From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AllahuAkbar (Talk | contribs) at 10:40, 9 December 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

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)

Wow, Muhammad started life as a merchant? How did he manage a business in the womb?--Thomas 15:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Preferred Transliteration?

There is also a stub under Muhammad. Which should we prefer: Muhammad or Mohammed? Dr. Richard Paley 10:51, 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)

Well, if you want to display Muhammed (PBUH) as a historical figure, and just that, then I suppose the same should be done for other religions, too. Right? So, historically, Jesus was not a prophet, he was just some guy. Let's portray him that way since we don't need to respect other religions. I guess my real point is this: Stop being a jerk. Just because this encyclopedia has an American Christian bias, and is only presented in English does not mean you should treat others like this. The average Muslim is a much nicer person than most Christians I have known, since Islam has it's followers strive to be like the prophet, rather than just pray to him. I don't understand why you can regard so many others in this way for the actions of a few over-zealous people whom you place in the same category.


Why is there no citation for the part of this article?Prof0705 09:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


where is the image?Богдан Talk 13:36, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Removed by Andy, though I would like to see it re-inserted. It can be found at [Image:Maome.jpg] --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I see no reason why having this image on the page would be bad.Богдан Talk 13:45, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Visually depicting Muhammad is a grave sin in Sunni Islam. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:50, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Yeah I know, but this is not Sunnipedia. I'm pretty sure most of us are already grave sinners among the Islamic extremists anyway.Богдан Talk 13:52, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
Careful; that was a catch-all statement for Sunnis. Depicting Muhammad is a grave sin for every Sunni, not just the extreme ones. Unless of course you would like to define all Sunnis as extremists, which is a different discussion entirely. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

So what exactly is wrong with identifying all Sunnis as extremists? ChristianFaith 13:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Is this question intended to be provocative? Sunni's perhaps number close to one/fifth of the planets population. RobS 14:59, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Not provocative but a fact's a fact. It is a fact that Muslims self identify as extremists. Their Bible "the Koran" tells them to be. Let me see, forcing Christians into slavery in Somalia, stoning people to death for minor crimes, murdering christian missionaries and finally -murdering women and children up. For the record, not all self-identified Christians (the LRA) are excluded -But call something what it is.ChristianFaith 16:57, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Half right. And some good points. The question is how do you define extremist? If 20% of the population of planet earth are "extremist" by virtue of the culture and civilization they are born in, than we can probably conclude more than 20% of the planet earth's population are extremist, and possibly not even by virtue of their cultural upbringing, but something inherent in human nature.
This whole hypothesis is probably not supportable by any kind of rational or reasoned investigation--except it may be believed and propagated by other extremists. Hence you take a big risk offering that theory here. RobS 17:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
When put into the context of "should there be an image of Mohammed"? -there is very little risk. We are allowing the dictates of their society and their values to affect how we present information in our society. In our society -presenting images is the norm. We recognize that what images convey is more than "idolatry". (The reason that images of Mohammed are forbidden is to prevent Idol worship). Furthermore, the image that is posted is relatively tame and respectful [Image:Maome.jpg] -not like the one that I would post. Is there another reason that you aren't posting the image? -Did you get a bomb threat? ChristianFaith 19:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

more on "Sunni" ChristianFaith 13:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Too Politically Correct

To quote Scripture:

Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

(Please read the whole chapter for context)

Mohammed was a false prophet.

Also whoever put that extremely weak excuse that Mohammed's wife substituted numbers for her age is a liar. Mohammed was a pedophile.

"The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54...

Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama."

Mohammed was also a barbaric thief and would force people to convert to Mohammedism by force. Their current religion reflects this...

Of course being new here I wouldn't want to stir things up. What would the heathens say if the "Conservapedia" article on Mohammed told the truth? ChristianFaith 13:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh give me a break, you can be conservative all you want but that doesn't mean anti-Islam, pro-Christian, all the people editing religious articles are HEAVILY biased. Leave it to people who actually know about Muhammad not people that hate him, it just makes no sense at all. No ones telling you to like him, have some common decency, and respect. If you want to make a claim prove it, don't be a moron.