Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arrow740 (talk | contribs) at 10:44, 5 December 2006 (→). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Diplomatic career of Muhammad received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

An entry from Diplomatic career of Muhammad appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 September, 2006.

Diplomatic career of Muhammad was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 23, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

/Archive 1

GA failed

I'm sorry to fail the second GA nomination of this article. The main issue is that the article's content is not in agreement with its title. Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or nations. This article discusses the following episodes of Muhammad's life:

• Muslim migration to Abyssinia (615) — this is not diplomacy. Just sending your followers elsewhere to hide has nothing to do with conducting negotiations with representatives of other groups.
• Journey to at-Ta'if (619) — this can be considered diplomacy because Muhammad is reported to have gone there to seek help.
• al-`Aqaba pledges (620—621) — this story on conversion of some people to Islamis is not diplomacy.
• Reformation of Medina (622—) — this is not diplomacy. Lawmaking, perhaps, but not diplomacy in any event.
• Events at Hudaybiyya (628) — this treaty can be considered diplomacy.
• Correspondence with other leaders — this section can be accepted.

Thus, I did not review those sections that do not fit into the article; the comments on the rest are below.

Well written: Fail. The article contains quite a few pieces of awkward writing, for example: Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat, One of the ways this was achieved was through the Constitution of Medina, The nature of his communication with leaders was broadly to establish correspondence on the premise of calling them to accept Islam., The reason for Muhammad directing his efforts towards at-Ta'if may have been due to the lack of positive response from the people of Mecca to his message until then., In rejection of his message, and fearing that there would be reprisals from Mecca for having hosted Muhammad (non-parallel structure), he would pray in the hopes of preceding generations of at-Ta'if coming to accept Islamic monotheism. (do you mean "succeeding generations"?) At this point, I simply grew tired. Please do a thorough copyediting of this article.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail. The article is verifiable to reasonably good sources, but I have noticed several inaccuracies. The treaty of Hudaybiyya stipulated returning to Mecca not only minors, but also women. His followers were greatly disappointed at the conclusion of the conclusion of the treaty of Hudaybiyya; this is an important fact that the article has omitted. A Meccan being murdered by a Muslim sounds like an innovative casus belli for Muhammad's attack on Mecca; all the sources I know say it was a skirmish between two Bedouin tribes allied with Muhammad and the Meccans respectively.

Broad in scope: Pass. The article is actually too broad in scope, see above. The sections under review are fine.

NPOV: Fail. The article has several POV issues. One of them is the consistent usage of words like "call" and "message", which are inappropriate outside of religious context ("preaching" should be fine). Probably, the most significant POV issue is the exaggeration of the "controversy" on the authenticity of the letters sent by Muhammad. Every non-Muslim academic source I'm aware of dismisses them as forgeries, so we can safely speak of a consensus. I didn't check Irfan Shahid, but then this would be the only source arguing for the authenticity of letters. This problem afflicts the whole section on letters, not just the lead paragraph.

Stable: Pass. No significant changes or edit warring has been noticed.

Pictures: Fail. Some captions are not NPOV, insofar as they assert the seals displayed were actually used by Muhammad. For example, Imprint of seal stamped on letters sent by Muhammad. and Another rendering of the seal used by Muhammad. assert that the seals are authentic, which is POV.

Feel free to nominate the article again after the problems are fixed. Beit Or 21:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your contribution. i will aim to respond to your points soon. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK here are some comments:

• "diplomacy" has two general connotations (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=21895&dict=CALD http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/ahdsearch?search_type=enty&query=diplomat&db=ahd&Submit=Search). i interpret the general implication of 'diplomacy'/'diplomat' to be rather broad. it is arguable that each of the sections which you feel are not within the definition of diplomacy may well be so.
  • for the Abyssinia section, it is clear from the available accounts that Ja'far was a representative of Muhammad, speaking on behalf of him, in trying to persuade the Negus to retain the Muslims there. of course there must have been some sort of diplomatic and conciliatory relationship between Negus and Muhammad, else Muhammad would not have been able to organise a second convoy to be sent to Abyssinia. in that sense we can conclude there had been liasing between the two heads of state/communities, and i think this fits under the category of diplomacy.
  • for the Aqaba pledges, i think this is also within the definition and connotation of diplomacy, in that a pledge of this kind is an agreement with stipulations and implications and a general system of man-management.
  • for the reformation of Medina, i think the EoI's assertion here is sufficient. about Muhammad in Medina and the role he was to play there: "The tasks that awaited for him called for extraordinary diplomatic and organising skills, and he demonstrated that he was in every way equal to the challenge." and even more explicitly, talking about the Constitution of Medina and its impact, EoI says: "It reveals his great diplomatic skills, for it allows the ideal that he cherished of an umma (community) based clearly on a religious outlook to sink temporarily into the background and is shaped essentially by practical considerations." i think that sufficiently proves the relevancy of this section.
• prose: yes i think it could do with some slight tweaking although the problem is not very significant IMO.
• pictures: i have fixed the captions.

i will comment on your analysis re: NPOV/verifiability in a moment. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you interpret the word "diplomat" as "skill in dealing with people without offending or upsetting them", then every instance of Muhammad settling a dispute within his household will qualify for inclusion into this article. Unfortunately, this would make no sense. Beit Or 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ok i have tried introducing the points on accuracy which you mentioned which were correct. i don't think restricting diplomacy to the modern implication of embassies, ambassadors and representatives is appropriate. surely any kind of liasing with other leaders as with Negus or establishing crucial agreements/pledges as with Aqaba (the pivotal importance of both historians do not deny) should certainly be relevant under the umbrella of 'diplomacy'. other instances would not merit mention as they are not important or relevant to Muhammad's role in forwarding his cause. neutrality wise i'll try to make some changes on the points you mention, but i think that opposition on the letters issue by scholarly personalities like Nadia El-Cheick, Irfan Shahid (and implicitly Cambridge History of Islam) and M. Hamidullah (as well as Forward who suggests some sort of letters were probably sent) is enough for it to be considered a dispute of significance. ITAQALLAH 19:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the quotes from Nadia El-Cheick, Irfan Shahid and Cambridge History of Islam that you find to be supportive of the letters' historicity? It would be interesting to learn about such views. As far as Hamidullah is concerned, he worked within the confines of Islamic religious scholarship, so his views are no surprise. We can safely say that the ulema believe in the authenticity of the letters, no problem with that. Beit Or 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the same argument: Bernard Lewis or Norman Stillman are Jew so their views are that of Jewish Rabbis. --Aminz 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that Lewis and Stillman are recognized as secular academics, no matter what their private beliefs and observances are, while Hamidullah is not an authority among secular academics. Hopefully, Aminz will not be able to posion the calm and friendly atmosphere of this talk page with his inflammatory remarks. Beit Or 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic scholars cite him and his works are scholarly. Furthermore see WP:Civility --Aminz 22:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, you're the last person to lecture anyone on civility. What evidence do you have that he was a secular academic scholar? Beit Or 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

See the footnote of "El-Cheikh, Nadia Maria (1999). "Muhammad and Heraclius: A Study in Legitimacy". Studia Islamica 89: 5—21." which cites Hamidullah. --Aminz 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

An what does this footnote say? Beit Or 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, i will compile the relevant quotes in a moment. in the meantime, could you respond to my other comments? i would offer one correction, Cambridge History actually rejects the historicity and Irfan Shahid criticises the author (presumably Serjeant from what i gathered after a cursory glance) for this in his review of the publication, asserting that they are valid (most notably Heraclius' letter): so i apologise for the above error. i actually remember ascertaining that a month or two ago, but i must have forgotten about it. ITAQALLAH 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

quotes for Beit Or

• listing some mild points of critique against the author in his review of Cambridge History of Islam, Irfan Shahid says (7):

His presentation, however, could have been more effective (1) the pre-Islamic material should have been clearly separated from the islamic and this should have been reflected visually in the divisions of the chapter; (2) even the Islamic portion should have been divided in the interests of clarity into Muhammedan, Orthodox or Patriarchal, and Umayyad; (3) pre-Islamic prose might have received more attention from Serjeant in view of his conclusions on literate pre-Islamic Arabia and since it is usually treated unceremoniously partly because of the ghosts of authenticity... ... (7) the rejection of the authenticity of Muhammad's letters to the rulers and monarchs is unjustified. Recent research has established the authenticity of the Letter to Heraclius, although Heraclius may never have received it and the embroideries surrounding the letter have, of course, to be rejected.

• Nadia El-Cheick writes much of her account on the relationship between Muhammad and Heraclius under the assumption that Muhammad did communicate with Heraclius. i wasn't able to find her own personal opinion explicitly affirming historicity but she does say:

The authenticity of the letters of the prophet Muhammad to the Emporer Heraclius, the Persian Kind Chosroes, the Negus of Abyssinia and to others have been the subject of great controversy. Muhammad Hamidullah believes in the authenticity of the letter of the prophet Muhammad and has reiterated his position more recently.

she then goes on to outline Serjeant's rejection and provides quite substantial footnotes over the pages referring to a number of Hamidullah's works. she also says that Arab chroniclers/historians did not doubt the authenticity, and she notes that the different versions of the narrative are very similar. after providing the text of the letter, she writes:

The letter sent to Heraclius was very similar in its phrasing and content to letters which the Prophet had supposedly sent to other contemporaneous rulers. A letter bidding the Persian king to embrace Islam or do battle (26) infuriated Chosroes who tore it apart and wrote to his governor in Yaman ordering him to march on Medina, fight Muhammad, and take him prisoner and send him to the Persian capital (27). The arrogance and total rejection of Islam by the Persian ruler as well as his outright insult to the Prophet is contrasted with the respectful behaviour of Heraclius, who is said to have read the letter and then placed it between his thighs and ribs (28).

the footnote (26) again mention Hamidullah and a work of his in a journal (see below) as well as the work of another author, the other footnotes are citing sources containing the narratives. her narrative of events continues (quite extensively, for essentially the rest of the 18 page article) all under the premise of authentic communications between Muhammad and Heraclius.

• Hamidullah is a notable opponent because he is referrred to by both the EoI and by Nadia El-Cheick. that Nadia El-Cheick herself believes Hamidullah's opinions to be noteworthy, citing an article of his from Revista Degli Studi Orientali XL (1965), as well as Arabica ii (i don't know much about this journal, it is cited in some of the JSTOR articles though) suggests that he is a notable figure within this debate. ITAQALLAH 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He definitely is a notable figure. One can have a look at here:. His bibliography can be read at:. He started his publication career at the age of 16. He definitely is notable and scholarly as well! TruthSpreader 04:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also you would like to see on google scholar:. TruthSpreader 04:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Itaqallah, for the quotes. What I see from here and from the sources I'm aware of is that Hamidullah claimed to have discovered an authentic letter to Heraclius and that Irfan Shahid finds his claims credible. Other scholars continue to reject the authenticity of the letters. Beit Or 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it seems that he asserts that rejecting accounts of letters to leaders is unjustified, citing the letter to Heraclius as an example. i'm not sure that Hamidullah claimed to have the original copy, just that he produced what he believed to be the original text. it was in fact King Hussayn of Jordan in 1977 who claimed to have the original letter as El-Cheikh states in a footnote, which was apparently analysed by "specialists having confirmed its authenticity." yet, as El-Cheikh says, it is a topic of controversy. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

for Proabivouac

please see the references given at the end of the paragraph. Watt on page 94 (give or take a page) says the constitution was perhaps the culmination a series of agreements between Muhammad and the Medinans. EoI is more explicit, stating: "A more significant factor in the termination of these early arrangements in Medina may have been the formal agreement established between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families. Fortunately, Ibn Ishak preserved a version of this very valuable document, usually called the Constitution of Medina." ITAQALLAH 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me who states that this document was signed by the Jews? To this point, my impression is that Muhammad obtained agreement only from some of the Aws and Khazraj, with many of these opposing him as well. Currently, you've attributed this to Ibn Hisham, which if I'm not mistaken you would usually call original research.

Lewis writes in The Arabs in History, "The document is not a treaty in the modern sense, but rather a unilateral proclamation."Proabivouac 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't think there is a contradiction here: Muhammad seems to be the one who laid out the conditions (as Lewis says), with all major elements of Medinan society agreeing to it as asserted by Watt and EoI. by 'signing' the intended meaning is that the parties agreed to it, thereby enacting a contract between the peoples. Watt also says: "This document, the Constitution of Medina, may be taken to show that the people of Medina were now regarded as constituting a political unit of a new type, an ummah or 'community'. In some ways it was like a federation of nomadic clans or tribes. It was bound together by their solemn agreement with one another." he then continues to talk about this analogy of tribal federations. i think this, as well as the EoI quote, shows that all parties were involved, and were in conscious agreement with the constitution. i don't have immediate access to Ibn Hisham at this very moment, but it is essentially confirmed by the other sources provided. ITAQALLAH 21:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Watt mean all the significant tribes and families of only the Aws and the Khazraj, or of all of Madina, including the Jews? Lewis makes it pretty clear that the Jews were opposed to Muhammad from the start, as if that were not already obvious from what happened soon thereafter. "Essentially confirmed" Ibn Hisham is not. Nor is "signed" an acceptable substitute for "agreed" - the latter is already very much in doubt, while the former indicates something very formal and specific. Such substitutions approach fabrication.Proabivouac 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

you may wish to read the quote again. Watt means all of Medina, this is what "people of Medina" means. similarly, "all of the significant tribes and families" from EoI means all elements of Medina, including the three main Jewish tribes. neither of these two sources say anything about Jews being excluded from the agreement, and it would certainly have been something to note. does Lewis state that the Jews did not enter into agreement with Muhammad, or just that they still harbored hostility for him? you have very little evidence on which to accuse others of anything close to 'fabrication'. ITAQALLAH 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Itaqallah, there is no evidence that the Constitution of Medina was ever signed. Furthermore, it is not clear when exactly this document came into being. The names of the major Jewish tribes of Medina — Qurayza, Nadir, and Qaynuqa — are not mentioned in it, so it's arguable that it was drafted after the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. In addition, as I have pointed out above, the Constitution of Medina has nothing to do with diplomacy; at most, it's lawmaking. Beit Or 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

that is certainly not a theory espoused by EoI or any mainstream narrative i am aware of. about its establishment, Watt says the exact date is probably not discernible, and probably consisting of a series of agreements. and according to EoI, the establishment of the Constitution of Medina was an example of diplomacy, and more precisely: Muhammad's "diplomatic skill." ITAQALLAH 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves, this argument is advanced by Moshe Gil in "The Constitution of Medina: A Reconsideration" Israel Oriental Studies 4 (1974). Anyway, as Proabivouac has pointed out, the Constitution of Medina was a unilateral document. If Arabs in History by Bernard Lewis is not enough, see also The Jews of Arab Lands by Norman Stillman. Beit Or 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

neither Stillman nor Gil (esp. the latter) are considered major authorities in the field of islamic history to my knowledge. i don't think Gil's revisionism has much of a bearing upon the established scholarly opinion. Lewis says that the constitution was a unilateral proclamation, meaning that only one party had decided upon and established the conditions, which is not how current day constitutions are drafted. this does not contradict with the notion that Jewish tribes et al agreed to it, unless you can provide statements from Lewish asserting that. Stillman ascribes 'promulgation' of the constitution, yet this seems to be a minority opinion in the face of the majority of scholarly works i am aware of which claim otherwise. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

according to Uri Rubin (in Studia Islamica), Wellhausen and Wensinck both thought the references to Jews in the Constitution referred directly to the three main tribes, that is: Nadir, Qurayza, Qaynuqa. also according to Rubin, "One of the main objects of the 'Constitution' was to determine the relations between the Muslims and Jews of Medina within the framework of a new kind of unity." ITAQALLAH 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

furthermore, we have RB. Serjant (in his article analysing the text of the 'Constitution of Medina') who asserts, essentially as Watt has done, that the Constitution is a culmination of a series of agreements between Muhammad and the various parties of Medina. he explicity mentions the Jews as those who dealt with Muhammad in this constitution. Serjeant divides the agreements into eight seperate documents, labelled A to H (p9) some of which are sub-articles dealing with Jews. Serjeant explicitly refers to the Jews as literal signatories, stating that Ibn Ishaq probably transcribed the constitution from a rendering which had omitted the exhaustive list of signiatories (p10):

... The documents relating to the Jews likewise would probably contain the names of Jewish signatories, for instance that of the chief Ka'b b. Asad al-Qurazi to document F. I am inclined to view the 'Constitution' as preserved by Ibn Ishaq as having been transcribed from a sort of reference copy already omitting tiresome lists of signatures. Had the full copy been available to Ibn Ishaq I postulate that he would have either given the list of signatories or commented upon them- perhaps therefore the reference copy was made even by Ali himself

Serjeant also explicitly states (p4): "The three tribes with whom Muhammad had political dealings were Qaynuqa, Nadir and Qurayzah, the first silversmiths, and the two latter owning palm-groves and being known as the two kahins and also as Banu 'l-Sarih."

so there is plenty of scholarly evidence available that the constitution included agreement between Muhammad and the main Jewish tribes, and as far as i am aware this is the mainstream scholarly view. i have cited EoI, Watt, Wensinck and Wellhausen (through Uri Rubin, i have not read his article completely so i do not know his view yet), Serjeant, and Forward whose narrative is sedate and conventional. i also believe the statement of Lewis has been misinterpreted, 'unilateral proclamation' or not, there is no evidence of him suggesting that the Jews did not agree to the constitution, only that it was drafted and established by one party (i.e. Muhammad's). i don't know what mention, if any, fringe narratives merit. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The passage you quote does not, in fact, state that the Jews were signatories, but that the relevant documents "would probably" contain their names. Per Beit Or, there seems to be a good measure of doubt as to the authenticity of what has been handed down to us as this Constitution of Madina. Welch notes that it is nowhere mentioned in the Qur'an, save for one verse of debatable significance.

Lewis' narrative is hardly a "fringe" one, nor is it being misinterpreted. He'd just mentioned the Ibn Hisham story refererring to an agreement, and his follow-up can only be meant as it conscious and direct refutation. I'll share more from this book if you like. He asserts that Muhammad didn't enjoy broad support even among the Aws and Khazraj, and mentions the Jews as opponents only. At best, the recitation you are putting forth as fact is very much in dispute.Proabivouac 02:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Serjeant thinks it's extremely likely that there were actual signings, especially in the context of what he says beforehand:

Each of the eight documents must have bourne the signatures or seals of the various contracting parties. At the Hudaybiya treaty the names of the Muhajirun and of Meccan Quraysh were written at the top. This practice persisted in south Arabia until recent times, and documents carries a row of seals or signatures at the top of the paper above the written text. Such south Arabian agreements often employ with signatures the term aqarra bi... which appears in document B/3a.

As signatories on behalf of the contracting parties we may confidently restore Muhammad's seal and names of leading Quraysh Muhajirun, the names of the naqibs representing the Khazraj and three Aws tribes with whom Muhammad had to deal in matters affecting the tribes of Yathrib, and most probably certain Munafiqun such as 'Abdullah b. Ubayy of a group belonging to Banu Awf of Khazraj- indeed the conclusion that his name appeared among the signatories seems inescapable. The documents relating to the Jews... (see above for rest of quote)

i am not talking about Lewis' narrative, as you have brought no evidence bar one ambiguous sentence as to what Lewis' narrative is. i have already discussed what i think Lewis means and why it contradicts nothing of conventional narrative, and i have seen the passage in its context. you claim doubt over the document, yet you have not substantiated it. it seems a rather ridiculous assertion, especially in the light of the fact that the majority of academic scholarship accepts the notion of a constitution at the conventional time. pointing to analysis of unpopularity, whether amongst Jews or Arabs, is a red herring, it has nothing to do with who did or didn't sign the constitution- it is in fact accepted that for the most part Jews retained animosity towards Muhammad. bringing up Welch's statement is another red herring, i don't believe he casts any doubt upon the historicity of the document. almost all scholars accept that virtually nothing about the constitution is mentioned in the Qur'an. this, as they quite rightly recognise, has nothing to do with the historicity of the constitution. portraying it as something dubious and hotly disputed is most likely imaginative original research. ITAQALLAH 03:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am perplexed by your claim that Gil or Stillman are not authorities on the Islamic history. Actually, both are the leading authority on the history of the Jews in Muslim lands. Furthermore, nowhere in the EoI do I find support for the claim that the Constitution of Medina was actually signed. What we can see from secondary sources is that the nature of the document, such as whether it was an agreement or a unilateral proclamation or its dating, are disputed among scholars. Beit Or 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the EoI states that there was a "formal agreement" amongst all significant tribes and families, known as the Constitution of Medina, and that this was an example of Muhammad's "great diplomatic skills." regardless of whether it was literally "signed" or not, the Jewish tribes did agree to it. there is no contradiction between saying that it was a unilateral proclamation and that all the tribes agreed to it. as i have opined before, it seems likely that Lewis is essentially saying it is a constitution unlike the ones today which constitute wranglings between the parties on every clause and sub-clause during the drafting; whereas the terms and conditions of the Medinan constitution were drafted and declared by Muhammad: a "unilateral proclamation." (which probably also explains Stillman's attribution of 'promulgation') yet this does not mean that the Jews had refused to agreed to its terms, so this one sentence from Lewis is not enough to support such a notion. neither is Lewis's discussion about enmity of the Jews for Muhammad or whatever, because almost all scholars note this while maintaining that they were still adherents to the constitution. and again, that Muhammad principally drafted and established the terms of the constitution is not disputed by scholars. ITAQALLAH 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's hairsplitting over details. The basis of the dispute is that the article states as fact that the Constitution of Medina was signed by all parties, which is an unjustified claim given the lack of clarity in the sources. Beit Or 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A way to get around would be to add all the secondary sources with their assertion of the event. So that reader can have the view from both sides. TruthSpreader 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and these minutiae actually belong to the notes in any article other than Constitution of Medina itself. Regardless, as I have pointed out above, the Consitution of Medina does not belong to this article at all. Beit Or 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitution is one of the most important events after the arrival of Muhammad. Removing will remove very important information. All scholarly sources mention it. And there is no reason to hide this information in footnotes. TruthSpreader 10:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing

This article is marred by poor writing at every turn. Examples include:

• "Muhammad (c. 570–632) is documented as having engaged as a diplomat…"
• "The arrival of Muhammad at Medina in 622 saw him altering the political and social landscape of…"
• "There are occasions where Muhammad had also participated…"Proabivouac 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

perhaps you can help fix it. why not start with the ones you have cited? ITAQALLAH 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I did fix it, only to have you (predictably) restore your old versions. "Muhammad's arrival saw..." is an abuse of the English language. Muhammad's arrival did not see anything.

Itaqallah, Misplaced Pages is intended to be a collaborative process.Proabivouac 08:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

His involvement in this article has seen him becoming an adept meatpuppeteer. Arrow740 10:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sealed Nectar

One of many examples demonstrating why this salafi religious tract should not be used: "The spirit of brotherhood as insisted by Muhammad amongst Muslims was the means through which a new society would be shaped."Proabivouac 10:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)]

Any of itaqallah's meatpuppets, please look at The Sealed Nectar before making reverts to versions quoting it. Thanks. Arrow740 10:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees