Once again, trolling removed. |
Eyewitness44 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
::::::::Banu Qurayza were judged by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh "a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad", not by the Prophet Muhammad Himself. This is why they were judged by Justice rather than by Grace. |
::::::::Banu Qurayza were judged by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh "a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad", not by the Prophet Muhammad Himself. This is why they were judged by Justice rather than by Grace. |
||
::::::::Prophet Muhammad judged all his defeated enemies with Grace [Banu al-Khazraj, Banu Nadir, the Jews of Khaybar and the polytheists of Mecca are included]. The only exception was Banu Qurayza, who were judged by Sa'd ibn Ubadah not by the Prophet, and he judged them with Justice not by Grace. |
::::::::Prophet Muhammad judged all his defeated enemies with Grace [Banu al-Khazraj, Banu Nadir, the Jews of Khaybar and the polytheists of Mecca are included]. The only exception was Banu Qurayza, who were judged by Sa'd ibn Ubadah not by the Prophet, and he judged them with Justice not by Grace. |
||
::::::::This great example of the Prophet was observed later by his Companions [i.e. his Disciples] during the Muslim conquests. For example, when Omar entered Jerusalem in 637, he judged its people with Grace. He didn't kill any single citizen and didn't destroy any single church [including the church of the holy sepulchre]. |
::::::::This great example of the Prophet was observed later by his Companions [i.e. his Disciples] during the Muslim conquests. For example, when Omar entered Jerusalem in 637, he judged its people with Grace. He didn't kill any single citizen and didn't destroy any single church [including the church of the holy sepulchre].--[[User:Eyewitness44|Eyewitness44]] ([[User talk:Eyewitness44|talk]]) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
==Edits== |
==Edits== |
||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
The first person on Hart's list is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Hart asserted that Muhammad was "supremely successful" in both the religious and secular realms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Musafirsafwan|Musafirsafwan]] ([[User talk:Musafirsafwan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Musafirsafwan|contribs]]) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The first person on Hart's list is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Hart asserted that Muhammad was "supremely successful" in both the religious and secular realms.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History</ref> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Musafirsafwan|Musafirsafwan]] ([[User talk:Musafirsafwan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Musafirsafwan|contribs]]) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:{{ping|Musafirsafwan}} That used to be there but it was decided the author was an inappropriate source. "He has described himself as a white separatist[1] and is active in white separatist causes." --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Musafirsafwan}} That used to be there but it was decided the author was an inappropriate source. "He has described himself as a white separatist[1] and is active in white separatist causes." --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
== The article is generally biased against Muslims and to a large extent unreliable. == |
|||
As usual, the anti-Islamic sentiment is prevalent in this article like all Wikipedia articles. I am very sure that Wikipedia is a very attractive rostrum for the paid-mercenaries [aka Christian-missionaries]. I would love to delete the whole article and re-write an accurate one instead of it, but unfortunately the paid missionaries here will hurry up to impose their lies as they do in everywhere.--[[User:Eyewitness44|Eyewitness44]] ([[User talk:Eyewitness44|talk]]) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I only wish we were "paid" mercenaries. Sadly, it doesn't work like that and this article is the product of a multitude of ''unpaid'' Muslims, Christians, Jews, Aetheists, agnostics and those of a whole lot of other beliefs from around the world who have volunteered their efforts here. If you find deficiencies in it, you are welcome to improve the article if you are prepared to look at it from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] and use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. On the other hand, if you are here to push medieval bigotry, you are wasting your time. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 11:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:43, 8 September 2014
Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Error: The code letter muh-im
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Al-Isra Wal Miraj a Physical Journey
I think it should be included that Imam Bukhari and many others have presented the Al-Isra Wal Miraj as a physical journey before Ibn Ishaq stated his views. There were many people prior to Ibn Ishaq who believed that Al-Isra Wal Miraj was a physical journey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- How can Imam Bukhari state his views before Ibn Ishaq while Ibn Ishaq lived long before Imam Bukhari did? Also note that, such matters, if needed, shall be addressed in its own entry Isra_and_Mi'raj --» nafSadh did say 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit page title request
Please Edit the page title from Muhammad to Muhammad Paigambar. talk
Big mistake which must be altered asap.
The article states:
Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of three main Jewish tribes.[14] Although Muhammad wanted them executed, Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy chief of the Khazraj tribe did not agree and they were expelled to Syria but without their property.
The text in bold which states the Muhammad wanted them executed is not supported by evidence and the writer does not even give a source. This is because no source actually infers that muhammad called for their execution (rather narrations claim that he was angry). Seems to me to be written by an Islamophobe. Change this please as I am unable to make edits.Omar.mahmoud28 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- A source is given (that 119 that appears at the end of that sentence), and looking into p.189 of "An Introduction to the Quran," the material is supported by the source. I'm also finding that it could be additionally sourced by [http://books.google.com/books?id=6J0WnWABM34C&lpg=PA61&dq=muhammad%20execute%20Banu%20Qaynuqa&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false this source and this source. This source, which is more pious than academic even admits that Muhammad had to be called to show mercy to them (indicating at the least that he was going to call for some sort of unmerciful action).
- Please assume good faith on behalf of editors, and make sure that that an addition does not have sources and is counter to sources before claiming it is unsupported. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- The "wanted them executed" is certainly disputed. Other sources state that he wanted them to leave Medina and Abdullah ibn Ubayy pleaded to stop the expulsion. For example, W. Montgomery Watt writes: "Only 'Abd-Allah ibn-Ubayy tried to stop the expulsion. [...] He urged upon Muhammad the important contribution Qaynuqa could make to his forces in the event of further fighting with the Meccans -- they were said to have 700 fighting men, of whom about half were armored. But Muhammad insisted that they must leave, though he was prepared to be lenient about the other conditions." (Watt, 1974, Muhammad: prophet and statesman, p.131). Also, the source cited is not reliable (An Introduction to the Quran, from 1895), see [1]. Wiqi(55) 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- History is written by winners, we know; still we have to give preference to first hand citations than to what someone from distant would state. Even within the sources, it is not clear whether Muhammad wanted all of them to be executed or not, and there was a discussion about what to do with them including options for executing and enslaving them. As we find there is a dispute, the sentence in the article should be considered for a rephrase. --» nafSadh did say 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would probably support this, but we need first to find sources putting a different point of view. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Book: 64 Hadith: 4078 of Bukhari (MMK translation 5-59-362) somewhat supports the narrative that is in current version in this Wikipedia article. --» nafSadh did say 04:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- While the hadith supports that Banu Qaynuqa were exiled, it doesn't support Muhammad "wanted them executed". Even concerning their exile, some sources state that it "never took place during Muhammad's lifetime".[2]. The earliest source that supports what's in the article is al-Waqidi.[3] However, it is his explanation and not part of the narrative. Other sources like Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham (in addition to Watt and others) make no mention of it. The current article is reporting what al-Waqidi wrote as truth, which is one sided, other sources do not make this claim and his account of the exile is disputed. Wiqi(55) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is unclear whether he wanted to execute surrendered men, but it is clear that he killed some men (on battle??). Is there any source from Qaynuqa or Jews perspective? I searched over Muslim and Bukhari, there is really nothing much about it there. Can't find much of other source. This might seem silly; but probably this single phrase has pivotal role about characterization of the Prophet. We need more care :/ (confused, resigning from this discussion for now). --» nafSadh did say 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- While the hadith supports that Banu Qaynuqa were exiled, it doesn't support Muhammad "wanted them executed". Even concerning their exile, some sources state that it "never took place during Muhammad's lifetime".[2]. The earliest source that supports what's in the article is al-Waqidi.[3] However, it is his explanation and not part of the narrative. Other sources like Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham (in addition to Watt and others) make no mention of it. The current article is reporting what al-Waqidi wrote as truth, which is one sided, other sources do not make this claim and his account of the exile is disputed. Wiqi(55) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Book: 64 Hadith: 4078 of Bukhari (MMK translation 5-59-362) somewhat supports the narrative that is in current version in this Wikipedia article. --» nafSadh did say 04:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would probably support this, but we need first to find sources putting a different point of view. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- History is written by winners, we know; still we have to give preference to first hand citations than to what someone from distant would state. Even within the sources, it is not clear whether Muhammad wanted all of them to be executed or not, and there was a discussion about what to do with them including options for executing and enslaving them. As we find there is a dispute, the sentence in the article should be considered for a rephrase. --» nafSadh did say 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- The chief of Khazraj tribe was Sa'd ibn Ubadah, not Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy who wasn't the chief of any tribe at all. This is the first mistake in the sentence. The second mistake is the claim that the Prophet Muhammad wanted them executed. This is absolutely a false claim.--Eyewitness44 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is true that the Prophet Muhammad was the Hero of Heroes, and that He was victorious over all His enemies who fought against Him in battles [just as it was prophesied about him in Psalm 45]. However, He always judged His defeated enemies with Grace [with the exception of Banu Qurayza who were judged by Justice].
- Banu Qurayza were judged by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh "a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad", not by the Prophet Muhammad Himself. This is why they were judged by Justice rather than by Grace.
- Prophet Muhammad judged all his defeated enemies with Grace [Banu al-Khazraj, Banu Nadir, the Jews of Khaybar and the polytheists of Mecca are included]. The only exception was Banu Qurayza, who were judged by Sa'd ibn Ubadah not by the Prophet, and he judged them with Justice not by Grace.
- This great example of the Prophet was observed later by his Companions [i.e. his Disciples] during the Muslim conquests. For example, when Omar entered Jerusalem in 637, he judged its people with Grace. He didn't kill any single citizen and didn't destroy any single church [including the church of the holy sepulchre].--Eyewitness44 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Edits
I went ahead and was BOLD and moved things around in the lede. If anyone didn't understand why my edits fell under general policy:
(a) Our house style is to use c. (no italics, with a no-break space) rather than write out the entire word.
(b) Similarly, our house style is to begin the WP:LEADSENTENCE with the article's title wherever practical. Here, it helps with the flow and also allows a helpful link to the Arabic name article for those who are curious what all those ibns are on about.
— LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Date of death
My personal feeling is the circa on the date of death is misused to the point of being misleading. It's not that his death happened some day around that day: that is the exact day of his death according to tradition but the tradition itself might be off by months or years. I think the current footnote already does a fine job of explaining all that, and the circa should just be removed. — LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Names
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I will note that the general policy is to at least mention the very common historical and alternative names somewhere on the page. The "Names and appellations in the Quran" is cleverly entitled to sidestep what should be obvious: it should simply be a "Name" section. I would suggest three parts: Translation and commentary about "Muhammad" and his full name, explaining what its different parts mean; his names and epithets within the Quran; and historic and common English forms of the name, sourced and with discussion about the culture behind changing from Mahomet > Mohammed > Muhammad > why our article has a dot under the h and (roughly) how to say it properly. — LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Can you add it? Converting the appellation in Quran' into a different (sub) section can be a good idea too. --» nafSadh did say 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's include this
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart, reprinted in 1992 with revisions. It is a ranking of the 100 people who, according to Hart, most influenced human history.
The first person on Hart's list is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Hart asserted that Muhammad was "supremely successful" in both the religious and secular realms.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musafirsafwan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Musafirsafwan: That used to be there but it was decided the author was an inappropriate source. "He has described himself as a white separatist[1] and is active in white separatist causes." --NeilN talk to me 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is generally biased against Muslims and to a large extent unreliable.
As usual, the anti-Islamic sentiment is prevalent in this article like all Wikipedia articles. I am very sure that Wikipedia is a very attractive rostrum for the paid-mercenaries [aka Christian-missionaries]. I would love to delete the whole article and re-write an accurate one instead of it, but unfortunately the paid missionaries here will hurry up to impose their lies as they do in everywhere.--Eyewitness44 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- I only wish we were "paid" mercenaries. Sadly, it doesn't work like that and this article is the product of a multitude of unpaid Muslims, Christians, Jews, Aetheists, agnostics and those of a whole lot of other beliefs from around the world who have volunteered their efforts here. If you find deficiencies in it, you are welcome to improve the article if you are prepared to look at it from a neutral point of view and use reliable sources. On the other hand, if you are here to push medieval bigotry, you are wasting your time. DeCausa (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)