View source for Talk:Muhammad

{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WPBiography
|living=no
|class=B
|priority=Top
|core=yes
}}
{{WikiProject Islam|Prophets-of-Islam=yes|class=B|importance=core}}
{{Spoken Wikipedia request|[[User:Menasim|'''<font color="darkgreen">Menasim</font>''']]( [[User talk:Menasim|<font color="darkgreen">'''discuss'''</font>]])|An important Article about an important person}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=PR
|action1date=September 7, 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Muhammad
|action1oldid=22674545
|action2=GAN
|action2date=January 8, 2006
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=34393935
|action3=GAR
|action3date=March 30, 2006
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=46261936
|currentstatus=DGA
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|coresup=yes}} 
{{Troll warning}}

<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
{| class="infobox" width="315px"
|-
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]
----
|- 
|
*[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 1|1]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 2|2]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 3|3]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 4|4]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 5|5]]
*[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 6|6]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 7|7]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 8|8]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 9|9]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 10|10]]
*[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 11|11]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 12|12]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 13|13]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 14|14]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 15|15]]
*[[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 16|16]], [[Talk:Muhammad/Archive 17|17]], [[Talk:Muhammed/Archive 18|18]]
*[[Talk:Muhammad/images/archive|Image archive]]
*'''Mediation Archives'''
<blockquote>
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 1|Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 2|Statements]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 3|Clarity discussion/Refining positions]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 4|Ars' final archive]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 5|The rest of the mediation by Ars]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 6|Archive 6]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 7|Archive 7]]
:# [[Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Aarchive 8|Archive 8]]</blockquote>
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

==Historical Muhammad==
Hi! A very interesting and concise article. I have one question, though. Why is the biogrpahy of Muhammad only given in the traditional islamic form? That sure has cultural and religious value, but to those readers who are interested in the actual historical Muhammad, shouldn't the article contain a biography based on critical historical research? (Compare with [[Jesus]]). --[[User:Tungsten|Tungsten]] 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

==Muhammad being the "greatest" prophet==
Where is the source that Muhammad is considered the greatest of the prophets according to Muslims?  He is the most well known in Islam because he is considered the reviver of the faith, but greatest?  I don't think Muslims as a whole would be so bold as to ignore all of the other prophets before him or to put them on a scale?  Is Esposito the source, where does he say greatest?  Muhammad compared to other prophets in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition was not as powerful, he could not separate the sea or cure the blind, so from what source is he considered the greatest? {{unsigned|75.19.135.178}}
:The sources are referenced in that sentence with the page numbers. I would expect it to be mentioned there since they are references to this specific statement (which indicates this question has arisen before). → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AA|contribs]])</sup> — 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
::Muhammad is considered the greatest prophet in Islam, because he is the "'''al-insan al-kamil'''" ("the perfect man"), which is a unique title Muhammad has in islam, and a privilege he possesses, unlike all other Judeo-Christian prophets before him. In reality, Muslims more or less, worship Muhammad, though of course, they would never admit this. But it's pretty clear that they do indeed worship him, seeing how they go berserk every time someone says anything critical of Muhammad. By the way, in Islam, the Judeo-Christian prophets are considered Muslims, not Jews or Christians. Hope that helps. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 18:48 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
:::[http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013684.php This] explains the '''al-insan al-kamil''' part, and [http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/08/the-dnc-and-the-imam/ this] explains that Islam considers all Judeo-Christian prophets as Muslims. Now, how is that trolling? Look, you may not like criticism. I understand some people have a problem with that, but get used to it. With criticism, comes improvement. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 01:54 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
::::I think '''al-insan al-kamil''' should be included in the article. What say you? [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 05:21 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not per those sources. If you can refer to [[WP:RS|scholarly sources]], then there may be a case for inclusion. Cheers. → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AA|contribs]])</sup> — 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::Those are scholarly sources. If you checked the first link, Robert Spencer provides links to several Islamic sources. Also, saying that Robert Spencer himself, is not a scholar on Islam, is ridiculous, and most likely a bias motivated by the fact that he is a critic of islam. So really, it's just [[Ad hominem]]. He has written several best selling books on Islam, and they're all properly sourced to Islamic scholars and Islamic sources. Also, imam [[Abu Laban]] (before he died) was featured on 60 Minutes, and he proclaimed that, and I quote, '''&ldquo;Muhammad, is the perfect man&rdquo;''', so what's the problem? Oh and one last thing: could you please stop censoring me? If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry, but look, I didn't exactly write anything outrageous; I didn't use profane language. Maybe you have a problem with accepting criticism, but that's not my problem. I'm allowed to express myself, and you should perhaps, try to listen to what I'm saying. Calling everything you disagree with "trolling" is just a cheap shot. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored|Wikipedia is not censored]]. If you keep this up, I will report it. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 13:55 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Citing reliable sources does not a reliable source make.  [[Kent Hovind]] cites [[Scott Tremaine]] when he talks about planet formation - yet Tremaine is a reliable source and Hovind isn't.  I definitely see no evidence that the "JihadWatch" '''blog''' is a reliable source - and it doesn't pass the duck test at all.  JSTOR gives me only 33 hits for "al-insan al-kamil" - indicating that it's probably not a very important concept.  But I'll see if any discuss it in depth. Cheers, [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Anyways, searching through JSTOR this morning, I haven't found much of interest - most references to the concept are off-hand, and many associate with things apart from Muhammad to boot (like Adam, or generic, or whatever). ''Ibn 'Arabī's Theory of the Perfect Man and Its Place in the History of Islamic Thought'' by Masataka Takeshita might be a good reference for the issue, I'm not sure - but it's the best I've found. Cheers, [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[Outdent] Thanks, WilyD for doing the research (although the duty is on the editor who wants to add the content).
EliasAlucard, I removed your comment above in line with [[WP:NOT#FORUM|policy]]:
* "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article"
However, if you feel they need to stay to show your POV, then it's fine with me. I was not trying to censor it but to ensure the discussions remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AA|contribs]])</sup> — 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
:I believe in uncompromised free speech, and I am against all forms of censorship, whether it's religious censorship, or, as WilyD called it on my talk page, "productivity censorship" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I wasn't at all off topic, or trolling. Anyway, I'll be looking for better sources, don't worry. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 20:59 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have no right to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad. You can say "It seems," or "I think", because it's offending. Just because Muslims, as you put it, "go beserk" everytime someone criticizes Muhammad (PBUH) doesn't mean that they worship him. I mean, Muslims don't go beserk everytime someone insults God---and that is because people ''hardly'' insult God. The Qu'ran says to treat Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with respect, and that doesn't mean to outward worship him. Everything in the Qu'ran that tells us what we need to believe in, what we need to do is straight-forward. No hinting. [[User:Iman S1995|Iman S1995]] 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
:''Elias, you have no right to say that Muslims worship Prophet Muhammad'' &mdash; is that a threat? Is my fatwa coming up? Actually, I have all the right in the world to say that. It's called freedom of speech. I'm not a muslim and I'm not obliged to follow the Qu'ran. Please knock this off. You're not helping anyone, least of all, this article. &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 15:17 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

===[[al-insan al-kamil]]===
All right, I think we got a case now. Feel free to improve it. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 04:05 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
:I very much dislike these accusations of trolling and believe threats such as ''"If you persist on trolling Talk:Muhammad, you will find yourself unable to do so."'' are inappropriate and counterproductive.  It would be better to discuss concerns instead of issuing threats in this situation because I think the original statement was intended to express a relevant point (whether right or wrong) as viewed by EliasAlucard, but not intended only to offend.  Failing to make an effort ''not'' to offend isn't the same as attempting to offend and thus isn't trolling.  The essence of what he was trying to say does have some veracity, although I would prefer to say Muhammad is highly venerated and ''nearly'' idolized in that criticism of him generally meets severe rebuke from Muslims.  Ultimately however, Muslims pray to God, not Muhammad.  So he might be considered perfect in religious, political, social, etc. matters, but still not quite worshiped.  [[User:Talmage|Talmage]] 06:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for the support. In my honest opinion, though muslims regard it as shirk and deny that they worship Muhammad, I consider it worship, seeing how they defend him with violence. Is this offending muslims? Well then, so be it. But I still think Muslims should take what I'm saying, into consideration. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 13:22 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
:::See point two of [[WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages]], also [[WP:SOAP]]. The opinion you've offered is interesting, but has nothing to do with improving the article.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

===Al-insan al-kamil, merge for discussion===
Merge discussions for [Al-insan al-kamil]. → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AA|contribs]])</sup> — 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' merge - it is a notable aspect of how the Prophet is thought of and should be dealt with in the main article, doesn't need its own article. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''', no merge. The term ''al-insan al-kamil'' is notable enough to warrant its own article. This Muhammad article is generally about his life from the beginning to the end, and shouldn't focus too much on how Muhammad is revered in Muslim tradition. The Muhammad article is already huge, we don't need to overload it with more content. Just pointing out in the intro that he is called al-insan al-kamil, with a link to the article, is enough. We can expand this topic a lot more in its own article. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 13:22 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' merge, i think it can be covered in a few sentences in this article, there doesn't seem to be much else to the concept anyway. needs some reliable sources. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 12:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I can see what you're trying to do here. You're removing the sources from the main article and trying to make this into an obscure topic and undermining support for its existence as an article, in order to support your argument. You are simply trying to give this article less attention, presumably, by merging it into this one. Also, one of the reasons this article shouldn't be merged, is because it's not exclusively about Muhammad. This title (the perfect man) is also given to Adam, and other islamic saints. It's a notable article in its own right, and I know, for a fact, that there's a lot more to it than the few sources I've added right now. I haven't had enough time to expand on the article on my own. However, the sources I've provided, are all to islamic sources, and reliable. Period. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 14:43 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
***please cease the incivility and bad faith attacks. the sources you added to the article aren't reliable, nor have you attempted to explain why they are so. back to the discussion: as said above, there's no need for content forking. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
****If Adam is also regarded as ''al-insan al-kamil'' in the Qur'an, then there's no reason the ''al-insan al-kamil'' article should be merged into this one, is there? Because the article is not exclusively about Muhammad. Also, there's nothing wrong with the sources. You just don't like them because you're biased. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 14:55 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
*****Quit the personal attacks, will you?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I agree with EliasAlucard. Al-insan al-kamil is a concept and it's not equal with the prophet. In practice prophet is matched with it perfectly. Itaqallah has claimed ''there doesn't seem to be much else to the concept anyway'' while there is sufficient information to have a separate article. There are several authors who wrote the books in Persian which discussed about this issue like [[Morteza Motahhari]], Aziz Al-din Nasafi, Yahya Kamali. However we can have a section in this article to satisfy Itsmejudith too.--<font face="monospace">[[User:Sa.vakilian|Sa.vakilian]]([[User talk:Sa.vakilian|t]]-[[Special:Contributions/Sa.vakilian|c]])</font> 02:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support merge''' per above--[[User:Sefringle|<span style="color:#CC7722 ">Sef</span><span style= "color: black;">rin</span><span style="color:#808000;">gle</span>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Sefringle|<span style="color:#4169E1">Talk</span>]]</small></sup> 05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' - barely anything there anyhow.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 19:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' That's because, thanks to Itaqallah's revert warring, the article is protected, and no one is allowed to work on it. More content is available though, if you just look for it. Lots of muslims have written books on the al-insan al-kamil concept. This article, could be huge in its own right, if we started working on it. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 15:53 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
***Discuss the changes you intend to add in the talk page. If there is consensus, it can be included via the use of the {{tl|editprotected}} template. → [[User:AA|AA]] <sup>([[User talk:AA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AA|contribs]])</sup> — 21:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' merge per Itsmejudith and Itaqallah. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT]] 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' merging as this would be a very narrow focus of Muhammad in Muslim tradition. I have included this point among others in this edit of mine [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=143891726&oldid=143802046]. I think details (''if there are any'') should be mentioned in the [[al-insan al-kamil]] article. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above. The "oppose" votes are indicative of something interesting. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
: Would you like to share that interesting point for us? --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 06:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - the current article is, indeed, shit.  That doesn't mean the answer is a merge - it looks like the concept might be worth writing about, and writing about well, with real sources.  If it is just a concept in [[Sufiism]] (or even more restrictive) then it's not necessarily worth mentioning here (and definitely not in the opening!) but may be worth exploring somewhere else.  I've linked a couple sources on the talk page there, for a start - anybody else interested in trying to make an actual article on the subject? [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Reply''' &ndash; I can't believe a merge is being discussed. This insan kamil concept, is a concept of mainly, sufi islam, but not limited to sufi islam. It shouldn't be in the article of Muhammad, because that's not what the Muhammad article should focus on. [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 16:11 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
***from the sources available, it would seem that `al-insan al-kamil` is a concept in Sufism. there is currently no evidence to suggest it extends beyond that. this article should naturally cover the topic, as it relates to how he is perceived in Sufi thought. some users above are claiming there is more coverage of the concept, which i'll try to investigate. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 14:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
****It may not be a concept of mainstream islam, but definitely, not only Sufis use this. [[Abu Laban]] (a Sunni muslim) called Muhammad the perfect man on 60 minutes. I don't see any reason to merge it into the article of Muhammad, because this article is supposed to be sort of biographical, not delve into theological concepts on Muhammad. &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 17:06 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
*****This article doesn't ''have'' to be just a biography. It should cover all the notable aspects of the topic ''Muhammad''. If "60 minutes" is a TV programme then I think I am right in saying it doesn't count as a source unless a transcript has been made available. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 16:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
******I don't think you understand what I'm saying. This article is about Muhammad, not about general concepts on muhammad. It's an article, focusing on his life, his prophetic career, his military career, etcetera. This is not the right article to write a huge concept of how Muhammad is perceived by muslims. This merge discussion is beside the point in the first place. You can't pack just about everything related to Muhammad in this article. It's already huge. People are not going to read it all. It's better that we have separate articles on each topic instead. We already have other, similar topics, like for instance, [[Mohammedan]]. Why doesn't al-insan al-kamil deserve an article of its own? &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 16:46 16 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
*******The simplest thing is for you to draft an article in your sandbox, using all the sources that you say are available. Then everyone can see if there's enough reliably sourced stuff for an article. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
********I'm getting the feeling that you simply just don't want this article to exist. Why all the hassle with sandboxes and stuff like that? There are plenty of reliable sources available on this concept. I don't have access to them. But, if several prominent muslims have written books on the subject, there's a lot to glean from that alone. How about, instead of discussing it here and wasting time, collaborating on the subject?  &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 18:33 16 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
*********Sandboxes are actually a good place to start article you're working on alone (i.e. [[User:WilyD/Sandbox2]]).  For an article without anything really ready yet to discuss, it's harder to work it out elsewhere.  A draft that can be discussed is probably needed.  As for quality sources on the subject - I'm not sure how to help you with this.  You can try talking to the other users at the relevant talk about some sort of comprimise to get the page unlocked - find out what people's specific objects are and figure out how to work with them.  It does seem that Al-insan al-kamil is a fairly specialised subject, which most editors may not be inherently familiar with.  Until it's independant notability is shown (and I believe it exists), they're likely to be luke-warm at best.  Cheers, [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
**********Why do you oppose the existence of this article? &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 18:48 21 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
***********Just cause I've yet to see there is enough sourced stuff for it. If there is, I'll change my mind, hence the sandbox suggestion. Remember, there are editors on this 'pedia who delete 50 articles a day. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
************There is enough sourced stuff for it. You'll just have to look for it. I've told you, several prominent muslims have written books on the concept. Search and you will find. &mdash; [[User:EliasAlucard|EliasAlucard]]|[[User talk:EliasAlucard|Talk]] 20:58 21 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
***********As far as I know, I have neither supported nor opposed such an article, only offered comments and done relevant research. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''':it's very simple,its about prophet muhammad(peace be upon him). By the way,didn't anyone realize that it took too long for this minor case to be resloved??[[User:Grandia01|Grandia01]] 02:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== Muhammad as a historical figure ==

All historical information in this wiki is presented like it's a fact. But this is not the Koran, this is wikipedia. There is no historical evidence that Muhammad ever existed. The mentioned sources all base their information on the Koran. And if Muhammad ever lived, there is some doubt that he lived in Saoudi Arabia (Syria is mentioned as a more likely place). The first scientific historical information about the new religion Islam comes from two centuries after Muhammad died.

In the wiki about Jesus, some doubts about the historical Jesus are mentioned. But the wiki about Muhammed does some copy / paste work form the Koran. Maybe this information should be an a different page, but it should be mentioned.
I also think there is far too much information in this wiki.
*Do you know of ''any'' [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that doubt that there was a historical guy named Muhammad?  [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete my comment? Political correctness? I think more needs to be said about how nonmuslims see Muhammad. They do not consider him the perfect man, to say the least.
*I explained why your comment was removed on your userpage.  If you have ''productive'' comments to add, feel free, but vague insults are unhelpful.  This is not a forum, but a discussion page for how to write an encyclopaedic article about Muhammad.  Off-topic posts can be removed (and are aggressively here, for obvious reasons). Cheers, [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: 

Amongst some non-Muslims and particularly westerners, Muhammad is seen as a controversial figure. Accounts of his actions and Islam, the religion he founded are considered to be excessively violent and immoral. In his 50s, he married Aisha, the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr, while she was only 6 years old. According to some, this justifies labeling him a pedophile. In recent years, many view his contributions and the religion that he passed on to his followers as inspiring of terrorism and colonialism. Sources:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27975 , http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm , 

There are plenty of sources for this much information. If that muslims think he's perfect is mentioned, what the rest of the world thinks of him should be mentioned as well.
:A lot of this kind of material is already ''in'' this article, as well as the much more detailed [[Christian view of Muhammad]], for instance.  In general, there's a strong need to avoid ''recentism'' here - especially with unimportant stuff like "historic moral judgements of".  Since the kind of stuff you're talking about ''already has a section'', why not begin by saying what you dislike about how it's covered?  Cheers, [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 22:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

:Also, make sure to have stronger sources.  Only a very few of the sources are not print sources and most are from well established press (and those are only about depictions of Muhammad and they are from major news organizations). [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 07:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

==Kotham and Halabi==
Can someone address in the article the birth names of Muhammad (PBUH) which are circulating the internet please? Thank you [[User:82.6.114.172|82.6.114.172]] 16:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

== conflict ==
In the middle years section, it says that both his sons died before the Prophet declared his mission, while the family life section says otherwise. Could someone solve this ?! Thank you. [[User:Unflavoured|Unflavoured]] 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

== Destroying references ==

References 55 and 44 have disappeared because they apparently reference references which have since been removed.  I did a brief search but couldn't find what they originally linked to.  Can anyone find the references and we should be careful about this in the future. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

== Wrapping up the issue of Muhammad's images ==

Recently, we had another unnecessary uproar over a Muhammad image at the [[Kaaba]] article. Its time to form a clear policy page that we can just link too in future and warn the user for a block if they continue to remove a Muhammad image. I've made this page on the Wikiproject Islam's page: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad]]. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 03:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC

:I don't think [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad]] works.  It gives the impression that images are okay and removing them is not... (not shedding any light on when it's appropriate to use what images).  I think it would be very difficult to craft policy which made it clear that images cannot be removed for no reason but they should not just be added willy-nilly because a page mentions Muhammad.  I really doubt it's something that can be templated... I haven't seen what happened at kaba, but I think in extremely blatant cases of "I'm removing it because it offends Muslims" it can easily be removed... [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|グレン]] 13:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

it will go on i know because muslims now they believe that each and every image of Mohammad PBUH
is to dominate them just because of those cartoon images of Mohammad and still the question is if muslims they dont like the images & the statue of Mohammad why every one is creating & publishing it even they knows very well that it will hurt muslims please respect others ignity & dignity.--[[User:Noshikashi|Kashi.]] 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
::Both ignity and dignity? Are you sure? [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 06:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:We have heard that speech a million times. Repeating it again will not remove the images.--[[User:Sefringle|<span style="color:#CC7722 ">Sef</span><span style= "color: black;">rin</span><span style="color:#808000;">gle</span>]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Sefringle|<span style="color:#4169E1">Talk</span>]]</small></sup> 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps "ignity" is a propensity to ignite? [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Gren's approach sounds good to me -- we can be sensitive to culture without letting it be the dominant factor in deciding our content. This doesn't necessarily have to be an either-or thing. To use an outside example, just as we don't run around adding "may she rest in peace," to every article about a deceased person, but we don't add "Gee, I'm glad that one's dead," either. Mention and show things when they're relevant, I figure. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">[[User:Luna Santin|<font color="#1E90FF">'''Luna Santin'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]])</span> 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

== Beginning of the conflict section ==
Arrow re your edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=next&oldid=145805241], Lewis says:"The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. ''The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its excersise.'' Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." 

They were already in the state of war. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:Lewis is deliberately vague as to the cause of the war. Watt is explicit. Do you doubt that Watt would say otherwise if he could? [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::from the quote, it seems that Lewis is saying that they were already at war, thus acting as a pretext for the raids. if Watt appears to disagree, saying Muhammad ''started'' the war, then there is nothing wrong with relating a divergence of opinion. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::: Watt doesn't say that they were not in the state of war. He is just saying that Muhammad provoked and took the initiative in the series of razzia. Lewis says the raids were justified because they were in state of war. In fact, Muhammad was forced to migrate to Medina, he and his followers were openly persecuted in Medina. The reason that Muhammad merely focused on Mecca rather than other cities show the case. 
::: Arrow, please follow WP:CIVIL in both your edit summary and comments. --[[User:Aminz|Aminz]] 21:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
::::that's true... if Watt simply says Muhammad initiated the razzias, it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't in a open state of hostility before then. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::Page 105: "In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive...In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor." Page 112 (Nakhlah is where the Muslims violated the sacred month and killed a Meccan in a raid): "Such was the expedition to Nakhlah and its consequences...it is clear that Muhammad had here, more or less deliberately, thrown down the gauntlet to the Meccans." [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 05:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Attribution and mention of all significant variations is the solution as per [[WP:NPOV]]--[[User:Tigeroo|Tigeroo]] 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Lewis doesn't contradict this. He is being intentionally vague. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 21:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::he's not being vague, he says: "The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its [i.e. razzias] excersise.", brackets mine. [[User:Itaqallah|<small><b><font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH</font></b></small>]] 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
<reset>That is vague. Here's what he says on page 45 of the 1960 (unredacted) version: "In March 635 Quraish, <i>reacting against the growing danger of Medinese brigandage,</i> sent an expedition against Muhammad and defeated the Muslims on the slopes of Uhud." So he is making it clear that offensive action on the part of the Meccans was provoked by the prior offensive actions of Muhammad. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 21:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::Lewis is not vague he clearly states that there was a state of war. There was a serious tension both from the situation that required the Muslims to leave Mecca and from the fact that Medina was giving them safe haven. Meccans even sent a delegation to Medina to get them  to not support the Muslims, that is what Lewis is referring to. If it didn't exist he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. Uhud is not the beginning of the conflict either, it's well after Badr and the material under discussion is of the time leading up to Badr.--[[User:Tigeroo|Tigeroo]] 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Irrelevant OR. Badr was an ambush by the Muslims, by the way, so you're supporting Lewis and Watt. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 22:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Here's what Cook says: "The central theme of this activity was Muhammad's confrontation with his home town of Mecca. In the second year of the hijra he made plans to intercept a rich Meccan caravan returning from Syria. The caravan escaped, but a force sent out by the Meccans to defend it was roundly defeated by some three hundred Muslims (reinforced by angels) at Badr. <i>Subsequently, however, it looked as if Muhammad had taken on more than he could handle.</i>" [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

== Karen Armstrong ==

Someone asked "Why not Karen?". I have been wondering this for a while. I know that she has not held an academic post, but I would say that she is part of mainstream scholarly thought, in the UK at least. She featured prominently this year in events organised by the [[British Library]]. They don't invite just anyone. She is also frequently on the BBC. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
:She has no training. [[User:Arrow740|Arrow740]] 22:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)