Talk:Muhammad's attitude toward animals

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles

This article is terrible I know BUT someone had to get it out of the Reforms article.Opiner 22:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog pic

What is up with the dog puppy? At least, get a real wild black dog, that would be informative, a puppy is not informative, it is just decoration, and i rather have it not there. --Striver 23:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay remove it.Opiner 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. --Striver 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not encyclopedic. What are you going to have next - The Prophet's attitudes towards turbans? BhaiSaab ^talk 01:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its not encylopediac. Thats why I took it out of the Reform article. it looked really dumb there and even dumber in the Muhammad where it was originally. You should nominate to delete it.Opiner 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, you created it. If you want to have it speedy deleted, blank the contents of the page. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not so sure that its un-encyclopedic... but maybe a rename... --Striver 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...it is reported from Muhammad that he issued advice to kill the sinful (fawasiq) animal even within the holy area (haram) of Mecca..."? What? Animals can't sin. --Striver 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be the first time Muhammad made no sense. The article should be made encyclopedic and kept. It's an interesting topic. And me might have been nice to some animals, but he clearly had a somewhat insane idea about others. Arrow740 00:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any primary source for the hadith. Where is it? What is its Isnad?--Striver 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's attitude towards animals is hardly an encyclopedic subject: his attitude towards some animals is mentioned several times in his biogrpahies, but it's hardly worth an encyclopedia article. "Animals in Islam" may be a better idea, though. Beit Or 08:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? --Striver 11:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the attitude towards animals in Islam is not a subject worthy of an encyclopedia? Beit Or 21:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. They both are. Let's not forget how important the person in question is. --Striver 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude towards animals is usually not an encyclopedic topic for a biogrpahy unless the person is specifically notable for his attitude towards animals. Muhammad wasn't. Why didn't you start articles like Muhammad's attitude towards Jews, Muhammad's attitude towards Christians, Muhammad's attitude towards women, Muhammad's attitude towards pagans? These topics to be much more relevant and encyclopedic than his attitude towards animals and there is much more material on them. Beit Or 08:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's attitude towards Jews??? Desperately needed, in the light of the anti-Muslim POV article Islam and anti-Semitism.Bless sins 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does all that stuff in the green Scholarly Quote box near the end really belong in there? SophieCat 21:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a paper encyclopedia, here we have the The Headington Shark. I did not create this article, Opiner did. Go ahead and creat them, those are great suggested article. --Striver 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they do, its a scholars view on Muhammad's attitude towards animals.--Striver 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright SO can we bring back the dog and the gecko?Opiner 11:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ey what? No. The dog pictures is not representative of the wild grown up dogs, we both know that domestic anime-eyed puppies are not representative of those ordered to be killed. Stray dogs who pester people are routinely killed in many places around the world.--Striver 14:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can some post reasons here why this article should be deleted. Perhaps we can have a vote here afterwards.Bless sins 05:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit as of 16th January 2007

I'm going to delete the sentence that states cats are embodiment of demons etc. This has no source and does not fit with the love the Prophet had of cats. I'll also add a link to the article on Muezza.M2k41 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs

Please find secondary sources for "Muhammad commanded Muslims to kill dogs and sent men to kill them.[citation needed]Later he forbade the killing of dogs, except those completely black, whom he called devils.[citation needed]" Thanks. --Aminz 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watt's quote

Karl, the quote is well sourced. Why do you remove it? --Aminz 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you think that there need to be a greater context or diversity of opinions, feel free to provide it. We are not stopping you from that.Bless sins 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, should the "Sunnah" be changed to "Practice of Muhammad"?Bless sins 00:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. --Aminz 00:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence that this single specific incident, that is mentioned in the quote, is important in the context of Muhammads overall attitude towards animals? -- Karl Meier 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watt has arrived to this conclusion and we are quoting him. --Aminz 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section that you want to include is horribly biased and unbalanced towards to point of view that Muhammad was somehow kind to animals. If you want it to be included then find other sources that balances Watt's opinions. -- Karl Meier 01:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Muhammad was born in Mecca is baised towards saying he was an Arab. But it is true. Truth does takes sides. --Aminz 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be of the opinion that a person that among other things wanted to destroy entire species and make them instinct was somehow "kind to animals", but that doesn't make it the "truth". Only an opinion. I suggest that you start editing according to a balanced and neutral point of view and not according to your personal biases, even though you consider them to be the "truth". -- Karl Meier 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the unbalanced section to the discussion page here, where anyone interested can work on making it balanced and appropriate for including in the actual article.

=== Treatment of animals === Watt opines that Muhammad's kindness to animals was remarkable for his era. Watt states: "As his men marched towards Mecca just before the conquest they passed a bitch with puppies; and Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be disturbed, but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out." ^[1]

According to Botzler and Armstrong, "Animals are not to be caged or beaten unnecessarily, or branded on the face, or allowed to fight each other for human entertainment. They must not be mutilated while they are alive".^[2] -- Karl Meier 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'vc summarise the first part and included it in the appropriate place but the second part I haven't because it's not related to the subject matter. It has nothing to do with attitudes of Muhammed, rather it is a modern ethicist's statement of what limits humans should observe in the treatment of animals.DavidYork71 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

These are clearly chosen POV. The dogs at the time of Muhammad were wild dogs. This dog isn't. Same goes with gecko. What about putting the pictures of desert snake? What about cat or camel?

These images are put there to make negative emotions. --Aminz 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits like this (by Aminz): [1] , have removed illustrative content without offering a justification - which I have reverted back to include the pictures (depicting certain mentioned animals and halal slaughter). Please have awareness that among the 'Good Article criteria' is that the article includes pictures. Pictures with relevance to the subject matter should not be removed unless replaced by more informative substitutes.DavidYork71 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at my above comment. --Aminz 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can find a picture of a camel to introduce. The article or the pronouncement of Muhammed does not describe any restriction to 'wild' dogs, as we know there were instances of people having domestic and working dogs in that time and only such 'working' or hunting dogs were excused. Remember I'm not the person who gave the permissions for slaughtering and annihilation campaigns against certain animals, it's the article's subject.DavidYork71 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to me if we include a picture of desert-dog, desert-gecko, desert-snake, a bat together with a desert-camel and desert-cat. --Aminz 04:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and importance ratings requested

under WPreligionDavidYork71 05:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Response) B-class. Needs expansion. Broader coverage needed, such as addressing relevent hadith and the perception of this topic in Islamic culture. The article needs more citation as well. Low importance. This is a very specific topic covering a small area of faith. Vassyana 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I supply images previously provided, and some new

Is there any doubt as to the images portaying what they describe and having illustrative relevance to the article content? This refers to the topics of animals named in referenced comment there (geckos, dogs, whatever else), and halal slaughter. You'll note the latter is claimed as 'compassionate' in parts of the article though controverted by some informed comment elsewhere there. A picture of what's being discussed is going to inform the readers in their understanding of that particular subject. Please comment if that doesn't make sense. DavidYork71 08:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with addition of pictures that are emotionally charged or are not representative of Arabia. --Aminz 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then you'd be relying on the wiki policy which censors anything 'emotionally charged'. That policy doesn't exist because there is another bona fide policy called 'Wikipedia is not censored', otherwise most of the pictures on [9/11] would be suppressed. I encourage you to look for more Arabian-looking free image animals to insert. In the meantime, I'll do the best with what I can find knowing that nothing said in the article is qualified to be inapplicable outside Arabia.

From the Wiki 'Good article criteria'

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale.

It's certainly possible to illustrate the topic with images here. And it will be done.DavidYork71 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, the reason i removed them which you have not addressed is it is clear that you put them there as an attempt to ridicule and pass judgement on your interpretations of the topic. By placing a bloody picture of a traditional slaughther is clearly aiming to 'make a point' which is not your role. Most 'traditional' slaughter is like this Islamic or not - most westerners don't see it - but it has always been the way. Have a look for example at the cook Jamie Oliver's book "Jamie in Italy" and you will see equally gruesome pictures of 'traditional' farm slaughter and butchery.

The gecko pic and particularly it's caption is a worse example. Clearly the picture and the caption are meant to ridicule.

Furthermore, GA criteria is NOT a reason to insist on (at best) dubious pics. See point (b) of the criteria you posted. Thus, the article's GA potential is no longer a concern without those (ot hypothetically any) pics.

Also, your suggestion that "it will be done" and your insistence on your way suggest to me a lack of collaboration, and ownership issues.Merbabu 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merbabu 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merging into broader article on animals and Islam

I just wanted to express my agreement with that suggestion. I feel it is too much fragmentation to have this as a separate encyclopedia article. Wichienmaat 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK. Cool with that too. We're more likely to get a Good Article out of something with more breadth.DavidYork71 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment of the Muhammad template would be necessary.DavidYork71 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on. The template should stay at least for some time before merging. --Aminz 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is done now at Islam and animals, which is on the Islam template. This page will become a redirect and I will remove reference to it from the Muhammad template.DavidYork71 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the articles must be merged. Most of this article is actually not on Muhammad, nor does the topic of Muhammad and animals look encyclopedic. Beit Or 08:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge as well. --Matt57 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging and redirecting this article.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥♥♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press, 1961, [2]
^ Susan J. Armstrong, Richard G. Botzler, The Animal Ethics Reader, p.237, Routledge (UK) Press

[WattA-1] Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press, 1961, [2]

[Forw-2] Susan J. Armstrong, Richard G. Botzler, The Animal Ethics Reader, p.237, Routledge (UK) Press

[1]

[2]