muslim]]s believe him to have been God's final [[prophets of Islam|prophet]], to whom the [[Qur'an]] was divinely revealed through the [[angel]] [[Gabriel]] as the final revelation to mankind.

Whilst Editorius opts for:

'''Muḥammad''' ({{ArB|محمد}}; also '''Mohammed''', '''Mahomet''', and other variants),<ref>Mahomet etc.; [[Turkish language|Turkish]]: ''Muhammed''; {{Audio|Ar-muhammad.ogg|click here}} for the Arabic pronunciation</ref> [[570]]-[[632]] <small>CE</small>,<ref>According to traditional Muslim biographers, Muhammad was born c. [[570]] in [[Mecca]] and died [[June 8]] [[632]] in [[Medina]], both in the [[Hejaz]] region of present day [[Saudi Arabia]].</ref> established the religion of [[Islam]] and the [[Muslim]] community ([[Ummah]]).<ref> This does not mean that Muhammad was the first to propagate the submission to one god (= monotheism). Here, "Islam" and "Muslim" are used in their current meanings, ''not'' in their original Arabic meanings.</ref> [[Muslim]]s believe him to have been God's final [[prophets of Islam|prophet]], to whom the [[Qur'an]] was divinely revealed.

Now, it seems to me that BYT's main complaint is "religion of islam", as within the arab world this would be equivalent to "founder of monotheism". If this is the main problem, then such wordings as "the religion refered to as islam" may be more appropriate. I would suggest to all involved that if there is a disagreement, niether wording is the solution. Let's work on some form of sensible compromise. LinaMishima 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer BYT's version. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain your reasoning as to why it is preferable, please? Consensus is based on informed opinion, so your reasoning is very important and may help others to understand why it is prefered. LinaMishima 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other encyclopedia's generally avoid using "founder." There is no reason Wikipedia cannot do the same. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer BYT's version too (btw I think User:Tigeroo first introduce this version). For me the word "established" is a problem and footnotes are annoying. -- Faisal 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer BYT's version--Striver 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, please give your reasons, this will help people follow your reasoning as to why we should use one over the other LinaMishima 19:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Muhammad stablished Islam is west-centric pov, formulating it, and then having a disclaimer in the notes is just weasel wording it. We need ambiguity to acheve NPOV. --Striver 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could expand on what you mean by these points, that saying that muhammad established Islam is west-centric? And I don't entirely follow what you mean when you say "We need ambiguity" - abiguity should be avoided unless the subject being covered itself has to be described in an ambiguous way. LinaMishima 19:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try ...
• Editorious found a (highly condensed) summary from another encyclopedia that used the language he wanted, so I stand corrected, but that still doesn't change the inherent pov in words like "established" and "founded." If it shows up, it's a problem.
• MOST responsible published encyclopedias avoid these formulations, because they are so clearly representative of an ancient Christian critique of Islam: that it was the invention of a single (dishonest) man. That is -- what's the technical term I'm looking for -- ridiculous as an opening to an important article about a major historical figure.
• Now: No one, as far as I can tell, is trying to make the entry state for WP as an objective fact that Muhammad as the final Prophet to mankind (though that is certainly a pillar of the faith, and it is what I believe). But attempts to refute the Islamic faith should not show up in the opening paragraph in the guise of "objective fact."
• Certain issues are under dispute between the faith systems, and yet somehow Columbia manages to write a neutral opening sentence about the man that works: The name of the Prophet of ISLAM, and one of the great figures of history." Surely something like that would be worth emulating. BYT 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Lina, as far as the wording of the non-Muslims is concerned, certain Muslims enjoy quibbling pointlessly over semantics.Editorius 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov, calling Muhammad "the founder of Islam" entails neither that he was dishonest nor that his teachings are false!

By the way, Muhammad syncretized various aspects of Judaism and Christianity, that is to say, there were some men before him who, ahead of time, unknowingly contributed to Islam.Editorius 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this from another angle: Rather than arguing simply against any one version, please argue for one of the texts this time. And two thoughts. Firstly, perhaps we all need some perspective on this subject. We can easily draw inspiration from similar articles, and Jesus seems to be not too bad. Notice how the christian believes are clearly marked. Secondly, it seems to me that the islamic community do not believe that muhammad founded Islam. Based on the prior example, what about a wording such as "Muslims believe that muhammed was not the founder of islam, but rather..."? LinaMishima 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

NB: In the example above, I am using Islam as "the religion commonly known as", rather than the arabic meaning. I am starting to wonder if half the global fuss is all down to this misinterpretation of that word :P LinaMishima 04:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also been reminded that a comparison with the article about jesus is being made, not one between the people themselves (further than both being major religious figures prone to inspiring debates over the correctness of content). LinaMishima 05:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The introduction after a long is looking good and no need to change it, especially in the way mentioned above. --- Faisal 11:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If Muslims don't like to admit that Mohammed was the founder of Islam, then why don't we say instead that he was the founder of Mohammedanism? Surely there cannot be any argument about that, can there? TharkunColl 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an edit page remark by BrandonYusufToropov:

"(Following the lead, again, of 1) Columbia, 2) World Book, and 3) Encyclopedia Britannica, by avoiding "founder" formulation)"

The only encyclopedia he mentions that doesn't use "founder" is World Book.

The other two do use it:

Encyclopaedia Britannnica:

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368246 [founded]

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9105853/Muhammad [founder]

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9372773 [established]

The Columbia Encyclopedia:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/is/Islam.html [founded]

So the ratio is 2:1 ...

Editorius 14:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously different versions here. Here's what I was referring to:

World Book

Encyclopedia does use it, my error.

Columbia says, (and again I quote:) The name of the Prophet of ISLAM (small caps there indicate a cross-ref) and one of the great figures of history. Could I ask you, once again, Editorius, what specific problem you have with such an approach?

Tharkun (apparently unhappy with the resolution of our discussion of Aisha, above) changes the subject and asks:

If Muslims don't like to admit that Mohammed was the founder of Islam, then why don't we say instead that he was the founder of Mohammedanism? Surely there cannot be any argument about that, can there? TharkunColl 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Mohammedanism is precisely what Muslims reject (and an example of shirk). Did he read the WP article? "The term is considered offensive by many Muslims, who say the words imply that Muhammad is worshipped...'"BYT 15:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Being polemical ...

We non-Muslim Wikipedians interested in Islam are accommodating people, aren't we? We always want everything to be to the liking of those Muslims who don't give a damn about Wikipedia's being a non-Islamic encyclopedia, where scientifically ascertained historical facts matter and not fabricated religious myths. So let us all be friends of Islam and rephrase the introductory statement as follows:

"According to the cursed unbelievers, who will be rightly tortured eternally in Allah's hellish concentration camp, Muhammad (pbuh) founded the religion of Islam. Needless to mention that anybody who says so is a hateful subhuman slanderer."

Editorius 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions. LinaMishima 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lina, I have already made a good deal of "serious contributions" (read the relevant discussion pages anew).Editorius 05:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there actually is seriousness in my polemics.Editorius 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Establish vs. Founded

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establish&x=0&y=0

Establish:

1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one's child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.
8. Cards. to obtain control of (a suit) so that one can win all the subsequent trick

Muhammad's involvement with Islam falls under defintions #4 and #5.