Talk:Muhammad/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

I was surprised at how small the article is.

I'm going to expand it. I'm also under the impression that we as an encyclopedia (even a comically but correctly biased one) are not in the habit of being bound by religious or dogmatic rules? Especially when those rules only apply to members of that particular religion? We should have more pictures of Mohammed, perhaps with a warning label for our Muslim brothers and sisters. Moiph 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the image on the right side of this article answers your question. -- Nx / talk 20:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We need more pictures, dammit, more! Moiph 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Child wife

We say: But, in his defense, people fucking ate each other in those days. I think some people still eat other people today.--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Years later, now. Someone, it seems, has appended something similar on the end of it now. I slapped a ^{[citation needed]} on that claim. I'm by no means a historian, but I've never heard from any reliable source that marrying children and/or paedophilia were ever a very common thing, like some seem to claim. To me it just sounds like pseudohistory. Note also, the IP behind this edit has a ... curious, perhaps even worrying history of editing articles relating to such matters of child abuse and seemingly trying to excuse/whitewash such activities. Jodolf Stitler (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Marrying children is still a common thing, especially in South Asia, Central Africa & parts of the Middle East. An estimated 1 in 3 women worldwide were married below the age of 18. Unicef Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Preaching, persecution, and personality

This section seems very sporadic and chronologically all over the place. Anyone want to try and fix it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 20:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...

I'm taking off that silly "Muhammad-terrorist-whatever" picture made by those shithole europeans. If you have a rational reason as to why I shouldn't, please start. --66.233.55.145 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

How about instead you justify its removal? Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mohammad-bomb picture is Islamophobic.

Really? Bitch about free speech all you want, when they're doing the equivalent towards Jews everyone wants to defend them - and people do it because we know that hatred towards them is absolutely horrible and absolutely disturbing.

And yet, without missing a fucking beat, Europeans (Jews in Europe included - ironic I know) are getting ready to start lynching every brown skinned person from the Middle East - whilst firmly wrapping their lips around Israel's cock and talking about the superiority of Jews contrasted with those dirty, primitive mooslims.

The "free speech means pissing all over cultures", from the beginning, came from conservative, European atheists trying to inspire anti-muslim fervor. They've repeated Islamophobic sentiment under the guise of atheism, ad naseum, until we all called Theo Van Gogh a martyr and his assassin a "radical muslim". If we decide that free speech is pissing all over something that's believed in by 3 billion poor, non-white, ethnics then fuck free speech.

I'm perfectly fine with this article calling Mohammed a probable schizophrenic, it's criticism from an atheistic standpoint. I'm fine with people calling Hinduism a justification for the caste system, it's criticism from a secular standpoint. I'm fine when people yap on about Saint Paul being a Mithraist homophobe who prevented Christianity from fully castrating the old testament's horrid influence, it's criticism.

But when a bunch of white, middle-class, bourgeois assholes senselessly beat up on a religion - for no other reason than to blame it for an ethnic group's supposed unwillingness to submit to white, middle class values and for not being happy to do it like good primitives (despite that muslim immigrants don't even care, and the real threat is in demonizing them) - I draw a line. A thick fucking line.

I'm not some 'holier than thou', white, bourgeois-reformist who talks about respecting others to look cooler. I'm black. Perhaps in a time before the internet, I'd suspect that whites were all benign anti-racists, but I'm not living in that time. In the information age - the internet, you can see what everyone thinks - white decadence (what I believe to be a mix of white privilege and political conservatism that comes from a good socioeconomic stance gained by inheritance rather than struggle - albeit, in this capitalist society, gaining enough capital to start a business leads to riches and working hard leads to 3 kids and a grave.) has led to the most disgusting thoughts and abhorrent behaviors.

My mom, a Jamaican immigrant, is a wage-slave for capitalist forces who works 12 hours a night for mere subsistence, and, yet, I see people of my race get called out as "lazy niggers" all the time. I now despise all of humanity, as it's extremely capable of this type of sociopathy - the only reason I haven't jumped out a window yet is because I have hope that educating people on a mass scale will take them out of this dreadful state.

However, I fucking tremble when that white decadence spills out into a school of thought that supposedly rejects white decadence and capitalist illusions for progressiveness.

It is undeniable, drawing a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head is offensive and disgusting - a direct insult to an oppressed, poor minority. You have been fooled by conservative rhetoric in the guise of atheism, and it's disgusting that education, history, things to clear up the distorted couldn't fix it.

Hate speech and free speech aren't the same thing. --66.233.55.145 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said it's not islamophobic. They said it's not a violation of free speech. you should have every right to draw whatever you want. Why should a religion you do not believe in, have the right to tell you how to draw? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Muslims aren't an oppressed, poor minority. They're nearly a quarter of the world's population, including some of the wealthiest countries around. You're making far too much of the race angle, which I think is fairly irrelevant to this cartoon. Why is St Paul fair game but Mohammed isn't? Is it only that western criticism of Islam can be stereotyped as bourgeois whites vs persecuted foreigners? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Does our IP editor object to the pictures on the Jesus page?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"I hate Europeans, you all make sweeping stereotypical assumptions about brown people!" Way to stereotype 750 million people there, whiny-balls! Fuck right off. Δʘ_ʘΔ 08:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad as schizophrenic?

Cut this whole rambling embarrassing section. It's barely about Muhammad at all, grasps for facile answers, & has few if any redeeming qualities. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Snark

I'm all for snark, but the joke on the image of Mo ascending to heaven makes no sense. no one says "that's not mo", nor do they say "he's not being depicted". The claim is that you cannot depict his face. That western media doesn't get that, is not my problem.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical evidence...

...Just occurred to me, one of the thing people talk about in regards to Jesus is that there are no historical records from Roman times to prove he existed (at least in the context that the Bible describes him)...Do people debate this with Muhammad? Or is there evidence and no reason to debate it? I'm asking because I don't know. -- Seth Peck (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Historicity of Muhammad. Looks pretty similar to the Jesus issue - i.e. the main source is the Qur'an itself, with other relevant sources dating from a couple of hundred years after the event. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

More child wife

It seems stupid (for want of a more charitable word) to comment on M's taking a 9 year old wife with the tag "sick fuck". The guy murdered scores of people in his quest for power, and all some commentator can do is criticize his choosing a child concubine?

Somebody needs to get real!^{— Unsigned, by: Joe G / talk / contribs}

The people he murdered were probably pedophiles. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly the main part of the article so it would seem to be unfair to say: "all some commentator can do is criticize his choosing a child concubine". But are you suggesting that it shouldn't be mentioned because he also did other worse things?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Murdering scores of people for power is bad enough but paedophilia is the point at which even Satan is saying "What the fuck is wrong with you." --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

you guy really sick yourself

first of all please get your facts straight hazarat muammad(s.a.a.w) only had nikkah which is a marriage contract and ruksiti (wedding)happened when she was 15. second of all their are over 1.9 billion muslims do u really want to piss themoff as much as you have pissed me off........thirdly how would you like it if i said something about ur holy spirit or hannukah or something like that......i suggest you guys deleat that shit u wrote and also bin ladden is a phsyco who is not a muslim just to clear that out.......getting back to the 9 year old thing. the prophet married most of the woman because they were widdows and they needed support aur they had no shelter, and this was before the quranic revelation of limited wives was revealed. after the revelation he did not marry again...and if you have a problem against this stuff u should remmember that that was the 6th century and these kind of marriges are still happning with hindu's in india and pakistan.........another thing if you write something insulting about hazarat muhhamaad(s.a.a.w) i will seriously track you down and beat the fuck out of you and i would also like it if you would deleat all the stuff you have already posted that is insulting. the Proophet Muhammad said to respect other peoples beliefs so they would respect yours i suggest u start lisning to that ^{— Unsigned, by: 182.177.33.192 / talk / contribs}

eh? Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 17:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, y'all heard the BoN, guess we have no choice but to 86 this article. SJ ^Debaser 18:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

People threatening to track others down is exactly why we need to mock you. Understand that I'm not scared of you. ^moral 18:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can direct us to some sources about the marriage between Mohammed and Aisha that contradict our description, please do so. Just so long as they're written by someone more level-headed than yourself and with a better grasp of English. Balaam (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, you just posted a direct threat under your IP address. Now we only have to find the authorities under which jurisdiction to notify...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not saying anything explicitly, but let's say that it's not a jurisdiction that would particularly care. ^gnostic 18:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

". second of all their are over 1.9 billion muslims do u really want to piss themoff as much as you have pissed me off.". i think he confused christianity with islam. Second... go ahead, insult a religious concept or a religious holiday, im sure all the atheists here will be so hurt. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take up your weird death threats with the Wikipedia article as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read our article here, but marrying a 9 year old (if she was that young) was not out of line with the culture of the day, in almost any religion of the day. There is nothing to suggest that he had sex with her till she was a mature women (which by the day's standards, again across teh board, not just in the middle east) was generally her first period. We don't bitch about kings marrying 5 year old cousins, so it is a rather "straw man argument" that is used around the web. hopefully not here. That said, dear BON, what the fuck???Godot What do cats dream about? 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you guy sick yourself. Ace^Moderator 18:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This guy are sick. Balaam (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the consensus is that the marriage was consummated not long afterwards.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be curious your sources, not that I doubt you. My study of Islam is purely academic, and that was all pre 9-11. (yes, it does matter, schools including colleges changed how they taught Islam after 9-11). I just put it into context with how we viewed women throughout the world (and today in many non-industrialized parts of the world) not into context of any writers of Islam. But I do hate that the anti-muslims use it as an "attack" as if it were somehow horrible, when it's pretty common world wide at the time.Godot What do cats dream about? 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP article on her has something on it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's all interesting... I studied under K. Armstrong and remain dubious towards just about anything she says on Islam. Her scholarship is, well, shoddy. But what surprises me is that all of these academics, including the muslims, are not citing to anything in the Qu'ran, but to the "generally accepted views". -- That's neither here nor there, by the way. just a background curiosity. back to BON attacks. Godot What do cats dream about? 18:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Something called WikiIslam seems to have a lot on the subject. But I'm not sure how reliable they are.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a fun screed. every single Muslim writer they cite seems to say the exact same words or phrase. I'd be curious where the original source is that they are all clearly quoting from. Now I'm more curious. Do i care enough to care? thansk for the links. WikiIslam is anti-islam, right?Godot What do cats dream about? 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We has article. Тy^Complaints 19:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Do y'all really have to mock this person's poor English? That's just mean. — Oxyaena ^Harass 23:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Idk about you but my patience with someone stops the moment they threaten to assault me for having a different opinion. Fuck him and his lack of English.^{— Unsigned, by: Evilatheistheathen / talk / contribs}

Aisha again

You people attacking the marriage to Aisha really show how retarded you are and irrational you truly are! The marriage was completely normal for that time, and the Jewish Talmud for example (as you guys never attack the Jewish religion whatsoever, despite their "Torah" containing slavery, genocide, and the utter racism of the Talmud and their "sages" such as the revered Jewish rabbi Simeon Ben Yohai known for his "lovely" quote "The best of gentiles should all be killed" that even is admitted by the Jewish Encyclopedia itself) allows marriage at the age of 3 in the Jewish Talmud. Soncino English translation (Jewish publication company in England) of the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 55b- ... "R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his."

As for the marriage with Aisha scholarly sources completely refute you idiots on it; http://www.muhaddith.org/earlymarriage/EarlyMarriage-part1.html and http://www.muhaddith.org/earlymarriage/EarlyMarriage-part2.html showing that Islam actually raised the age of marriage in that time period. And also you guys sound particularly ridiculous when its easily verifiable as well that marriage in the United States itself was still allowed as young as the age of 7 in the US state of Delaware as late as 1895 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent "In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895."^{— Unsigned, by: 76.181.226.142 / talk / contribs}

Well, if children could get married in Delware at 7 years old in 1895, then we should clearly delete the facts about Muhammad in the article. Obvious isn't it?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is little clear "fact" about these details of the life of Muhammad. Over the centuries, debates raged that relied on this or that story to make their point. What seems to be likely or at least possible is that the betrothal was before puberty, at least that was considered an important point, to supposedly establish the virginity of Ayesha for those who wished to assert some superiority of her over the other wives of the Prophet (who were not virgins at marriage, generally at least), again for those who wanted to deny the legitimacy of Fatima's son 'Ali as the rightful successor. Betrothal before puberty was apparently not uncommon. It allowed the betrothed to be alone together, if I'm correct. In Islam, a marriage isn't final until it is consummated, it can be very easily terminated before that. It's likely that the marriage was consummated at puberty, beyond the onset of menstruation. There is no sign that this was considered offensive at the time, by anyone, nor for a long time afterwards. For a quick look at some aspects of this issue,

• Wikipedia:Marriageable age: Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[1]
• Wikipedia:Menstruation: The first experience of a menstrual period during puberty is called menarche. The average age of menarche is 13, but menarche can typically occur between ages 8 and 18.

The article states as fact what is largely speculation, and then adds to that modern interpretations of child abuse. Ayesha showed no signs of having been abused, she lived a long life, widely respected, and, contrary to what's stated in some places, her history shows that women could be leaders. What happened was that she lost a battle, and that was later interpreted to mean that a woman being a leader was a bad idea. (There is no basis in Qur'an and hadith for the claim.) If a man lost a battle, would that mean that men can't be leaders?

I'm taking out the worst references, I don't have time to really review this article. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Consistency is always good, regardless. At the beginning of the article it says "possibly as young as nine". Farther down, however, it says he asked for her hand when she was six, and that what happened when she was nine was not that he married her but that he "consummated the marriage".

The beginning of the article should therefore perhaps say "possibly as young as six". --109.189.87.229 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The implication is entirely contrary to all sources. Possibly as young as nine is the limit from sources. "Betrothed" in usage then did not allow consummation. It was a kind of reservation, a promise. It could be easily canceled. After consummation, not. Was she a "wife," then, as early as six? No, she was a "betrothed." This stuff is asserted, though, to imply things. It appears from how the sources treat the whole thing that it was not remarkable for the time and culture. --Abd (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Language of the Qur'an

The article had

Apparently the Angel Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to him in classical Arabic.

This is true (i.e., the Qur'an is "classical Arabic," but the implication is not true.

"Classical Arabic" is defined as the language of the Qur'an; the language was ordinary for the prophet, a living language. Since the Qur'an actually talks about its own language, as being the language of an Arab, I edited this on October 25 to add the snarky:

(What do you expect? Greek? Latin?)

David Gerard removes edits simply because I made them (he's been doing it for months). So he removed this one November 9, and as usual, with no explanation.

If RatWiki articles are misleading, it's not my problem. Because a few people here have been kind to me, I have some level of obligation to help out, though that may be a foolish idea. I'm reverting, and, from the past, he is likely to revert again, but the snark here -- i.e., the idea that there is something strange about the Qur'an being in Arabic -- is misleading. The reference to Arabic could be taken out, or could made more interesting. Whatever. If someone independently wants the old language, that's ordinary process. --Abd (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your addition adds little and isn't witty or necessary. I reverted it. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ace, for your explanation. I'm sure your judgment was unbiased and sober. Wait. Not sober. Never mind. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Value of witness

The article features:

“”The Prophet said "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

—The Hadith, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826

I argue that the deficiency refers to the stupidity/subservience of the women who actually say "yes" to the premise. If you actually agrees to that first sentence, the value of your witness deserves go down. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)