Muhammad

: ''"Muhammad" is a common male name for Muslims. For other prominent people called Muhammad, see Muhammad (disambiguation)'' Muhammad (, also transliterated Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, and formerly Mahomet, following the Latin) was an Arab religious and political leader and the final prophet of Islam. Islam is considered by Muslims to have existed prior to Muhammad, in the same tradition as Judaism and Christianity. Non-Muslims consider him the founder of Islam. According to traditional Muslim biographers, he was born c. 570 in Mecca (Makkah) and died June 8, 632 in Medina (Madinah); both Mecca and Medina are cities in the Arabian Peninsula. Because of his success in spreading the final word of Islam and being successful both politically and on many other levels, Muhammad is considered to be one of the most influential people of all time. ==Summary== Muhammad is said to have been a merchant who travelled widely. Early Muslim sources report that in 611, at about the age of 40, while meditating in a cave near Mecca, he experienced a vision. Later, he described the experience to those close to him as a visit from the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to memorize and recite the verses later collected as the Qur'an. He eventually expanded his mission, publicly preaching a strict monotheism and predicting a Day of Judgement for sinners and idolatry — such as his tribesmen and neighbors in Mecca. He did not completely reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs; he only claimed to complete and perfect their teachings. He soon acquired both a following and the hatred of his neighbors. In 622 he was forced to Hijra and settle in ''Yathrib'' (now known as Medina) with his followers, where he was the leader of the first avowedly Muslim community. War between Mecca and Medina followed, in which Muhammad and his followers were eventually victorious. The military organization honed in this struggle was then set to conquering the other paganism tribes of Arabia. By the time of Muhammad's death, he had unified Arabia and launched a few expeditions to the north, towards Syria and Palestine (region). Under Muhammad's immediate caliph the Islamic empire expanded into Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran, Egypt, Maghreb, and Spain. Later conquests, commercial contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and missionary activity spread his faith over much of the globe. ==How do we know about Muhammad?== The sources available to us for information about Muhammad are the Qur'an, the sira biographies, and the hadith collections. While the Qur'an is not a biography of Muhammad, it does provide some information about his life. The earliest surviving biographies are the ''Life of the Apostle of God'', by Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), edited by Ibn Hisham (d. 833); and al-Waqidi's (d. 822) biography of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. The third source, the hadith collections, like the Qur'an, are not a biography ''per se''. They are stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his companions. Some skeptical scholars (Ignaz Goldziher, Schacht, John Wansbrough, Cook, Patricia Crone, Rippin, Berg, and others) have raised doubts about the reliability of these sources, especially the hadith collections. They argue that by the time the oral traditions were being collected, the Muslim community had fractured into rival sects and schools of thought. Each sect and school had its own sometimes conflicting traditions of what Muhammad and his companions had done and said. Traditions multiplied, and Muslim scholars made a strenuous effort to weed out what they felt were spurious stories. Traditionalists rely on their efforts; the skeptics feel that the question must be revisited, using modern methods. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike agree that there are many inauthentic traditions concerning the life of Muhammad in the hadith collections. (Indeed, ''most'' of these traditions are acknowledged by Muslim clerical authorities to be ''weak''; only a few hadith collections are considered ''sahih'', or reliable.) However, the historicity of the biographical material about Muhammad presented in the Summary above is not generally contested. Traditionalists, both Muslim and non-Muslim, paint a much more detailed picture of Muhammad's life, as described below. ==Muhammad's life according to Sira== ===Muhammad's genealogy=== According to tradition, Muhammad traced his genealogy back as far as Adnan, whom the northern Arabs believed to be their common ancestor. Adnan in turn is said to be a descendant of Ismaeel (Ishmael), son of Ibrahim (Abraham) though the exact genealogy is disputed. The Prophet's genealogy up to Adnan is as follows: Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Abd al-Muttalib (Shaiba) ibn Hashim (Amr) ibn Abd Manaf (al-Mughira) ibn Qusai (Zaid) ibn Kilab ibn Murra ibn Ka`b ibn Lu'ay ibn Ghalib ibn Fahr (Quraish) ibn Malik ibn an-Nadr (Qais) ibn Kinana ibn Khuzaimah ibn Mudrikah (Amir) ibn Ilyas ibn Mudar ibn Nizar ibn Ma`ad ibn Adnan. (ibn = "son of" in Arabic; alternate names of people with two names are given in brackets.) His nickname was Abul-Qasim, "father of Qasim", after his short-lived first son. ===Childhood=== Muhammad was born into a well-to-do family settled in the northern Arabian town of Mecca. Some calculate his birthdate as April 20, 570 (Shia muslims believe it to be April 26) , and some as 571; tradition places it in the Year of the Elephant. Muhammad's father, Abdullah, had died before he was born and the young boy was brought up by his paternal grandfather Abd al-Muttalib, of the tribe of Quraysh. Tradition says that as an infant, he was placed with a Bedouin wetnurse, Halima, as desert life was believed to be safer and healthier for children. At the age of six Muhammad lost his mother Amina, and at the age of eight his grandfather Abd al-Muttalib. Muhammad now came under care of his uncle Abu Talib, the new leader of the Hashim clan of the Quraysh tribe, the most powerful in Mecca. Mecca was a thriving commercial center, due in great part to a stone temple called the Kaaba that housed many different idols. Merchants from different tribes would visit Mecca during the pilgrimage season, when all inter-tribal warfare was forbidden and they could trade in safety. As a teenager Muhammad began accompanying his uncle on trading journeys to Syria. He thus became well-travelled and knowledgeable as to foreign ways. ===Middle years=== One of Muhammad's employers was Khadijah, a rich widow then 40 years old. The young 25-year old Muhammad so impressed Khadijah that she offered him marriage in the year 595. He became a wealthy man by this marriage. By Arab custom minors did not inherit, so Muhammad had received no inheritance from either his father or his grandfather. The ''sira'' records that Khadijah bore Muhammad five children, one son and four daughters. Some historians argue that some of the daughters were by her first husband, whereas others insist that all were her daughters by Muhammad. All five children were born before Muhammad started preaching about Islam. His son ''Qasim'' died at the age of two. Muhammad was nicknamed ''Abul Qasim,'' meaning the father of Qasim. The four daughters were ''Zainab bint Muhammad'', ''Ruqayyah bint Muhammad'', ''Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad'', and ''Fatima_Zahra''. {| border="0" align="right" style="margin:0 0 1em 1em; vertical-align: right;" !colspan="2" align="center"|Timeline of Muhammad |- |colspan="2" align="center"|Important dates and locations in the life of Muhammad |- |align="right">|''c''. 570 |Possible birth (April 20): Mecca |- |align="right">|570 |End of ancient South Arabian high culture |- |align="right">|570 |Unsuccessful Abyssinian attack on Mecca |- |align="right">|576 |Mother dies |- |align="right">|578 |Grandfather dies |- |align="right">|''c''. 583 |Takes trading journeys to Syria |- |align="right">|''c''. 595 |Meets and marries Khadijah |- |align="right">|610 |Reportedly "''Receives message''": Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 610 |Appears as Prophet of Islam: Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 613 |Begins public preaching: Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 614 |Begins to gather following: Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 615 |Emigration of Muslims to Abyssinia |- |align="right">|616 |Banu Hashim clan boycott begins |- |align="right">|''c''. 618 |Medinan Civil War: Medina |- |align="right">|619 |Banu Hashim clan boycott ends |- |align="right">|''c''. 620 |Converts tribes to Islam: Medina |- |align="right">|622 |Flees to Medina (Hijra_%28Islam%29) |- |align="right">|622 |Takes leadership of Medina (Yathrib) |- |align="right">|''c''. 622 |Preaches against Ka'aba pantheon: Mecca |- |align="right">|622 |Meccans attack Muhammad |- |align="right">|''c''. 622 |Confederation of Muslims and other clans |- |align="right">|''c''. 623 |Constitution of Medina |- |align="right">|624 |Battle of Badr Muslims defeat Meccans |- |align="right">|625 |Battle of Uhud Meccans defeat Muslims |- |align="right">|''c''. 625 |Expulsion of Banu Nadir Jewish tribe |- |align="right">|626 |Attacks Dumat al-Jandal: Syria |- |align="right">|''c''. 627 |Opponents' unsuccessful siege: Medina |- |align="right">|627 |Battle of the Trench |- |align="right">|627 |Destruction of the Jewish Banu Qurayza |- |align="right">|''c''. 627 |Bani Kalb subjugation: Dumat al-Jandal |- |align="right">|''c''. 627 |Unites Islam: Medina |- |align="right">|628 |Treaty of Hudaybiyya |- |align="right">|''c''. 628 |Gains access to Mecca shrine Kaba |- |align="right">|628 |Conquest of the Jewish oasis: Battle of Khaybar |- |align="right">|629 |First hajj pilgrimage |- |align="right">|629 |Attack on Byzantine empire fails: Battle of Mu'ta |- |align="right">|630 |Attacks and bloodlessly captures Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 630 |Battle of Hunayn |- |align="right">|''c''. 630 |Siege of al-Ta'if |- |align="right">|630 |Establishes theocracy: Mecca |- |align="right">|''c''. 631 |Subjugates Arabian peninsula tribes |- |align="right">|''c''. 632 |Attacks the Ghassanids: Tabuk |- |align="right">|632 |Farewell hajj pilgrimage |- |align="right">|632 |Dies (June 8): Medina |- |align="right">|''c''. 632 |Tribal rebellions throughout Arabia |- |align="right">|''c''. 632 |Abu Bakr (Caliph) reimposes theocracy |} ===Beginning of his prophetic career=== Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and routinely spent nights in a cave near Mecca in meditation and thought. Around the year 610, while meditating, Muhammad had a vision of the angel Gabriel and heard a voice saying to him in rough translation "Read in the name of your Lord the Creator. He created man from something which clings. Read and your Lord is the Most Honored. He taught man with the pen; taught him all that he knew not." (See surat ''Al-Alaq'' for a fuller account.) The first vision of Gabriel disturbed Muhammad, but his wife Khadijah reassured him that it was a true vision and became his first follower. She was soon followed by his ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib and his closest friend Abu Bakr. Until his death, Muhammad received frequent revelations, although there was a relatively long gap after the first revelation. This silence worried him, until he received surat ad-Dhuha, whose words provided comfort and reassurance. Around 613, Muhammad began preaching in public. Most of those who heard his message ignored it. A few mocked him. Some, however, believed and joined his small sahaba. ===Rejection=== As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city. Their wealth, after all, rested on the Ka'aba, a sacred house of idols. If they threw out their idols, as Muhammad preached, there would be no more pilgrims, no more trade, and no more wealth. Muhammad's own tribe, the ''Quraysh'', was the most incensed, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. Muhammad and his followers were persecuted. Some of them fled to Abyssinia and founded a small colony there. Several suras and parts of suras are said to date from this time, and reflect its circumstances: see eg al-Masadd, al-Humaza, parts of Maryam (sura) and al-Anbiya, al-Kafirun, and Abasa. It was during this period that the episode known as The Satanic Verses may have occurred. It is said that Muhammad was briefly tempted to relax his condemnation of Meccan polytheism and buy peace with his neighbors, but later recanted his words and repented (see the article on The Satanic Verses). The incident is reported in only a few sources, and Muslims disagree as to its authenticity. In 619, both Muhammad's wife Khadijah and his uncle Abu Talib died; it was known as ''"the year of mourning."'' Muhammad's own clan withdrew their protection of him. Muslims patiently endured hunger and persecution. It was a bleak time. About 620, he announced that he had gone on a heavenly journey - the Isra and Miraj - further alienating his enemies. ===Hijra=== In 622, facing renewed persecution and death threats, Muhammad and his Meccan followers left Mecca for Medina, where he had gained many converts. By breaking the link with his own tribe Muhammad demonstrated that tribal and family loyalties were insignificant compared to the bonds of Islam, a revolutionary idea in the tribal society of Arabia. This ''Hijra (Islam)'' or emigration (traditionally translated into English as "flight") marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar. The Muslim calendar counts dates from the Hijra, which is why Muslim dates have the suffix AH (After Hijra). People in Medina hoped that Muhammad would unite their faction-ridden city. Muhammad is said to have drafted a document now known as the Constitution of Medina (''circa'' 622-623, possibly the earliest surviving written constitution), which laid out the terms on which the different factions could co-exist. This early tradition of toleration was one reason for the stability of the later Muslim empire. ===War=== 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. In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a [http://www.geocities.com/sunrisinginwest/caravans.html raid] on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Battle of Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered 800 to 300 in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least 45 Meccans and taking 70 prisoners for ransom; only 14 Muslims died. ===Muhammad's rule consolidated=== To the Muslims, the victory in Badr appeared as a divine vindication of Muhammad's prophethood, and he and all the Muslims rejoiced greatly. Following this victory, after minor skirmishes, the victors expelled a local Jewish clan, the Banu Qainuqa. Virtually all the remaining Medinans converted and Muhammad became ''de facto'' ruler of the city. After Khadija's death, Muhammad had married again, to Aisha daughter of his friend Abu Bakr (who would later emerge as the first leader of the Muslims after Muhammad's death). In Medina, he married Hafsah, daughter of Umar_ibn_al-Khattab (who would eventually become Abu Bakr's successor). These marriages sealed relations between the prophet and his top-ranking followers. Muhammad's two surviving daughters also married: Fatima Zahra married Ali ibn Abu Talib and Umm Kulthum married Uthman_ibn_Affan. Each of these men, in later years, would emerge as successors to Muhammad as political leader of the Muslims. Thus all four of the so-called "rightly-guided" caliphs, or successors to the Prophet, were linked to Muhammad by blood, marriage, or both. (But see Caliph for more information on the controversy regarding the question of who the first Caliph was.) ===Continued warfare=== In 625 the Meccan general Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with 3,000 men. The ensuing Battle of Uhud took place on March 23, ending in a stalemate. The Meccans claimed victory, but they had lost too many men to pursue the Muslims into Medina. In April 627 Abu Sufyan led another strong force against Medina. He was aided by sympathizers among the Medinans, the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza, a tribe that had signed a treaty with Muhammad. But Muhammad had dug a trench around Medina and successfully defended the city. This was the ''Battle of the Trench''. After the battle, all the Banu Qurayza adult males (including boys who had reached puberty), as well as one woman, were beheaded by the order of Saad ibn Muadh, an arbiter chosen by the Banu Qurayza. He did so in accordance to the laws of the Torah. The remaining women and children were taken as slaves or for ransom. All the property from the tribe was then divided among the Muslims. Following the Battle of the Trench, the Muslims were able, through conquest and conversion, to extend their rule to many of the neighboring cities and tribes. ===The conquest of Mecca=== By 628, the Muslim position was strong enough that Muhammad returned to Mecca, this time as a peaceful pilgrim. In March 628 he set out for Mecca, followed by 1,600 men. After some negotiation, a treaty was signed at the border town of al-Hudaybiyah. Muhammad would not be allowed to finish his pilgrimage that year. Hostilities would cease and the Muslims would have permission to make a pilgrimage to Mecca in the following year. The agreement broke down; war broke out again. In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number 10,000 men. Faced with inevitable disaster, the Meccans submitted without a fight. Muhammad in turn promised a general amnesty (from which some people were specifically excluded). Most Meccans converted to Islam and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine. ===Unification of Arabia=== After the return to Mecca, Muhammad defeated an alliance of enemy tribes at Hunayn. The Muslims were clearly the dominant force in Arabia, and most of the remaining tribes and states hastened to submit to Muhammad. ===Muhammad as warrior=== For most of the 63 years of his life, Muhammad was a merchant, then a preacher. He took up the sword late in his life. He was a warrior for only ten years. Much criticism has been leveled at Muhammad for engaging in caravan raids and wars of conquest. Critics say that his wars went well beyond self-defense. Muslim commentators, however, argue that he fought only to defend his community against the Meccans, and that he insisted on humane rules of warfare. For further discussion, see Muhammad as warrior. ===Muhammad's family life=== From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only the one wife, Khadijah. After her death he married Aisha, then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven wives (nine or ten living at the time of his death). Some say that he also married Maria al-Qibtiyya, but other sources deny it. * Khadija * Sawada bint Zama * Aisha * Hafsa bint Umar * Zaynab bint Khuzayma * Umm Salama Hind bint Abi Umayya * Zaynab bint Jahsh * Juwayriya bint al-Harith * Umm Habibah Ramla * Safiyya bint Huyayy * Maymuna bint al-Harith * Maria al-Qibtiyya Khadija was Muhammad's first wife and the mother of the only child to survive him, his daughter Fatima. He married his other wives after the death of Khadija. Some of these women were recent widows of battles. Others were daughters of his close allies or tribal leaders. One of the later unions resulted in a son, but the child died when he was ten months old. His marriage to Aisha is often criticized today citing traditional sources that state she was only nine years old when he consummated the marriage. (See Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions). Critics also question his marriage to his adopted son's ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and his alleged violation of the Qur'anic injunction against marrying more than four wives. For further information on Muhammad's family life and consideration of these criticisms, see Muhammad's marriages. ===Companions of Muhammad=== :''See main article Sahaba'' The term companions refers to anyone who met three criteria. First, he must have been a contemporary of Muhammad. Second, he must have seen or heard Muhammad speak on at least one occasion. Third, he must have converted to Islam. Companions are responsible for the transmission of Hadith, as each Hadith must have as its first transmitter a companion. The first four companions listed below were also the first four leaders (caliph) of the Muslim community after Muhammad's death. There were many other companions in addition to the ones listed here. List in alphabetic order: * Aamir * Abdullah ibn Abbas * Abdulrahman * Abu Bakr * Ali ibn Abi Talib * Hamza * Sa'd * Sa'eed * Sad Ibn Abi Waqqas * Salman the Persian * Talha * Umar ibn al-Khattab * Uthman ibn Affan * Zubair ===The death of Muhammad=== After a short illness (possibly malaria), Muhammad died on a Monday around noon of 8 June 632, in the city of Medina at the age of 63. [[Image:Prophet_Mosque_in_Madinah.jpg||right|thumb|350px|Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina. The mosque now contains the tombs of Muhammad and the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab]] According to Shia, the prophet had introduced his son-in-law Ali as his successor, in a public sermon at Ghadir Khom. But Abu Bakr and Umar intrigued to oust Ali and make Abu Bakr the leader or caliph. The majority Sunni sect dispute this, and say that the leaders of the community conferred and freely chose Abu Bakr, who was pre-eminent among the followers of Muhammad. However it happened, Abu Bakr became the new leader. He spent much of his short reign suppressing rebellious tribes in the Ridda Wars. With unity restored in Arabia, the Muslims looked outward and commenced the conquests that would eventually unite the Middle East under the caliphs. ===Muhammad's descendants=== Muhammad was survived only by his daughter Fatima Zahra and her children. (Some say that his daughter Zainab had a daughter, Amma or Umama, who survived him as well.) In Shia, it is believed that Fatima's husband 'Ali and his descendants are the rightful leaders of the faithful. The Sunni do not accept this view, but they still honor the descendents of the prophet. Descendents of Muhammad are known by many names, such as sayyids, syeds سيد, and sharifs شريف (plural: ِأشراف Ashraaf). Many rulers and notables in Muslim countries, past and present, claim such descent, with various degrees of credibility, such as the Fatimid dynasty of North Africa, the Idrisis, the current royal families of Jordan and Morocco, and the Agha Khan Imams of the Ismaili branch of Islam. In various Muslim countries, there are societies that authenticate claims of descent; some societies are more credible than others. ==Muhammad's historical significance== Before his death in 632, Muhammad had established Islam as a social and political force and had unified most of Arabia. A few decades after his death, his successors had united all of Arabia, and conquered Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Armenia, and much of North Africa. By 750, Islam had emerged as the spiritual counterpart to the two great monotheistic belief systems, Judaism and Christianity, and as the geopolitical successor to the Roman Empire. The rest of north Africa had come under Muslim rule, as had the southern part of Spain and much of central Asia (including Sind, in the Indus Valley). Under the Ghaznavids, in the tenth century, Islam expanded into the Hindu principalities east of the Indus, in what is now northern India. Even later, Islam expanded peacefully into much of Africa and Southeast Asia. Islam is now the faith of well over a billion people all over the globe, and believed to be the second largest religion of the present day. ==See also== * For Muhammad as viewed by the Muslims - see Islam especially sira. * For Muhammad's teachings - see Islam especially hadith. * List of Islamic terms in Arabic reflects Muhammad's overall influence. * List of founders of major religions. == References== *Ibn Warraq, ''The Quest for the Historical Muhammad'', Prometheus Books, March 2000, hardback, 554 pages, ISBN 1573927872 *Martin Lings, ''Muhammad: His Life Based on Earliest Sources'', Inner Traditions International, Limited, 1987, paperback, 368 pages, ISBN 0892811706 *Karen Armstrong, ''Muhammad'', ISBN 1842126083 *Muhammad Husayn Haykal, ''The Life of Muhammad'', Islamic Book Service, 1995, paperback, ISBN 1577311957, translation of an Arabic original *Maxime Rodinson, ''Muhammad'', ISBN 1565847520 ==External links== Non-sectarian biography: * [http://www.pbs.org/muhammad Public Broadcasting System program on Muhammad] * [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553918/Muhammad_(prophet).html/ Encarta Encyclopedia] * [http://31.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MAHOMET.htm 1911 Encyclopedia article of Muhammad] Sunni biography: *[http://www.al-sunnah.com/nektar/ Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar)- Memoirs of the Noble Prophet] * [http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/default.htm The Life of Muhammad] Muhammad Husayn Haykal Translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi * [http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/index.shtml Islamonline] * [http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/prophet/ About the Prophet Muhammad] * [http://www.muhammad.net/ Prophet Muhammad Biography and more] Shia biography: * [http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/ A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims by Sayed Ali Asgher Razwy] * [http://al-islam.org/lifeprophet/ The Life of Muhammad The Prophet by Syed Saeed Akhtar Rizvi] Critical perspectives: * [http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Jeffery/historical_mhd.htm The Quest for the Historical Mohammed] * [http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/muhbiog.htm Trends in Biographies of Muhammad] Miscellaneous: * [http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/swords/swords_index.html Swords of the Prophet Muhammad] Arab people Islamic prophets 570 births 632 deaths Founders of religions or sects Characters in the Divine Comedy bs:Muhammed haw:Mohameka kw:Mahomm ms:Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. su:Muhammad sw:Muhammad

Muhammad

--User:Striver 10:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)* Talk:Muhammad/archive 1 ==Companions== i disaprove of the current order of "companions", it gives the impresion that Abu Bark & Umar & Uthman where better than Ali. They where not. I rather have random order, or Ali, Malik Ashtar, Abu Dhar and Ibn Abbas att the top. : Hi, Striver, we usually add new topics at the bottom. Use the plus button to generate a new section. We could put the companions in the order in which they joined Islam -- that was important to the early Muslims. However, there would be a problem because existing accounts conflict as to whether Abu Bakr or Ali came first of the men. Or, we could just put them in alphabetic order, and add a note to that effect. Perhaps that would be the least controversial. User:Zora 10:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hi Zora :) Thx, ill put the new topics att the end. Alphabetic works nicely for me :) Thanks for your solution! --User:Striver 11:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==Founding Islam== The most significant historical fact about Muhammad is that he established the belief system known to the world as ‘Islam’ — and this fact is being deleted from the article altogether. We are not writing an encyclopedia to validate the opinions of one religion or another. We are writing it to ''inform'' people. When most people think of Islam, and possibly even most Muslims, they mean the modern religion founded by Muhammad, in the sense that ''anyone'' founds ''anything''. Before Muhammad, there was monotheism in the Near East. After him, there was the Qur’an. Before him, there were Jews, Christians, pagans, and others in Near East, but no persons who called themselves ‘Muslims’ or called their religion ‘Islam’. After him, there were. Muhammad made that happen. The Muslim belief that he was, in creating this new worldly phenomenon, merely clarifying an otherworldly phenomenon, is spelled out clearly and respectfully. This encyclopedia is straying from common sense and scholarly objectivity if it cannot do so much as call Muhammad the founder of Islam, as all other neutral reference sources do. The phenomenon of Islam as a recognizable, verifiable, historical fact in the world began with Muhammad’s actions. I myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=prev&oldid=8229842 rewrote the introduction] to accommodate the desire of some editors to note the distinction between what non-Muslims identify as ‘Islam’, and what some pious Muslims identify as ‘Islam’. Do we want to be taken seriously as a reference, or do we simply want to restate Muslim belief?
— User:Ford 22:09, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC) ::Presumably, then, we will be rewriting the entry on Jesus to cite his status as the "founder of Christianity"? User:BrandonYusufToropov 22:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) : From a Muslim perspective, Muhammad was the last prophet, not the founder of anything, except maybe an Islamic state. From a secular historical perspective, the more extreme sceptics - such as Patricia Crone, Yehuda Nevo, or John Wansbrough - regard most of the Islamic traditional narrative as doubtful, and argue that what we would recognize as Islam didn't emerge until well into Umayyad times. The latter perspective is ridiculous, and no doubt the former appears ridiculous to Ford. But both have many scholarly adherents, and I see no reason to introduce an unnecessary controversy into the first paragraph. - User:Mustafaa 22:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) :: The word "Islam" (Arabic word) was not used before Muhammad by Christians or Jews. Whether Muslims believe Islam is the religion of all previous prophets is irrelevant. Even if true, clearly those prophets did not speak Arabic. I see nothing wrong with Ford edits User:OneGuy 22:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) The position that Mustafaa is arguing makes no sense. If we were to follow this logic, we will have to rewrite all the articles. Just take this sentence from Sunnah article: :''The Sunnah, therefore, is the second source of Islamic law after the Qur’an.'' Since Sunnah is related to Muhammad, can it be called the source of "Islamic law"? (since some scholars doubt this history? And if Islam existed prior to Muhammad, how can Sunnah be the source of "Islamic" law?) This is pretty silly. The word "Islam" is used specifically to describe a religion that began in the seventh century. That is how the word is used, even usually by Muslims User:OneGuy 23:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::It wasn't a rhetorical question. By what logic would we NOT refer to Jesus as "founder" of Christianity if we refer to Muhammad as "founder" of Islam? Didn't Jesus (according to Gospels) grant authority to the Apostles? Order them to proselytize? Establish core precepts? But there's something off-kilter about that whole implied subtext: "Jesus, a religious enthusiast, woke up one morning, had an idea, and then built this brand new institution," isn't there? Such a subtext seems somehow condescending and dismissive of Christian belief, doesn't it? And maybe even bordering on intolerant, yes? And thus not neutral, or at least tactless, given the depth of feeling on the subject, perhaps? And thus inappropriate, right? ::For the record, Columbia Encyclopedia opens its entry thus: "The name of the Prophet of Islam, one of the great figures of history; b Mecca..." etc. Not a word about "founding" anything, but rather "he felt himself selected by God to be the Arab prophet of true religion." So either Columbia is completely ignoring Ford's "most significant historical fact" about Muhammad, or they've got writers better able to convey the nuances of the actual subject at hand. User:BrandonYusufToropov 05:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) I’ll answer the question, then: Yes, we should call Jesus the founder of Christianity (even though Paul seems to have done most of the heavy lifting). But first, I do not think most Christians would disagree, and second, since when does an omission in one article justify an omission in another? Is your requirement to be: go edit every other article first, and then we’ll edit this one? Besides, the ‘central figure’ formula that the Jesus article uses is preface to the fact that Jesus founded Christianity and Christians ''worship'' him, and Muslims do not worship Muhammad, nor would they be comfortable with anyone as the central figure in Islam other than God. Am I wrong? There is nothing at all off-kilter about the subtext, nothing condescending, nothing dismissive, intolerant, or whatever else you might mention that is supposed to make me feel bad about calling Muhammad the founder of Islam. Yes, basically Muhammad did wake up one morning, have an idea, and build this brand new institution. The timeline may have been extended a bit, and we can reserve comment about ''where'' he got this idea, but that is the narrative that even Muslims will tell you. Honestly, how many Muslims are going to lecture us on the pre-existence of Islam? ''There weren’t any self-declared Muslims before Muhammad.'' Before Muhammad, there were many who believed that there was no god but ''the'' God; but those persons mostly went on believing what they believed before. Before Muhammad, there were no persons who believed that Muhammad was the last prophet. There was no Qur’an. There was no praying five times a day. There was no hajj. Islam may have been a platonic idea ''waiting'' to be articulated, but it took Muhammad to ''do'' it. Islam was an idea before Muhammad, but it was ''not'' an institution. It was not a religion in the conventional sense: an organized system of belief with specific tenets and followers. When we say ‘Muslim’ in the encyclopedia, we cannot include those who do not include themselves. ''That'' would be condescending, intolerant, and dismissive. We cannot retroactively apply the word ‘Islam’ to beliefs whose followers were perfectly content with the religion they had. ''That'' would be condescending, intolerant, and dismissive. You may have successfully dug around for a reference that was “nuanced”, as you put it. I am at home. I checked the American Heritage dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and the Cambridge Factfinder, which are the references I have to hand. All say ‘founder’. Britannica online says both ‘founder’ and ‘established the religion of Islam’. But in any case, I am not looking for further evidence. I do not ''need'' further evidence. Muhammad founded Islam. And if you think that, by leaving that fact out, Wikipedia will be demonstrating that it has writers better able to convey nuance or anything else, I think you are giving yourself and the rest of us ''way'' too much credit.
— User:Ford 10:27, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC) ---- Ford, I think you don't understand how it is that, to the followers of any religion, their way seems so obvious and right that it's a natural part of the universe. It was there all the time, waiting to be found or revealed. Not only that, but other religions can seem soooo close to the ''truth''. Just a few tweaks and hey presto, it's the same. As a Buddhist, I try to understand other religions through my own prism. Ditto for Muhammad and Muslims, their way seemed like a great and glorious unification and simplification -- all the best of Christianity and Judaism, free of human error. It's not just a rhetorical ploy, it's a real perception. We're just tiptoeing around it here. User:Zora 11:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I think I do understand it. I spoke of a platonic idea because I recognize that followers of religions feel that way. But what are you proposing? I cannot make out, in your comments, whether you support or oppose stating that Muhammad founded Islam. I understand that some Muslims feel we should not call Muhammad the founder of Islam; but then some Muslims feel we should endorse Islam as the one true religion. We are not going to gratify that desire either. I say again, common sense and scholarly objectivity are the standards that support my position. A limited Muslim piety supports the other position. The encyclopedia can choose between them. Is the choice not obvious?
— User:Ford 12:42, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC) : I think that the term "founder" is loaded, and perhaps had best not be used. The connotation is of someone who creates something from scratch, from nothing. But Muslims feel that Muhammad brought forth something that was already there. Surely there's a way to write around this. I'm too tired to think of one now, but there IS a way. I've written political platforms. I know how to fudge . User:Zora 13:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) No, let’s ''not'' write around it. Let’s use plain language to describe a simple fact. Let’s not allow a minority with a bias determine whether a fact is true or not. Their viewpoint, their objection, is already represented in the article. But the ''fact'' that they are objecting to is now ''not'' represented in the article. Let’s change that. ‘Founder’, a loaded term? Human religion is the product of humans. : Well that's your BELIEF. It's not a fact. Those of us who are religious feel that religion is more like the laws of physics, inherent in the universe. We can discover the laws of physics, but we can't create them. That's our BELIEF. So we try to step back yet again, to a position where both beliefs are held in equipoise. User:Zora 14:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Whether some religions are divinely inspired is a matter that we cannot settle. They are all different and contradictory, so they are not ''all'' divinely inspired. We cannot say such a thing about all of them, let alone that they emerged untouched by human hands from the ether. We should not imply that about Islam. It is not true.
— User:Ford 13:22, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC) ::In my opinion, the best way to write around it is simply not to take a stand on the issue, and in essence do what Columbia did -- acknowledge that he was the Prophet of Islam, which he manifestly was, and describe what he argued had happened to him, not as fact, but as his contention. ::You know why this is important? Because this "founder" thing is the modern rhetorical equivalent of "Mohammedanism." Think about it. By saying he "founded" Islam, in the first sentence, no less, we would be saying he did the same thing as Henry Ford did when he "founded" Ford Motor Company -- namely, brought along the big idea himself. Well, among Muslims, it is an article of faith that he did NOT bring along the big idea himself, but rather had it dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel. With one word, we basically dismiss the entire question of whether or not Muhammad "wrote" the Qur'an, by answering it in the affirmative for the reader. If that's NPOV, Ford, I'll buy you a ginger ale. User:BrandonYusufToropov 13:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Everyone is being to sensitive and far to politically correct. If it offend you express your opinion and move on. If I went around griping about everything that offended my sensibilites thier would be a dispute to just about every article here. Can't we all just get along? or is personal motivated beliefs,tired propganda and rehotoric going to rule the day? This on going debate is nothing but a futile exercise in political correctness. == Someone revised history! == I thought I was keeping up with the changes to this article, but I seem to have missed a few. Someone revised the final para to say that the Muslims had conquered northern India a hundred years after Muhammad's death, and similar sillinesses. I sat down with my copy of Armstrong's ''Islam: A Short History'' and fixed the para as best I could. User:Zora 22:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Regarding this: "Under the Ghaznavids, centuries later, Islam was introduced into northern India." Islam was not first introduced into Northern India by Ghaznavids. The first Islamic invasion of India was much earlier by Muhammad bin Qasim (d. 715) User:OneGuy 22:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) :: Well, I suppose it depends on what you call "northern India". If you go by ''present boundaries'', Sind is in Pakistan. I don't believe that Muslim conquests (as opposed to raids) went beyond the Indus until the Ghaznavids. Just saying "northern India" is misleading, I suppose. I'll try a rewrite. User:Zora 00:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Pakistan WAS northern India. Invest in a historical Atlas. == Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad == Hi, I changed all the links that go to Mohammad to instead go to Muhammad, the correct spelling. Now I wonder if any will help me fix the other misspellings: Mohammed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Mohammed] = 60 or so instances), Muhammed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Muhammed] = about 30 instances) --User:Jacobolus 12:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :It is highly doubtful there is a ''correct'' way of spelling Mohammad. It is a transliteration from another language. It is therefore very hard to get an exact way of spelling it as in the true form. As long as the way it is spelt is the same through the whole article, then leave it be. All we need is consistancy through an article. Tzar or Czar, same deal, Mohammad, Muhammed, whatever. -- 22:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :"Muhammad," "Mohammed," or "Mohammed" etc is a common name of many people, and some do spell their name as, say, "Mohammad." Do not randomly change the spelling in all the articles User:OneGuy 22:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::Well it seems to me anyway, that if an article is referring to the prophet Muhammad, that Wikipedia should spell his name consistently throughout all articles. Other people may spell their names differently, and I'm not planning to alter them, but one person should probably not have encyclopedia articles spelling his name 5 different ways. --User:Jacobolus 09:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::I also changed all instances of Koran to Qur'an throughout Wikipedia, and all instances of Moslem to Muslim. Shi'a seems to be a much trickier case, as it is currently written Shiite, Shi'ite, Shiism, Shia, Shi'a, etc. (about 8 or 10 ways). It seems to me that these should be more standardized, so as not to confuse readers, who may not know that the prophet Mohammed is the same as the prophet Muhammad --User:Jacobolus 09:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Present policy is that while it is desirable that spelling be consistent within a single article, attempting to enforce regularized spelling across the Wikipedia is not desirable. The time spent debating what the regularized spelling should be is better spent on substantiative content. User:Shimmin 01:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) ==Boasting== Here's the text we're talking about: :''"Islam is now the faith of more than one billion people, and believed to be the second largest religion of the present day. Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world, both by the number of births and converts." How is saying "more than one billion" any more or less NPOV than saying "millions". And doesn't "millions" give the wrong (not POV; just plain wrong) impression when the actual number is somewhere above a billion? I would interpret "millions" as something between 3 million and maybe 10, 20 million? Even less than "tens of millions", "hundreds of millions" and "over a billion". If the editor had said "Billions", that would be inaccurate, too. But more generally, isn't a good idea of how many Muslims there are on the planet relevant to an encyclopedia article? Secondly, if Islam is the fastest growing religion, or a rapidly receding religion, isn't that also relevant? User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 23:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) : The question of whether numerical growth is from population growth or conversion is HOTLY debated. There is no way to confirm any claims of having the most converts. If you want to put a billion instead of millions, that's fine, but the bit about "fastest growing" smacks of triumphalism, advertising, boasting, whatever. It's unpleasant. It reminds me of the Mormons and the Bahai I met when I was doing the fieldwork for my PhD, both of whom boasted about being the fastest growing religion. Based on, so far as I could tell, suspect statistics. Frex, the Bahais said that the small village where I lived had twenty Bahais, or something like that, and what they did have was a young bachelor of questionable character who had attended one meeting. : I think this topic has been discussed at length in Islam in the United States. If you feel that Islamic population growth deserves extended treatment, perhaps we should set up a page for it and adjourn the discussion there. It's too large a topic to handle in one sentence in a page on an entirely different subject. User:Zora 07:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I agree with Zora but for different reasons. I believe that one should only include factual data. For instance, this bit about the fastest growing religion was and is mostly put forward by Christian parties with mixed motives. My first memory of it is that I read about it in the "Plain Truth" magazine, and oddly the only reference I've seen so far with numbers. They claimed, and I am guessing from memory, that "over the last" 30 or 40 years Islam grew by over 300% and Christianity grew by, say, 30%. They claimed something like that in areas where Islam and Christianity are competing for converts, Islam outperforms Christianity by a ratio of 3 to 1. However, I suspect that all of this is for creating alarm to collect donations for missionary work. When Muslims make the same claim, it is based on published popoulation data (ex. CIA Factbook) and tallying the numbers, a much better source but doubtful for many reasons. I have done the same thing myself and maintain continuous data on populations, economies, military spending and so on. I quess what I would feel confortable with are numbers, not claims, published by a scholarly work. We should not have to say the fastest or whatever, but provide statistical data. If someone wants to make the claim that this growth is by births then let them provide the statistical data to prove it. The same for increase by converts. This is more logical and more convincing after all. User:A.Khalil 14:00, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) I might have misread the article, but the text above was supposed to be from a global perspective; not just US. Methinks you are not being able to resist one of the very things you're complaining about, Z: being US-centric :D.User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 20:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) :I think I was not clear in what I agree with Zora on. I agree only in relation to the use of language to make a claim Vs. the use of data to make a claim. I myself do feel more comfortable and also more educated if I read that Islam grew by xx% overall over a certain period of time. Perhaps one can break it down to regions, like in Africa by xx%, Asia by xx%. One could provide population numbers, not just percentages and one cam make number comparisons between religions. My doubts in this case, however, are because I do not know of any "Muslim" published data. In most Islamic countries we have no census data to study and the numbers used even by the countries themselves come from American sources (CIA or State Department). Even the OIC's site referes you to the CIA factbook's site. I find "these" sources doubtfull on many grounds. They are "Christian/Jewish" biased. A country of millions that have 2 Christians in it would be given a percentage. A country like Russia with millions of Muslims (some say 20%) will be discounted. Countries where Mulsim populations are large, like India and China, will be mimized, and because of their large populations, a single percentage drop leads to a very large drop in count. And so on. Most of western sources are likewise. I remember reading in the footnotes of many population tables two contradictory statemts as such: ::In Islamic countries minority religions are discriminated against and their numbers are much higher than reported by governments (Meaning Christains and Jews are more than what they think and Muslims are even less than what they list). ::In countries where Christianity is the established religion, the whole population was counted as Christian. :Most people see no bias and contradicition in this, as I can attest because I had many arguments with Professors and others in this regard. Also, using these sources gives us a range of Muslim populations worldwide from say less than 1.0 billion (way below claimed % for Christianity) to 1.72 billion (way above claimed % for Christianity). This is why I say they are doubtful. I would like to find a real study, maybe done by a Muslim organization, telling us about Muslim populations. Absent that, and this is the weakest of faith, we should put forward the best information we can come up with from a known source, not personal lists as I have seen elswehere in wikipedia. User:A.Khalil 14:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) == Pedophile == "''making Muhammad a pedophile in addition to a murderer of his enemies''" This is plain wrong and ''very'' POV. The charge could be levelled that he has a sexual attraction to children but 1/12 wives being a girl child does not by any means make his primary sexual attraction that to children. His first wife was old. His other wives were often widowed. So, we need to reword that to have the criticism be that he married a child but it is ''not'' pedophilia in any case. User:Grenavitar 10:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) About my changes. There are still problems with my edits I realize but I believe it is much much less POV. I just saw an older version that stated: ''Some non-Muslims criticize his marriage to Aisha, as some traditions say that she was only nine years old when the marriage was consummated (see Aisha for a discussion of other, conflicting, traditions).'' I tried to add something more about the criticism although I think I could leave that only for Aisha page. The more I think about this the more I realize this doesn't need serious talk since I am only reverting vandalism. I added the section about statutory rape because I did not wish to seem like I was being too one sided for Muslims in comparison to the exact opposite version. I would really like some peer review here. User:Grenavitar 20:28, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Muhammad's death: Malaria == Are you sure that Muhammad's death were caused by Malaria [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&curid=18934&diff=0&oldid=0]? Please provide your source so we can verify it. Otherwise, we shall remove it. - User:DiN 16:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I saw it in a documentation in German TV [http://www.xxp.tv/programm/artikel/0,4522,7135,00.html]. Prof. Dr. med. Heiner Schirmer (University of Heidelberg, Germany) said that the symptoms point to malaria (same with Alexander, Oliver Cromwell or Friedrich Schiller).--User:Der Eberswalder 11:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Battle of Badr == Anthony, I removed your addition re the caravan raid, as it's misleading. Badr could perhaps be considered self-defense, as the Meccans had sent out a force to PUNISH the Muslims for a previous caravan raid. Was the raid justified? Particularily in the pilgrimage season, when caravans were supposed to be safe? I've seen Muslim editors tying themselves in knots trying to justify caravan raiding. Usually the defense given is that the Meccans had confiscated the property of the Muslims who fled to Medina, so that the Muslims were just righting the balance. Hmm. Raids don't play too well these days, but various historians point out that raiding caravans was the Arab national sport then. Like Great Plains Native Americans stealing horses and women from each other. Just good clean fun . Perhaps the place to elaborate on all of this is the Battle of Badr article? Or Muhammad as warrior? If the Muhammad article gets bogged down in nit-picky polemic, it starts becoming useless as an information source for someone who just wants to know who Muhammad was. User:Zora 23:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Did Mohamed attempt suicide? == During resarch on an article about Waraqah ibn Nawfal a non-muslim source claimed that after Waraqah's death Mohammad attempted suicide 3 times, http://www.amcoptic.com/n2004/to_d_emara.htm , the article is in Arabic and is "opinionated", is someone interested in checking this claim? --User:The Brain 23:58, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC) == Onward! == An article about a person who is perhaps the 2nd most influential figure in recorded human history ought to be much more sophisticated and expanded...I think Wikipedia can do a better job here...this article deserves to be featured-article quality someday--and ought to already be, given the man's importance and sheer number of Muslims, particularly Anglophone(-educated) ones. ~ User:Dpr 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) : It's quite as long as most biographical articles. Why should it be longer? and why should we accept your grandiose conception of Muhammad's importance? User:Zora 10:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: It's shorter than both Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, to name two far less historically significant figures. Clearly there is still room for expansion. - User:Mustafaa 18:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: Churchill and Stalin lived recently, and there's a plethora of documentation. While there is much recorded "oral tradition" about Muhammad, academics would also dismiss much of it as pious fabrication. The current organization, the skeptical view and the sira view, handles this somewhat, but any expansion of the sira view would privilege it unduly, and get us deep into partisan debate. User:Zora 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::: Well, we do have a whole series on Jesus... granted he had that whole divinity thing going for him... There is room to expand I agree.. but more important clarification about who accepts what. There are many different conceptions about it.... I've heard Shia discussions about how they despise Bukhari hadith as portraying their prophet horribly... So... sectarian complexities never end. User:Grenavitar 19:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::: I don't see that "any expansion of the sira view would privilege it unduly" at all. We already have the disclaimer at the top, and the contents of the sira view are of great interest both to historians and to Muslims. It could "get us deep into partisan debate", but I see no reason why it has to, if approached with due care. - User:Mustafaa 21:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Well, add things and we'll argue about them User:Zora 23:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) "An article about a person who is perhaps the 2nd most influential figure in recorded human history" Could you explain that? Good or bad I can think of many people who had a greater affect on human history. == Reverting Urchid's edit == Urchid edited the introduction to make the claim that Muhammad was a Bedouin (wrong) and that he was the founder of Islam, with "Muslims believe that he is the last prophet" following as a caveat. Urchid, this is very POV. The way it is written, it implies that Muhammad really was the founder, even though Muslims think that he wasn't. I have reverted Urchid's changes. Urchid, I don't want to discourage you completely -- I'd just suggest that you read through the copious discussion on the talk page to get an idea of just what a balancing act this article is, and how delicate the balance. User:Zora 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :Lots and lots and lots and lots of work has gone on before on this article, Urchid. Talk page is always open, let's discuss things, ok? User:BrandonYusufToropov 03:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::Listen folks , you two and a few others seem to have self-appointed yourselves to represent the Muslim POV in Wikipedia. That is your prerogative, but you have NO RIGHT to censure other editors's valid NPOV contributions to Wikipedia because it DOES NOT HAPPEN TO SUIT your POV or desired SPIN on ISLAM. Perhaps your intents are good in your own way of thinking but when you keep CENSURING or blocking the contributions of others you have essentially defeated the mission of Wikipedia of disseminating information to the world. Like Noam Chomksy keeps telling us , if you believe in free speech, you also have to believe in the free speech of others even if you do not like what you hear. --User:Urchid 03:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Urchid, you're quite mistaken if you think I'm here to defend a Muslim POV. I'm a Buddhist, dang it, and my POV, if anything, is academic. Many editors who really are Muslims have been quite unhappy with me. as you'll see if you look at some of the past discussions on the talk page. But I also don't see any point in insisting on language that offends someone when it is possible to write around the difficulty. I think we did so. User:Zora 05:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC) : OK , I will buy your claim that you are defending an academic POV, however this habit of watering down FACTS so as to avoid offending some imaginary readership, particularly the one you might currently favor, is in effect inhibiting the reporting of other relevant facts which can have important implications in the wiki-reader’s evaluation of the topic under discussion . This causes an insidious cover-up of the truth which no academic should want to be party to. Projects like Wikipedia can go a long way in helping readers see a broader picture than just the one being presented by the advocates of a particular POV.--User:Urchid 12:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Its not POV to report what muslims and non-muslims belive. To exlude one of them would be POV. --User:Striver 12:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::To Urchid, Part One. Please get your facts straight on things like whether he was a Bedouin before you start throwing around accusations about "insidious cover-ups of the truth." If there is a specific nonfactual edit I've made in this article that you don't like, let me know about it. I work very hard to keep things accurate, and if you have spotted a mistake, I want to know about it. ::: Ok that is fair enough, perhaps my facts were wrong on the Bedouin thing. ::To Urchid, Part Two. Christian readers would object (with cause, in my view) if we wrote as a "fact" in the early sentences of Christianity that Jesus was the "founder" of that religion. In fact, it seems highly unlikely to me that any attempt to include the word "founder" in a summary of Jesus' role in that religion would stand. (Actually, the word should probably be applied to Paul, but that's beside the point.) ::: I really do not see this point. Founder of Christianity seems to be a fair description for Jesus. ::Now, it's not important enough to me personally to get into a hassle about it, but it's pretty hard to imagine the "compromise" that Zora has established here as flying if we applied the same principle to Christianity. Think about it: :::Jesus, also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, now deceased, was a teacher in the first-century Middle East who is regarded by non-Christians as founder of a new faith system that arose from Judaism and was eventually categorized by its adherents as Christianity. Jesus is regarded by pious Christians as the only begotten Son of God. :::: I would not object to this phrasing. Insert it if you want. ::Could someone argue that the first sentence is "factual"? I suppose. Is it the right opening to an article composed by an intelligent, unbiased editor? I have my opinions on that, but just so we can test the question, why don't you go try posting it at Christianity and see what happens? User:BrandonYusufToropov 14:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :::Brandon what we want to do here is present a wider view of belief systems than just the Abrahamistic POV on the matter. It might be a hard thing to conceive for some followers of rigid orthodoxies but the world of religion is not solely monopolized by monotheism .---- Dang it, Urchid, your latest edit claimed to be NPOV and it was the most POV thing you've contributed. Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Just because Muslims prefer to use the Arabic term, that doesn't mean that they worship a separate "God". It's as if you were to claim that the French worshipped a different god named "Dieu" or the Germans a god named "Gott". User:Zora 01:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC) I'd like to write down a note about something which many people don't realize, it is about the Arabic expression , which is the same used by Arab Christians to describe 'God' in the Christian belief. So as a word doesn't refer to any but the same which the English word refers to, whatever it was by the thing/process/experience. Zora , that is not quite the point, the idea is to express these concepts independently of the Abrahamic POV of the world. *How would you phrase these ideas, which are obviously basic assumptions in YOUR conception of the world, to an audience that is not just composed of Abrahamic Monotheists but also includes Atheists or Polytheists or readers who do not have a background in Abrahamistic theology ? *Are you assuming that all the reader's perspectives will be Abrahamic or that they all accept your conception of GOD ? To a Zulu tribesman in South- Africa, or Chinese Zhuang for instance "final prophet of Allah (God)" does not mean anything. In those conceptions of the world , what you call Allah would have to be stated as "a God that has a name of ALLAH". The only POV that would have a problem with this are the ones that are intolerant of non-monotheistic POVs. * Are we assuming that non Abrahamistic monotheism POVs are irrelevant and to be ignored in Wikipedian perspectives? Can we not break away from our cultural ethno-centricities when presenting information to a culturaly diverse and heterogenous world? --User:Urchid 03:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC) : Urchid, this is funny. "God" is not one of my basic assumptions ... as you would know if you knew anything about Buddhism. Buddhists have often been described as atheists. In this case, I'm quite willing to accept "Allah" as the Islamic conception of "God" because Muslims have always, since Muhammad, claimed not to be rejecting Judaism and Christianity, but carrying them forward. Islam is explicitly, consciously about the same "God". That's to completely leave aside the rather interesting question as to whether monotheists of any sort are necessarily talking about the "same thing". Off-hand, I can't think of any monotheistic traditions that accept a personalized first principle and object to a translation into the English word "God". User:Zora 03:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :: OK, you are a Buddhist but in relation to your contributions to this category of Wikipages you insist on articulating or defining the concept of Allah strictly within the Abrahamistic POV. ( a POV which is in my opinion inherently xenophobic to other cosmologies of the universe). :: This brings us back to the point I am making above, which is: can we define or describe the components of this article in a broader perpective than just the Abrahamic Monotheistic one? For instance how might you define Allah in a NPOV language that would be understandable to a Buddhist or a Zhuang or a Zulu? (and who is not versed in Abrahamistic theology)? :: Obviously I am a wiki-reader and a wikieditor like you are and my personal conception of the universe does not revolve around the Abrahamistic POV anymore than any other paradigm that human beings have ever devised. PS I am not unfamiliar with Buddhism.--User:Urchid 12:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ---- Why should I ''define'' God? Surely the point is to experience God. :: I was suggesting you phrase GOD in NPOV terms, ie not only in abrahamistic wording. As for the Zhuang or the Zulu -- the usual approach of Christian missionaries is to use the name of the group's creator god and redefine it to fit the Christian conceptions. I can't think of a polytheistic mythology that doesn't have a god who was the origin of everything and then retired to the sidelines and gave way to "younger" gods. I dunno what Muslim missionaries do. User:Zora 18:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :: Sounds awfully crass , I hope we can take more a respectful approach towards other belief systems in Wikipedia. --User:Urchid 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC) I support reverting the "abrahamistic" & "called allah" polemic. Go Zora! --User:Striver 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC) *Don't be ridiculous. This article is about Muhammad, not about how other people interpret his teachings over a thousand years after the fact. We don't have a section about the Crusades or Religious violence in the article on Jesus, now do we? User:Firebug 23:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC) I seems as some people dont get that its POV to assume that Muhammed (PBUH) was NOT a genuine prophet from God. --User:Striver 11:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == re:changes to this article == If anyone is interested, Wikipedia NPOV policy can be found here NPOV.--User:Urchid 03:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ==Couple things: wet nurse and tomb inside the mosque in Medina...== I was saying to Zora: a couple of things about your last edit: * The wet nurse issue. I haven't read Ibn Ishaq, but the concept of the wet nurse Halima is very central to the narrative (mythology, if you will) of Muhammad's life for Muslims—if not the history. It might be useful to acknowledge that; maybe with language like "the traditions about Muhammad's life often mention that following Meccan customs, his mother sent him to the desert to be wet nursed by a Bedouin Mother. The desert air was fresher than Mecca’s, and it was felt that in this climate, a city boy would have a sturdier start in life...." * The tomb is ''in'' the mosque as far as I remember. I was last there in 1980 or so—and the structure and size of the mosuqe has only been expanded since. User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 03:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC) I might be wrong, but i think i read somewher that it not in it... im not sure... --User:Striver 11:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :Well, like I said, I am telling you from experience...User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 21:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC) You know, the (false) hadith about "dont use my gave as a place of worship like the christian and Jews" blabla, as if Jesus (PBUH) ever had his grave worhiped, if he ever hade one... read the rest of the fake hadith here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.472 Where is Moses (PBUH) grave, you know, the one that Jews are suposed to worship? Anyhow, using that pretexed the Saudis wahabis/salafis demolished(!) Ahl ul-Bayts graves... http://www.shianews.com/hi/asia/news_id/0001858.php So i dont think odds are high that the Prophets tomb is in a mosque "...So the grave worshiper, the Shiite,..." http://www.al-manhaj.com/Page1.cfm?ArticleID=34 Look att their *LAME* arguments: "Iqbal was a grave-worshiper. To pray at graves is considered by the Quran as reason for one to go to hell (102: 1-5)." http://islamreview.org/AnwarShaikh/misc/Iqbal.html You tell me, are this verses about grave-worshiping: [102.1] Abundance diverts you, [102.2] Until you come to the graves. [102.3] Nay! you shall soon know, [102.4] Nay! Nay! you shall soon know. [102.5] Nay! if you had known with a certain knowledge, [102.6] You should most certainly have seen the hell; [102.7] Then you shall most certainly see it with the eye of certainty; [102.8] Then on that day you shall most certainly be questioned about the boons. --User:Striver 11:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :Umm...being inside a mosque is not the same as being worshipped...it is not in a position where people bow to it. It just happens to be in the same building...User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 21:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC) i found this link, check then en of it: http://www.naqshbandi.net/haqqani/Islam/Haqqiqa/debate/visit_grave.html --User:Striver 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :This seems like a dead issue but... "Because the climate was considered to be unhealthful, he was given as an infant to a wet nurse from a nomadic tribe and spent some time in the desert." that is from the 1995 Encyclopedia Britannica. User:Grenavitar 03:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Proposed insertion in intro == Based in Wikipedia NPOV policy which states : "The neutral point of view policy states that articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly." I suggest we expand this statement "they believe Islam to have existed before Muhammad" with this " though this latter assertion has been challenged as an anachronism by some historical scholars" to represent other views on this. Any comments--User:Urchid 12:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, I have a comment. It's ridiculous, because we're describing what people believe, not stating that belief as fact. ::: does that mean that we cannot also insert other views on those beliefs, or are we only allowed to have Muslim POV in this article?--User:Urchid 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::But just to prove I'm wrong in this analysis, why not head over to Jesus and place an edit in the opening paragraph there to the effect that "some historical scholars" challenge the doctrine of the resurrection as a physical impossibility. See what happens there and then we'll decide what to do here, okay? User:BrandonYusufToropov ::: Brandon , for the record my view is what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The same standards equally apply to the Jesus articles.--User:Urchid 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC) LOL :D Now, seriously, whats wrong with the muslim belife of Islam existing befor its last Prophet?? --User:Striver 12:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :: Nothing just as there is is nothing wrong with inserting non muslims belief that this is an anachronism.--User:Urchid 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC) So you wana add: " though this latter assertion is belived to be an anachronism by some historical scholars" In that case you have muslim "belive" and non-muslims also "belive"... As somebody sugested, why not try to add "however, the roundness of the earth is diputed by the [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html "flat earht society"]. ::The proposed edit does not belong in this article, in my view, because we are not stating as a fact that anything related to Islam existed before Muhammad. We are talking about what Muslims believe about Muhammad. If that's not relevant to this article, nothing is relevant to this article. ::Again, if you are eager to make a point about the shortcomings of religious belief in comparison to scientific or historic analysis, please try revising Jesus first and report back. 19:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Allow me to point out that even though I'm not a Muslim, I believe I understand WHY Muslims claim that Islam existed before Muhammad. If it is ''true'' that human beings find their peace and satisfaction in submission to God, then that is ''true'' for the whole history of the human race. It's inherent in the nature of things, like the law of gravity. Newton didn't invent gravity, he just stated it mathematically. Darwin didn't invent evolution, he just explained it. Just so, traditional Buddhists believe that there were Buddhas before the historical Shakyamuni Buddha, because the Buddhist teaching, the Dharma, is true at all times and places. Muhammad's insistence that he wasn't discovering something new, he was just restating something that people had been finding and losing for millenia -- well, that makes sense from a religious standpoint. If you see religion as a gigantic cognitive error, then of course this is going to seem completely bogus. User:Zora 20:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC) ::Well put!!! Count me in for what Zora said, only, you know, pretend like I actually wrote it. User:BrandonYusufToropov 18:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC) ==="Claimed"=== This is a "boo" word that does not belong in the opening paragraph, or probably anywhere else in this context. Consider: :George W. Bush assumed office as the 43rd President of the United States, having claimed to win the 2000 presidential election. Would that opening stand for long? I think not. Re: Muhammad's experience, a formulation like "reported" or "told those close to him" of visits from the Angel Gabriel should certainly suffice. 12:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC) "reported" or "told those close to him" sounds fine to me. --User:Striver 13:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC) :: agreed --User:Urchid 13:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC) == Amended Introduction == I rewrote the intro to incorporate all points of view discussed. I believe it provides a fair presentation of information that not only captures the Muslim POV but also Non Muslim as well. If you have any comments I will be hearing from you on short order.--User:Urchid 00:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC) : Well, no, it's not OK. For one thing, it repeats info that follows later, in two versions. Yours makes three, which is too much. You seem to have a fierce focus on the opening paragraph and YOUR edits, without much concern for what's in the rest of the article. User:Zora 02:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::The latest version was an attempt at coming up with text which was fair to all points of view, yours and others. I upheld Wikipedia policy layed out in the NPOV article. So why not allow other POVs in this article besides the one you are so determinedly trying to uphold in these series of articles. I don't get your dogged refusal to open your mind to other POVs (such as the POV of non Abrahamistic faiths) and your apparent determination to block every non-muslim POV edit using any PRETEXT you can think of. This seems contradictory to the very assertions of "tolerance" so often used by Muslims to portray their faith. Is the lesson to learn that ISLAM IS INHERENTLY INTOLERANT OF OTHER POINTS OF VIEW? That seems to be the message that is being heard loud and clear. You also keep repeating that you are buddhist , that is really perplexing to me, I am accustomed to expect a great deal of open-mindedness from Buddhists. --User:Urchid 05:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ---- I read the para to which you objected again, and decided that it did give an overall impression of piety. None of the sentences in themselves are objectionable -- they're all NPOV -- it's just the way things are grouped. So, I think I understand what bugs you, Urchid. But I don't think your edits really fix the "problem", nor is your attitude helping anyone else see what you see. If you'd arrived and said, "There's something wrong with the first para, what can we do to fix it?" I think you'd have gotten less resistance. But instead you arrive, call us names, and engage in revert wars to impose fixes that don't work. I think we could probably fix it by taking out everything that relates to "how Muslims view Muhammad, how they refer to him, etc." and perhaps using it to end the article, instead of the current ending, which is a bit triumphalist. We'd have to keep the "non-Muslims view as founder, Muslims view as renewer" bit, as that relates to why he's encyclopedia-worthy, but the rest could be postponed, instead of being put front and center. I think that would address your concerns, without being as repetitive and strident as the para you keep proposing. User:Zora 08:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC) lol. Urchid, Zora isnt muslim... --User:Striver 12:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC) == Suggested intro== Muhammad listen (Arabic محمد, also transliterated Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, and formerly Mahomet, following the Latin). 7th century Arabian theological leader of the : Muhammad never did theology. That's a later development in Islamic thought. faith of Islam who is said to have received revelations from God through the intermediary of an angel while meditating in a cave near Medina Arabia. : too much detail; not necessary here, and covered twice later He is revered by Muslims who believe him to be the final prophet of the God of the Abrahamic family of religions. : you're confusing ideas about God with the thing/process/experience/whatever to which you're pointing when you use words and ideas. According to his traditional Muslim biographies (called sirah in Arabic), he was born c. 570 in Mecca (or "Makkah") and died June 8, 632 in Medina (Madinah), both cities in northern Arabia. His name is Arabic for "he who is highly praised". Muhammad is widely believed to be the founder of the religion of Islam. Pious Muslims consider that his work merely clarified and finalized what they term as the "true religion", building on the work of other prophets of Abrahamic monotheism. Some have claimed that the religion of Islam had existed before the time of Muhammad though this latter assertion has been challenged as an anachronism by secular historians. Muslims will often give him the title Rasūlu 'llāh, "messenger of God", and follow his name in speech and in writing with the phrase sallallahu `alayhi wa s-salām, or, if using English, "peace be upon him".--User:Urchid 12:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC) : All this stuff can be split up. : I've got too much on my plate right now, but perhaps I can do a trial re-org AFTER I finish my current proofreading job, then post the trial on my user page. User:Zora 14:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Huh: :''He is revered by Muslims who believe him to be the final prophet of the God of the Abrahamic family of religions.'' ::''you're confusing ideas about God with the thing/process/experience/whatever to which you're pointing when you use words and ideas.'' Don't follow you there Zora. The line before yours very accurately reflects reality as I have seen it— on three continents (four or five, if you count meeting Muslims who live there) and in all sorts of sub-configurations; Shia, Sunni...that's what the common Muslim believes. They might be deluded/wrong/technically in the wrong; but that's what they believe. Am I misunderstanding you?User:IFaqeer—User:IFaqeer User talk:IFaqeer 19:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC) : Probably I wasn't clear. I wrote it late at night, thought it looked too Buddhist (don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon), but didn't have the energy to unpack it further. OK, lemme try. : When polytheists are arguing, it can go two ways. One polytheist dismisses the other's gods as mere human fabrications, while claiming that his/her gods are REAL. Or, as more often happened, one polytheist claims that the other side's gods may have different names and histories, but they are REALLY the same gods. (Roman mythology grafting itself onto Greek.) : When monotheists argue with polytheists, they say that their one god is the only real one, and the other gods are delusions (the usual position of the Abrahamic religions). Or sometimes, they'll say that the polytheists' gods are debased and confused versions of the REAL god. : When monotheists argue with monotheists, they usually agree that they've both got it right in supposing that there's only one god, but attack each other's version of that god. Sometimes you get monotheists taking the tack that their version of god is REAL, but their opponents worship a false god (Christians attacking Muslims), but this is usually a popular rather than philosophical approach. : When atheists argue with monotheists or polytheists, they usually dismiss the whole idea of god/gods as delusion, lumping the monotheists and polytheists into one category. (Pre-modern Buddhism usually took a slightly different tack, accepting that there were gods, but seeing them as just as enslaved by natural cycles and processes as anything else.) : Urchid says he's trying to avoid POV, but calling the conception of god advanced by the Abrahamic religions, "the Abrahamic god", he's implying either the condescending version of monotheism (my god is real, but their god is the Abrahamic god, a false god) or atheism (it's all delusion, the Abrahamic god is just one kind of delusion). From everything else he's said, he's of the "it's all delusion" persuasion. So he's in the position of advancing his POV by belligerently asserting that he's NPOV and everyone else is POV. The usual thing in Wikipedia . : Writing about religion is walking through verbal minefields, and I believe that Urchid has laid a mine with his phrasing. User:Zora 22:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :: Not quite Zora . The phrasing I used is aimed at describing the assertions related to Mohamed from an universal NPOV, one that neither endorses or denies the allegations being presented but rather considers the facts that are self evident to all POVs regardless of personal convictions. The only way to refer to "GOD" without implying endorsement or denial is to define the scope of the word GOD in the context of its use , that is the God of abrahamic monotheism. When monotheists, polytheist, atheist and even theoretical physicists can all read the text and understand what is being said clearly then we wrote it right.--User:Urchid 00:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ::: The Muhammad article is not the place to argue whether or not there is such a thing as "god" or "gods". Seems to me that you're trying to drag that argument here. The matter is quite thoroughly discussed at God and surely a link to the article would point a reader in the direction of that argument. ::: @#$%$, I don't have TIME for this, but here's a proposed intro para: Muhammad (Arabic script محمد, also transliteration ''Mohammad'', ''Mohammed'', ''Muhammed'', and formerly ''Mahomet'', following the Latin) was an Arabian religious and political leader. Non-Muslims consider him the founder of Islam. Muslims say that he is merely the final prophet of Islam, which they consider to have existed before Muhammad. According to traditional Muslim biographers, he was born c. 570 C.E. in Mecca (Makkah) and died June 8, 632 C.E. in Medina (Madinah); both Mecca and Medina are cities in northern Arabia. ::: There, reasons for being noteworthy, location in space and time, respectful of Muslim tradition, but I believe NPOV. The rest can go at the end, I haven't finished tweaking it. User:Zora 01:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC) Zora, I think you are over-analyzing. The like your description of the possible permutations—it taught me something new. But Urchid is right in saying that that's how Muslims see it. Maybe a better way of describing it (keeping your critique in mind) is that Muslims see Islam's understand of the divine as being in the same tradition as previous Abrahamic religions. Or something. Let me see if I can edit yoru proposed text and see if Urchid likes it: Muhammad (Arabic script محمد, also transliteration ''Mohammad'', ''Mohammed'', ''Muhammed'', and formerly ''Mahomet'', following the Latin) was an Arabian religious and political leader. Non-Muslims consider him the founder of Islam. Muslims say that he is merely the final prophet of Islam, which they consider to have existed before Muhammad and be in the same tradition as Judaism and Christianity. According to traditional Muslim biographers, he was born c. 570 C.E. in Mecca (Makkah) and died June 8, 632 C.E. in Medina (Madinah); both Mecca and Medina are cities in northern Arabia. : IFaqeer, your version is OK by me. I'd add only one thing: ''to'' be in the same tradition as .... Just to keep the parallelism, and to refresh the previous ''to'' in the reader's mind. But this is a tiny caveat. : Would you have the time to take the material that was omitted, and put it at the end of the article? A section on how Muslims regard Muhammad (use of PBUH after name, refusal to make images, or if images, face veiled, large hagiographic literature) would actually make a nice ending to the article. Of course then we'd have to put in a section re Muhammad being a demon from hell, in the view of medieval Christians, etc., but that might actually head off some of the vandalism. User:Zora 03:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == Recent vandalism == Both the Muhammad and the Islam articles have been attacked by a vandal who is ''spoofing'' other editors and admins. He has been dubbed the ''doppelganger'' or ''impersonator vandal''. He creates a new account that appears to be the account of a well-known editor or admin, (ChantingFox instead of Chanting Fox, for example) and copies the user and talk pages of the victim onto his new account. He then proceeds to vandalize his targets, all the while claiming to be "NPOVing" the article. I imagine that various folks are engaged right now in figuring out what IPs he's using, and blocking them. User:Zora 02:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :It's sad when someone's hatred towards a religion makes them spoof over 10 accounts and waste all that time for nothing.User:Yuber^{User_talk:Yuber} 02:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC) == announcing NPOV proposal, new policy == This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. User:Slrubenstein | User talk:Slrubenstein 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Bold text == Banu Qurayza == Can someone please explain this to me. http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=Banu+qurayza&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta= --User:Striver 20:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC) == Urchid's latest edits == Urchid, to the summary (which people keep trying to expand), you added: * That Muhammad was illiterate. That's too detailed for the summary; it's what most Muslims believe; but I believe I've read Western historians who say that it's unlikely that a merchant in those times would have been illiterate. Are you putting that in there as an accusation? * That he traveled only in Arabia. If we trust the Islamic sources, that's not true. He is supposed to have traveled to Syria. Perhaps other places, my memory is failing me here. Again, this sounds like an accusation -- country hick. If you're going to try to whittle down religious figures, at least do some research! User:Zora 18:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Well that Muhammad was illiterate is certainly the Muslim spin or POV on this story , it is one of the arguments for strenghthening the case of the "miracle of the Qu'ran". :That he would be literate on the basis of having been a merchand does not really follow. The third world is filled with illiterate merchants. Being a merchant does not imply literacy, but business sense. But I suppose , neither you, I or anyone else in this world will ever be able to prove any of the claims you and your revisionist fellow travellers are weaving into these series of articles. :The question arises ,though is why would Mohamad have to memorise the verses relayed to him by an Angel in a cave , if he could write them down. And where are his writings if he could write , does it not seem like those would have been considered sacred and preserved by his followers? And why has no one ever seen such an angel in a cave in arabia since. The muslims say that the revelation was final, but why did the angel have to go into hiding with bigfoot? :Well if you consider travelling the 600 miles to Syria by crossing the arabian desert and back as "widely travelled" then fine. Of course I supposed he could have taken a ship ride up the red sea , gone through egypt , crossing the levant to get to Syria. :When are you converting to Islam, Zora, or are you already wearing a chador?--User:Urchid 23:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Well, right now I'm wearing a pair of shorts and a T-shirt that's frayed on the edges. Nope, no chador that I can see. User:Zora 00:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::Well, it's fraying so you'll need a new shirt soon... so why not just go for jilbaab and replace it all in one action? User:Grenavitar 03:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) "more than likely on a camel" - LOL! Nice of you to make it obvious that you're making it up as you go along, at least... - User:Mustafaa 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Urchid I don't see the relevance of your talk page comments. We are not here to debate whether the revelations were true or completely fabricated. Your edits were very insignificant and pointless. What does it matter if he traveled on a camel or on an Arabian horse?User:Yuber^{User_talk:Yuber} 23:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: No Yuber its a camel , no arabian horse would survive that trip through 600 miles of desert, I guess we, undecapitaded infidels, still manage to compare the real world with all the contradictory revisionist propaganda that has been woven into this article. --User:Urchid 00:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::There are oases on the way to Syria, I've been to many of them. I think I will stop taking your comments seriously now, you are not worth the response.User:Yuber^{User_talk:Yuber} 00:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: Actually it is who you volunteered your two cents in this discussion, I certainly did not ask for your opinion.--User:Urchid 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::::: Urchid, I ask that you be more polite. This is a talk page for an article and no one's opinion has to be asked for. Thank you. User:Grenavitar 03:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Gren and the bolded statements from Yuber and Zora above are what?.--User:Urchid 04:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Urchid, I was saying that you seem to be accusing Muhammad of being a country hick, not that YOU are. User:Zora 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Brandon's recent edit == Brandon, we've usually gotten along, and I hope our collaboration will survive my latest revert. I think you lost sight of the overall goal when you expanded the summary section. It is NOT meant to be the main article. If you add too much detail, you end with an article that says the same things twice. Nor is it right to add Muslim triumphalist rhetoric to the summary (Number 2 and growing!). Finally, one of the reasons for the summary was to put down a list of the things that even the most sceptical of Western scholars would accept. There are many scholars who believe that we do not ''really'' know all that much about Muhammad, and that much of what Muslims think they do know is later fabrication, whether in the service of hagiography, or to explain obscure passages in the Qur'an (inventing occasions of revelation), or for political reasons, or as a basis for fiqh. One of the reasons that I ''split'' the article into summary and main section was to separate the version that even the skeptics would accept from the expanded version that Muslims prefer. Please don't lose sight of the distinction. OK? Still good buds? User:Zora 20:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == POV sticker added == A brand new user just slapped a POV sticker on the article, without justifying it on the talk page at all. I trust that some justification is coming. User:Zora 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Why the POV tag== This article is representing a single Islamic POV. It does not present the POV of editors who disagree with the assertions made. Discussion page is littered with evidence of this. The current page POV is held by force by a number of pro-islamic editors who do not allow any alternate POV, and who even block the tag itself from the page. Thus the tag.--User:Clrhayt 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I am inclined to remove the tag as you are a brand new user with seemingly no experience on Wikipedia.User:Yuber^{User_talk:Yuber} 23:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is not an argument. If you want to claim the page is POV, present specifics, not hand-waving generalities. - User:Mustafaa 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Are you kidding ? This page is so POV , you could use it as a sermon in a mosque. I haven't been able to get any alternate POV in this page for weeks. The usual gang of pro-islam thugs goes into an immediate revert war whenever I try to add any other POV. The POV tag should have been inserted a long time ago.--User:Urchid 23:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: Hmm... I think I see another paragraph of hand-waving generalities. Specifics please? - User:Mustafaa 23:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::You might start by reading the discussions above , you might note all the concerns I or others have raised that have been bullied down through ganging up in revert wars.--User:Urchid 00:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::: I see no arguments for a POV tag above - and still no specifics... It looks like none will be forthcoming from you. - User:Mustafaa 00:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I believe this article can have a tag... I do not think it is horrible but there are some things that I believe could be helped. I would make it because the factual accuracy isn't really wrong but it is Sunni Islam slanted some... I do think that Urchid, based on his other edits wants it to have no "Islamic slant" but... there will always be the appearance of an "Islamic slant" as he calls it in the nature of the subject matter, we are not going to open with "Muhammad was a terrorist who has incited modern Muslims to violence according to Daniel Pipes" because... that's just bad... surely we could cite something along those lines but this article is about Muhammad who is only important because he is a famous Muslim... that is his foremost role... I do think we could use to show some of what Goldziher, Schacht, Wansbrough, Cook, Crone, Rippin, Berg (mentioned in the article say) critical of Sira's use or something along those lines... the Muhammad was a terrorist stuff (if that's what the doubledispute tagger wants added) is rubbish along the lines of Jesus was a big faker who drank too much wine and preached some. Err, historically Muhammad is understood as a prophet in fact I am reading the 1995 Britannica encyclopedia article about him and it is far more "single Islamic POV" than this article is... User:Grenavitar 03:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) == His name == Since I started reading the Britannica article to respond to some criticisms of this article's POV (not that Britannica is perfect, but it is a good reference point for what encyclopedic is, I think it might also have a lot more content about Islam in general than we do)... but it states "Muhammad (in full Abū al-Qāsim Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allāh ibn 'Abd al-Muţţalib ibn Hāshim" (the 'h' in Muhammad has the same diacritic mark as under the t in Muţţalib — I just can't find how to reproduce it) Should this be added to the article? Where does this come from? etc. etc. User:Grenavitar 03:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) : We have all this except for Abul-Qasim already; see the "Muhammad's genealogy" section. - User:Mustafaa 17:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: I that's fine... I doubt he's ever called by his more full Arabic name... so splitting it up is fine I'd suppose. User:Grenavitar 20:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Re: I'd like to write down a note about something which many people don't realize, it is about the Arabic expression , which is the same used by Arab Christians to describe 'God' in the Christian belief. So as a word doesn't refer to any but the same which the English word refers to, whatever it was by the thing/process/experience. menSh 21:35, 8 Jun 2005 (GMT) : Indeed. See Allah. - User:Mustafaa 22:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Miracles== ' This article didn't mention any about the miracles Muhammad came with - which looks like: " Hey.. there's something you missed here! " When anyone of us may hear about someone who claims Prophecy: Looking for the proofs (the miracles) he brought is among the first actions our minds jump to. And thus; I think that we have to mention some of what Muhammad brought as miracles. There are hundreds of scholars who wrote in the past and continue writing on this subject. Entire books and volumes have been devoted to this subject. And so, we can pick up some to be added to our Wikipedia which will help enriching the info this article presents. There are some who have mentioned his miracles and especially the miracle of the Qur’an as proofs of his prophethood. Some others have mentioned the prophecies of previous prophets about his coming as mentioned in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Some have also mentioned prophecies in other ancient religious literatures of Hindus, Buddhists. Some have based the proofs on the Prophet’s own character, teachings and his achievements. This is indeed a vast subject and can be discussed in many different ways. It is important to know the proofs of his prophethood. Through this knowledge one can distinguish the true prophet from those who make false claims. For sure; adding those info without commenting on them is the best to do, to not fall in the trap of judging his message and affecting the reader's opinion/view. In another way: showing this side of the man's life - as long as it is recorded in his biography - ; would help establishing the noble aim of this free encyclopedia: Neutral point of view. ' menSh 13:05, 9 Jun 2005 (GMT) : This article does mention his principal miracle, and the only one which is certain: the Qur'an. The few other miracles claimed in the Hadith are much less certain, and prophecies of his coming in ancient religious literatures even less so; but if you want to try and put together something on the topic, it could be interesting... - User:Mustafaa 17:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) :: He never claimed that he performed any of the miracles. He always maintained that it was God, or Angels, or whatever. The Water from thin air one though, thats got a good few witnesses, doesn't it? --User:Irishpunktom\^{User_talk:Irishpunktom} 22:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) == Michael H. Hart == Michael H. Hart surly is not irrelevant... http://www.google.se/search?q=Michael+H.+Hart+-muhammad+-islam&hl=sv gives 1 830 000 hits--User:Striver 08:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) "to date over 60,000 copies of the book have sold" http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=315901&cat=20732&type=3&dept=3920&path=0%3A3920%3A18748%3A20732 If it's being sold at a discount at Walmart, well, yes, it might have sold a few thousand copies. But that doesn't make it a best-seller, not does it mean that the book has any reputation in the scholarly or journalistic communities. User:Zora 20:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Ok :) --User:Striver 08:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Muhammad and his slaves section== Here is the suggested slave section: "Muhammad owned slaves who were prisoners from battle, captured non-believers and their children. The names of Muhammad's slaves were :Ab Kabsha, Abu Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Abu Rafi , Abu Waqid, Aflah, Anjasha al-Hadi, Dhakwan, Fadala Yamamin, Fadila, Hunayn, Karkara, Kasam, Khadra, Mabur, Mad am, Mary the Coptic, , Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa d, Mirwan, Rabah, Radwa, Rayhana, Razina, Salih, Salma Um Rafi , Sanad, Tahman, Thawban, Ubayd, Um Damira, Waqid, Yakan Abu Sharh, Yara Nubyan, Zayd Ibn Haritha."--User:Urchid 10:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Evidence for being first written constitution? == Some has added a factoid re the Compact of Medina being the world's first written constitution. This seems unlikely to me -- writing has been around for a long time, and people have been drafting agreements for a long time -- and it's unsourced. Also, I vaguely recall some controversy as to whether there's any evidence that the text dates from Muhammad or is actually a later creation. I haven't removed the claim, but I'd like to see a source and some arguments re date of creation. User:Zora 21:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I added that in Constitution, so it could have been drefted here because of that. Perhaps It should state earliest known Written Constitution. Anyway, I replaced a phrase that stated King Johns was the first, which we know from the Constitution of Medina to be untrue, but I've read from varying sources that Muhammads was the first. The main source for the Written Constitution of Muhammad's is the Sirat Rasul Allah, by Ibn Ishaq. [http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm Read This]. Not sure about the controversy, but thats not to say there is none. --User:Irishpunktom\^{User_talk:Irishpunktom} 22:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad

==Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers to the Wikipedia== Here are some links I thought useful: *Wikipedia:Tutorial *Wikipedia:Help desk *M:Foundation issues *Wikipedia:Policy Library *Wikipedia:Utilities *Wikipedia:Cite your sources *Wikipedia:Verifiability *Wikipedia:Wikiquette *Wikipedia:Civility *Wikipedia:Conflict resolution *Wikipedia:Brilliant prose *Wikipedia:Neutral point of view *Wikipedia:Pages needing attention *Wikipedia:Peer review *Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense *Wikipedia:Village pump *Wikipedia:Boilerplate text *Wikipedia:IRC channel *Wikipedia:Mailing lists *Wikipedia:Current polls Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. Be Bold! User:Sam Spade http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new Spade 01:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

M

MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |

Words begining with Muhammad:

Muhammad
Muhammad
Muhammad
Muhammad's_marriages
Muhammad's_marriages
Muhammad's_wives
Muhammad-Baqir-i-Bushru'i
Muhammad-Hasan-i-Bushru'i
Muhammad/archive_1
Muhammadan_art
Muhammads_Wives
Muhammadu_Buhari
Muhammadu_Buhari
Muhammad_'Abbas
Muhammad_'Abduh
Muhammad_'ali
Muhammad_(disambiguation)
Muhammad_(pbuh)
Muhammad_(pbuh)
Muhammad_(sura)
Muhammad_a-Dura
Muhammad_Abbas
Muhammad_Abd-al-Rahman_Barker
Muhammad_Abdi_Yusuf
Muhammad_Abduh
Muhammad_Abdullah
Muhammad_Abd_Al-Wahhab
Muhammad_Abd_al_Wahhab
Muhammad_Abd_ar-Rauf_al-Qudwah_al-Husayni
Muhammad_Ahmad
Muhammad_Ahmad
Muhammad_Ahmed
Muhammad_Ahmed_ibn-Seyyid_Abdullah
Muhammad_Ahmed_ibn-Seyyid_Abdullah
Muhammad_Akram_Khan
Muhammad_al-Badr
Muhammad_al-Baqir
Muhammad_al-Baradei
Muhammad_al-Durra
Muhammad_al-Durrah
Muhammad_al-Durrah
Muhammad_Al-Fayed
Muhammad_al-Idrisi
Muhammad_al-Idrisi
Muhammad_al-Mahdi
Muhammad_al-Mahdi
Muhammad_al-Muqri
Muhammad_al-Muqri
Muhammad_Ali
Muhammad_Ali
Muhammad_Ali's_seizure_of_power
Muhammad_Ali's_seizure_of_power
Muhammad_Alim_Khan
Muhammad_Ali_(disambiguation)
Muhammad_Ali_Bogra
Muhammad_Ali_Center
Muhammad_Ali_Haitham
Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah
Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt
Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt
Muhammad_Ali_Pasha
Muhammad_al_Baqir
Muhammad_Al_Dura
Muhammad_al_Durrah
Muhammad_al_Mahdi
Muhammad_Amin_Al-Husayni
Muhammad_Amin_Didi
Muhammad_an-Nasir
Muhammad_Anwar_al-Sadat
Muhammad_Aqa-Kermani
Muhammad_Asad
Muhammad_Asad
Muhammad_Asif_Muhsini
Muhammad_as_a_warrior
Muhammad_as_a_warrior
Muhammad_as_warrior
Muhammad_as_warrior
Muhammad_at-Taqi
Muhammad_Atef
Muhammad_at_Taqi
Muhammad_Ayub_Khan
Muhammad_Bahonar
Muhammad_Banu_Musa
Muhammad_Baqir_al-Sadr
Muhammad_Baqr_al-Sadr
Muhammad_Bello
Muhammad_Bey_III
Muhammad_Bey_IV
Muhammad_Bey_V
Muhammad_Bey_VI
Muhammad_Bey_VII
Muhammad_Bey_VIII
Muhammad_bin_Abdul_Wahab
Muhammad_bin_Abdul_Wahhab
Muhammad_bin_Laden
Muhammad_bin_Qasim
Muhammad_bin_Qasim
Muhammad_bin_Saud
Muhammad_bin_Saud
Muhammad_bin_Shakhbut
Muhammad_bin_Shakhbut
Muhammad_bin_Tughlaq
Muhammad_bin_Tughluq
Muhammad_Boudiaf
Muhammad_Ershad
Muhammad_Farah_Aydid
Muhammad_Farooq_Rehmani
Muhammad_Fazel_Lankarani
Muhammad_Ghori
Muhammad_Haji_Ibrahim_Egal
Muhammad_Hamzah_az-Zubaydi
Muhammad_Hamza_Zubaydi
Muhammad_Hassan
Muhammad_Hassanein_Heikal
Muhammad_Hatta
Muhammad_Hazmaq_al-Zubaydi
Muhammad_Hazma_al-Zubaydi
Muhammad_I
Muhammad_ibn-Abd-al-Wahab
Muhammad_Ibn_'Abd_al-Karim_Al-Khattabi
Muhammad_Ibn_'abd_Al-Wahhab
Muhammad_ibn_Abdalla
Muhammad_ibn_Abdul_Wahab
Muhammad_ibn_Abdul_Wahhab
Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Karim_al-Khattabi
Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al-Wahhab
Muhammad_ibn_abd_al-Wahhab
Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al_Wahab
Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al_Wahhab
Muhammad_ibn_Abd_al_Wahhab
Muhammad_Ibn_Arabi
Muhammad_ibn_Falah
Muhammad_ibn_Idris_ash_Shafii
Muhammad_Ibn_Ishaq
Muhammad_Ibn_Isma'il_Ad-Darazi
Muhammad_ibn_Ismail_ad-Darazi
Muhammad_ibn_Ismail_ad-Darazi
Muhammad_Ibn_Ismail_Ibn_Ibrahim_Ibn_al-Mughirah_Ibn_Bardizbah_al-Bukhari
Muhammad_ibn_Mahmud_Amuli
Muhammad_ibn_Mubarak_ibn_Hamad_Al_Khalifah
Muhammad_ibn_Musa_Al-Khwarizmi
Muhammad_ibn_Musa_al-Khwarizmi
Muhammad_Ibn_Saalih_Ibn_'Uthaymeen
Muhammad_Ibn_Saalih_Ibn_'Uthaymeen
Muhammad_ibn_Saud
Muhammad_Ibn_Tughluq
Muhammad_ibn_Tughluq
Muhammad_ibn_Yusuf_al-Harawi
Muhammad_ibn_`Ali_`Abd_ash-Shakur
Muhammad_Ibrahim
Muhammad_Ibrahim_Makkawi
Muhammad_II
Muhammad_III
Muhammad_III_as-Sadiq
Muhammad_III_of_Umayyad
Muhammad_II_of_Khwarezm
Muhammad_II_the_Great
Muhammad_Iqbal
Muhammad_Iqbal
Muhammad_Ismail_Agha
Muhammad_IV
Muhammad_IV_al-Hadi
Muhammad_I_Askia
Muhammad_I_of_Umayyad
Muhammad_I_of_Umayyad
Muhammad_J._Bahonar
Muhammad_Jamalul_Alam_II
Muhammad_Jamal_Khalifa
Muhammad_Javi_Bahonar
Muhammad_Jinnah
Muhammad_Kara
Muhammad_Khan
Muhammad_Khan_Junejo
Muhammad_Khilji
Muhammad_Marmaduke_Pickthall
Muhammad_Mehdi_ibn_Ali_Naqi
Muhammad_Mossadegh
Muhammad_Mossadeq
Muhammad_Mussadegh
Muhammad_Naasiruddeen_al-Albaanee
Muhammad_Nadir_Khan
Muhammad_Nadir_Shah
Muhammad_Naeem_Moor_Khan
Muhammad_Naeem_Noor_Khan
Muhammad_Naguib
Muhammad_Naguib
Muhammad_Najib_al-Rubai
Muhammad_Najib_ar-Ruba'i
Muhammad_Naji_al-Otari
Muhammad_Nasim_Pasha
Muhammad_Nawaz_Sharif
Muhammad_of_Ghor
Muhammad_of_Ghori
Muhammad_Prophet
Muhammad_Quli_Qutb_Shah
Muhammad_Quli_Qutb_Shah
Muhammad_Quli_Qutub_Shah
Muhammad_Qutb_Shah
Muhammad_Qutub_Shah
Muhammad_Rabbani
Muhammad_Rafiq_Tarar
Muhammad_Reza
Muhammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Muhammad_Reza_Shah
Muhammad_Reza_Shah_Pahlavi
Muhammad_Reza_Shajarian
Muhammad_Sadeq_al-Sadr
Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
Muhammad_Said_al-Attar
Muhammad_Shah
Muhammad_Shahidullah
Muhammad_Shah_Qajar
Muhammad_Shamsuddeen_III
Muhammad_Sharif_Pasha
Muhammad_Shaybani
Muhammad_Siad_Barre
Muhammad_Siyad_Barre
Muhammad_Taqfiq_Nasim
Muhammad_Taqfiq_Nasim_Pasha
Muhammad_Taufik_bin_Batisah
Muhammad_Tawfiq_Nasim_Pasha
Muhammad_Tawfiq_Pasha
Muhammad_Thakurufaanu_Al-Azam
Muhammad_Thakurufaanu_Al-Azam
Muhammad_Thakurufar_Al-Azam
Muhammad_Thakurufar_Al-Azam
Muhammad_Tughlak
Muhammad_Tughlaq
Muhammad_Ullah
Muhammad_V
Muhammad_VI
Muhammad_VIII_al-Amin
Muhammad_VII_al-Munsif
Muhammad_VI_al-Habib
Muhammad_VI_al-Habib_bin_Ma'mun
Muhammad_VI_of_Morocco
Muhammad_V_an-Nasir
Muhammad_V_of_Morocco
Muhammad_Walid_Salahi
Muhammad_XI
Muhammad_Xi
Muhammad_Yahya_Waliullah
Muhammad_Yakub_Khan
Muhammad_Yunus
Muhammad_Zafrulla_Khan
Muhammad_Zafrulla_Khan
Muhammad_Zahir_Shah
Muhammad_Zaidan
Muhammad_Zaidan
Muhammad_Zery
Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq
Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq
Muhammad_Zia_Ul-Haq
Muhammad_Zia_ul-Haq
Muhammad_Zia_ul-Haq
Muhammad_`Ali_Pasha

These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL