Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

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 )? 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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

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

Non-fact-based statement presented as fact.

Muhammed never attempted suicide

Proposing minor extension of information.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 Feb 2024

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

The page image

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Baháʼí

Il y a une erreur sur le nom

Mistakes in the article in

Information not correct

"Foretold his prophethood"

Depictions of Prophet

Where is the Mecca of the Article

Night Journey Information Incorrect

Patronymic name extension on 15 May 2024

genocide perpetrator

Conflict with the Jewish tribes

The Satanic Verses & Banu Qurayza

Banu Qaynuqa segment

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

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

Maxime Rodinson is not a valid source

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI