Talk:Muhammad/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Of course, maybe I shouldn't be butting in too much, but I'll call attention to this: A while ago, there was a "western" representation of Muhammad, around where the Blake image has been being inserted. It was this image. Now, it was deleted as lacking copyright information, but I "suspect" the image is actually uncopyrightable, as the original author has been all kinds of dead for a long time, and the photograph is probably a "slavish reproduction" - but I don't know for sure. A more "tasteful" and "mainstream" representation might satisfy both the expressed need for a western representation, and the objections to blatantly offensive images and concerns about their educational value to shock value. WilyD 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, that image was made in 1935. But it was made the US government, so maybe uncopyrightable. WilyD 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose that picture, but it might be more appropriately placed in a slightly different section. The section in which the Blake/Dante image was placed dealt specifically with western views of Muhammad. Talmage 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is just one example, but it's a western image in a notable context. I'm not particularly attached to it - I only held it up as an example of something that might be closer to addressing the concerns of all parties. WilyD 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a definite consensus emerging here that some Westerm image should be included - and given this, I would go with Blake. How do we get the page unlocked? TharkunColl 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has no place for additional images but some exisiting images should be removed too. The images exist already are violating

WP:NPOV. --- A. L. M.

15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Develop a consensus on the issue that lead to the edit warring. WilyD 15:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the image that WilyD put up (the depiction of Muhammad on the Supreme Court) is fine. If any image should be included, that would be sufficient. Not all western views of Muhammad are positive, and not all are negative. Fitting then that an image in the section should seem neutral, neither glorifying nor mocking. Like ALM, I also do not see why the article needs to be littered with pictures. Not every section in every article requires a picture. The only thing everyone agrees with is that the Blake image does not belong here. It is needlessly provocative. On adding or removing images, I have a proposal. What is the number of images of Jesus on Jesus? On Moses? David? I say that the number of pictures depicting Muhammad should be proportional to that of other prophets, not more nor less. Whatever the average is for an abrahamic prophet, there should be that many pictures. That way Muslims can not complain that we are inciting them by depicting him, and non-Muslims cannot say we are pandering to the Muslim demands. Ezag 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus and his followers have different tradition. Muhammad has totally different. Everyone should be treating according to his own tradition and history. We cannot generalize it. Every other church has Jesus picture and almost mosque never have Muhammad picture. Jesus has 6 century pictures available and Muhammad has even no picture available of 12th century. For more information see my subpage. --- A. L. M. 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are respectively 11, 10, and 6, making an average of 9. Furthermore, those other articles are almost completely devoid of any images that do not show a picture of their subject. TharkunColl 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus has 11, Alexander the Great has ~15. I choose ALexander as a comparable political/secular figure to Muhammad, and Jesus as a comparable religious figure. Alexander also features several non-likeness. Campaign maps et cetera. WilyD 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To conform to the suggestion of the page locker, and therefore get it unlocked, we need to add 5 more images of Muhammad (since there are currently only 4), and remove most if not all of the images that don't show him. TharkunColl 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither Jesus has any comparision with Muhammad and nor Alexander the Great. ---- A. L. M. 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, they are very comparable indeed. TharkunColl 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ALM, while you're own opinion may be as such, from a "neutral/disinterested perspective", can you see why Jesus might be considered a historical religious figure of similar importance in that field, and Alexander the Great might be a Political leader of similar importance in that field? WilyD 15:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My status of page locker means you should give less creedence to my opinions, not more. I'm merely trying to facilitate dialogue so that the editors here can come to a consensus. While I'm happy to offer suggestions and thoughts, I don't want my opinion here counted towards any consensus on this edit war specifically because I was the one who locked down the page. WilyD 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to include five more images of Muhammad, some from the West. And we can get rid of some of those endless photos of mosques - they are completely irrelevant. TharkunColl 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But isn't it the case that most of these pictures depicting Muhammad were created by Muslims? All of those included, except the western ones are Muslim-created. All images should be tasteful, of course. As most conservative Muslim cultures and all areas of worship such as mosques use calligraphy as their representation of the prophet for visual purposes, counting calligraphy and other images should be fine. We cannot adopt a purely western set of criteria for deciding what is appropriate. It is true that how Christians view depictions of Jesus is different from how Muslims do of Muhammad, and that must be weighed. However I do not think most moderate Muslims oppose tasteful paintings or other depictions of Muhammad. Unless I am mistaken, the rationale for not visually depicting Muhammad was that Muhammad himself did not want to see Muslims worshiping him as an icon, the way Christians worship Jesus. Given we are posting existing images and not creating new ones, even by conservative standards we are doing nothing wrong. If we remove ALL pictures, we are giving in to the most conservative section of the Muslim crowd. That cannot be our choice. Personally, I think the article has a sufficient number of pictures already. Insulting and disgusting images are out of the question though, western or otherwise. Ezag 15:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At least one Dante image - either Blake's or Dali's - should be included because for many centuries Dante's characterisation of Muhammad was very influential in the West. Muhammad is a figure who has been very important for the history of the West - he is not owned by the Muslims. Western civilisation lost some of its most ancient and wealthy territory - the eastern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean, as a direct result of Muhammad, so I think the West has a right to develop its own opinions about him, and these should be described. TharkunColl 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have expressed your point thoroughly enough as to not merit further argument on Blake or Dante. Let us put this question to rest. My vote is no, to anything from Dante. On that much I think we can find consensus amongst everyone but you. There is a range of western views of Muhammad, no one view dominates. We do not need to elect the most vile medieval representation to find visualization here. You say "the West has a right to develop its own opinions". The west no longer holds this view of Muhammad. Nor do I think that the West would be proud to have such a sickening caricature produced by one of its artists represented here as the image which summarizes their perspective on Muhammad. Not that anyone here is in a position to claim he represents the interest of all of "the west". Also, Muhammad never conquered any part of Italy. Yes, the west lost territory to latter Muslims in history, but by the same token they gained territory using force from peoples of other religions too. Ezag 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That assumption that consensus exists in unfounded. While I do not presume that any consensus has formed yet, I am certain not everyone agrees with your position. The following people have either reverted the page back to include the Blake image at some point, or expressed to some degree a desire to see the image included: Talmage, TharkunColl, Beit Or, Strothra, Proabivouac, Arrow740, Sefringle, Frotz, Briangotts, Alecmconroy. This is not to say each of these people actively supports inclusion of the image (some do and some don't). However, each has either taken to step to revert the page to include the image (indicating that it's not a no-brainer decision to censor the image) or has made points indicating at least tepid support or understanding of the image's inclusion. This contradicts your statement that On that much I think we can find consensus amongst everyone but you. Please do not pass your beliefs on as accepted consensus, especially before any consensus is formed. Additionally the section did not concern modern Western views. Furthermore, I disagree with your statement that the West no longer views Muhammad in a negative light. Some people do and some people don't. When you examine his actions and teachings there is considerable room for discussion, but modern views are not pertinent to a section concerning traditional views from the Romantic era. Talmage 17:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

1) The image is deemed unacceptable to several editors here. 2) The section is "Christian and Western view", "romantic era" is merely a subsection to a section which includes modern and archaic views. 3) While there may be no consensus to exclude the image, there is certainly none to include it. 4) It was I who pointed out no single view of Muhammad dominates the West, and therefore Blake's work should not be the image representing the section "Christian and Western View of Muhammad". If there is a variety of views on him, it makes sense that the image used be a neutral one. Include the US Supreme Court wall carving. It neither embellishes Muhammad with anything particularly flattering, nor denigrates him. Ezag 17:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why must we ensure no image of Muhammad ever casts him in a negative light? If the point of view being discussed in the article casts him in a negative light, there is no reason the image shouldn't. Just as there is no reason to censor positive images in sections documenting Muslim veneration of Muhammad. Muhammad is not immune to historical criticism or an expression of historical views. Talmage 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We may not be able to obtain a high quality free license version of that. If there exists a consensus to use a neutral western version, I will dig up several options. WilyD 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that some editors here appear to feel that opposing these kinds of images should somehow disqualify one from the discussion. "The only people who stand in opposition to include the images are those who, um, have opposed this kind of thing before." BYT 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jesus article has lengthy sections on how religions other than Christianity view him (including Islam). To suppress, or marginalise, such views of Muhammad is - once again, religious censorship. TharkunColl 22:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is considered a prophet of Islam too. Given Christianity came into being many years after Jesus' death and that Jesus did not personally endorse the religion of Christianity, it would be wrong to say Christianity has exclusive rights to claim Jesus as its leader. Similarly, Bahais see Muhammad as one of their prophets, and that is mentioned in this article too. I don't see anyone fighting to censor non-Muslim views of Muhammad from this article, so I do not see what you are calling religious censorship. Ezag 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize this does not pertain to the Muhammad article, but it pertains to your previous post which I cannot let stand without correction. I would caution you from speaking about Christianity. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says to Peter "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Christianity was founded with Jesus who then passed his torch to his disciples, specifically entrusting the church with Peter (although other apostles, such as Mark in Alexandria, also founded churches in other parts of the world). While Jesus considered himself Jewish (and King of the Jews), Christianity is simply Judaism with the addition of the redemption of Christ and his teachings. He didn't make the Jewish scriptures obsolete, but added significantly to them. So to say Jesus did not endorse Christianity is false. He founded the church and through apostolic succession, priests of many denominations can to do this day still trace their ordinations back to Christ. Islam may claim him as a prophet, but even in Arabic the Islamic prophet is known as "Isa" (عيسى) not "Jesus" (يسوع) as he is known in every Arabic Bible. When I was first learning Arabic I once used the name "Isa" in church, to which I was promptly corrected that no such person ever existed. They are fundamentally two different people as recorded by the two different religions. Talmage 03:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not caution me on speaking, as you do not know my level of knowledge of the subject. The Jesus Wikipedia entry is very well written. According to it, Jesus' name was not even Jesus. In Hebrew, the language he probably spoke, it was "Yeshua". The arabic "Isa" sounds closer to "Yeshua" than the very Roman "Jesus" does. Jesus is the Anglicization of a greek mispronunciation. See the article on Church, the usage of that word also comes about from a misuse of scripture. Jesus never said the word "Christianity", and the article on Christianity will show you the origin of the word does not go back to Jesus. You quote the Gospel of Matthew, although there is no certainty as to who or when that gospel was written. My point is, all these conclusions you've pointed out are questionable to say the least. There are other views of who and what Jesus was. The Druze have one view of him, the Muslims another. Since Jesus never used these words like Christianity and Church and even Jesus, for Christians to claim they have exclusive rights to the man as a leader is wrong. And like many, I do not consider the Bible to be an accurate historical document anyway. Given Muslims regard him as an Islamic prophet, the Islamic view of him should be included in the article on Jesus. I am not entirely sure why Christian views of Muhammad belong here, though I am not contesting its inclusion. Ezag 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The English Jesus comes from Latin Iesus, with the I pronounced like a Y. Since I could be both a consonant or a vowel, the consonantal I was written later as J in Latin, where it moves to English. (Just as the vowel V was later written U). At any rate, even the Arabic Bibles refer to "Yaysua" (يسوع) never "Isa". The whole point of this is that I am contradicting your absurd statement that Jesus never endorsed Christianity, which is the combination of Jewish scripture with Jesus's teachings, both of which he endorsed. It is not my desire to get off course as much as we have, but I can't let modern Islamic revisionism go uncorrected. Talmage 04:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this matter. Someone above referred to you as a troll, which seems plausible. On to my last response: Was Jesus English? Was he Latin? In your post just before this you said the Arabic Bible said "Jesus", now you say that same Bible said "Yayshua"? You are changing your story. "Jesus" and "Yeshua" sound nothing alike. Compensating for differences in pronunciation between Hebrew and Arabic (compare "shalom" with "salaam"), the name "Isa" seems far more believably authentic than "Jesus". As for Christianity being a continuation of Judaism, please consult informed Jews on whether they see similarities between the two religions. The answer will definitely be no. Jesus never endorsed the organization you call a Church. He never said the WORD "Church". He never endorsed Christianity. Until the Council of Nicea, there was much debating over the nature of Jesus and the basics of Christianity. That congregation ended with the production of the Nicene Creed, which held that Jesus was divine. It took 325 years to reach that conclusion. Whether that conclusion is true or false, authentic or invented, is not an argument I feel is relevant. My only point is that Christianity cannot claim ownership of Jesus. That is all from me on this matter. Ezag 04:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No one referred to me as a troll. If you wish to do so, then don't use weasel words. I was translating the Arabic يسوع into English, which is Jesus. Other the other hand, عيسى is translated into Isa. In other words they are two different words/names. I'm not interested in pronunciation, that's your kick. I apologize for erroneously assuming you were familiar with the language of Islam. Otherwise I would have sounded everything out without including the Arabic script. Talmage 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The medieval Church authorities regarded Islam as a Christian heresy, rather than a religion in its own right. That's why they called it Muhammadanism, because almost all heresies were named after their founders (Paulicianism, Montanism, Bogomilism, Pelagianism, Arianism, etc.) TharkunColl 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl has made good arguments. We should represent the POV on Muhammad which a depiction of the Inferno symbolizes. Arrow740 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. Even better -- just to be absolutely sure we're being fair here -- would be to represent, in the article Jesus, the POV on Jesus which Piss Christ symbolizes. Please go start a section at Jesus entitled Contemporary Artistic Representations of Jesus, use Piss Christ as the driving image, and let us all know what happens. BYT 14:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Please go ahead. The equivalent for this article would be the Danish cartoons. TharkunColl 14:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. We will not have Dante's pictures here. We will not have "piss christ" on Jesus, we will not have ugly anti-semitic depictions of Jews on

Well Ezag has made his mind up. We should probably discontinue discussion then. No negative images of anyone. No criticism of anyone someone might admire. We must also make it a point to censor the Adolf Hitler article of all criticism and negative POV. We wouldn't want to possibly offend any remaining Nazis. After all they believe Hitler was just a nice guy who wanted to take over the entire world, kill a bunch of people in the process, and establish his own culture. Talmage 17:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Childish comment, comparing Muslims to Nazis. By the way, you bring up Adolf Hitler. Bad example. The Adolf Hitler article doesn't have ugly caricatures or commentary the likes of which you would like to have here. You further reinforce my point that it is not normal for Wikipedia articles to host such POVs. It is not censorship to exercise taste and editorial common sense. Ezag 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dante pictures don't really strike me as charicatures. The Blake one is a simple illustration in the style of the times. Dali's picture is what you'd expect from Dali: dreamlike and surreal. Stating that the Hitler article does not contain criticism is false: the criticism is quite obvious. The big difference is that Muhammad lived more than a thousand years ago. Since Muhammad is a theological figure, of course he would attract attention from theologians and ultimately criticism. That is the core of the 28th Canto of the Divine Comedy. Frotz 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the criticism you are talking about in

Depiction of Muhammad article. All this western opinion and art should go to either of those. This article should be more factual and informative. Dante, and the entire section for that matter conveys no information as to who he was as a historical figure. The entire "Christian/Western" section should go to Criticism of Muhammad. Ezag

18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems unlikely. Many Western/Christian views of Muhammad are not particularly critical, and given the relative importance of Muhammad to Islam/Islamic culture and Christianity/Western Culture, the article already focusses far too much on his influence in Islam. WilyD 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not been part of this discussion yet, though I've been watching this page evolve over the past few months. I am not sure that an image is necessary in this section since it is short and I feel that the text adequately explains the topic. If consensus exists to include an image, I think we should choose one which is less rather than more divisive. I do not support censorship but it is irresponsible to be insensitive to our audience. Potential offense is one of many factors that should be considered when editing an article. I would expect the root article on a major religious figure in any popular encyclopedia to be sensitive to the adherents of that faith. Since there is a link at the top of this section to a more specific article on Christian/Western views, I think that that is a more appropriate place for disembowelments. –Taranah 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Taranah. WilyD, I agree that it would be good for the article to show the importance of Muhammad in Western culture. It seems to me intuitively that he has had a huge influence. But we cannot reflect that in the article without some good sources. Can you point us towards any? It was said above that Dante's description of Muhammad had an influence on Western culture. That point would need to be proved as well. Can I remind those in favour of inclusion of images that they need to make a case for their inclusion. I haven't seen that case made yet. Accusing other people of censorship does not count. Itsmejudith 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Dante material is cited to the Encyclopedia of Islam Online.Proabivouac 22:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dante is one of the great figures in Western Culture. The fact that artists as disparate as Blake and Dali depicted him is proof enough. The real point here is this: Muhammad is a crucial figure in world history. The article should not just reflect the views of his supporters. TharkunColl 22:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like the American Supreme Court image for that - I'm still working on finding a free version. Here he's held up by a (fairly prominant) western country's legal system as one of the 18 most important secular lawmakers in history. The specific image has been the object of some attention too with the complaints by the

Council on American-Islamic Relations. WilyD

14:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment really wasn't childish. There is enough criticism to go around for both, and commonly held negative views should be discussed, otherwise we give undue weight to the positive side. I stopped far short of what this theologian stated. Talmage 07:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

better to remove the pictures and add some mosque pictures to elaborate the image of Mohammad. i tell you the truth i was reading the article of Mohammad it made me happy that everything was completly right but the thing which is seriuosly hurting is the pictures of Mohammad & it's not me alone all the Muslims are against those pictures because muslims have different tradition it is not allowed in Islam to make photographs of any prophets.on a basis of respect to religion you can remove the pictures because most of the Muslims sooner or later will visit the article & it will turn their hearts off from wikipedia.more over, we all should take care for every religion likes & dislikes.--Kashi. 11:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It's just a religious taboo, plain and simple. TharkunColl 11:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

but for the article not as simple as it looks.--Kashi. 14:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

--Kashi. 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the article, I did not like the depictions of Muhammad that were included. When I tried to discuss the removal of these images, I was directed towards the archives. There was already a 'long long long long' discussion, and a consensus had been reached. I do not agree with the results, but seeing that my POV is not the one WP should follow, I came to the conclusion that maybe the article ought to be re-written/improved to a point where depictions are no longer needed; a time-consuming effort.
Now I understand that consensus is what dictates WP, so I thought "fine, for the moment". Then A new image was added, against consensus.
The consensus which took 6 months to reach was about images, if I am not mistaken. If we want to abide by that consensus, then this new "naked Muhammad with intestines hanging out in Hell" should not be included. If we are ignoring the consensus, then that leaves open the possibility that all depictions be removed.
So maybe it is time to choose? Do we follow the previous consensus or not? Unflavoured 12:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• One of the principles of Wikipedia is that consensus can change. This means that anything is possible in the future. In general, a consensus is needed for any change - although we're supposed to be bold, and then if someone objects resort to long talks. There is a possibility that all images could be removed in the future. The reason you've been directed to the archives when you asked about this is that you were bringing up old arguments. New arguments could lead the article anywhere. It's certainly not a perfect article, and could always be better. I will caution you I can't guess any reason we'd want to remove all the images from the article - but I'm not omniscient, so there may be one. WilyD 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

yea you are right consenus are not producing any results now it is a time to announce the results of consensus whether wikipedia will remove the images or not this is to clear the matter and to resolve the unsolve subject. they have to announce this and we will agree with that whatever the decision made by wikipeida--Kashi. 14:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• This misconstrues both the nature of consensus and Wikipedia. Consensus is the process through which Wikipedia makes decisions - and we're all involved in that process. It's a never-ending process, and never results in permanent decisions. Lone editors, and small groups of editors railing against a hard-won consensus without any new arguments are unlikely to get anywhere, nothing is permanent, except maybe the foundational issues. WilyD 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

i got it. picture stays.thanks--Kashi. 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To TharkunColl. I am not saying that Dante is not an important figure in Western culture, of course he is. Whether his portrayal of Muhammad significantly affected subsequent Western ideas of the Prophet is another matter and one upon which we would need to refer to sources. EoI is not necessarily the best source for Western views of Islam, as evidenced by its rather loose use of the term "Romantic" (unless this is just because it has been quoted out of context here). Itsmejudith 15:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the image from the supreme court building. It seems to me more representative of western society's understanding of Muhammad's significance. The Blake picture, while important, would probably be better used on a page about Blake or his work. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the image does not pertain to the sub-section on modern Western views of Muhammad, but rather classical views. Talmage 18:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Each of those tiny subsections does not need an illustration. From a page-design standpoint the overall section "Christian and Western views of Muhammad" might be improved with a single image. If the image we agree on is the one from the Supreme Court, we can attach it to the "Modern Times" subsection. We could even add a sentence or short paragraph to the Modern times section discussing it (or in the caption). I found [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48695 this article] about that frieze after a quick google search. –Taranah 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just realized something: The image in question is not used in the article about blake, or the article about dante, or even the article about the divine comedy itself. So please do not say that the image is being added with the intention of improving the article, because it isn't. I think that that by itself should end the argument for the inclusion of blake's work. Thank you. Unflavoured 04:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is relative to the Muhammad article more so than the Blake or Dante articles. Just as Shakespeare has a reference in the singular they article but singular they isn't mentioned in the Shakespeare article. Talmage 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After so many arguments pointing out the inconsistencies involved in adding an image with a naked, white-haired man being disemboweled in Hell, when similar images are not used in article about similar people, and now that you know that the image itself is not being used in the three article most important: dante's, blake's, and the divine comedy article, I do not see any other reason for the persistent argument for inclusion besides an intent to degrade the article, or to give undue weight. I do not usually write sentences that are five lines long which is even further proof that this image is inappropriate. Unflavoured 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The opposite of Talmage's above statement strikes me as true. The Blake and Dali illustrations are both highly relevant to the articles on the Divine Comedy. The main article on the

Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture, an embarrassing hotchpotch (leaping from Primo Levi to Craig Charles!) and needs replacing with a properly researched section or sub-article on the work's influence in culture, tout court. Itsmejudith 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Itsmejudith

08:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Aws page, and the Khazraj page. The battle of bu'ath was mainly between these two clans. All the info u need is right there in the wiki entries. But calling Muhammad a brigand is POV, no ?! Unflavoured 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Arrow740 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...many would consider that Muhammad was trying to compensate the 'outrooted' meccans for the losses they suffered when they got kicked out of mecca, but here the article makes it seem as though Muhammad was roaming the deserts looking for trouble. Unflavoured 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"became brigands. They began attacking Meccan caravans" I would like to know know how many of these caravans were attacked. 8 ? 9 ? Any reference for these attacks ?!
"The raiders won much booty" Oh yes, this is very encyclopedic language. NPOV ?!
"The victory also made possible a reaction against the Jews and Christians, who were accused of falsifying their scriptures in order to conceal prophecies about Muhammad" Name some of these Christians please. Thank you. Unflavoured 09:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is all from Lewis's book, and is quite neutral language. A brigand is a brigand, and that's what Lewis calls it. Arrow740 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis doesn't say that. Everybody: You can read the relevant pages of lewis book (p.31 here) online at books.google.com--Aminz 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The preview that Aminz is talking about does not have the pages in question, and the book I have says "brigandage" and "raiders." It's the 1960 printing. Arrow740 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can search for words in restricted pages. The search engine says that the word "brigandage" is not mentioned in the text. --Aminz 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it's in the book I have. Maybe it's a different edition. In any case, I have the book, you don't have access to the full book, so stop this revert-warring. Arrow740 09:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the search engine searches the whole book anyway. "Taking up arms" doesn't come up either, so you were lying when you said "as Lewis says it," as I suspected. Arrow740 09:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it. See my comments to the section "Arrow's edits" section. --Aminz 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A brigand is an outlaw, and that is POV. Use something more neutral. Please check the edits I made to your edits. If there's anything you want changed back, please discuss. Thank you. Unflavoured 09:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

unflavourde: this is not an article we all know the article is not neutral & it is just to describe Mohammad PBUH a bandit & warrior and we can not do anything no matter whatever you do even you have proved the facts Mohammad won the MAKKAH but he never hurt any one there even at that time he forbids to cut even a small plant so how he can react against some one else if he is not allowing his people not to harm a plant & i think unflavoured you know what it is all about, Mohammad PBUH picuters & wrong text all is a wrong concept which they say western concept they are so concerning about ISLAM and why??you knows very well.--Kashi. 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's Arab history, rather than specifically Islam, that is at issue, we need to use Hourani alongside Lewis or instead of Lewis, as his book is the standard work on the subject. Later scholarship, too, as it was first published 1991. I have it to hand and will add text when I have a minute. Itsmejudith 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

if it's Arab history then why you are merging Islam..???explain Arab history in a good neutral way if the name Mohammad will come then it means you are merging Islam as well.--Kashi. 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a new user but I feel that this is somewhat odd. First, "booty" is a legitimate word in academic history books - it describes in word goods that are taken from an enemy during a war - and sounds less akward than "the plunder" normally does. Muhammad did raid those caravans - this is not a historical debate. If "brigand" doesn't appear in Lewis' newer version of the book, he still uses "raider". I'll be able to look at the 1960 version in several days and I would be more than happy to confirm if the various forms of brigand appear in it.

"The victory also made possible a reaction against the Jews and Christians, who were accused of falsifying their scriptures in order to conceal prophecies about Muhammad" - that appears on page 42 of the new edition by Bernard Lewis. Jayran 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Judith, other sources should be utilized as well. Particularly since the mainstream of the Middle Eastern Studies field has moved beyond the orientalism of Lewis. In order to reduce POV, multiple sources should be used and contrasted against each other within the section. Lewis is a scholar, but he does not have the last word on the subject. --Strothra 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The terms used are accurate. There is no condescension or western bias. Arrow740 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just consulted the Oxford History of Islam - you can also see it on Amazon - and Fred Donner uses "raids" and "booty" to describe the same events. Prof. Donner is a contemporary scholar compared to Lewis (and as far as I know, has never been labeled an orientalist as Lewis has been.) Jayran 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see sub-section on "What Lewis says" below. Lewis doesn't say what Arrow says on his behalf. --Aminz 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is not a noted biographer or scholar of the Prophet Muhammad, and I would think his large credit and inclusion in this section is a disservice. More authoritative and more scholarly individuals are available in abudnance, I believe they should be used not only to maintain NPOV, which by using the term brigand to describe a man 1400 years ago Lewis seems to violate, but also to render better information to the average reader. Thanks.

Arrow, please do not misrepresent sources. --Aminz 08:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll continue to never have done that. Arrow740 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, your misrepresentations is getting really bothersome. Not only you misrepresent the source (link to the relevant page source [1]-last paragraph) but you also misrepresent me. ([2]-edit summary; also your revert) --Aminz 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I don't see a disturbing pattern emerging here: start an edit war, hoping the page will be protected long enough for a partial wikimilitant faction to try to block consensus. Arrow's contributions are absolutely neutral and objective. Merely stating Muhammad's barbaric actions is no more inappropriate than your stating what good he may have done. Talmage 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the actions barbaric, but I do not necessarily object to the usage of the words "brigand" and "raider." We have a language for a reason and to censor it is ridiculous. If someone's actions are descriptive of the definition of those words then those words should be used as they are the proper adjectives. Moreover, I believe that multiple sources should be incorporated into this particular section that come from non-orientalist scholarship. --Strothra 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "non-orientalist?"Proabivouac 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that an equally controversial (say Saidist) scholar should be included. For instance however, Arthur Goldschmidt, Jr. (a Middle East historian at Penn State) wrote a very useful book titled "A Concise History of the Middle East," that has been published in several editions. --Strothra 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An Middle East historian at Penn State is, by definition, an orientalist.Proabivouac 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, you have to judge someone based on the substance of their scholarship. Lewis is a classic orientalist and highly controversial figure. Goldschmidt can hardly be considered controversial and is a member of MESA, unlike Lewis who has been attacked repeatedly by MESA. --Strothra 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that if someone is not a member of MESA, then he is "controversial", and if someone is a member of MESA, then he is "not controversial"? Beit Or 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a complete distortion of what I said. I used the example to point out a significant difference between Goldschmidt and Lewis. Goldschmidt is not an orientalist as the editor was stating. --Strothra 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Beit Or 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why, what? Why is it a distortion? I just explained the context in which I said that - it had nothing to do with whether or not MESA members were controversial (some are, some aren't). Why is Goldschmidt not an orientalist? Read his work. Why was the editor stating that Goldschmidt was an orientalist? Read above. Further, this conversation is going off-topic, we should remember to keep our conversation restricted to subject matter involving article edits. --Strothra 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Orientalist" is not a curse word, though many supporters of Edward Said would like it to be one. Usually, an orientalist is a scholar of Orientalism, like Goldschmidt. I hope this closes the debate. Beit Or 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This usage results from a misunderstanding: Said was attacking the entire field, and chose his terminology accordingly. If a scholar of Middle eastern history has been influenced by Saïd's criticisms, he/she is still an Orientalist, just a reformed one.Proabivouac 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis doesn't say what Arrow quotes of him. Here is the online reference [3] . --Aminz 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. I have the book, maybe it's another printing, but you are definitely being stubborn. Also google doesn't have the full text. Arrow740 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You should stop your anti-Islamic propaganda. --Aminz 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes from respected sources is not propaganda. You know you would have been better off trying to argue based on the merits of the edit instead of bad-faith assumptions. Arrow740 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are not going to help you. Beit Or 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Lewis says

Here is what 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.

How Arrow presents Lewis:

Muhammad and the Muslims who had immigrated from Mecca were economically uprooted, and became brigands. They began attacking Meccan caravans.

This is what User:Talmage calls "absolutely neutral and objective" representation of the source. --Aminz 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If raiding caravans is not brigandry, then tell us what it is. Beit Or 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Arrow writes is a caricature of what Lewis says. Brigandry has illegitimate & unnatural connotation while Lewis says it was "natural and legitimate act of war". Further, Muslims have argued that their properties in Mecca were confiscated by Meccans. --Aminz 20:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You've omitted the crucial words "seen as", didn't you? Of course, Muhammad saw his actions as natural and legitimate. Beit Or 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most shameful is this revert of Arrow: [4] from a more accurate version to a less accurate one with a strange edit summary.--Aminz 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, it is very interesting how you defend "indefensible" Arrow's representation of sources. Lewis says that "Raids on merchant carvans were seens as a natural and legitimate act of war." I merged these with the following sentences and wrote it:"Being viewed as a natural and legitimate act of war, they raided the Meccan caravans for two purposes". I used third tense as Lewis used it. My understanding is that it was legitimate and natural in that ancient nomadic culture. --Aminz 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to state whether it was, is or should be viewed as legitimate. This is a variant of a recurring theme of your edits, the perceived need to address moral objections at which you fear readers will arrive on their own.

If "brigand" is the trouble, and it doesn't appear in our sources, then maybe we should consider another way of putting this. How about "people who happen to rely upon the forcible irregular appropriation of transported goods for their livelihood?" Is there any record of the Muslims engaging in other forms of highway robbery, besides just caravans? If not, "caravan raider" might work.Proabivouac 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a need to represent Lewis accurately. It is a recurring theme in your edits to deprive the incidents from their context whenever the sources clarify it in order to make the readers arrive at negative conclusions. I am fine with quoting Lewis word by word but you want to eliminate all the context (for obvious reasons)--Aminz 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I say, as before, to keep the word brigand as its definition makes it the most appropriate word. Some would prefer to add a rosey smell to history that they'd like to change, however. In any instance, if changed, the new word has to be more than caravan or even "caravan rider raider" as suggested. "Caravan" is insufficient since it does not accurately describe the actions and purpose of those involved. Rather, it implies that they were simply a band of individuals moving from one place to another. --Strothra 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No. brigand has a new meaning today and is charged. brigand is an outlaw. This is imposing a concept of a settled society to a nomadic one. --Aminz 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No its not, Aminz; anyone with trade routes will have highway robbery/piracy unless the routes are very well patrolled. Brigandry is as old as trade itself.

Strothra, I wrote "caravan raider", not "caravan rider".Proabivouac 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, Are you arguing that there was no system of law? Law doesn't have to be within the Western tradition, but can also be commonly accepted principles. This doesn't have to be written. Theft was hardly commonly accepted on the Arabian peninsula. Law is not simply a governing element of what you call a "settled society," but any code of ethics, mores, customs, etc that are commonly shared. There doesn't have to be a government per se to impose these laws, but a community. You, however, imply that nomadism is the same as anarchy with no ethical or moral compass. --Strothra 21:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad was in a state of war with Meccans. What he was legitimized to do depended on the natural and legitimate rules of war of that society. Murder is bad but killing was natural during war. Brigand is a different story. Muslims had also another point: Meccans had further confiscated their properties. --Aminz 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that we should mention that during the raids, people were careful not to kill anyone. --Aminz 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing "Muhammad was a brigand who justified his raids due to property loss in Mecca at the time of Hijra was careful not kill anyone durings his raids" would be clunky and unnecessary detail. A brigand is not a killer or murderer so there is no need to mention that he didn't kill the people that he raided. Also, even the past actions of Meccans towards him doesn't change the situation that he was a brigand at that time. Jayran 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Of all the sections in the article that could use pictures, people here want the one tiny paragraph to be represented by a picture of Muhammad naked, torn apart with his innards falling around him. Of all the words Bernard Lewis used, only "brigand" seems to demand interest here. There is a pattern and it is a very ugly one. Ezag 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please comment constructively or not at all. --Strothra 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was a good observation specially when I compare the original quote and Arrow's representation --Aminz 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ezag, are you familiar with User:His excellency?Proabivouac 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, did you go to the library and get a physical copy, as your usual mine for POV quotes does not contain the disputed material? I have a physical copy. Here is the exact wording.

The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be solely dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, brigandage.

Further, he says

In March 624, 300 Muslims under the leadership of Muhammad surprised a Meccan caravan at Badr. The raiders won much booty and their achievement are celebrated in the Qur'an as an expression of divine good will.

These quotes are just where I said they are. Arrow740 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please quote in fuller details. I'd like to see the neighboring sentences. --Aminz 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Having now managed to access this, I see that there has been a new edition, as mine is less than 200 pages. Also that section is different as mine includes a warning against presentist critiques while the partial version at google does not. The fact remains that he did use brigandage originally, and that is more accurate than "that of arms," which could mean anything from being blacksmiths to being mercenaries. Arrow740 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in the preface - I have a physical copy of the new edition - where Lewis acknowledges that he has changed some of the language. I suppose someone must have been offended by his plain talk.Proabivouac 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the preface. He says he has made changes/corrections for a variety of reasons so this is your OR. I'd still want to see a fuller quote from the original edition.--Aminz 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that that is my original research is your original research.Proabivouac 05:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to argue and bicker over every single line and sentence? Why can we not discuss new material that is "likely to cause controversy" before adding it? If anything, after seeing all the efforts made to degrade the article and deviate as much as possible from both NPOV and standard MOS, I must agree with the user who said: "Of all the sections in the article that could use pictures, people here want the one tiny paragraph to be represented by a picture of Muhammad naked, torn apart with his innards falling around him. Of all the words Bernard Lewis used, only "brigand" seems to demand interest here. There is a pattern and it is a very ugly one". Getting into an edit war and locking up the whole article over a single word is... very mature indeed. Write the new section here, and if it is agreeable to all, then go ahead and modify. Thank you. Unflavoured 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a problem with accurate descriptions from a reliable source, I don't. That's about it. Arrow740 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a problem staying NPOV.Unflavoured 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"To stay" is almost always an intransitive verb in English. More to the point, if you have a problem with this accurate description from a reliable source, state it explicitly. Arrow740 01:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point = moot. We can easily bring reliable sources that are much more biased, either for or against Muhammad's actions, if we look for them. Let us say Lewis is reliable. He calls Muhammad a brigand. Do we call him a brigand too? No. If you wanna state: "Lewis calls Muhammad a brigand" go ahead. Now i collected all the edits right below, and will combine them all, hopefully to the satisfaction of all. And I will remain NPOV. You can help and improve the article, or you can argue and argue and copy/paste argue. I suggest you help me out and together we get can get some work done. Read below. Thank you. Unflavoured 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you have a problem with this accurate description from a reliable source, state it explicitly. Arrow740 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the (counts) 4th time, its POV. Unflavoured 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indicate why you don't think it's an accurate description. It is. Arrow740 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Section before arrows edits:

Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara). Meccans confiscated all the property that the Muslims had left in Mecca. In Medina, Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes. Mecca declared its hostility and status of war with the Muslims.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a

Muslim historians put the exact total at 313) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died.^[1]

This marked the real beginning of Muslim military battles.

Muhammad and the Muslims who had immigrated from Mecca were economically uprooted, and became brigands. They began attacking Meccan caravans.[2]

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a

Muslim historians put the exact total at 313) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died.^[3] The raiders won much booty, and the battle helped to stabilize the Medinan community.^[4]

After unflavoured edits:

Relations between Mecca and Medina rapidly worsened (see surat al-Baqara), as Muhammad and the Muslims who had immigrated from Mecca were economically uprooted.^[5] In Medina, Muhammad signed treaties of alliance and mutual help with neighboring tribes. Mecca declared its hostility and status of war with the Muslims.
In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a

Muslim historians put the exact total at 313) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died.^[6] The Muslim forces won much booty, and the battle helped to stabilize the Medinan community.^[7]

Aminz edit:

According to Bernard Lewis, the immigrats from Mecca were economically uprooted. They did not want to be wholly dependent on the Medinian. Being in a state of war of with Mecca, they turned into the only remaining profession: taking up arms. Being viewed as a natural and legitimate act of war, they raided the Meccan caravans for two purposes, Lewis says: Putting pressure on the Mecca by blocking the trade roots, and acquiring power, prestigue and wealth.[8]

Could someone please help by putting the above within quote boxes ?!Did it myself. Thank you. Unflavoured 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting all this for us, Unflavoured.

How about this change:

Current: "Muhammad and the Muslims who had immigrated from Mecca were economically uprooted, and became brigands. They began attacking Meccan caravans."

Proposed: "Economically uprooted, Muhammad and the Muslim immigrants began raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood."

Shorter and simpler, I feel this captures the intent of Lewis' passage(s) in a less judgmental manner.Proabivouac 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My version follows Lewis's quote from the revised edition closely. --Aminz 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The problems stem from the fact that anything that doesn't glorify Muhammad leads to edit wars. If we had to establish consensus on every point to be added before adding it, then anything that doesn't purport Muhammad to be the epitome of perfection would be squashed. As it is this article is not neutral; it almost completely glorifies Muhammad. If you have a legitimate gripe about content, then it can be addressed at that point, but editors should not require pre-authorization from Islamic clerics before improving upon the article. Talmage 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting comments indeed! Glorify Muhammad?? Those pictures demonize him. --Aminz 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not feed the... I mean, do not engage in fruitless arguments. Thank you Unflavoured 02:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is both condescending and arrogant to assert that anyone who doesn't support your Islamic views is a troll. Talmage 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet you call Muhammad a thief, and hint that he was going to war for fun. I suppose that is considered productive debate? You post inflammatory remarks, while I am trying to reach consensus which satisfies all sides. And I did not assert anything. AND my remark was to Aminz. Unflavoured 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To proabivouac: Ok, but that is not 100% true either. The immigrants had turned to both trade and agriculture for the livelihood, and the raid on Abu Sufyan's caravan was more to get back some of the valuables that were plundered from their homes in Mecca. Not that the caravan was carrying the actual possessions of the Muhajiroon, but you get what I am saying. A longer, more fleshed out explanation, and Lewis' words within a quote box would be best. Yes? Unflavoured 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course full quote would be perfect. --Aminz 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured Proabivouac, I absolutely oppose your proposed revision. You then purport to know that Muhammad and his posse attacked the caravans for their livelihoods which absolutely introduces more spin in the article. How can you be certain they didn't do it for fun, or to enrich themselves? The current statement is more neutral. This just reinforces my earlier point and your proposal attempts to add Islamic bias. Edit: I struck the last remark because I'm not sure it was an intentional attempt to introduce bias, but I do believe it unnecessarily softens Muhammad. He was a warrior, and in this case a thief, and there is no need to hide that fact. Talmage 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about discussing this point, I will discuss it. If you are going to say things like: "How can you be certain they didn't do it for fun, or to enrich themselves?" I wont. I do not wish to be offensive, but sometimes you seem to be just... trolling. Unflavoured 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing trollish about his comments.Proabivouac 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis' observation that the immigrants were economically uprooted admits no other significance. Lewis does not assert that they did not enjoy this work, nor should we. And there is nothing unusual about seeking to enrich oneself as a means of livelihood.Proabivouac 02:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured, what proof do you have for Muhammad's motivations in robbing the caravans? If none exists, then it is pure supposition and should not be included. I've seen your troll claims before and I am not impressed. It is very possible for reasonable people to not believe Muhammad was anyone to glorify. However, I have not introduced that into the article page itself. Merely reporting or displaying actual notable criticism does not constitute bias either, it merely balances the article. Talmage 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I do not believe it was done for fun. I'm merely asking the question: How do you really know what his true motivations were? Since we don't, it's best not to speculate in the article page itself. ّّّّTalmage 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To me the phrase "support their livelihoods" tends to mean the same as "take only what you eat from the buffet." Their livelihoods may have already been sustained, and the rest was gravy. Maybe not. We don't know so it's best not to speculate in the article itself. Talmage 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd only meant to say it was their new profession, as did Lewis.Proabivouac 02:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You may want to refer to Battle_of_Badr before going any further. THAT article is shows both the Muslim view and the Meccan view regarding this incident and the ones before it. Unflavoured 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems a prett fair summary, though of course we can't go into that much detail here.Proabivouac 02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It might sound a little more awkward, but I think this wording has more neutral connotation: "Economically uprooted, Muhammad and the Muslim immigrants began supporting themselves by raiding Meccan caravans." I just think "for their livelihood" might potentially imply that they only took what they needed in order to live. I know it's a minor semantical difference, but when I first read your statement, that's what I assumed. Talmage 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine.Proabivouac 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can live with that. A comment to the Muslims on this page; you say that they were just getting back at "the Meccans" by raiding caravans. However, it is unlikely that the people riding the camels with their goods to sell were the actual people who had objected to Muhammad's activities in Mecca. Thus, your justification that it was retaliation falls flat on its face. Similarly, you say that the Banu Qurayza were "traitors" and deserved their fate. However, it was only a small number of men from that tribe who actually made the decisions that it was in their best interests to oppose Muhammad; everyone else was not directly responsible, but all were punished with death or enslavement (sex slavery for the women). Please keep in mind that a label doesn't really mean anything; we're talking about human beings. I'm sorry to post on this, but it becomes frustrating to read these things in edit summaries and on talk pages every day. Arrow740 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes you a troll too. Welcome to the club. Talmage 04:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My (IMHO) slightly more constructive efforts are riiiiiight below. Or, we can exchange accusations. The child in me would be delighted at the prospect (and I'd win too, IMVVHO) but I think mebbe we should let this pass. What do you think? Unflavoured 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Economically uprooted, Muhammad and the Muslim immigrants began raiding Meccan caravan trade routes, which passed close to Medina. The Muslims and Meccans fought several small skirmishes in late 623 and early 624, as the Muslim

Copy/pasted. Or is it too much ?! Unflavoured 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, we ought to merge that with the old section somehow. Unflavoured 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I deleted your comment Proabivouac. Please put it back. I am working on this slowly Unflavoured 02:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment please ?! Thank you. If there is something I missed then please do tell. Ofcourse, someone needs to add Lewis in quotes.Unflavoured 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is much better. It has my vote. Ezag 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Much improved. BYT 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason we haven't responded is that we've already made our opinion about this kind of presentation clear with edits. Arrow740 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"We"? Is there a cabal you'd like to identify yourself with explicitly here? Or are you just doing a Queen Victoria imitation? As in "We are not amused"? Use the talk page to discuss proposed edits, please. BYT 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was being presumptuous. I think that I and those who have supported my recent edits have made ourselves clear, but I could be wrong about their views. Arrow740 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What edit are you proposing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured's above, to replace the present POV-drenched (e.g., "brigand," "accused of falsifying their scriptures," "Islam began to change") passage currently entitled Beginnings of Conflict. BYT 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that Hourani's book (which really is the definitive book on Arab history) contains much less detail and much more context about the above events. It must always be remembered that the only sources for the history are the traditional Islamic histories, and they were written after the events and perhaps to make particular points about society as it was then. They are definitely not written in a Western historical tradition, although they do constitute the first forerunners of the modern historical approach. I suspect that is why Hourani is careful not to treat all the detail as fact. He says (p.18) that "He [Muhammad] was soon drawn into an armed struggle with the Quraysh, perhaps for control of the trade-routes, and in the course of that struggle the nature of the community was shaped." He is stressing that Islam itself and the Islamic community was not fully formed at that stage, so it is not possible to see a direct clash between "Muslims" and "Jews" as they would be today. He links the consolidation of Islam as a separate religion (prayer to Mecca rather than to Jerusalem, new emphasis on the spiritual descent from Abraham) to a change in the relationship with Quraysh and Mecca, a relationship which had distinctly improved by 629. Itsmejudith 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"...they do constitute the first forerunners of the modern historical approach." Did you ever hear of Thucydides, Josephus, or Tacitus? Actually, biographies of Muhammad, being largely collections of stories, have little to do with the scientific approach to history, as opposed to later works by Muslim historians, which are much more in line with the historiographic tradition of the antiquity. Beit Or 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is at least good enough to go in and be edited in place. It's shorter, and more focused on Muhammad himself. At that I would cut some detail - 'forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom' - which might go better in the account of the battle. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed that bit. If someone can get lewis's quote, I will replace the material once the page is unlocked. Unflavoured 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no justification for the euphemistic changes from the current version and will not support them. Arrow740 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, as I mentioned above, there is no objection to adding the FULL quote from lewis. But I do not think we ought to state his view as fact: Muhammad was a brigand, or in Talmage's view, a thief. You have yet to provide the full quote. Append it to the above. Thank you. Unflavoured 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the full quotes I am citing. The entire paragraph is too long to quote. He basically says that brigandage was a legitimate occupation at that time and place. There's also the "double purpose" of blockading a city he wanted to conquer and increasing the power, wealth, and prestige of the Muslims in Medina. Arrow740 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Scan it, upload it, and I will write it out myself, if it is too long for you to type. Thank you. Unflavoured 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm telling you it's too long to quote in the article. If you just want to read it I'll type it out. Arrow740 04:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a version that will include both views, so that another edit-war can be avoided. The article currently does not have a single quotation from anywhere. Quote Lewis, yes in full, and that should end the debate. Unflavoured 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured, it is in most instances bad practice to quote sources in full.Proabivouac 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've compared the two versions sentence by sentence, and they're not that different, just minor POV phrases here and there and a few points covered in the one and not the other. There doesn't appear to be any debate about the facts.Proabivouac 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about retrospectively applying today's standards of morality to historical figures. George Washington owned slaves and distilled whiskey. That does not mean he was then what such a man would be today, and it does not let us say he was a slave-driving drug dealer. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. The trouble everyone has been focusing on is just a loaded word which is easy to avoid without losing information.Proabivouac 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had no trouble with the old version, but then that is only me. By a full quote, I dont mean three full pages, just the paragraph, and maybe the preceding paragraph also. How much would it be? 6 lines? 10 lines? The article has no quotes at the moment, so let's add Lewis's. I am not saying I want to do that, but in order to maintain NPOV, and offer a different, more critical view of the event. 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of lines from arrow's edit, btw. Unflavoured 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Article has stopped cold; as far as I can make out, Unflavoured is the only one who has actually proposed, to this talk page, the text of a workable version of the passage in question. It doesn't satisfy everyone's objectives (for instance, one might point out the Qur'an's beauty and spiritual relevance were important factors in the gathering coalition, or that the Qur'an itself had predicted that vast numbers of people would join the tiny Muslim forces.) But the Mick Jagger principle comes into play for all of us. You can't always get what you want.

Unflavoured's is a responsible rewrite that observes WP:NPOV, which is what this page is all about. Suppose we include it in the text, delete the current version, and unfreeze the article? BYT 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not describe the Qur'an as having "beauty and spiritual relevance," such repugnant characterizations distract us from writing an encyclopedia. Arrow740 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the proposed language is clearly inferior to the current version. For example:

"Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraishi caravan in March, 624 AD."

against the current:

"In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan."

And what on earth do we mean by, "...and it marked the real beginning of Muslim military battles?"

I suppose it is only natural that such considerations are completely lost upon those who view everything through the lens of an ongoing POV war.Proabivouac 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, I changed that text long ago. Read it now. I also added several points from arrow's edit as well. Unflavoured 01:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't change the second. Please note when you alter the text to which people are responding, lest their comments lose their context. Now we have this:

The conflict with the Meccans escalated sharply after the Battle of Badr, which started when Muhammad lead a raiding party against a Quraishi caravan in March, 624 AD

Again the prose is markedly inferior to the clear and informative prose you would replace:

In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan.

First, Muhammad led a raiding party, not lead it. What's wrong with stating the number of warriors? Why should we say what happened after the battle (conflict with Meccans escalated) before we describe the battle? Worst of all, why are we describing the initiation of the raid in a relative clause? I am honestly baffled by what you are trying to achieve here.Proabivouac 01:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand what you mean. Ok, I already said in my edit summary that I will edit this section slowly, and I even set it apart by a couple of line break. Also note, that I have followed through with every suggestion made so far. I asked you to comment, and to point out mistake/changes to be made.

I have no problem with stating the number of warriors. I think if you read the paragraph, you will find BOTH the number of Meccans and Muslims is already there. Any suggestion to change the wording is welcome. You pointed out a spelling error, and I will correct it. Thank you. Unflavoured 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, we are still trying to achieve concensus to avoid further edit-warring. I find the proposal to remove Lewis' word "brigandage" presented at the top of the previous section to be acceptable. Is anything else necessary? Arrow740 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other things necessary.

"The victory also made possible a reaction against the Jews and Christians,": Name some christians.

" who were accused of falsifying their scriptures in order to conceal prophecies about Muhammad.": Accused by who? where? was this after Badr, or after another battle?

" Islam began to change; the new religion became more strictly Arab, and the conquest of Mecca became a religious duty.": the new religion's leader would go on to send emissaries to the furthest known lands, to call them to submit to Islam. Not exactly strictly arab, but then I won't say that Lewis's POV is wrong; it is just his POV.

So you see, Lewis may be your source, but Lewis also may be wrong mistaken. Quote Lewis, that is fine. The reader can tell that it is a quote. To state Lewis' view as fact is unacceptable. Unflavoured 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually he is not stating points of view, but facts. The details you have asked for are not appropriate in an article of this length. Readers can look at subarticles or get a full-length biography of Muhammad for all the details. Arrow740 04:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually actually, if he wrote that statement on WP, it would be dismissed as both POV and OR. You want to know the difference between a fact and a POV?

Fact: Muhammad and his followers left Makkah for Medinah

POV: Muhammad was dismayed at the abysmal success he managed to achieve in Makkah, and decided he had a better chance to seize power in Medina, whose people were more gullible than the politically experienced Makkans.

POV: Unjustly prosecuted, and tortured and tormented beyond human endurance, the struggling founder of the new religion was forced to leave his beloved Makkah, leaving behind his property and belongings. His followers, suffering from years of barbaric and unimaginable torture, had already left before him. The people of Medina held a great festival in celebration of what must have been the greatest honour for them: welcoming and sheltering the new Prophet of Islam. Unflavoured 06:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unflavoured, what does any of this have to do with what Arrow740 is saying? Both of you, this whole "problem" can be solved by prefacing these claims with, "According to Lewis, ..." As the most prestigious scholar in this field, we can be proud we're using him.Proabivouac 06:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cause following the above example: Fact: They had battle. POV: because Muhammad was a marauding thief. Unflavoured 07:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That is also a fact. Arrow740 07:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

is it ok to use other wikipedia articles as a source? I found over 15 'citations needed', though there are articles on each event. Unflavoured 03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No we cannot cite wikipedia own articles, except in special cases like Essjay controversy. I suggest to find sources from those articles and use here. --- A. L. M. 10:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious problem with middle years section "bn Ishaq records that Khadijah bore Muhammad six children: three sons named Al Qasem, Abdullah (who is also called Al Tayeb and Al Taher) and Ibrahim, and four daughters." Thats seven not six. I don't know what the correct figure is so i don't want to edit it myself ClimberDave 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ibrahim was by another wife. Unflavoured 12:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

{{help me}} Most of the attacks are by IP. Unflavoured 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please go to

WP:RFPP to request protection of the page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹

13:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Submitted request. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't a IPA translation of the Arabic pronunciation of Muhammad be added in the intro to aid readers? I would add it, but I don't know Arabic, much less classical Arabic. Jayran 03:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)