Template talk:Muhammad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I might be wrong, but isn't the inclusion of The Farewell Sermon a bit to detailed, considering the rest of the template? Further, remeber that Shi'a also attach importance to Ghardie Khumm, are we going to include that as well? You see were im going... --Striver 06:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Last sermon is important for many reasons
- 1) Accepted by Both Shia & Sunni, unlike ghadir khum.
- 2) Summerises the teaching of his whole life , & all prophets unlike ghadir khum.
- So its much more important than other things in his life.F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 12:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This template is getting quite beefed up :) --Striver 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Jews, Christians, slaves, animals
Striver, I'm going to guess this to have been unintentional, but don't you think there something vaguely offensive about a subsection which includes these four titles?[1]Proabivouac 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you remove Muhammad's attitudes towards animals?? Pls. explain.Bless sins 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- You even removed his status as a reformer. Why? Bless sins 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't removes slaves, but retitled it simply "Slaves," since it doesn't appear to be about only attitudes. For animals, it didn't look there was much there (although the same can be said for some of the others such as "Interaction with Christianity). "Reformer" I removed because the article is called Reforms under Islam, so should be on the Islam template (though having not really read it, perhaps it's simply mistitled?) You may restore them if you like (update: I just did.) We might discuss the encyclopedicity of "attitudes" articles, and their place on this template further, but for now, I wanted to remove Striver's unfortunate juxtaposition, as if Jews, Christians, slaves and animals constitute a natural category. I find it depressing that no one seemed concerned by this.
-
- Bless sins, what did you think of this section? And what do you think of my comments below?Proabivouac 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I still think this is better. But let's get some more opinions on this. After that we can choose which to keep.Bless sins 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Islamic view" vs. "Non-Islamic view"
Also, the division between "Islamic" and "non-Islamic" views seems rather artificial. It is possible for Muslims to criticize Muhammad, or to question some aspects of his historicity (as do Qur’an alone Muslims, and from a certain perspective do all schools where hadith are concerned), just as it is possible for non-Muslims to write poetry about Muhammad. Not all Muslims celebrate Mawlid, while not all non-Muslims criticize Muhammad, or doubt his historicity. This division is presumptious, artificial and unwarranted.Proabivouac 06:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think its possible for Muslims to criticize and remain a Muslim. By definition a Muslim is someone who follows Muhammad.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image
What is the basis of the image we use for the top of the template? I like the previous one better.Bless sins (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Christian perspective
I just noticed that on the template there is a wikilink for Christian perspective, but when you click on it you are brought to an article on only the medieval perspective. Perhaps the link title should be changed, or else the article be expanded to include a complete historical picture of the Christian view of Muhammad? Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
