The lead paragraph says:

It was burnt down with Muslim worshippers (praying the afternoon prayers[2]) still inside. It is suggested by the primary sources which mention this event that 12 people were killed inside, while others ran away.[3][4]

Source #4 makes no mention of 12 men being killed, while source #3 states that the 12 men who constructed the mosque may have been burned inside (doesn't say death). In addition, source #2 actually states that Muhamamd's men "entered the mosque, its people inside, set fire to it and destroyed it and the people dispersed", which is quite different from saying that it was "burnt down with Muslim worshippers inside...12 people killed".

Moreover, the lead goes into the details of burning the mosque to the extent of even mentioning what prayer the worshippers were doing, but when it came to the more important part of the event, the perceived causes that led to the burning of the mosque, it just says "promoting opposition" keeping things vague as to the nature of this opposition, and even then, Misconceptions2 casts doubt by writing "Muhammad believed that it was a Mosque promoting opposition". Now we know that this "opposition" was actually Abu 'Amir al-Rahib's preparation for war against Muhammad and his companions, backed by the emperor of Rome.

These are the errors I found in the lead. Clearly,the article was written in a sensationalist manner. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How silly of me, i immediately assumed that when they were supposedly burnt inside the mosque, they were killed. i will change it to just burnt, as for the part about Abu Amir, i mentioned that in the article, though in the lead i just said the mosque was promoting opposition, if this is vague to you, then you are free to expand it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is silly to assume that they were killed, have you not heard of non-fatal burn injury before ? Also, you again misrepresented the source by claiming that deaths has occurred, while the source says "may have been burned". And assuming that happened, you forgot to mention that those 12 men were the people who constructed the opposition mosque, the people to whom Abu 'Amir said: "build a Masjid and prepare whatever you can of power and weapons, for I am headed towards Caesar".

Do you understand now why I added the POV tag ?Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned all you have said, in the article, what reason do you have to keep the tag, when the article mentions the views of muslims and non muslim scholars?

Fixed burn problem. Instead of saying that "it is suggested they were killed", i changed it to "it is suggested that they were burnt"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what kind of opposition you want mentioned in the lede? as the article mentions many, e.g disunity, anti islamic elements, abu amir saying he will go to the roman empire --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the types of opposition in the lede --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot to correct in the article, please do not remove the POV tag until all the issues I raised are fixed. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the issues, what issues are remaning, are you suggesting white washing the article, so the burning part is not mentioned?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a possible violation of WP:AGF here, and I don't understand how requests to (1) quote the sources accurately and (2) to expand on what "opposition" really means can be considered "whitewashing". Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey (sorry if that sounds rude), how about you fix the issues, instead of telling me "there is a lot to correct", as i dont know what else needs fixing, since i have 1. fixed your concern about it being burnt and people supposedly being burnt, and 2.the vagueness in the lede. what is remaining --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to fix your issues, so don't remove the tag. Maybe you shouldn't have misrepresented the sources in the first place ?

The article as it currently stands is misleading many readers and I thought I emphasized the "may have burned" part to you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Ibn Kathir's statement that the monk wanted to lead an army to "fight the Messenger of Allah to defeat him and his call" can be found here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made 7 edits to the lead section alone, all of which to correct the misrepresentation (and misunderstanding) of the sources by user Misconceptions2. The rest of the article needs to be corrected and updated as well. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the editor with the username Misconceptions2 (which also accurately describes the nature of his edits)personal attack redacted by 2over0 has responded to the issues raised regarding his distortion and misrepresentation of the sources by...accusing me of being an apologetic here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misconceptions2's repeated attempts to undermine and misrepresent an important context to this story is evident from the number of edits to the following sentence in the lead:

"to fight and expel Muhammad from Medina and defeat his message"

here, here, here, here which he eventually changed to:

"to fight and defeat Muhammad, by expelling him from Medina"

claiming in the last edit summary that he "added extra info". Obviously this isn't the case, because (1) he removed the "defeat his message" bit and (2) made his own WP:OR to clarify that "fight" and "defeat" = expel here, implying that the Christian monk and his 12 Hypocrites wouldn't go further. Yes I know that Ibn Kathir says, or more accurately attributes the "expel" saying to the companion Ibn 'Abbas, but the way you worded it make it seem that the monk's plan was restricted to that. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Yet another edit by Misconceptions2 to the above statement. This time, he claims that "by putting defeat last, it suggests that they intended to do other things other than expelling him".
First of all, Ibn Kathir just said "defeat his call", and NOT " defeat his message by expelling him"; so this is clearly a WP:SYNTH by Misconceptions2 in his 5th attempt to whitewash the position of the Hypocrites and their leader. Secondly, Misconceptions2 takes the position that Abu 'Amir the thug did not intend to do anything other than expelling him, and reworded the statement in a way that assures the reader of the article that this was the case, meaning if the Prophet Muhammad and his companions packed their stuff and took off to another city to call for Islam, then this Abu 'Amir would have been relieved. And what if Muhammad and his companions chose to resist expulsion ? Misconceptions2 here assures us that Abu 'Amir was not going to kill any of them.

I'm going to keep his reworded statement here for sometime until a reference is provided for this restriction of intentions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can't get any clearer than this. Misconception2 is now doing whole deletion of referenced content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I warned user Misconceptions2 on his talk page not to revert the changes I made to the lede that were independent of the move. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted wiqi55 as it mentions nowehere that they wanted to kill Muhammad, this is apologetic at best. He also refers to him as a prophet, a violation of MOISLAM--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is further discussed on User_talk:Wiqi55. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, unlike Gabriel, Qurban Husayn is not mentioned in the lead and not using Wikipedia's own voice. We should follow the same for Gabriel.

Second, you should also convey the complete argument of Gabriel, which is built on a false premise. He claims that since their names are mentioned then they must have been burnt. This is a silly argument to begin with, and the primary sources give many details about the later lives of the same men that Gabriel claimed they were burnt. Obviously, Gabriel had no knowledge of the primary sources.

I would also think that Gabriel (who is just some CIA researcher with little credibility) is not notable or reliable on Islamic history, which should explain his false arguments. His lack of familiarity with the primary sources is clear. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was published by the University of Oklahoma, does that change anything?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This:

<ref name="IbnKathir">Kathir, Ibn. "Masjid Ad-Dirar and Masjid At-Taqwa". Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Retrieved 29 June 2011.

is a primary source, no? Therefore naughty William M. Connolley (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but i have always been confused on whether Ibn Kathir is primary or secondary. The contents in that ref (from a book called Tafsir ibn Kathir) were written in the 14th century . If being really old is the definition of primary, then it is. but if a primary source is the original soruce which mentions the event. Then this is not primary, as the original soruces which mention it are Tabari (first link) and the Quran, also Ibn Hisham mentions it (citing Ibn Ishaq)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a problem for the 20+ articles that Misconception2 added and oh for like 90% of this article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Andalusi, you added " promised and insinuated to them that he will lead an army, backed by Heraclius, to fight Muhammad...", how can you promise and insinutate (suggest/hint) at same time (that is very badly worded)?. I think Ibn Kathir was only speculaing what Amu Amir was intending to "defeat muhammad" or "expel muhammad", as the primary sources dont mention it. Please remove this speculation from the lede, as me and wiqi55 have both removed our respective sources from lede which specualted.I removed from the lede speculation about wanting to kill muhammad and wiqi55 removed from the lede, my source which speculated that the people were burnt.No speculation in the lede please !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"as the primary sources dont mention it". That's not true; the expel claim was stated by Ibn 'Abbas. - Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the claim that he wanted to "defeat Muhammad's message"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were doubting the "expel" claim as well. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i was doubting all of it. As no other sources mention what Ibn Kathir mentions (I added that Ibn Kathir source also for alternate views). You also made some edits as if it was a building. You also wrote Abu Amir participated in the battle of uhud. When the source doesnt say that. Furthermore, there are sources which contradict Ibn Kathir's statement. Abu Amir has been described as a pacifist here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and that explains your revert of 7+ edits how ? I'm reporting you to the incidents board. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? I think your report there is a touch deceptive. Could you perhaps point to where the discussion of "Demolition Masjid al-Dirar was properly moved to Masjid al-Dirar" occured? I can't find it William M. Connolley (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm aware that the cut and paste move request is not an admin incidents board. Also, I said it was "properly moved" meaning the history move was done properly as opposed to Misconceptions who messed up the redirects and of course lied and reverted a bunch of my edits, writing just "moving" in the edit summaries. Finally, I find it hypocritical that you redact my statements allegedly for "incivility" while you have taken the freedom to accuse me of "deception". Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as opposed to Misconceptions who messed up the redirects? You're wrong, as a read of the noticeboard would have told you. And yes, I think "properly" was deliberately misleading on your part. As to "not an admin incidents board": when you said "I'm reporting you to the incidents board" I chose to assume you weren't just blustering, and that was the only edit I could find that made any sense. What did you mean, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Properly moved -> the page was moved using the "move" link at the top of the page which preserves the versions of the article's content and any discussions on the TP.

- A "Messed up" move -> occurs when the rules of Help:How to move a page were not followed, and that's exactly what Misconceptions2 did.

Concerning my comment "I'm reporting you to the incidents board". Apart from the fact that the comment clearly indicated the name of the board (WP:ANI), it was also written after I reported the cut and paste move request. So I'm really not sure where the correlation between the two came to your mind.

Is it clear now ? or should I explain it again for the 3rd time ? But I'm glad that we both agree on the irony and hypocrisy of playing the role of the "incivility" police while falsely accusing others of "deception". Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with William, if he wanted to move this article, which is clearly "controversial" , he should have discussed it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to move it. And the "merge" discussion is just a WP:POINTy way of reacting to the failed move. I've undone it on the target page, and will here once it is unprotected William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done so. We've had quite enough edit warning here for a while so I'll happily restore it, if anyone can give a reasoned argument for why we might wish to "merge" the articles William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive i have greatly improved this article by adding so much more content from various sources, as well as various opinions (thus justifying the removal of some of the tags). i did all this on 3rd July. Does anyone else think this article is not neutral? or is factually inaccurate? or is that only al-Andalusi's opinion? This article even mentions the primary sources, for people to check the accuracy of the secondary sources--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed thumb. It isn't a pic of the relevant mosque (is it?) or indeed of anything like what it would have looked like at the time. So I'm not sure why it was added, captionless. A pic of something like what it might have looked like could be relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is related. But Al-A removed the caption--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how? And what did the caption say? Did it look anything like the pic? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think it is suitable to add a campaign box here. i have left a message on your page--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. But best to talk on the campaigns template page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption he removed had a caption about the 2nd version of this event. Which he seems not to want to be mentioned on wikipedia. see below--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-A's edits suggest that there is only 1 version of the event, and his version is the truth. It is clear that there are 2 versions. Please read this (footnote s). I think the lede should mention both versions, or else Al-A's contribution should be removed from the lede. I added the previous version before. here , citing Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri. But he removed it saying its a "Non-mainstream view", here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Boladhuri is one the most important sources of Islam history so his view is a notable view. Al-A argument to remove Al-Boladhuri is unacceptable. Even as he claims that the this version of story is not mainsream. Still, It can be addressed as the minority view. Please restore your edits. --Penom (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was never removed. Misconceptions2 was dishonest is describing the edit. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Misconceptions2's removal of the statement from the lede twice here and here

The source clearly states:

The majority relate that after Uhud he went to Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, asking for his support against the Prophet. Heraclius reportedly received Abu ‘Amir kindly and generously, but it is not clear whether he actually pledged his support. Abu ‘Amir wrote to a group of his supporters among the Ansar, promising them that he would come with an army to fight the Prophet and defeat him, and advised them to build an opposing mosque (masjid al-Îirar) in the meantime. When they had finished building it and came to the Prophet to ask him to pray there, he refused. Wahidi relates that he was in fact in Syria at the time. Abu ‘Amir died in A.H. 9 or 10 at the court of Heraclius.

Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says nothing about the 2 versions, and both version say he left Medina. Your source does not differentiate which version is majority. All it says is that the majority say he went to Heraculious. So you can not claim that " In the main account narrated by the majority of scholars, the mosque was built to "engage" Muhammad" , when the source does not mention the word engage once. see my point? its better if you just said what the source says i.e "The Majority have said that Abu Amir asked the ruler of the Byzantine for help against Muhammad." instead of saying which version is majority --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S, if you changed it to "The Majority have said that Abu Amir asked the ruler of the Byzantine for help against Muhammad.", it would be better and i wouldnt revert--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that the source must explicitly state that "there are two versions" for it to qualify as a good source for referencing either of the views ? This is a policy I haven't heard of. Besides, the fact that it doesn't even mention the narration which Al-Baladhuri transmits (the 2nd version) is a very good reason for NOT including the donkey claim in the lede, as it is not worthy of getting mentioned when majority of scholars haven't stated something similar. The above quoted version precisely describes what the article refers to as the first version, as the first version doesn't state anything about Abu 'Amir's location when he gave the orders. Finally I don't find anything wrong with the usage of "engage" here, because technically it is an engagement, but even if someone disagrees, I still don't find how removing the majority statement to be justified at all.

As to your threat that "you wouldn't revert". Oh no, this time you revert, I'm taking it straight to the board, given your history and my past experience with you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Al-A, calm down. Notice that you used the Geroge Sale reference for the sentance "In the main account narrated by the majority of scholars, the mosque was built to "engage" Muhammad" , shouldnt you have used this source as the reference. Since George Sale doesnt mention which is majority, and actually presents the "engage" version of the event as the minority. But then, if you do use this source you cant word it like you did. You have to say exactly what it says in source. i.e if you used that source (linked), it would be "The Majority have said that Abu Amir asked the ruler of the Byzantine for help against Muhammad.". You must use the reference's properly, or i will have to fix it myself... Or maybe i am blind, maybe you can show me where in the George Sale source he says that the "engage" version of the event is the majority? If you can show me then i will have no reason to revert you--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S the geroge sale source mentions that Abu Amir went to syria. If other words, both versions mention that he went to syria. How do you know which is the "majority" version, based on this source source--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I indicated in my edit that it's #3 and you replied initially claiming that it doesn't mention anything on Al-Dirar, then in a second edit, you claimed that it should use "versions" to be a good reference. So you do know which reference I'm talking about and I wonder why are you turning this discussion into something insignificant on the order of the references ? You do not want to "order" the references, you want to remove the "majority" statement like you repeatedly did with the Battle of Uhud, cited from the same source.

If "engage" bothers you so much, then go ahead, remove "engage" (it comes from an outdated 1850 reference anyway). You also claimed that to cite the source properly, then it should only say: "the Majority have said that Abu Amir asked the ruler of the Byzantine for help against Muhammad". No sir, that's not the proper way to quote the reference, the proper way would be to say:

"The majority relate that after Uhud he went to Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, asking for his support against the Prophet. Heraclius reportedly received Abu ‘Amir kindly and generously, but it is not clear whether he actually pledged his support. Abu ‘Amir wrote to a group of his supporters among the Ansar, promising them that he would come with an army to fight the Prophet and defeat him, and advised them to build an opposing mosque (masjid al-Îirar) in the meantime. When they had finished building it and came to the Prophet to ask him to pray there, he refused. Wahidi relates that he was in fact in Syria at the time. Abu ‘Amir died in A.H. 9 or 10 at the court of Heraclius."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly was a Christian monk supposed to want to build a mosque? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it doesnt make sense. The version that al-A doesnt like, says that it was built by a Muslim tribe which was jealous of another tribe, and who built it because theydidnt want to pray in a place where donkeys use to stay--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject", but to answer your question: according the sources, Abu 'Amir urged his men to "establish a stronghold and prepare whatever they can of power and weapons". Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and per TPG, talk pages aren't for repeating the contents of TPG irrelevantly; so please don't. Your answer doesn't really answer the question: that an enemy might wish to establish a stronghold makes perfect sense. But a Christian building a mosque still doesn't William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Please tell me what wikipolicy says that you can not use old references like The Koran, commonly called the Alcoran of Mohammed: translated into English immediately from the original Arabic, with explanatory notes taken from the most approved commentators, to which is prefixed a preliminary discourse. William Tegg. 1850. p. 162. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) See footnote S, alsorepublished in 2009 , BiblioBazaar , can you please give your justification for removing this source, so people can read it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's antique and old-fashioned. I don't see any reason for quoting an 1850 reference in Wikipedia. The fact that it has been republished by a non-academic publisher with interests in distributing open works is irrelevant. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q 2: So using your logic then, you should also delete the Tafsir Ibn Kathir source, which is a 13th century source, republished and translated in the 21st century. Or the Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri , republished and translated in the 21st century also. Both of those 2 sources were republished by Muslim publishing houses. Why does your reasoning not apply to these sources?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The views of Ibn Kathir and other Muslim scholars are easily found in secondary sources on Prophetic biography (that's why I'm generally against citing primary sources directly, and I can provide secondary/tertiary sources if needed). On the other hand, I doubt this is the case with George Sale. Do you have a secondary reference affirming George Sale's views ? An 1850 reference is outdated even if it contains true statements. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An 1850 reference is outdated even if it contains true statements., i didnt know that wikipedia references have a due by date, when did the reference pass its best before date? Anyway, its called Double standards, you really do not want the source to be used. Either way, there is no policy against using it. Therefore i object your removal of it, and wont ever accept its removal (especially as it balances the article since it suggests there are 2 version of the event). if you remove it, suddenly there will only be 1 version. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above argument look to be good arguments for edit-warring for removing the source on the grounds of antiquity. Reading the accompanying text changes, it looks like Al-A wants the source out because he doesn't like what it says. "It is old" isn't a good argument, there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you did remove the very same reference (and some content) claiming that it is "too antique". Quite ironic no ? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He removed it and i removed it because you wrongly used it, as explained in the talk page. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never used it. In fact, it was me who first pointed out that it's an 1850 reference in one of the above sections in the talk page. William did not bother to continue reading, and thought I was expressing my support for it, hence his contradictory edits. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i meant this . you wrongly used the geroge sale source, and didnt you admit it and say "I wonder why are you turning this discussion into something insignificant on the order of the references", this suggest that you knew that you used the refs in wrong order. thats why i removed it (not from the entire article obviouslly, only how you used it).--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, I used this one for the majority claim:

Osman, Ghada. "Pre-Islamic Arab Converts to Christianity in Mecca and Medina: An Investigation into the Arabic Sources" (PDF). Retrieved 3 July 2011. The majority relate that after Uhud he went to Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, asking for his support against the Prophet

Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS tells us that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent." There appears to be a preference towards contemporary scholarly sources over antique ones (unless the antique sources are cited by the contemporary sources). If Sale's views are reliable or important, they should be in modern reliable sources.Bless sins (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did this mosque have a name? Obviously no one connected with the mosque would have called it Masjid al-Dirar because that name was used only by its opponents. Moreover, according to the article as it's written now, the term Masjid al-Dirar wasn't used until after its destruction. If it had an actual name, that would be worth including and should presumably cause the article to be retitled, with the non-NPOV nickname Masjid al-Dirar still pointing to it as well. 153.31.112.21 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zty3NDhK?url=http://faculty.washington.edu/brownj9/LifeoftheProphet/Arab%20Converts%20to%20Islam%20in%20Pre-Islamic%20Mecca%20-%20Osman.pdf to http://faculty.washington.edu/brownj9/LifeoftheProphet/Arab%20Converts%20to%20Islam%20in%20Pre-Islamic%20Mecca%20-%20Osman.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://faculty.washington.edu/brownj9/LifeoftheProphet/Arab%20Converts%20to%20Islam%20in%20Pre-Islamic%20Mecca%20-%20Osman.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]