Discussion UsefulNotes / TheProphetMuhammad

There was already plenty discussion about it, notably in this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1556643175032602600 , and some attempt to remove the picture without discussion since then, and the consensus has always been: the image stays.

It is, in fact, already in the "Don't change the picture" list on Image Pickin' Special Cases, which explicitly mentions: "As with the previous section, this status can change, but it will take an exceptionally convincing argument or exceptionally good image suggestion to do so."

Understood. It might be a bit controversial, though, for Muhammad's page to have an image. Just letting everyone know.

Wikipedia has had long debates about that subject. I think we need to discuss it as well:

• Old Man Marrying a Child: Very common in the culture Muhammad lived in, as well as in Europe of that age. While Muhammad's other wives were adults, almost all historians agree that Aisha was six when they married (and nine when they consummated it). The big problem with this marriage was that she was already engaged to another man at the time.

The UsefulNotes.Islam article more or less says that this is probably based on a misinterpretation.

How exactly are you going to tell if someone's an actual Muslim, by the by?

And what if a lot of tropers who want to keep the illustration are actually muslims?

Btw. While I had the trope on ykttw, I discussed it with some Muslims in real life. None of them had a problem with the illustration.

Second, much if this global controversy isactually an internal struggle within the islamuc world, and the truly respectful thing to do is not to pledge allegience to the repressive side.

@Xzenu: Like I said in the one-sentence-long post you're responding to, I don't care. Islam is about two-thirds the size of the whole of Christianity, and the fact that an image isn't offensive to all, or even the majority of them wouldn't change the fact that it's offensive on religious grounds, and should not be posted just to be contrary. I probably wouldn't have said anything if the same discussion hadn't come up on a Wikipedia page regarding the Jutland Post controversy, begun by a few offended Muslims; for what it's worth, there I was in favor of the image remaining, despite offense, because Wikipedia Is Not Censored. TV Tropes, on the other hand, is.

Unless it's a new (and possibly ad hoc) account, I would assume anyone claiming to be Muslim is. I can't see why anyone else would resort to such a tactic to get the image removed.

So. You defended keeping a racist slur against Muslims, and now you have moved on to fighting to repress islamic culture and it's great artistic heritage. Way to go.

You claim that if one group of Muslims is more liberal and one group of Muslims is more repressive, then we have a duty to side with the more repreasive group. No matter how large the liberal grpup is and no matter how small the repressive group is. Again, way to go.

Also, your edit to the main page insult all Muslims by condemning the haddiths as blasphemous. Your argument is simply wrong, in addition to not belonging on the main page in the first place. I'll fix it in a few days, right now I'm out of town and limited to my iPhone. At this particular time, I'm in my country's largest Mosque.

Anyway, I guess those wikipedia muslims guiöt-tripped you a bit, a d you are now making a misguided attempt to make uo for it. Just snap out of it.

Finally, we both know that many muslims consider women showing their hair to be Serious Business and are offended by such pictures. Please don't go on some wiki vandalism spree where you delete all pictures of unveiled women.

I defended a racist slur on Wikipedia. There are photographs of gonorrheal discharge on Wikipedia, and I'll defend those, too. This isn't Wikipedia.

You're right that what I said on the main page was phrased poorly, and I'll change it.

There is no "more repressive" and "less repressive" on a wiki. It is generally best to err on the side of caution when discussing a religion, any religion. If someone claims offense, I will be on their side, since it would be their religion. We should not side with the more liberal in this case. Freedom of speech is only worth defending against repression by a state or another threat of force, not against those who've taken offense.

As a secular Muslim (I hate starting posts this way, but somebody asked for an "in-group" opinion) I don't think pictures of Muhammad saws are offensive. They are only offensive to me when someone goes "hey I hate towel-heads and I heard they don't like drawings of their prophet- so I'll draw them." In that case I'd take offense because of the malicious intent, not because of the drawing itself (providing it's not Rule34 or chauvinist- bomb in turban and that shit.) The current picture (obviously) doesn't give off that vibe. Just my two cents, both of you have a point.

"chauvinist- bomb in turban and that shit"

How is that chauvanist?I don't know much about Islam, but I'm pretty sure that Muhammed isn't a chick.

The original connotation of chauvinist was Jingoist (i.e. someone who espouses a lot of traditional attitudes, especially those involving Patriotic Fervor. While it is now mostly used in English in the sense of sexism ("male chauvinist pig"), it wouldn't surprise me if there are still some uses of it in the original sense, as seen above.

OK, I think I should have watched better here. Just leave everything that isn't backed up by the fictional appearances section out. I'll have to take another look.

EDIT: OK, I've removed the discussed items peding the discussion. I've to leave now, however. You'll have to decide alone.

Of those, I think some should be kept.

The Heel–Face Turn one makes sense in the same way that Paul's conversion would in the Christian bible. Regardless of whether their previous religion/behavior actually was bad, in-text, it's presented as a Heel–Face Turn.

Jesus Was Way Cool should probably stay I would think, as the entry explains Islam's view of Jesus (which I'm guessing is probably derived from things Muhammad said in the Koran).

Not sure about the others. Regarding the Guile Hero / Magnificent Bastard entry, I do have a sense that Muhammad has some reputation as a skilled leader and military commander, but not having read the Koran, I'm not sure how much that comes in.

The question is whether we accept the Koran as a work of fiction - and allow examples applied to him by it.

Well, I would think it would be treated the same way as The Bible, The Talmud, or any other holy book- Regardless of what the actual person was like (or in some cases, regardless of whether they actually existed), the page can still talk about how they are considered in-text.

I confess I don't know that much about Islam or the Koran. Heel–Face Turn surely makes sense when it applies to the traditions of Islam; however the page as it stands does not refer to any specific work, not even the Koran (though AFAIK Muhammad's life is not actually told in the Koran).

I'd prefer to go the way of the Jesus page: It doesn't list any tropes on Jesus himself, but links to specific works featuring Jesus (first and foremost the The Bible, but also others). For (only) within a given work, hero/villain tropes, or ensemble tropes like Five-Man Band, make sense. For example, this page could specify which narrative(s) of Muhammad's life it tropefies, such as the Koran, the prophetic biographiesor the Hadiths. Then it's clear that the wiki takes no stance on reality.

That's a really good point. I haven't read any of the Koran either, but you're right, for all I know, commentary about Jesus may be from other sources, in which case it should go the Useful Notes on Islam page. Also, that's a good idea for the page to specify which narrative presents a certain trait.

I moved Jesus Was Way Cool back, as it's seems rather well-founded. But I would prefer the solution I proposed above.

First of all, The Quran is a work, just like The Bible and so on. To what extent they should or shouldn't be considered fiction, that's irrelevant. The whole theological debate on whether any religion is true or not or if so which one, that's not what we are here to judge. Instead, we should treat all books equally, as books. Leave your personal beliefs at the door, plzkkthx.

Second, I don't think we need to make any major reworking of the page. And if we do, it should go through TRS.

Third, this thread was started because a wiki vandal decided to us this page as his personal soapbox and preach his belief that Muhammad was evil. Interestingly, the "fact" he claimed was that The Quran and the haddiths consider Muhammad to be the villain of the story. This is pure nonsense, of course. He's clearly The Hero in these particular works, even if you personally feel a lot of Values Dissonance. However, there are other works that portray him as a villain. So we should keep Big Good as well as Big Bad. Lets make it one unified bullet point.

I suggest reinstating the Five-Man Band, No Woman's Land and Soulsaving Crusader / Windmill Crusader the way they are. As for good/bad:

• Big Good / Big Bad: Works featuring Muhammad tend to portray him as the ultimate hero or ultimate villain, with more nuanced portrayals being far more rare. While Islamic works portray Jesus and Muhammad as heroes, Christian works routinely portray Muhammad as a Complete Monster. Secular works are almost as polarized, with the difference that secular works that strongly dislike Islam usually strongly dislike Christianity as well.

OK, I now agree with you that different works with different viewpoints on Mohammed can be covered on this page, Xzenu. It appears the problems are rather about badly written examples, and Square Peg Round Trope.

I made a Sandbox page: Sandbox.The Prophet Muhammad. It's free to edit. Changes I already made:

• Changed the first line from "as a character in works of fiction" to "as appearing in literature and the arts". As you said, Xzenu, we don't only cover strictly fictional works.
• Added a line on the prophetic biographies and the hadith as main sources on Mohammad's life.
• Removed natter from the works list.
• Re-inserted Heel–Face Turn, as it seems clear enough.

As for the tropes I excised, here my criticisms:

• Is the Big Good really Muhammad's role in muslim tradition, or isn't Allah the Big Good? And while some non-muslim traditions cast Muhammad as a villain, they don't necessarily make him the Big Bad, that is, the leader of the villainous faction in a given story. Thirdly, I think you're exaggerating in that all depictions of Muhammad fall into these two extreme categories. The European Middle Ages certainly regarded Muhammad as a major villain of world history, but for a few centuries now, religion-funded demonization of Muhammad is no longer mainstream. There are many shades beetween Big Good and Big Bad; I don't think it's correct that almost all works fall into one of these two extremes.
• I think Soulsaving Crusader fits, but Windmill Crusader seems shoe-horned; it's not the opposite of Soulsaving Crusader. And again, it's not necessary to subscribe to either of these interpretations.
• I wouldn't bother with YMMV tropes like Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard (except on the YMMV tab). Guile Hero is likely justified, though.
• Hero with Bad Publicity: Probably fits, but I would like some more elaboration.
• Cultured Warrior lacks elaboration, and Cool Old Guy reads like some guy's opinion. How do these tropes appear in biographies or stories of Muhammad's life?
• No Woman's Land: "Stories tend to focus..." Which stories?
• Crapsack World: Lacks text and reads like an opinion rather than a trope based on a specific work.
• Executive Meddling: Can't quite figure out what it is saying.
• Proud Merchant Race and Proud Warrior Race are more about ancient Arab society rather than Muhammad. Besides, I think these two are stereotypes of speculative fiction and should not be applied to real-life peoples. Peoples are not races.
• Five-Man Band: Seems rather subjective. I doubt that any work on Mohammad actually features such a Five-Man Band (then again, it will hurt nobody).

I am sorry, but as one of the accused "Vandals"- an offense I take considerable offense at- I must ask why there is a double standard regarding the application of these tropes to religious figures. I can fully understand the reasons for why this is a hot topic- God only knows we don't want this page to become the playground of some of the scum lurking on the internet (we all know who I'm talking about, *both* camps of 'em...), but it does seem like this issue is being handled waaaay more sensitively than is proper or required.

Look: while I am not a Muslim myself, I'd be a fool to not realize that sensitivity is called for, but frankly these excessive kid gloves in handling *aaanything* about these religious figures borders on downright Obscurantist, which frankly is an offensive to the purpose of this site. The idea that we should limit this to only "stories" about Muhummad or "X" not only raises the problem that most of our sources aren't as easily pidgeonholed into "story" or "Non-Story" particularly since like most societies of the era, storytellers/bards/poets were *extremely* commonplace and valuable primary sources for both posterity and the time (soooomewhat like news for the elite).

Secondly, the utter lack of respect for other tropers' work and for past precedent on other pages. For instance: removing "Big Good" because of the question of whether he's really the Big Good or Allah, when going from the Laconic and religious texts and the lack of anything like the Christian concept of the Trinity in mainstream Islam, Allah is given that role as defined, while Muhummad is revered as a spiritual leader (perhaps the first amongst equals, or the earliest to actually get the message *out* without getting distorted, like Muslims hold happened with Moses/Jesus/etc. al.).

That, and removing Proud Warrior Race and Proud Merchant Race as being stereotypes of speculative fiction ignores past precedent that the y have been applied to Real Life Cultures (not races) such as the Hanseatic cities, the Italian city-states, and others without controversy. It also raises the fairly dramatic cultural practices in the early Medieval (and even past-early-Medieval) Arabian society in both the Bedouin and the city-dwellers that more or less mirrored these (particularly relevant since these were two things the Prophet had to reform to actually get what he did done, given how downright dysfunctional pre-Muhummad warfare was due to its' emphasis on individual valor, and is something even Muslim oral tradition- would these not count as *stories*?- not only mentions, credits as being a sign of his nature as a chosen Prophet of the almighty). The sheer fact alone that Muhummad grew up in these cultures and recruited most of his followers from one or the other (or hybrids of both) argues that there should be at least be some reference to it.

Secondly, its' very hard to argue that he isn't treated as a Magnificent Bastard and/or Guile Hero, more or less *regardless* of the contemporary sources- be it pro-Muslim or not-. Even the ones we get from the Quaresh and their allies make it very clear why they not only hated or disdained him, but also why they feared him (he was pretty damn competent, objectively speaking), and even the sources favorable to him show him doing things that are certainly questionable to modern Western sensitivities (which bleeds into the Values Dissonance that most religious pieces tend to get, which is duly noted elsewhere). Complete Monster....is pretty much indefensible though, considering the No Real Life Examples deal.

As for the No Womans' Land, "Which stories?" I'm sorry, but this comes across as being intentionally daft, and while I realize it is not the intention of the author, it comes across as somebody unfamiliar with the source material intentionally glossing over the opinion of those who have. I can understand why we might not include it, considering how arguable it is and understandable considering the subject matter the stories tend to cover (politics and war in holy texts and stories that come to us from the early medieval era), but the methodology for *why* strikes me as being off.

Again, I say this in good faith as an amateur historian and fellow troper: I don't think anybody disputes why this page is handled so sensitively, or that there are *very* valid reasons why (to keep the riff-raff from defacing it and bringing shame to the entire site). That being said, I do believe that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. There will be disputes and editing around like any other trope page. Its' inevitable. It does not seem proper that the moderator's job in this article unlike in most is to censor (in the original meaning of the word) and scrutinize every single trope proposed and carefully greenlight or redlight them one by one based on ludicrously stringent rules that can at times verge on neglecting the work of other tropers on other pages. Instead, it seems like their proper role is to act as mediator and justicar, to ensure that all those who argue and debate do so in good faith, and that those who step to far are removed promptly.

I apologize for this rant, but I feel it is necessary, particularly given the accusation of "Vandalism" against myself.

There was only one vandal, and that's the account "nightmares". Not you. He changed the page to be "objective information" about Muhammad being evil.

Except for this misunderstanding, I agree with you.

@Turtler: First, what Xzenu already said: I didn't accuse you of being a vandal or spoke of vandalism when I removed those examples. This thread started after an editor called nightmares had obviously vandalized the page (see the history), but I removed these tropes here for different reasons. And as far as I can see, no one else has accused you of being a vandal either. You got that wrong. No need to take offence.

And just to be sure, I’m not a moderator, just a random editor like you.— I also did not ask for a page lock, that was the mods’ own idea.

Second: I did not clean out the trope list because this is a page about a religious figure. It’s because the wiki is about analysing storytelling, not real life history or persons.

It's true, up to date there are many pages on real persons and real events that have a lot of tropes applied directly to them. But that is the unfortunate status quo and not the desired standard of the wiki. Sooner or later, ALL pages on real persons and Useful Notes on historical events, periods etc. will need a cleaning-out. Currently, most of them are a mess trope-wise. We don’t have special “kid gloves” for “controversial topics” or “religious” pages. This page is just as good a place to start a clean-up as any other.

Note furthermore that it’s acknowledged that “depiction”, “storytelling” and “work” is a bit broader than only “fiction”. We don’t exclude Non-Fiction Literature. What we DO exclude is classifying and categorizing real life in trope terms. The Quran is a work, the hadith are works, biographies of Mohammed are works, Mohammed in Historical Fiction is works, scientific literature on Mohammed is works. The Prophet Muhammad is not.

We are not an encyclopedia and have no opinions on history, politics and religion. We don’t judge whether Mecca was a Crapsack World before Islam. We don’t judge whether Mohammed is The Chosen One. And so on.

Obviously, The Chosen One has a place on this page, but so long as it lacks any explanation or elaboration, the perspective is wrong. It should be: “The Chosen One: For Islam, Muhammad is the greatest and final prophet.”, or something in that vein. The tone and the wording of the example should reflect a certain distance.

The other big problem is shoehorning (read Square Peg Round Trope on that issue). For example, I don’t get your criticism on my removal of Big Good. Isn’t what you are saying that Allah is the Big Good for Islam? Allah, and not Mohammed? Then Mohammad actually isn’t the Big Good.— As for the “holy body parts”, maybe there is a trope in it, but maybe it’s a different trope than Big Good. You still fail to make clear why Mohammed supposedly is a Big Good.

Or take Five-Man Band. Trying to fit real persons into an ensemble trope is classical shoe-horning. If you can point out some book, film, TV show etc. (or better, several of them), where Muhammad and his companions form a true Five-Man Band, then so be it. But the way it’s written, it’s just some editor playing around with Five-Man Band, thinking “hey, maybe I can make that fit!” That’s not our objective.

As for Proud Warrior Race and Proud Merchant Race, yes, these tropes are thrown around a lot on Useful Notes and Real Life Person pages all over this wiki, and that’s actually a bad thing. I made a thread about it on Trope Talk; join in if you want. If you can make a point that there is a tradition that depicts Mohammad as a Proud Warrior Race Guy, then everything is fine; but until now this point is lacking and I doubt that there is, because Proud Warrior Race is a simplifying stereotype always attributed to other cultures, never to one’s own. It seems what the contributor wants to say is just “they were warriors, and they were merchants.” And that is NOT the meaning of these tropes.

Note also that this is not Useful Notes on Islam, or the ancient Arab world. What doesn’t relate to Mohammed directly probably should go elsewhere.

As for Guile Hero, you maybe could convince me that it fits, but the current explanation (I don’t know whether you wrote it, and it doesn’t matter) reads much more like “that’s what I think” than “this is the way Mohammed is depicted”.

As for Magnificent Bastard, it’s a YMMV trope and we don’t collect YMMV tropes on pages for real-life persons and events. That’s a rule. [Edited for greater clarity.]

On your argument for No Woman's Land: I’m indeed unfamiliar with the “source material”. But so is the average reader of the wiki, the reader for whom we should intend to write. What is the source material? Rather than just alluding to things the reader is (unrealistically) assumed to already know, it should be written in a way that actually informs (and hopefully, entertains) the reader.— But again, this whole No Woman's Land thing seems more concerned with Islam as a whole than with the person Mohammed.

And to conclude, removing examples for being badly written or badly founded is not “censorship”.

Once again, let me summarize my criticisms and the requirements for adding tropes to this or to any page:

• Tropes are to be applied to storytelling and depictions, not to real life. The writing should reflect that.
• Every trope should have some text with it that demonstrates how and why the trope fits. This includes avoiding Square Peg Round Trope and Trope Decay.
• Focus on the topic of the page. It’s a page about Mohammed, not Islam and not ancient Arab civilization.

Lastly, there is a Sandbox page. You can edit it if you whish to.

About YMMV, my understanding is that the rule is that Real Life doesn't get YMMV stuff, but storytelling about Real Life does. However, that should probably go to YMMV.The Quran

You're right, if Muhammad is presented as a Magnificent Bastard in a certain work, then it's possible. But not on a Useful Notes or a "creator" type page that is not specific to a work. [Edited my above post to reflect that.]

Sorry for the massive delay. Firstly, I recognize my mistake, and that the vandal label was not stuck to myself or others, but only to one person who clearly deserved it and who it is impossible to argue was acting in good faith. I thank you for the clarification, and I apologize.

I understand now regarding the wider policy. I cannot say I entirely agree with it, particularly given- again- the bleedover between real life and it as represented in fiction, but this is not the place to argue that point, and it is obviously the result of a wide consensus.

My criticism regarding the removal of Big Good was a rather secondary argument, an attempt at an example to tie back to his presentation in the literature both of the time and later that deal with him, where he's at best acting as The Hero through whom Allah is acting if we follow the tropes as described (not surprisingly, since most of the alternatives would be very, *very* touchy religiously, much like portraying Christ as purely a human schismatic Jewish preacher and carpenter acting of his own mortal agency, which would naturally play a part as to why it was written and recorded that way). Again, this isn't about the religious history or the finer points of doctrinal debate, but about what we get about him from the sources that have been passed down. Which begs the question: Do we include it or not?

I never had any qualms with the removal of the five man band entry, and I haven't acquired any since then. Accepted.

Thank you for the link regarding the PWR deal. I'll consider it, but until then point understood and accepted.

Regarding No Woman's Land, I realize my articulation was rather poor. I was actually against its' inclusion, given how much of the source material deals with Muhummad and the women in his life (not the least of which his first). The main reason I took up that point was *how* liberal we should be in handing it out, since while many of the canon- religious and not- about Muhummad's life flatly do not fit into that trope, a good many do (if only because he was on campaign or in another environment not conductive to female presence even today). Do we apply it with the addendum that it only fits some of the stories, or do we scratch it all together? That was my main point.

Again, thank you, and I will consider.

I still don't think there's a single good reason for Magnificent Bastard or Guile Hero to be removed, simply by virtue of how downright *unanimous* the references are from pretty much every quarter. Muslim, Non-Muslim, Fictional, Nonfictional, Byzantine, Sassnid Persian, Quaraysh, Ally, Enemy, Contemporary, Modern, in-between. The fact that we have *something* that everybody seems to agree on about a religious leader- who tend to be the subject of Flame Bait as our dear friend nightmares showed-, and from sources that cannot even agree on whether they *like* themselves is in my opinion a rather strong argument for their continued inclusion.

Again, It hink you for your time and patience, and apologzie for the delay.

OK, I also delayed and then actually forgot to reply here. Anyway: Apology accepted. My initial sweeping cut was probably a bit harsh.

Otherwise, I'd like to come back to the specific tropes which sparked this thread, as some of them are still under discussion:

General wiki policy is that it's fine to list tropes that appear in works featuring Mohammed – for example, traditional biographies, or the Hadith – so long as they do not violate the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, and so long as it’s made clear that the wiki doesn’t make assessments of history, or statements on historical (or religious, for that matter) truth.

There are two more specific rules as part of that policy (which I guess I haven't explicitly mentioned yet):

1) There’s a general ban on YMMV tropes on all pages dealing with real-life people or events directly (that would be page types “creator/person” and “usefulnotes”). So YMMV tropes like Magnificent Bastard and Complete Monster fall flat on pages like this one.

You are allowed to make a page for a specific biography of Mohammed, or any work featuring Mohammed, in a works namespace and with a “works” page type, and have a YMMV tab with tropes there.

2) Tropes that have the No Real Life Examples Please message on their page may not be listed on pages about real life people/events. These tropes are either considered lewd/creepy or violating the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement due to their evaluative nature (Crapsack World and Windmill Crusader are such tropes, for example).

This usually includes all tropes that contain the words (or the concepts) “hero”, “villain”, or “bastard”. Guile Hero has no No Real Life Examples Please tag until now, but it might just as well have one (as in “is probably going to get one”). Same case with “Hero with Bad Publicity”.

These are the kind of tropes that generally may not be listed on “real life” pages (so no point in discussing them any further).

For the rest of the tropes that have not been re-added since — I see the following problems with them:

• A Cool Old Guy is a character within an ensemble of mostly younger characters, and who can (surprisingly) compete with or even outclass the younger characters. It’s not any guy that’s old, and is cool (besides, again, the wiki has no stance on whether Mohammed was “cool”). So if there’s a certain work involving Mohammed where he actually plays this role, then the trope should be fine, but the example seems just to be saying “He was still conquering when he was old”, which isn’t the trope.
• No Woman's Land: Does some story of Mohammed go in detail how women in Arabia had it really bad before Mohammed came? Then the trope would be correctly applied, but again the example text seems a little to ambiguous and vague to justify its inclusion.
• A Big Good implies the presence of “minor goods” in the story; the example text doesn’t explain who that would that be in the story of Mohammed. Also, the Big Good is usually a supporting character, not the hero; but Mohammed is, in his life story as as told by faithful Muslisms, The Hero.

I don’t know much about Mohammed, so I won’t be any help in further expanding the page, but (as I said earlier), the reason for a trope to be included should be traceable even for a user without previous knowledge. If a trope entry meets all these conditions and is written in a factual, objective way, it should be fine.