Talk:Muhammad

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19 Image archive Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Some information from Encyclopedia Britannica

• [1] I don't know whether there are some new aspects for the article on the mainpage.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.39 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

The Muslims believed that it is mentioned about the prophet Muhammad "PBUH" In the Bible and in the Psalms in many positions inside the Bible such as according to the bible (To Moses) I will raise up for them a Prophet like you among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My name, I will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18:17–9) It is clear from these verses that what is meant by “a Prophet like you among their brothers” is a Prophet who will come from the line of Ishmael, since Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, who is the forefather of the Children of Israel. The only Prophet who came after Moses and resembled him in many ways, for example, in the bringing of new laws and the waging of war on his enemies, was the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Qur’an points to the same fact, We have sent to you a Messenger as a witness over you, even as we sent to Pharaoh a Messenger.( (Al-Muzzammil 73:15) Ahmad Deedat tried to explain this by details in http://www.answering-christianity.com/ahmed_deedat_muh_bible.htm Abouilyass 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proposal for this article in that? If so please restate it, otherwise you may have the wrong place. gren グレン 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Amicuspublilius must read again visit:- http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy18.htm

18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. 19 If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I will make him answer for it. 20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die. Now... 1 surly the man mentioned in 18&19 is not like in 20 because there will be a huge contradiction, in 18&19 he is the prophet that according to bible:(If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I will make him answer for it) so how do you equal both in what ligic
2.But if a prophet not the
--Abouilyass 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure most Muslims would not want this reference in the article : "17 And the Lord said to me: They have spoken all things well. 18 I will raise them up a prophet out of the midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. 19 And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger. 20 But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain." Just a thought. :) Perhaps that online site does not have access to the whole passage. If it were speaking of Muhammad it would not be very respectful of him: the subtlety hinges on "A" and "THE", and "THE" prophet in the passage is referred to as a pagan and a liar. If you do cite this, I request that you cite the whole passage. Peace. Amicuspublilius 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 and Aminz edit war

I haven't looked at the content involved your edit war... just noticed it on my watchlist... but, if it keeps up next time I come to this page I will have to protect it on whichever version I find it. Please discuss, compromise, do what is necessary. Have others weigh in. Thanks. gren グレン 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion in the now archived sections [2], [3] etc etc. It is not only me, but also Itaqallah who agrees with me. Arrow is alone here. User:Karl Meier who has never joined the talk page reverts for him.

What is most ingenious about Arrow's edit is that he even removes the POV-tags from the article while there is substantial content disputes and much much talk page discussion about it. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN --Aminz 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your disputes are not based on wikipedia policies, just your personal disgreement with sourced facts. It is a failing of wikipedia that you are permitted to impose your viewpoint on it arbitrarily. Arrow740 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has beaten you to the punch. WilyD 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Originally posted on itaqallah's talk page

[4]

You turned

• "Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."

into

• "while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions."

Rodinson says the former, and you removed the key fact, that Muhammad was telling people that their fathers were suffering eternal torment. You have no excuse for this removal of sourced content.

so what exactly is wrong with the latter passage other than it not mentioning the condemnation of their forefathers who were pagans? how does "... while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his condemnation of their pagan forefathers and denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions." sound? the aim of this edit was to remove the implicit POV about the how Quraysh had "even" tolerated him, as well as the primary source extract from Peters aiming to depict the Qurayshites in a particular light (it would also be improper to provide other primary sources on these very pages of Peters' showing that the Meccan leaders conspired to persecute). you also removed the sourced information: "Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. This protection did not extend to much of his followers, who were subsequently persecuted by the Meccans." without explanation. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow has written: "Starting in the tenth century, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."

I can not see the link between these two sentences. Further, what does this have to do with "the last years in Mecca" section? The persecution is already covered in opposition in Mecca section. Aside from these, there were economical motivation for persecution of Muslims, not just because of their idols. --Aminz 09:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom"

became

• "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom"

The "sufficiently" is bad writing.

then fix it seperately instead of mass-reverting. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The source says "captives who were not wealthy" not "captives of little value". Proab suggested "captives who were no wealthy" or "captives of little wealth." Either of these works. --Aminz 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed

• "Muhammad was especially sensitive to attacks of this kind throughout his career, and considered them an unforgivable sin,"

an almost direct quote. You have no excuse, and have given none.

this is an opinionated analyses from Watt, i had already explained that on your talk page. we can stick to stating historical events, an opinion on Muhammad's psychology at the time is not necessary. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah said it well. (P.S. there is only one unforgivable sin in Islam) --Aminz 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "From this period on, the Medinan verses of the Qur'an are very different from those of Mecca, increasingly dealing with practical problems of government, the distribution of booty, and other temporal matters."

to

• "The Qur'anic verses of this period, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty."

...but that's not what Lewis says.

please explain. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sourced

• "and make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade"

and i changed it to "which had been lost at Badr." as per pages 124 onwards in Watt. see my talk page for a portion of that passage. the preceding sentence in the article read: "To maintain their economic prosperity after the battle of Badr, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige," - thus the connection with recovering prestige for trade had already been established - the fragment above was therefore irrelevant; it was more appopriate to discuss what had happened to their prestige (i.e. it had been lost at Badr). ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

and the sourced

• "to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage"

we have discussed this at length. the sentence in your version read "A few days later in the year 625, the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage." - that sentence contradicts what is present in the Muhammad and Uhud articles of EoI, as well as in Watt, and serves as undue weight towards Lewis' (seemingly unshared) opinion about the cause of Uhud by placing it in a key sentence. the reinserted clause is also tendentiously worded. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict anything. Those articles (written be people of less stature than Lewis and Watt) only mention a desire for revenge, and do not say that the primary motive was not to defend trade. Perhaps you just haven't understood this point. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained before, Lewis has revised this in the new edition of the book. This doesn't appear in the new versions. --Aminz 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a different passage from the one where you used this argument to remove sourced material before. The "brigandage" discussion has already taken place with supporting quotes from Lewis and Rodinson, you can read the archives. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission as Muhammad had declared, then the defeat at Uhud must be taken as a sign that his claims were false"

to

• "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission, then the defeat at Uhud was to be taken as a sign of the opposite"

By removing the agent from the sentence (Muhammad had declared) and using the strangely vague "was to be taken" you used bad style. Why? Further, "of the opposite" is far from the sense of Rodinson's description of the opposition I provided for you on the talk.

"as Muhammad had declared" is redundant, "as a sign of the opposite" is a clinical and dry way to express the claims of detractors in relation to Muhammad's claim. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Abu Sufyan realized the nature of the threat represented by Medina and the Muslims, and tried to assemble a larger army to destroy this threat. He attempted to make"

to

• "In attempting to quash the opposition of the Muslims in Medina, Abu Sufyan established"

Now, this is very transparent. Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan "realized the nature of the threat." You removed "threat" so as to not portray the Meccans as the offended party in any way. Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful, aggressive party, which is false. Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this.

the change was concise and removed the POV and style problems such as continued use of the word threat. this is a bias frequently present in your contributions, one side is referred to as the "danger" and "threat" (x2, in the same sentence!), conducting "brigandage" and "aggressive political violence" (a loaded phrase you were unsuccessful in retaining), while the Meccans are portrayed as "realiz[ing]" this "danger", emphasis placed on the reported extent of their tolerance, or the notion that their campaigns were all in self defence by shoehorning any motive of avenging Badr (this being the most prominent motive in the sources however). these are, of course, only the most recent examples of such kind of editing.

"Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful" - the Meccans were more powerful (they had just defeated the Muslims at Uhud). "Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this." - no, i didn't. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Muhammad eventually revealed"

to

• "Soon after verse ^{[Quran 24:11]} was revealed,"

Removing the agent again, this is bad writing.

ambiguity is necessary to maintain neutrality in instances of "revelation." ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You further added the unsourced

• "The status of several of Muhammad's wives is disputed by scholars."

it's not a factually disputed sentence, is it? leave to give time for others to source it. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So in fact, all your "productive copyedits" are purposeful distortion of sourced material, and in one case insertion of unsourced nonsense.

In the future do not remove the subject of a verb or add ambiguity in any other fashion. Arrow740 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. i don't believe you have proven a single instance of "purposeful distortion of sourced material," and i am sure the discussion would proceed more smoothly in the absense of this kind of rhetoric. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the response by itaqallah which the casual reader might take seriously. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)