Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Recent neutrality concerns

For long years, I've been a constant reader of Wikipedia articles, and I have great interest in some specific articles that I continuously read due to how much I learn from them and refresh my memory through the information provided therein. One of these articles is that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

As I always expect from a secular encyclopedia like yourselves when it comes to a religious figure to not relate his life from the perspective of either an admirer nor a critic, but rather will show the facts in a neutral manner regardless of personal beliefs which might result different interpretations based on how the reader may approach such tales.

Until few days ago, this aforementioned article was exactly as I'm describing, and had been so for years with very few and limited changes that might have occurred over those years that doesn't really ruin the methodology which this article had been written accordingly!

I have been shocked when I opened it recently to find about 90% of it being changed, information are provided in a very biased manner that is clearly intending to criticize the person of Muhammad and to not merely relate his life to the public readers, and at many times, the references provided in this newly edited article are written by a well-known critics of Islam, while labelling most Muslim beliefs as ''propaganda'' or ''criterion of embarrassment'', while praising any activity against Islam and defending it it throughout the article as its clear in every incident there's a conflict in the life of Muhammad.

I recommend that the original article which had been there for years to replace this newly edited one to preserve the honesty and neutral intent of this website, especially when it comes to a figure that left a great impact in this world and captivated the hearts of billions of human beings throughout history. Jopharocen (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, Jopharocen, it's certainly the case that User:Kaalakaa has made a significant number of changes to the article since 12 June; in fact, the vast majority, but not all, of the changes in in that time in this diff are atributable to that user. There are a lot of changes to consider. Can you give examples of what you are complaining about? DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly,

I'll need to write down another article to refute many of the claims made by that user, as its clear that most changes were made by certain individual or group of individuals solely to defame Muhammad and not to merely relate facts regardless of personal interpretations.

Lets start with the Satanic verses recorded in the newly-edited article, it was already there long before the changes while affirming that Muslim scholars reject it due to being weakly transmitted, after the new edition, its related as if the rejection a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment". Lets quote it:

This satanic verses incident was reported en masse and recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam, which according to them corresponds to Quran 22:52. But since the rise of the hadith movement and systematic theology with its new doctrines, including the isma, which claimed that Muhammad was infallible and thus could not be fooled by Satan, the historical memory of the early community has been reevaluated. And as of the 20th century AD, Muslim scholars unanimously rejected this incident.

This part, although funny, cannot even be described as criticism, its nothing but defamation as it contains an obvious false information for no reason other than defaming the person of Muhammad.

The part which says that the Satanic verses "recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam" is untrue as Ibn Hisham, who is the main source for the Prophet's biography didn't include it due to how bogus is it. Also Quran 22:52 was revealed - by consensus of Muslim scholars - in Medina, and the alleged incident of Satanic verses took place in Mecca. Its ridiculous to believe that Muslims continued for years to believe in pagan idols as intercessors, even after migrating to Medina! Why would Quraysh continue to persecute them anyway?

Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67. The funniest part is when it claims the story is rejected unanimously by 20th century! How futile this claim is to believe that for 14 centuries Muslims believed that their prophet having sought intercession from idols!

In short, the Satanic verses was never recounted in any canonical book of hadith, and was only recounted by historians who never made genuinity a condition in their methodology. Tabari for example made it clear that he is not responsible for anything he relates as he relates it the way he heard it without verification of the authenticity.

Lets use another example how clearly the editor intended to belittle the Prophet, and not to merely relate facts, take a look at this when it spoke of Isra and Mi'raj miracle believed by all Muslims worldwide:

There is considered no substantial basis for the Mi'raj in the Quran, as the Quran does not address it directly and emphasizes that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran.

This claim is only made by non-Muslim critics of Islam, especially Christian missionaries, as both Sunni and Shia Muslims believe that Muhammad performed many miracles! The uniqueness of the Quran is in being the only living miracle witnessed by everyone at every time, but not as the only miracle, so the editor is using his own personal interpretation of the Quran, because he is unaware that the Quran itself mentioned several miracles by Muhammad in in verses like 8:9, 30:1-4, 53:14-1, and others. I'll not mention another ridiculous claim by the editor regarding al-Masjid al-Aqsa not being in Jerusalem.

I can mention tons of false information in this article after being edited, but I'll end my reply with this, which shows the use of language to be purely intending to defame, not to relate a fact by any means, lets take a look how the author related the marriage of the Prophet from Safiyyah:

Muhammad claimed Safiyya bint Huyayy, a beautiful 17-year-old girl, from among the captives. Following the battle, her husband, Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was put through torture by Muhammad's decree for declining to reveal his tribe’s hidden wealth, and subsequently beheaded. Her father and brother had been executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad had sex with her the very night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse.

I'll not mention that the torture of Kinanah cannot be authenticated, but the use of word Muhammad had sex with her the very night, as if he did that by force, not mentioning that he married her after he offered 2 choices for her: either to remain Jewess and manumit her and return to her people, or to embrace Islam and become his wife. She chose the latter, as related by Ibn Sa'd and many other early authors! Of course all of this is ignored so that the reader get the impression of that she was forced into this. Also the lie that he consummated the marriage with her without waiting the next menstrual cycle is refuted by a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari 2235 Book 34, Hadith 181, as the tradition said:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her.

I can continue to refute all of those claims, but it will take a very long time as they're so many, and those are just few examples. Analogically, the rest are edited in the same biased manner as it became more like an article on WikiIslam and not Wikipedia. I urge anyone who is responsible to go back to the archive of this article to see how fairly written it used to be and to go back to how it was.

Thanks a lot. Jopharocen (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

“Virtually" means "almost" or "nearly", not "all". Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, because:

God willing I shall begin this book ... (of) the prophet's biography and omitting some of the things which I.I. (Ibn Ishaq) has recorded in this book ... things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people …
— "Ibn Hisham’s Notes" in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press (1998), ISBN: 0196360331, p. 691

Furthermore, please refer to WP:NOR and WP:NOTCENSORED – Kaalakaa (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the way its written, its not just about this part. Ibn Hisham did modify it and removed parts that cannot be authenticated and that the people are rejecting at his time. Actually Ibn Ishaq's own biography is lost and we only know it through Ibn Hisham and Tabari.

I'll not repeat the rest of what I said regarding this part specifically, as I already mentioned that the Satanic verses tale was already there long before the changes and had no problem with it as mentioned that despite it being mentioned in some earliest sources its rejected due to how weakly transmitted is it, and not due to being a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment" as the editor later added. There's a huge difference between the word of a historian and the word of a scholar whose methodology to relate what is genuine only.

My question also is that why an unprofessional is allowed to edit this whole article and make such significant changes while the rest of the readers cannot do that? Why can't we edit it and provide tons of references for every word? Jopharocen (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, that's the full part of what Ibn Hisham said in his notes on Ibn Ishaq, using the same source without cherry-picking:

God willing I shall begin this book with Isma'il son of Ibrahim and mention those of his offspring who were the ancestors of God's apostle one by one with what is known about them, taking no account of Isma'il's other children, omitting some of the things which I.I. has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka'i told me he could not accept as trustworthy - all these things I have omitted. But God willing I shall give a full account of everything else so far as it is known and trustworthy tradition is available.

And also to bear in mind that both Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq are great historians, but they were not experts in analyzing the authenticity of reports they relate, as they will need to return to scholars specialists in this for that matter, such as how Ibn Hisham did in some tales reported by Ibn Ishaq. Therefore when mentioning something rejected by Muslims from the very moment narrations got started to be authenticated, this must be taken into consideration and to not be regarded as a later invention by Muslims due to embarrassment. Jopharocen (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your original research doesn’t matter here on Wikipedia. Post it on a blog or debate forum instead. This is not the place for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Its clear and obvious that you have nothing to reply by, since that's all what you have to say.

One of the rules in this "secular" encyclopedia is to relate facts in a neutral manner and not as a criticism let alone defamation. Your edition is nothing but biased information where you included your own personal interpretations. 196.132.36.47 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Then present your case as you see fit. This could do with some more input. --SinoDevonian (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean.

Its obvious that this article is no longer neutral (as per Wikipedia's guidelines) and clearly defaming the figure its talking about since June 12, as an unprofessional user suddenly decided to change almost all of it to suit his whims.

Its not an editable article due to how important the main character of it, and therefore only professional editor must be selected for it.

I'm willing to provide more evidence how clearly this article is subjective even beyond the parts I mentioned, whom the editor couldn't address any of them and simply told me to go somewhere else, why he doesn't go to WikiIslam instead since he failed to be neutral and professional and preferred his personal thoughts over the guidelines?

Please all I'm seeking is to be fair and neutral as those are the guidelines of this website for any article. Review the article, take a look at how it used to be for years since 2006 and how suddenly it was completely changed since June 12. I believe such comparison is enough. Jopharocen (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response or action taken against this obvious defamation? Based on what the editors are selected for the protected articles that are non-editable? Jopharocen (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, ...

Since the original work written by Ibn ʾIsḥāq is entirely lost, how were you able to determine that Ibn ʾIsḥāq did write it while Ibn Hishām did not? يوسف قناوة (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jopharocen: There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. It may take a while for people to respond.

As far as I can tell from reading this discussion, your objections are grounded in original research (your interpretations of primary sources), and that isn't permitted in articles. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. That is one of the policies (non-negotiable foundational rules) that govern content here. Content must be based on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic.

While I feel that some of Kaalakaa's changes were unnecessary, they are at least cited to reliable sources. If Kaalakaa cited any unreliable sources, it would be helpful to point them out for discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you show me where exactly I used my own interpretations of primary sources? You're merely using my own argument against Kaalaaka, who was clearly using his own interpretation of primary sources which is the focus of my criticism if you but read the discussion as you said.

I'll not keep repeating myself again, I already showed how there are false claims and misuse of words, none of you responded to them nor he could, as you can see he merely responded to a line and ignored the rest and ignored even my response to it, as clearly there's no response as the intention was just defamation, even Hitler's article is not written that way.

So if you think that such an attitude isn't permitted then that's why this article must be re-edited or return to how it used to be for years, not to counter-attack me with my very same argument against the editor. At least I proved how biased and subjective is it with no response in return, can you or Kaalaaka do the same to me and prove that I'm using my own personal interpretation instead of facts?

I know that there are no deadline on Wikipedia, but there's clearly guideline, and part of it is that any article must be neutral as its a secular encyclopedia with no political or religious orientation as per NPOV.

Muhammad's article after edition since June 12 is no different from an article written on WikiIslam where obvious defamation is clearly intended as aforementioned with several examples you can go back to them, especially with the misuse of words. Concerning non-reliable sources, you can take a look at this, sometimes there are no sources even:

Nowadays, Isra' is believed by Muslims to be the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, while Mi'raj is from Jerusalem to the heavens.

There's not even a reference or source to such a false information regarding that this belief is related to nowadays Muslims, no source provided, as its a personal interpretation by the editor. And this:

there is disagreement among Islamic traditions as to the identity of the "furthest place of prayer.

No source or reference provided for this claim either as there's no disagreement among Islamic tradition regarding that the further place of prayer is in Jerusalem, but the editor merely put his own views in such writings to simply say almost all Muslim beliefs are propaganda, or criterion of embarrassment as clearly those two terms were used in other parts of the article. Is this really a neutral article?

That's an example of a non-sourced information, and concerning non-reliable sources is when you base your writings on books written by well-known critics of Islam like Tom Holland or Nabeel Qureshi, who are not even scholars, or David Bukay. Unless your definition of reliable sources is any book written by anyone! And surely that's not how a respectable research is written, which mean that not even any book written by western academics can be considered reliable if not examined with other books connected to the earliest era. Previous article was written in the normal neutral way, but not this one.

Again, just do the comparison between the old one and the newly-edited one to see the difference, and how the editor solely intended to defame as the old article didn't suit his wishes. Jopharocen (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets use a 4th example apart from the 3 examples I aforementioned in my longest reply in this thread.

When narrating the assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Nadirite clansman whose tribe pledged allegiance to Muhammad upon his arrival, who after the victory of the Muslims at the battle of Badr - according to the article - went to the Quraysh enemies and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason as it came from someone who is politically an ally, the editor mentioned it as an act of murder for a personal matter, rather than a punishment for treason:

Having dealt with the Qaynuqa, Muhammad moved on to another personal matter. His staunch critic, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a wealthy half-Jewish man from Banu Nadir, had just come back from Mecca after producing poetry that mourned the death of the Quraysh at Badr and aroused them to retaliate. Muhammad asked his followers, "Who is ready to murder Ka'b, who has hurt God and His apostle?" Ibn Maslama offered his services, explaining that the task would require deception. Muhammad did not contest this. He then gathered accomplices, including Ka'b's foster brother, Abu Naila. They pretended to complain about their post-conversion hardships, persuading Ka'b to lend them food. On the night of their meeting with Ka'b, they murdered him when he was caught off-guard.

Thank goodness, a Muslim source is one of the few to be mentioned here, but when going back to it, we cannot find the word murder anywhere, as Muhammad's quote was mistranslated as it was taken directly from David Bukay's Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah in chapter List of Muhammad’s Orders to Murder People., a clear biased source which maintain to depict Muhammad as an anti-Semitic, another problem must be dealt with in the newly-edited article, as, although the conflict of Muhammad with some Jewish tribes or individuals has been always in the article, but to make it seems like it was due to anti-Semitic motivation is only made after the new edition.

If Wikipedia suddenly decided to maintain a specific point of view on the prophet of Islam due to being anti-Islamic, I'll be fine, as I'm fine with WikiIslam as its their objective. But you can't describe Wikipedia as neutral and present this as a guideline and at the same time present a subjective and biased view on the prophet of Islam! You have to be fair and avoid personal orientation when relating facts to public readers if your guideline dictate that you must present a neutral point of view. Jopharocen (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is from Sahih Bukhari no. 4037

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"

or should we include this as well? Sahih Muslim 1767a

Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

NPOV here does not mean that the article has to be ‘neutral’, but rather means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. For example, if someone commits rape, we include that fact without sugarcoating it. Not covering it up or having to look for positive stories about him to offset the negative fact. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As an editor of such a protected article you need to be more professional than that!

In nowhere I denied the incident to quote a hadith for me! My objection was clear that it was regarding putting your personal interpretation for the incident as you described it as a murder for a personal matter, which is solely your interpretation, contradicted by what you yourself said as that Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state - provoked the enemy who were just defeated by the Muslims and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason punished by death.

Thank you anyway for quoting the hadith to prove that you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder in the hadith mentioned in the article.

So you didn't respond to my objection but rather quoted a hadith to prove the incident which I never denied - a strawman fallacy - simply because you have nothing to say as you did in your previous futile reply, and I expect you to do the same in every time.

In nowhere I demanded you to cover anything up, I merely demanded you to remove your subjective motivation and to relate the facts as they are without fabricating them through your personal interpretation and mistranslation, which you just proved it against yourself by quoting this hadith.

The latter hadith you mentioned is unrelated to this discussion anyway. Jopharocen (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who is responsible shall really take a look at this to see the motivation of the editor who changed almost all the article since June 12 and explain to me the criteria in this website for the editor who is allowed to edit a protected article related to a man who is followed by 25% of humanity, and to justify why the rest of us cannot do the same? Why this article is protected anyway if any passerby can be allowed to change and put his whims in it? Jopharocen (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state

Once again, we don’t give a damn about your theories. And we’re under no obligation to satisfy you.

you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder

And a similar case with “virtually” before. If you look for synonyms of kill, you’ll find murder among them. But whatever, I'll change this one to "kill", not that big of a deal.

a man who is followed by 25% of humanity

We don’t care. Adam, Eve, even Noah’s flood story are considered myths here. Kaalakaa (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b being a political ally to the Islamic state is not my own theory, its part of the covenant made between Muhammad and the Jews - which included Bani Nadir - in the constitution of Medina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Why shall we give a damn to your ignorance of history, and later to your own personal interpretation regarding that it was a personal matter when you yourself contradicted that as I aforementioned when you said he aroused the Meccans to wage war against the Muslims?

Murder is the same as killing? Are you really a researcher or know anything about definition of word? So when a man is killed by the government because of treason or because of murder will this action be called murder as well? A simple search in any dictionary will laugh at you. Take a look at this: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kill

Any murder is a killing, but not any killing is a murder, a killing taken place in war combat is not a murder. What a wonderful linguist you are, and got the credibility to edit a non-editable article? Lol

As for Adam & Eve, Noah's flood, or Exodus being considered myths from a secular perspective is not an issue, as its not an issue to consider Isra' and Mi'raj as myths. But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.

As usual, you never address any of my points and address something else in return which you later regret having addressed it. If you became brave to admit that the use of the word murder is wrong, why don't you become brave as well regarding the other topics you refused to discuss? How about having sex with Safiyyah without saying that it was a marriage? Don't you see how clearly dishonest you are? Jopharocen (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist @Trans-Neptunian object

Is this person "Kaalakaa" with his attitude toward a criticism really represent Wikipedia? I'm sure if anyone can look with a fair eyes at his words will see how dishonest he is, especially that when he failed, he started to be subjective toward me as he does in his edition of the article, without addressing my point, as we don't give a damn to you is not a professional way of talking, as the discussion was turned to be against me and not to my point, let alone being credible to edit such an article.

I still ask the same question, if such person is allowed to change almost the entire article with such poor knowledge and misuse of words all over, why the rest of us cannot do the same, what are the criteria which allowed him to do that? Jopharocen (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should we bother refuting each of your original research? Like I already told you multiple times, if you want to debate about your understandings of the hadith, sira, and so on, this is not the place for it. Go to FaithFreedom or other similar websites instead, as this is not a forum. Also, the three major Jewish tribes, including the Banu Nadir, are not included in that so-called constitution of medina, and some scholars argue that it was merely a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I never included my understanding of anything, I merely showed facts regardless of interpretation, something which you never did in your research.

I'm not here to debate, but to show how facts got fabricated and distorted on a website that is supposed to be neutral, and to not include personal interpretation of the editor, as you failed to defend them or prove them, and all you have to say is "go away". I never even requested to speak to you.

As for Bani Nadir whether included in the constitution or not, I think if you have a clue about the article you have edited, you would have known that Muhammad became the head of state in Medina after the Hijrah, which included all of that tribes that were living there. And when, as mentioned in the article, Bani Nadir attempted to assassinate him, he sent them the letter: By your purposing to slay me, ye have broken the pact I made with you. (Lings p. 203) Which mean there was a pact already established, but due to your poor knowledge, you were unaware of that. And after the assassination of Ka'b, in the words of Lings, according to al-Waqidi - Muhammad invited them - that is Bani Nadir - to make a special treaty with him in addition to the covenant, and this they did. (Lings p. 171)

So do you think seeing an obvious misinterpretation, mistranslation, and intended defamation, anyone must pass by that silently and greet you for it and has no right to clarify that and the response to be "go away"?

You must take the responsibility for every letter you write, and if you don't have the courage to do that, then you shouldn't have written it from the beginning. Jopharocen (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what unilateral means? In which part of the constitution of Medina lists Banu Nadir? And being in a pact with another tribe in a city doesn’t automatically make someone a head of the city or a state. Kaalakaa (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what unilateral means, but this is merely the opinion of Bernard Lewis, which is not based on a comprehensive reading, and this must be taken into consideration.

The constitution referred to the Jews in general in Medina, and later specified specific matters for certain clans. And I have already provided references to that there was a formal pact between Muhammad and the Bani Nadir, but you have ignored it as usual.

As for how Muhammad became the head of state in Medina, according to the article you've been editing:

In 620, his uncle al-Abbas, who had not yet converted to Islam, introduced him to political elite of the Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws in Medina and coordinated a meeting at Aqaba. The two clans had been in conflict against one another for years, with each trying to court the support of the Jewish tribes in the area. In order to readjust their political relationship, they sought a political leader from outside, and considered Muhammad, with his authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as an impartial arbiter than any resident of Medina.

How in 7th century Arabia a political leader will be elected if not through the pledge of the chiefs of the leading tribes of the town? And that's exactly what happened! Not sure if you'll go to fabricate this part after this discussion. I can provide you those information from early sources as well, or secondary sources other than the ones provided in the article, whatever you like. Jopharocen (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response until now nor any action taken, despite the editor failing to respond nor being able to explain his point and is allowed to change the entire article right now as nothing of the original article is left anymore.

The editor who is clearly unqualified as proven in this discussion of being unaware of many facts related to the topic he was allowed to change it, and after personally attacking me and telling me we don't give a damn to you - using the word we all the time, as of speaking in Wikipedia's name - and running away from discussing his un-neutral and biased content, and the result after those many days which had passed is just silence, with more biased changes taking place in the article.

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit and change a protected article that is non-editable, without explaining what are the standards for the editors, as clearly there are no standards. Jopharocen (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion can be summed up like this: the article was not "changed to be attacking the person of Muhammad", it follows WP:NPOV and WP:RS, neutrally reporting what RS tell us. If RS tells us someone established world peace, then it's included; and if RS tells us someone did things considered great crimes, then it's included. You keep trying to include WP:OR, which is disallowed by fundamental rules, and you're making your extremely lengthy arguments in a clear case of WP:BLUDGEON which is very unhelpful to your cause. Wikipedia is not a forum or a place to wage holy wars or a place to express fanaticism. JM2023 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no holy wars or fanaticism in my criticism to the new edition, its merely an accusation for my person to avoid addressing my points. Please show where is holy war, or fanaticism in my discussion? Can you? Or you're just memorizing those terms to start using in such times?

The new edition is made by one editor and changed the entire article made by tons of editors before him (most of them were non-Muslims and relying on secondary sources written by non-Muslims as well) and relying solely on 2 or 3 sources which I can see them repeated in almost every paragraph. I provided my sources as well, which refuted many of what was newly-written in the article as well as many of what he failed to respond to and proved to have no answers except being motivated by defaming the main figure of the article, which is obvious to the blind, especially through his responses in this thread.

A figure like Muhammad, there are tons of views on him by historians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and not all sources agree on the view provided by the user Kaalakaa, who simply replied by we don't give a damn to your interpretation. A violation of avoiding personal attacks, which none took an action against it either.

Until this moment, no one addressed my points, all I read in return is its not a forum, what's the need for Muhammad:talk to exist if that's the way you shut up any criticism you refuse to respond to?

Also, based on what you say, it means this article before Kaalakaa was not following Wikipedia's guidelines since 2004 (maybe?) until June 12, 2023. Is Kaalakaa the new Wikipedia's hero who came to reform all Islam-related articles since 2004 to suit his views? Jopharocen (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope one day to see a response to my points instead of throwing lame accusations on me, I'm not sure if this is the new policy here or what. For I'm about to feel like I'm the main figure of this article as everytime the discussion is turned on me away from what I say lol.

But as I can see, despite I'm being the first one to note this, there are tons of others arguing about the same issue now. Good, at least from now on, no one will take this article seriously anymore, as the obvious defamation had been smelled by many readers.

Good for you all, keep it as it is, but no one will take you seriously anymore. Jopharocen (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, after reading the latter threads, I can see that many users who were in my thread like @DeCausa and @Anachronist are planning to revert the article to what it used to be till June, which mean I'm not merely waging a holy war as you're claiming. Jopharocen (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist

After reading the latter discussions after me, I can see that many requested for clarifying what is un-neutral and what must be edited. I've mentioned many points here and discussed them in details (they are not the only ones of course, otherwise it will be an entire article written in this thread, but I can provide more if anyone would request that), both of you can kindly reread my replies again, as I showed how personal interpretation was provided by user @Kaalakaa as well as mistranslation and misuse of words, and others, many of which he refused to respond to, and replied by we don't give a damn.

As I have written many times in this thread, such an attitude shows clearly the motivation of the new editor that he merely intended to defame, and not to relate facts as they are. As anybody know that there are tons and tons of views on Muhammad, and we cannot simply rely on one view in an article that is supposed to provide a neutral view. Jopharocen (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT, be concise and keep your text in one reply instead of four. We are busy and don't have a lot of time to read walls of text. Enough of the policy/guideline violations listed previously. Muhammad's article is going to present RS from NPOV whether individual commentators like it or not. No-one has any time or need to answer your long-winded essays point-by-point, just read the FAQ at the top of the page and follow policy and guidelines. If you would like to improve the article, use RS to present consensus and mainstream secular scholarship from NPOV. JM2023 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not obliged to respond to me if you're so busy, especially if you're not willing to address my points and came to attack me and throw lame accusations you can't prove to avoid discussing the matter.

Almost every reader is now agreeing with me, and many users are planning to change it, I already provided references to what I said, and no need to repeat myself again to you as I have other things to do in life as well, you're not the only busy person in the world.

Keep up the good work, and don't bother replying to me if you have nothing to say. Jopharocen (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory and false responses are unwelcome. JM2023 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, throwing accusations on me that most likely you're the one doing.

Its a waste of time indeed to turn the discussion defending myself or doing a counter-attack on someone instead of addressing the points of my criticism, as I'm not in a court.

As I said, you don't need to respond to me as long as you'll not address my points. Likewise, I'm not going to respond if the response has nothing to do with this discussion. Jopharocen (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for the forum-style arguments with editors you keep engaging in. Stick to discussing improvements to the article without using your original research and instead using reliable sources from a neutral (secular) POV, and read the FAQ at the top of the page before making the same arguments that have been made and dismissed literally thousands of times. This is not an Islamic wiki. JM2023 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that already, and that's what I requested @Kaalakaa to do as he violated the guidelines, you can't prove that I did any of what are you claiming.

No need to repeat myself over and over, and no need to keep turning my very same arguments against the user against me, as no original research is included, rather, @Kaalakaa is the one who puts his personal interpretation to the article, and sometimes without providing sources as I've explained previously with details. I provided references, I did that with sources that were always acceptable in this article.

But obviously, you never read what I've written and merely came here to throw lame accusations to avoid discussing my points.

Again, this is the last time I'm going to respond to an accusation with no proof. At least whenever I criticize I provide what prove my word, not just throwing accusations. And if you have no interest to discuss my points or my criticism, you don't need to reply to me. Jopharocen (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you're not coming at this from NPOV, intentionally or not. There are no unfounded accusations, there are plain observations. Kaalakaa violated no guidelines, that's an unfounded accusation. You using OR and POV comes off plainly from your many, many walls of text. Your "points" were discussed to death by previous editors before I summarized the situation. I have no need or reason to discuss them with anyone again. No amount of discussion is going to change that. Just follow the guidelines and read the FAQ when editing and discussing. This is going nowhere. If youre going to stop responding, just stop, no need to announce it over and over again. JM2023 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023

Unfounded accusation is when you throw lame accusations against me as you just did, without showing where exactly I waged a holy war or used my original research, which you love to repeat as a way to shut me up.

At least when I accused @Kaalakaa of violating the guidelines, I showed the reason for that, nothing was discussed to death, and @Kaalakaa's responses showed how ignorant he was of the very article he was editing.

As for why I've written walls of texts, that was based on the request made by users who told me to explain where is my objection, and I offered some, and its expected to be a long reply since I'm criticizing a whole article that was recently edited as a whole and changed in its entirety, and I had no objection to the article before June, as it was neutrally written as expected.

As for your saying Kaalaaka violated no guidelines, that's merely your opinion because you like the new article. Many here disagree, including users like yourselves.

So again, if you are unable to discuss my points or defend the new article with proofs that it was not biased as I proved in many parts of it, then you don't need to reply or bother talking with me, you once told me that you're very busy. Jopharocen (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend anything. I'm here trying to discourage you from breaking important guidelines that help the encyclopedia function properly. Other people also having objections has no bearing on wikipedia's stance on the new article's verifiability or neutrality insofar as there is no consensus. I understand a secular article about muhammad is going to be contentious but if people could control themselves this would go a lot more smoothly. JM2023 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is now quite an extraordinary amount of material single-sourced to Russ Rodgers, an obscure hobbyist of a historian whose work has been practically ignored by mainstream scholarship. Many of the claims made by Rodgers are themselves extraordinary in nature and fall within the remit of WP:ECREE and really demand the support of multiple reliable sources. (I have tagged these.) Other material attributed to Rodgers may also be undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So after all your false accusations against Russ Rodgers in the below section are refuted, you come here and repeat the same thing? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I get the feeling that with a page as clearly contentious and important to certain special interest groups as Muhammad, circular and repetitive and never-ending arguments are endemic to its talk page. JM2023 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalakaa, There's some quite legitimate concerns raised by several editors about sources you are relying on. Some of your responses have been overly aggressive. The question Iskandar323 has raised deserves a proper answer. What I have noticed is that the common theme of the questions raised revolves around WP:DUE rather than whether sources are WP:RS, but you seem to deflect the discussion to a question of whether they are RS. Can you please discuss Iskandar's point, with less snark, on whether you have over-relied on a writer that is peripheral to the scholarship on the subject. I for one am interested in the answer. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @DeCausa, I don't know how you see it, but Iskandar's comment above that baselessly accused the author of being "an obscure hobbyist of a historian" clearly targets the reliability of the source to me. Regarding dueness, the source is a joint publication from 11 universities in Florida. How is that undue? Kaalakaa (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE is assessed, as I think you well know despite your apparent newness to Wikipedia. This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant. The question of DUE is how reflective it is of scholarship on Muhammad generally. You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers, and have just fallen back on "it's Florida University Press so everything's fine". Whether something is reliable or not in any particular circumstance and whether it should be used if it is reliable is not a binary question. There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and then there is a question of whether the views expressed in a reliable source is maverick or mainstream. You've refused to engage on these issues. I'm weighing in my mind whether this is disingenuity or a simply a misunderstanding of policy. Fundamentally, Russ Rodgers, besides his book on Muhammad, has written, inter alia, books on photos of Patton, the Allied advance over the Rhine in 1945, and American Christian Evangelicalism. This is not an expert on Muhammad and it's just not good enough to say it was published by a reputable publisher, nothing more to say. You owe Iskandar proper responses not just snark. There is a very clear question mark over the WP:DUEness of using Rodgers which you have failed to engage with. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant.

I think it's relevant, the book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. Thus the book is representing the views of them.

You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers,

Um, I don't know if you've read it thoroughly or not, but I think I've addressed it multiple times below in suspect source.

There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Well, the book is clearly about Muhammad, not just addresses him in the passing.

This is not an expert on Muhammad

That's WP:OR. If that's really the case, I don't think the University Press of Florida would have published that book written by him. How many other books by the same publisher cover the topic of Muhammad's generalship?Kaalakaa (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I've read through that talk page multiple times and I still can't see how you deem Rodgers opinions as being authoritative from an objective and neutral standpoint. His book is mainly about the battles the Prophet fought. Although it doesn't just address the other aspects of Muhammad's life in passing, it clearly isn't its main point.

Rodgers is only said to be an expert on early islamic warfare, not on early islamic history in general. Unless you can prove why, you cannot consider him an authority on anything else Islam related. Your only consistent point has been that it was published by an university press, but when that's the only thing that speaks for it, it just doesn't hold up. Admiral90 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa If you still disagree, it's probably better to start an RfC. What do you want to ask? Kaalakaa (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing specific to have an RFC on. You are currently refusing to engage in any discussion regarding WP:WEIGHT, either because you fail to understand the issues involved, or because you are simply dodging them. That is the current situation. Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status, you do in fact owe an explanation that demonstrates you understand Wikipedia sourcing policy and took it into account in a competent manner as you made your major changes. Otherwise, we've simply had an editor with possible WP:CIR issues downgrade a GA-class article. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please quit falsely saying I'm refusing to engage in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT? That's akin to a personal attack. We've extensively discussed this below in suspect source, where the main basis of your argument that questions the "dueness" of the book from the University Press of Florida was a link from Bloomsbury. Based on it, you claimed the author "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1]. However, when I informed you that the content of the link you provided says otherwise about the author [2]:

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

You dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [3]. After I told you that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [4], you said "the link is worthless" and you "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [5]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, you avoided the questions and came here, repeating your false accusations against him. If you believe you're right, you won't have any issue starting an RfC about this matter. Regarding your comment

Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status

That's MOS:WEASEL, and a misrepresentation of what other editors said, which can be considered a violation of WP:TPNO.

I quote from @Anachronist, what he actually said is [5]:

It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".

Furthermore, it is also displayed at the top of this talk page that

Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so.

And

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter.

Kaalakaa (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Rodgers has around 37 citations, of which most are not related to any sort of military analysis (clearly his main area of expertise), but rather fringe opinions about Muhammad's life. Admiral90 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Modest military expertise alone does not make a source a vital one on the politics and motives of actors in the 7th century. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Admiral90: Do those works that cite Rodgers say or at least suggest that his theories or opinions are fringe? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Can you please cease influencing people with your unfounded accusations against an author of a reliable source (which have been repeatedly debunked as evident in my comment above [1])? Or we might have to bring this to WP:ANI. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Nobody is influencing anybody here. I have observed the discussions between you and other users and it's obvious that you cannot actually defend your views. Admiral90 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research. Rodgers work has been ignored by mainstream scholarship almost entirely, I could only find two citations. One of them is oddly enough a work written by a Muslim author from a religious POV, and the other is a more academic work I couldn't access. Hard to find professional opinions on works academics don't care about. Admiral90 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked". Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to ... certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue

So I can't even add other sources to support the material cited to Rodgers that have been given dubious and undue tags? Kaalakaa (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is you should stop editing the article completely. We now have 6 or 7 editors expressing significant concerns about your edits - from various perspectives. I don't see any in support, although I could have missed them because there are so many threads now open about your edits. There's clearly a problem here and it needs resolution before making further changes to the article. This is a collaborative project and I think you seem to be ignoring that to advance your own particular POV. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, Kaalakaa has raised my second from last post above ("Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked"...") at WP:ANI, as well as the conduct of several other contributors to various threads on this talk page. The ANI thread can be found here. DeCausa (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from an outside perspective, there should not be that much discussion about a single source. Rather than going back and forth, we should produce as much evidence as possible about the source and then make a judgement.

  Rodgers wrote a book. Other sources have voiced opinions about Rogers. If there are no opinions, then the academic is not recognized by the community and should not be included.

  @Kaalakaa Please show references by other RS to Rodgers. Other users, feel free to to so as well.

  If academic discuss Rodgers in a tone that suggests they consider him part of the academic mainstream, then it is worth including. If most other scholars question Rodgers accuracy or narrative, then exclude it. If there aren't discussions of Rodgers, then exclude it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Denvercoder9: The book is relatively new, released in 2012, I couldn't find many similar books discussing Muhammad's life in terms of his generalship released from that year until now, and we also have WP:AGEMATTERS which likes recent publications. Rodgers is the command historian of the U.S. army, so he surely has more significant resources and knowledge about warfare (such as its tactics and psychology) than most of general historians. Moreover, his job involves the security of a country with arguably the most powerful military in the world, providing their commanders with a historical perspective based on his research. This book of his is a joint publication by 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. So at least the book is recognized by academics from those 11 universities. Several other sources that have offered their opinions on the book, including:

  • Kecia Ali, in her The Lives of Muhammad, Harvard University Press publication, page 270: "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad."
  • David Cook, the author of Understanding Jihad, Univ of California Press, says here about the book: "An excellent analysis of Muhammad as a general, placing his battles within the context of military history, and a good introduction to the life of the founder of Islam."
  • Policy advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army, Maj. Christopher Johnson says that the book: "Provides an essential understanding to those wanting to know the history that shapes modern insurgencies."
  • This publication by the University Press of America written by Christian P. Potholm, says: "Russ Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad... An extremely valuable look at the rise of Islam through the generalship of Muhammad. A stunning story, well told."

  Other RSes that cite that book of Rodgers include:

  • Howlett, Charles F.; Peterson, Christian Philip; Buffton, Deborah D.; Hostetter, David (2023). The Oxford Handbook of Peace History. Oxford University Press. p. 735. ISBN 978-0-19-754908-7.
  • Anishchenkova, Valerie (2020-06-01). Modern Saudi Arabia. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-4408-5705-8.
  • O'Brien, Daniel (2021-11-16). Muslim Heroes on Screen. Springer Nature. p. 231. ISBN 978-3-030-74142-6.
  • Gabriel, Richard A. (2017-01-03). God's Generals: The Military Lives of Moses, the Buddha, and Muhammad. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5107-0878-5.
  • Hayward, Joel (2023-01-02). The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad ﷺ and War. Claritas Books. p. 357.
  • Çakmak, Cenap (2017-05-18). Islam [4 volumes]: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 1733. ISBN 978-1-61069-217-5.
  • Ph.D, Jeffrey M. Shaw; Demy, Timothy J. (2017-03-27). War and Religion [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 451. ISBN 978-1-61069-517-6.

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Change "founder of Islam" to "prophet of Allah" because Muhammed (SAW) did not found Islam. The first Muslim was Adam (AS) so if anyone was the founder, it's the first man, Adam (AS) 24.139.40.73 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We are describing Muammad from an external etic perpsecitve, not a Muslim perspective. From an external perpsective, Muhammad is identified as the founder of Islam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See Q6 in the FAQ near the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding infobox officeholder or royalty

I added infobox royalty to add the information of Ruling over Islamic State of Medina. But a user named Kaalakaa undid this edit and told me to provide sources that support these claims of existing Islamic State of Medina. Though there is already a Wikipedia page about the Islamic State of Medina, I add this topic to provide information about my claim for Kaalakaa and other users who have doubt about this. Muhammad migrated to Medina by accepting the invitation of Medinan tribes of Aws and Khazraj. The arrival of Muhammad was worlmly welcomed by the rulers of Medina and the name was renamed from Yathrib to Al Madinah Al Munawwarah. It is important to note that the name of Medina was renamed after Muhammad's arrival. Another important evidence on his ruling over Medina is forming the Constitution of Medina in the next year of his arriving at Medina. The constitution gave him a leading role in Medina. Another evidence is the battles. Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, Battle of the Trench etc were held before Conquest of Mecca. All the battles were led by Muhammad in the Medina side. The Conquest of Mecca was a type of Medinan invasion of Mecca and Medina won the war bloodlessly. As Muhammad led the invasion, we can say that he was the ruler of then Medina. After his death, a succession problem was occurred. This is the another evidence. So it can be said clearly that Muhammad was the ruler of Islamic State of Medina. You can find more information if you search on another pages of Wikipedia. Since Muhammad ruled over Medina, an infobox should be added. Thank you. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the article Muhammad in Medina has just had its opening section changed to Islamic State of Medina by user Lightningblade23 without providing a reliable source. Please understand that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, and our WP:RS requires that reliable sources be independent sources (WP:IS) that have "no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." We do not cite the words of an Indian mufti or an ustaz as a source for this article for this reason, nor do we cite some researches by Aum Shinrikyo adherents on the founder of their religion. Now, is the source you just brought up an independent source to begin with? I don't think so. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources that are independent or reliable. Even many of Wikipedia pages about Muhammad cite the sources. The source I have brought up is also a reliable and it was taken from another Wikipedia page. Do you think only sources that were made by non-muslims are reliable? However, I am giving another source that says Muhammad built a theocratic state in Medina and led raids on trading caravans from Mecca. Another source tells quoting Julius Wellhausen, the Constitution of Medina was written in the first year of Muhammad's rule, before the Battle of Badr. I think these sources will be enough for your assurance. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Being taken from another Wikipedia page does not ensure a source is reliable. History.com is not a reliable source for this topic. As for the constitution of Medina, there are differences of opinion among scholars as to when it was established, which is also described in the other source you just brought up. Your source only indirectly quotes that Julius Wellhausen argues that the constitution was written in the first year of Muhammad's rule (without explaining Muhammad's rule of what), and not that Muhammad was the ruler of the Islamic State of Medina from September 24, 622. What you should provide are reliable sources that directly support that claim you added. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad migrated to Medina in 622 and the constitution was drafted in 623. During this period, Muhammad does not leave Medina and does not rule over any other state. So it is very clear that Wellhausen indicates the rule over Medina. And it's a matter of commonsense that Battle of Badr, Uhud, Trench, Khaybar, Mu'tah and finally Conquest of Mecca (de facto invasion) were led by Muhammad. No source will oppose that. If he does not rule over Medina, then how he led these battles in the Medina side. Besides, a treaty was signed between Medina and Mecca named Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Muhammad signed for Medina. No source will oppose that too. So it can be said directly that he was the ruler of Medina.
If Muhammad was not the ruler of Medina, then who was the predecessor of Abu Bakr? And if the State of Medina does not exist, then which is the predecessor state of Rashidun Caliphate? Showib Ahmmed (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OR that you cannot add to Wikipedia articles "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."

Furthermore

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

Now, do you have any independent, reliable sources that directly support the addition you made that Muhammad was the ruler of a state named the Islamic State of Medina from 24 September 622 until 8 June 632? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look for sources, many sources will say about Muhammad's rule. Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad after his death. That means Muhammad ruled Medina till his death. All the sources about Abu Bakr's reign say the same thing and I think no sources will oppose this. Another source directly say that the first ruler for Muslims in Islamic history was the Prophet Muhammad. He became the head of state for a cosmopolite society, which consists of Jews, paganist Arabs and Muslims. These sources and my previous sources directly say about Muhammad's rule. Since he ruled, an infobox officeholder or royalty should be added. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad ruled, yes. But was what he ruled over called the Islamic State of Medina? Did his reign over that polity span from September 24, 622, to June 8, 632? It is reliable sources that directly support these claims that you must provide. Also, The Conversation is not a reliable source for this topic. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As there is no debate about Muhammad's rule, an infobox must be added in the article. There is also no debate that he ruled till his death. There can be a debate about the name of the state. So it can be avoided. We can give the title as Ruler of Medina State or Ruler of State of Medina in the infobox to follow the neutrality of Wikipedia. There is also a debate about when the rule started. But the source of Julius Wellhausen directly say that the Constitution of Medina was written during Muhammad's rule. So we can give the start date on the day of writing the constitution or a year before when the constitution was written. Because he told that the constitution was written after a year of Muhammad's rule. So the reigning time should be January 623 to 8 June 632 or 622 to 8 June 632. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As I and the source you brought up earlier have pointed out, the date of the creation of the Constitution of Medina is disputed among scholars. And to title him "the ruler of Medina" from 622 A.D. is also wrong, because when Muhammad arrived in the city (in 622), there were still the three major Jewish tribes in the city, who had not yet been exiled and eliminated by his orders. Moreover, when the Muslims made their first successful raid on the Quraysh trading caravan during a month when the pagans forbade themselves from shedding blood, Muhammad was met with censure by the people of Medina, so he had to make the excuse that his followers had misunderstood his order, and he postponed taking his one-fifth share of the booty until a verse was revealed justifying the raid. If he had already been the ruler of the city at that time, there would certainly be no need for him to react in this way. If you insist on adding a ruler status to him in the infobox, then perhaps the closest to what I've read in reliable sources regarding it is "leader of the Muslim community in Medina." But it appears as if he hadn't been the leader of the Muslim community in Mecca before that. So it's better to just not include it or any claim that he was ruler or leader of something, because it is already clear in the first paragraph that he was a prophet, and from that, readers can already guess that he was also the leader of his religious community. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There were no need of exiling Jewish tribes from Medina. The Constitution of Medina ensured the security of non-muslims. So why would Muhammad eliminate or send them into exile?

And the event you have added does not strongly indicate that he was not ruler of Medina. Why do you call it as ''an excuse''? Do you have any source that his statement was false? It can be true that his followers had misunderstood his order. Many times the orders of various rulers were disobeyed. It does not mean that he was not ruler.

However, you yourself admit that he ruled Medina, although you disagree on the date and the state name. Then why would "leader of the Muslim community in Medina'' be added? The sources I have added directly mention him as ruler of whole Medina, not the Muslim community. Even a book of W. Montgomery Watt directly mentioned Muhammad as statesman. The date and state name may be disputed, not the reign.

The disputed date is not after Battle of Badr. So the year of Battle 624 can be taken as the start date of reign into the infobox. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There were no need of exiling Jewish tribes from Medina. The Constitution of Medina ensured the security of non-muslims. So why would Muhammad eliminate or send them into exile?

Now you're doing historical negationism. Numerous reliable sources state that Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled, while Banu Qurayza was massacred. Wikipedia requires its articles to be based on reliable sources, not the original research or personal feelings of its editors.

And the event you have added does not strongly indicate that he was not ruler of Medina.

Now now. Who's the one who added the material that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since 622, the year he first arrived in the city? You. So the WP:BURDEN is on you, not me. You're the one who has to provide reliable sources that support your claim, not me who has to provide sources that refute your unsourced claim.

Why do you call it as an excuse? Do you have any source that his statement was false? It can be true that his followers had misunderstood his order. Many times the orders of various rulers were disobeyed. It does not mean that he was not ruler.

W. M. Watt himself states in his book "Muhammad at Medina" page 5 that "Muhammad gave him a sealed letter of instructions ... to proceed to Nakhlah on the road from at-Ta'if to Mecca and there to ambush a Meccan caravan." So clearly Muhammad's claim afterwards that his followers misunderstood his order was an excuse from him, since his followers actually did what he had ordered.

The sources I have added directly mention him as ruler of whole Medina, not the Muslim community.

Which source? Where does it say that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since he first arrived in the city in 622?

Even a book of W. Montgomery Watt directly mentioned Muhammad as statesman.

Where does Watt say that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since he first arrived in the city in 622?

The disputed date is not after Battle of Badr.

You should first provide reliable sources to claim that something is disputed. Also, what is disputed here on Wikipedia means disputed among the sources, not disputed between Wikipedia editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about the things that is not relatable to this topic. So I am ignoring your first 3 answers. The answer of your other questions is same that I told. I admit that the reigning start date is disputed among sources. But it is not disputed that he ruled Medina. All the sources I have provided mention Muhammad as the Ruler. You also admit that he ruled. So there is no difference of opinion about his rule. So an infobox should be added. I hope there is no problem.
Now the thing should be discuss is the start date of his reigning that is disputed. So 624 A.D. (not 622. The reason for 624 is given in the previous message) can be taken as his reigning start year to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for 624 is given in the previous message) can be taken as his reigning start year to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

What "neutrality policy" are you referring to? Which part of it states that you can just include material based merely on your guess or analysis, not reliable sources that directly support it?

I admit that the reigning start date is disputed among sources.

You haven't given any reliable sources that directly state that Muhammad was the "Ruler of Medina State" from 622 or 624 to begin with, so what "dispute among sources" are you even talking about? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 19:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You are arguing out of the topic. Again I am saying the the same thing I told. He was the ruler and there is no dispute. So the topic of the discussion is about adding an infobox royalty. Wikipedia says in the condition of adding Template:Infobox royalty, This template may be used for anyone having royal connections. This template is only for historic biographies and must not be used for mythical / legendary characters or creatures. And There is no dispute about Muhammad's rule. (not among sources and not among us) So an infobox should be added. My question is 'Do you admit that?' If you admit then we can discuss about the tenure that should be given in the template. I repeat, the topic of the discussion is an infobox will be added or not, not the tenure. If you admit that an infobox should be added, then we will discuss about the tenure and the state name. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia says in the condition of adding Template:Infobox royalty, This template may be used for anyone having royal connections. ... So an infobox should be added.

It is "may be used", not "must be used". Can't you tell the difference? It is already stated in the opening sentence of this article that he was the political leader of Islam. If you want to add to the infobox that he was the ruler of the entirety of Medina (which included the people who did not adhere to his religion) from the moment he came to the city, then you must provide reliable sources that directly support that claim, not merely based on assumptions or original researches. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether he was or wasn't Ruler of anywhere is irrelevant to whether the royalty infobox is used. Kim Jong Un is a ruler of a state (and pretty much a hereditary one at that) but the royalty box isn't used. If Muhammad was a "ruler" (and he was) then the "office-holder" one is the most likely. On a practical level that is the one with the most relevant parameters (where was his coronation for the royalty infobox?). Other relevant candidates would be the "person" one or the "religious biography" one. The one that is definitely incorrect is "royalty". DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the long-standing status quo of the religious biography infobox pending resolution of this. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: That's also what I thought. And even if the "office-holder" one is to be used, the material regarding what he ruled over and the length of time he was ruling over must also be directly supported by independent, reliable sources. In my opinion, however, the "person" infobox used in the current reinstated revision is already quite appropriate. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

it's actually the religious biography infobox that I restored with that edit - which is, AFAIK, the long-standing template. DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, that one. Got it mixed up. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Digging into the sources

So after perusing the above discussion, I dove into the aforementioned Watt book using Google Books preview and searched for mentions related to "ruler of Medina". Here are my findings as it pertains to this matter:

• pg. 95, first sentence of second paragraph: Muhammad was by no means the ruler of this community., discussed in the context of the Constitution of Medina in 622
• pg. 96, beginning of third paragraph then goes on to say: In these early months, then, Muhammad can have been no more than the religious leader of the Medinan community. In strictly political matters he was only the head of the 'clan' of Emigrants, and probably less powerful than several other clan chiefs.
• pg. 165, middle of first paragraph: This shows that he was not yet by any means the autocratic ruler of Medina, date-stamps of December 627 a few paragraphs prior and the immediately succeeding paragraph at year 628

Does anyone have better or different research? Left guide (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Left guide If you read the full book, you will find that the author denied to tell Muhammad as the ruler of Medina in the time of forming the constitution of Medina. But he added in Ruler in Arabia that he ruled over many places of Mecca and Medina after the conquest of Mecca. And the places were expanding. He described the expeditions made by Muhammad in Tabuk and north as the expansion of the Islamic State. The author also says in the section of The last months, "He had made no arrangements for the continued administration of the affairs of the Islamic state except that he had appointed Abu-Bakr to lead the prayers. The end had come fairly suddenly, and for a time there was a confusion in Medina, until it was agreed that Abu-Bakr should be his caliph or successor." He also says in the section The position after Hunayun, "Diplomatic and administrative business was carried on in the name of Muhammad or in the name of God." These lines directly say that Muhammad was the ruler after capturing Mecca and his state was expanding. So an infobox should be added. And I support the view of @DeCausa to add infobox officeholder instead of royalty. Since the date is not specified, the start time can be entered in the box as "unknown". So the time of his term in office is from unknown to 8 June 632. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But why change it from the long-standing religious biography? What's more significant Prophet of Islam or being ruler of Medina - obviously the former. The nearest analogy is the Popes. They have effectively a sub-set of religious biography - the Christian leader template. (There isn't afaik a muslim direct equivalent). They don't have the office holder template simply because they are sovereigns of the Vatican. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The situation of Popes and Muhammad is not the same. The term as well as the position of Vatican Head of State is similar to head of the Catholic Church. The two post are equal. So they don't get the infobox and their term is mentioned in the infobox religious biography. But Muhammad's term as well as the position as prophet and Ruler of Medina are not same. The two things are different from each other.

And there's no rules that a long-lasting template cannot be changed. I didn't remove infobox religious biography. I just added infobox royalty (Now I am supporting officeholder infobox) to mention his post. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

2 infoboxes? No, that's pointless. The religious biography one is quite sufficient - I wouldn't bother arguing about whether he was or wasn't ruler of Medina. I don't think it matters - I don't think you'll get support for the highly unusual idea of 2 infoboxes and I doubt that anyone will think that the religious biography one doesn't cover the pertinent aspects that should be in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many examples of using 2 or more infoboxes. However, if you don't want to use 2 infoboxes, the infobox officeholder can cover all the information that are given in the current infobox including the post and term that current infobox can't. So infobox officeholder will be more accurate. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

More than 24 hours have passed. Since no one has replied, I'm assuming everyone involving in the discussion is in agreement. So I am changing the infobox religious biography to infobox officeholder without specifying the start date of office. Thank you everyone. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Showib Ahmmed: Have you got any independent, reliable sources that explicitly state that Muhammad was the ruler of a state named the Islamic State of Medina and that the beginning of his rule and his predecessor are unknown? If not, I regret to inform you that this would also be considered WP:OR. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned in the previous message in the reply of LeftGuide. W. Montgomery Watt mentioned Muhammad's state as Islamic State in Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman for many times.

In page 217: The Persian decline contributed to the growth of the Islamic state.
In page 222: The Islamic state in 632 was a conglomeration of tribes in alliance with Muhammad on varying terms, having as its inner core the people of Medina and perhaps also if Mecca.
In page 226: The opposition to the Islamic state was largely political...
Besides, Watt named the state of Muhammad in Medina as Islamic State for many times in the book. So I named the state as Islamic State in the infobox. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"The Islamic State" is not the same as "the Islamic State of Medina", and 632 was the year Muhammad died. To avoid original research, you have to provide independent, reliable sources that directly support any material you put in, and what you put in was that Muhammad was the ruler of the Islamic State of Medina and that the time he came to power and his predecessor are unknown. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About Ruler: Do you read the book or my previous answers attentively? I don't think so. The book, for many times, mentioned Muhammad as the ruler after the conquest of Mecca. The state was expanding day by day. The statement of the book regarding 632 refers to the status of the state at the time of (not after) his death. Even the writer says in the death section, "He had made no arrangements for the continued administration of the affairs of the Islamic state except that he had appointed Abu-Bakr to lead the prayers." Besides, In page 35: "He is said to have introduced to Muhammad a group of five men who became the mainstay of the young Islamic state in Muhammad's closing year and after." How much more direct speech is needed for you to ensure that the state was existed during Muhammad's time and that he was the ruler? I think you are kidding with the matter.
About predecessor and term start date: The book does not mention any date for the beginning of Muhammad's reign. So I gave the start time as unknown. And his predecessor should be "Post established" because the Islamic state was formed by Muhammad and it was expanding.
About State name: As he mentioned the state as Islamic State, it is clear that he mentioned Medina. Sometimes he mentioned the state as Medina and sometimes as Islamic state. So I gave the state name as Islamic State of Medina. Because we can't just give the name "Islamic State" without mentioning what the Islamic State is. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Showib Ahmmed: Do you understand what "directly support" means? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you admit that Muhammad ruled? Whatever the tenure or name of the state. Sometimes you say you admit that he ruled but you have disagreed the tenure, sometimes you say to provide source that he ruled. I want a clear reply. Do you admit he ruled. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Showbib Ahmmed, just to be clear: Muhammad is primarily known as a religious leader and the religious bio infobox is the most appropriate infobox, an no other is needed. It makes no difference whether he was ruler of Medina, it's an irrelevance. Furthermore, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS based on "I'm assuming everyone involving in the discussion is in agreement" because no one replied to you in 24 hours. It's obvious no one is in agreement with you and it stays that way until editors expressly say otherwise. Don't do that again. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

The "known for" section should include the religion that honors him, like a page like this.

in the "known for" section it should be written "Central Figure of Islam, Prophet in Baha'i Faith" Pinbagas (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pinbagas: I assume you're referring to the infobox. I have no objection to "central figure of Islam" (other than the gramatically incorrect "known for" rather than "known as"), but listing other things including a prophet in Baha'i, Amadiyya, and who knows what else, risks the list growing too big. "Known for founding Islam" does satisfy your request, however, because it mentions Islam.

I'd like others to chime in. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Not really seeing the value of overcomplication over the current clarity and simplicity - the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most relevant and notable, not all information. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: How about we change "Known for: Founding of Islam" to "Known for: Establishing Islam"? Same number of characters, and I think every reader could agree with that, including those who come to this page objecting to "founding" (although that would be still in the article text). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That actually follows on from "known for" better anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to stick with Islam-only in the infobox for this param, per Template:Infobox person. "Establishing Islam" is fine, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammed's wife did not uncloth herself to determine whether he was being visited by angels

Under the "Life" section in the "Beginnings of the Quran" part, it states something like this happened. The original (but still unauthentic) narration states instead of "Khadija removed her clothes with Muhammad on her lap" that "Khadeejah said: Then I uncovered my hair and threw my headcover aside". The latter narration is the one the former narration is derived from. The latter narration is itself not true [2] according to the scholars of hadiths from which almost every aspect of Mohammed's biography is derived from. So, that renders what is on the article as unfounded. This part should be edited out because I've looked around and haven't found a a source stating that the narration quoted in the article is valid. I'd edit the article myself but I do not have requirements to do that. Yusuf10000 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yusuf10000 Where have you looked, because there are three academic sources cited in the article. What did they say when you reviewed them? —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The only source for the report is narrated by at-Tabaraani in "al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat". Scholars have classified the report as inauthentic. It can't be used as evidence to claim that event really happened. Yusuf10000 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yusuf10000 Just to confirm, you read all three sources, and they all have the same origin story? —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-fact-based statement presented as fact.

This should not be a religious text, it should be about the life of religious LEADER. Unlike the major characters in the Judeo-Christian Bible, we have proof that Mohammed literally existed. Therefore, mystic/supernatural statements should be eschewed and the article should stick to known facts.

Particularly galling is the section that begins "Subsequent to obtaining a divine instruction to battle the polytheists". Since there is no EVIDENCE that Mohammed actually spoke to Allah, any more than there is evidence for Joseph Smith seeing the Angel Moroni or other people who claim to have had divine encounters, that statement should be changed to neutral language. "CLAIMING to have obtained a divine instruction" would more clearly adhere to Wikipedia's standards of quality.

Similarly, claims of Qu'ran verses being "revealed" to Mohammed should be expunged, as books are written by HUMANS, not divinely created, to the best of our knowledge. And the reporting about his being visited by "the angel Gabriel" (a FICTIONAL character as far as we know) is offensive. Again, simply using such metaphysical events as things Mohammed REPORTED ("Stating that he had been visited by the angel Gabriel", etc.) maintains Wikipedia's standards of neutrality.

Infuriating.

Please rectify this. Thank you. 2600:1700:F070:AB10:5CBC:5EF2:3C3F:26A2 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

At least on "Subsequent to obtaining a divine instruction to battle the polytheists" I agree, that is not good WP:WIKIVOICE. I haven't checked the source and don't know what it says at this point.

While Gabriel does appear in fiction, I think there is a difference between fictional and religious. I see no great wrong in article text like "Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave..." and "According to Islamic tradition, in 610 CE, when he was 40 years old, the angel Gabriel appeared before him". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

... claims of Qu'ran verses being "revealed" to Mohammed should be expunged, as books are written by HUMANS, not divinely created ...

The Qur'an was not written down in a book in one go, but was delivered orally and gradually by Muhammad, verse by verse, circumstance by circumstance. These verses were then memorized by his companions, and some were written down by his scribes. It was only after his death, during the caliphate of Uthman, that these verses were collected and compiled into a book. Coming back to the words "revelation" and "revealed," I honestly don't think that the use of these words will sway people to convert to Islam. That's also probably why reliable, independent (secular) sources, even the most critical ones, use the words. Here on Wikipedia, we just follow what they say. Moreover, some of the Qur'anic revelations were directly related to the occurrence of subsequent events in Muhammad's life, so we cannot completely erase them, as that would separate historical events from their contexts. Also, please read WP:YESBIAS. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Muhammed never attempted suicide

What is said about him attempting to jump off is false and never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.225.84 (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposing minor extension of information.

In the Household section the content "According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage."

Can it be added that "betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old or by some accounts, twelve or more at marriage." which aligns with the Aisha article. StarkReport (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the Aisha article currently states "A preponderance of classical sources converge on Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage, and 9 at the consummation; her age has become a source of ideological friction in modern times." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Apologies for the misunderstanding, I was referencing the info given in the body's section Age at marriage and consummation. "Al-Tabari notes Aisha to have stayed with her parents after the marriage and consummated the relationship at nine years of age since she was young and sexually immature at the time of marriage; however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage." StarkReport (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's probably fine for that article, which naturally goes into more detail. It's not obvious why the view of Al-Tabari should be in this article, which is "tip-of-the-iceberg" and so heavily summarized in many parts. That' my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well, it was just 8 words I was looking to incorporate which I think is Due. StarkReport (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 Feb 2024

In the lead it is said that Mohammed was born after few months after his fathers death. But actually , according to the Islamic sources he was born after 4 years after his father's death.

So the corrected sentence is from 'few months' to 'few years' Afv12e (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specify what sources you are talking about. Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

prophet Muhammad is not the founder of islam , he is the last messenger in islam 117.201.203.37 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Muhammad is the founder of Islam from an objective etic perspective, even if the internal Muslim emic perspective views Islam to have existed prior to him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The page image

I get that it causes controversy but is there a reason aside from that for the page image being something other than an image of the person in question? I know in some cases there aren't recognizable/available images but this obviously isn't one of those times. I mean there's a whole FAQ about why images of him are included in the article but it's too far to include one in the infobox? XeCyranium (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The images in the body are depicting scenes from the life of Muhammad, rather than for the purpose of specifically depicting Muhammad. As Muhammad, like many figures from antiquity, is not know from any authentic images from his lifetime, there's not really any point of showing a depicition of him in the infobox that has no basis in reality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there any ancient religious figures for whom we use contemporary depictions for the infobox? I know other stuff exists and all that but this seems to be far and away an outlier in that regard. Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Confucius (maybe not religious necessarily), all of them employ images concocted centuries to millennia after their deaths. I don't see why a contemporary depiction would be necessary in the first place, rather than a historically significant depiction. XeCyranium (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The depicitions of Jesus and the Buddha are iconic for their particular religious traditions, and Confucius also has a long tradition of being depicted by Chinese artists. Neither of these is really the case for Muhammad. The aniconic depicition of Muhammad as caligraphy is the most well known representation of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of those other visual traditions only began hundreds of years after the death of the figure in question, much like with Muhammad. Just because calligraphy is popular doesn't make it a useful image for depicting the actual person in question. XeCyranium (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@XeCyranium: Did you read the whole FAQ? Q4 addresses your question, specifically about why calligraphy is used in the infobox instead of an iconic representation. It is the most common way to depict him, that's all. I recall there was also some consensus in the past that images of Muhammad should appear "below the fold" but I don't remember how long ago that was. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Boy I feel silly now, I promise I did read the FAQ but somehow I missed that one. Well if that's what consensus has been I won't argue with it. XeCyranium (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

The criticism of Muhammad is extremely vague and only go in depth in regards to the theological issues, however with other religious figures/leaders on Wikipedia, there is depth into the criticism of their character, actions, etc. 112.141.49.219 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 14:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You can find a little more in the sub-article Criticism of Muhammad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Baháʼí

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Il y a une erreur sur le nom

Il est écrit Mahomet alors que c’est mohammed et non Mahomet qui a été changé par l’occident cela est une insulte s’il vous plaît pouvez-vous remplacer je vous en prie. 2A01:E0A:BA7:C090:CDF0:8B54:567:CA80 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use English in the English version of Wikipedia. "Mahomet" is only used in titles of other works, as it must be. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Mistakes in the article in

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 6

In this article there are some mistakes, In this article it says that Muhammadﷺ. is the founder of Islam and that's not true . Islam existed from the time of Adam(AS) The first human being and the first prophet of Islam. Islam,The religion of The only true God ALLAH(SWT). MUHAMMADﷺ got revelation from God(ALLAH) and he was a Messanger and prophet of God(ALLAH) he Warned the Wrongdoing peopleto go to the right path. BrotherAnasibnmalik (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) See Q6 in the FAQ at the top of this page. This is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC) Bro it doesn't matter when you are talking about Islam take info from authentic sources of Islam Mahdi2812 (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC) @Mahdi2812: Bro we don't use primary sources to make statements in Wikipedia's narrative voice, per policy; see WP:PRIMARY. We use reliable scholarly sources instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Information not correct

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 6

When yor are talking about Islam or prophet Muhammad (s.w.a). YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK BY YOUR SELF TALK ACCORDING TO INFORMATION GIVEN IN ISLAM. NOW WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? PROBLEM IS THAT PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS NOT FOUNDER OR CREATER OF ISLAM AS YOU SAY, ACCORDING TO MUSLIM AND IT'S OUR BELIEF THAT ISLAM WAS THEIR BEFORE ANY OTHER RELIGION SO YOU CAN SAY THAT HE IS INTRODUCER OF ISLAM NOT CREATER OF FOUNDER Mahdi2812 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC) No. See the answer to question 6 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Also, please don't use caps. It certainly won't mean you are more likely to be listened to. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC) Actually, even though I am the author of that FAQ answer, I have always advocated that this article says he "introduced" Islam (an objective fact that cannot be denied by anyone) rather than "founded" Islam. I composed the FAQ answer with that conflict of terms uppermost in my mind, even though I know that the community would never agree to replace "founded" with "introduced". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC) It depends what the objective is. If it's to find a compromise i.e. a form of expression that won't offend Muslim sensibilities but is broad enough to not be inconsistent with secular scholarship, then maybe "introduced" would work. But I don't think that can be the objective. Shouldn't the objective be to clearly represent scholarship per WP:DUE? I don't think that "introduced" is clear enough to do that. Everyone knows what "founded" means but "introduced" is ambiguous, which is why it might work as a compromise, but not the sort of compromise that WP should make. DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) That was my thinking too, which is why the FAQ answer is worded the way it is. My preference for "introduced" was grounded more in a desire to end the complaints we get about Muhammad being the founder. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I doubt that would work. If Adam, Moses and Jesus were Muslims, Muhammad can not have introduced it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Appeasing believers when trying to write from a secular perspective is just not going to be possible. Maybe something could be added to the "founder" footnote saying something like "Muslims believe that Islam existed prior to Muhammad/has always existed", though I don't have a good citation in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) The early lead-statement "...he was a prophet divinely inspired to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam..." covers that reasonably IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) I agree, seeing that the man is creator of the main religious text in Islam and the secondary religious texts are presented as his deeds and judgements. He is a founder and should be explained as such here. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) "YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK BY YOUR SELF TALK ACCORDING TO INFORMATION GIVEN IN ISLAM." Ummm.... no. Your insistence that we must follow your religion is grossly offensive. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

"Foretold his prophethood"

Hi @BilledMammal. Thank you for taking part in the monitoring of this article. Regarding the text "who foretold his prophethood" that you deleted, this detail is the main point of the whole Bahira story, so I think its inclusion is quite essential. If it's a matter of wording, will you please suggest how you think it should be written? Just as a note, there's already "Islamic narratives say" in the earlier part of the sentence. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Depictions of Prophet

Poster didn’t read FAQ No. 1

Could you remove depictions of Prophet in the article. There are billions of Muslims in the World. Do you think these are acceptable to Muslims? SaloxiddinTursunaliyev (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) There are billions more non-Muslims in the world. Do you think your attempts to control them are acceptable?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC) And not even all those billions of Muslims agree about said depictions. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 19:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) That's right. @SaloxiddinTursunaliyev: The Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad, presumably maintained by Muslims, seems to find the depictions acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) They have a mural of him in Tehran. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is the Mecca of the Article

If the person sent by the Single God, was born in a place called "Mecca", and the Mecca we now call "Mecca" in what is now Saudi Arabia was founded during the first century of the Muhammadanism, does that mean all our early references to "Mecca" in this article should be to "Mecca" of Petra, in Jordan? Mysha (talk) Mysha (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this related to "Recently, Petra has been put forward as the original direction of Muslim prayer, the Qibla, by some in the revisionist school of Islamic studies, namely that the earliest mosques faced Petra, not Jerusalem or Mecca. However, others have challenged the notion of comparing modern readings of Qiblah directions to early mosques’ Qiblahs as they claim early Muslims could not accurately calculate the direction of the Qiblah to Mecca and so the apparent pinpointing of Petra by some early mosques may well be coincidental." (from Petra) ? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. "Oh, yesterday we didn't know how to do that", is always the defense of those who have no better answer. But regardless, do we really have to claim Atlantis lay in the Atlantic Ocean, for no reason than to not have proof that it did lay somewhere else? Likewise, if there is discussion about the identification of Mecca, shouldn't our article reflect that? Mysha (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Petra does mention that. If it is WP:PROPORTIONate to include in this article is another question. You can make a suggestion on what text you want to add where with what refs here on the talkpage and see if people have opinions. Or you can wait until WP:30/500, be WP:BOLD and see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Night Journey Information Incorrect

The claim that the Quran does not refer to the ascension into Heaven (Mi'raj) is false. This is a topic discussed in Surah An-Najm, verses 13-18. I will push changes once I've analyzed the relevant content and determined what revisions need to take place. Emperor Ibrahim I (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The cited source clearly supports the content:

Muhammad's night journey. The qur'anic grounding of the ascent (mi'raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur'an. Secondly, the Qur'an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur'an itself (see INIMITABILITY). Even so, key qur'anic passages are woven through the post-qur'anic narrative of Muhammad's ascent.

Here at Wikipedia, we only report what reliable independent sources (see WP:SOURCE), in this case secular academic sources, say. Not users' original research. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Patronymic name extension on 15 May 2024

Extend the info box patronymic to include what is verified up to Muhammad's forefather Adnan

Ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim ibn ʿAbd Manāf ibn Quṣayy ibn Kilāb ibn Murrah ibn Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy ibn Ghālib ibn Fihr ibn Mālik ibn An-Nadr ibn Kinānah ibn Khuzaymah ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Mudar ibn Nizār ibn Ma'add ibn 'Adnān

ٱبْن عَبْد ٱللَّٰه بْن عَبْد ٱلْمُطَّلِب بْن هَاشِم بْن عَبْد مَنَاف بْن قُصَيّ بْن كِلَاب بْن مُرّة بْن كَعْب بْن لُؤَيّ بْن غَالِب بْن فِهْر بْن مَالَك بْن النَّضْر بْن كِنَانَة بْن خُزَيْمَة بْن مُدْرِكَة بْن إِلْيَاس بْن مُضَر بْن نِزَار بْن مَعَدّ بْن عَدْنَان MahmoudBinOmar (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Source? Preferably a modern-day historian, in English if possible, but other languages are fine, as long as the source is WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 19:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

genocide perpetrator

I think that we should add this category because he committed Invasion of Banu Qurayza. Sharouser (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well he is included on the category list. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed that cat per WP:CATVER. Which WP:RS says this was a genocide, and what content do you suggest adding to the Muhammad article based on them? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's an unreasonable notion, but taking "Consequently, 600–900 men of Banu Qurayza were executed. The women and children were distributed as slaves, with some being transported to Najd to be sold." from "war" to "genocide" needs decent sources doing the lifting. That's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then we may have to add Moses and many others from ancient times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There were three Jewish tribes that were in a treaty with the Muhammad, and these tribes all violated the treaty, with hostile attitude, communications with the enemy, and an intent and attempt to fight the Muslims and assassinate Muhammad. The two tribes Banu Qainuqa and Banu Nadir were merely exiled due to their insistance in hostility and danger to security, but one of them, Banu Qurayza, were a degree higher in treachery, and were incited by Quraysh to oppose the Muhammad and the Muslims, so there was no choice but to fight against it from a security standpoint. Now, in terms of the number that is spread of how many were killed, this is debated, by analysing whether such a number was possible and what the origin of the claimed number is, as well as asking: "who was killed?"; because killing civilians is prohibited in Islam, so this would indicate whatever number was killed were combatants, but we cannot even accurately confirm how many were killed in the first place. Academically, you cannot just mention one thing and conveniently not mention the reason for it, and none can rely on a historian's estimation when he did not witness it as a reliable number of the death toll. In any case, what is expected it a treaty is broken in such a way? Your edit suggestion to me seems ingenuine and has sprouted as a result of modern day events. MahmoudBinOmar (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to mention it somewhere in the article, but I'm not sure I'd use genocide unless this was actually the entirety of their population DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? The term genocide does not refer to the entirety of a population: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"Dimadick (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I guess if there's a evidence they specifically went after only that ethnic group that's different but if they just did that to anyone in the city that's not the same thing. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Conflict with the Jewish tribes

"Following the Battle of Badr, Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." Does anyone know which source says this? And can they quote it? Aside from the tone issues, I don't trust this as correct paraphrasing one bit. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.

So what was Muhammad’s motivation? The seeds for this can be found in his earlier declaration after the battle of Badr that he intended to exile the Jews from the land.

• Sahih al-Bukhari 6944

Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the mosque, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out to us and said, "Let us proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The Prophet (ﷺ) stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam and you will be safe!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed Allah's message to us." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "That is what I want (from you)." He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l- Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

• Sahih Muslim 1767a

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:
I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

— Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses & Banu Qurayza

A very long discussion

Throughout Muslim and Non-Muslim sources, there is not a single "Sahih" (Authentic) report of the Satanic verses incident. Every one of these is either "Sahih Mursal" (Sahih in chain but disconnected) or lower such as "Da'if" (Weak). QcTheCat (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC) This article states that the most "authentic reports" tell us that there is no evidence of the Banu Qurayza's break of the treaty. But there very clearly is. Banu Qurayza also did not deny the accusation, this is completely false. As we see in Taarekh At Tabari: Banu Qurayza Leaders to attackers: "There is no treaty between us and Mohammed and no covenant." (The History of Tabari: Events of the Year 5) There are many more but I'll include one to start the conversation QcTheCat (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) You say sahih this sahih that, then you quote Tabari. Did Tabari give labels to each account of his books, whether they were sahih, hasan, daif, etc.? No, not to my knowledge. Besides, Tabari also recounts the event of The Satanic Verses (vol. VI, SUNY Press, pp. 107-112). Regardless, we at Wikipedia only report what reliable independent sources say (see WP:SOURCE), which in this case are secular academic sources, and as far as I know they don't categorize reports as sahih, hasan, daif, etc. If they consider an event to have happened, then we report it, simple as that. Also, please read our policies regarding WP:OR and WP:NOTCENSORED before becoming WP:TIMESINK to other editors. — Kaalakaa (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Well actually, The "secular academic sources" have to take a bulk of their information from Muslim sources because they were the earliest sources of information about Islam. As for At-Tabari, he was a scholar of Qur'an exegesis (Tafsir) and an Islamic historian. Whenever he provides some information, he gives an Isnad (chain of narrations), meaning he provides the narrators who inform him of the topic and how they received their information. It is then up to the scholars of Uloom al Hadith (Hadith Science) to check whether the Isnad is authentic. For example, for the Satanic verses. Imam Tabari provides this chain of narrators: Abu Al Aliya > Dawud > Mu'tamir > At-Tabari Here the primary source is Abu Al Aliya, however he is a second generation Muslim, which means the narration is disconnected. TLDR is that the primary source was not an eyewitness or an earwitness and therefore we cannot rely upon this report. An academic sources may mention this report to show difference of opinions at the time, but the fact is that this report and thus any academic sources that takes from it is not providing authentic information. However with the report in the History of At-Tabari (Taarekh At Tabari) where he reports on the deceit of Banu Qurayza, he reports it as a fact that is confirmed. The whole narration of Kab bin Assad's (Banu Qurayza's chief) breaking of his treaty with Mohammad can be found in "The History of At-Tabari" Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15 QcTheCat (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Did you actually open and read the links I provided above to some of Wikipedia's policies? If you were writing for an encyclopedia dedicated to spreading Islam, then maybe your original research would matter, but not here. We simply report what reliable independent sources say, which in this case means secular academic sources. And we don't censor things because they're considered offensive to followers of religions. — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Did you even read what I said in my reply. I am not asking you to change the article to make it "non-offensive", I never said that. I have no problem with it not being "Islamic", I am explaining that the information is objectively inaccurate. The article says: "no evidence substantiates such an attack (by Banu Qurayza), and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre." Yet, You will see that even the sources quoted in the article such as Maxime Robinson's "Muhammad" quote early Muslim sources and say that the sources they used did not seem to find any evidence for Banu Qurayza's disobedience. But what I am saying is that there is clear evidence for Banu Qurayza's disobedience that perhaps. So, If I can bring an objective historically accurate proof against the position of the current sources then the source should be reconsidered. I quoted you At-Tabari. At-Tabari provides historic proof that Banu Qurayza did in fact break their treaty in his 1. "History of At-Tabari" It seems like you didn't take me seriously and didn't check the source I provided. Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15 2. And also there is more proof in Sirat Bin Ishaq. These are very concrete sources which academic sources quote much, these sources prove Banu Qurayza's responsibility in their execution QcTheCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Tabari, as well as other early Islamic sources, are primary sources that are not independent (having conflicts of interest), mixed with legendary tales from Muslim narrators, and so on. It is the task of independent secondary sources, or, in this case, secular academic sources, to determine which of the stories are facts or mere fabrications, not the task of Wikipedia users. See WP:PSTS: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." — Kaalakaa (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC) QcTheCat (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There are many secular secondary and tertiary sources which mention the deceit and break of the treaty by Banu Qurayza. One of these is a book by WM Watt, one of the most quoted Historians for Islamic Wikipedia pages. In his book Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman, He said: They (Banu Qurayza) had been intriguing with Muhammad’s enemies and at one point had been on the verge of attacking Muhammad in his rear. They had thus been guilty of treasonable activities against the Medinan community. ("Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171 by WM Watt) I have provided two primary sources: 1. "History of At-Tabari" 2. "Sirat bin Ishaq" And now one secondary source too: "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" QcTheCat (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) "On the verge of attacking" here simply means "They were close to attacking, but ultimately did not carry out the attack at all." And this report comes from Islamic sources written by Muslims several hundred years after Muhammad's death (they clearly had conflicts of interest there). So I see this as not really contradicting the Rodinson and Gabriel sources, which say more or less "but no evidence substantiates such an attack, and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre". — Kaalakaa (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC) As WM Watt says, Banu Qurayza were "intriguing with Muhammad’s enemies" and at "The verge of attacking". I have already told you in every one of my responses, Banu Qurayza broke their treaty. I never said they massacred the Muslims, If that was the case, Islam wouldn't exist today. Banu Qurayza had negotiations with the Quraysh, and then were prepared to attack. That is a very clear break of their treaty which states that they were not to share resources, plot against the Muslims or attack, etc. How is punishment for breaking of a treaty that was almost to result in a massacre of the Muslims, considered a "dramatisation". QcTheCat (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Watt seems pretty clear. If there are contradictory sources that present alternative narratives, those can also be mentioned, but I can't see a reason to rule out what Watt plainly states. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) So the Qurayza only "prepared to attack" but did not actually carry out the attack, is that right? Which means that there were no casualties caused by Qurayza to the Muslims at all, right? But Muhammad then decided that all the adult men of Qurayza had to be killed and their women and children enslaved, with some sold to Najd to finance the purchase of weapons and horses for the Muslims, right? And all of this, including the claim that Qurayza was preparing to attack, is based on Muslim sources, right? This does not seem to me to contradict Rodinson's and Gabriel's analyses above, more or less: "But no evidence substantiates such an attack, and the tradition had every reason to dramatize the incident as a justification for the subsequent massacre." Considering that Muhammad had also intended to massacre another Jewish tribe, Banu Qaynuqa, before this, which failed to be realized after the chief of Khazraj, Abdullah ibn Ubayy, threatened him. In the end, that other Jewish tribe was only expelled, with their possessions becoming the property of Muhammad and his followers. — Kaalakaa (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think you are understanding what I am explaining. Breaking of the Banu Qurayza's Treaty took place with "Negotiations with Quraysh" and "Preparation for attack". Negotiations with Quraysh does not mean a little dinner, it means supplying weapons, funding the Quraysh. This funding was going to Quraysh's army to attack Medina. And this is from secular academic sources themselves, as Karen Armstrong says in her book "Muhammad": "Initially Qurayza were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies." (Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch.4 "Jihad", Pg.148) If a group of people from the USA government started sending funding to the Chinese military during a war, they all would also be executed. Would that be called a "dramatisation" and a "massacre"? QcTheCat (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Also, as I proved by Sahih Muslim 1766, This kind of act of treason added to what I will mention soon, was considered as waging war and Banu Qurayza knew this, they had done this on a smaller scale before: "The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that." (Muslim 1766) Also, then Muhammad didn't outright put them all to death. He sent Sad bin Muadh to negotiate and make peace: "He sent Sa‘d ibn Muadh, who had been Qurayzah’s chief Arab ally before the hijrah, to negotiate, but to no avail." (Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" ch.4 pg.148) And along with this, Banu Qurayza actually did do some action themselves: "At one point, the Qurayza actually started to attack the fortresses on the southeast of the settlement, but the effort petered out. For about three weeks, it was quite unclear which way they would go." (Ibid ch.4 pg.148) Attacking a fortress, supplying the enemy with Military aid, denying peace treaty even when prompted, knowing this to be an act of waging war. This is a clear form of treason, extended to even a war. Almost every country in the world considers this to punishable by death QcTheCat (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Initially Qurayza were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies. This is the first time I have heard of it. Can you provide the early Islamic sources, as you always seem to be keen on doing? Personally, I do not consider Karen a reliable source, but merely an author. If she is considered a reliable source, then Robert Spencer is a super reliable source. I never use Robert either, though, and I do not consider him reliable. If a group of people from the USA government started sending funding to the Chinese military during a war, they all would also be executed. Really? Are their children and women also enslaved and sold to buy horses and weapons? Would that be called a "dramatisation" You seem to misunderstand. The dramatization here means that the story (the one used to justify the massacre) was probably riddled with fabrications. And Rodinson and Gabriel believe that the Muslims had every reason to do so (fill the story with fabrications to justify the massacre). A "massacre"? If they killed them en masse, of course. Sahih Muslim 1766 Why did you not copy these parts of the hadith as well? "Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, ... The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned out all the Jews of Medina." He sent Sa‘d ibn Muadh, who had been Qurayzah’s chief Arab ally before the hijrah, to negotiate, but to no avail. This is also the first time I've heard this. Can you provide early Islamic sources that mention the part "to negotiate, but to no avail"? — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 1. I already gave you the early source, Sahih Muslim 1766: "The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that." Waging war and breaking the treaty were two different occurences. The treaty was broken by Kab, and war was waged when the tribe sent weapons and ammunition 2. Any source I provide you have just written off. Tabari? He's probably just imagining, and no justification for this explanation was given. Watt? Oh he just meant they were having dinner with Quraysh nothing more, this I disproved too. Armstrong? She isn't reliable either, and all the scholars who have praised her work are just deluded? I get that you likely don't mean to actually deny proper evidence. But you are going to have to give me a criterion for what you consider reliable since you have already written of 3 formal historians. 3. This is ridiculous. Banu Qurayza waged a war as I explained with sources, and in those times, all men were expected to work together to make an army for the tribe. Therefore the militants who were the men were executed, and the women and children were taken as captives of war, and were to be given all the rights a regular Muslim was given according to Islamic law, such as right to continue family, the master was obliged to provide food and water he would expect for himself, etc. the only thing they were excluded from was payment. Some of them would have probably been freed too because freeing slaves was a massive part of Muslim culture. 4. There is absolutely ZERO proof for fabrications in the story. A claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Even though, I have already provided you evidence but that's just an extra at this point. 5. Early source for Sad bin Muadh's trying to consolidate the Banu Qurayza and Muslims? I gave you your academic sources that you kept demanding and now you are asking for the early sources that you keep denying? Fine, Here's the early source then: the Messenger of God sent out Sa'd b. Mu'adh b. al-Nu'man and Imru' al-Qays and said: "Go and see whether what has reached us about these men is true or not. If it is true, speak to me in words that we can understand but that will be unintelligible to others, and do not break the strength of the people. But, if these men remain loyal to the pact between us and them, announce it to the people. So they went out and came to them. They found them engaged in the worst of what had been reported about them. They slandered the Messenger of God and said, "There is no treaty between us and Muhammad and no covenant."" (The History of Tabari, vol.8 pg.15) 6. Now, explain to me after all this evidence I have given you and you have just denied with very little explanation. What kind of evidence would it require for you to admit fault in the current sources and article? QcTheCat (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC) And the proof for Slave treatment laws that were applied to the captives of Banu Qurayza and all slaves in general is found in several Hadith such as: ‘Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2545) QcTheCat (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Looking at this other hadith, it seems that it was Muhammad who started the war after receiving instructions from the angel Gabriel: Sahih al-Bukhari 4122 ... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ... This further proves that we should not blindly follow sources that have a conflict of interest. Incidentally, I couldn't find what Karen mentioned in the hadith you quoted and the one I quoted, so I'm not sure where she got that information. Karen only majored in English, which is not at all relevant to the subject. Her book is at best equivalent to a novel. Regarding your original research, which includes an apologia for Muhammad's massacre of the Banu Qurayza men and the enslavement of their women and children, some of whom were sent to Najd to be sold to fund the purchase of weapons and horses for the Muslims, I will refrain from commenting on that for now, so this thread doesn't go further deviating from the purpose of making an encyclopaedia. — Kaalakaa (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) I'm now sure what part of Watt's "intriguing with the enemy" is unclear. Within the context this was treasonous conduct, and treasonous conduct, throughout all human history, has been dealt with harshly. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) It is important to note that all reports from that time are from the Muslim side. And we don't know for sure whether there really was a treaty between Muhammad and them or not. Bernard Lewis says that the "treaty" Muhammad enacted, which was also concerning the Jews there, is "not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation." This publication from Liverpool University Press says that Muhammad fought the Jews “through trickery.” The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, says that the transcription of the conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir and the chief of Banu Qurayza reported by Muslims is “open to grave doubt." It has already been stated in our article that “Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied.” I think that's enough to impartially convey what happened at the time, rather than parroting everything said by Muslim sources who clearly have a conflict of interest. — Kaalakaa (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC) It is true that all the reports of this treaty are from the Muslim side. However, histories can only be written on proof. We can speculate on what happened, but history can only be described by whichever claim has most evidence, and in this case, a proper treaty is the most authentic claim, and we have proof of this: The enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, went out and came to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi, who was the possessor of the treaty and covenant of the Band Qurayza. Ka'b had made a truce with the Messenger of God for his people, making a contract and covenanting with him on it. (History of Tabari vol.8 Pg.14) The enemy of God Huyayy b. Akhțab al-Nadri went out to Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi who had made a treaty with the apostle. (Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg. 453) The news finally reached the Muslims that the Banu Qurayza had broken their agreement. Fear intensified and the trial became overwhelming. (Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225) On the same page of Kitab Al Maghazi, Al Waqidi reports with proof via a mention of narrator: Ibn Abı Sabra related to me from Harith b. al-Fudayl saying: The Banu Qurayza intended to raid the main part of Medina by night. They sent Huyayy b. Akhtab to the Quraysh to bring with them a thousand men, and from the Ghatafan a thousand, to attack them. Ibn Sad also narrated Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb sent Huyayy Ibn Akhtab on a secret mission to Banu Qurayza requesting them for violating the agreement (عهد) they had made with the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and join them (polytheists). (At first) they declined. but subsequently they agreed Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82) And this claim is also supported by scholars such as R.B. Serjeant who was one of the leading Arabists in 20th century Britain "Treaty concluded prior to Khandaq among the Arabs of Yathrib and with the Jewish Qurayzah, to defend it from Quraysh of Mecca and their allies" (The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews, and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9) Is it actually possible for this many sources across different time periods to agree on 100% of the details of a fabricated event? No, these sources I have quoted here are the earliest Islamic biographical works in history. And then I even quote secular academic scholars as requested such as R.B. Serjeant who is highly praised in his community. And he completely agrees, because there is simply such a vast abundance of evidence in favour of: A proper treaty with Banu Qurayza, which was later broken by Banu Qurayza's chief Kab bin Assad after temptation from Huyayy bin Akhtab, and not upheld even after Sad bin Muadh's and other Sahabi's (companions of the prophet) attempts a reconciliation. And that too with physical force from Banu Qurayza too. There is simply no conflict of interest, otherwise we would expect at least a few early sources which deny the treaty and its violation, but it is simply not there. And as for the hadith you quoted Bukhari 4122. I appreciate that you quoted an early source. However hadith such as those found in Sahih Bukhari are not histories and often provide simplified explanations. Hadiths (أحاديث) are "narrations" which means that they are quotes from people not full stories. We can only reconcile hadiths with other hadiths to compile a full story, and in this case we have to reconcile it with the hadith in Sahih Muslim which unequivocally states that Banu Qurayza waged war. QcTheCat (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) And another source for Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty is Academic Jonathan AC Brown's book "Muhammad, a short introduction" where Brown writes: - The Banu Qurayza Jews, whose compounds lay outside the defences of the town, broke their treaty with Muhammad and sold provisions to the Meccans. (Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42) And there is more on the next page But first Muhammad faced the question of the Banu Qurayza Jews. They had betrayed their non-aggression pact with the Muslims, and as the Meccan army left, they blockaded themselves in their forts and prepared for a Muslim siege. (Ibid Pg.43) - Now I have given 4 modern sources, 3 of them are scholars And 5 early Muslim scholars QcTheCat (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) "Brown is Sunni and follows the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence." So not really independent there. The rest of your argument seems to be mostly WP:OR. Furthermore, as Bernard Lewis said, the so-called treaty is "not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation." This publication from Liverpool University Press says that Muhammad fought the Jews “through trickery.” The Encyclopaedia of Islam, published by Brill, states that the transcription of the conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir and the chief of Banu Qurayza reported by Muslims is "open to grave doubt." This publication from the University Press of Florida written by military historian Russ Rodgers says: One piece of evidence that casts doubt on the notion that the Qurayzah had violated any nonaggression pact with the Muslims involves the conduct of Muhammad and his men when the coalition lifted their siege. Instead of turning directly on the treacherous Banu Qurayzah, the Prophet sent his men home and he returned to ῾Aisha’s single-room apartment to bathe. While there, the angel Jibril came to chide him for laying down his arms. When Muhammad asked who he was to now fight, Jibril gestured toward the east and the Banu Qurayzah. This line of conversation, repeated in nearly every early source, raises an important question. If the Banu Qurayzah’s treachery had been so obvious, why was the Prophet so oblivious to it? Another military historian, Richard A. Gabriel, whose book was published by the University of Oklahoma Press says: In the absence of any reliable account of Jewish treachery we might reasonably conclude that Muhammad decided to exterminate the Beni Qurayzah because the opportunity had finally presented itself to rid Medina of a major competitor for influence and because it would strengthen the insurgency politically. One thing that's almost certain is: "Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied.” And that has already been stated in our article. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Before giving a reply, I request you to read the reply, not just quickly glance over, because you seem to have missed every major point I made in my last replies. 1. How does being a Muslim automatically turn you into "not independent". This very same Wikipedia pages quotes Brown's very same book "Muhammad, a very short introduction" more than twice, once for Aisha's age and once for Mohammad's proposal to Fakhita bint Abi Talib. When it is about Aisha or Fakhita, Brown is a good source. When it is about Banu Qurayza, he isn't independent because of Islam? This is simply double standards. 2. This isn't WP:OR, WP:OR states: "Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." At Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Al Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd all state that Banu Qurayza had a treaty and it was broken. Which part is "not clear" here? 3. You pretty much ignored all the evidence I gave and just quoted Bernard Lewis (someone who has been accused of Islamophobia by several academics), Liverpool University, Encyclopaedia of Islam again. I brought you evidence specifically to show that the points these sources made are incorrect. Seems like you didn't read my reply, just quoting the same quotes disregarding all the evidence is confirmation bias. 4. Russ Rodger doesn't explain the whole situation like I explicitly told you to look into. Muhammad came to know that Kab bin Assad violated the treaty. After the Quraysh retreated and there was no more threat, Jibreel told him to attack Qurayza for their treachery. There is no contradiction, they are two different events that happened. And Gabriel says that there is no evidence, yet I have given you 9 sources of evidence to disprove his claim. 5. I already asked you once and I will ask again, what proof do you need to change the article's misinformation? I request you to look back at the sources I have provided, they are: 1. History of Tabari 2. Sirat Ibn Ishaq 3. Tabaqat al Kabir 4. Kitab al Maghazi 5. Sahih Muslim 6. Karen Armstrong's, Muhammad 7. Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman 8. The "Sunnah Jami'ah," Pacts with the Yathrib Jews, and the "Tahrim" of Yathrib 9. Muhammad, a short introduction QcTheCat (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) @QcTheCat: Two things can both be said at once on a Wikipedia page, i.e.: a presentation of what is contained in those nine sources AND whatever other analysis is out there. The first step is not always altering existing information. You can start by simply adding any omitted interpretation. Pages are allowed to present conflicting interpretations. Wikipedia information is verifiable, not true. If there is a significant interpretation in the sources that is currently omitted on the page then it needs to be added for balance. To exclude reliably sourced perspectives that are required for balance would violate WP:NPOV, which is one of the three core content policies. So go ahead and add anything missing from the current content balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Maybe you forgot that WP:FALSEBALANCE (part of WP:NPOV), WP:NOR, and WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) are our core content policies too. You might also want to read WP:SANTA — Kaalakaa (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC) 1. You may want to read these explanations from Apaugasma [3][4] Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources. In general, authors ... who explicitly self-identify as Muslim scholars and who write from an explicitly Islamic religious perspective should all be treated as primary sources on this topic, i.e. their views should only be given if and as discussed by secular secondary sources. 2. This isn't WP:OR Perhaps you missed this part All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. 3. I am sure that if a historian provides a critical analysis of Aum Shinrikyo, they will be said to be biased or anti-Aum Shinrikyo. This is a common occurrence in every religion. Certainly, we prefer that historian as our source rather than the adherents of that religion, because clearly the latter have a conflict of interest and thus most likely won't be able to cover the subject objectively. 4. Jibreel told him to attack Qurayza for their treachery There doesn't seem to be the phrase “for their treachery” in the hadith. And as far as I know, secular scholars do not believe that Gabriel exists. Sahih al-Bukhari 4122 ... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ... 5. I've given my explanations regarding them above, I'm not going to repeat it over and over again. — Kaalakaa (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC) 1. I already gave you secular academic sources. I cannot keep piling on more and more because you keep disregarding each and every one without listening to my explanations. 2. Is R.B. Serjeant a secular academic source? Yes he is, he clearly states that Banu Qurayza had a legitimate treaty with Muslims. Is Watt a secular academic? Yes he is, and he clearly states that Banu Qurayza violated their agreement. I don't know what you don't understand. Are these people not secular sources? How many times will I have to repeat these sources? QcTheCat (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) The issues with Russ Rodgers as a source have been discussed at length, and Brown, published in the Oxford university press, is absolutely independent. Please don't misrepresent policy on this. Independence = an independent reliable publisher. If there are multiple, conflicting accounts, the page can simply mention both of the conflicting accounts. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC) I agree with @Iskandar323, we can just add the story provided in the sources I gave, and also give the views of scholars who reject the idea. QcTheCat (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC) I have no problem adding "and breaking the treaty" to this sentence in our article: "Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him, which they firmly denied." So it becomes: "Muhammad besieged the tribe, alleging they had taken sides against him and breaking the treaty, which they firmly denied." What I disagree with is changing the entire sentence to "Banu Qurayza broke the treaty, blah… blah… blah…" Because this only parrots what early Muslim sources say, which clearly had a conflict of interest, and contradicts the analyses of various reliable secular sources. — Kaalakaa (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) I have given you 9 sources and I could give you tens more, but because you demanded secular sources, so I gave you four. So far you have ignored them and don't seem to have any answer for them, instead you have just been parroting this idea that "reliable secular sources reject the Muslim position." So I must question your sources. Starting with Rodinson, - He gives many details about the Battle of the Trench and its aftermath. And it is clear he took from the Muslim sources I quoted you, he narrated practically the same story as Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. But the violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty is the only point he omits, as you noted. So my question is, What proof is there that the Muslim sources fabricated the violation of the treaty? I don't want vague Statements such as: "The traditional scholars had every reason to add it" Or "Reliable sources say so" According to WP:RSVETTING "No source is always unreliable for every statement, and no source is always reliable for any statement." So if these sources, are reliable in saying that Banu Qurayza did not violate any treaty, and not just an instant pass for anything they say, then we would expect to find proof for why they think that this was a fabrication. And we would expect actual concrete proof, not just justifications for why it might have been done, actual objective proof. I request you to bring some proof for this, perhaps this will help us reach a conclusion. QcTheCat (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC) So far, you have ignored them and don't seem to have any answers for them Oh, I have explained it to you multiple times already, but you either do not want to or cannot understand (seems like an indication of WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS). Five of your sources are early Islamic sources, which means they're primary, non-independent sources. WP:PSTS says, "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." As for Karen Armstrong, she only majored in English, which is completely irrelevant to this topic. Her book is, at best, equivalent to a novel. Brown is not very independent (you can see why if you read Apaugasma's explanations I quoted above [5]). Mubarakpuri is blatantly not independent. Watt and Serjeant seem to simply parrot what Islamic sources say, that the Qurayza broke the treaty with Muhammad, while other reliable scholars state that it was an accusation from Muhammad and Islamic sources (and indeed, all early primary sources on this are from Muslims). Several reliable modern secular sources (some I've cited above [6]) even doubt or outright reject the notion that the Qurayza took part in the treaty, as also mentioned by the primary source you provided (Tabari, vol.8 pg.15), where the Qurayza stated, "There is no treaty between us and Muhammad and no covenant." The Encyclopaedia of Islam by Brill (full citation above [7]) also says that the Muslim report regarding the meeting of two Jewish tribes' chiefs and the content of the conversation are "open to grave doubt." What proof is there that the Muslim sources fabricated the violation of the treaty? I don't want vague Statements such as: "The traditional scholars had every reason to add it" Or "Reliable sources say so" So you mean that we should take everything that Islamic sources say as fact, such as Muhammad really meeting Gabriel, splitting the moon, ascending to the seventh heaven on Buraq, negotiating the number of prayers a day with God, etc., is that it? And if there are reliable sources that doubt any of them, their views are void if you think your WP:OR trumps their analyses, is that it? — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Watt and Brown are both excellent independent sources. If you wish to dispute Brown at WP:RSN, feel free to do so, but be prepared to be chased out of the house with a broomstick. The personal identities of modern are of no relevance alongside their publication by university presses. A British historian is perfectly qualified to write on British history, assuming they have a reliable publisher. Primary sources are meanwhile not prohibited from use. Tabari, for instance, can be used, just not interpreted. The rule here is simply to say: Tabari says XYZ. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) You might want to read this explanation from Apaugasma [8] According to his WP page, Brown "is Sunni and follows the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence". He seems to have more clout as an independent scholar than Barlas, but he too seems to have written at least sometimes from an Islamic religious perspective. I would definitely advise to look for other sources that absolutely have no stake in the game (i.e. who are neither religious nor anti-religious). — Kaalakaa (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I'm going to trust the Oxford University Press on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) We're not trying to tell a story here. We're trying to relate what different reliable sources say on the subject. If two sets of reliable sources conflict, we present both presentations. If one set gives a treaty narrative, we explain that narrative as one narrative. And if another set of sources give a narrative that denies the treaty narrative, we explain that as a counter-narrative. If the sources diverge in other ways, such as in the primary sources referenced, that can also be mentioned. Picking and choosing, and slotting in two or three words is not the name of the game. We're not trying to blend different explanations. If there are two different explanations in reliable sources, we provide both explanations. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) @Iskandar323 I don't disagree with you, You should provide both explanations from the two sets of sources. But that should be after you can make sure that Rodinson, who uses the narrative provided in Early Muslim sources, had objective proof to omit Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty, a key feature mentioned in all the early Muslim sources. QcTheCat (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Anything that is deemed controversial and supported by only one scholar can simply be attributed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Sure, That will do QcTheCat (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) I suggest adding the following information through the sources I provided at the beginning of the section on Banu Qurayza (since these events took place before the encounter with Angel Gabriel According to the majority of sources such Sirat Ibn Hisham 3/337, and acknowledged by modern biographies of Muhammad such as The Sealed Nectar by Al-Mubarakpuri). Here are the events with sources: - 1. The information on Kab bin Assad Al Qurazi's encounter with Huyayy bin Akhtab first and breaching of the treaty - 2. Reports of this to Muhammad, and instructions to four companions - 3. Attempt at reconciliation by the four companions, and it's failure - Then at the end of any of these points or each, the alternative position can be provided. And here are the sources: - 1. Sources for the existence of a legitimate treaty: R.B. Serjeant's The "Sunnah Jāmi'ah," Pacts with the Yaṯẖrib Jews and the "Taḥrīm" of Yaṯẖrib Pg. 9, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42 - 2. Sources for Breach of treaty (encounter of Kab al Qurazi and Huyayy bin Akhtab: History of Tabari vol.8 Pg.14, Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg.453, Al Waqidi's Kitab Al Maghazi vol.2 pg.225, Ibn Sad's Kitab Tabaqat al Kabir vol.2 pg.82, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad, A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 42, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad" Pg. 148, (WM Watt also refers to a breach of agreement without mentioning the encounter of Kab al Qurazi: WM Watt's "Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman" Ch.6 pg.171) - 3. A small scale attack by Banu Qurayza themselves: Sahih Muslim Hadith no. 1766, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad" Pg. 148, Jonathan AC Brown's "Muhammad A very short introduction" Part 1 Pg. 43 - 4. Report to Muhammad and attempt at reconciliation: The History of Tabari vol.8 pg.15, Sirat bin Ishaq part III pg.453, Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" Ch. 4 "Jihad", Pg. 148 (And most of the other sources provided also affirm this event) QcTheCat (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) See my reply above [9] — Kaalakaa (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I missed this response of yours before. Here's my response: - 1. Firstly, I accepted that primary sources are to be interpreted by secondary and tertiary sources. What I was talking about when I said that you were not answering, was my question on why the primary sources aren't being used consistently without any evidence in your sources? Why mention every detail about the Battle from the early sources but just leave out one of the most important parts, the violation of the treaty, without any evidence? I am still waiting for that evidence. And Now for my sources: - 2. Jonathan AC Brown absolutely is independent. He has served as the editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. Is Oxford University now also some Islamic organisation? Your evidence against Brown was Apaugasma saying that Brown "seems to have written at least sometimes from an Islamic religious perspective". How is that evidence? Brown sometimes includes his opinions on Islamic topics, sure that is his opinion. He makes his opinion and historical facts very clear from each other. That is no reason to not accept him. - 3. Serjeant and Watt just parrot Muslim sources? This is the exact problem I faced with your previous responses. If someone uses Muslim sources consistently with evidence, then they automatically are "parroting" them. But if they don't use them, on very specific topics without reason on why they didn't, then they are independent and secular? Serjeant worked as a professor at the university of Edinburgh, Lecturer at Cambridge and more. Watt needs no introduction. Both are independent and very reliable. - 4. I never said Mubarakpuri was a secular source. I just used his work just to show that Modern Muslim writers also accept the early position. - 5. I never said that everything in Islamic sources should be taken as complete historical fact from a secular standard. I agree that secular sources will obviously not mention miraculous events. The problem is that these secular sources have been quoting the same early sources that I provided you. In fact, they have given the exact same story for the Battle of the Trench. But in all of those sources there is one detail that is constantly repeated and that is a violation of the treaty. If these early sources are reliable enough to be used to detail an entire event, why then do they all suddenly become unreliable when it comes to violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty? And I am not saying that their (your sources') research is inferior to WP:OR, of course it isn't. What I was saying was that I find sources which I quoted more correct, since they use the early sources just like the set of sources you provided, but don't mysteriously leave out the violation of the treaty without any actual evidence. I requested you to bring this evidence that they have to remove the treaty of Banu Qurayza completely from their works. - And now, when reviewing your sources, the sources you provided don't seem to be any better. - 1. You said that Jonathan AC Brown was not independent because he was a Sunni Hanbali, however you quoted Bernard Lewis who was much less independent, because he was very significantly influenced by politics. He was an advisor of the Bush administration during the Iraq war, He was a huge supporter of the Iraq war, had many connections to the US Military, despite being a historian he held the view that there was no proof of the Armenian Genocide and was criticised by several academics such as Edward Said. - 2. You quoted the encyclopedia of Islam by Brill, volume 5 on pg. 436, and took only one sentence, so here's the context: Both these sources (Al Waqidi and Ibn Ishaq) MAY BE suspected of bias against Qurayza; and it is therefore probable that there was no special agreement between Muhammad and Qurayza. It is virtually certain, however, that Muhammad had a general agreement with the Jews that they were not to support an enemy against him (al-Wāqidi, 176); and something like this was probably implicit in his alliance with the Arab clans of Medina, since the Jewish clans were allied to one or other of the Arab clans. - The encyclopedia does not say that Muhammad and Banu Qurayza didn't have any agreement. What is said was that a physical document that Kab tore may not have existed, and it may not have been a formal treaty in the modern sense, but an agreement was certain. And even the belief that a formal treaty didn't exist was based on suspicion of bias, not empirical evidence. - 3. And finally you quoted Richard A. Gabriel who in his book says that there was an absence of reliable sources for Jewish treachery, this statement is made following this statement made only a few sentences earlier: - Ibn Ishaq makes no mention of the Jews acting against Muhammad, something we might be reasonably certain he would have mentioned had it occurred. - So his evidence for "absence of reliable sources" was that sources such as Ibn Ishaq never spoke of it. Does this seem familiar? It should because I myself quoted Ibn Ishaq speaking of treachery before: - Huyayy kept on wheedling Ka'b until at last he gave way in giving him a solemn promise that if Quraysh and Ghatafan returned without having killed Muhammad he would enter his fort with him and await his fate. Thus Ka'b broke his promise and cut loose from the bond that was between him and the apostle. (Sirat Ibn Ishaq part III pg.453) - the "Evidence" seems a bit broken - So I ask again, what is the evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty was fabricated QcTheCat (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) And as for Russ Rodgers, his only argument was that Jibreel told Muhammad to attack Banu Qurayza after the retreat of Quraysh and Ghatafan. This means nothing since all the sources make it clear that Muhammad came to know of the treachery, sent his companions to reconcile with them, but the reconciliation didn't work. After this when the war ended, then Jibreel told Muhammad to go and attack Qurayza because of their treachery. What proof is there of the fabrication of violation of the treaty? The whole narrative that the treaty and its violation was fabricated just seems overly forced, and the evidence is next to nothing, and the theory seems to mostly relies on speculation on why it may have happened, without empirical proof QcTheCat (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC) If these early sources are reliable enough to be used to detail an entire event, why then do they all suddenly become unreliable when it comes to violation of Banu Qurayza's Treaty? No, true academics do not consider the entire narrative from early Muslim sources (which were actually written hundreds of years after Muhammad's death) as true. Instead, they analyze what is factual and what might be fabrication. For instance, the miracles attributed to Muhammad are often viewed as fabrications or later additions by Muslims because they contradict the Quran, which states that Muhammad had no miracles and avoided performing them when asked by the Quraysh people. History shows many examples of aggressors sought justifications for attacking others, such as the Mukden Incident, which was a false flag operation used by Japan to justify attacking Manchuria. Therefore, it's not surprising that scholars (especially military historians who are arguably more specialized in this field) doubt the Muslim narrative about the Qurayza breaking the treaty, which Muhammad used to justify massacring their men and enslaving and selling their women and children. And scholars who do not follow the religion they are studying, like those studying Aum Shinrikyo, are clearly more independent in their analysis than the followers of Aum Shinrikyo, as the latter have a conflict of interest and believe in the religion's truth, which hinders their ability to analyze it objectively. — Kaalakaa (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Firstly, I already said in my response that secular scholars wouldn't consider miracles. As I said in my response: I agree that secular sources will obviously not mention miraculous events. But the thing is that a violation of the treaty is not a miraculous event. A miracle can be written off by a simple invocation of standard. Secular writers are not compelled to add miracles even if early sources say so because by definition, secular sources will not affirm religious details. But violation of a treaty is not a miracle, there is no logical problem in the narrative that a treaty was broken. And a justification doesn't meet the requirement of empirical evidence. As I stated: And we would expect actual concrete proof, not just justifications for why it might have been done, actual objective proof. I requested empirical evidence for the fabrication of a violation. However, you responded with: Therefore, it's not surprising that scholars (especially military historians who are arguably more specialized in this field) doubt the Muslim narrative about the Qurayza breaking the treaty, which Muhammad used to justify massacring their men and enslaving and selling their women and children. Doubting something and omitting it as a fabrication are two different things. One can doubt that something may have happened without any back up, but omitting the information itself requires proof to back up the claim. And justification, does not count as a proof. QcTheCat (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC) And I ask once again, Is there any empirical evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty? Justification for why something may have happened or why someone may doubt it is not considered proof. And how are we to now understand Richard A. Gabriel's accusation, now that we can see that the very source he quotes as evidence for a lack of proof, acts instead as one of the primary proofs for the violation of Treaty by Banu Qurayza. QcTheCat (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) correction: Is there any empirical evidence that Banu Qurayza's violation of treaty was a fabrication QcTheCat (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Addendum History of At-Tabari ... Vol. 8 Events Of Year 5, pg.15 If we want to engage in original research, there are many red flags in this narration. This is an account from a Muslim several hundred years after Muhammad's death about a conversation between the chief of Banu Nadir, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, who insisted on inciting the chief of Banu Qurayza, Ka'b ibn As'ad, when he came to his fort to turn against Muhammad. The Muslim clearly had a conflict of interest here. How he came to know about the conversation—whether he planted a bug in the flowerpot there or it was just his imagination—only God knows. Besides, the attack didn't happen at all. Even if, despite how unlikely I think it was, the conversation did really happen, why did the Muslims not just punish Ka'b alone? Why did all the adult men of the Qurayza also have to be massacred and the women and children enslaved, with some sold to Najd, where the profits were used to buy horses and weapons for the Muslims? The narrative just sounds like an overly forced justification to me. — Kaalakaa (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) As for the "red flags", firstly Tabari was a scholar and a historian. Now, just because a source is written at a later time doesn't mean it isn't authentic. For example, Tabari gets his reports from Imams such as Ibn Humayd and Ibn Hanbal who trace it back to the prophet and his companions. This is how we know he provides authentic information. For example, only two pages before page 15, he provides a chain of narration from Ibn Humayd and Muhammad bin Ishaq from Abu Hurayra (a companion of the prophet). He came to know of this conversation between Kab and Huyayy because the companions would have narrated reports of the events that would take place in the life of Mohammad. And we know it happened for sure because Kab never rejected the fact that he deviated from the treaty. The fact is that Tabari is among the earliest sources of information and We have even earlier sources such as Sahih Muslim (840 CE), "The Jews of Banu Nadeer and Banu Quraiza waged war against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, so he expelled Banu Nadeer but he allowed Banu Quraiza to stay and he granted them favor until they also waged war after that (Before their persecution)." (Muslim Hadith no. 1766) QcTheCat (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) A better place to start is with scholars such as Watt and Brown and cite Tabari where they cite Tabari. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Also as for the narration in Tabari, that is also confirmed by modern academic sources, such as Karen Armstrong: Before the arrival of the Meccan army, Huyay ibn Akhtab, chief of Nadir, had tried to persuade Qurayzah either to attack the Muslims from the rear or to smuggle two thousand Nadiris into the oasis to slaughter the women and children in the fortresses. Initially Qurayzah were hesitant, but when they saw the vast Meccan army filling the plain in front of the city as far as the eye could see, their chief agreed to help the confederacy and provide the Quraysh with weapons and supplies. (Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad" ch.4 "Jihad" pg. 148) QcTheCat (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) We don't want to engage in OR. If you have to preface a comment with a disclaimer that you're about to engage in OR, simply refrain from it. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC) References from all posts in the section from all editors Just have to say that current writing "On the exact day the Quraysh forces and their allies withdrew, Muhammad, while bathing at his wife's abode, received a visit from the angel Gabriel, who instructed him to attack the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza." doesn't work in WP-voice. At all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Your suggestion? — Kaalakaa (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Well, if this was an article on a Biblical topic, I would have no objection if something like that came under a heading like "Biblical narrative", because then anything goes. But this is just "Medinan years", implying that the subject is history. The quote sounds to me like something from a WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, so some sort of "according to" seems necessary IMO, if the source is acceptable in context. Apart from the wiki-voice Gabriel thing, it seems WP-unnecessary to me to mention that Muhammad was in the bath. "On the exact day" also sounds weird in my ears, the topic being history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Using “is said” or “reportedly” perhaps? The problem is that all historical material on Muhammad all originally came from WP:RSPSCRIPTURE (Quran, Sira, Hadith, etc), which is then covered by secondary sources, which are cited for the statement. — Kaalakaa (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) If you add "“is said” or “reportedly”", my knee-jerk reaction would be . If "according to the Quran" fits, that's fine by me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) It seems that Sahih al-Bukhari 4122 is one of the primary sources reporting this matter: ... When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms? By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). ... so how about "according to Sahih al-Bukhari" or perhaps "according to Islamic tradition"? — Kaalakaa (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) How about "according to the Sahih al-Bukhari hadith"? And I still don't think we need to mention M. was in the bath. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Yeah, there are a few weird sentences loitering about. Work is needed to effect an encyclopedic tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) This is actually exactly the same as stating in wikivoice that “Banu Qurayza broke their treaty with Muhammad ...” Both parrot what early Islamic sources say, though this one is not so self-serving. — Kaalakaa (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Banu Qaynuqa segment

Pinging editors who recently edited this article: @Omnipaedista, @Anachronist, @Freeman501, @Sumanuil, @Nardog, @Sharouser, @Johnbod, @VenusFeuerFalle, @Scientelensia, @BilledMammal, @Dronebogus

---

So, Iskandar323 recently made a number of edits to this article, but some of them just seem to me to constitute WP:CENSORSHIP. One example is his deletion of this cited material: At first, Muhammad planned to annihilate the surrendered tribe, with an edit summary “Copyediting" [10]. The material itself is supported by the reliable sources cited (I can add more if needed)

• Rodinson, Maxime (2021-03-02). Muhammad. New York Review of Books. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-68137-493-2.

Muhammad wanted to put all of them to death

• Brockopp, Jonathan E. (2010-04-19). The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad. Cambridge University Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-139-82838-3.

Following their capitulation, their men were almost beheaded, but Abdallah ibn Ubayy forced Muhammad to spare them and let the tribe go into exile.

• Glubb, John; Glubb, Sir John Bagot (2001). The Life and Times of Muhammad. Cooper Square Press. p. 198. ISBN 978-0-8154-1176-5.

The phrase attributed to Abdulla by Ibn Ishaq, "Would you cut them down in one morning?" implies that the Jews were about to be put to death.

• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-0-8130-3766-0.

It is clear from this exchange that Muhammad planned to implement the extreme consequences of the victor in those days by executing the warriors and selling the women and children into slavery.

So, what do you all think, does the removal constitute WP:CENSORSHIP? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

None of those online links show me the relevant pages, so I cannot verify anything. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are screenshots of the pages for those who don't have access to the books:

Rodinson p. 173 [11],

Brockopp p. 72 [12],

Glubb p. 198 [13],

Rodgers p. 110 [14] — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

From the outset, words like "annihilate" are simply not NPOV or encyclopedic in tone. And, as you have evidenced, none of these sources use these terms. When one, as an editor, encounters such terms, it is immediately clear that it has been produced by someone with a weak grasp of NPOV and encyclopedic tone, and so yes, I edited it out – not having immediate access to the sources to enable a more precise re-scripting. If your want to add back in after "Following their surrender" that "Muhammad had intended to execute the men" then that would actually be supported by the Cambridge Companion and be encyclopedic in tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The page is currently populated with a large volume of sources with no quotes, no direct links to sources with page numbers, and often no links at all. While none of this is technically necessary, the page currently presents a considerable verification burden due to the sheer lack of judicious quotation alongside the references. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

According to this publication by Cambridge University Press, regarding what happened to the Qurayza, "He ordered the Jewish men killed and the women and children sold as slaves or given as booty—in other words, he ordered the annihilation of the tribe." This is something that, according to the sources above, would also have happened to the Banu Qaynuqa if Abdullah ibn Ubayy had not intervened. Thus, using the word "annihilate" to describe this action (and as an effort to avoid copyvio) is not unacademic. If you believe the word is not NPOV, you can discuss it on the talk page instead of deleting it outright, although I couldn't seem to find the word in MOS:WTW. Additionally, you also changed [15]:

Muhammad thus spared their lives, stipulating that they must depart Medina within three days and relinquish their property to the Muslims, with Muhammad retaining a fifth.

to:

Muhammad spared the Qaynuqa, stipulating that they must depart Medina within three days and relinquish their property to the Muslims, with a fifth being retained as khums or Islamic tax.

The latter part of your version, "a fifth being retained as khums or Islamic tax," is not supported by any cited sources, thus constitutes WP:OR and WP:CENSORSHIP. To prevent this from happening again, if you do not have access to the sources, please refrain from making significant changes to the article, especially those that alter its meaning. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added a slightly badly formatted reference for this that will have to do for now based on my access. Is it genuinely true that none of Brockopp, Glubb, Rodinson or Rodgers elucidate this detail or provide the relevant terminology? That would be especially remarkable for Brockopp. Glubb and Rodgers are not experts, but Brockopp is, and Rodinson is an eminent scholar, even if coming at the subject from a very specific sociological perspective. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it genuinely true that none of Brockopp, Glubb, Rodinson or Rodgers elucidate this detail or provide the relevant terminology?

You're the one who changed it, so the WP:BURDEN is on you, not anyone else. And please stop making false claims that Rodgers is not an expert; I have explained this multiple times in the section above [16], [17], [18]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your comment:

The page is currently populated with a large volume of sources with no quotes

I checked several featured articles on historical topics [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and many, if not all, of their citations do not contain quotations. Sometimes, when writing articles, we also condense the content of one or several pages, so providing quotations in the citations for each point can make the article's bytes too large and overloaded.

no direct links to sources with page numbers, and often no links at all.

This article uses the sfn reference format, which only displays the authors' names, years, and page numbers. When the authors and year are clicked, it will show book details such as the title, publisher, etc. This is a common reference format used in historical articles where the same books are cited repeatedly with different pages. While Google Books provides previews for some pages, most other pages are not accessible. And WP:V states: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible." — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While the inclusion of the content is under discussion, keep in mind that if a content is found to be undue or unencyclopedic, even if well-sourced, it can be removed. (See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:ONUS). More importantly, impulsively accusing other editors of censorship is unconstructive and is not really going to resolve the issue.(See WP:YC). StarkReport (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

FAQ No. 5
"Change Muhammad to Muhammad Peace be upon him" Aadaab (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)  Not done: @Aadaab: What part of FAQ #5 was unclear? —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Inauthentic source: The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, Alfred

Note that "The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, Alfred" is not an authentic source. It contains inauthentic hadith which have no chain of transmission. See this website and this website for example. You cannot just pick out random hadith from these types of works. Ibn Ishaq is a collection of all kinds of narrations, from fabricated to authentic, without any hadith criticism. It's just a collection of "what's being narrated," designed for hadith scholars to read and scrutinize for authenticity. A hadith without a chain is not authentic and is not a valid source. Just because a book somewhere says something, doesn't mean we can just pop it on Wikipedia as if it is a valid source. This is certainly not and has already been disproven. DivineReality (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that should be avoided.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Maxime Rodinson is not a valid source

Let me clearly note that Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist, is not a valid source here nor on any page of major religious figures. He should not be cited nor referenced. This is not a place for ideologies, be it Marxism or otherwise--it is a place for accurate and unbiased factual reporting of information, adhering to neutrality (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), and from reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Rodinson is not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not promote a certain ideology nor narrative, be it Marxist or otherwise. If you want to add Marxist comments, create a new page for "Marxist Views of Islam" and move it over there, please. DivineReality (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me clearly reply that before you make such dogmatic pronouncements you should read the policies you cite. From WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The way we handle this is in our WP:NPOV policy, specifically WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." So, no, Wikipedia is not just "a place for accurate and unbiased factual reporting of information". DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Although, I don't agree with dismissing Rodinson, but the current content seems to be written in a skewed and incomplete manner and comes off as WP:GRATUITOUS. It would benefit from expansion and additional context without taking up significantly more space. Therefore, I am considering proceeding with these improvements for better WP:PROPORTION.

Additionally, there's no need to include the word 'sex' unnecessarily. 'Took her to bed' effectively conveys the intended meaning, and readers can easily understand. StarkReport (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:EUPHEMISM, "had sex" is more preferable on en-WP if we're going to mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, "had intercourse with her that night". It seems more formal and encyclopedic and avoids euphemisms, if any. StarkReport (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, sounds Victorian. "had sex" is the appropriate and encyclopedic language. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If we're talking about marriage here, the usual verb is consummated. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consider views on Rodinson's work like [24][25]. Historians (and others) can have all sorts of backgrounds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

He's listed up there among the big Muhammad biographers by the author of the Encyclopedia is Islam, so I would say he passes muster as an influential voice. The key thing to remember with Rodinson is that he was a Marxist sociologist, so he always came at the topic from a highly specific (and quite off-piste) perspective that can in places be rather exceptional and warrant attribution. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This man clearly is anti-Islam, should he be the primary source throughout this biography? Are we here to just pump this wall with evil distortions of the biography? It's not even accurate. It's a "refutation." And the main biography of a person is not the place for refutation. You can put it aside in his own page. He's not a valid source, I affirm this, you just like what he wrote because it sounds hyper-critical and that's your intention, rather than factual reporting. DivineReality (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you intend to edit WP based on "I affirm this", you'll probably have some pushback. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with others that DivineReality's criticism of Maxime Rodinson are not substantial. Reliable sources seem to consider his work in high regard. Also, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is authentic and inauthentic hadith (the description of particular hadiths and their chain of transmission as legitimate or not is a form of religious tradition) and that is up to what reliable sources have to say on the issue. That said if a claim is made based on a single controversial hadith, then it should probably be attributed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rodinson is a highly polemical source whose works have orientalism themes and academia has now moved on from such views. What exactly is the proposed text we want to include? If we are to include him, we should also include counter-perspectives from Muslims.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Rodinson is most certainly not a reliable source for this text: "Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad took her to bed that night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse." As far as I can tell, Rodinson has little training in Islamic law, so how can he decree that Muhammad violated Islamic law? For example, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah, which is indeed an expert in Islamic law, contradicts this view.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    Our WP:SOURCE policy states, "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That "independent" word is linked to WP:IS, which says: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." I do not think that Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah meets this description. Additionally, you might want to read these explanations from @Apaugasma [26] [27] and @SMcCandlish [28]. Regarding Rodinson's statement, this publication from Edinburgh University Press, written by a Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern History, seems to align with Rodinson, that Muhammad's act of consummating his marriage with Safiyya shortly after she became a widow (following the killing of her husband on Muhammad's orders) contradicts Islamic law itself.

    p. 27
    Following the same pattern, in 628 Muhammad invaded a Jewish tribe in Khaybar, north of Medina. After defeating them, he surveyed the women captives. A Jewish woman, named Safiyya, charmed the Prophet with her beauty. He threw his gown at her, as a mark that she had become his captive. Safiyya had witnessed her husband being killed by Muhammad; despite that, the Prophet sent her immediately to be beautified for him, and the marriage was consummated in or near Khaybar a few days later. Muhammad was not concerned with Safiyya’s feelings or her grief over the deaths of her husband and father. In this instance, the Prophet was acting against the clear commands of the Qur’an, in that when a woman is divorced or becomes a widow, she cannot remarry unless four months and ten days have passed (in order to ensure there is no pregnancy from the previous relationship) (Q. 2:234).

    — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Kaalakaa, Well, if you overlook WP:IGNORE and insist on taking your interpretation of WP:IS in the most literal sense, then, according to the complaint launched above, Rodinson does not satisfy the "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". Since, he is actually a very interested party. StarkReport (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    Regarding the marriage to Safiyya, I recommend reading this article. DivineReality (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

    Looking at that bit in the current article, IMO it sounds like strange writing in an article (part) about history. "Overwhelmed by her beauty" is IMO a strange historical "fact" in WP-voice. Is it even WP:PROPORTIONate to include in this article? I'm quite ignorant on the scholarship here, I'm commenting as a reader on a WP-text supposed to be about history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    This publication from Edinburgh University Press, written by Taef Kamal El-Azhari, Professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern History, also states something similar to what Rodinson said.

    Following the same pattern, in 628 Muhammad invaded a Jewish tribe in Khaybar, north of Medina. After defeating them, he surveyed the women captives. A Jewish woman, named Safiyya, charmed the Prophet with her beauty. He threw his gown at her, as a mark that she had become his captive. Safiyya had witnessed her husband being killed by Muhammad; despite that, the Prophet sent her immediately to be beautified for him, and the marriage was consummated in or near Khaybar a few days later. Muhammad was not concerned with Safiyya’s feelings or her grief over the deaths of her husband and father. In this instance, the Prophet was acting against the clear commands of the Qur’an, in that when a woman is divorced or becomes a widow, she cannot remarry unless four months and ten days have passed (in order to ensure there is no pregnancy from the previous relationship) (Q. 2:234).

    I think the inclusion is important, since some modern Muslims believe and propagate that Muhammad's marriages were not related to his attraction to the women but were for political or charitable reasons. Also, as per WP:NOTCENSORED. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    Current writing:

    "Kinana's wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, was among the captives. Her father and brother had been executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad had sex with her that night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse. Muhammad advised Safiyya to convert to Islam; she accepted and agreed to become Muhammad's wife and was thus considered the "Mother of the Believers.""

    How about

    "Muhammad took Kinana's wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as his own slave and later as his wife."

    Details can go in her article, Wives of Muhammad, perhaps some has a place at Criticism_of_Muhammad#Death_of_Kenana_ibn_al-Rabi. IMO, this level of detail doesn't fit here. As always, my opinion is worth its weight in diamonds. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Although, I agree with you that the mention of her "beauty" may not be necessary, but regarding your proposed wording above, it unintentionally suggests that Muhammad coerced Safiyya into marriage whereas, this is contested by some sources that mentioned that Muhammad offered her the choice of freedom, and other sources indicate that she voluntarily converted to Islam. I think it does not uphold WP:YESPOV.

    Perhaps: "Muhammad took Kinana's wife, Safiyya bint Huyayy, as his own slave and later advised her to convert to Islam. She accepted and agreed to become Muhammad's wife, and was thus considered the "Mother of the Believers." " StarkReport (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    Well, it's also shorter than the current, so IMO it's improvement. I still think the rest can be told elsewhere. IMO became wife = mother of believers doesn't quite make sense, does it mean "like all his other wives"? If so, it doesn't seem to be worth mentioning (here). If that is not the case, there seems to be details missing, and I don't think those details should be added here.

    I don't think my wording suggests coercion, though a reader may consider the possibility, considering her situation (I am reminded of Bathsheba). There are of course several motivations for her becoming M:s wife one can imagine, I'm leaning at "didn't have much choice/clearly the best choice available" myself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    I'd agree with StarkReport's proposal.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

    As is normal practice, a single source making extraordinary claims not repeated in other sources would best be dismissed. If kept, it should be used with attribution, but given that there are dozens of biographies of the subject here, and given that the space is limited, it's unclear why we would want to keep attributed extraordinary statements from Rodinson around if they can't be supported in Wikivoice. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm going to concur that the claim in the heading isn't sustained, especially since the sticking point here really seems to be the claim that the bedding of Safiyya by Muhammad so soon after he made her a widow was against at least the letter of Islamic law, which is supportable from multiple scholars. Al-Ifta's counter viewpoint could also be included, and while they are clearly Muslim apologists attempting to defend Muhammad by any means necessary, they don't appear to be wrong that the haddith materials suggest that Muhammad waited for her menstrual cycle to complete. Al-Ifta's argument amounts to this: the reason for the prescribed long waiting period is to ensure that the woman is not pregnant by her now-deceased earlier husband, and if she has a menstrual cycle in the interim she can't be pregnant, ergo the underlying purpose of the long waiting period was served by Muhammad's much shorter one. This is clearly a rationalization, and of a sort that hardline Muslims absolutely do not accept when someone else wants to evade an Islamic-law restriction of any kind; they stick hard to the letter of it. (Just as many Christians do with regard to Judeo-Christian biblical bits, and so on. Hardliner, literalist interpretation and behavior exist in pretty much every religion, or at least every one with a scriptural doctrine as its basis.) But that doesn't make al-Ifta's position nutty, just non-orthodox.

  Regardless, Rodinson being a Marxist is ultimately completely irrelevant, since where one is on the politico-economic spectrum isn't a religious matter or vice versa. To the extent that a lot of Marxists are/were somewhere between irreligious and atheist is also immaterial, since it doesn't equate to a bone to pick with Islam or Muhammad in particular. Lots of biblical archaeologists and other reliable scholars of Abrahamic history are also in the same camp, and this doesn't magically make their work invalid; indeed, it is more likely to be trustworthy because it will not be pitting Judaic versus Christian versus Muslim traditions against each other out of a fervent belief in which one is True, and it won't be putting belief ahead of what can be verified or reasonably deduced from actual evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 17:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  But it is relevant that in this specific topic area Maxime Rodinson is not a specialist, but a generalist. He wrote many books about Marxism, but only one book about Muhammad or early Islam. His interest was one-off and cursory (in 1960). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  People liked it, though. This article is supposed to be "generalist", isn't it? Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Just because a source is unabashedly pro-Islam (or pro-Muhammad), does not make it unreliable. I get the feeling we agree on that, but I want to absolutely hammer this point. Some on wikipedia subscribe to an absurd notion that practicing Muslims should never be considered reliable sources on Islam. I agree that Rodinson's Marxism is irrelevant (because once again, his biases are acceptable as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES), but his lack of training in Islamic law is quite relevant.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Rodinson was biased. Not a sincere academic. DivineReality (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  And what makes him not a sincere academic is you asserting that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend that @Kaalakaa to take heed of @Vice regent suggestions above and avoid engaging in WP:Wikilawyering and misrepresenting of WP:IS policy in every Islamic article as @Kaalakaa frequently dismisses sources that are even remotely connected to Muslim perspectives as apologetic, which also violates encyclopedic WP:Balance.

  It also comes of as WP:POINTY. StarkReport (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please review the content of WP:BIASEDSOURCE itself:

  "Editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as ... the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

  A biased source here is like a religious source discussing the Earth, or a political source discussing the economy. It is not a source from a writer who adheres to Aum Shinrikyo discussing Aum Shinrikyo; this falls instead into the category of non-independent sources due to their conflict of interest with the religion, which prevents them from discussing it objectively. Also, these explanations from @Apaugasma [29][30]:

  Historical subjects generally require (secular) academic scholarly sources.

  In general, authors ... who explicitly self-identify as Muslim scholars and who write from an explicitly Islamic religious perspective should all be treated as primary sources on this topic, i.e. their views should only be given if and as discussed by secular secondary sources.

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa, Kindly, refrain from constantly twisting a general well-intentioned advise by an individual editor for WP:TENDENTIOUS purposes. Again, refer to WP:POINTY. StarkReport (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Where did I twist the words of another editor? I quoted @Apaugasma verbatim, one of the statements being directed at you. Please keep in mind that false or unfounded allegations like this constitute personal attacks (see: WP:NPA). — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 09:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please stop citing Apaugasma as if they're a guideline, and please try and treat sources in a way that doesn't resemble highly selective cherrypicking. For instance, preferring Rodinson, an extreme generalist over all specialists from the same period, such as Watt. Preferring obscure military historians like Rodgers while discounting celebrated biographers like Armstrong. Disregarding Brown, an academically published professor, because he's Muslim. Incidentally, the actual source in terms of reliability in the latter case is the secular academic publisher. Generally, all of these conversations would move at lot faster if we could dispense with the gerrymandering of sources, and strive for fairness from the get-go. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is it about fairness or is about a religious narrative? It's certainly not about choosing sides. It's about the use and presenting of relevant sources, regardless of agreement in those sources. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fairness as in the sense of NPOV, balance, due weight, and not simply sitting on one end of the seesaw because the narratives at one end are preferred. This means drawing upon the breadth of all scholars on the subject: fans, apologists and critics alike, without pushing marginal opinions from any end of the spectrum. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I cited @Apaugasma because his explanation about independent sources is sensible and, as I have presented above, aligns with the content of WP:IIS; otherwise, I wouldn't have cited him. Regarding sources, you view Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army, an adjunct professor of history, and whose book is published by the University Press of Florida, as merely a former military personnel [31] turned hobbyist historian [32] (a claim repeatedly proven utterly baseless and absurd [33] [34] [35]). But you consider Karen Armstrong, who only has a degree in English, as a top historian just because she has OBE FRSL. J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, also holds such titles, plus a CH; does that mean she is now also a top historian? Truly an absurd double standard. Not to mention Karen Armstrong's misrepresentation of her source, as pointed out by Kecia Ali [36] [37]. As for Watt, one of the reasons I rarely use him is because I found he also misrepresented primary sources several times. In his book, Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, on page 131, he mentions that Muhammad initially planned to expel the Banu Qaynuqa, but Abdullah bin Ubayy tried to prevent it, while primary [38] and reliable secondary sources [39] say Muhammad initially planned to massacre the Banu Qaynuqa but Abdullah Ibn Ubayy prevented Muhammad, so they were only expelled. If you find early Islamic sources that agree with Watt on this matter, feel free to present them here. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Since you still appear to be struggling with matters of weight here, let's proceed to WP:USEBYOTHERS. If you search for these various works on Google scholar, you will find Karen Armstrong's biography cited more than 600 times, Watt's seminal work, close to 1,000 times. Rodgers'? 14 in a decade. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  You still haven't answered my question: is it true or not that Karen Armstrong only has a degree in English? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not relevant, because a lifetime of experience and recognition is worth far more than any degree, but no it's not correct. She has no less than four honorary doctorates, including two in letters and two in divinity. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  She has no less than four honorary doctorates, including two in letters and two in divinity.

  "Divinity is the study of Christian theology and ministry at a school, divinity school, university, or seminary." So it has nothing to do with the study of history, and, "Honorary doctorates are purely titular degrees in that they confer no rights on the recipient and carry with them no formal academic qualification."

  It's not relevant, because a lifetime of experience and recognition is worth far more than any degree

  It's ironic that you claimed Russ Rodgers, a command historian of the US Army and an adjunct professor of history, whose book was published by the University Press of Florida, as "having little to no academic background" [40](which you couldn't prove when I asked). But now, you consider Karen Armstrong, who only majored in English, as a top historian? J.K. Rowling also has an OBE, FRSL, plus a CH, which Karen doesn't have, and her work, Harry Potter, has been cited over 1,800 times. So that means the statements in her book can be used as references for Wikipedia articles on history, geography, science, medicine, etc.? No, her work is just a novel, and that's how we should treat Karen Armstrong's work as well. Also, please note that WP:USEBYOTHERS states, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies." And our other policy, WP:OR, states, "Books published by university presses" are among "the most reliable sources." So, it's clear that using the number of times a work is cited as an indicator of reliability is applicable when the reliability of the subject-matter expert source is still uncertain, such as when it is not published by a university press, etc. Karen Armstrong, however, is clearly not a subject-matter expert. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your lack of awareness about academic standards, hierarchy and prestige could fill volumes, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, and isn't really worth my addressing, but on one small point: if you think biographies of Muhammad are not a religious topic, you're probably not competent to edit here. The only primary sources here are religious oral traditions. Everything that is considered "history" here is based on primary religious oral tradition, so interpreters of religious traditions, alongside historian, are of course relevant subject-matter experts. An understanding of the religious traditions underpinning these oral sources is of course crucial. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your lack of awareness about academic standards, hierarchy and prestige could fill volumes

  ... said the person who previously claimed that a military historian is a retired military personnel [41] who became a hobbyist historian [42] and that adjunct professors are not reliable because they are non-tenure [43], a statement as ridiculous as saying that a NASA lead scientist is not reliable because they are an adjunct professor at a certain university.

  so interpreters of religious traditions ... are of course relevant subject-matter experts.

  What does the study of Christian theology and ministry have to do with interpreting Islamic traditions? Remember, you previously had a problem with a source from Zondervan? But when a source of a similar nature benefits your POV, you conveniently contradict yourself.

  An understanding of the religious traditions

  Yes, and Kecia Ali has shown that Karen Armstrong misrepresents her source, Tabari [44][45]. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 01:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes yes, very good. More disjointed Wikilawyering. We're all fascinated, enthralled and so much closer to coming around to embracing your sources with cherrypicked fringe material. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think Kaalakaa has been established to be in the minority in pretty much every discussion of this issue. The problem is that we can argue all day about whether Rodinson and Rogers should be replaced with better sources (fhe consensus suggests that they should be), but unless someone has access to a better source that they can use to replace them, and is actually willing to put in the effort to rewrite the article, then these sources are going to stay in the article. Iskandar, do you have a list of sources/books in mind that you think would be a better basis for writing this biography? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  This article is about the Islamic prophet, so it is only natural that the talk page is crowded with Muslims. However, I am not sure, but it seems that DeCausa, Graberg Graa Sang, and SMcCandlish rejected DivineReliaty's argument that Rodinson is not reliable. None of them in this section seem to argue against Rodgers. Nevertheless, if we want to determine a consensus, an RfC seems to be one way to achieve that. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 05:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Kaalakaa: You say The talk page is crowded with Muslims. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? And which specific editors are you referring to? If you have evidence and you believe it's hindering the ability for those users to neutrally edit and discuss this article, then WP:COIN is the appropriate venue to adjudicate such matters. Left guide (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Hemiauchenia: Well yes, actually. One good thing to come out of the otherwise rather circular discussions on sourcing on this talk page was this review, which lists all of the Western biographers associated with "more or less objective reconstructions of Muhammad's life story", as opposed to either Islamic hagiography or Western polemic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, an another disruptive wikilawyering by @Kaalakaa, that blatantly disregards the spirit of the rules. If this behavior persists, the user is likely to be taken to the ANI.

  Also interesting, or might I say suspicious, is that an account created in 2023 knew about a specific argument from 2007[46]. Whether this, what I think, explains the single-purpose nature of the account, I leave it to others to decide. Nonetheless, if this conduct is reported to ANI, I think it warrants a indef block on Islam-related articles. Regards. StarkReport (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't require "training in Islamic law" to do competent research and produce a usable conclusion. Otherwise we would have to ban all news sources as unreliable (journalists are not academically trained in the 1,000s of subjects they report on). That would also apply even to the finest works of investigative journalists, e.g. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. And any work that crossed multiple disciplines (e.g. Guns, Germs and Steel) but was not written by a team of experts from every relevant field touched upon, would also have to be deemed unreliable. As for the flip side of this coin, Al-Ifta's people having such training in this subject doesn't automatically make them individually or the organization collectively better (much less unassailable) sources, when the "training" is in large part indoctrination and isn't equivalent to scientific process (or the quasi-scientific processes of mainstream history and historiography). To the extent any argument they make is faith- rather than evidence-based, or is inductive, analogical, or especially abductive (as is clearly the case here) instead of deductive, then it's problematic. Ultimately, all sources have to be given WP:DUE weight, and this is a consensus that is largely determined through consensus-editorial assessment of numerous factors. One writer's lack of professional background will be such a factor, but so will another's being steeped in a particular "this is the one holy Truth" proselytization viewpoint. It is by no means irrelevant that Al-Ifta's obvious intent is defense of the perception of Muhammad as infallible, at all costs (even the costs of erosion of Islamic-law literalism that some hardliners in that religion would be unwilling to spend, and which from an outsider's viewpoint do not appear to be justifiable, as various Christian attempts to bend over backward with double-think and other fallacies to try to evade biblical contradictions do not). But it is also not irrelevant that Rodinson was no kind of specialist in the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• As a side note, the material being discussed here is likely WP:UNDUE for this page and should be covered instead Wives of Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad. This article should only list the major criticisms made against Muhammad - not literally every single thing every author has ever written. Medieval Christian criticisms of Muhammad (among others) have been some of the most historically significant.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Probably so, mostly at the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References from all posts in the section from all editors