Talk:Diplomatic career of Muhammad

GA failed

I'm sorry to fail the second GA nomination of this article. The main issue is that the article's content is not in agreement with its title. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. This article discusses the following episodes of Muhammad's life:

• Muslim migration to Abyssinia (615) — this is not diplomacy. Just sending your followers elsewhere to hide has nothing to do with conducting negotiations with representatives of other groups.
• Journey to at-Ta'if (619) — this can be considered diplomacy because Muhammad is reported to have gone there to seek help.
• al-`Aqaba pledges (620—621) — this story on conversion of some people to Islamis is not diplomacy.
• Reformation of Medina (622—) — this is not diplomacy. Lawmaking, perhaps, but not diplomacy in any event.
• Events at Hudaybiyya (628) — this treaty can be considered diplomacy.
• Correspondence with other leaders — this section can be accepted.

Thus, I did not review those sections that do not fit into the article; the comments on the rest are below.

Well written: Fail. The article contains quite a few pieces of awkward writing, for example: Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat, One of the ways this was achieved was through the Constitution of Medina, The nature of his communication with leaders was broadly to establish correspondence on the premise of calling them to accept Islam., The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then., In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad (non-parallel structure), he would pray in the hopes of preceding generations of at-Ta'if coming to accept Islamic monotheism. (do you mean "succeeding generations"?) At this point, I simply grew tired. Please do a thorough copyediting of this article.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. The article is verifiable to reasonably good sources, but I have noticed several inaccuracies. The treaty of Hudaybiyya stipulated returning to Mecca not only minors, but also women. His followers were greatly disappointed at the conclusion of the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaybiyya; this is an important fact that the article has omitted. A Meccan being murdered by a Muslim sounds like an innovative casus belli for Muhammad's attack on Mecca; all the sources I know say it was a skirmish between two Bedouin tribes allied with Muhammad and the Meccans respectively.

Broad in scope: Pass. The article is actually too broad in scope, see above. The sections under review are fine.

NPOV: Fail. The article has several POV issues. One of them is the consistent usage of words like "call" and "message", which are inappropriate outside of religious context ("preaching" should be fine). Probably, the most significant POV issue is the exaggeration of the "controversy" on the authenticity of the letters sent by Muhammad. Every non-Muslim academic source I'm aware of dismisses them as forgeries, so we can safely speak of a consensus. I didn't check Irfan Shahid, but then this would be the only source arguing for the authenticity of letters. This problem afflicts the whole section on letters, not just the lead paragraph.

Stable: Pass. No significant changes or edit warring has been noticed.

Pictures: Fail. Some captions are not NPOV, insofar as they assert the seals displayed were actually used by Muhammad. For example, Imprint of seal stamped on letters sent by Muhammad. and Another rendering of the seal used by Muhammad. assert that the seals are authentic, which is POV.

Feel free to nominate the article again after the problems are fixed. Beit Or 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your contribution. i will aim to respond to your points soon. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK here are some comments:

• "diplomacy" has two general connotations (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=21895&dict=CALD http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=enty&query=diplomat&db=ahd&Submit=Search). i interpret the general implication of 'diplomacy'/'diplomat' to be rather broad. it is arguable that each of the sections which you feel are not within the definition of diplomacy may well be so.
  • for the Abyssinia section, it is clear from the available accounts that Ja'far was a representative of Muhammad, speaking on behalf of him, in trying to persuade the Negus to retain the Muslims there. of course there must have been some sort of diplomatic and conciliatory relationship between Negus and Muhammad, else Muhammad would not have been able to organise a second convoy to be sent to Abyssinia. in that sense we can conclude there had been liasing between the two heads of state/communities, and i think this fits under the category of diplomacy.
  • for the Aqaba pledges, i think this is also within the definition and connotation of diplomacy, in that a pledge of this kind is an agreement with stipulations and implications and a general system of man-management.
  • for the reformation of Medina, i think the EoI's assertion here is sufficient. about Muhammad in Medina and the role he was to play there: "The tasks that awaited for him called for extraordinary diplomatic and organising skills, and he demonstrated that he was in every way equal to the challenge." and even more explicitly, talking about the Constitution of Medina and its impact, EoI says: "It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations." i think that sufficiently proves the relevancy of this section.
• prose: yes i think it could do with some slight tweaking although the problem is not very significant IMO.
• pictures: i have fixed the captions.

i will comment on your analysis re: NPOV/verifiability in a moment. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you interpret the word "diplomat" as "skill in dealing with people without offending or upsetting them",[1] then every instance of Muhammad settling a dispute within his household will qualify for inclusion into this article. Unfortunately, this would make no sense. Beit Or 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ok i have tried introducing the points on accuracy which you mentioned which were correct. i don't think restricting diplomacy to the modern implication of embassies, ambassadors and representatives is appropriate. surely any kind of liasing with other leaders as with Negus or establishing crucial agreements/pledges as with Aqaba (the pivotal importance of both historians do not deny) should certainly be relevant under the umbrella of 'diplomacy'. other instances would not merit mention as they are not important or relevant to Muhammad's role in forwarding his cause. neutrality wise i'll try to make some changes on the points you mention, but i think that opposition on the letters issue by scholarly personalities like Nadia El-Cheick, Irfan Shahid (and implicitly Cambridge History of Islam) and M. Hamidullah (as well as Forward who suggests some sort of letters were probably sent) is enough for it to be considered a dispute of significance. ITAQALLAH 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the quotes from Nadia El-Cheick, Irfan Shahid and Cambridge History of Islam that you find to be supportive of the letters' historicity? It would be interesting to learn about such views. As far as Hamidullah is concerned, he worked within the confines of Islamic religious scholarship, so his views are no surprise. We can safely say that the ulema believe in the authenticity of the letters, no problem with that. Beit Or 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the same argument: Bernard Lewis or Norman Stillman are Jew so their views are that of Jewish Rabbis. --Aminz 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Lewis and Stillman are recognized as secular academics, no matter what their private beliefs and observances are, while Hamidullah is not an authority among secular academics. Hopefully, Aminz will not be able to posion the calm and friendly atmosphere of this talk page with his inflammatory remarks. Beit Or 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic scholars cite him and his works are scholarly. Furthermore see WP:Civility --Aminz 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you're the last person to lecture anyone on civility. What evidence do you have that he was a secular academic scholar? Beit Or 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See the footnote of "El-Cheikh, Nadia Maria (1999). "Muhammad and Heraclius: A Study in Legitimacy". Studia Islamica 89: 5—21." which cites Hamidullah. --Aminz 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An what does this footnote say? Beit Or 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, i will compile the relevant quotes in a moment. in the meantime, could you respond to my other comments? i would offer one correction, Cambridge History actually rejects the historicity and Irfan Shahid criticises the author (presumably Serjeant from what i gathered after a cursory glance) for this in his review of the publication, asserting that they are valid (most notably Heraclius' letter): so i apologise for the above error. i actually remember ascertaining that a month or two ago, but i must have forgotten about it. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

quotes for Beit Or

• listing some mild points of critique against the author in his review of Cambridge History of Islam, Irfan Shahid says (7):

His presentation, however, could have been more effective (1) the pre-Islamic material should have been clearly separated from the islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammedan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pre-Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity... ... (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Muhammad's letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected.

• Nadia El-Cheick writes much of her account on the relationship between Muhammad and Heraclius under the assumption that Muhammad did communicate with Heraclius. i wasn't able to find her own personal opinion explicitly affirming historicity but she does say:

The authenticity of the letters of the prophet Muhammad to the Emporer Heraclius, the Persian Kind Chosroes, the Negus of Abyssinia and to others have been the subject of great controversy. Muhammad Hamidullah believes in the authenticity of the letter of the prophet Muhammad and has reiterated his position more recently.

she then goes on to outline Serjeant's rejection and provides quite substantial footnotes over the pages referring to a number of Hamidullah's works. she also says that Arab chroniclers/historians did not doubt the authenticity, and she notes that the different versions of the narrative are very similar. after providing the text of the letter, she writes:

The letter sent to Heraclius was very similar in its phrasing and content to letters which the Prophet had supposedly sent to other contemporaneous rulers. A letter bidding the Persian king to embrace Islam or do battle (26) infuriated Chosroes who tore it apart and wrote to his governor in Yaman ordering him to march on Medina, fight Muhammad, and take him prisoner and send him to the Persian capital (27). The arrogance and total rejection of Islam by the Persian ruler as well as his outright insult to the Prophet is contrasted with the respectful behaviour of Heraclius, who is said to have read the letter and then placed it between his thighs and ribs (28).

the footnote (26) again mention Hamidullah and a work of his in a journal (see below) as well as the work of another author, the other footnotes are citing sources containing the narratives. her narrative of events continues (quite extensively, for essentially the rest of the 18 page article) all under the premise of authentic communications between Muhammad and Heraclius.

• Hamidullah is a notable opponent because he is referrred to by both the EoI and by Nadia El-Cheick. that Nadia El-Cheick herself believes Hamidullah's opinions to be noteworthy, citing an article of his from Revista Degli Studi Orientali XL (1965), as well as Arabica ii (i don't know much about this journal, it is cited in some of the JSTOR articles though) suggests that he is a notable figure within this debate. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He definitely is a notable figure. One can have a look at here:[2][3]. His bibliography can be read at:[4]. He started his publication career at the age of 16. He definitely is notable and scholarly as well! TruthSpreader^Talk 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you would like to see on google scholar:[5]. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Itaqallah, for the quotes. What I see from here and from the sources I'm aware of is that Hamidullah claimed to have discovered an authentic letter to Heraclius and that Irfan Shahid finds his claims credible. Other scholars continue to reject the authenticity of the letters. Beit Or 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it seems that he asserts that rejecting accounts of letters to leaders is unjustified, citing the letter to Heraclius as an example. i'm not sure that Hamidullah claimed to have the original copy, just that he produced what he believed to be the original text. it was in fact King Hussayn of Jordan in 1977 who claimed to have the original letter as El-Cheikh states in a footnote, which was apparently analysed by "specialists having confirmed its authenticity." yet, as El-Cheikh says, it is a topic of controversy. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

for Proabivouac

please see the references given at the end of the paragraph. Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. EoI is more explicit, stating: "A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina." ITAQALLAH 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me who states that this document was signed by the Jews? To this point, my impression is that Muhammad obtained agreement only from some of the Aws and Khazraj, with many of these opposing him as well. Currently, you've attributed this to Ibn Hisham, which if I'm not mistaken you would usually call original research.

Lewis writes in The Arabs in History, "The document is not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation."Proabivouac 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't think there is a contradiction here: Muhammad seems to be the one who laid out the conditions (as Lewis says), with all major elements of Medinan society agreeing to it as asserted by Watt and EoI. by 'signing' the intended meaning is that the parties agreed to it, thereby enacting a contract between the peoples. Watt also says: "This document, the Constitution of Medina, may be taken to show that the people of Medina were now regarded as constituting a political unit of a new type, an ummah or 'community'. In some ways it was like a federation of nomadic clans or tribes. It was bound together by their solemn agreement with one another." he then continues to talk about this analogy of tribal federations. i think this, as well as the EoI quote, shows that all parties were involved, and were in conscious agreement with the constitution. i don't have immediate access to Ibn Hisham at this very moment, but it is essentially confirmed by the other sources provided. ITAQALLAH 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Watt mean all the significant tribes and families of only the Aws and the Khazraj, or of all of Madina, including the Jews? Lewis makes it pretty clear that the Jews were opposed to Muhammad from the start, as if that were not already obvious from what happened soon thereafter. "Essentially confirmed" Ibn Hisham is not. Nor is "signed" an acceptable substitute for "agreed" - the latter is already very much in doubt, while the former indicates something very formal and specific. Such substitutions approach fabrication.Proabivouac 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to read the quote again. Watt means all of Medina, this is what "people of Medina" means. similarly, "all of the significant tribes and families" from EoI means all elements of Medina, including the three main Jewish tribes. neither of these two sources say anything about Jews being excluded from the agreement, and it would certainly have been something to note. does Lewis state that the Jews did not enter into agreement with Muhammad, or just that they still harbored hostility for him? you have very little evidence on which to accuse others of anything close to 'fabrication'. ITAQALLAH 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. Beit Or 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

that is certainly not a theory espoused by EoI or any mainstream narrative i am aware of. about its establishment, Watt says the exact date is probably not discernible, and probably consisting of a series of agreements. and according to EoI, the establishment of the Constitution of Medina was an example of diplomacy, and more precisely: Muhammad's "diplomatic skill." ITAQALLAH 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves, this argument is advanced by Moshe Gil in "The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration" Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974). Anyway, as Proabivouac has pointed out, the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral document. If Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis is not enough, see also The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman. Beit Or 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

neither Stillman nor Gil (esp. the latter) are considered major authorities in the field of islamic history to my knowledge. i don't think Gil's revisionism has much of a bearing upon the established scholarly opinion. Lewis says that the constitution was a unilateral proclamation, meaning that only one party had decided upon and established the conditions, which is not how current day constitutions are drafted. this does not contradict with the notion that Jewish tribes et al agreed to it, unless you can provide statements from Lewish asserting that. Stillman ascribes 'promulgation' of the constitution, yet this seems to be a minority opinion in the face of the majority of scholarly works i am aware of which claim otherwise. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

according to Uri Rubin (in Studia Islamica), Wellhausen and Wensinck both thought the references to Jews in the Constitution referred directly to the three main tribes, that is: Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa. also according to Rubin, "One of the main objects of the 'Constitution' was to determine the relations between the Muslims and Jews of Medina within the framework of a new kind of unity." ITAQALLAH 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

furthermore, we have RB. Serjant (in his article analysing the text of the 'Constitution of Medina') who asserts, essentially as Watt has done, that the Constitution is a culmination of a series of agreements between Muhammad and the various parties of Medina. he explicity mentions the Jews as those who dealt with Muhammad in this constitution. Serjeant divides the agreements into eight seperate documents, labelled A to H (p9) some of which are sub-articles dealing with Jews. Serjeant explicitly refers to the Jews as literal signatories, stating that Ibn Ishaq probably transcribed the constitution from a rendering which had omitted the exhaustive list of signiatories (p10):

... The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi to document F. I am inclined to view the 'Constitution' as preserved by Ibn Ishaq as having been transcribed from a sort of reference copy already omitting tiresome lists of signatures. Had the full copy been available to Ibn Ishaq I postulate that he would have either given the list of signatories or commented upon them- perhaps therefore the reference copy was made even by Ali himself

Serjeant also explicitly states (p4): "The three tribes with whom Muhammad had political dealings were Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayzah, the first silversmiths, and the two latter owning palm-groves and being known as the two kahins and also as Banu 'l-Sarih."

so there is plenty of scholarly evidence available that the constitution included agreement between Muhammad and the main Jewish tribes, and as far as i am aware this is the mainstream scholarly view. i have cited EoI, Watt, Wensinck and Wellhausen (through Uri Rubin, i have not read his article completely so i do not know his view yet), Serjeant, and Forward whose narrative is sedate and conventional. i also believe the statement of Lewis has been misinterpreted, 'unilateral proclamation' or not, there is no evidence of him suggesting that the Jews did not agree to the constitution, only that it was drafted and established by one party (i.e. Muhammad's). i don't know what mention, if any, fringe narratives merit. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The passage you quote does not, in fact, state that the Jews were signatories, but that the relevant documents "would probably" contain their names. Per Beit Or, there seems to be a good measure of doubt as to the authenticity of what has been handed down to us as this Constitution of Madina. Welch notes that it is nowhere mentioned in the Qur'an, save for one verse of debatable significance.

Lewis' narrative is hardly a "fringe" one, nor is it being misinterpreted. He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation. I'll share more from this book if you like. He asserts that Muhammad didn't enjoy broad support even among the Aws and Khazraj, and mentions the Jews as opponents only. At best, the recitation you are putting forth as fact is very much in dispute.Proabivouac 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Serjeant thinks it's extremely likely that there were actual signings, especially in the context of what he says beforehand:

Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties. At the Hudaybiya treaty the names of the Muhajirun and of Meccan Quraysh were written at the top. This practice persisted in south Arabia until recent times, and documents carries a row of seals or signatures at the top of the paper above the written text. Such south Arabian agreements often employ with signatures the term aqarra bi... which appears in document B/3a.

As signatories on behalf of the contracting parties we may confidently restore Muhammad's seal and names of leading Quraysh Muhajirun, the names of the naqibs representing the Khazraj and three Aws tribes with whom Muhammad had to deal in matters affecting the tribes of Yathrib, and most probably certain Munafiqun such as 'Abdullah b. Ubayy of a group belonging to Banu Awf of Khazraj- indeed the conclusion that his name appeared among the signatories seems inescapable. The documents relating to the Jews... (see above for rest of quote)

i am not talking about Lewis' narrative, as you have brought no evidence bar one ambiguous sentence as to what Lewis' narrative is. i have already discussed what i think Lewis means and why it contradicts nothing of conventional narrative, and i have seen the passage in its context. you claim doubt over the document, yet you have not substantiated it. it seems a rather ridiculous assertion, especially in the light of the fact that the majority of academic scholarship accepts the notion of a constitution at the conventional time. pointing to analysis of unpopularity, whether amongst Jews or Arabs, is a red herring, it has nothing to do with who did or didn't sign the constitution- it is in fact accepted that for the most part Jews retained animosity towards Muhammad. bringing up Welch's statement is another red herring, i don't believe he casts any doubt upon the historicity of the document. almost all scholars accept that virtually nothing about the constitution is mentioned in the Qur'an. this, as they quite rightly recognise, has nothing to do with the historicity of the constitution. portraying it as something dubious and hotly disputed is most likely imaginative original research. ITAQALLAH 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am perplexed by your claim that Gil or Stillman are not authorities on the Islamic history. Actually, both are the leading authority on the history of the Jews in Muslim lands. Furthermore, nowhere in the EoI do I find support for the claim that the Constitution of Medina was actually signed. What we can see from secondary sources is that the nature of the document, such as whether it was an agreement or a unilateral proclamation or its dating, are disputed among scholars. Beit Or 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the EoI states that there was a "formal agreement" amongst all significant tribes and families, known as the Constitution of Medina, and that this was an example of Muhammad's "great diplomatic skills." regardless of whether it was literally "signed" or not, the Jewish tribes did agree to it. there is no contradiction between saying that it was a unilateral proclamation and that all the tribes agreed to it. as i have opined before, it seems likely that Lewis is essentially saying it is a constitution unlike the ones today which constitute wranglings between the parties on every clause and sub-clause during the drafting; whereas the terms and conditions of the Medinan constitution were drafted and declared by Muhammad: a "unilateral proclamation." (which probably also explains Stillman's attribution of 'promulgation') yet this does not mean that the Jews had refused to agreed to its terms, so this one sentence from Lewis is not enough to support such a notion. neither is Lewis's discussion about enmity of the Jews for Muhammad or whatever, because almost all scholars note this while maintaining that they were still adherents to the constitution. and again, that Muhammad principally drafted and established the terms of the constitution is not disputed by scholars. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's hairsplitting over details. The basis of the dispute is that the article states as fact that the Constitution of Medina was signed by all parties, which is an unjustified claim given the lack of clarity in the sources. Beit Or 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A way to get around would be to add all the secondary sources with their assertion of the event. So that reader can have the view from both sides. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and these minutiae actually belong to the notes in any article other than Constitution of Medina itself. Regardless, as I have pointed out above, the Consitution of Medina does not belong to this article at all. Beit Or 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitution is one of the most important events after the arrival of Muhammad. Removing will remove very important information. All scholarly sources mention it. And there is no reason to hide this information in footnotes. TruthSpreader^Talk 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have argued above that the COnsitution of Medina and other sections in the article are not about diplomacy. Sorry, your argument that this is "important information" is not relevant to establishing whether this was or was not diplomacy. Beit Or 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've I've said before, this article's entire focus seems odd to me. I think it would make more sense to just have multiple article series on Muhammad's life, in roughly chronological order, than to divide him up topically. It's very jumbled and odd for any reader who's not highly familiar with Muhammad's life. --Alecmconroy 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I agree. In addition, these "Muhammad as a..." headings do have some adulatory flavor. Beit Or 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It definitely shows his diplomatic skills. If you argue that some sources don't present the view in this way, then I've already given the solution (multiple views with respect to their sources). Secondly, if people don't know about Muhammad's life, then this wikipedia is an information resource to tell people and it shouldn't be a reason for not having an article. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But is this really the most logical way to present his life? Chopping it up into Diplomat, General, Husband, Reformer, and "Towards Animals"? If you want an in-depth educational article to teach people about him, you're sorta going about it the wrong way. Now, splitting of "As a husband" makes sense, except that the title should be something like "Family life of Muhammmad" or something. The rest don't make any sense. Diplomat and General are so intertwined, it makes no sense to pull them apart. A Chronolgical biography is the way to go-- not topical. --Alecmconroy 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, why are you ignoring the EoI's explicit statement on the constitution and how it relates to Muhammad's "great diplomatic skills"? should i provide the quote for you again? ITAQALLAH 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed it above. Diplomatic skills are unrelated to diplomacy. You can demonstrate diplomatic skill when resolving a dispute within your family, but it won't make you a diplomat in the encyclopedic sense of this word. Beit Or 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i feel that you are equivocating the word diplomat with modern-day conception of diplomacy. that is anachronistic. under this premise, it is impossible for Muhammad to have been a diplomat. yet, the EoI describes him as both a "politician" and a "diplomat". and it's rather clear that they qualify the latter description through reference to his instances of "great diplomatic skill" (COM), "extraordinary diplomatic and organising skill", and "brilliant act[s] of diplomacy" (hudaybiyya). it is clear that they do not mean 'diplomat' in the modern sense. ITAQALLAH 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"...which is an unjustified claim given the lack of clarity in the sources" - thus far, the only lack of clarity has been in the single, ambiguous statement from Lewis; whereas i have provided a number of scholars affirming the obvious. can you accept that the Jews agreed to the constitution? to continue disputing this fact verges on unreasonable. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the statement from Lewis is very clear, and so is that from Stillman. F.E. Peters calls the consitution: "a document, or, more likely, a collection of documents, 28 that purports to record the political arrangements contracted not, as Ibn Ishaq seems to emphasize, between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, but rather dictated by Muhammad" (Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 198) Furthermore, the EoI says that the Constitution of Medina "appears not to date from Muḥammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement." Montgomery Watt also doubts that the document as we know it is of an early date: "This document is almost certainly genuine, but it seems to contain different strata and may not have taken its present form until some five years after the Hijrah" (Islam and the Integration of Society, p. 19) Reuven Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118) All these quotes affirm that the nature of this document is the subject of controversy among academic scholars. Beit Or 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i think the issue is being smudged a little.

• we can conclude the exact dating is disagreed upon. as Watt says, the present form available today may be a later version, yet he does not say this is when it came into existence. rather, he says that the document is of varying strata. that's what Serjeant says also, that COM seems to be a series of eight documents, at least three of which are agreements with Jews. it is reasonable to assume that different documents may have been enacted at different dates. this is what i believe a number of scholars mention. yet, although the EoI also suggests this, it clearly states that there was agreement between all parties, and then goes on to describe the significance of 'Jews' now being regarded as part of the 'umma'.

• i don't think there is any dispute that the terms were written up by Muhammad. trying to qualify what Lewis means through an unrelated third party is original research. you have not provided any evidence that the Jews refused to accept the terms, only that it was unilaterally proclaimed by Muhammad. almost all authorites accept that it was drafted and established by Muhammad, yet many of them also express that Jews were in agreement with the terms presented by Muhammad. proving the first premise, as you are attempting, does not disprove the conclusion they reach. can you bring any explicit statements that the Jews did not accept what Muhammad presented to them? ITAQALLAH 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

None of your sources state as a fact that the Jews accepted the constitution. Arrow740 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito) --Aminz 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It also worth pointing out why Muhammad came to Medina. Watt in the Cambridge History of Islam states: The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the great battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless "there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases." A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. Among the things Muhammad did in order to settle down the longstanding grievances among the tribes of Medina was drafting a document known as the Constitution of Medina, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities). --Aminz 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, something i forgot to mention. Pbc said (re Lewis): "He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation." -- er, no. the context of "unilateral proclamation" is his saying that it is unlike modern treaties. could you provide the full quote starting from Ibn Hisham's account to when Lewis makes this particular statement? i would like to see how "conscious and direct" a "refutation" it is. i would do this myself if i wasn't experiencing trouble locating the quote. ITAQALLAH 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing

This article is marred by poor writing at every turn. Examples include:

• "Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat…"
• "The arrival of Muhammad at Medina in 622 saw him altering the political and social landscape of…"
• "There are occasions where Muhammad had also participated…"Proabivouac 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you can help fix it. why not start with the ones you have cited? ITAQALLAH 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did fix it, only to have you (predictably) restore your old versions. "Muhammad's arrival saw..." is an abuse of the English language. Muhammad's arrival did not see anything.

Itaqallah, Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative process.Proabivouac 08:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

His involvement in this article has seen him becoming an adept meatpuppeteer. Arrow740 10:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If any votes are being taken, please add mine to the opinions that this Article is quite bad. Besides the bad writing (and it really is bad), it comes across to me as nothing as much as a Propaganda Piece. Wikipedia readers deserve better. Cutugno (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sealed Nectar

One of many examples demonstrating why this salafi religious tract should not be used: "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped."Proabivouac 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)]

i think an author is entitled to his own POV. the real problem here is that you have issue with the author being Muslim: as, according to you, Muslims can never be neutral. the book is notable and backed up by reputable academic institutions. in fact, i gave you over two months to try producing and organising some credible arguments: you were unable to do so. i think this dispute is heading towards mediation. ITAQALLAH 18:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Saudi school promulgating it is a school for Muslim proselytizers. Arrow740 19:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any of itaqallah's meatpuppets, please look at The Sealed Nectar before making reverts to versions quoting it. Thanks. Arrow740 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are changing many thing other than sealed nectar. If you only change sealed nectar stuff then I might not revert it. --- ALM 10:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know why you reverted? Itaqallah has not proved that the Jews accepted the constitution and is writing that they did in bad style, that's the issue I'm primarily contesting here. The other issue is that the article is implying that Muhammad was a prophet and had objectives as such, and I just wanted to make it clear that they were his objectives that he had for himself, inasmuch as he viewed himself as a prophet. This is more neutral. Arrow740 10:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

of course they accepted the constitution. EoI says so. Watt says so. over half a dozen scholars i have provided state so. you have not provided even one suggesting otherwise. ITAQALLAH 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The less than half a dozen scholars who fail to provide you with your smoking gun regarding the Jews are contradicted by the less than half a dozen scholars Proabivouac and Beit Or have provided. Arrow740 19:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-instated the changes back to one which exhibited greater use of encyclopedic tone, and would encourage there to me similar such improvements to the article. Every sentence has to be rigidly, strictly verifiable. Take a sentence like this: "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped". It may well be true, but it's not a verifiable fact, it's an opinion which is being presented as a fact. --Alecmconroy 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That was referenced stuff. You have not read the reference and start changing it. If a reference says it in someway and it is presented like that then it is okay. Because you are writing referenced- author POV. --- ALM 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm not saying it's false. I have no doubt that it's referenced, that it's a valid opinion, and probably the opinion of almost everyone-- but it has to be presented as an opinion, not as a fact. I mean, to make things simpler-- suppose we're talking about something utterly uncontroversial, something like chocolate ice cream. Almost everyone finds it to be delicious. We still can't say "Chocolate ice cream is incredibly delicious", because it's still stating an opinion as a fact. Even if I can provide lots of references where people say chocolate ice cream is delicious, I still can't present it as a fact. Instead, I have to say "Many people consider chocolate ice cream to be delicious" and provide a cite proving it's the case that many people do feel that way.

Something like "spirit of brotherhood" is even harder to word neutrally. If I was to take a stab at getting that opinion into the encyclopedia, here's how I'd do it. For one, you put it somewhere that talks about attitudes and analysis of Muhammad-- not in the historical narrative, but somewhere where you talk about how Muhammad was able to accomplish all he did. And then you say in a way that is as straightforward and as grounded-in-fact as possible. "spirit of brotherhood" for example is a very poetic term, but if you wanted to talk about how Muhammad introduce a uniting multi-ethnic philosophy/relgion that had the effect of uniting diverse factions under a common ideal-- find a good historical source who talks about it neutrally and cite him.

The alternative is to cede the whole notion of "historicality" and instead talk directly about Muslim views of Muhammad. In an article about Muslim views of Muhammad, you never present things like "spirit of brotherhood" as objective facts (even though they may be true), you instead present them as "Muslims believe _____", which is verifiable.

It's tough, as I've said, to get into the "zen" of writing with an eye to verifiability. There can been statements which you believe to be true, which almost everyone believes to be true, but which you still can't say directly in an encyclopedia, because they're not verifiable. --Alecmconroy 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't mind it being presented as an opinion. i don't, however, endorse its removal. i will accept a degree of tweaking with the lead, but omitting facts deliberately, despite me having provided significant scholarly backing which a number of editors are either refusing to read or respond to, is not something worth tolerating. i also appreciate your engagement in honest, and resolutive discussion Alecmconroy. ITAQALLAH 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read and demonstrated understanding of the entire talk page, unlike your friends Striver and ALM who miraculously appeared after your third revert. You haven't proven that the Jews accepted it, and in fact I think Beit Or and Proabivouac have argued successfully that we have to assume that they didn't. Arrow740 19:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

third revert? i only made two reverts, with another edit introducing substantial changes, while retaining some of Proabivouac's it would not be even a partial revert by any stretch. what is clear however, is that you were deliberately revert baiting. you are unable to respond to the list of scholars i have provided. sadly, your words are currently empty rhetoric. as for your other baseless accusations, if you continue in such a manner i will have no option but to report you. ITAQALLAH 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Original: [6]. First: [7]. Second: [8]. Third:[9]. The issue of course is the second paragraph of the introduction, and this is what you reverted three times. In the light of this, my accusations were not groundless, and I would please ask you to refrain from revert warring by any method. In addition, please refrain from groundless accusations such as "you were deliberately revert baiting." I don't want lies in wikipedia articles, that's all. It is not the scholars that are the problem, it is your use of them. They don't explicitly state what you want to state in the intro, and other scholars provided explicitly express views to the contrary. Arrow740 20:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"I would please ask you to refrain from revert warring by any method" from someone who has reached his three reverts? the first edit you provide was neither a partial nor full revert, it was a good faith attempt to reach a compromise between the two versions. if you believe i am manipulating sources, i would invite you to explain exactly how i have done so. perhaps you can also articulate those explicit evidences disproving that the Jews agreed to the terms of the constitution, because until now nobody else has provided any. ITAQALLAH 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a poorly disguised revert to the version including the disputed information. As regards your manipulation of sources, this is what you have: "Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. EoI is more explicit, stating: "A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina." So we have a perhaps in your first quote, and a may have been in the second. You state as a fact what these two men have stated as a possibility. Here you quoted Serjeant: "The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi." So here we get a "probably," still not an expression of fact. Just as you cannot provide proof that they signed it, I cannot provide evidence proving that they didn't. In light of Beit Or's post at 18:38, 5 December 2006, if I adopted your method of editing I would state my view as a fact. Arrow740 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

selective analysis will only get you so far.

Indeed. Arrow740 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• what part of... "This document, the Constitution of Medina, may be taken to show that the people of Medina were now regarded as constituting a political unit of a new type, an ummah or 'community'. In some ways it was like a federation of nomadic clans or tribes. It was bound together by their solemn agreement with one another." ...did you not read?

There is no consensus as to when the constitution as we have it now was written. Arrow740 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

that is a red herring. Watt claims solemn agreement amongst the people of Medina. when the rendering we have today was compiled is irrelevant. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in you. The point is that he may have killed all his opponents before the the solemn agreement between the remaining people took place. Your version of the intro discounts this possibility. Arrow740 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

you are clutching at straws. Watt's narrative is in chronological order: he describes the events of the constitution under the heading "The first months in Medina" on p.93 to 96, before the battle of badr. it is on p.127, after the battle of badr, that the narrative then discusses Qaynuqa's expulsion; the second expulsion, of Nadir, is mentioned after the battle of Uhud, on p148; with execution of Qurayzah on p.171 after the battle of the confederates. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't state that it "should" be taken to show what you're claiming, only that it "may be." That's the whole point. Not even Watt claims as fact that they were a united group. Arrow740 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

you're flip-flopping from one excuse to another. your theory crumbles in the light that he goes on for several pages talking about this new unity. in fact, it crumbles in the light of the sentences following it, for there would be no reason for him to declare "In some ways it was like a federation of nomadic clans or tribes. It was bound together by their (i.e. the "people of Medina") solemn agreement with one another." ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• EoI: you have again failed to understand the sentence structure and what is being alluded to. the "agreement" is stated as fact, the 'may' is in relation to whether or not the "formal agreement" (i.e. constitution) contributed to the termination of the temporary arrangement of Muhammad where he assigned every Ansar to look after one Muhajir. try reading the sentence again.

The construction is ambiguous. If he thinks it was a fact, he must have said so elsewhere. Arrow740 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

don't be dense. he is declaring a "formal agreement" as factual. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being dense. When I say "the impetus for Muhammad having sex with a nine year old girl may have been the angel Gabriel's command to do so" I am not endorsing the view that there was such a command. Arrow740 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

again, this is a rather meek argument, and a false analogy. EoI does endorse that there was such an agreement, as it says in the sentence straight after: A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements may have been the formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. it's ironic you go on about bad style yet you cannot spot the apparent meaning of a sentence. even then, such a conclusion can be derived from the sentence itself if you try reading it properly

what is being speculated is whether the establishment of the constitution contributed significantly to the abolition of the temporary arrangements between the Muhajir/Ansar as established by Muhammad. (A more significant factor i.e. in abolition) may have been (the formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families).

it is like saying: a more significant factor in today's food poisoning incident may have been the food served at lunch. food was served at lunch, what is being speculated upon is whether or not it was a significant contributing factor to the incident. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that my analogy was correct, merely that it could be, depending on the meaning of the original sentence, which could only be decided upon reading the following sentence, something you missed the first time you tried to respond to my argument. In any case, the fact that Muhammad's early agreements with the Muhajir/Ansar were superceded by a formal agreement between the significant tribes and families, i.e. of the Muhajir and Ansar, says nothing about whether or not the Jews were a party to this formal agreement. Arrow740 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that is another absurd conclusion, for there would then be no reason for EoI to state right afterwards:

A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from Muhammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and Muhammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved.

this demonstrates that the Jews, as well as polytheist Arabs of Aws/Kharaj were a part of this "formal agreement", this "Constitution". ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes (according to EoI), whatever Jews and polytheists were left after he was through with them. Come on, even the sources you're quoting say the constitution was not from the early Medinan period. Arrow740 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

no, the EoI's account is also chronological. the battles and the expulsion of the Jewish tribes are not discussed until later. your theories are merely absurd OR attempts to deny the reality of what is being said. yes the EoI says it's not from the first year, and reflects a time of tension between Muslims and the Jewish tribes. all biographies assert the existence of tensions long preceding the expulsion of Qaynuqa'. ITAQALLAH 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• the context of what Serjeant is saying is given by the block quotes provided afterwards. he says: "Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties". he only says 'probably', because that cannot be verified today, yet he believes it must have happened.

Yes, but the point is that he only says that the Jews were "probably" included in the contracting parties. Arrow740 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

that is only if you read his words without context. ITAQALLAH 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what he said. My statement is entirely correct. Arrow740 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

well you have illustrated above precisely why lacking contextual knowledge results in one making very simple interpretation errors. ITAQALLAH 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As have you. I have also demonstrated that your Serjeant quote is not proof of your claim. Arrow740 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

<r-i>i think when you put things in context, it's rather clear what Serjeant says. this is why he also states:

The Jews, when Muhammad made the confederation pacts after his arrival in Yathrib, were included in the ummah; through peace which took place between them and the Mu'minun they became like a collective body of them, with a single word and hand. By binding the Aws and Khazraj in a confederation to which the Jews were adjoined, Muhammad became himseld a mujammi, or unifier, Allah healing schism through him like his ancestor Qusayy who unified Quraysh.

it's clear what Serjeant meant. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not claiming that they were party to the Constitution, is he? At best your sources indicate that there was a temporary peace brokered shortly after Muhammad arrived, and then a formal constitution signed by whoever was still alive in Medina after he had consolidated power. Arrow740 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"He's not claiming that they were party to the Constitution", yes, he is. the sources provided are explicit, you are trying your ardent best to misinterpret them. ITAQALLAH 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

whether the parties engaged in actual written confirmation is not relevant right now. i am requesting scholarly evidence that the Jews refused to accept Muhammad's proposal. you have been declaring valiantly that there is explicit evidence to the contrary of what i have forwarded, yet you now claim you cannot provide any evidence for it. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difference between evidence and proof, you see. Beit Or provided evidence, to which I referred above. Arrow740 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have provided evidence that some scholars think that the acceptance of the Jews may have or at best probably happened, not that it did happen. Beit Or has presented evidence that it may not have happened. So as regards the intro, your version is lacking in substance as well as style. Arrow740 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

here is yet another authority asserting the obvious, in addition to the numerous authorities mentioned above:

It was natural that Mahomet, holding these sentiments, should desire to enter isato close union with the Jews. This he did in a formal manner shortly after reaching Medina; for he associated them in a treaty of mutual obligation, drawn up in writing, between the Refugees and the men of Medina, in which he confirmed the Jews in the practice of their religion, and in the secure possession of their property. The main provisions of this Contract, as given to us by Ibn Ishac, are the following:-

(he quotes the text of the Constitution)

It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms.

that is from Muir, in the sub-chapter entitled "The Jews", a section with the heading "Mahomet desirous of a combination with them." ITAQALLAH 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Phrases like "spirit of brotherhood" are POV by definition and usually do not belong to an encyclopedia. Beit Or 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? And why isn't it encyclopedic. It describes well the tie that was formed in Medina after Muhammad's migration. Tribal ties are transformed into religous ties. --Aminz 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Things like the "spirit of brotherhood" are flowery, poetic, and not observer-independent verifiable. It borders on being hagiographic. Now, if we were talking about muslim beliefs about Muhammad, for example, we could talk about a doctrine of brotherhood or the like, and maybe include a quote talking about the spirit of brotherhood. But, it's not objectively verifiable that a "spirit of brotherhood" existed. Maybe it was just a "sense of kinship" or a "alliance of necessity" or a "merging of cultures" or, etc, etc. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying, it can't be verified-- it's an opinion, and we can't present it as fact. --Alecmconroy 11:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad killed the Jews, he didn't bring them into the fold

We need to make it clear that Medina was only forged into a political unit after Muhammad killed or drove out all the Jews. Arrow740 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV and Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Opiner 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Watt doesn't seem to think so. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Provide full context. Your "seems" have not been accurate thus far. Arrow740 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the context is pretty clear. you're experiencing some problems in understanding a few sentences. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem I had, you also experienced. The real problem is with your representation of a few sentences. Arrow740 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Firestone summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118). Arrow740 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is already such nonsense it should probably just be deleted. Completely nonfactual propaganda and whitewashing. RunedChozo 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence

• Lewis writes in The Arabs in History, "The document is not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation."

Watt:

• "This document, the Constitution of Medina, may be taken to show that the people of Medina were now regarded as constituting a political unit of a new type, an ummah or 'community'. In some ways it was like a federation of nomadic clans or tribes. It was bound together by their solemn agreement with one another."

• "This document is almost certainly genuine, but it seems to contain different strata and may not have taken its present form until some five years after the Hijrah" (Islam and the Integration of Society, p. 19)

• "The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the great battle of Bu'ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless "there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases." A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. Among the things Muhammad did in order to settle down the longstanding grievances among the tribes of Medina was drafting a document known as the Constitution of Medina, "establishing a kind of alliance or federation" among the eight Medinan tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities)."

• "Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. "

F.E. Peters

• calls the consitution: "a document, or, more likely, a collection of documents, 28 that purports to record the political arrangements contracted not, as Ibn Ishaq seems to emphasize, between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, but rather dictated by Muhammad" (Muhammad and the Origins of Islam, p. 198)

Reuven Firestone

• summarizes the scholarly debate as follows: "Western scholarship is divided over whether it belongs to the earliest Medinan period or whether it represents the situation obtaining after the exile and destruction of the Jews of Medina or at least after the battle of Badr in 624." (Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, p. 118)

Serjeant:

• Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties. At the Hudaybiya treaty the names of the Muhajirun and of Meccan Quraysh were written at the top. This practice persisted in south Arabia until recent times, and documents carries a row of seals or signatures at the top of the paper above the written text. Such south Arabian agreements often employ with signatures the term aqarra bi... which appears in document B/3a.

• As signatories on behalf of the contracting parties we may confidently restore Muhammad's seal and names of leading Quraysh Muhajirun, the names of the naqibs representing the Khazraj and three Aws tribes with whom Muhammad had to deal in matters affecting the tribes of Yathrib, and most probably certain Munafiqun such as 'Abdullah b. Ubayy of a group belonging to Banu Awf of Khazraj- indeed the conclusion that his name appeared among the signatories seems inescapable. The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi to document F. I am inclined to view the 'Constitution' as preserved by Ibn Ishaq as having been transcribed from a sort of reference copy already omitting tiresome lists of signatures. Had the full copy been available to Ibn Ishaq I postulate that he would have either given the list of signatories or commented upon them- perhaps therefore the reference copy was made even by Ali himself.

and (page number please):

• The Jews, when Muhammad made the confederation pacts after his arrival in Yathrib, were included in the ummah; through peace which took place between them and the Mu'minun they became like a collective body of them, with a single word and hand. By binding the Aws and Khazraj in a confederation to which the Jews were adjoined, Muhammad became himseld a mujammi, or unifier, Allah healing schism through him like his ancestor Qusayy who unified Quraysh.

and a scholar who is himself part of history (Muir) states:

• It was natural that Mahomet, holding these sentiments, should desire to enter isato close union with the Jews. This he did in a formal manner shortly after reaching Medina; for he associated them in a treaty of mutual obligation, drawn up in writing, between the Refugees and the men of Medina, in which he confirmed the Jews in the practice of their religion, and in the secure possession of their property. The main provisions of this Contract, as given to us by Ibn Ishac, are the following:-

(he quotes the text of the Constitution)

It is nowhere stated when this treaty was entered into; but we may naturally conclude that it was not long after the arrival of Mahomet at Medina. It is probable that, for a short time, the Jews remained on terms of cordiality with their new ally; but it soon became apparent to them that Judaism could not go hand in hand with Islam. The position of Mahomet was no longer negative: his religion was not a mere protest against error and superstition. It was daily becoming more positive and more exclusive in its terms

EoI:

• A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina. This version appears not to date from Muhammad's first year in Medina, as is sometimes claimed, since it reflects the later, strained relationship between the Prophet and the Jewish people of the settlement. It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations. It is true that the highest authority is with God and Muhammad, before whom all matters of importance were to be laid, but the umma as portrayed in the Constitution of Medina included also Jews and polytheists, so that the legal forms of the old Arab tribes were substantially preserved.

Request: Please provide context as to the "early arrangements."

Beit Or's hearsay: Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. If memory serves, this argument is advanced by Moshe Gil in "The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration" Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974). Anyway, as Proabivouac has pointed out, the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral document. If Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis is not enough, see also The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>

Itaqallah's hearsay: according to Uri Rubin (in Studia Islamica), Wellhausen and Wensinck both thought the references to Jews in the Constitution referred directly to the three main tribes, that is: Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa. also according to Rubin, "One of the main objects of the 'Constitution' was to determine the relations between the Muslims and Jews of Medina within the framework of a new kind of unity." <full quote needed if we're going to consider this>

Proabivouac's hearsay: Lewis' narrative is hardly a "fringe" one, nor is it being misinterpreted. He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation. I'll share more from this book if you like. He asserts that Muhammad didn't enjoy broad support even among the Aws and Khazraj, and mentions the Jews as opponents only. At best, the recitation you are putting forth as fact is very much in dispute. <full quote needed>

Aminz's hearsay: Even if the constitution of Medina dates back to later times(to which Lewis disagrees), it doesn't mean that there was no other pact between Muhammad and Jews. At least it is the POV of some scholars who believe there was (e.g. John Esposito).

My comment: Itaqallah is claiming that the scholarly consensus is that the following are fact: A) The Constitution of Medina was written shortly after Muhammad's arrival at Medina. B) The pre-Muhammad Jews consented to it. However, I believe the sources indicate strongly that there is no scholarly consensus that either A or B is a fact. Arrow740 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

why have you ceased participation in the discussion above? the context of these quotes is something we have been trying to ascertain, there is no reason to suggest we go through the motions again here. you are also pitting non-contradictory evidences against eachother as a false dilemma and straw man, when a number of these statements such as Lewis's, Watt's and others' have already been explained, to which you have not responded. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

by the way, that is the same Firestone who repeatedly refers to the Constitution of Medina as an "agreement", and has this to say on the very same page that the isolated quote was provided:

Despite the theocratic tone of this statement*, the agreement established a single, common, political community made up of Muslims, Jews and idolators. It details no religious requirements but, rather, outlined political and military responsibilities ranging from the payment of blood money to mutual defense against outside aggression. As Peters describes its nature "[T]he contracting parties did not embrace Islam: They did agree to recognize the authority of Muhammad, to accept him as the community leader and abide by his political judgements. In doing so they were acknowledging, as was the Prophet himself, that they were one community, or umma, under God, Muhammad's God, not yet uniquely composed of Muslims., but committed to defend its own joint interests, or what was now newly defined to be the common good."

The muhajirun, along with the various kinship groups making up the residents of Medina (whether ansar, Jews, or idolators), were all parties to the agreement.

end quote

* here Firestone is referring to the previous para where he discusses some of the conditions, more specifically those relating to the relationships commanded between believers.

no comment. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

just for the sake of clarity, would like to complete what Peters says:

... a document, or, more likely, a collection of documents, 28 that purports to record the political arrangements contracted not, as Ibn Ishaq seems to emphasize, between Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, but rather dictated by Muhammad and regulating the political arrangements between his partisans from Mecca and all the inhabitants of Yathrib, Muslims, pagans and Jews:

(quotes some text from the constitution)

There is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this collection. Its earliest and central elements represent a type of political contract where Muhammad unexpectedly - from the point of view of a later Muslim - agrees that the signatories, the Muslims, the pagans, and Jews of Medina, shall henceforward constitute a single political community, albeit under the supervision - one scarcely knows what word to use in describing Muhammad's own role- of someone who is patently a holy man (nabi). It reveals why in fact Muhammad was invited to Medina in the first place, to reconcile the murderous differences between the two chief Arab factions and their respective Jewish allies, and how he attempted to accomplish it. In place of the old tribal units he fashioned a new community united by little else, it appears, than their willingness to accept his divinely derived authority: "Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and Muhammad."

and just before i receive the typical response, the phrase "from the point of view of a later Muslim" is clarifying his use of the word "unexpectedly", because later Muslims, who consider the ummah to be of Muslims alone, would not expect this kind of unification. so both Firestone and Peters are in agreement with Watt/Muir/EoI/Serjeant/everyone else i have provided. ITAQALLAH 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to concede that we can assume that the respective parties agreed to it (after, say, it was unilaterally declared by Muhammad, backed up with threat of force, perhaps). However it seems that the constitution dates from the period after Muhammad killed lots of people. Arrow740 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would still like to hear from Beit Or regarding this, as his knowledge is greater than my own. Arrow740 is certainly correct that the timing is critical to how these events are portrayed in the article.Proabivouac 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

After all is said and done, I'm still bewildered why the article states everything about the Constitution of Medina as a matter of fact. There are considerable disagreements among scholars. Some say it was signed, some are silent on that matter; some say it was an agreement, some call it a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad, some believe it to be an early document, some argue that it is a collection of documents, at least partially dating from a later period. There is, however, a tendency on part of some editors here to try to navigate between the sources so as to reduce them to some highest common factor and make the reader believe there are no disputes at all. Whenever there are disagreement between scholars, they must be acknowledged and presented rather than swept under the rug.

Most importantly, however, Constitution of Medina does not belong to this article at all, as it is not an example of diplomacy; I have also explained above what other events do not constitute diplomacy either. Furthermore, I agree with Alecmconroy that the topical presentation of Muhammad's life makes no sense; this article is basically a string of unrelated events and thus hardly encyclopedic. Beit Or 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

firstly, i am certainly open to including mention of the differences as to the timing of the Constitution and i believe this is reasonable. however, there has been not one authority provided even suggesting that the Jewish people refused to be involved or agree to any constitution, 'unilateral proclamation' or otherwise (as shown by the Peters extract).

secondly, the constitution of medina is an example of diplomacy: EoI describes his actions here as diplomatic, and explains clearly why they should be perceived as diplomatic. we have discussed this above, you haven't explained why the EoI's analysis should be discounted nor why it is appropriate to equivocate the definition with the modern politics/methodologies of diplomacy.

thirdly, i do not believe a topical presentation is unencyclopaedic, in the same way that Muhammad as a general is not, and neither has it been perceived as that. in fact, that article has existed since Nov 04, enjoying a variety of editor participation who clearly did not believe such a presentation to be irrelevant (including yourself, if i remember correctly...). i do not see this qualm being raised on that page, nor on any of the related topical pages. i do, however, see precedence for topical presentations of personalities' biographies in plenty of biography-related articles. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have explained it several times that the words "diplomat" and "diplomatic" can also be used in a figurative sense in the English language and it should be perfectly clear that EoI uses the phrase "diplomatic skill" to refer to Muhammad's ability to reach an agreement between various (and hostile) tribes rather than to him being a diplomat in a proper sense. Regarding the encylopedicity of this article, yes, I do believe now that "Muhammad as a diplomat" is not a proper article for an encyclopedia. You don't write an encyclopedia article by stitching together several unrelated events. Furthermore, not much will remain of this article once the disputed sections are gone. Beit Or 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree with the above statement. --Striver 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a really eloquent and convincing argument. Is it only a prelude to a revert? Beit Or 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

you haven't responded to the points i made which establish the precedence for topical presentations. i have already discussed the error of equivocating here], as well as having discussed why EoI's mention of diplomatic skills et al. is the pretense for its later evaluation of Muhammad's diplomacy and its qualification of him as a politician and diplomat. the events presented are not unrelated, for exactly the same reason why the events in Muhammad as a general are not unrelated (and this is something you have agreed with to a degree above in your review and other places). i find it difficult to accept your points here per your selectivity in application of rules you have (wrongly, imo) interpreted. ITAQALLAH 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Page locked by tool of Itaqallah

The page is now locked in bad faith by a tool at the behest of POV-pusher Itaqallah following my complaint to WP:ANI about Itaqallah's blatant lying in his revert edit summaries.RunedChozo 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected again, let's see if after the block of RunedChozo you other guys can work it out together. Evil Tool, 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

After a lengthy thread on WikiEN-l and AN/I, it appears that RunedChozo's block is going to stand. I would heartily encourage all parties in this dispute to consider dispute resolution -- edit warring really is to be discouraged, I'd much rather see discussion, be it here or via RfC. I notice he's been rather rude, at times, but I also notice nobody seems to be putting much effort into getting him to calm down and talk things over. Discussion is not an obligation of one editor, but of all editors. All I ask is that you try. Luna Santin 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moral support

As I've said before, everyone take a deep breath and realize everything is okay. If there is ever going to be an article where good-faith editors are going to have a hard time agreeing-- this is it. This is going to be one of the hardest topics on all of Wikipedia to get right. And really, what we are doing on this article is unparalleled in human history-- average citizens from all across the world, coming together and trying to write a consensus article on what is probably one of the top five most controversial topics in all the world. There have been hundreds of wars amongst people trying to come to consensus on what the content of this article should be. Centuries ago, all our ancestors were killing each other over this, and now we're all having a reasonable chat about it.  :) Things are good. Just be civil, be extra careful to assume good faith, and we'll get through it eventually. Which of course, is easy for me to say, because I havent' been a part of it, but say it I shall. :) --Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose Merge

May I humbly suggest that one first step to solving the problems here might be to merge Muhammad as a diplomat and Muhammad as a general together into Muhammad as a political leader or the like. At least that would quell all the debates about whether something was diplomatic, military, both or neither. There'd still be lots of issues to work out, but that would, to me, be a step towards a bettter title, and it would stop us from having debates that we can't win.

I'm far from an expert, but the gist I'm getting here is that some of the issues on the page stem from the fact that there is no NPOV/verifiable way to determine whether some events were peaceful diplomatic agreements (belonging on Muhammad as a diplomat) or whether they were militarily-influenced armistice agreements (therefore belonging on Muhammad as a general). From what I'm hearing, it sounds like both views are present in the sources, and so trying to decide amongst ourselves which one is "true" isn't going to get us anywhere. Trying to come to one single consensus reality on religious figures is a no-win scenario. Like nuclear, this is a game where the only winning move is not to play.

If we merge the two pages, then we don't have to decide, once and for all, whether something was diplomatic or military. Common sense alone suggests that for many instances, the answer will be "both". Let's merge them, reflecting the wisdom that the two go hand in hand, and say ourselves one series of disputes. --Alecmconroy 22:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

well Beit Or above is stating that a topical presentation of someone's life is in essence unencyclopaedic, yet we have plenty of articles which focus on a particular aspect of an individual's life -- especially when there is much biographical and analytical material available such that it must be forked into separating articles. ITAQALLAH 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with BeitOr that a chronological presentation would be optimal, rather than a topical one. But I've suggested that before, and it didn't seem to grab ya, so I thought I would through this merger out as a potential compromise. Muhammad as political leader will be problematic when we have to decide what is "religious leader" and what is "political leader". But it's a step in the right direction-- diplomat vs general makes it absolutely impossible to decide what events should go in which article. It forces us, Wikipedia to decide whether actions were "basically peaceful" or "basically military"-- an impossible task. We could debate and cite sources forever and we'd still never find a NPOV way to decide what belongs where. "as diplomat" and "as general" are article titles I don't think can comply with NPOV. --Alecmconroy 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, the only topic that can legitimately have its own article is Family life of Muhammad (obviously not Muhammad as a husband because one family life is not limited to being a husband). All others that exist now must go. Beit Or 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

They are all here to stay. They will stay here. However, I wish that we can get rid of you reviewing status of Islamic articles. That is the thing we should do in priority. --- ALM 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• strong oppose. This smells like this. I don't like that smell. --Striver 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean-- could you elaborate? --Alecmconroy 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The topics appear to have been chosen to present Muhammad as a multifaceted Superman, the Diplomat, the General, the Husband, the Reformer, all with decidedly positive connotations, according to the logic of the template. I wonder, Itaqallah, if your opinion about this method of organization would change if we created articles such as Muhammad the Caravan Raider, Muhammad the Slaver or Muhammad the Executioner, with prominent links from the template, naturally. Events such as the fate of the Banu Qurayza have been kept out in this article on the narrowly-correct ground that this conduct isn't characterizable as Muhammad engaging in diplomacy (nor is it generalship); that it represents either the failure or the incincerity of his diplomacy seems not to matter. It is obliquely mentioned as "rapidly changing conditions in Medina, with certain tribes having been accused of breaching the terms of agreement." The organization suggested at the top of the template, broken down by period, is the most natural and neutral way of organizing this material, without providing more excuses (as if we've not enough of these) to produce biased material.Proabivouac 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have sources and material to write about then we will create more article about Muhammad. But they should have well cited information in them and lots of valid material. --- ALM 09:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Proabivouac has summed up nicely the impression one gets from the current presentation of Muhammad's biogrpahy. To ALM scientist: caravan raiding, slavery, execution of prisoners, assassinations, torture are all in standard Muslim biogrpahies of Muhammad. Beit Or 09:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay then let us expand Muhammad article and let us make it 20 times bigger. It already have too long tag on it so go remove it first. If we expend it and make it 20 times bigger then that will not be acceptable. Hence these all article will exist and main Muhammad article will have just few lines about each topic. Wikipedia do not have really long articles but a big article is split into many small articles. That what we are trying to do here. Furthermore, I am finding it very difficult to read Proabivouac comment seriously after this . --- ALM 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So, are you proposing to start an article on Assassinations ordered by Muhammad? No one is arguing in favor of cramming everything into the main article, but there are (or at leasr, should be) article on every significant events in Muhammad's life, which can incorporate all the relevant details. Beit Or 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

that point may have had credence had you yourself not exhausted that avenue already. there is nothing wrong with topical presentations of one's life, especially when it is based upon the works of scholars who have forwarded lengthy analyses of this facet of Muhammad's life. please resume the discussion above, Beit Or. Proabivouac, if you can find scholarly resources discussing and analysing Muhammad and his role as a 'slave master' at considerable length such that the topic becomes notable in and of itself, then by all means go ahead. ITAQALLAH 13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No! but I am thinking to create article with Jews Assassination attacks against Muhammad. I happened to read few myself. Do not think that you will abuse my religion sensitivities and I will reply back peacefully. Hence be careful next time please and do not push me to reply back in the way I do not wish to generally.

Now coming back to the topic in hand. Muhammad is an article with summary of most of the things. However, those parts of his life about which we have enough material and cannot fit in Muhammad article, we will create smaller other articles. That is how wikipedia works. A potentially extremely big article is split into smaller articles. As long as we are using WP:RS and have good material then those smaller article will exist. --- ALM 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We should have Assassinations ordered by Muhammad, if we can get the sources for it. ALM, you obviously haven't been instructed very well. Everything Muhammad did was wonderful. Thus, the assassinations he had ordered were also wonderful, indeed, possibly the most wonderful assassinations of all time. You should jump at the opportunity to spread the word of the mercies of this most wonderful man, Muhammad. In fact, there is an Islamic doctrine, I believe it's Itmaam al Hajjah, which you should unquestioningly (unscientifically) accept, according to which the fact that Muhammad was able to assassinate his political opponents is divine proof that he was a holy man. Excuse me while I go vomit about the state of mankind. Arrow740 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

spare us this trolling, please. i suggest you try a blog or an internet forum next time. ITAQALLAH 02:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sensibilities is the last thing editors should care about: there is no official policy Wikipedia:Religious sensibilities. Please don't lecture me on how Wikipedia works: I know it pretty well. The point is that topical articles simply rehash material available elsewhere: there is an article on Migration to Abyssinia, an article on Constitution of Medina, an article on Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Muhammad as a diplomat repeats the material available in these articles and mention in Muhammad proper. It's not only unencyclopedic, it's redundant. Beit Or 10:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No Muhammad is too long and should be more smaller. Those article will be more longer and will have more detailed material. I think I am now wasting my time here because I think you already by now know my point. I will see how you delete those really cool articles. Good luck with your mission impossible. I am going to concentrate on my work now.--- ALM 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bro, ALM, cool down. I know the feeling, and i also know that it is not productive. As for the others, there is nothing wrong with this article. It is a hub/summary/compilation of event that are present as separate events. I see no argument that is remotely compelling me to shift my view in support of a merge. Now, if you would like to create a new article but you are hesitating, why not make a blueprint so other editors can weight in? --Striver 12:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to put everything about Muhammad in one article. The Muhammad article is already too long. --Aminz 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could those who do not support splitting material in different articles please explain why it is "unencyclopedic". I have seen Encyclopedias focusing on the relation of particular subjects. For example, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an specifically talks about relation of Qur'an with different topics. Are you sure that all bios of Muhamamd explain things from first to last in such a high details in a timeline? --Aminz 18:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sure many books about Muhammad can present present things topically successfully, but most books just have one author or just a few-- so they can just pick whichever organization they want, whereas we have a large group of people who have to be able to agree what topics go in which section. Most books don't have to comply with NPOV-- they're free to assert their on POV of which aspects of Muhammad's life were what. Schemes like this are might be fine in some works, but it's poorly suited for a NPOV collaborative writing project like us-- we're never going to be able to agree where the roles of "diplomat", "statesman", "ruler", and "military leader" begin and end. (And that isn't even to mention-- where does "political leader" and "prophet" begin and end? Muhammad's role as a religious figure is integral to his ability to, for example, unite diverse peoples under one federation.)

So, it's not that I'm implying any bad faith on the part of the people who set up this topical organization-- there is a logic to it, and splitting things up into subpages per Wikipedia:Summary style is in general a good thing. I just think this particular organizational scheme is proving to be troublesome. If we really wanted to do topical, I think "as Political leader", "as Religious leader" and "Family life" might be more successful. --Alecmconroy 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that academic works are POV but wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. True. But I think that we can have topical articles on points in which Muhammad was significant at. And only experts can specify that, not typical wikipedia editors. For example, Watt states: "He could be severe at times, though in the main he was not rough but gentle." So, I don't find the above arguments on creation of an article on who Muhammad ordered assasination to be a valid one as it makes readers think Muhammad wasn't mainly gentle. I think we need more *general* strict rules on which child article we should have. Rules that are not specifically designed for this article. --Aminz 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to have one main article on Muhammad as a political leader. Article titles have to be rigidly NPOV, promoting no views, positive or negative, about the individual being discussed. Muhammmad as a orderer of assassinations, for example, would be a horrible idea for an article, because even if true, it clearly promotes a negative view of Muhammad -- pulling out just that one aspect of his life (if true) and making a whole article about it, when really you should discuss it within the context of other aspects of his life. Similarly, we've pulled out just the "diplomatic" aspects of his life and made a whole article about them, rather than talking about them within the context of his life as a whole. --Alecmconroy 20:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If we start Muhammad as a political leader, we may have the same arguments over what is political and what is not. What's wrong with a simple chronological presentation? Beit Or 20:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, people definitely will have those arguments. Absolutely best would be be to merge these pages into Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca-- these articles are amazingly stubby, considering their importance. --Alecmconroy 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, these are very reasonable splits from Muhammad. Beit Or 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I think NPOV means all POV rather than No POV. And by POV we mean academic POVs not personal POVs. I don't think positiveness and negativeness defines NPOV. And again, I think we need general abstract rules over what kind of child articles one can have; not rules specifically designed for this article because it leaves it open for editors to come up with every kind of suggestion without needing to make the relevant arguments rigorous. --Aminz 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV usually means including all POVS, rather than any one. That's what make titles so difficult. Lets take for example the negotiations between the Muslim and the Meccans which occured just before the Muslims came to Mecca. Currently, this is covered on the "as a general page". Let's suppose I say "Well, to me, it's a negotation, so, I say it should be on the 'as a diplomat' page". There's good reason to think I'm right. It is a diplomatic negotation after all, and I can cite academic sources. But suppose someone else says "No, it was negotiate that was part of a military action, so it belongs on 'as a general'". That's true. They can cite academic source to demonstrate this.

So how can we ever decide? There is no way to NPOVly make that decision. There is no way to do "both POVS"-- the article structure requires us to just pick one POV and call that "The official POV of Wikipedia" as to whether those negotiations were diplomatic or military.

Similarly, how are we to talk about Muhammad's uniting of diverse peoples under Islam. This is a diplomatic/politicial thing-- uniting various people under one federation is clearly has a diplomatic element. There is also a small military element, because there will always be breakway factions who don't want to comply with the new government unless there is a law and order force capable of defending the federation. But more than that, there is a religious element-- which is to say, it wasn't just Muhammad's treaties or Muhammad's armies that did the job-- his role as a religious figure was probably the most important aspect.

If we have subpagess of "dipomat", "general", "prophet"-- then there's no way to agree what belongs where. Our readers don't know where to find what. Our editors don't know where to add something. Our editors can't all agree on where something belongs, and we invariably pick one POV and declare that one to be "right"-- which we can't do.

If we have subpages of Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina, Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca, then everyone can agree where something belongs, and there is no NPOV problem. --Alecmconroy 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not have all? If it's split military/diplomatic, have it in both. If it's only one, have it in one. --Striver 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's what's called a Content fork, where the same topic is inadvertantly covered in multiple articles. It verges on being a POV fork, where we create one article to cover one POV and a different article to present another POV. Forks are bad-- we end up having to do twice as much work, and constantly have to copy things back and forth between articles. Readers have to read both articles to get a full picture of things, and they may not do that. Not doing it chronologically also makes the story harder to follow-- to pick just one example: I get to hear about the Hudaybiya conflict in the "as a general" article, but I have to stop and go to a completely different article if I want to read the full discussion of the treaty of Hudaybiya which followed the conflict I just read about. --Alecmconroy 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i think there is some merit in organising the material into the three chronological sections (before Medina, in Medina and after conquest) as Alecmconroy has suggested above. i will think over this for a bit, but i would request that we employ some consistency and discuss the plausibility of doing such with all of the topical articles and not merely this one. ITAQALLAH 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions. --Striver 01:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I should have been more clear-- absolutely we would want to do that consistently, merging other topical articles too-- Muhammad as a general, for example, should be treated identically as this page. It would be very wrong of us to merge one and not the other-- it would essentialy take the POV that Muhammad was a general, but never a diplomat (or vice versa).

The only exception to this that I see is "Muhammad as a husband". His more notable marriages definitely need to be discussed in the chronological articles. You could merge all of the in to the chronological article, or you could keep the marriage article on. This page doesn't present any NPOV problems because I think everyone can agree that Muhammad's marriages should be discussed on "Muhammad's marriages" rather than any other page. --Alecmconroy 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess Itaqallah meant all other wikipedia article (and not just Muhammad related articles :) )--Aminz 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet [10] 1st hour and 35th minute: he is called a diplomat. --Striver 05:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Islam: Beliefs and Observances, page 52: "the diplomatic genius of Muhammad again turned an adversary situation into a victory" regarding hudaybiya. --Striver 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I like "X as a ...". It's an interesting way to present a person of this stature. If you can't decide whether something is "diplomatic" or "military", put it in both articles. Problem solved. Next. Grace Note 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Summs up my view. --Striver 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Others respectfully disagree. Putting the same thing in different articles is known as Wikipedia:Content forking. Beit Or 21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "X as a..." absolutely forbidden-- no. But is "Muhammad as a diplomat/military leader" working out well? no, it's not. Chronological is best, political leader would be better than diplomat/military leader. But if the "Muhammad as diplomat" page title is kept, then NPOV will start to require that we cover only those events which are undisputedly aspects of diplomacy. The details which aren't obviously related to direct diplomacy would have to go to another page-- Muslim migrations, being pelted with stones in the orchard, visitations from Angels-- anything that isn't directly related to diplomatic negotiations. That would mean lots of fights over what is and isn't diplomatic. Anything that wasn't provably a direct instance of diplomacy would wind up getting moved elsewhere, and the narrative of Muhammad's life would get fragmented even futher. We shouldn't be trying to fragment this-- the diplomacy, the political leadership, the military leadership, and the religious leadership all go together. --Alecmconroy 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparing This and This is interesting. --Aminz 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, yeah. I wonder what caused those inconsequential statements? --Striver 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we suppose that the distinction between "Muhammad's Slaves" and "Muhammad the Slavemaster" is lost upon you?Proabivouac 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that must be it! We need to rename this to Muhammad's diplomatics! lol. --Striver 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge--Sefringle 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge also, on the grounds that it is too difficult to separate the diplomatic and military aspects of Muhammad's life. The only way to avoid duplication if both articles are kept is to necessarily omit important contextual information from one article or the other. For example, diplomacy often leads to military action. If you leave out the discussion of military action, the reader is left with an incomplete picture. Likewise if you leave out the discussion of the diplomacy that led to the military action. - Merzbow 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose the merger. Look at the size of this article already. Any article it is merged with will become very, very long. Bless sins 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also why would anyone want ot delete an article that appeared on wikipedia's main page?Bless sins 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A "Did you know" item referenced this article, apparently, this article did not appear on the main page. And the article's current length isn't really relevant to the argument of whether it should be merged or not. It's too long and is too narrowly focused; as I said above readers are only getting half the picture. - Merzbow 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Recent additions 88. i intend to discuss this merge at a greater length soon, i've just been preoccupied with other on- and off-wiki stuff.. ITAQALLAH 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the merger to a large aticle "Muhammad as a political leader", because war and diplomacy are two different things. There are periods in Muhammad's life, e.g before Hegira, where he was only a diplomat. After the Hegira, to Hudaibiyah, Muhammad was primarily a general, and all his diplomatic efforts (e.g. COM) resulted in disasters. However, after the Hudaibiyah, again Muhammad was a diplomat. Although there were battles after Hudaibiyah, they were with minor consequences (e.g. Khaybar remained intact as a Jewish settlement, and Hunayn was inevitble). Thus the two topics shoudl be kept seperate.Bless sins 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

War and negotiations go hand in hand, and together they called diplomacy. They are both two different tools of diplomacy available to a leader.--Tigeroo 07:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Support merge Muslim migration to Abyssinia (615) is not diplomacy: Sending your followers elsewhere to hide has nothing to do with conducting negotiations with representatives of other groups. al-`Aqaba pledges — this story on conversion of some people to Islamis is not diplomacy. Reformation of Medina — this is not diplomacy. Lawmaking, perhaps, but not diplomacy in any event. With what remains I would find cause to merge with Muhammad as a general into Muhammad as a political leader. Can there be a final outcome to the merge proposal now? The tags are still there. Cheers, DavidYork71 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Migration is diplomacy, because it was arranged, and because it did affect later diplomatic contact. In the tribal feudal setting the al'Aqaba pledges and even the constiution of Medina are political milestones.

• Support merge but the better name would be Muhammad's political policies. Both of these articles are POV pushing on opposite spectrums. The merge would probably solve the POV problems.--Sefringle 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Too much content to merge. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Support merge. War and negotiations are both intrinsically tied up with politics. That is diplomacy. Similarly arrangements arrived with political authorities such as an Abyssinian King or local Medinan tribes also fall under the same purview. The only question is, is it even fair to treat the concept as a political leader and a religious leader as seperate, they were intrinsically one and the same thing. He was the leader of the community and the religious was the lawmaking and spiritual side which was both influened and influenced by the faith. Intrinsically a commentary becomes inseperable.--Tigeroo 07:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • a merge sounds good i guess... i'll do something about it shortly. i was thinking that the material from both articles could be worked into Muhammad before Medina, Muhammad in Medina and so on, if there is consensus for that. ITAQALLAH 09:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You certainly have my consensus, along with, judging from the comments above, those of several other editors. We might then look for the GA (and then FA) process to be revisited at some point down the road.Proabivouac 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More POV language

From Muhammad as a diplomat#al-`Aqaba pledges (620—621), with blatantly POV language in italics:

• "Having been impressed by his message and character, and thinking that he could help bring resolution to the problems being faced in Medina, five of the six men returned to Mecca the following year bringing seven others. Following their acceptance of Islam' and of Muhammad as the messenger of Allah, the twelve men pledged to obey him and to stay away from a number of sinful acts."Proabivouac 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Having been impressed by his message and character", why is this POV?
• "acceptance of Islam' and of Muhammad as the messenger of Allah", why is this POV?
• "stay away from a number of sinful acts", why is this POV?

--Striver - talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• The first is a imputation of motive which must be explicitly attributed as someone's (presumbly Watt's) opinion. "Hey, you make a lot of sense and seem like a decent fellow - wanna come rule our city and resolve all our disputes?" It is rather doubtful that this is the whole story, wouldn't you agree?
• To accept something suggests that it is the truth, which is precisely why Muslims use it in this context. The more usual phrase is "convert to Islam."
• Do I really need to explain why "Muhammad as the messenger of Allah" is POV?
• It's not our place, is it, to designate acts as sinful?Proabivouac 17:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• first point: most academics state that Muhammad was invited to Medina to resolve the dispute, his reputation contributing significantly to this. i will source this to other works when i get some time.
• second: no problem with the proposed change.
• third: they accepted him as the messenger of Allah, which is entirely true.
• fourth: change it to Islamically sinful then?

-- ITAQALLAH 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re sinful acts: What particular things were they enjoined from doing?Proabivouac 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

the source simply says they pledged to accept Muhammad's prophethood, obey him, and "avoid certain sins." ITAQALLAH 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

tags

why are there too many tags in this article? why is this unencyclopedic? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's unencyclopedic because it has nothing to do with reality. Secondly, it's completely biased and the whole article is written like propaganda. RunedChozo 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

wrong and wrong. ITAQALLAH 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right and right, unless you're trying to whitewash Mohammed's image. But WP:NOT A SOAPBOX. I'm going to suggest some changes later, but first I want a promise from you and your friends that you won't try to start up some edit war again, because I'm not in the mood for it and would only report you to the ANI page if you do. RunedChozo 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

show where the article is biased and factually inaccurate using scholarly, reputable sources, and we can resolve to fix those problems. until you show where the problems are and why they are so, the presence of such a tag remains unjustified. ITAQALLAH 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are incapable of holding back from edit warring. Until you make that promise and stick to it, I'm not dealing with you. I have no desire to be in the crosshairs of your power-abusing friends again. RunedChozo 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you are being rather unreasonable by first baselessly tagging an article, reverting to retain it, and then refusing to justify the tag on talk. ITAQALLAH 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been rather unreasonable in the past, you have lied in edit summaries, you have had your friends badmouth me when I reported you for it, and you refuse to promise not to edit war. I think that accurately sums you up. Until you are willing to contribute in good faith, I'm not going to deal with you. The tags are not baseless. RunedChozo 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

please justify your tagging, demonstrating where the article is problematic and how so using scholarly sources. ITAQALLAH 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Promise not to edit war like you did last time first. Otherwise, you're just being an obstructionist, which I don't put past you at all. I'm not touching the page other than the tags until I have a promise that you and your friends aren't going to try to harass me like you did last time, because I'm not giving you any chance to pull that again. I find it really hilarious as well as entirely in-character for you to NOT want to make the promise that you won't do this, but it just shows what bad faith you and your propaganda friends edit in.RunedChozo 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't have to comply with any of your demands... please stop this wikilawyering, and justify your tagging of the article. ITAQALLAH 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you REFUSE to promise to FOLLOW THE RULES? Gee, I wonder. You lied about me last time, no go. Either promise to follow the rules, or I'm not dealing with you because I know you're just going to break them. RunedChozo 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

last time you accused me of lying, you were laughed off the ML (along with your friend who was found to be a puppeteer). in fact, you seem to accuse almost everyone you interact with of "lying." i'm not refusing to follow the rules, i don't see myself as having to make any "promises" to you as a pretext to your explanation of your dubious tagging. you don't seem to be following the rules too well yourself, despite your assurances. now, stop with these red herrings and explain where the article is problematic. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Will you promise to follow the rules, or won't you? If not, why is it so hard for you to promise to follow the rules? Well? Your bad faith is showing like the holes in your underwear, boy. I'm not going to deal with you until you promise to follow the rules, and that's final, because your refusal shows me you're just going to turn around and break them first chance you get and you have no intention of actually working in good faith. RunedChozo 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"because your refusal shows me you're just going to turn" - you've already shown that you cannot adhere to the promises you make. you simply wish to use such a 'promise' as a means to attack people as soon as they don't do things your way. it goes without saying that i will always endeavor to try to implement what i understand of wikipedia policy, and your judgement is by no means relevant with regards to when i have and have not apparently violated policy. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo is blocked indefinitely. --Aminz 07:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

relevance

i see no reasonable justification as to why the Constitution of Medina cannot be considered an act of diplomacy. as i said earlier, there is no basis at all on this talk page, except for OR arguments about the nature of the constitution. Lewis' quote simply confirms the notion that it was diplomacy, which other scholars similarly imply. ITAQALLAH 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it can be considered an act of diplomacy. The sources directly and unambigiously state that. --Aminz 07:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Except for a couple of vague quotes, there is no support for the claim that the Constitution of Medina was a work of diplomacy. This issue highlights the problem with this article in general: it's based on vague passages or on what some scholars "imply" or, in most cases, on nothing at all. In a nutshell, the article is inherently POV and OR. Beit Or 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502123135/http://www.sahihalbukhari.com:80/sps/sbk/ to http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diplomatic career of Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526072029/http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/054.sbt.html to http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/054.sbt.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sbk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Formal request has been received to merge Muhammad's letters to the heads of state into Diplomatic career of Muhammad; dated: September 14, 2021. Proposer's rationale: The later article only has 3500 words of prose, considerably below the size limit, while there is already considerable overlap between the former and the later, with the former including minimal information that the later does not. Pinging proposer @BilledMammal: Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't merge: I think this article should be kept, as it deserves it's own article. Best wishes, Adigabrek^Talk 17:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also don't merge as this topic meets several notability guidelines. The author of the letters, Muhammad, "is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" (WP:NBOOK). Additionally the sending of the letters and their aftermath had WP:LASTING effects on the history of the Middle East.VR _talk 00:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neither of those are policy-aligned arguments against merging; the second is an argument against deletion, which is not being proposed here, and the first is WP:ILIKEIT. The article I am proposing merging this into already contains about 60% of the content of this article, has a heading for the content covered in this article, and is short enough that the letters do not need to be split off; to me, it seems like an obvious merge. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.