Not even sure where to start with this one, but it should be more in-depth and probably needs to be started from scratch.--John 22:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
This page should be fixed after everyone gets a good laugh at the vandal--Elamdri 00:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- Muhammad with a redirect from Mohammed. Here's some good source material THE POLITICAL CAREER OF MUHAMMAD (p.466 on) RobS 23:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Images depicting Muhammad
We had one in the article but someone removed it. I assume this is because of the modern Muslim taboo on images depicting Muhammad. Should Conservapedia adhere to this prohibition? Sulgran 21:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
- NO. It is not our job to censor ourselves of a historically accurate image due to the whining of some religious group. We can respect their values, but we certainly should not adhere to them. If we did, we'd all be wearing turbans and praising Allah right about now. --Hojimachongtalk 22:32, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
There is no 'modern taboo' on his images. For more than 1000 years no pictures of him were permitted incase people started to 'worship' it- because he is a Prophet, not to be mistaken for Allah. Also, no picture is worthy to depict the beauty of the Prophet. Respecting a religion does not require one to adhere to it- you repsect thats all you do. For example, if I were to enter a Church, in respect of the religion, I would dress modestly- not like a nun. On another note, there is a mistake in the article in relation to the so called "massacre of Jews in Madina" (mind you the source of this statement is NOT reliable). Yes there were three Jewish tribes living in Madina when the Prophet (peace be upon him) and fellow Muslims settled there. The first thing Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did was sign a treaty with the Jews, however, the Jews broke this treaty as of day one when they tried to force the Muslims out of Medina. The Jews were actually waiting for a Prophet to arrive, however, as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) was Muslim they rejected his Prophethood.
- Of course, there is no "modern taboo", and I think Sulgran knew that. And if I am not mistaken, the Shi'as are much more lenient when it comes to showing pictures.
- And thank you for the comparison of you entering a church and showing respect. Unfortunately, this is not a holy building; it is an encyclopedia, which will portray Muhammad as a historical figure first, prophet next. As a historical figure, he existed, and notable artists have portrayed him. --Hojimachongtalk 11:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Why is there no citation for the part of this article?Prof0705 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)