Talk:Muhammad

European and Western views

Propose to change this to Orientalist views. Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

why? Was Martin Luther an orientalist? Or would you want to exclude western views of Muhammad other than within Orientalism from the section? --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is definitely an orientalist (the Edward Said explanation of an Orientalist that is), this needs to be made clear to the audience, as it would provide a link to Orientalism, thus maintaining a neutral point of view. And I don't understand why your so defensive dab, chill out, its a talk page. Interestedinfairness (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

you should compare the content of Orientalism with the content of Oriental studies. An "Orientalist" is an acedemic specializing in Oriental studies. Orientalism was a 19th century art style. I am not sure what it is you wish to make "clear to the audience", but if you fail to distinguish between Orientalism and Oriental studies, it is unlikely to be helpful. Dante was neither into Orientalism nor into Oriental studies. "European and Western views" is the adequate section title to encompass all Western reception of Muhammad, including Dante, Luther and Orientalism as well as Oriental studies. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

New FAQ entry

Every so often, someone comes along and posts a statement or question alleging pedophelia, presumably due to Muhammad's consummation of marriage to Aisha. The post is almost always considered disruptive and is summarily deleted per WP:DENY. However, it has happened frequently enough, sometimes from editors querying in good faith, that I think it's time for a new entry in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. I propose the following:

Q. Why doesn't the article say Muhammad was a pedophile? He married an under-age girl.

A: This has been actively discussed on this talk page. It is true that Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. However, in keeping with the Neutral Point of View policy, Wikipedia articles must not impose modern western cultural values on articles having an ancient non-western cultural context. Bear in mind that even as recently as 1890, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent for young girls included pre-teenagers (see, for example, the 1891 Age of Consent Act). In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is best not dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.

How does that look? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to se the point in having faq entries that clarify points of encyclopedic content. Anyone interested in the question should be told to go and read Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha, that is, a valid article namespace entry, not a faq. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The FAQ was created for questions about pictures and censorship thereof, not for questions about Muhammad's life. Frotz (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I proposed this because:

• The FAQ is a subpage of Talk:Muhammad, not Talk:Muhammad/images.
• Only the first four of the eight questions in the FAQ deal with images. The rest clarify points of content (such as usage of the honorific "pbuh").
• The question about pedophilia frequently comes up. And FAQ does mean frequently asked questions.

My proposed entry to the FAQ already addresses Dbachmann's concerns. A reader may not know Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha even exists.

I plan to boldly put this entry in the FAQ. I started this conversation to solicit suggestions for wording this new entry. I ask again: do the words I propose address the question adequately? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be included on the grounds you've discussed, just bare in mind it won't make a blind bit of difference because people that are hell-bent on re-posting the same questions are the ones too stupid/stubborn to read the FAQ. However, anything that has the potential to prevent re-posting is a good thing and ultimately anyone that posts an objection to it's conclusion isn't going to have their life adversely affected by it. RaseaC (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed FAQ entry seems to be based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies. Contrary to what Amatulić seems to assume, WP:NPOV does not forbid the mentioning of opinions based on "modern western cultural values" in an article such as that about Muhammad (on the contrary, there is a whole section containing such views). And the reference to an arcane 19th century law in a different part of the world is a non sequitur.

There might be other, more valid reasons not to mention that particular controversy in the main article about Muhammad (WP:UNDUE comes to mind, I assume the previous discussions examined the relevance of that controversy in this respect). But contrary to RaseaC I think that a FAQ entry which misrepresents the reasons which have led to a current consensus does more harm than good, even if it successfully prevents "re-posting".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid counter-argument. Keep in mind that WP:NPOV doesn't explicitly forbid a lot of things. However, the question that gets asked here is most often in the context of why the article doesn't mention Muhammad's pedophelia. That question contains an implicit assumption that he was a pedophile, and this is unmistakably a non-neutral point of view that WP:NPOV would forbid. I am not "seeming to assume" anything about the policy other than what it says.

In any case, the response to the proposed FAQ entry can serve just as well without the sentence about WP:NPOV. The answer I proposed doesn't misrepresent the reasons we don't mention pedophilia here. The reason is that the whole concept of pedophilia is irrelevant. It wasn't considered pedophilia in Muhammad's time, and would almost pass muster in several countries even in these modern times, if you look at the world map in the age of consent article. Therefore there is no reason to mention it. That is the key point, I think, that the questioners who post here fail to understand.

Here's a revision:

Q. Why doesn't the article say Muhammad was a pedophile? He married an under-age girl.

A: This has been actively discussed on this talk page. It is true that Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period, therefore there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is 9 years old. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is best not dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.

Basically, I'd like to be able to respond to such questions with "Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ". That's why I'm soliciting feedback on how a thoughtful response should be worded. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I think that would be a useful addition to the FAQ, seeing how often the bloody thing keeps coming up. RavShimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Young

It isn't appropriate to describe Aisha as merely "young" as this leaves her age open to broad intepretation. One POV pushing editor has insisted on removing all age references even though they are supported by the majority of the academic community and sourced accordingly. In an effort to compromise, I have substituted "pre-menarcheal" for "young" as it is more accurate. Aisha's pre-menarcheal status at marriage is significant historically regardless of western sensibilities because Islamic scholars have argued that this state and her presumed virginity at the time of marriage (the only one of Muhammad's wives) serves to indicate her favored status and gives her opinions more credibility when it comes to the debates over Muhammad's succession. Indeed, it is possible that the opposing editor does so because his particular faith runs in opposition to Aisha's favored status. Regardless, Aisha's age at marriage is indisputably a matter of historical importance, one which had a great impact and the subsequent schism and should therefore be included up front in this article. Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this debate come up on and off for years since I was involved in the "depiction" debates. My personal take is we should be as clear about her age as the sources, and if the sources contradict then effort should be taken to represent all significant and reliable sources. Our stated goal is to be neutral after all. Chillum 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Young" is more neutral than "pre-menarcheal". We should attach a footnote explaining contradiction with sources. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The only "POV pushing" here seems to be coming from your direction, Rklawton. This topic has been done to death in the past; so much so that it is covered by Question #9 of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The controversy, such as it is, regarding Aisha's age is covered appropriately at Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. Trying to shoehorn it into an article about Muhammad itself is just a rather transparent piling on of criticism. Not appropriate for a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth *is* neutral, and the majority of academics agree regarding Aisha's age range and all agree on her pre-menarcheal status. I'm not proposing we mention this in the context of pedophilia. It should be mentioned because it's historically relevant because it has a direct impact on the succession arguments/wars following Muhammad's death - conflicts in which Aisha exerted influence and where her status as "special" was derived directly from her age at marriage. We're are seeing these conflicts carried out even today between the Sunnis (who took one side) and Shias (who took the other side). And frankly, Muslims should be banned from participating in this decision process specifically because they have an inherent conflict of interest. Rklawton (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, that last sentence was bs. Should Christians be banned from discussions on Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Should Jews be banned from discussions on self-hatred and antisemitism? Nableezy (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, the truth isn't neutral in the slightest, not in this case. Consensus on this topic was reached after much discussion, to the point that it was added to the FAQ, right alongside the warning that the images cannot be removed. consensus can change of course, and if you think you have a case, then by all means work on garnering support here, rather than edit-warring.

However, your suggestion that Muslims cannot participate in this discussion is, frankly, quite offensive and rather bigoted. Suggesting that sort of thing would be like calling for Jews to be banned from discussing issues of Israeli apartheid. It would be in your best interests to strike out that line from your response. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Rklawton's last sentence was out of line. A conflict of interest is not a reason to ban someone from editing. We are all like journalists here, and a good journalist knows how to detach from personal feelings and write in an ubiased way. We all need to assume good faith and realize that. Even so, I also agree that this article has had its share of Muslims who would like to see the article bent toward their viewpoint.

The question here boils down to: how should this biography of Muhammad present the age of a notable wife? Weasel words like "young" don't mean much. Uncommon terms like "pre-menarche" are highly noticeable and make it seem like the article is trying to emphasize the point. Other terms like "single digit age" don't work well either. If the sources disagree on the actual age of marriage and/or consummation, but are all within a range, why not just present that range? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the topic of age is beyond the scope of this article and should be and has been handled in other articles. I don't mind a range of ages being mentioned, but if the ranges are given then it should be explained why there is such a range; some Sunni scholars favor an early age, other Sunni and Shi'a scholars favor a later age, and I've also seen some Shi'a scholars believing in an early age. To state there is any sort of consensus on her age is silly. In the end you'll have a sentence that goes something like, "Ayesha whom he married at six or seven, but most Shi'a scholars and some Sunni scholars state sixteen," and so forth, breaking the flow of what should essentially be a concise section. Part of the issue is that on articles of Islam it becomes important to differentiate which group is saying what, you wouldn't be able to sum it down to, "Ayesha whom he married at six or seven though some scholars state sixteen," and still be fair to the reader. Such a discussion breaks the flow of this article, though is certainly WP:notable for other aspects of Wikipedia.

Also, I'm interested in regards to sources to which historians attribute the schism partially to Ayesha's age; I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it'd be certainly interesting how we can incorporate it into other articles dealing with this topic. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit as well. I'm afraid that the distinction comes that Shi'a Islam as a body of 200 million believers and a fourteen hundred year scholastic heritage satisfies WP:notable and believers in the moon hoax do not. The idea that the "majority" of sources allows us to stipulate one age for Ayesha is silly, considering most of those sources come from a single religious movement and academic tradition. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As Faizhaider noted above, any awkwardness that might be introduced in the flow of text can be fixed by handling the explanation in a footnote. To use your example: "Aisha whom he married at approximately age seven(footnote: most sources put the range at six or seven although some scholars state sixteen.)" ~Amatulić (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That works, though I dislike defaulting to one opinion on a view that has significant differentiation along polemical lines, even if it intrinsically isn't of polemical value. And as stated before, I don't think it does justice to simply state the multitude of opinions, but it should be stated which group holds which opinion. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The references after the disputed sentence say that Aisha was 6 or 7 when Muhammad married her. Why are the Muslims so upset and why are they trying to replace Aisha's age with "young"? Can someone explain this please? --Lanternix (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there was an issue a long time ago where some editors with less than WP:good faith were pushing the issue of ages in a shock jock fashion taking advantage of a fourteen hundred year cultural dichotomy. I am not going to take issue with mentioning ages themselves, the issue is the ages are disputed and the 6 or 7 years of age is one that is supported by Sunni tradition more so than Shi'a tradition, a difference of opinion that is hardly new. Either way, the silly reverting needs to stop until we know what exactly we're going to do. And as always, sources can be replaced with more accurate ones giving better breadth to the issue. Oh, and ha, writing and previewing this was literally déjà vu. Déjà vu on Wikipedia, sheesh! --Afghana ^[talk] 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• All Scientologists were banned from editing because they kept whitewashing related articles, so yes, we do ban groups from editing when they can not edit without bias, and my suggestion that Muslims recuse themselves if they can't edit without bias is appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The FAQ which these same editors cite as evidence of this issue's prior resolution does not, when followed, indicate any such resolution. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The question "Why are Muslims so upset?" is an excellent one and has nothing to do with western views of pedophilia (appropriately covered in a different article). The answer is this - Aisha took sides in the succession debates following Muhammad's death. The "winning" side claims special status for her as Muhammad's only virgin bride - and they support the 6/7 year old age. They also presently outnumber the "losing" side 4 to 1 in terms of global population. The "losing" side claims she was older which diminishes Aisha's "specialness" and therefore her position on Muhammad's succession. It is this detail which helped contribute to the 1400 year-old schism between Shias and Sunnis. It is for this reason that both sides should be presented, and it is for this reason that these details are highly relevant for inclusion in Muhammad's article. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion was that Muslims cannot edit without bias, not that they should recuse themselves if they cant. And we did not ban all Scientologists, we banned anybody editing from a Church of Scientology IP address, not individual Scientologists editing on their own. Nableezy (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First...Er, no, Scientologists were not banned from editing Scientology-related articles; users from IPs owned by the Church of Scientology were banned from editing Scientology-related articles. That is a subtle but crucial difference, and it does not support the suggestion that certain groups are prohibited from articles on the basis of religious belief. Please do not twist reality to suit your point-of-view, rklawton.

Second, its presence in the FAQ is the result of consensus, that is all the indication you need. FAQs such as this are frequently found in controversial, high-traffic articles, they are present to help address certain points when they are brought up again and again and again. Whether it is to defend the images of Muhammad against extremists who want them deleted, or to defend the Aisha and other issues against other extremists who want to portray Muhammad in as bad a light possible, the entries i nthe FAQ represent issues that are, for all intents and purposes, settled. And if you'd care to know, I have argued just as vigorously against image deletionists as I am arguing against you now.

Third, as we have seen in the past when editors try to push this very change in the article, it is for not other reason than to get their criticisms in, the same ol "Muhammad is a pedophile!" debate. A biographical article is not the appropriate venue for you and others to air your gripes and complaints. As it has been pointed out many times, Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha sufficiently covers the pedo vs. not-pedo debate. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Muhammad has sex with a 9-year-old girl is essential for this aticle, and it would be censorship to keep it out. ðarkuncoll 01:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and have failed to comprehend a single thing I said. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I have heard all the special pleading, but the fact remains that Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old girl - or did he? ðarkuncoll 01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he had sex with a young girl, who depending on which source you want to go from, was anywhere from nine (mainly Sunni) to sixteen (mainly Shi'a) years of age. The issue is how do we present the differences of opinion, and if the age should be delved into this article when there are many other articles that go into it.

Second, the issue of Ayesha's age is hardly a defining factor in the Sunni and Shi'a schism. If you can provide sources saying it is truly important in light of Muhammad's life, go ahead. I don't doubt this issue, like almost all issues, is drenched in polemical fire, however if you really want to push the mentioning of ages, bring some sources showing her age satisfies WP:notable in regards to the Sunni-Shi'a schism. Even then, does it belong in the article on Muhammad or another article dealing with the schism? --Afghana ^[talk] 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl has no interest in the Sunni-Shi'a aspects of this, it is a red herring. Past discussions...most recently Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Aisha's age, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?...show a rather clear motivation to push the "OMG peodophile!" angle. Agenda-driven editing is beyond disruptive. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Tarc, TharkunColl has little interest here but to create controversy, and get a bit of WP:ILIKEIT, into the article. Does he know anything about the history of 1,500 years ago, or is it a one issue 'push'? Trying to compare things of 1,500 years ago with today is like comparing chalk and cheese. The article has to be worded carefully so as not to project present day norms onto past norms. I'm amazed he is not banned from this article yet, imo. Tfz 14:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is about arguments on succession and the division with Sunni/Shia, then place it in the proper context. Here it is used to serve only one purpose. I dont object to including the age, but if it is about the topic raised by Rklawton make that clear. Nableezy (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Atrocities

The article does not mention with a single word any of the atrocities conducted either by Mohammad or his men. With other historical figures, Wiki does not auto-censur. It is essential for an encyclopedic account of Mohammed, to depict the suffering he brought upon his contemporaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the article Criticism of Muhammad yet? Tarc (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd to refer to that article. That article contains subjective criticism of Mohammad by others. This is a biographic account (or pretends to be one) that eludes atrocities or Mohammad. It is essential for Mohammad's biography to include his conduct in robbery and warfare, and consider persons who were murdered upon Mohammad's order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs)

It is absurd to refer criticisms to an article about...criticisms? Tarc (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should also have a general overview of criticisms of Muhammad in this article - such as his violence and paedophilia - since not to do so would be censorship. ðarkuncoll 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be added here if there is a separate article about the criticisms? Jarkeld (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I adhere to the Wikipedia school of thought that opposing views, criticism, and praise should be woven into the text of the article rather than given specific sections. I think we still have a ways to go on this article where all those things will be in the article, including but not limited to accusations of pedophilia, violence, and so forth. --Afghana ^[talk] 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there can be a seperate page, but on the main page at least some mention of criticisms should be made. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ question #9. This is a biography article. The job of such an article is to present historical facts about the subject, not to analyze the subject through the eyes of critics. At most, this article could have a single reference to criticism with a pointer to the Criticism of Muhammad article, but no more. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody talks of analyzing what Mohammad did. What is needed for a biographic account is merely the clinical statement of what he did, according to canonical sources. It is nothing more than censure to say that on Mt. Hira the following happened, but than to omit what happened to the Abu Quraiza or the Uraina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts, please, using four tildes (~~~~). "Nobody talks of analyzing what Mohammad did"? Your very own statement above refers to "atrocities", his "conduct", and "murder". If that isn't "analyzing" (subjective, too), I don't know what is. Discussions of atrocities, conduct, and murder are completely irrelevant to a biography. All of that is relevant to a separate article about criticism. It is enough to say in this article that Muhammad's actions are a source of controversy and refer to the criticism article for more information.

That said, if there are historically significant events that have been omitted from this article, they should be described neutrally. I suggest you propose some text on this talk page that we can start with, for later incorporation into the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about? Have you read anything in wiki so far? I advise you to read the Stalin article, as an example. I also advice you to get a dictionary and look up the word analyzing. An atrocity and a murder are observations, a matter of fact. Further, it is beyond absurdity to state that murders etc. are "completely irrelevant" to a biography. It is plain arbitrary to block certain parts of a biography without justification. Feindfahrt (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have indefinitely (not infinitely) fully-protected this page. Please discuss the issue and reach consensus, don't just keep reverting. Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad's Picture

Why do you have pictures of facsimiles of Prophet Muhammad when no one knows what he looks like because it is forbidden to picture him or show any image of him to avoid persons from worshipping him- for he is just a human being, not G'D! So, to put images of him in your article is really blasphemous and should be removed. Otherwise, your actions are looked upon as being very unrespectful of the religion of Islam.

The purpose of Wikipedia, I thought, was to inform, not to make mockery of... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.134.65 (talk)

The Wikipedia's readers are better informed by displaying images of Muhammad, as they are historically relevant to the subject here.. Your arguments are without merit, and we do not censor material here. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A little harsh there? I realize these requests may get bothersome, but we should still be able to direct well-intentioned posters to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ with a minimum of criticism. Respecting the views of a majority of the members of a major religion is a meritorious argument, even if it is not the viewpoint that has won out at Wikipedia. In answer the original poster: Wikipedia attempts to adopt a balanced, secular style in the coverage of all historical figures and religions. The intent is that no single group should be given deference to control how content is portrayed. That applies equally to Muslims and Muhammad, Jews and Israel, Catholics and the Papacy, and many other contentious faith-based issues. This is discussed further in the FAQ page I linked above. Dragons flight (talk) 21:42, 25

June 2009 (UTC)

Reform

What is stated under the header of Reform is subjective and does not belong into a biography. Furthermore, the content insults common sense and is indecent. Islam codified and sanctioned slavery. How this institutionalization was a betterment in the case of slavery is not understandable. Also, it is argued that the situation of the poor was advanced. Again, subjective. Furthermore, Mohammad himself enslaved countless people. How is this conduct reconcilable with the distorted picture of someone who rejects hierarchy? This section should be rewritten or deleted.