Talk:Muhammad/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

---

Unprotected?

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)

Some information from Encyclopedia Britannica

• [1] 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)

Proposal

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)

Arrow740 and Aminz edit war

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 [2], [3] 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)

Originally posted on itaqallah's talk page

[4]

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 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)

revealed by the Angel Gabriel - is this statement verifiable?

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)

Proposal II

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 [5]. 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)

One chunk at a time

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. Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. 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.

— Arrow

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. Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. 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.

— Aminz

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)

Chunk II

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.

— Aminz's edit

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.

— Arrow's edit

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 [6]. If we can move on that would be great. Unfortunately there are many disputes reflected in this diff [7] 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)

Chunk III

Daniel J. Sahas, Iconoclasm. Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, Brill Online.</ref> Starting in the tenth century, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated; while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccan idols provoked hostile reactions. 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. These Muslims would later raid Meccan caravans partly because they believed they had been treated badly.

— Aminz

These verses were later retracted, and relations between his followers and their pagan fellow-tribesmen became bitterly hostile. 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. Before this they had tolerated him, even reportedly saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven." These Muslims would later raid Meccan caravans partly because they believed they had been treated badly.

— Arrow

Comments

That some Muslim scholars have rejected these accounts seems noteworthy. Maybe this sentence could be better balanced by noting which scholars believe these accounts to be valid?

Rapidly deteriorated versus became hostile - maybe became hostile is closer to a good phrasing - after all, good relations can deteriorate into indifference.

Denounce is different from denigrate - now I'm not in the best position to judge which is more accurate - but which of these did he really do? "The Meccan goddesses are false gods" I'd call denouncing, not denigrating, whereas "The Meccan Goddesses are doody-heads" I'll call denigrating. I realise there's a continuum here. Thoughts? Additionally, if Muhammad not only attacked their gods, but also mad statements about their ancestors, that might be worth including, no?

After that it's simply word order between "the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims" and "they had previously liked/tolerated Muhammad" and now he was protected from physical harm because he was Banu Hashim.

Caravan raids are discussed later in the article, but maybe it's worth mentioning here that the origins of that conflict are partially tracable to this?

WilyD 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wily.

Ibn Hisham's biography, one of the earliest biographers of Muhammad, does not include this story. Then starting from the 10th century after Christ, Islamic scholars increasingly rejected the historicity of the account to the point that the rejection of the account became the only orthodox view.

re deteriorated versus became hostile, I see your point but I think the reader should have in mind the situation before the last years in Mecca. Some Muslims had already migrated to Ethiopia because of the persecutions. This section is concerned with the last years of Muhammad in Mecca and the point is that the relation of Muhammad and Quraysh deteriorated during the last years. This would eventually lead to Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina. One reason for this is that Muhammad's uncle and protector, Abu Talib, who was the head of the clan of Banu Hashim died. If the story of the so called satanic verses is true, it implies that the relations temporarily got well but it was soon restored back. This can be mentioned. My first question from Arrow is that since we are talking about the last years in Mecca, when Muhammad's denounciation of Meccan idols happened? Last years of Mecca? We have already told the reader re existence of persecution and what has happened so far. So I think starting from "Starting in the tenth century, Islamic scholars began to reject the account" to the end, the text, no matter of what it says, is not on topic.

I think Muhammad only denounced the idols. I am saying this because Quran 6:108 says:

Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance. Thus have We made alluring to each people its own doings. In the end will they return to their Lord, and We shall then tell them the truth of all that they did.

So, I'll wait for Arrow to comment on this since we may want to include this topic in another section of the article.

And lastly, regarding the caravan raids, mistreatment was one reason and I think it should not be mentioned as the sole reason here. Another was Meccan's confiscation of the Muslim's properties left at Mecca and according to lewis, being economically uprooted in Medina, it was the only option available to them. --Aminz 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A rambling bunch of Aminz's opinions, this kind of obfuscation frustrates further progress. Ibn Hisham is a redacted version of Ibn Ishaq, who circulated versions of the story. Our satanic verses article has most of the material we've found on the matter, and the current statement is a hard-won compromise with User:Itaqallah. Regarding denounce vs. denigrate, denounce is fine. Both Peters and Rodinson mention both the damnation of the ancestors and the denunciation of the idols in the same place and with the same emphasis. Cook, Rodinson, and Peters state that the persecution didn't begin in earnest until after the retraction of the satanic verses with the accompanying damnation of the ancestors and revilement of the idols. Arrow740 04:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My comments re Satanic verses were in response to Wily's suggestion for additions (which I thought was not necessary) and what I wrote was factually true.

I am sure that the persecutions did not start in the last years of Mecca. Here is how Welch in Encyclopedia of Islam writes the chain of events:

... These early recitations are based not on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal, which, however, was bound in Muhammad's circumstances in Mecca to lead to a breach with the polytheists... At first Muhammad met with no serious opposition and in not a few cases his preaching fell on fruitful.. This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town. Up until this point most Meccans appear to have had little interest in devotional meetings, and thus had been rather indifferent to Muhammad's activities...He was only gradually led to attack on principle the gods of Mecca... Meccan merchants then discovered that a religious revolution might be dangerous to their fairs and their trade...Traditions record at great length the persecution and ill-treatment that Muhammad and his followers suffered at the hands of the Meccan polytheists... While the Quran refers frequently to major events in the life of Muhammad and the Muslim community that occurred in Medina after the Hijra, often treating these events in some detail, it is virtually silent on the episodes that the SÊra reports as major events in Muhammad's Meccan years...One example involves the various accounts of the emigration of some of Muhammad's followers from Mecca to Abyssinia... These accounts agree that persecution in Mecca played a major role in Muhammad's decision to suggest that a number of his followers seek refuge among the Christians in Abyssinia...At the same time there is a quite different story on their return to Mecca that has been much discussed...[Satanic verses]... According to the story this led to a general reconciliation between Muhammad and the Meccans, and the Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia began to return home...This curious story, which is also found in Ibn Sad but not in Ibn Hisham and presumably not in Ibn Ishaq, is rejected by most Muslims as a later invention...[end of satanic verses] It is just as difficult to elucidate another episode of the Meccan period, the story of the boycott of the Banu Hashim. Muhammad's whole position during his struggle with the Meccans was made possible only by the support given him by his own family, the clan of Hashim..."

As you can see, the Muslim accounts agree that "persecution in Mecca played a major role" in migration to Abyssinia. At the Satanic verses incident (which is controversial) "a general reconciliation between Muhammad and the Meccans, and the Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia began to return home". So, this satanic verses incident happened after the migration and a reason for that migration was the persecutions. Welch puts all these before the section "His last years in Mecca before the Hijra" so it seems that all these happened before the last years section and we should probably move the satanic verses incident to its above section.

Arrow, two points: 1. can you please quote the relevant texts (or provide books.google.com links) to the claim that "Cook, Rodinson, and Peters state that the persecution didn't begin in earnest until after the retraction of the satanic verses". Do these authors say that the Migration to Abyssinia (that is supposedly happened before the satanic verses incident) happened when there was no earnest opposition? Further, could you please state where these writers say "revilement of the idols" happened. 2. The historicity of satanic verses story is disputed, so whatever analysis those scholars do regarding its effect should be attributed to them rather than stated as a fact. --Aminz 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, it doesn't matter what exactly any particular scholar or this article says were the "last years." As I said on this talk page, some moving around could be done. As you know, Watt thinks the satanic verses incident took place after the emigration to Abyssinia. The Peters quote (note in particular Ibn Sa'd's passage on the matter) I provided for you on this talk page. Do not ask for material more than once. Cook says they "became bitterly hostile" after the retraction. Rodinson describes the implication of Muhammad's decision to retract as follows:

If he went back on what had been said, it would mean taking what until then had been a somewhat doubtful leap: it would mean an open break - putting himself in a position to win all or lose all. Ideologically it would mean denouncing the gods of Mecca as lesser spirits or mere names, void of any objective meaning, and denying the validity of their cult and alienating their priests and their followers. It would mean casting off everything relating to the traditional religion as the work of pagans and unbelievers, consigning the Meccans' pious ancestors and relative to hell fire... At all events, they responded to the break by counterattacking fiercely. One apparently reliable source even states categorically that the persecution of the members of the sect started 'when Muhammad mentioned their idols.'

Pages 107-108. Rodinson thus states that after the again stresses: "They pressed him closely on the most important question, already mentioned above, of whether they were to abandon the faith of their fathers and consign them to everlasting fire." Page 112. Rodinson thus clearly states that Muhammad made a clean break with the Meccans when he abrogated the satanic verses. He became completely intolerant of their beliefs, and his attack on their religion and statements that their ancestors were damned triggered the abuse. Peters quotes Ibn Sa'd:

The messenger of God- God bless him and preserve him-summoned to Islam secretly and openly, and there responded to God whom he would of the young men and weak people, so that those who believed in him [or "Him"] were numerious and the unbelieving Quraysh did not criticize what he said. When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." This lasted until God (in the Quran) spoke shamefully of the idols they worshiped other than Himself and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief. At that they came to hate the Messenger of God - God bless him and preserve him - and to be hostile to him. (Ibn Sa'd I/1, p. 133).

'Nuff said. Arrow740 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your sources and the pieces of puzzle seems to join together (i'll comment on this). There is no point in using uncivil language Arrow. Here is a concrete proposal. It is based on summary of the sources so far; if you disagree with any point, please let me know:

1. The satanic verses incident (and also Hijra to Ethiopia subsection; alongside the public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim) to be moved to/discussed in the Muhammad#Opposition_in_Mecca section.

2. Before the opposition in Mecca section, we create a section titled "Early years in Mecca". This mentions the period that Muhammad met no serious opposition. In this section, we can use the following quote from Welch and Peters:

Quote from Welch:

The Qur'anic verses were "not based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal.. Key themes in these early recitations include the idea of the moral responsibility of man who was created by God and the idea of the judgment to take place on the day of resurrection. To these are added vivid descriptions of the tortures of the damned in the hellfire and the pleasures of the believers in Paradise. Another major theme of Muhammad's early preaching, before the onset of strong opposition from the powerful merchant families of Mecca, involves the signs of God in nature that should convince people who will take the time to reflect that there is a power greater than man's, and that the wise will acknowledge this power and cease their greed and suppression of the poor. There is also a stress on the wonders of everyday life, especially the marvellous phenomenon of man. The religious duties that the Qur'an imposed on Muhammad and his followers during the Meccan years were simple and few in number: one should believe in God, appeal to Him for forgiveness of sins (XXIII, 1-11), offer prayers frequently, including long night vigils (XI, 114; LXXIII, 20; cf. LXXVI, 25 f.), assist others (especially those who are in need), free oneself from the love of delusive wealth and—what is significant for the commercial life of Mecca—from all forms of cheating (XXVI, 182 f.; cf. LV, 7-9), lead a chaste life, and not expose new-born girls to die in the desert, a barbarous custom that was sometimes practiced in Arabia in Muhammad's time (for reasons of poverty according to VI, 151 and XVII, 31). These are some of the qualities of the truly pious person who in the Quran is sometimes called a muslim (LXVIII, 35; XXI, 108, etc.) sometimes a Hanif (X; 105; XXX, 30; XCIII, 5; cf. VI, 79 and the article), but more frequently simply a believer.

And the quote from Peters:

The messenger of God- God bless him and preserve him-summoned to Islam secretly and openly, and there responded to God whom he would of the young men and weak people, so that those who believed in him [or "Him"] were numerious and the unbelieving Quraysh did not criticize what he said. When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." This lasted until God (in the Quran) spoke shamefully of the idols they worshiped other than Himself and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief. At that they came to hate the Messenger of God - God bless him and preserve him - and to be hostile to him. (Ibn Sa'd I/1, p. 133).

The following passages from the current opposition section can be moved to this section on early preaching:

According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet.[45] She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.
Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.

3. In the opposition section, we mention how and why the persecutions began.

3.1. Here are some quotes on how the persecution began:

Welch says:

"This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town...Meccan merchants then discovered that a religious revolution might be dangerous to their fairs and their trade.

Robinson says:

One apparently reliable source even states categorically that the persecution of the members of the sect started 'when Muhammad mentioned their idols.'

Peters says:

The Quran thus characterizes the Quraysh as stubborn reactionaries, but it seems to be more than just blind traditionalism. The verse just cited categorizes the opponents of the Warning as "the rich among them," or "the well-off," which has suggested to some that there was a strain of social and economic tension in the Quraysh resistance. The "rich among them" might indeed resist the oft-repeated warning that each man was but a custodian of his wealth and would be called upon to give and account of his stewardship on the Day of Judgment... there is no naming of names in the Quran, no direct criticism, and Muhammad certainly gives no impression that he was zealous to turn the money-changers out of the Temple or that he was essaying the role of a Meccan Savonarola. We obviously don't have the whole story, but on purely "spiritual" grounds, the eventually violent Meccan rejection of Muhammad remains as mysterious as the kind of opposition that led to the execution of Jesus... Other less spiritual motives have been advanced... Some have argued that it was the fear that Muhammad would overturn the prevailing combination of piety and commerce that constituted the Hajj, whereas others have insisted that there is no evidence that Muhammad had any intention of such, nor that the Quraysh anticipated the dismantling of the religious and commercial arrangement bringing them whatever degree of prosperity they enjoyed. It is indeed true that Muhammad showed no sign of ever intending entirely to abolish the Hajj as such, but there are at least suggestions that he may have had problems with some of the Meccan ritual proper... We can not tell if those anxieties were religious or commercial, but Meccan polytheism and its cultus seem to have been at issue in Muhammad's preaching and the Quraysh reception of it.

The relevant passages from our current opposition section:

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.

3.2: Mentioning the incidents: The Migration to Ethopia, the so-called satanic verses incident. The following quote from Rodinson is the key in our dispute here:

This particular episode concerns the emigration of the first Muslims to Abyssinia, which is generally thought to have occurred before that of the verses inspired by Satan; although there is a case for believing (as Montgomery Watt does) that it took place afterwards, since according to our oldest reliable source it followed the persecution which, in turn, occured after Muhammad's attack on the 'idols'. The beginning of this hostile attitude was marked by the revelation abrogating the 'satanic verses'.

Here we mention that 1. the emigration of the first Muslims to Abyssinia is generally placed before the satanic verses incident. 2. Rodinson and Watt suggest otherwise. Since the persecution persecution started with attack on idols and emigration happened after the persecution, the satanic verse should be before the emigration. Arrow, please note that what you've been writing as a fact is only the view of Rodinson and Watt. It goes against the generally organized order of the incidents.

From the current article, the following part is relevant to our story here:

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.

3.3: Here we will explain the details of persecutions.

Relevant quotes from what we currently have:

Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers.[12] 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.

Since Muhammad himself was under the protection of Abu Talib, the head of the clan of Banu Hashim, nobody had directly attacked him. According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. At this time, Muhammad arranged for some of his followers to emigrate to Ethiopia. The boycott lasted for three years.

We can make use of the summary Rodinson suggests from Ibn Ishaq of the activity of one of the fiercest opponents:

It was the villain Abu Jahl who roused the men of Quraysh against them. Whenever he heard that an honorable man, with a host of supporters, had been converted to Islam he would berate him soundly so as to shame him. "You have abandoned the faith of your father, although he was a better man than you," he would say. "We will show that you have acted like a fool and lack judgment, We will ruin your reputation." If the man were a merchant, he would tell them: "By Allah, We will boycott your business "so that you will lose all you have". If he was a person of no influence, he beat him and turned people against him.

Arrow, if you disagree with any point, please let me know. Thanks and have good times, --Aminz 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a little clearer? What are you agreeing to, and what are you proposing? Arrow740 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Rodinson. He disagrees with the sources that the Ethiopia Hijra happened before the Satanic verses incident because, he argues, the hijra was followed the persecution which, in turn, occured after Muhammad's rejection of the 'idols' whose beginning was marked by the 'satanic verses' incident. That's his theory. We can mention it but we should properly attribute it.

The major problem with the current sectioning of the article is that the satanic verses is placed in the last years in Mecca, after Muhammad#Opposition_in_Mecca section and after the Hijra sections and even after the death of Abu Talib, etc etc. I have made three concrete suggestions (1), (2), (3.1) and (3.2) above. Please specify which ones you disagree with. I have also found sources for these sections. If you'd like to add anything to them, please feel free to do so. Once we fix the sections and our sources, we start summarizing them. Thanks --Aminz 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no concrete suggestions. Please be clear. You seem to be fine with my version, just in a different place? Note: Watt is the one who first proposed that the Abyssinia migration was after the SV incident. The sources conflict on the order of events. This is a small point, it seems to me. I didn't put the SV incident there originally, someone else did. And I put in the bit about raiding there for your sake.Arrow740 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find both revisions inadequate. Okay, I'll ask my questions one by one. Would you please state if you agree or disagree. And if you disagree why?

1. The satanic verses incident (and also Hijra to Ethiopia subsection; alongside the public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim) to be moved to/discussed in the Muhammad#Opposition_in_Mecca section.

--Aminz 01:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Make all of your concrete suggestions at once. It is easier for all involved. Arrow740 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I did. It is here [8] in post dated to 07:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC). There are four points 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 --Aminz 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't really respond to such scattered arguments. I agree to keeping the current discussion of the SV incident and moving it to the "opposition" section. I have already defended that material succinctly, but don't object to it being moved. That might even be an improvement. The designation of certain years as "last" is arbitrary and a different section title would be better. How does that sound? Please restrict yourself to issues that we already have a dispute about. We can deal with other things later.Arrow740 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks re point #1. The reason that we should address other points is that addition of "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven" requires explaining the early preaching of Muhammad and its characteristics. Then we can move to the second phases in which the persecutions started. Here we have various views (Peters, Welch and Rodinson). Mentioning only one of them is not proper. Similarly, implying that persecution happened before satanic verses is a POV that needs to be attributed to Rodinson (and possibly Watt) as it disagrees with the primary sources on the dating of Ethiopia Hijra.

I'll create a new subsection on this talk page soon to make discussion easier. --Aminz 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Change #1

• The satanic verses incident (and also Hijra to Ethiopia subsection; alongside the public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim) to be moved to/discussed in the Muhammad#Opposition_in_Mecca section.

It seems that there is no disagreement here. --Aminz 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Change #2

Before the opposition in Mecca section, we create a section titled "Early years in Mecca". This mentions the period that Muhammad met no serious opposition.. This is related to part of your addition "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven"

Arrow, please indicate if you agree. --Aminz 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ch2. Quotes for use

In this section, we can use the following quotes:

Quote from Welch:

The Qur'anic verses were "not based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal.. Key themes in these early recitations include the idea of the moral responsibility of man who was created by God and the idea of the judgment to take place on the day of resurrection. To these are added vivid descriptions of the tortures of the damned in the hellfire and the pleasures of the believers in Paradise. Another major theme of Muhammad's early preaching, before the onset of strong opposition from the powerful merchant families of Mecca, involves the signs of God in nature that should convince people who will take the time to reflect that there is a power greater than man's, and that the wise will acknowledge this power and cease their greed and suppression of the poor. There is also a stress on the wonders of everyday life, especially the marvellous phenomenon of man. The religious duties that the Qur'an imposed on Muhammad and his followers during the Meccan years were simple and few in number: one should believe in God, appeal to Him for forgiveness of sins (XXIII, 1-11), offer prayers frequently, including long night vigils (XI, 114; LXXIII, 20; cf. LXXVI, 25 f.), assist others (especially those who are in need), free oneself from the love of delusive wealth and—what is significant for the commercial life of Mecca—from all forms of cheating (XXVI, 182 f.; cf. LV, 7-9), lead a chaste life, and not expose new-born girls to die in the desert, a barbarous custom that was sometimes practiced in Arabia in Muhammad's time (for reasons of poverty according to VI, 151 and XVII, 31). These are some of the qualities of the truly pious person who in the Quran is sometimes called a muslim (LXVIII, 35; XXI, 108, etc.) sometimes a Hanif (X; 105; XXX, 30; XCIII, 5; cf. VI, 79 and the article), but more frequently simply a believer.

And the quote from Peters:

The messenger of God- God bless him and preserve him-summoned to Islam secretly and openly, and there responded to God whom he would of the young men and weak people, so that those who believed in him [or "Him"] were numerious and the unbelieving Quraysh did not criticize what he said. When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." This lasted until God (in the Quran) spoke shamefully of the idols they worshiped other than Himself and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief. At that they came to hate the Messenger of God - God bless him and preserve him - and to be hostile to him. (Ibn Sa'd I/1, p. 133).

Arrow, if you have any other quotes, please add them here and the we will go ahead and summarize them in the article. --Aminz 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Change #3 ; How persecutions started

We start the section in the opposition section by mentioning how and why the persecutions began. This is related to part of Arrow's addition that explains how the persecutions began.

Arrow, please let me know if you agree with this.

Ch3. Quotes for use

Welch says

"This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town...Meccan merchants then discovered that a religious revolution might be dangerous to their fairs and their trade.

Robinson says

One apparently reliable source even states categorically that the persecution of the members of the sect started 'when Muhammad mentioned their idols.'...The beginning of this hostile attitude was marked by the revelation abrogating the 'satanic verses'.

Peters says

The Quran thus characterizes the Quraysh as stubborn reactionaries, but it seems to be more than just blind traditionalism. The verse just cited categorizes the opponents of the Warning as "the rich among them," or "the well-off," which has suggested to some that there was a strain of social and economic tension in the Quraysh resistance. The "rich among them" might indeed resist the oft-repeated warning that each man was but a custodian of his wealth and would be called upon to give and account of his stewardship on the Day of Judgment... there is no naming of names in the Quran, no direct criticism, and Muhammad certainly gives no impression that he was zealous to turn the money-changers out of the Temple or that he was essaying the role of a Meccan Savonarola. We obviously don't have the whole story, but on purely "spiritual" grounds, the eventually violent Meccan rejection of Muhammad remains as mysterious as the kind of opposition that led to the execution of Jesus... Other less spiritual motives have been advanced... Some have argued that it was the fear that Muhammad would overturn the prevailing combination of piety and commerce that constituted the Hajj, whereas others have insisted that there is no evidence that Muhammad had any intention of such, nor that the Quraysh anticipated the dismantling of the religious and commercial arrangement bringing them whatever degree of prosperity they enjoyed. It is indeed true that Muhammad showed no sign of ever intending entirely to abolish the Hajj as such, but there are at least suggestions that he may have had problems with some of the Meccan ritual proper... We can not tell if those anxieties were religious or commercial, but Meccan polytheism and its cultus seem to have been at issue in Muhammad's preaching and the Quraysh reception of it.

The relevant passages from our current opposition section

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.

Arrow, if you have more quotes please add them here --Aminz 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

The point here is to resolve disputes first. So to resolve the SV incident issue, we put what we have (including WilyD's change) in the "opposition" section. There are two ideas as to why he did it: one, to reduce opposition; two, to increase the effectiveness of his drive for converts in the presence of little opposition, but also little interest. The timing of the Abyssinia migration varies depending on the scholars' view of which it was. We can list the various POV's on the issue later (or not at all if possible).

I have shown that the harsh opposition came from two primary sources; denouncing idols and damning forefathers. These must be in the article. So to wrap up, to resolve the current dispute, we put the current version of the SV incident and the causes for the opposition in the "opposition" section. Then we handle the various views on the climate in which the SV incident and migration occured. Alright? Arrow740 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, thanks for your response. The dispute is not actually about the SV incident itself. It is about the statements following it.

Please note that you have included the sentence: "Before this they had tolerated him, even reportedly saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven." There are two problems, I think, with this: One is that the Quraysh were initially indifferent to him (Ibn Sad says: "unbelieving Quraysh did not criticize what he said"). To say they tolerated him means they did pay attention to what he said but decided not to say anything. But the most important point, in my view, is that this is the only place in the article that we are talking about Muhammad's early preaching. This sentence unfortunately can not serve as a summary of that section (see Talk:Muhammad#Ch2._Quotes_for_use) because it does not explain the characteristics of Muhammad's early preaching nor does it explain how the Quraysh viewed it.

As you can see the dispute is not about the wording of the SV incident itself.

Another point of difference was "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."

Addition of this quote here supports Rodinson (and Watt?)'s view that the emigration happened after SV but this is not the general view. Unfortunately, you've forgotten to attribute this un-general view to Rodinson. I don't have any problem with inclusion of this if we mention the more general view first. But this is not the main issue: The main issue is that this sentence touches the issue of "beginning of persecutions" but does not address all the reasons. I've gathered various quotes on this issue at Talk:Muhammad#Ch3._Quotes_for_use. I'd be happy to include Rodinson's view among others.

Arrow, while I agree that we need to focus on the existing dispute and I've tried to stay focused on that. Our current dispute is, I think, closely related to the above points. Please help me with providing more quotes on the issues and we can corroboratively write a fair summary of them. Cheers, --Aminz 05:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it "supports Rodinson and Watt," it is true as stated by them, Peters, and Cook. I'm not interested in proving points. Those two things are what started the opposition, regardless of when they were said. So to wrap up, to resolve the current dispute, we put the current version of the SV incident and the causes for the opposition in the "opposition" section. These are concrete steps that will resolve the current dispute about this section. None of your copied quotes contradict what I am proposing we place in that section.

We can decide how to handle the issue of the order in which the three things occured (SV incident, beginning of persecution, and migration to Abyssinia) later. The only sticky issue is whether the SV incident came before or after the start of the persecution. It is not disputed that relations worsened after the SV incident. Arrow740 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, your version adds "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. Before this they had tolerated him, even reportedly saying "this is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks things from heaven" immediately after the SV incident. This is only advancing Rodinson's view. As I mentioned before the general view is that denunciation of idols happened before SV.

And lastly I agree that those who agree with SV, agree that the relations worsened after the SV incident. But this was not a point of dispute, was it? --Aminz 05:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying (for the third or fourth time) that you can state this before the SV incident for the time-being while we work out how to portray the debate on the chronology. Arrow740 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. But Arrow, if we would like to include "After Muhammad denounced their idols and said that their fathers were in Hell because they died as unbelievers, the Quraysh began to persecute the Muslims" anywhere in the article, we should then also include other points such as "Some have argued that it was the fear that Muhammad would overturn the prevailing combination of piety and commerce that constituted the Hajj, whereas others have insisted that there is no evidence that Muhammad had any intention of such, nor that the Quraysh anticipated the dismantling of the religious and commercial arrangement bringing them whatever degree of prosperity they enjoyed. It is indeed true that Muhammad showed no sign of ever intending entirely to abolish the Hajj as such, but there are at least suggestions that he may have had problems with some of the Meccan ritual proper" and "Meccan merchants then discovered that a religious revolution might be dangerous to their fairs and their trade" and lastly, "suggested to some that there was a strain of social and economic tension in the Quraysh resistance. The "rich among them" might indeed resist the oft-repeated warning that each man was but a custodian of his wealth and would be called upon to give and account of his stewardship on the Day of Judgment".

Without this it would be POV (that is not all POV). --Aminz 06:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have only produced contradicting POV's. I on the other hand have found facts sourced to reliable sources, and even one of the primary sources that the modern scholars are looking at. Let's keep the "some have argued" material out. Arrow740 06:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes Arrow. I have found various "Points Of Views" :) And my point is that all of them should be included otherwise the article would become un-neutral per WP:NPOV policy. :) --Aminz 06:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The best way to write this is to state the facts. The fact is that when he attacked their idols, they began harsh opposition. The rest is speculation. I suppose that you therefore fully support Watt's statement that Muhammad considered intellectual attacks an unforgiveable sin? Arrow740 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, it is a good practice to try to state facts. Another fact here is that most of the opposition came from a certain group of Meccans, that is the merchants. Why? As expected Welch says because of their profession: A religious revolution was "dangerous to their fairs and their trade"; it is also a fact that the Qur'an warns the "rich among them" for not believing in being a custodian of their wealth and that they will be called upon to give and account of their stewardship on the Day of Judgment. Now, it is Peter's opinion that this may very well have went on the nerves of the "rich among them". That can be excluded. Other speculations about how a revolution could have disrupted the trade of Mecca can too be excluded from here and moved to the specific articles on those events. --Aminz 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you got the message. Please try to be more clear. It appears that there is no more dispute here at present. Arrow740 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

as i explained above, a major problem with Arrow's version is the tone of the language behind it. that includes the selective quote from a primary source in Peters showing how he had "even" been tolerated. the next page contains an extract from Tabari as to how the Meccan leaders conspired to persecute, but as we aren't in the business of quoting primary sources at will to advance viewpoints, there is no such need for it. (i am all for addressing the SV passage too. the touting of a "hard won compromise" on this issue is an illusion; there is none).

there is also an issue with this sentence ("These verses were later retracted, and relations between his followers and their pagan fellow-tribesmen became bitterly hostile"), which implicitly affirms the authenticity of the aforementioned controversial account by joining it with the start of the persecution. the breaking of this sentence serves to seperate these two different incidents, which a number of historians do not believe are related.

thus, with a few changes as suggested by WilyD, i propose: "The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen now became hostile; while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccans' idols and condemnation of their pagan forefathers provoked hostile reactions." there has currently been no opposition to "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.", so i propose that too be reinserted. ITAQALLAH 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the first paragraph, it doesn't help us here. For the second, there is no dispute that after the retraction, relations worsened, so your statement is incorrect. I have already said that we can separate the SV incident from the beginnings of the opposition while we work out how to present the stances on the chronology. For the third paragraph, the "tone" of your proposal (which for the first time mentions their forefathers) is transparently original. Rodinson says "pious ancestors," because from the Meccans' perspective, that's just what they were. Merely calling them "pagan" (which is a loaded word to most people reading this encyclopedia, not that that disqualifies it) removes this key fact. And "condemnation" is also an unfortunate attempt to whitewash. The reality is "eternal torment." We could say "when he consigned their pious ancestors to hellfire" as Rodinson says just that. His pronouncements on the issue deserve more weight than yours. Arrow740 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

the first paragraph of my comments is relevant here and open for input, because it involves the issue with the tone of the extract under discussion. as for the second, the dispute is over whether there was ever any retraction at all, and putting it in the same sentence links it to the worsening relations. just because Rodinson uses particular phrasings or language that are highly opinionated (and he is under no obligation to be neutral), doesn't mean we must replicate them in order to circumvent WP:NPOV. are you willing to accept the structure of the sentence i have proposed above? if so, then we can move forward to discuss the issue of words like condemnation (it doesn't whitewash anything really) or pagan. ITAQALLAH 09:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By using words like "tone" and "stitching," you are not really saying anything. You must be specific and make yourself understood. Your attempts to change what is attributed to Rodinson to your own opinions are outside of policy. Arrow740 05:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You can remove the "even" and replace it with "to the extent that." Also please try to be more precise in the future, linking your comments to specific extracts or sentences in the article and analyzing them clearly instead of using vague descriptions. Arrow740 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, i have tried to be as specific as possible in our discussions, you may wish to review them (i.e. [9]) and ask for any clarification where necessary. you are pushing expressions from Rodinson, precisely because the language used in those passages is slanted (please demonstrate where i have inserted my own opinions, by the way). this is what you previously attempted to do unsuccessfully with language like "brigandage" and "aggressive political violence." ITAQALLAH 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing "tone" is not useful. In the future, explain what wording is inappropriate and why. I am encouraged by your discussion of the word "even" and responded in kind. I am not pushing anything but facts sourced to reliable sources, something you object to. By changing "consign pious ancestors to hell fire" to "condemn" you remove the meaning and render a misleading sentence. Actually Lewis is the original source of the word "brigandage," and that is the correct word. If you disagree, say why. "Aggressive political violence" is also true, if not say why. I included that material when I could not convince you and Aminz to make the "beginnings of conflict" better than a list of copy-pastes. Arrow740 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

i have explained why repeating slanted or loaded language just because some authors might employ them is not neutral. if we are to move forward, i need an answer from you as to whether or not you accept the basic structure of the narrative i proposed ("The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen now became hostile; while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccans' idols and condemnation of their pagan forefathers provoked hostile reactions. 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."), after which we can discuss the issue of "pagan" and how to elaborate on "condemnation". ITAQALLAH 12:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A concrete suggestion

Here is a concrete suggestion. Please let me know the disagreements you might have about it. I have made the new additions as bold

Early years in Mecca

According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.

Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.

According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he[Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor. Religous duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls.

Opposition in Mecca

According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped other than Himself[God] and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief." According to Watt, "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.

MENTIONING SV INCIDENT HERE AND THE HIJRA TO ETHIOPIA - THEIR TIMELINE- ROBINSON'S view etc etc

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. Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. 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.

Since Muhammad himself was under the protection of Abu Talib, the head of the clan of Banu Hashim, nobody had directly attacked him. According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. At this time, Muhammad arranged for some of his followers to emigrate to Ethiopia. The boycott lasted for three years.

Any comment? --Aminz 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it is Watt who promulgated the theory and is the person who endorses it the most strongly. I don't know what your motive is in attributing that idea Rodinson, but please don't do it again. Arrow740 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise I have to say it's a reasonable proposal and I will accept it as a place to move forward from. Arrow740 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arrow. We can attribute it to Watt. I have seen a passage in which Rodinson explicitly says that. We already have the following theory of Watt in the article: While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt, a professor of Islamic studies, states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."--Aminz 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the proposed text doesn't address that issue, I'll make this change tommorow if no one's objected. WilyD 23:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The only thing remaining here is to mention SV incident in the opposition section instead of the last years in Mecca. --Aminz 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding Watt Rodinson theory

Arrow, Thanks for informing me about Watt. I looked at his work. He says that The great merchants tried (but failed) to come to some arrangements with Muhammad in exchange for abandoning his preaching happened and then he comments: "The hostility between Muhammad and the great merchants became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses."

So, I have included his view in the following proposal (i.e. the sentence " William Montgomery Watt believes that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below)"):

Early years in Mecca

According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet. She was soon followed by Muhammad's ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, close friend Abu Bakr, and adopted son Zaid. The Identity of first male Muslim is very controversial.

Around 613, Muhammad began to preach amongst Meccans most of whom ignored it and a few mocked him, while some others became his followers. There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants; people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it; and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners.

According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he [Muhammad] said... When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." According to Welch, the Quranic verses at this time were not "based on a dogmatic conception of monotheism but on a strong general moral and religious appeal". Its key themes include the moral responsibility of man towards his creator; the resurrection of dead, God's final judgment followed by vivid descriptions of the tortures in hell and pleasures in Paradise; use of the nature and wonders of everyday life, particularly the phenomenon of man, as signs of God to show the existence of a greater power who will take into account the greed of people and their suppression of the poor. Religous duties required of the believers at this time were few: belief in God, asking for forgiveness of sins, offering frequent prayers, assisting others particularly those in need, rejecting cheating and the love of wealth (considered to be significant in the commercial life of Mecca), being chaste and not to kill new-born girls.

Opposition in Mecca

According to Ibn Sad, the opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped ... and mentioned the perdition of their fathers who died in disbelief." According to Watt, "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. William Montgomery Watt believes that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below).

Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers. 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. Apart from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim.

In 615, some of Muhammad's followers emigrated to the Ethiopian Kingdom of Aksum and founded a small colony there under the protection of the Christian Ethiopian king. While the traditions view the persecutions of Meccans to have played the major role in the emigration, William Montgomery Watt states "there is reason to believe that some sort of division within the embryonic Muslim community played a role and that some of the emigrants may have gone to Abyssinia to engage in trade, possibly in competition with prominent merchant families in Mecca."

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. Muhammad later retracted the verses saying Gabriel had instructed him to do so. Starting in the tenth century CE, Islamic scholars began to reject the account. The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen rapidly deteriorated.

According to the tradition, the leaders of Makhzum and Abd Shams, two important clans of Quraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu Hashim, their commercial rival in order to put pressure on the clan. The boycott lasted for three years.

--Aminz 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wily, I have merged the hijra to Ethiopia section into the persecution one since the sources put it before SV. (i.e. I have followed Britannica (Muhammad); the traditional timeline). Please remove the section "Hijra to Ethiopia" after this merge. Thanks very much. --Aminz 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, what do you think about the passage i suggested here? can that be incorporated into your proposal? ITAQALLAH 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be pointless. Aminz's version doesn't cut off bits of the truth like yours. Arrow740 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itaqallah,

I certainly agree that we should state the facts and avoid loaded language.

I would be thankful if you could explain the point you'd like to incorporate more. My understanding is that instead of mentioning that the Quran "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped", we actually find what the Quran has to say about idols and add them instead of using the term "shamefully". In other words, we go right to the facts instead of descriptions. I think this would be a good way to proceed. But I am not sure if I have understood it correctly. (2)

Regarding other part of your proposal:

"The relations between the Muslims and their pagan fellow-tribesmen now became hostile" (2)

Those Muslim sources that mention SV place it after Hijra to Ethiopia (that happened as a result of the persecutions). Watt (and more explicitly Rodinson) hold that those Muslim sources are distorted at that point and that SV happened before the Hirjra to Ethiopia. That SV marked the beginning of persecutions (Rodindson) or the real phase of persecution (Watt).

I have mentioned Watt's theory in one sentence in my proposal but I have followed the story by first mentioning the Hijra to Ethiopia and then SV. It might not be clear though that Watt's theory is his own theory.

Re:

"while the Quraysh had not previously shown significant opposition to Muhammad and his followers, his denounciation of the Meccans' idols and condemnation of their pagan forefathers provoked hostile reactions."

I tried to separate the phase in which merchants ignored Muhammad and the phase they opposed him in two sections. I am not personally a fan of adding the (in my mind) too specific comment of "When he passed by them as they sat in groups, they would point out to him and say "There is the youth of the clan of Abd al-Muttalib who speaks (things) from heaven." but since it appeared in Arrow's version, I decided to keep it.(3)

Re:

"part from insults, Muhammad was protected from physical harm due to belonging to the Banu Hashim."

I have included this :)

Re:

"This protection did not extend to much of his followers, who were subsequently persecuted by the Meccans."

I removed this because I thought this is already implied. After all, there was an emigration because of the persecutions.

Cheers, --Aminz 20:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

i haven't really been following the discussion concerning the ordering of the passages. i have numbered some of your comments for convenience so we can discuss them more easily (hope you don't mind). re (!), "shamefully" (and resembles the incorrect theme of "denigration") isn't the best choice of words, perhaps something along the lines of denouncement would be better? re (2), i think persecution commenced when the status of the idols were attacked, thus any discussion about persecution must be preceded by this. re (3), yes i think the primary source selection isn't appropriate either (it should also be attributed to Ibn Sa'd), especially in the light of multiple other primary sources that wouldn't reflect so favorably upon Meccan tolerance (a facet supposed to be emphasised by this extract). the basic point is that at one point the Meccans weren't so hostile (barring a few incidents i believe), and at a later point there were. ITAQALLAH 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with point #2 on how the persecutions started; in fact, we have created a section titled "early years in Mecca" that talks about the time Meccan merchants ignored Muhammad. In section opposition in Mecca, we only talk about the opposition. Re (3), Again I agree with you at that point. Of course, there are indeed authors who wouldn't reflect so favorably upon Meccan tolerance. But as usual it is better to mention the facts themselves rather than opinions. I suggest we add what Rodinson considers the summary of persecution in Mecca, i.e. he quotes Ibn Ishaq's report of the activity of Abu Jahl:

It was the villain Abu Jahl who roused the men of Quraysh against them. Whenever he heard that an honorable man, with a host of supporters, had been converted to Islam he would berate him soundly so as to shame him. "You have abandoned the faith of your father, although he was a better man than you," he would say. "We will show that you have acted like a fool and lack judgment, We will ruin your reputation." If the man were a merchant, he would tell them: "By Allah, We will boycott your business "so that you will lose all you have". If he was a person of no influence, he beat him and turned people against him.

Re (1), how about saying: when Muhammad said worshiping idols is a "tremendous sin", or "something sin" (for some "something"). I think this is the way the Qur'an deals with idol worshiping. Maybe just saying the Qur'an denounced idols doesn't convey how sinful, it thinks, is to worship idols. (?)

Please let me know what you think? --Aminz 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If I read this right, there's a consensus for the first bit now, at least roughly. So I'll switch that. What about the section heading "Hijra to Ethiopia" and the paragraph above it being dropped? Does anyone object to that? I won't change it for the moment. WilyD 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made the first set of changes - I'm holding off on the second set for now. The "According to Watt" sentence seems uncontraversial - but let's be patient. The change in the leadin to Hijra is a little different - at the very least, the area should have a link to the main article, I will suggest. WilyD 20:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wily, Thanks for making the changes. It seems that this edit [10] removed a paragraph; I am not sure if it was meant. I also have another request: can we change the sentence: Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols they[Meccans] worshiped other than Himself[God] to Muhammad delivered verses that "spoke shamefully of the idols [Meccans] worshiped other than [God]? Thanks --Aminz 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The bolded "William Montgomery Watt believes that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below)." should be stated a little differently as it doesn't quite summarize the debate on the issue. Arrow740 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you believe is a fairer summary?

Welch (in Allah and other supernatural beings) and others have proposed that Muhammad's monotheism evolved over time. Watt seems to be suggesting, and Rodinson indicates some support for the idea, that the retraction of the satanic verses marked the beginning of the strict monotheism, and initiated the open breach with the Quraysh. For now, let's say "some have suggested" while I see if I can get something about the proposed evolution of Muhammad's thought together. So it would be "Some scholars suggest that the opposition became an open breach after the incident of the satanic verses (see below)." Arrow740 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course we can cover various theories on Islam's monotheism, but probably not in this article. Allah seems more relevant but the best place seems to be an article on monotheism. I don't have any problem with "Some scholars suggest". --Aminz 03:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The version I inserted was the one listed here, if it dropped any content, then it's just the propogation of an earlier error. You're right about the formatting error, and I'll correct that as transparently uncontraversial WilyD 13:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wily. But I was referring to the paragraph removed in the following diff which was uncontroversial: [11] (I am refering to the paragraph started by "According to Ibn Sad, in this period, the Quraysh "did not criticize what he[Muhammad] said". --Aminz 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)