Talk:Muhammad/Archive 20

When will this page become unprotected? There doesnt seem to be much coherent discussion taking place on here so... is this one of those situations where the page never becomes unprotected? Fennessy 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This page probably won't become unprotected because it's a frequent target of vandalism Frotz 18:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsemi-protected? It's happened when full protections have expired, and yes, the result hasn't been pretty. Once we 've resolved this editing dispute, we can try a test unprotect, if there's a desire to. WilyD 18:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's a real shame that this is the kind of article people will fight over, thus ruining attemps to improve it. Just one of the things I noticed wrong with it is that "Other religious traditions in regard to Muhammad" are just added as an after-thought at the end. Surely to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this should be incorporated into the main intro? Fennessy 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know whether there are some new aspects for the article on the mainpage.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.21.39 18:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Ahmad Deedat the prophet Muhammad "PBUH" is mentioned in the Bible in (Deuteronomy 18:17–9)
according to the bible (To Moses)
I will raise up for them a Prophet like you among their brothers;
I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to My words that the Prophet speaks in My name, I will call him to account.” (Deuteronomy 18:17–9) "A Prophet like you among their brothers” is a Prophet who will come from the line of Ishmael, since Ishmael is the brother of Isaac, who is the forefather of the Children of Israel. The only Prophet who came after Moses and resembled him in many ways, for example, in the bringing of new laws and the waging of war on his enemies, was the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). The Qur’an points to the same fact, We have sent to you a Messenger as a witness over you, even as we sent to Pharaoh a Messenger.( (Al-Muzzammil 73:15Abouilyass 09:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proposal for this article in that? If so please restate it, otherwise you may have the wrong place. gren グレン 23:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Amicuspublilius must read again visit:- http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy18.htm

18 I willd̪ raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him. 19 If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I will make him answer for it. 20 But if a prophet presumes to speak in my name an oracle that I have not commanded him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, he shall die. Now... 1 surly the man mentioned in 18&19 is not like in 20 because there will be a huge contradiction, in 18&19 he is the prophet that according to bible:(If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I will make him answer for it) so how could you equal both in what logic
2.But if a prophet not the
--Abouilyass 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure most Muslims would not want this reference in the article : "17 And the Lord said to me: They have spoken all things well. 18 I will raise them up a prophet out of the midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. 19 And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger. 20 But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain." Just a thought. :) Perhaps that online site does not have access to the whole passage. If it were speaking of Muhammad it would not be very respectful of him: the subtlety hinges on "A" and "THE", and "THE" prophet in the passage is referred to as a pagan and a liar. If you do cite this, I request that you cite the whole passage. Peace. Amicuspublilius 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the NIV Bible it reads: "The Lord said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. But a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put death." So it would seem the more accurate NIV fits the Islamic perspective. BTW, Allah is very similar to Eloi in pronounciation..... just a thought. ~~A Muslim~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.23.36 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the content involved your edit war... just noticed it on my watchlist... but, if it keeps up next time I come to this page I will have to protect it on whichever version I find it. Please discuss, compromise, do what is necessary. Have others weigh in. Thanks. gren グレン 07:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion in the now archived sections , etc etc. It is not only me, but also Itaqallah who agrees with me. Arrow is alone here. User:Karl Meier who has never joined the talk page reverts for him.

What is most ingenious about Arrow's edit is that he even removes the POV-tags from the article while there is substantial content disputes and much much talk page discussion about it. This is a clear violation of WP:OWN --Aminz 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your disputes are not based on wikipedia policies, just your personal disgreement with sourced facts. It is a failing of wikipedia that you are permitted to impose your viewpoint on it arbitrarily. Arrow740 14:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has beaten you to the punch. WilyD 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You turned

• "Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."

into

• "while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions."

Rodinson says the former, and you removed the key fact, that Muhammad was telling people that their fathers were suffering eternal torment. You have no excuse for this removal of sourced content.

so what exactly is wrong with the latter passage other than it not mentioning the condemnation of their forefathers who were pagans? how does "... while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his condemnation of their pagan forefathers and denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions." sound? the aim of this edit was to remove the implicit POV about the how Quraysh had "even" tolerated him, as well as the primary source extract from Peters aiming to depict the Qurayshites in a particular light (it would also be improper to provide other primary sources on these very pages of Peters' showing that the Meccan leaders conspired to persecute). you also removed the sourced information: "Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim. This protection did not extend to much of his followers, who were subsequently persecuted by the Meccans." without explanation. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow has written: "Starting in the tenth century, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. After Muhammad denigrated their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims."

I can not see the link between these two sentences. Further, what does this have to do with "the last years in Mecca" section? The persecution is already covered in opposition in Mecca section. Aside from these, there were economical motivation for persecution of Muslims, not just because of their idols. --Aminz 09:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Captives of the Muslims who were of little influence or value were usually freed without ransom"

became

• "Those captives who were not sufficiently influencal or wealthy were usually freed without ransom"

The "sufficiently" is bad writing.

then fix it seperately instead of mass-reverting. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The source says "captives who were not wealthy" not "captives of little value". Proab suggested "captives who were no wealthy" or "captives of little wealth." Either of these works. --Aminz 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed

• "Muhammad was especially sensitive to attacks of this kind throughout his career, and considered them an unforgivable sin,"

an almost direct quote. You have no excuse, and have given none.

this is an opinionated analyses from Watt, i had already explained that on your talk page. we can stick to stating historical events, an opinion on Muhammad's psychology at the time is not necessary. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah said it well. (P.S. there is only one unforgivable sin in Islam) --Aminz 09:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "From this period on, the Medinan verses of the Qur'an are very different from those of Mecca, increasingly dealing with practical problems of government, the distribution of booty, and other temporal matters."

to

• "The Qur'anic verses of this period, unlike the Meccan ones, dealt with practical problems of government and issues like the distribution of booty."

...but that's not what Lewis says.

please explain. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sourced

• "and make it clear to their neighbors that they were capable of removing this threat to their trade"

and i changed it to "which had been lost at Badr." as per pages 124 onwards in Watt. see my talk page for a portion of that passage. the preceding sentence in the article read: "To maintain their economic prosperity after the battle of Badr, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige," - thus the connection with recovering prestige for trade had already been established - the fragment above was therefore irrelevant; it was more appopriate to discuss what had happened to their prestige (i.e. it had been lost at Badr). ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

and the sourced

• "to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage"

we have discussed this at length. the sentence in your version read "A few days later in the year 625, the Meccan leader Abu Sufyan marched on Medina with three thousand men to respond to the growing danger of Medinese brigandage." - that sentence contradicts what is present in the Muhammad and Uhud articles of EoI, as well as in Watt, and serves as undue weight towards Lewis' (seemingly unshared) opinion about the cause of Uhud by placing it in a key sentence. the reinserted clause is also tendentiously worded. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contradict anything. Those articles (written be people of less stature than Lewis and Watt) only mention a desire for revenge, and do not say that the primary motive was not to defend trade. Perhaps you just haven't understood this point. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

if other sources mention starkly different reasons for the battle of Uhud, then of course it contradicts them. Lewis' assertion about the reason for Uhud contradicts what is present in the other sources. Watt's understanding of "defending trade" (which you wrongly equivocate with Lewis' understanding, "[p]erhaps you just haven't understood this point") consists of recovering the prestige lost at Badr. if you want to talk about stature, you should first consider how you have been POV-pushing with Rodinson. ITAQALLAH 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained before, Lewis has revised this in the new edition of the book. This doesn't appear in the new versions. --Aminz 09:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a different passage from the one where you used this argument to remove sourced material before. The "brigandage" discussion has already taken place with supporting quotes from Lewis and Rodinson, you can read the archives. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have followed the discussion. The word does not appear in the new edition of the book. Further, Lewis describes the conception of raiding at that time as a natural act of war. This is not captured in the word. Further, as Proab mentioned, we should mention the facts. You have the habit of finding emotionally loaded expressions. These do not convey any facts. --Aminz 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission as Muhammad had declared, then the defeat at Uhud must be taken as a sign that his claims were false"

to

• "Following the defeat, Muhammad's detractors in Medina said that if the victory at Badr was proof of the genuineness of his mission, then the defeat at Uhud was to be taken as a sign of the opposite"

By removing the agent from the sentence (Muhammad had declared) and using the strangely vague "was to be taken" you used bad style. Why? Further, "of the opposite" is far from the sense of Rodinson's description of the opposition I provided for you on the talk.

"as Muhammad had declared" is redundant, "as a sign of the opposite" is a clinical and dry way to express the claims of detractors in relation to Muhammad's claim. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Abu Sufyan realized the nature of the threat represented by Medina and the Muslims, and tried to assemble a larger army to destroy this threat. He attempted to make"

to

• "In attempting to quash the opposition of the Muslims in Medina, Abu Sufyan established"

Now, this is very transparent. Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan "realized the nature of the threat." You removed "threat" so as to not portray the Meccans as the offended party in any way. Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful, aggressive party, which is false. Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this.

the change was concise and removed the POV and style problems such as continued use of the word threat. this is a bias frequently present in your contributions, one side is referred to as the "danger" and "threat" (x2, in the same sentence!), conducting "brigandage" and "aggressive political violence" (a loaded phrase you were unsuccessful in retaining), while the Meccans are portrayed as "realiz[ing]" this "danger", emphasis placed on the reported extent of their tolerance, or the notion that their campaigns were all in self defence by shoehorning any motive of avenging Badr (this being the most prominent motive in the sources however). these are, of course, only the most recent examples of such kind of editing.

"Further, "quash" implies that the Meccans were the more powerful" - the Meccans were more powerful (they had just defeated the Muslims at Uhud). "Also, Rodinson says that Abu Sufyan and Muhammad were both trying to estabish alliances, and were not always successful. You removed this." - no, i didn't. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You changed

• "Muhammad eventually revealed"

to

• "Soon after verse ^{[Quran 24:11]} was revealed,"

Removing the agent again, this is bad writing.

ambiguity is necessary to maintain neutrality in instances of "revelation." ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You further added the unsourced

• "The status of several of Muhammad's wives is disputed by scholars."

it's not a factually disputed sentence, is it? leave ^{[citation needed]} to give time for others to source it. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So in fact, all your "productive copyedits" are purposeful distortion of sourced material, and in one case insertion of unsourced nonsense.

In the future do not remove the subject of a verb or add ambiguity in any other fashion. Arrow740 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. i don't believe you have proven a single instance of "purposeful distortion of sourced material," and i am sure the discussion would proceed more smoothly in the absense of this kind of rhetoric. ITAQALLAH 23:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the response by itaqallah which the casual reader might take seriously. Arrow740 15:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You have responded to only one comment. --Aminz 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

hear, hear. ITAQALLAH 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You've both shown yourselves to be closedminded on these issues, and have provided empty arguments for your positions. Uninvolved readers will see that. Arrow740 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

many uninvolved readers think exactly the same about you, Arrow ! ~atif ^{msg me} - 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are assessing the situation objectively. You have reverted repeatedly without seeing the texts we're discussing, and which itaqallah admits I am representing more accurately. Arrow740 06:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"which itaqallah admits I am representing more accurately"!! That's funny. --Aminz 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)]

• As an "uninvolved reader" let me say all of this can be solved by simply following Wikipedia established policy on content. About 80% of what you are debating is axed under WP guidelines because a lot of it to me sounds like original research and is poorly sourced. All of you involved in this debate are too emotional and forgetting the reader is to understand the basic fundamental facts which relate to said topic. Your minor edit wars are semantical nonsense, which is the overall judgment coming from an "uninvolved reader." A more civil discussion of a controversial matter regarding a deity that argues Wikipedia standards rather than your feelings: Talk:Jesus. Btw there is no way in this great Earth is someone going to record this article at the rate it changes per hour. .:DavuMaya:. 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article states that the "All or most of the Qur'an was apparently written down by Muhammad's followers after being revealed by the Angel Gabriel while he was alive, but it was, then as now, primarily an orally related document, and the written compilation of the whole Qur'an in its definite form was completed early after the death of Muhammad.".... is it actually a verifiable fact, and the only significant POV, that "the Angel Gabriel" "revealed" the Qur'an? Dlabtot 20:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

How about: "All or most of the Qur'an was apparently written down by Muhammad's followers while he was alive, but it was, then as now, primarily an orally related document, and the written compilation of the whole Qur'an in its definite form was completed early after the death of Muhammad."

I'd make the change myself if I could. Dlabtot 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to this? WilyD 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this sentence has been subject to vandalism. First time I wrote it from the Cambridge history of Islam, there was no mention of Gabriel. Someone must have added it there. Good catch Dlabtot. --Aminz 19:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we also remove "then as now" bit. It seems to be extra there--Aminz 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like progress is being made below on finding a consensus to end the edit war. Once the article is unprotected, everyone will be able to make changes like this. Most content changes should be postponed until then. Another admin, WilyD, is following this page, and can edit it if absolutely necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, I'm watching closely. If nobody objects to this change soon, I'll make the change. WilyD 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to object; it does not seem encyclopedic not to include an important fact. Obviously saying that the Qur'an was revealed by the Angel Gabriel is POV , but we musti include that fololowers of the Qur'an almost exclusively believe it to be.

"All or most of the Qur'an was apparently written down by Muhammad's followers while he was alive, but it was, then as now, primarily an orally related document, and the written compilation of the whole Qur'an in its definite form was completed early after the death of Muhammad. According to Muslim tradition the original recitation of the Qur'an came from the Angel Gabriel.The angel is said to have visited Muhammad on a yearly basis, the first of which took place in a cave on Mount Hirah." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroplane (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is important because the previous version implies that Muhammad wrote the Qur'an, which while true in terms of NPOV is not true in terms of the Muslim view of Muhammad. This is obviously not an article about the Muslim view of Muhammad, but to imply that Muslims consider Muhammad the author of the Qur'an would not be factual Aeroplane 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Not every detail must be mentioned everywhere. But I agree that mentioning the Muslims belief that the Quran was revealed by Gabriel should be mentioned, albeit in NPOV fashion.

BTW, the cave is such a non-notable detail and should be ommitted. Also, Gabriel did not visit M. on a yearly basis at Hirah. It was M. who visited Hirah on a yearly basis and on one such occasion he met Gabriel. All this according to Muslim tradition of course. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not just Muslims believed Gabriel revealed it to him. Many Jews and Christians (i.e. King Negrus of Yemen) agreed upon this. Essentially, you must either a) prove the Quran to be 100% true (easy IMO) b) take his word for it, since it is obvious this is what he believed. We take individual's recollections for truth everyday without a second thought... ~~ A Muslim ~~ 74.230.23.36 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article of "Miracles in the Muslim biographies" the auther ignores to write that the Prophet Muhammad"PBUH" given a miracle which is the Qur'an, this is according to the Qur'an, all islamic scholars... the question is how the Qur'an is a miracle... some of the reasons are:-
Scientific miracles: The Qur'an contains a lot of verses that are talking about scientific facts that only recently discovered, some of them are:-
The universe is expanding
In The Qur'an "And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it". (Qur'an, 51:47) visit http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_02.html

The earth has seven layers
In The Qur'an "GOD created seven universes and the same number of earths. The commands flow among them. This is to let you know that GOD is Omnipotent, and that GOD is fully aware of all things. ".Qur'an[65:12] http://www.55a.net/firas/english/?page=show_det&id=73&select_page=69

DARKNESS IN THE SEAS AND INTERNAL WAVES
In The Qur'an "Or [the unbelievers' state] are like the darkness of a fathomless sea which is covered by waves above which are waves above which are clouds, layers of darkness, one upon the other. If he puts out his hand, he can scarcely see it. Those Allah gives no light to, they have no light". (Qur'an, 24:40) visit http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_51.html

The iron found in our world has come from giant stars in outer space
In The Qur'an "And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind… "(Qur'an, 57:25)visit http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_30.html
and a lot of other scientific facts mentioned in the qur'an for extra information about such facts visit http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/ and http://www.quranmiracles.com/ and http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ --Abouilyass 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add the above to the article? It's full of holes.

Point 1: This sounds like the assorted Tree of Life stories.

Point 2: Did you know that the number seven was widely considered mystically significant long before the Quran? Jewish tradition is especially keen on this.

Point 3: This sounds a lot like the second account of creation in the book of Genesis.

Point 4: Ancient humanity knew that things fell from the sky from time to time. That's why meteorites were revered and worshipped in antiquity. Since meteoric iron is much stronger than bronze or the crude irons of the early iron age, such meteorites were also used to fashion tools, weapons, and armour for use by kings or other important people. To say that the Quran revealed this is foolishness.

Frotz 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Frotz,,, believe me I'm not telling you stories, I give facts... I wish you visit the web-sites if you find that my way in explaining bad... Now... About your point 4 you said Ancient humanity knew that things fell from the sky from time to time... Yes they knew that things fell from the sky, but I do not think that they distinguished that one of the things fell from the sky is THE IRON, I don't think that they knew that Iron did not form on the Earth, but was carried from Supernovas, and was "sent down," as stated in the verse. please visit the website in order to know what I'm talking about...

About your points "3&2"... BOOK OF GENESIS... In what chapter could i find anything about the expansion of the universe? In what chapter there is anything related to "the darkneess in the seas and internal waves" I gave you three web-sites where you can find a lot of scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an... surly their way in explaining and sourcing is better than me...but you just say there is... The last question is: where could I find the number of "7" as the number of the earth's layers in the Jewish tradition?--213.6.242.134 23:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I did visit those pages and found them wanting. I don't understand what you're getting at with point 4. The page you reference says nothing about the Quran saying anything about iron being created in the hearts of stars. Nonetheless, meteorites have often been thought of as being stars, parts of stars, parts of the bodies of gods, lamps, etc.

Points 2 and 3; The ancient Greeks listed the original Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World. Jewish tradition mentions seven levels of heaven, seven earths, and seven layers of hell. See . See also Seven#In_the_classical_world. See Norse_mythology for an account of seven layers of the world or seven worlds depending on the source. Babylonian myth refers to seven gates in the underworld.

The concept of the universe expanding can be found in the various Tree of Life stories. Consider especially the Kabbalistic tree and the Norse Yggdrasil.

I'm not disputing these accounts in the Quran. My problem is that it can be easily shown that the Quran could not have possibly introduced the above ideas. Frotz 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop open unrelated subjects such as Yggdrasil or Norse_mythology I search word by word and I didn't find anything about the expansion of the universe or anything related to what I'm talking about... I wished you answer my questions instead of talking about unrelated things.. such as the Seven_Wonders_of_the_Ancient_World

First, ALLAH Says (what means): "And We also sent down iron" The focus is on the word sent down This word (sent down) indicates the following:- In the literal meaning of the word (sent down) "being physically sent down from the sky" we realize that this verse implies that IRON COME FROM THE OUTER SPACE.

This is the same of the findings of the modern astronomical discoveries that say that the iron found in our world HAS COME FROM GIANT STARS IN OUTER SPACE.

I will make it simpler: The scientific fact is: the IRON was sent down from the outer space, this is mentioned in Qur'an.

The use of the word sent down is too much accurate.

Notice with me that Qur'an was revealed at a time when there's no telescopes and no one could even think that the Iron's source are from the outer space and that it was sent down from the outer space. This is the miracle.

The second, I'm not talking about the use of number seven in the jews traditions... but I'm talking about the number seven as the number of layers of the earth... scientific facts...

ALLAH Says (what means): "It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them" Qur'an 65:12 this is the most accurate translation of the verse I found

What is the common thing between the earth and the heavens? to use the words the like of them???

1) THE HEAVENS:-

    A) The number of the heavens are seven:-
"this is scientifically approved, and also The Qur'an states (what means): "[It is ALLAH] who created the seven heavens in layers." [Qur'an 67: 3]" 
        if you want to check this  visit http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=135422 Under the title of The Expansion and Structure of the Universe.
    B) Heavens are created in layers.
"This is mentioned in Qur'an and also is a scientific fact visit the same web site if you want to check.

2) The earth

   A) It has layers
   B) The number of the layers is seven.
         http://www.55a.net/firas/english/?page=show_det&id=73&select_page=69

So Heavens are created in layers and the earth has layers, right?

The number of the layers of the earth is seven... and the number of heavens is also seven, right?

These facts are mentioned in a wonderful way in Qur'an (((what means): It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them))

I will give other types of miracles as soon as possible... Abouilyass 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Stories far older than the Quran describe gods sending down iron from the skies. The only difference between those and the Quran is in who sent the iron.

How is Jewish tradition of the earth having seven layers any different from the account in the Quran? That's what Jews believed back then in the physical sense long before Muhammad appeared.

Read a book of Norse mythology and pay close attention to Yggdrasil. Read an introductory text on the Kabbala and pay close attention to the Tree of Life. There you will find descriptions of the world or universe expanding. When reading ancient legends, it's important to realize that the ancients had no concept of outer space, so "world" often equates with "universe".

Again, these are not miraculous revelations. They are copied from earlier sources. Frotz 07:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And all of this is unrelated to the article of Muhammad. So if this discussion is important, it should take place some where else. --Iafrate 15:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, there's no relation between what you say and what I'm talking about, I asked you to give me sourced related things but you didn't want to, I'm sorry for that... It is up to you to believe or not... any way I gave the web-site where you can find more than 50 scientific facts mentioned in the Qur'an, in addition to historical and numerical miracles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abouilyass (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I think answeringchristianity.com might be useful. Also look up the author Harun Yahya. Jazzak Allah Khairun. ~~ A Muslim ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.23.36 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, to resolve this conflict, let's go through the disputed sections one at a time.

As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage.^[1] Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers.^[2] Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion.^[3][4]

As the ranks of Muhammad's followers swelled, he became a threat to the local tribes and the rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Kaaba, the focal point of Meccan religious life, which Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad’s denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba. The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching. They offered him admission into the inner circle of merchants and establishing his position in the circle by an advantageous marriage.^[5] Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers.^[2] Sumayya bint Khubbat, a slave of Abū Jahl and a prominent Meccan leader, is famous as the first martyr of Islam, having been killed with a spear by her master when she refused to give up her faith. Bilal, another Muslim slave, suffered torture at the hands of Umayya ibn khalaf by placing a heavy rock on his chest to force his conversion.^[6][7]

The difference is the target for Bilal, one version points to Bilal, one to Bilal ibn Ribah. Given that Bilal is a disambiguation page, my supposition is that Bilal ibn Ribah is the better link. Does anyone object? WilyD 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey WilyD! Thanks so much for helping us with moving forward from our current dead end. --Aminz 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change WilyD 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," which recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, and were then later retracted at the behest of Gabriel.<ref>*Some early Islamic [[Satanic Verses#Complete Account .28Tabar.C4.AB.29|histories recount]] that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). cf Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume p.166.

The earliest biographies describe Muhammad at this time delivering what Western scholars have dubbed the "satanic verses," in which he recognized the validity of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah.<ref>*Some early Islamic [[Satanic Verses#Complete Account .28Tabar.C4.AB.29|histories recount]] that as Muhammad was reciting Sūra Al-Najm (Q.53), as revealed to him by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 :"Have you thought of Allāt and al-'Uzzā and Manāt the third, the other; These are the exalted Gharaniq, whose intercession is hoped for. (Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshiped by the Meccans). cf Ibn Ishaq, A. Guillaume p.166.

Of course, the is no documentary nor tangible evidence that the "Satanic verses" ever existed. There are no ancient scrolls as to which have been penned. The verses in the Quran refer to the three false Gods of Lat, Uzza and Manat. The "Satanic Verses" are not mentioned in the Quran. If the "Satanic verses" really did exist, it would lower the status of the Quran as Muslims believe the Quran was delivered to mankind unabridged without alterations, not one letter added, not one letter deleted. Thus without any substantiated evidence, the legend of the Satanic Verses" is perceived as nothing more than anti-Islam slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.66.161 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, this is a little less clearcut, and some inclusion of the role assigned to Gabriel in this may be appropriate. Thoughts? WilyD 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to hear Arrow's arguments on this first. My further suggestion is to also add a link to the detail of the story from one of the early biographies Satanic_verses#Tabarī's account. Addition would be something like (see Satanic_verses#Tabarī's account).

Thanks again for helping with this Wily. --Aminz 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, the existing phrase in your edit does (to me) seem to endorse a "Muslim" POV, that Gabriel actually requested the retracted, rather than was named as the individual requesting the retraction by (person we all agree exists) or such. I was merely trying to indicate where I believed there might be overlap between the two, or room for a new version that incorporates everyone's concerns. WilyD 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add this is the POV of the "early biographers" that the satanic verses recognized the validity of goddesses and Gabriel requested the retraction. If it were the biographers' view that Muhammad recognized the validity of the Goddesses or he named Gabriel for retraction, then I would agree with Arrow's edits. Hence it doesnt endorse muslim POV, rather the biographers POV which is more accurate ~atif ^{msg me} - 05:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Atif Nazir (talk • contribs)

WilyD, I agree with you that the issue of NPOV is very important in articles such as this. In this specific case however all of our sources regarding this incident come from Muslim sources themselves and to report their view seems neutral to me. I agree that it is POV to claim that Gabriel in reality did so or so, but I think it is NPOV to "report" that Muslim biographies say that Gabriel did so or so. --Aminz 05:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is totally absurd to attribute anything to a non proven mythological entity called "Gabriel". This is a serious encyclopedia, not some dark age story book designed for young members of the 7th century Borg. This "Gabriel" has never spoken a word, never written a thing, and in fact has not left a trace upon this Earth. We are to write about facts, and referenced ones at that. We must attribute this to hand of humans that actually existed. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did we claim that Gabriel exist? --Aminz 06:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying "he recognized" is what the western biographers say and it is NPOV because it relates history. Whether or not Satan tricked him into doing it (not), he did it. Arrow740 06:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about western biographies of Muhammad in that sentence. --Aminz 06:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, if you are making that statement abt western biographers, you made wrong edits in the first place itself as this para refers to muslim sources only. ~atif ^{msg me} - 09:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Atif Nazir (talk • contribs)

Okay, well I'll say that when I parse that segment, it's not clear that "at the behest of Gabriel" means "reportedly at the behest of Gabriel" - is it just biographers who ascribed it to Gabriel? Did Muhammad give a reason for retracting them? That seems like the easiest way to address the issue - "Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had told him to do so" or such. WilyD 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Arrow740 23:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong in keeping Aminz version? As Arrow just pointed out he was ascribing to western biographers view. Which is of course wrong as clearly the para refers to muslim sources only ~atif ^{msg me} - 17:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check the formatting you'll see this is tucked off in a footnote. If you read the paragraph, the impression it conveys is that Gabriel is a real entity, who did get Muhammad to recant these verses. I would suspect this is not a widely agreed upon position, but essentially a "Muslim POV". Instead of using a Muslim POV or a western biographer POV, why not list as definitive the area they agree upon. If they both agreed Muhammad retracted the verses and said he did so at the behest of Gabriel, but disagree about whether Gabriel actually did this, why not just say "Later Muhammad announced that Gabriel had told him to retract the verses, and Muhammad then retracted the verses"? That would cover everyone's concern. WilyD 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, the historicity of this whole story is much disputed. So, we can not say Muhammad really said those things. We can however attribute it to certain biographies. Here is my suggestion: "According to these biographies the verses were then later retracted at the behest of Gabriel." i.e. to break down the sentence in two and repeat "According to these biographies" again. --Aminz 19:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aminz - hmm, yes maybe, although the repetition may not be great wordsmithing. WilyD 19:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

But " Muhammad announced that Gabriel had told him to retract the verses, and Muhammad then retracted the verses" seems kind of repetitive too :P . --Aminz 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not married to the wording. WilyD 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wily, Arrow seems to have agreed . If we can move on that would be great. Unfortunately there are many disputes reflected in this diff and many that are not :( --Aminz 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but one thing at a time, no? Since you and Arrow seem to agree on the "saying Gabriel had told him to do so" I'll put it in, though I'm changing "told" to "instructed" as more encyclopaedic language, if anyone objects, I'll change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made the change WilyD 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well my whole point was to include that "According to those sources" so and so happened rather than it really happened; But I think we can move forward assuming that the reader is intelligent enough to catch this. Thanks for your help Wily. --Aminz 23:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)