Talk:Muhammad/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 35

With special reference to Wikiquette, Who edits this Encylopedia Article ?

on what basis is this page edited, threads get added and removed selectively and by whom ?

this talk page header specifically says "be polite". I really miss the point that it is supposed to deliver for those who have already written this article with such explicit demeanor. Fdabbass1 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Threads get archived automatically by a piece of software after 21 days of no activity. Posts will also get removed if they're not related to improving the article. The talk page header is a standard template placed on many talk pages of articles that may attract controversy. It is a reminder to stay civil and comment on content, not contributors. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, civility seems nice. Lets say some one would like to improve the article, what is the basis of evaluating whether it is improved or not?Fdabbass1 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS. Basically, WP:BRD. Someone makes a bold edit. If another editor reverts, then the talk page is used to discuss whether or not the edit was an improvement to the article with the discussion often referring to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In short, if you make an edit that others deem controversial, you'll have to explain and defend that edit. --NeilN talk to me 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

So, yea, we are talking, (yea, are you sure that only talking seems to work in getting all the controversy in this article out of the way?). Consequently this infers that defending information in any article is nothing but power dependent (i.e. to supervisors of the articles) and not guide-lined by policies. Now what do you think about that? Fdabbass1 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're getting at. You have as much "power" to edit this article as I do (once you are auto-confirmed). There are editors who monitor changes to the article but they're definitely not supervisors. You might want to read WP:OWN. --NeilN talk to me 06:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ, with regards to your previous answer, Consensus infers achieving goals and therefore is not always objective. Text format is not the most significant thing you would notice when reading this article. With regards to your latest answer, I'm not really sure I can remove parts of this article one would find faulty ("real world consensus") without having someone (higher edit power/control/supervision/whatever...) start the like of an edit-war to have it amended back, therefore, thanks, but no thanks I cannot believe you there.Fdabbass1 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote carefully. You have the same power to make edits as I do. If I removed parts of the article without gaining consensus here (i.e., make the exact same edit as you would), another editor with the same "power" as you and I would probably revert my change. What do you not believe? --NeilN talk to me 06:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So How do you get to know what power I have ? and what I don't believe is that this is getting to some tangible consensus to a consensus with regards to an agreeable consensus.Fdabbass1 (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Perhaps someone else can answer you. --NeilN talk to me 07:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So, I wouldn't have to quote the following: "A friendly piece of advice: As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, the quickest (and sometimes only) way to get something done is to do it yourself. Not saying that someone won't see this and pitch in, but you may be in for a long wait." --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC), because you have been plenty "helpful". Fdabbass1 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Still have no idea what point you're trying to make. Anyone else get it? --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Just a single-purpose account angling for a justification for removing the images, nothing more. This edit says all that we need to know; "the pictures are still outrageous", "add no content to the page other than the controversy...". Tarc (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tarc, no images have been mentioned so far in this post, why might you believe so ? I believe you are jumping to conclusion and missing the point.Fdabbass1 (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say they were mentioned in this post; I specifically pointed out a prior post of yours that did harp about the images. We're all entitled to our own opinions on the matter, but the issue of whether images of Muhammad will appear in this article is a long-settled matter. If there is some part of the current article that you wish to raise a concern about, by all means do so. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

oh, you choose to point it out on this section here, because ?Fdabbass1 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Because we're trying to figure out if you have anything worthwhile to say in this section. Since your posts are very confusing, we have to look at other sections to help decipher what you want or are asking about. --NeilN talk to me 18:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea NeilN, that could be it... ;) Fdabbass1 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Arabic Pronunciation of Name

it is not mentioned, and it sure is not proper to have the English name without the actual word vocals (Arabic Origin)in there. Fdabbass1 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking for an audio file to be added (like what we have in Mažeikiai). If so, do you have one we can use? --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately no, I don't have one you can use. I would probably look in the different language articles or ask an Arabic Language expert. Fdabbass1 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A friendly piece of advice: As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, the quickest (and sometimes only) way to get something done is to do it yourself. Not saying that someone won't see this and pitch in, but you may be in for a long wait. --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

wow, Thanks.Fdabbass1 (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have an audio clip of Muhammad's full name being spoken out loud. I am not a native Arabic speaker, so I can't do it. Are you a native Arabic speaker? If so, why not record yourself speaking the name? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I am not really sure about authenticity of resulting content.Fdabbass1 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article a good article again ?

Given all the controversy, Why is this article a good article again ? Fdabbass1 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In reviewing "Good Article Criteria", it doesn't appear that "controversial" is a part of the evaluation checklist. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
And because editors who are not single purpose accounts have deemed it well-written, verifiable, and neutral. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

oh, not controversial, really? how come ? Fdabbass1 (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, aren't *you* the one claiming it's controversial, so shouldn't it be you who provides evidence that it is? I asked you already, by the way... --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking why controversial is not part of the Good Article checklist? Because, to put it bluntly, that would be stupid, preventing such fine articles as Evolution and Feminism from attaining such status. No politician's biography would be a "Good Article" either, held hostage by their opponents. Controversy does not prevent a balanced and well-referenced article from being written. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
^^User:Fdabbass needs to read WP:NPOV and WP:SYN more carefully. I think he/she just wants the article censored to conform to conservative Muslim beliefs. Not gonna happen. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, It being "stupid", seems like a good enough answer... Somchai Sun, yes you did (somewhere up there ^), and no I shouldn't (according to some regulation lying around wikipedia's rules somewhere),(Maybe i'd leave that possible "different approach" in pursuit of a "Neutral View" implicated up there to someone who would agree to it being a part of a tangible resolution in content), and that about raps it all.

It has been really interesting. :) Fdabbass1 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

User:Drmies is repeatedly deleting some quotations in the section "Historical Western views". The content are sourced, stood for long, and no one objected. The reasons shown for removal are ambiguous. Does every quotation need elaborate context? And if so, then Drmies contradicts himself: he says it's overly long. Now providing elaborate context for every quotation will make it more longer. He has invented a self-made policy that deleting these quotations will make the article decent! So what is the criteria of a decent article, and what is the allowed length for an article? The text he selectively chosen for deletion is also a matter of concern. Does the community think they should be deleted? -AsceticRosé 08:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When you leave a complaint like this, please leave a diff so that we can go straight to the disputed content. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The removed content can be seen here. Thanks for the suggestion.-AsceticRosé 11:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion of those quotes. They are repetitive and redundant. They add nothing to the article that isn't already clear from the existing quotes. The purpose of that section is, among other things, to demonstrate the developing change in attitude toward the Prophet, from contempt and mischaracterisation in the medieval West toward respect and understanding, which the remaining short inline quotes do well - not to provide the reader with a litany of pointless praise. This is not a hagiography, it is an encyclopedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Much too long for here - they belong in Western attitude to Muhammad or similar, if that ever gets written. But we can do without Annie Besant's views on anything, imo. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is not hagiography, it is an encyclopedia article, but for Wikipedia articles, it is usual to include different views. The article got GA having these. So, do they really add nothing? If it takes much length, can’t we summarize them? -AsceticRosé 13:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
By all means propose something, but to change my mind on this, you'll need to show what they add to the reader's understanding of the point being made: that the West's attitude of Muhammad evolved, in a positive direction, over time. I think that point is already well-made in preceding text. Actually, the whole section could do with some straightening-out. The chronology is quite mixed up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe this should be delisted to begin with. Certain sections are just messed up ("Household"), and the system of documentation is inconsistent and incomplete. Ascetic can hold up GA status all they like, but if the revert restores a citation that includes ISBN 9871 and is missing a page number for the citation, then they pull out the rug from under their own argument. In addition, as I noted in my edit summary, these quotes look like they're just randomly thrown in. No indication is given that these writers' assessment is in any way notable, authoritative, or helpful; no historical context is given; and the chronology doesn't even make sense and doesn't jive with the chronology and rhetorical development of the previous paragraph. In contrast, the Dante section (now) has dates and context, and so does the final paragraph (which I let stand). In other words--these quotes are just haphazardly thrown in and serve no purpose but to suggest (not actually say) that "some Westerners saw him more positively". Ascetic needs to focus less on whether something is sourced and more on whether it's relevant and rhetorically effective--especially considering that this is still, for better or for worse, a GA. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • BTW, I appreciate that AsceticRose says I chose these passages "selectively", though I'm not sure that's what they meant to say. But I note also that the history is replete with AsceticRose edit-warring to keep POV material in--there's this, which restores and expands on this; there's this which shows unfamiliarity with citation styles (and cites Islam for Dummies in the lead--now that's not respectful); the pattern of inept citations and edit warring continues with this, and this, and this.

      Note how liberally they refer to "policy" when talk page consensus was against them, and how they claim that one editor's opinion (in this case, that of {{U|Kww}) shouldn't override consensus--when in fact the opposite was the case, as seems to be indicated in Talk:Muhammad/Archive_27#Muhammad_as_Last_Prophet:_about_WP:RS_and_WP:OR. They did the same thing with my edit: citing policy and demanding policy for what was (and is) an editorial decision; it's the very definition of wikilawyering. Then, they get back to Aisha, in this edit--and anyone can see that the sourcing there is hopelessly weak. Then (yes, there's more) there's this, reverted by Amatulic and twice restored by Ascetic (here and here)--and Amatulic is the one to start the talk page discussion on these rather poor and poorly sourced edits, Talk:Muhammad/Archive_27#Seizures_versus_epileptic_fits.

      In general, I note that Ascetic likes to throw WP acronyms around when their counterparts give actual reasons for their reverts and edits. What we have here is disruptive POV editor who is not, unfortunately, very good at writing and sourcing and wikilawyers around while edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

    • I note that ArbCom has approved discretionary sanctions, something to consider. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

One problem with the removal I see is that it would subtract 1 image of Muhammad, which as most here should know is a fairly touchy subject. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Maybe, but we're not a gallery. If I count correctly there's 23 images in this article. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There should be plenty of room for the image --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fine; I won't object. (And I just noted the big fat message on the top of this page, in between all the other big fat messages, including the ArbCom one.) Drmies (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remove those large block quotes now. And I agree, we need to rethink that whole section. Is there anyone here who knows the rationale behind it? Are the people saying nice things about the Prophet all mentioned by more than one current historian as important commentators whose commentary influenced their contemporaries, or as signal exemplars of their time? Or, as Drmies asks, were they just thrown together by random anonymous editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got online (ebook) access to

  • Shalem Avinoam; Di Cesare Michelina; Saviello Alberto; Coffey Heather (2013) Constructing the Image of Muhammad in Europe | De Gruyter. "The volume represents a significant contribution to the complex history of the conceptualization and pictorialization of the Prophet Muhammad in the West. It gives a rapid and though deep overview of the..."
  • Dimmock Matthew (2013) Mythologies of the Prophet Muhammad in Early Modern English Culture | Cambridge University Press. "This book explores how the figure of the Prophet Muhammad was misrepresented in English and wider Christian culture between 1480 and 1735."
  • Di Cesare Michelina (2011) The Pseudo-historical Image of the Prophet Muhammad in Medieval Latin Literature: A Repertory | De Gruyter. "This volume collects medieval Latin texts from the 8th to the 14th centuries that shape a pseudo-historical image of the Prophet Muhammad. The texts, from critical editions, manuscripts and early printed..."

If you can give me a couple of weeks, I'll see if I can draw out some common themes from these. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Wow. You have that through an academic library? I'll look to see if I can get that too. Thanks Anthony. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Members of the State Library of Western Australia (any West Australian can join) get free access to EBL, which is truly, truly awesome. When I recently told my niece, who works/worked (they're being sold as we speak) for EBL, she said, "That can't be right." So I'm hoping she hasn't sent a memo. Anyway, for now I've got everything at my fingertips - at least as far as textbooks. Now, if I could only have the same for all the top journals. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Recent deletions made western views section bit unbalanced, I removed more content for balance. The title of the section is "Historical western views" but it is neither historical nor western, it is a mixture of medieval writings and modern western writings, Medieval European views is not synonymous with western views. Modern views appear to be very different, often admiring. Is there a transformation in western views? Kiatdd (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

please modify the physical description of the prophet this is tottaly WRONG

(Mashqat Shareef, vol 5, no 373) "Muhammad was not too tall and not short. But he was of average height. Hair were neither straight and nor curly. Body was not chubby. Face was not round and heavy and cheeks were not bulky, Infect face was kinda round. Complexion was whitish and reddish. Eyes were black and Eyebrows were long. Joint bones were strong. Edge of shoulders and middle part was strong and flashy. Body was not too hairy, just a line of hair from chest to tummy. Palms and feet were flashy. He use to walk with strength. and it feel like coming down from some higher place. when Hepay attention toward right or left, he(pbuh) move his whole body (not just face). There was sign of prophet hood between both shoulders. He is the last Prophet. Most generous of all and most truthful of all. Very kind in nature and family wise most supreme. who ever see him, in very first look he become influenced, Who use to meet him regularly, he begin to love him more then any thing." Hazrat Ali further narrates that "i have never seen any one like him(pbuh) and never will. May Allah's mercy and peace be upon him(pbuh)"

your physical description of the prophet is wrong cuz you written that he got curly hair but he didnt have curly hair but long hair straight who were a little bit curly at the end because of the long hair ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.130.218 (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Need to edit the photos found in wikipedia. Khalid.hassan (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  •  Not done It's not clear what you're requesting. If you'd like to reuse the photos off of Wikipedia, you don't need permission to do that. If you click on the image, you'll see a page which includes information about how you can reuse it (the licensing.)
If this is about removing content you find objectionable, please note that Wikipedia is not censored, you may want to read the notices at the top of this page.
If there's something you'd like to change on this page that isn't covered, please be more specific. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

According to the respect muslims are obligated to give to the prophet, it is obligatory to write (May Peace Be Upon Him) after the prophet's name. This is a must and not an option. Please make adjustments in the rest of the places also. Thanks,

Please add "(May Peace Be Upon Him)" after EVERY instance of the Prophet's name that is mentioned as a sign of respect. It does NOT need to be inserted in the name of a person other than the Prophet whose name might have Muhammad in it so for example, Muhammad Ibn Ali (as an example) does not need (May Peace Be Upon Him) after this instance of Muhammad but any other place where this name is referring to the Prophet's name, it is obligatory for the words (May Peace Be Upon Him) to be written after his name in EVERY instance.

I can do so if needed. The easiest way to change is through MS Word with the Find/Replace option.


Ansheikh (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see WP:PBUH. --NeilN talk to me 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The BIG difference between GOD & God

There is now a trend to differentiate between GOD & God. Besides 'GOD' being a sign of the ultimate respect, there's a recent additional definition of GOD: the 'system as a whole'/the 'universal quantum computer'. It's been proven by the world's leading quantum computer researchers that not only do particles collide, they compute. Jews and Muslims generally have no problem with this new scientific definition of GOD. What about Christians? Where there is a computer, there are programs. And where there are programs, there is God (incarnate): the original and number 1 programmer. This article is rightfully locked. However, all the references to "God" should be changed to "GOD". - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This particular definition may exist in some circles but it is far from being common usage. The change you describe would fall under WP:FRINGE. --NeilN talk to me 19:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The use of GOD and LORD by Christians is very common and the differentiation between GOD and God-incarnate is understood and used by many! The acknowledgment of GOD as a sign of the ultimate respect is also common. Now, the new 21st century definition of GOD: the 'system as a whole'/the 'universal quantum computer' and God (incarnate: the original and number 1 programmer is definitely "fringe". But just a few thousand years ago, the concept of One GOD was fringe! This article needs to use "GOD". I AM Muslim (although not exclusively), how about you? - Ben Franklin 75.74.180.52 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This will not be done for the same reason why we won't add PBUH. It is not our place to add one religion's honorifics. And this "alternate spelling" is very much only an honorific. Resolute 00:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him)

Please Remove pictures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from the main page these are not real and should be considered as blasphamy.Some bastered has abused our prophet in comments page remove these blasphamous comments from comments page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.157.206 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The pictures included in the article fall under the protection of WP:NOTCENSORED and will not be removed because of offense based arguments. Further the article itself is still locked from the last RFC that occured which included community wide discussion. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: This article needs a picture...

86.141.24.62 posted this comment on 6 January 2013 (view all feedback).

This article needs a picture of Muhammed to give people an idea of who he was and what he wore

Any thoughts?

Mayourity (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Sorry In ISLAM it's HARAM to showing Muhammad P.B.U.H. Haram is mean Doesn't Allowing .

We already have several pictures of Muhammad in the article, per our policy of not censoring article content based upon religious opinion. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of word Concubine

The word "concubnine should be removed as historically it is accepted that all of the Prophet's(PBUH) wives were married to him. as can be seen even in the main article regarding it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives ,it is just an unncecessary controversial point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engrusama (talk • contribs) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the text to more closely reflect what is in the Muhammad's wives article, although I have not removed the word "concubine", since the word is also used in that article. If the word is not appropriate, it would be helpful for you to provide clearer evidence. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent infobox additions

I've reverted some odd and/or misleading (to me) infobox additions ("employer", "monuments", "opponents", "education"?) from Pass a Method and others. Listing here to discuss. --NeilN talk to me 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing i have added it misleading. It is all easily verifiable and is largely even in the article itself. Pass a Method talk 04:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
And Pass a Method has reverted claiming "unexplained deletion" - well done there. Please explain how "illiterate" is relevant and where is it sourced? Please explain how "employers" are important enough to appear in the inforbox for this subject. --NeilN talk to me 04:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just sourced "illiterate" and it is relevant because of frequent such references throughout Islamic tradition. As for employers, it is relevant because it culminated into the first convert to Islam and served as a form of reputation and protection for Muhammad. Pass a Method talk 04:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not listing historical figures as "illiterate". Seriously, this isn't a 4th grader's essay, it is an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Since its relevant and widely covered, then i'd prefer we abide by the infobox guideline and the due weight policies which state we should cover content in proportion to its coverage in relialbe sources. Pass a Method talk 05:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring to add this until you have consensus. The infobox documentation states, "Education, e.g. degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." Clearly a 6th century figure will not have a degree or graduation year. Plus, the article text itself does not even mention his education and the significance of his illiteracy. The subject of his "employment" is also hardly covered. --NeilN talk to me 07:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
E.g. means for example. Its not necessarily limited to formal educational institutions. Pass a Method talk 07:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I know what e.g. means. And for that time period, "None" is inappropriate as formal schooling was hardly prevalent and education was usually informal apprenticeships or tutoring or the like (e.g., "While still in his teens, Muhammad accompanied his uncle on trading journeys to Syria gaining experience in commercial trade") --NeilN talk to me 07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I didn't cite Muhammad as an example but it could be one) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant"

Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how one could think rehashing this discussion would be productive or beneficial. Resolute 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
To address this point, I brought up the idea of maybe only some perennial discussions being eligible for re-discussions without new evidence. Resolute brought up a good point that the risk can be that high quality editors can be driven out if a particular contentious perennial discussion is allowed to be reopened. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of the word light personified (noor)

Light (noor) is one of God's name that can never be attributed to a human being. The word light in the verse 05:15 refers to the Quran (Allah's words) not to the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). [1]197.0.190.94 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. The verse says: قَدْ جَاءَكُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ مُّبِينٌ --- "Nūr" and "kitāb" . Since the verse starts out with جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولُنَا ("Came to you our Messenger") and then proceeds to say جَاءَكُم مِّنَ اللَّهِ نُورٌ وَكِتَابٌ I think you'd have to assume that the "Nūr" is referring to the rasūl, particularly as it says "And came to you from God "a light" and "a book", not "the light of the book. True, النور is one of God's names, but notice that God is called an-Nūr (The Light), not just a light, as Muhammad is referred to in that verse. No reason to remove the word light as a referral to Muhammad.--أخوها (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh? See Nur (name), a "common Arabic unisex name" eg Queen Noor of Jordan. Total nonsense from the IP. DeCausa (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

A.A Please remove pictures from main page.Prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him) is such a dignified personality you can not make his pictures in Islam its considred as a blasphamy.You read his history he was a a beautiful and honourable person.So please remove these pictures and put his tomb's pictures.Put only hisexcellency's name not his fasle pictures.

Owais

The pictures included in the article fall under the protection of WP:NOTCENSORED and will not be removed because of offense based arguments. Further the article itself is still locked from the last RFC that occured which included community wide discussion. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 Not done per Tivanir2. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is welll written and completely neutral when one is talking about writing.However I must say that the pictures of the Prophet(PBUH)are highly offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mominjawad13579 (talk • contribs)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#FAQ-q3 might help you. --NeilN talk to me 07:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, I don't find the pictures offensive at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The pictures are not intrinsically offensive. Some people may feel offended by them but that is not a characteristic of the pictures but of these people. I would guess these people would feel offended by each and every picture in the world at the moment you write the name Muhammad under it. 84.129.208.93 (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep. The whole "it's offensive" argument is nonsensical and has no place on Wikipedia. It all boiled down to WP:NOTCENSORED and it's gonna stay that way.--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 Not done per Somchai Sun. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 10:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Illiteracy

There is a rough consensus against including illiteracy in the infobox. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is his illiteracy notable enough to be in the infobox? Pass a Method talk 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Conditional support: I don't object to include "unlettered" in the infobox... That our Prophet (SAW) did not know how to read and write is quite significant. But "illiterate" doesn't seem ok.—ШαмıQ✍ @ 07:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
PS: To further elaborate myself, I want to get this included because this is well-established as well as a counter-intuitive fact. I think this is enough to warrant its inclusion. (I can further explicate why this is counter-intuitive despite the fact that illiteracy was so prevalent then) —ШαмıQ✍ @ 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above discussion. "Education = none" is quite misleading for a 6th century figure and the significance of Muhammad's illiteracy (hardly uncommon at the time) is not discussed in the article. Indeed, that fact currently appears nowhere in the article except for the proposed addition to the infobox. --NeilN talk to me 08:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Quite sensible... I read in a book that there were only 17 people who could read and write in Makkah in the Prophet's time. So the inability to read and write was fairly common. But as I have said, illiterate is not appropriate as he was not totally uneducated; informal education counts. But his unletteredness should be mentioned in the infobox as well as inside the article. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 08:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I also think we should add "unlettered" per wamiq. I'jaz has a section on it, and some muhammad sub-articles also mention it. Pass a Method talk 12:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NeilN. Apart from not being discussed in the article (although maybe it should be), illiteracy is not an educational qualification. "None" would also not be appropriate, because nobody has zero education. If you can talk, you must have been educated somehow. Formerip (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A lack of education is not itself "education", and there is no significance to a historical 6th century figure's lack of literacy. This is just silly. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
But when a person who is himself unlettered, brings what is the finest piece of literature in Arabic, it will attract the attention of the reader when mentioned. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 14:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a poster-board. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well said... Neither do I want it to be so. I just support its inclusion and am clarifying my standpoint. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I still don't think "Unlettered" should appear in the infobox beside Education as that is over-simplifying the situation. I'm all in favour of this fact and its significance as determined by scholars appearing in the article, though. --NeilN talk to me 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, then how about adding this:
‘Education: No formal education[a] (unlettered)’ ?
  • Oppose - As I know, he was the manager of the business of Khadiza and as a manager he had to keep the account information of the whole business. An illiterate person can't do that I think. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Here, formal education should be taken in the historical context.
Only if we add a section in the article saying why this is significant. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It often comes forward as one of the key arguments used by Muslim scholars/apologists/Dawahists to "prove" Muhammad was the real deal. So that shouldn't be too hard. Somchai Sun (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it feels as though there is some dancing around the subject above. The Qu'ran is often said by muslims to be the finest example of Arabic ever written. Therefore, Muhammad's iliteracy is considered of significance to demonstrate the Qu'ran's divine origin I.e. he was not the author. It shouldn't be just left as a subliminal message - if mentioned at all it needs to be covered in the article.DeCausa (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's correct. However, I think we should be careful. I don't think his illiteracy is what we would normally call a historical fact, although it is part of his conventional biography. We shouldn't present it as proof/possible proof of anything. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

👍 Agreed... Well, neither was I proving the Divinity of the Quran, nor am I making Dawahs. I just said that a normal reader who doesn't consider the Quran to be of a Divine origin, would find this historical/biographical fact interesting... Nothing else. My comment about the Quran was to convince you people that this is significant enough to be included, not the readers that Muhammad (SAW) was the real deal. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2014

please write the full name of my beloved prophet which is (MUHAMMADصلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) 119.157.235.200 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The first instance of his name lists the full name. Please read WP:SAWW for our style guide on honorifics. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

Please remove the cartoonic photos 39.44.153.27 (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --NeilN talk to me 12:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

REMOVE ALL THE picture/photo of holy prophet MUHAMMAD(sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

REMOVE ALL THE picture/photo of holy prophet MUHAMMAD(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Mohemmedsohel (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Guidelines

can anyone of you sweet chaps have a list made of Wikipedia's guidelines that would or may include direct reference to this page or the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM)? Fdabbass1 (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

They're mentioned up top - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images#Final_decision. --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And WP:SAWW --NeilN talk to me 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as it may look like a list to you is as much as I cease to understand its designated purpose. NeilN, do you understand my request? Fdabbass1 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the last time you were around here you didn't make a lot of sense to me either, so I guess not. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, That settles it then ! ;) Anyone else sweet enough to contribute by jotting a list of them Wiki guidelines ? Fdabbass1 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia does have a search box to help you with this. Try
...for starters. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well that was sweet of you Amatulic, you see I wanted to get a more comprehensive grasp to the topic from the experienced ones and You know what Shakespeare says, "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." ;) Fdabbass1 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, fool that I am, I'm happy to help. Here are some other links, more specific to Muhammad and Islam:
Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Hi! Assalamualaikum. I would like to change the name "Muhammad" to "Propeht Muhammad (P.B.U.H)"

Thank You 2.49.201.55 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the project has to maintain a neutral, not deferential, standing towards all religions. See WP:PBUH. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Who is Michael H. Hart and who cares?!

"Michael H. Hart described Muhammad as the most influential human in history." So what? I never even heard of Michael H. Hart! Why is an unknown guy's opinion in the opening paragraph of this all-important article?! It seems really ridiculous. - Benjamin Franklin 75.74.157.29 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Christ almighty, we have links for a reason you know...--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is in the lead of the article, last sentence of 1st paragraph. I have to admit it is rather curious as to why such weight is being given to the views of a white supremacist. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
ACK, I didn't want to comment on this directly - but really? Wow. HE IS? Oh no, not touching this. Nope nope nope. That article had enough trouble already on it, damn. Someone removed it and I can't argue against that. Should never of been in the lede. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014


in this article there is a bad image for the prophet muhammed and the people who responsible for this article should move or delete any photos or photographs shows him by himself or shows his face because this is prohibited and the link of this photo is that http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

 Not done Per prominent banner regarding images at the top of this page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why a part of the information about him is hidden?

since in theory, there's a freedom of speech, then his personal life must be also included, facts that muslims don't even deny, like: mohammad married a 6.y.o. girl and consumed his marriage with her when she was 9, also he having sexual intercourse with a dead woman. I consider that it is not fair hiding negavitve informations just because of the fear of being called racists or being against the "political corecntess", because there's nothing bad in saying the truth,this is the truth and it must be written and said. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User TheTruth (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't where you read about those accusations that you just made. Especially the second one. Fear Allah. Never even think of doing anything that would disrespect in anyway. He is perfect. He never made a mistake in His life. So stop this foolishness. You know nothing about Him.
Read the FAQ, it has the answer to this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Messy Line

Due to his activities as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military leader, and philanthropist.

This line in the lede makes no sense. What is it due to? Tivanir2 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
That was caused by this. Wiqi55 had good intentions but left half a sentence remaining. I've removed it. --NeilN talk to me 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

SWT,SAW,PBUH etc.

I think there is a way to block or hide certain things on wikipedia. Maybe we can have a similar thing where you put in certain settings to show things like SWT (for Allah), SAW and PBUH (for Muhammad), AS(for other true prophets) etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Choudhry (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You could attempt to propose this at the village pump for implementation but I doubt that it would pass. The overall affect would appear to be affirming particular beliefs which is something that most editors are against (note these same editors are also normally against denying said beliefs as well). Also this runs afoul of a few wiki policies; while it is possible to gain support for them to change your arguement would need to be extensive and persuasive. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
There are edit filters, but those are reserved for very particular patterns of vandalism (usually things that long term monomaniacal vandals keep posting because the WMF isn't going to go through the trouble to get a restraining order against said crazy person). Blocking SWT, SAW, PBUH, and AS could cause problems with our articles SWT and AS, and articles that happen to use the words "saw" and "as" in all caps in quotations. Even if somehow narrowed down to uses of all capped SAW and AS only in specific articles relating to Islam (which I'm not sure edit filters can do), this would cause trouble when quoting Islamic documents.
WP:PBUH is easy enough to link to in reverting edit summaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Omar was talking about blocking honorifics but rather automatically adding them as an option for readers who believe they need to be there. --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why it would be necessary to insert honorifics into something you're reading, that was written by someone else? ———Digital Jedi Master (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I hate to go slippery slope on this, but can I get profanity inserted before the names of most televangelists and Republican politicians? As for inserting stuff, I'd assume that'd be an all or nothing deal. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Because some Muslims feel that article content itself should show proper deference to religious figures and writers should be forced (for a lack of a better word) to use honorifics. Obviously we're not going to do that so Omar was proposing an option that would show them what they wanted to see. --NeilN talk to me 20:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to write a script that puts honorifics after the names of certain people, you might as well write it as a browser app so that it affects the name on all websites rather than just Wikipedia. --—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to read articles through a filter is welcome to create their own filter and host it elsewhere. An excellent example is the filter that translates articles into 'gansta rap' speech in the style of Snoop Dogg; see http://www.gizoogle.net/tranzizzle.php?search=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMuhammad for an interesting translation of the Muhammad article. Similar translators exist for other purposes. It would be trivial to write one to attach honorifics to recognized proper names... but the Wikimedia Foundation is not the venue for hosting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suicide Accusation is Fallacious and Wrong

The statement: "Upon receiving his first revelations, he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide" is totally wrong and goes against Sunni beliefs and Islamic beliefs. There is no proof of such an accusation. It is the bizarre misinterpretations of racist orientalists and those who do not understand the Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him). There are many Islamic sources that counter the claims of these missionaries and orientalists regarding the false suicide allegations.[2][3][4]

As we can clearly see from the sources, the suicide accusation is false. It goes against historical Sunni and Shia beliefs. John Esposito's source is biased, fallacious, and totally wrong. Stop the misinterpretation of Islamic texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sunni beliefs and Islamic beliefs" - Sorry, but we don't pander to one groups opinion on Wikipedia. There are plenty of reliable sources out there for Muhammad written by non-Muslim sources. Unless you can prove John Esposito's is an unreliable source, then you have no basis for your claims. Counter-opinions from other scholars are always welcome however. See WP:RS WP:NPOV. Oh, and about your "Racist" comment - perhaps you should read up on the highly pro-Muhammad & non-Muslim sources out there? That would be nice. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Somchai, you are totally wrong. You are already pandering to the views of Islamophobic liars who have been exposed in the links provided. There is NO validity to the claim of suicide. I mentioned Sunni beliefs and Islamic beliefs because later on it specified the beliefs of Shias, so the statement implies a Sunni relation, which is totally false. According to Sunni sources as well as Islamic sources the holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him) NEVER committed suicide and NEVER attempted to commit suicide. You are pandering to the views of racist Western orientalists who viewed Aboriginals of the Americas and Australia as sub-humans and you are taking these outdated, fallacious and wrong views out of other articles, but you are leaving these fallacious views in articles pertaining to Islam and the holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW/Peace be upon him). The statement in the article which states: "Upon receiving his first revelations, he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide." is inaccurate and wrong. It is a slander and accusation, made by Western orientalists based on their own interpretation of Islamic texts, they have neglected and ignored the Islamic interpretations and I have provided you with sources that expose their lies. Stop pandering to these biased 19th Western century views. This article should be unbiased, and it currently is not. As I have stated, the statement pertaining to the suicide accusation should be removed as it has NO basis and absolutely NO validity.

Here are some articles, and we all may disagree or agree with some of the statements stated in these articles, but it gives you a perspective contrary to Esposito's, which regarding to the false suicide accusation should not be ignored in a so-called "unbiased article."

http://unveiling-christianity.org/

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/11/prophet-muhammads-alleged-suicide.html

http://muslim-responses.com/The_Fatrah/The_Fatrah_

Once again, I request those who have access to editing this page to remove the false suicide accusation, for the sake of getting rid of Orientalist bias and misinterpretations of Islamic texts. There is too many different views in this topic to make a solid accusation pertaining to this. What the writers of this article have done is made a biased accusation, which holds no authenticity and validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And once again, we request that you come up with some better sources. The first you offered constitutes purely theological arguments about the validity of a hadith, the second and third sources exists for the sole purpose of pushing a point of view, and the last source discusses the reliability of narrations, a topic on which the various Muslim sects disagree.
It would be reasonable to modify the article text to say instead that some traditional narrations suggest that Muhammad contemplated suicide but that Sunni and Shia tradition rejects the idea. Beyond that, it isn't reasonable to remove outright a statement from the article that has adequate backing in reliable sources and traditional narrations. I do agree that Wikipedia shouldn't make a contentious claim in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but rather it should attribute the claim to a source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The bit about suicide fails WP:V because this citation was incomplete (it gave author and date as if the source was listed in the bibliograpahy, but it isn't). So I've removed it.
The answer would be to find a high-quality source that gives the correct picture, whatever that may be. Formerip (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The citation was quite complete, if you look at the reference list. It was simply a page number from a more complete reference. This is standard practice. I have restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
@Amatulic, I'm not seeing that. The cite is to Esposito 2010. There are references in the bibliography to Esposito works in 1998, 1999 and 2002 but not 2010. He published The future of Islam in that year, but I can't see that in the bib. I think that may have been FormerIP's point - although I would suggest tagging, rather than deleting. DeCausa (talk) 09:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of these links was to bring in to light the complex nature of hadith analysis, what it means to different people, and what it means for this article. If you are looking for a Western source which puts in to question the suicide claim (rather the whole story in itself), I found such a claim in the book: Tajalli wa Ru'ya: A Study of Anthropomorphic Theophany and Visio Dei in the Hebrew Bible, the Qur'an and Early Sunni Islam by W. Wesley Williams on page 148. The author recalls three separate and conflictual accounts by Bukhari, Al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq regarding what happened during this incident, the so called "call to prophecy." Each of these three authors give completely different accounts on the matter. Also, both Sunni and Shia theologians and scholars have denied the suicide accusation, as I have specified earlier.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=1iE34g6UalMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tajalli+Wa-Ru%27ya:+A+Study+of+Anthropomorphic+Theophany&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5T3AUrnRA9jAoAT7gYGgCA&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Tajalli%20Wa-Ru%27ya%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20Anthropomorphic%20Theophany&f=false

In this book, it says: "While Patricia Crone's view of the Islamic historical/exegetical tradition may seem a little too pessimistic, it is apparently right on when it comes to the canonical account of Muhammad's [SAW] call to prophecy. "The whole story is the invention of a later age, "declared Richard Bell."

As we can see Western scholars have come to the conclusion that the story regarding the suicide and other aspects was an invention of the later age. The different accounts by Bukhari, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Ishaq as well as this statement show that a definitive suicide claim is not appropriate for an article which claims to be unbiased. Once again I request those with access to editing to remove the suicide accusation. Stories concerning this so called "call to prophecy" are highly contested and conflictual.

Side note: There are millions of hadiths and historical records regarding the holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW), more so than any other religious figure. Superficially analyzing one and making definitive claims such as "he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide" is misleading, biased, wrong, and inaccurate. Different people have different approaches to historical records, so let us not ignore the Sunni and Shia views that deny the suicide accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I just found the comment below posted on Template talk:Edit semi-protected, and it looked like it belonged here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I would like a certain part of this article to be edited. In the category "Beginnings of Islam", it suggests that after Angel Gabriel came to the Prophet with the first words of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad returned home distressed and willing to commit suicide. This is not true! Please take this false information of this article. In all my learnings of Islamic history, this has never come up anywhere, that the Prophet Muhammad ever considered committing suicide. I repeatplease take this out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.248.160 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated, the suicide accusation should be removed. It is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:WEIGHT might be on your side here. It's clearly a theory put forward by one author as it stands. Somchai Sun (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

In the mean time can the wording be changed to not sound definitive? For example using words such as "might" may work better than outright saying "he was deeply distressed and resolved to commit suicide" as this is a definitive statement. If it is changed to "he was deeply distressed and might have resolved to commit suicide" it may work to take a more broader scope. It does not change the initial message of some of the writers of the article, but it also includes Sunni, Shia, and other perspectives. To say "resolved to commit suicide" is not academic and is very narrow. There is also some hypocrisy here, as in the article (for Al-Isra-Wal-Miraj) it explicitly mentions the differences between Ibn Ishaqs views, Al-Tabaris views, Ibn Kathirs views, etc., but in this part that is talking about the so called "call to prophecy" the article is totally neglecting the various and conflictual accounts on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.231.71 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the wording cannot be changed to 'might' simply because He never intended to commit suicide. Plus, He never committed suicide. He is perfect. He is special. That complete sentence had to be removed and is now removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia, what kind of non-censorship is this. In accomplishing such act, you are allowing false information to float your servers and web pages. How can you let a non-muslim put his foolish interpretation here and ask for proof to a Muslim. How in the world can you ask for proof from a Muslim. The case should be that if a Muslim is saying it's wrong, it must be because the simple fact is he is a Muslim. I am sure no Muslim community believe that. It's a false statement and should be dropped immediately.

If you need proof, read Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I do sympathize with you on this issue, however we simply cannot delete info because you believe it to be false when it is in fact backed up by reliable sources. However, I would agree that in its current form the suicide accusation (accusation is a harsh word, it's just an opinion of one historian) comes across as WP:UNDUE. Other editors here don't seem to want to engage on this matter I think, and I can't change anything on my own, sorry. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Somchai Sun What if i bring you proof that the revelations done by a non-muslim here are utter false? Will you remove the content? I am counting on you for this. I will prove. I will collect enough proof in a matter of few days and will get back. Please acknowledge this message. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You mentioned me in your comment but it didn't show up on my notifications..what. Anyway, it appears to be undue weight to one idea held by one Historian (as an amateur Historian myself I understand the problem somewhat, history can often be subjective and not clear-cut, especially when you're dealing with a figure like Muhammad). So unless anyone objects I will remove it soon. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Somchai Sun On behalf of all people who objected that sentence, I thank you for removing it. I can assure you that what you did is right. Yes, Prophet Mohammed was a bit distressed but never resolved to commit suicide. He is Special. The world looks upto him. Why would He do anything that would send a wrong message. Plus, committing suicide in Islam is prohibited and is considered a sin. Prophet Mohammed(SAS) is perfect. -- Ferraribauer (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done per WP:UNDUE. One historians assertion is not good enough to back up such a claim. I've left in the bit about being depressed and the part about this being disputed by the Hadith. I understand your view, and the evidence for suicidal thoughts was weak - just because someone is depressed or distressed doesn't mean they're about to commit suicide or even think it. JUst one mans historical interpretation...I doubt it was made in a disrespectful manner (you will find history is littered with disputes (Good example:Richard III - he was smeared against in the Tudor era but there are groups today defending his reputation and dispelling myths, or trying to). But ultimately WP:UNDUE was the reason for removal. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well if it is undue go ahead and be bold. I don't know much about that specific portion of his life so I tend to stay silent when things are being dicussed I am not well versed in. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects then... --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Well its BRD so if someone objects you just move onto the third part, discussion, if people are not seeing eye to eye. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth

the title of the video on youtube is: Muhammad in the Bible | The Irrefutable Proof | The Absolute Truth

I have Irrefutable Proofs that the Bible heralded the Coming of Prophet Muhammad "The Chosen One":

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgEHd9hylA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.99.44 (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's funny, do you expect everyone here to be a Christian? Just wondering. Because I'm not, so Religion Vs Religion refutation of this manner doesn't phase me or really interest me. At any rate, I hate when religion is used for the purposes of being divisive and claiming you are part of some "special club". Anyway, WP:FRINGE WP:RELIABLE means that videos like that are not acceptable sources. Sorry.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's funny too, when someone uses "irrefutable proof" and "Bible" or other religious text in the same breath. Not only is it a WP:FRINGE theory and not a WP:RELIABLE source, but it's also WP:SELFPUB and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. With so many strikes against it, there's no way it will get into a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

Please remove the illustrated pictures immediately. 119.154.23.205 (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work that way. Please read the Wiki-Policy-guide concerning being offended. 182.88.166.188 (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

See my question at Talk:Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib#Date of death. The info about that date (January 571) does not square with his son's supposed posthumous birth in "c. 570". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the point of the circa in "c.570". It doesn't mean it was in 570, but in a year close to 570. This was discussed a couple of years ago in this thread. The most common candidate years in reliable sources are 569, 570 and 571, with some sources being way outside of this. The alleged date of the death of his father is just one factor in a number of issues. The "c.570" was agreed in that discussion to cover all these uncertainties. DeCausa (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, DeCausa. That earlier thread did not discuss his father's date of death at all.
If that death date is correct, then that has implications for our knowledge of Muhammad's birth. But if, as you say, it is simply "alleged", then that needs to be made clear in that article, because right now it's stated as if it is known with certainty he died in January 571. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any cited source for a death date of Jan. 571 in that article. I also see that that is given in the infobox, but the opening of the lead gives a death year of 570. Given that there was a review of the sources for Muhammad's birth year in this article (in that thread), I rather think it's more of a question of looking at the validity of the sources for Jan. 571 in the Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib article. It wouldn't surprise me if that particular date is derived by a source working back from one of the claimed birth dates from Muhammad. Or, all dates at this time are based on which year was the Year of the Elephant and different sources taken different views of when that was. So, I think it's more of a discussion at this point for tye other article than this one. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with that approach. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Illiteracy not mentioned in the article

Question. Why is the fact that Muhammad was illiterate not mentioned in the main article? I only realized this was true, because I accidently clicked on the Talk link and saw it here. True enough, such info doesn't define the man, but it's something noteworthy that an encyclopedia should mention somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.29.78 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can come up with appropriate text and sources other editors could comment and we could proceed from there. --NeilN talk to me 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
His alleged illiteracy not being mentioned in the article is rather surprising to me. This is definitely something that should be mentioned in the article, with reliable sources. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Why is there a driving need to call attention to something quite common in 7th-century Arabia? What about Jesus Christ, does that article make mention of his likely illiteracy? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Given that the Koran is considered to be the literal words spoken by Muhammad, one might get the impression that he was the one who wrote them down. -- Frotz(talk) 23:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the Koran itself: verse 7:157 is the most commonly cited. There's also Aisha's tale of the archangel Gabriel commanding Muhammad to read something. Muhammad responded back three times, "I can not read!" Most everything about Muhammad being illiterate stems from those two accounts. Nargrakhan 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect someone not well-versed on the Koran to know that. Perhaps the article should mention his illiteracy and say something about who might have actually written down what he said to eliminate this possible error. Maybe Jesus Christ would do well with a similar sentence or two. -- Frotz(talk) 08:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The significance of his alleged illiteracy was discussed in the earlier thread. This is a religious point, and if it is mentioned it has to be framed in that context. Muslims regard Muhammad's illiteracy as evidence that the text of the Qu'ran was divinely authored and not authored by Muhammad. The reason is that the Qu'ran is considered the most sublime example of Arabic, and an illiterate person could not have authored it. See this for instance. To drop in "illiteracy", without explaining what Muslims read into it, seems to me to make the point subliminally and not expressly - and there is a NPOV problem with that. Also, as the source to which I linked alluded to, not all ascolars accept that he was illiterate - and that would have to mentioned as well. (Btw, as to the comparison with Jesus, Christians don't believe Jesus, or God, directly wrote the Gospels in the way that Muslims believe that God directly wrote the Qu'ran word for word. So the illiteracy of Jesus is not an equivalent.) DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Tarc, Frotz -- not sure where you got the idea that Jesus was illiterate. According to Luke 4:17, he was able to read an Isaiah scroll in Hebrew (at a time when the ordinary spoken language among most Jews was Aramaic). Someone illiterate claiming authority as a Jewish religious leader in the 1st century A.D. would likely not have been taken too seriously by most Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this really happening ? How about you guys ask a Muslim for a change ?! just saying, those people ain't gonna bite :P ! Or maybe go ask a Rabbi or a Priest, if you are really sure that they won't bite either... Fdabbass1 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Answering your supremely unhelpful comment, it's because Wikipedia relies on the research of scholars, not Joe Random on the street. In this case, we would look to historians who have studied Muhammad's life. --NeilN talk to me 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well who in God's name translated all those books for you guys to read them like that? aren't they joe random in principle? or is it because their majority have ceased to speak words in this existence (probably because they died) that their words and remarks will be forever embraced as sacred and trustworthy ?Fdabbass1 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HAHA I feel like laughing. I have 2 simple, logical arguments on this topic. 1. Foe user Nargrakhan you have cited Aisha say muhammed responded to the archangel Gabriel that "I cant read" then the question is didnt Allah Subhanahu and his archangel Gabriel knew that Muhammed could not read? If so then why ask him to read? 2. Here is some more citation as proof Muhammed could read and write both. These are written historical events. As per the Quran what it states is surely true in every word, but yes it should be correctly read. Mustafasr (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention, its a popular hadith Muhammed (saw) said its compulsary for each and every Muslim men and women to educate themselves. So wasnt it more on his part to first educate himself? Mustafasr (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mustafasr So you feel like laughing. You foolish little human. Fear Allah. Think unlimited times before you even think of writing something against Prophet Mohammed. You don't know what you got yourself into. The intention by Jibraeel AS was to make Him learn how to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraribauer (talk • contribs) 06:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing your theology, speculations, and original research. We are here to discuss improvements to the article, based on reliable secondary and scholarly sources, not religious texts. Please review WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OR and abide by those policies. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A mistyped error or a clear vandalism

I want to report a mistyped error or a clear vandalism at www.wikipedia.com/wiki/muhammad ,in the "Name and appellations section" .Its written "24] The Quran also refers to Muhammad as A mad "more praiseworthy" (Arabic: أحمد‎, Sura As-Saff 61:6). As for everyone knows the quran refers to Muhammad as "Ahmad" or "Ahmed" Not as "A mad". I hope it is changed as soon as possible. Thank you.

It appears to have been fixed already. If you're still seeing the vandalized version, try clearing your browser cache. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2014

Dear their is a Picture (cartoon) of Muhammad (SAWW) receiving Message of God by JIBRAIL (AS). Delete that picture all th muslims hate it. He is a Great Prophet of God. No picture is not suitable of him. Muazam Rana (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for the detailed answer to this frequently asked question. Favonian (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

These paintings should be removed

Moved to Talk:Muhammad/images#These paintings should be removed, where it belongs.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so, and even more thanks for being awesome.61.187.64.124 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph Clean Up

This paragraph is overly messy

  • Some western scholars of Islam hold that the oldest Muslim tradition identified the journey as one traveled through the heavens from the sacred enclosure at Mecca to the celestial al-Baytu l-Maʿmur (heavenly prototype of the Kaaba); but later tradition identified Muhammad's journey as having been from Mecca to Jerusalem.

It reads poorly and makes my brain feel like mush. However I don't have access to the source right now, or really have enough understanding from the material to improve the wording. Anyone else have some suggestions? Tivanir2 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement

Muhammad, surrounded by fire, is depicted on the right. Jesus and others are on the left
Muhammad leads Jesus, Abraham, Moses and others in prayer. Medieval Persian miniature.

Dear fellows while reading this article, I found out that two of images related to the appearance of Islamic prophed Muhammad come form a single source i.e., painted by a single artist. We need diversity because we have no clues about his appearence. Can I replace one of those images by the above given image. Please share your comments.Septate (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have re-reverted you again. You should have posted this on the talk page first.
It's a nice image, and I wish there were a place for it in the article. The place you put it was in a section about Muhammad's early life, replacing an image that depicted a traditionally accepted actual event in the history of Muhammad's life (resetting the Black Stone). The image you propose just doesn't fit in that context, because it doesn't depict anything about the life of Muhammad, in the section where you put it.
Your proposed image would fit best in the context of the "Legacy" section under "Muslim views", which says in the second paragraph "In Islamic belief, Muhammad is regarded as the last of a series of prophets sent by God" — which is more or less what the image depicts.
Unfortunately there isn't a good way to fit it in with all the other stuff. It might fit on the left side at the beginning of the third paragraph of "Muslim views" at the risk of making things look cluttered. If we were to include that image, I would advocate removing the infobox (why do we have an infobox in the middle of an article) and putting the image somewhere within the space it occupies. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
OK I will replace the second image with this while having info box.Septate (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about replacing an image. We're talking about adding a new image to the article. And you just replaced the Black Stone image yet again, after being reverted with my lengthy explanation above. We also need consensus from others who monitor this page before we can accept another image depicting Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me what this new image is supposed to tell readers regarding the life of Muhammad? I note all the other images chosen depict incidents during his life, this new one does not. Dolescum (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I honestly can't see what it adds about his life. I wouldn't be oppossed to it in the legacy section but I honestly think that the Islam infobox serves a better purpose than this picture. In particular for this article I always thought that overall the article pictures were well thought out; they depict times of his life in tasteful ways. This I don't see much use for unfortunately. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this image more or less depicts a religious position. It might be better suited for the article Muhammad in Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As it doesn't actually depict an actual event from history...yes. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear All, It is not a matter of suitable or not suitable image, the point is that according to Islamic concepts and common believe of all Muslims, it is NOT allowed at all to make or show a pictorial depiction of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I kindly request to remove both (in-fact there are two images) images showing pictures of Prophet Muhamad (PBUH) immediately, before it becomes a public issue and embarrassment of wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan981 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014 please remove the pictures illustrating prophets figure

101.165.162.248 (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done please see the FAQ as to why these images will not be removed. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that discussion my friend. The only tragedy with you is that you are completely unaware of the fact that how much this can hurt the feelings of almost one third of the population of this Planet. Secondly , you might be an editor of this wiki pedia or you may have a competence to develop some page but before trying to write an article on some religion you need to be aware of code of ethics of THEOLOGY. Since all this article is about theology could you please provide any competence or certification in that. Certainly note the way you guys are behaving certainly tells it is a bunch of boys with toys. You are certainly not aware how important WIKIPEDIA is. How much you can hurt wiki pedia even. Without knowing the consequences you might would open a Pandora's box of many a hurt peoples. This is a very sensitive time of our globe when we are fighting with lots of haterage and trying to over come conflicts. So ethically we should avoid all those issues which can cause any damage to harmony of our communities. It is quite clear Muslims do not allow picturing their prophet MUHAMMAD PBUH. Then why do you want to do it. Just to offend them? On the other hand there is no depiction by the artist on the pictures that he is showing Prophet Muhammad in them It is only the author of these articles creating this fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tippu714 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"The only tragedy with you is that you are completely unaware of the fact that how much this can hurt the feelings of almost one third of the population of this Planet." I am fully aware that these images have caused controversy among Muslims. I also didn't write the article on Muhammad, and I did not decide on the inclusion of the images - Wikipedia relies on a wide-range community consensus. There was a discussion (Now closed) here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Wikipedia is also not censored. I also find your attitude patronizing & judgmental - and because of that, I will not communicate with you further, unless you change your attitude, which I hope you do! --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody wants to offend you. But also nobody will design their webpage arround the concept of not offending you

Hence, if you see something in the internet that offends you. Do not take it personally and leave the webpage. Or are you planing to visite each and every pornsite and write them: "It is quite clear Muslims do not allow picturing of nacked women. Then why do you want to do it. Just to offend them? " As you can not remove the nacked women from pornsites without making them pointless, you can not remove NPV from wikipedia without making it pointless. NPV demands that the article of mohammed is treated the same way as the article of every other historical person. Therefore any attempt to get a special treatment for the Mohammed article will fail.

141.5.26.36 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately 141.5.26.36 the people who come here to complain about the images have a very single-minded goal. I'm not going to argue with them because we'll never agree - the user who complained in this thread clearly did not understand how wikipedia works. I hope they will if they read the links I provided! --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Status

Sorry if this seems odd but I can't remember. Is this article considered a GA? I am trying to fix up the article enough wording wise to get it run through FA nomination but the going is super slow due to the stringent wording analysis and length. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also I was considering removing the Quranic verse located in the Siege of Medina section, as it does not add anything to the ongoing information being discussed within the paragraph. Any thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

General cleanup complete. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The box in the header shows the current status as a good article, with the last reassessment in 2012. I notice someone recently inserted several inline tags that questioned the reliability or correctness of some sentences. These should be corrected or addressed to retain good article status. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

POV tagging by Zwanzig 20

About 92% of the article summarize Muhammed's life and teachings according to Muslim tradition, the rest reports what other religions think about him, and doesn't even go into Hagarism or The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran. It already accommodates reasonable Muslims. The only way it could accommodate unreasonable ones further would be censoring the "Non-Muslim views" and "Criticism" sections, which make up about 8% of the article and throw PBUH after every instance of Muhammad's name, neither of which is happening under WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PBUH.

But Zwanzig 20 claims the article is written by "western sources [western Twisters]," and therefore automatically biased. Nevermind that those are academic sources that summarize the most common and least doubtful traditions. In other words, Zwanzig 20 has an anti-Western bias. Perhaps he should try Muslim Wiki or some other site since he doesn't trust the academic basis for this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just another POV edit warrior. If he/she cannot be reasonable and read up/understand wikipedia procedure, then they have no business here whatsoever. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Given his behavior here and at Talk:Aisha, I don't think he is able to work within our guidelines and policiee. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Definition Change

I think the first sentence saying "Muhammad (محمد), was a man from Mecca who unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." is about his political career rather than him being Prophet, and should be carried to a later sentence because for his importance is about features referring to the religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.93.19.62 (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

His single most prominent contribution in his life would be exactly what the lede currently describes. He founded Islam, he unified Arabia. I don't see what the problem is. We aim to be neutral and non-subjective without using weaselly words at best. Nobody knows that Muhammad talked to angels or was actually divinely inspired remember. And can I ask how you would actually prefer the lead to be described? Give an example? --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the OP, the first sentence does seem to emphasise his political role. Really, his prime importance to world history is as the "founder" of Islam. Of course we've had long debates about that concept and this is the compromise. Nevertheless, the first sentence should be about his role as the prophet of Islam (hoever expressed) and the second point is that he united Arabia. It almost needs the second/third sentence coming before the first. DeCausa (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't disturb the uneasy balance here. Yes, Muhammad's founding of Islam was his single most notable achievement but, as noted later, the Islamic position is that Muhammad didn't found Islam at all.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Expanding it wouldn't hurt? --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
How about 'Muhammad was a man from Mecca whose teachings (now known as Islam) unified Arabia into a single religious policy.'...? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 May 2014

In the middle of the third paragraph from the top is the following sentence:

"After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, took control of Mecca in the largely peaceful Conquest of Mecca."

This sentence is inaccurate because the conquest of Mecca was not peaceful. Google defines "peaceful" as, "not involving war or violence." Yet the conquest was a military operation involving 10,000 armed soldiers. (The source for this is the Wikipedia article titled, "Conquest of Mecca.")

Using the word "peaceful" to describe the conquest of Mecca goes beyond merely being incorrect. It is quite nearly the opposite of an accurate description.

I suggest changing the sentence to: "After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 soldiers and marched on the city of Mecca. His advance went largely uncontested and he easily took over the city."

Breakingbrush (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My suggested replacement for the line: After fighting for eight years with the Meccan tribes Muhammad and his followers, numbering 10,000, seized control of Mecca without bloodshed. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done for now: I think we need to leave a little longer for a consensus to develop as to the preferred wording here. Please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template when there is a consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I prefer a combination of the original with Tivanir's with a wikilink to Conquest of Mecca:
"After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, took control of Mecca without bloodshed."
~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done per discussion below. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Change in Wording to Improve Accuracy

I suggested an edit and Mr. Stradivarius responded by saying he would hold off on editing until a consensus on wording was reached. So this is an attempt to reach a consensus. This is my first attempt at editing and it’s likely I will make errors in process or etiquette. Feel free to correct or advise me on anything you all see fit.

The sentence in question is in the middle of the third paragraph of the article. It reads:

"After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to 10,000, took control of Mecca in the largely peaceful Conquest of Mecca."

The sentence has at least a few problems:

1. It misuses the word “peaceful.” The sentence in question describes the conquest as “largely peaceful.” But, according to the Wikipedia article titled Conquest of Mecca, the conquest was not peaceful at all. Rather, it was a military invasion involving 10,000 armed soldiers. By definition, a military invasion cannot be correctly described as “peaceful.” Google, for example, defines "peaceful" as, "not involving war or violence." Wiktionary defines it as, “not at war or disturbed by strife or turmoil.” To describe the conquest of Mecca as “largely peaceful” goes beyond merely being inaccurate. It's pretty close to describing the exact opposite of what happened.

2. It misuses the word “followers.” According to Conquest of Mecca, Muhammad raised an army of 10,000 armed men for this invasion. But the sentence in question, by referring to these soldiers as “followers,” gives the impression that they were not soldiers. It suggests to the reader an unarmed group composed of men, women and children. Which is misleading.

3. It incorrectly equates the number of soldiers with the number of religious followers. It’s inaccurate to say that Muhammad’s followers had “by then grown to 10,000.” 10,000 was the number of soldiers, not the number of religious followers. There must have been many followers in Medina who were not soldiers and did not march on Mecca.

I think we ought to replace the sentence with something like this:

After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 soldiers and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed.

What do you all think?

Breakingbrush (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

*shrugs* Sure, why not. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Precise and reasonably concise. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think its a good option. My original suggestion was to get the ball rolling on smithing a new sentence. This looks good overall to me, though we need to double check the source to make sure the new wording is supported. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine except "gathered an army of 10,000 soldiers" suggests a traditional army, mercenaries etc., but his army was an army of converts, which is a central point. I suspect that the intent of "followers" was really to imply this. I'd suggest "...gathered an army of 10,000 followers..." or even "gathered a Muslim army of 10,000 soldiers..." DeCausa (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Why not "an army of 10,000 Muslim converts"? WP:SPADE and all, you know. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep! DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A little off topic but should the Ishmaelite claim be removed since there are no sources beyond the "everyone I know" comment made by the person who added it? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought that had gone (must have confused it with another article). Yes, no place for that here. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to make the change, per above, to: "After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed." to find that that the article is now fully protected after some disruption a few days ago. @Amatulić, perhaps you could do the edit? DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done.
Huh. I didn't realize it was protected either. Looks like it will expire in a few hours. Good thing you mentioned it, because when it expires, the article will be fully unprotected, instead of semi-protected as usual. I'll restore the semi-protection next time I'm here if nobody else beats me to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

whywhy

why in this article there are some photos of our prophet? Admind must delete all of them. Ermejoso (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of the page. Dolescum (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

eyes needed at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

  • Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, despite most sources stating that the marriage to Aisha was consummated at age 9-10, there is a user insisting on saying that it was not. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Just reverted an edit on there that added back the above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ

Since all the links are set to show as default, shouldn't this be removed? 

[[File:Information.svg|20px]] '''To view an explanation to the answer, click the <nowiki>[show]</nowiki> link to the right of the question.'''

Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The links are hidden by default for me when I view the FAQ from this page. IIRC, there is a default setting that causes any collapsible infobox fragment to auto collapse if a certain number of templates are transcluded (might be as low as two, actually). Resolute 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No references or sources for criticism section

The editors cannot put criticism thoughts without references, that is not polite. I may done some edit to add some information I know has references but never should put criticism to persons without references. Otherwise it seems like the editor is criticising. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point there. I will see if I can find relevant references in the child article today. --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

is yo supposed to be to?

There is a section that reads: "Following the emigration, the people of Mecca seized property of Muslim emigrants yo Mecca"

Just thought I'd ask if yo is mistyped. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.236.229 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Done--thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not mention the name of Muhammed's God

To the Editors (I am blocked), please mention the name of the God of Muhammad. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To the Editors, please mention in the article that Muhammad's God had 99 Great names, and the first name was Allah. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

no Declined. This is a biography article first and foremost. No encyclopedia article is improved by introducing religious beliefs into it. Furthermore, "Muhammad's God", according to Islam, exists prior to and independently of Muhammad, and is therefore not relevant to this biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Muhammad's thoughts and behavior and God, are important to this article which is about Muhammad. If some one in future wants to describe me it will be important to mention that I believe in Allah as my God before me practicing Islam. I think we need to distinguish between practicing and believing. The practice of religion is Islam, but the God is Allah, some people may practice same way but they may have two or three Gods in their mind. So what did this person Muhammad have one God or two and what did he say were the names. Muhammad had in his mind one God with 99 Great names. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There are religions besides Islam, see List of religions and spiritual traditions. As I said on your talk page, if something is going to be added to an article, it has to be something that people of different religions (or even no religion) would agree to. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: if this article is a biography why it has criticism section, for me it is strange to mention any criticism after the Muhammad's life and his experience. I understand this article is about Muhammad and his experience in his life, so his thoughts are more important to describe here in this article. Describing other people's thoughts against the person is not more important than the subject's thoughts and believes. This article must describe Muhammad's God in the way Muhammad said about his God and what he called/described Allah. The word Allah should be included because Muhammad was use to repeat calling Allah within his life. There are many sourced that document Muhammad experiences and biography and they all mention Allah with large details in the way Muhammad speaks. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with a biography having a criticism section, particularly when that biography is about a person who had significant influence on the world. Unless we are quoting Muhammad talking about Allah, the word "Allah" is not necessary to include. You are arguing from a religious point of view. The article will not adopt a religious point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

the word God mentioned many times and the word Allah was not mentioned. Please amend. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reason for amending that is in line with our neutral point of view policy. Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews, and Deists use "Allah" to refer to the God they worship, and a lot of English speaking Muslims use the word "God" to refer to Allah, which is why most scholars see the two terms as the same word in different languages. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Abdusalambaryun, you have been informed already that this is the English Wikipedia. We use English terms here. This is already covered in MOS:ISLAM. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a platform to promote religious beliefs. Your statement about Muhammad's mind, or the number of names a deity has, is a religious belief, and I don't see how it would have a place in an biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
People may have different way to say God, but we need to be careful when documenting. Allah is a name, not God in all religions, for example, I had a discussion with someone (is Arabic person )he believes in Allah as Christian but his God is three Gods: Allah (father), Jesus and holy goats. Therefore, the name Allah in his naming is the father. In Arabic we use Elah to describe the Word "God". Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, it is how we do things here. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
"Holy goats"? Heh.
We don't refer to the deity of Abrahamic religions by the name followers choose to give the deity. Whether Allah or Jehovah or Yaweh, they all mean the same thing. Allah is both a name and a term synonymous with "God" in English. If you want build a consensus to change the Manual of Style guidelines, this page is not the place to do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: Do you mean MoS are rules and compulsory to follow, even if it is against truthful and real information. Those names of God are not same, they are very different in many sense if you consider God as a person. If I call you a name you did not allow me to then I am not polite, and if I use your names in wrong context that will not be polite also. Muhammad's speeches and uses of the word Allah is very different that the way others use the word Allah. Muhammad use to unify Allah and God and mostly use one finger to show that God is one. The time and place he lived at was an environment and culture that worship many Gods and when they refer to creator they say Allah, people in Mecca know Allah as creator not the God to worship. Muhammad was worshiping Allah as the one God and one creator. I hope that MoS does not interfere by noise in important issues like these that discover the Muhammad's use of the word Allah which is different than many religions and even the people he was born with. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a red herring argument. We are not discussing many gods that may have been recognized by people in Muhammad's time. The Abrahamic god/creator has different names in different religions. We don't use those personal names to refer to that particular concept of deity.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines. Policies are the rules that govern how Wikipedia operates, and they are compulsory to follow. Guidelines describe best practices that make Wikipedia a useful reference for anyone regardless of nationality, religion, race, etc. Deviations from the guidelines must be done with care. So far, you have not offered a compelling argument to do so; you have referred only to a subjective "truthful and real information" which is not objective truth but rather a theological position. You have not offered a single proposal of a single sentence that should change, and you have not given any reasoning, based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, why the change is necessary. You also don't seem to understand that this article is a biography, not a platform to describe points of theology. The article Muhammad in Islam might be a better place for your proposals. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Abdusalambaryun, it might be helful for you to know that in written English a distinction can be made between god (lower case "g") and God (upper case "G"). The former is a deity in generic terms (in your terms, "shirk") and the latter conventionally means the monotheistic God. Many muslims are quite happy, therefore, to see elah or ilah translated as "god", and Allah as "God". For example the Saudi government does so here in a translation of the shahada. MOS:ISLAM directs Allah to be translated as "God" not "god". DeCausa (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Lede sentence

In the lead there is a sentence that doesn't seem to fit quite right. "He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married at age 25", I don't think is appropriate as is; the sentence should probably read more along the lines of "After his childhood Muhammad primarily worked as a merchant." The shepherd part is never discussed post lead, and frankly the first time married hardly approaches a huge chunk of the accompanying text. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence isn't much better "Being in the habit of periodically retreating to a cave in the surrounding mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer, he later reported that it was there, at age 40..."; "Occasionally he would retreat to a cave in the mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer; later, at age 40, he reported at this spot..." is a lot tighter and easier to read than the current sentence. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I say Be bold and fix it. I agree with your assessment. The article is so long already, that we don't need the lead to include irrelevant trivia about him being a shepherd or when he first got married. Any tightening up is a worthwhile effort. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
any detail about Muhammad's life is relevant and should be included by simple text and sequence. The editor should take care of all Muhammad's experiences, if the article is long then make new sections with simpler objectives, breaking long body into few sections with stronger bold objectives is better style than ignoring important experience of the person in subject. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to be a concise summary. The relevant information is in the accompanying text. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
And in any case, it is not true that "any detail about Muhammad's life is relevant." This is an encyclopedia article, not a full grown biography. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction is not organised

This article is doing same of mentioning what religions believe of Muhammad before describing Muhammad's believe and his experience with God, and what did Muhammad name his God. The reader get lost in translation of the purpose when reading first paragraph, because it mentions many different religions what they believe about Muhammad.

The article starts with paragraph that contains;

Believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God,

  • the word God is not defined, is it two Gods or more, do they call that God same name. Why the editors mentioned their religion-name before mentioning what Muhammad called his God.

Also article continues:

Muhammad, with the exception of Ahmadi Muslims,[n 1] is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.

  • not sure what is the purpose of this information. I am interested what did Muhammad think did he say he is last prophet. The editors have no priority, please focus on the subject which is Muhammad first.

Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as your first remark goes, that's just putting things in context for the reader and explaining why Muhammad is important. For someone who might never have heard of him, letting them know Muhammad spread the message of Islam and established a major world faith would be an important thing to tell them, wouldn't it? Dolescum (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The English meaning of "God" with an uppercase G, has no ambiguity as you imply. This is the English Wikipedia. If you are having difficulty with the English language, there are many other Wikipedias in other languages for you to participate in.
As to the second point, a good article in this encyclopedia should explain in the lead section why the subject is significant. Saying that he is considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God is an assertion of significance. Also, in keeping with WP:LEAD, the sentence also serves as a concise summary of the section on Muslim views. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad sent by Allah

I see that editor decided to show that Muhammad is sent by God, but word God is not identified. I suggest that editors edit to : Allah (God). Abdusalambaryun (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

no Declined. This is the English Wikipedia, so we use English words, and "Allah" is synonymous with "God". See also MOS:ISLAM for further guidance. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
the English wiki for Allah I already commented in the article talk, that Allah is not same as God, because "Elah" is synonymous with "God". Please see my discussion at the article of Allah. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you've misunderstood the difference between god and God in English. See thread below. DeCausa (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi DeCausa, I don't think I misunderstood but I got very deep in the meaning of God, changing small to capital is not a big important. The noun is always a noun, even if you make all letters capital. A name is a name even if all letters are small, however, in English, names are with capital letter. So, do you mean God is a name, I will say it is not a name, it is a noun. In Arabic, Elah is a noun, and Allah is a name, I hope this is clear.

In any language:- A Word is with meaning but it is not always a noun. A noun is a word but it is not always a name. A name is a noun and it is always identifying a person or a property or a thing, or etc.

In English do you call your cat or dog with word "Cat" or Dog", no I don't think so. The word GOD is not a name but each human calls his/her god some name(s). In real life and in the World we have Humans, Animals, and Gods. Each of those when they are intelligent or important or important-to-someone, they have names in the World. Therefore, how can you call your god as "God", it is not reasonable. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's also rather bizarre that we go to bazaars to buy two shoes, too, while pondering whether the weather will be sunny today. The English language is peculiar. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he's trying to say that an Arabic word may start with a capital letter without being a proper name? I don't see how it's relevant either way. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Abdusalambaryun please learn the difference between a common noun (god) and a proper noun (God). Your persistence on this matter is getting to be WP:TENDENTIOUS. Your own failure to understand simple capitalization rules in English isn't a problem for this article. It is your problem, and you must rectify that on your own. Please do that rather than debate endlessly about a detail of English that you evidently have not understood. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith is teachings not traditions

The Hadith mean speech not tradition. Muhammad's teaching and deeds were reported as Hadith. Abdusalambaryun (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is my understanding of them as well. They are written, oral accounts compiled by muslim historians.Somchai Sun (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014

Prophet Muhammad didn't ask people to "surrender" to God, he asked them to revere Him as Allah not God 93.126.220.114 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

no Declined. You have not proposed any specific replacement text, nor have you provided any sources to back up a proposed change. The sentence you seem to be referring to already has several citations. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, and in English, the Arabic "Allah" is synonymous with the English proper name "God". ~Amatulić (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad cannot read or write

The Quran mentions (7:157) "Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel ..." It can be found in Bible, Isaiah (29:12) " And if the document is given to one who cannot read and he is asked to read it, he will say: I can't read" Abdusalambaryun (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say that. I'm not sure why you are choosing that interpretation as it isn't a literal one. It appears the usual English translation is "unlettered" which has a variety of meanings. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Abdusalambaryun, the issues around the word "ummi" were pointed out to you at Talk:Quran in this exchange. You've ignored that and now made this POV edit. In light of the previous discussion, that is tendentious. DeCausa (talk)▪

Edit request

Very good quality article everyone -- very thorough, well written and balanced. I think I may have found a few small things that may need a little tweak:

1. Misplaced apostrophe. English is not my first language, so I may be wrong, but I think below is a "singular ownership", so the apostrophe should go before the s (so it reads: Muhammad’s) ?

  • "...The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammads' chronological biography..."

2. Spelling of Muhammad / continuity through article. Should different spellings of Muhammad (in sentences below) be changed?

  • "...who is said to have foreseen Muhammed's career as a prophet of God..."
  • “624 - Invasion of Thi Amr, Muhammed raids Ghatafan tribes.”
  • "...Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammed as "[a] silent great soul..."
  • "...Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter..." >> but this one is from a quote, so probably should remain how it is originally spelt in the quote?

Just small things I thought I should ask about, otherwise article was very good. 86.27.191.102 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, again! Fixed everything, except for the quote, since whoever added it did leave an "as written" mark in the wikicode. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

3. add pbuh after each occurence of "MUHAMMAD" , pbuh stands for pece be upon him, AND IT is compulsory to say this after the name of the prophet muhammad (pbuh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullatasleem (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics. Favonian (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2014

/* Edit request */ please add pbuh after each occurence of "MUHAMMAD" , pbuh stands for pece be upon him, AND IT is compulsory to say this after the name of the prophet muhammad (pbuh). source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_(Islam) abdulla 10:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullatasleem (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Not done: Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics. Favonian (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

Please remove all the pictures those are depicting Hazrat Muhammad (Sm), because these are contrary to the Islamic believe and tradition. 202.4.173.55 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the FAQ at the top of the page and read that wikipedia is not censored. Thank you Somchai Sun (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Gharaneegh in the newly published secular scholarly sources

The current text only reflects a specific point of view and states it as a fact:

Muhammad, desperately hoping for an accommodation with his tribe, either from fear or in the hope of succeeding more readily in this way, pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, and appealing for their intercession. Muhammad later retracted the verses at the behest of Gabriel, claiming that the verses were whispered by the devil himself.[72][82][n 5] This episode known as "The Story of the Cranes" (translation: قصة الغرانيق, transliteration: Qissat al Gharaneeq) is also known as "Satanic Verses". Some scholars argued against the historic authenticity of these verses on various grounds.[83] While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it were raised starting from the 10th century, on theological grounds. The objections continued on this point until rejection of these verses eventually became the only acceptable orthodox Muslim position.[84]

Below is an example of an academic source that does NOT agree with the above account of story:

Most European biographers of Muḥammad, on the other hand, accept it as historical on the assumption that it is inconceivable that later Muslims could have invented it (e.g., Watt, Mecca, 103). This reason, however, is in itself insufficient. The story in its present form (as related by al-Ṭabarī, al-Wāḳidī, and Ibn Saʿd) cannot be accepted as historical for a variety of reasons given in al-ḳurʾān , at 404. This does not rule out the possibility of some historical kernel behind the story.

"Muḥammad," Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs et al. Brill Online, 2014

I therefore propose to rewrite the section.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2014

i want to complain about the content of the article. the file (Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg) show a virtual photo for the prophet muhammed. In Islam it's prohibited to draw the photo of a prophet. please remove it very soon. --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is a secular site that does not abide by the rules of any religion. Plenty of people have brought it up before, see Talk:Muhammad/images, where you should have posted this to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

muhammed photo

Request was made, request was rejected, nothing more to be gained by continuing. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(my english is a little bit bad) as you insist to not delete the photo of muhammad. there are alternatives solutions that can solve the probleme.

  • putting a tag that hide photo FIRST (without any advanced options) and show it when giving permission.
  • hidding the face of muhamed and the angel with photoshop.

it must be menthioned that this is an virtual photo because there is no real photo for the prophet Muhamed. --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the FAQ at the top of the page already explains how readers can hide the pictures if they want. DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You've changed your post after I replied. Don't do that. Post a reply to my post instead. Although it doesn't alter what I've said: if you don't want to see the image you don't have to. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

sorry decause, i had to because i don't know how to reply. seeing the picture is not the offensinve thing but it existance. i want to claim also to mention in the article that it's prohibited to show the picture of angels and prophets if it has a relation with content --Sghaier mohamed (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's prohibited in your religion, not for this website, not for everyone else. (Personal attack removed) Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The filled parameters seems to have expanded in recent months - not sure exactly when. Taking a fresh look at it, some seem highly dubious, and I've taken out the following, for the following reasons:

"Employer (as merchant:) Abu Talib · Khadija" - This doesn't seem like of sufficient significance to crowd a crowded infobox with.
"Notable work(s) Sunnah" - See Sunnah. It's not a "work" of which Muhammad was the author as such. It's a more diverse concept than that. Arguably the Qu'ran could go in - but that's a can of worms and I think it's best it's just left blank.
"Predecessor (as prophet:) Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus)" - That hardly seems NPOV!
"Opponents Polytheists" with Polytheists pipelinked to Arabian mythology. I think it's more complex than that with Jewish tribes and Christian converts playing a part plus general tribal opponents. Again, I think this is an unnecessary field in a crowded infobox.

DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If its crowded it makes more sense to remove the list of wives which are found elsewhere. I have addressed your other concerns. Nons3r (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
You haven't address it at all. the Sunnah isn't a "work" of which Muhammad is the author. It's nore complex than that. Also, is the addition of "idolators" as opponents supposed to cover jews and Christians? DeCausa (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The source I added describes sunnah as being the work of Muhammad. Do you want more sources? You probably misundertand what the word sunnah means. It is a word that originally meant "habit" but is currently synonymous with "habits of Muhammad". Jews and Christians were not necessarily opponents of Muhammad; quran verses such as 2;62, 5;69, 5;82 attest to that. Nons3r (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I know what Sunnah means but I think you misunderstand what work means in the context of this infobox. It refers to a book, play etc or other creative work which the subject has authored. A hadith collection is a work that has an author. The Sunnah is recorded in the hadith collections but is not itself a "work". As far as his oponents are concerned, you have over-simplified. The infobox is not suitable for conveying complexities, only the most simple of facts. In the case of Muhammad, he was oposed at various times by a variety of motivations. For example, how does the Banu Nadir fit into your list of opponents? DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
The description in the template guideline says "Title(s) of notable work(s) (publications, compositions, sculptures, films, etc.) by the subject, if any." If it permits sculptures and follows up with "et cetera" then it seems to have a broader context than you imply. Since sunnah remained in orally transmissive form for 200 to 300 years after Muhammads death, it would arguable even fit your own criteria that it is a creative work which Muhammmad has verbally authored. As for how Banu Nadir fits into opponents, we could alter the "idolaters" entry to read "perceived idolaters" or "hostile tribes" or simply "and others". That would cover almost all opponents. Although Muhammad recognised Jews as fellow monotheists, he nonetheless saw them as having introduced pagan aspects into their faith. Nons3r (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
"and others"! That illustrates that it's pointless/meaningless. The sunnah isn't just what Muhammad said, it's what he did and what he didn't do, as someone else described it and someone else wrote down. No way is that a "work" authored by Muhammad (unless you want to argue that his life was a work of performance art!). DeCausa (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree; it is not pointless because Muhammads opponents have had an impact; his opponents words are still littered throughout the Quran, with some of his opponents having entire Quranic chapters named after them (i.e. Quraysh, Al-Lahab, Al-Kafirun), with other suras laying out multiple consecutive verses featuring opponents. Its certainly not trivial and definitely deserves more of a mention than all the obscure wives of Muhammad. As for whether sunnah constitutes a "work"; Muslims believe it does because of verses such as 3;31 and 4;59. How about a compromise where i state: "sunnah (according to Muslims) ? Nons3r (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No! It's nothing to do with what Muslims believe, it's about the meaning of the English word "work". (Btw, I've read both those suras and they have zero to do with what we're talking about anyway.) As far as the opponents are concerned, it's also not about it being trivial. It's a question of whether it can be accurately summarised in the infobox. It's a simplistic display tool, and only things which can be simplistically but accurately summarised should be in it. Otherwise it becomes misleading. DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I havent seen expressions of opposition to the content of the last edit, so it seems non-controversial. Nons3r (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes you have - see my opening post of this thread. Also, another user hss already reverted you. The infobox of this article is not the place to introduce religious POV. That is more appropriate for the sister article Muhammad in Islam. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
In other words you deliberately refuse to see the distinction between the previous version and the updated version. Nons3r (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is obvious: one pushes a religious point of view, and the other does not. Plain an simple. And contrary to what DeCausa said, a religious point of view isn't appropriate for the infobox of any article, including Muhammad in Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the "That" in the last sentence of my last post was meant to refer to the edit in question (the predecessor field, according to Muslim belief) not to religious POV! DeCausa (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear Nons3r! be assured, a lot of good Muslim and non-Muslim editors do review and edit this article. While Wikipedia English is not representation of Islamic belief, it include normative of what Muslims believe. No, Muslims do not believe, Sunnah is Muhammad (Pbuh)'s work, nor can we believe that. Sunnah (traidition - note the translation, it is tradition, not work) include his words, what he did and avoided to do, what others did, what he allowed others to do etcetera. Sunnah even include some direct communique from God. Some critique of Islam, and skeptical agnostic may want to note Qur'an as his work, while it is not a popularly accepted concept. --» nafSadh did say 07:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
On another note, I am not sure if listing his successors (as it is also a vastly disputed concept) on the infobox is a good idea. Nor do I think his activity as merchant has a place in infobox. --» nafSadh did say 07:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Isra Wal Miraj a Physical Journey

I think it should be included that Imam Bukhari and many others have presented the Al-Isra Wal Miraj as a physical journey before Ibn Ishaq stated his views. There were many people prior to Ibn Ishaq who believed that Al-Isra Wal Miraj was a physical journey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How can Imam Bukhari state his views before Ibn Ishaq while Ibn Ishaq lived long before Imam Bukhari did? Also note that, such matters, if needed, shall be addressed in its own entry Isra_and_Mi'raj --» nafSadh did say 18:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I went ahead and was BOLD and moved things around in the lede. If anyone didn't understand why my edits fell under general policy:

(a) Our house style is to use c. (no italics, with a no-break space) rather than write out the entire word.
(b) Similarly, our house style is to begin the WP:LEADSENTENCE with the article's title wherever practical. Here, it helps with the flow and also allows a helpful link to the Arabic name article for those who are curious what all those ibns are on about.  — LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

My personal feeling is the circa on the date of death is misused to the point of being misleading. It's not that his death happened some day around that day: that is the exact day of his death according to tradition but the tradition itself might be off by months or years. I think the current footnote already does a fine job of explaining all that, and the circa should just be removed. — LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --» nafSadh did say 23:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Names

I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I will note that the general policy is to at least mention the very common historical and alternative names somewhere on the page. The "Names and appellations in the Quran" is cleverly entitled to sidestep what should be obvious: it should simply be a "Name" section. I would suggest three parts: Translation and commentary about "Muhammad" and his full name, explaining what its different parts mean; his names and epithets within the Quran; and historic and common English forms of the name, sourced and with discussion about the culture behind changing from Mahomet > Mohammed > Muhammad > why our article has a dot under the h and (roughly) how to say it properly. — LlywelynII 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you add it? Converting the appellation in Quran' into a different (sub) section can be a good idea too. --» nafSadh did say 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Big mistake which must be altered asap.

The article states:

Muhammad expelled from Medina the Banu Qaynuqa, one of three main Jewish tribes.[14] Although Muhammad wanted them executed, Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy chief of the Khazraj tribe did not agree and they were expelled to Syria but without their property.

The text in bold which states the Muhammad wanted them executed is not supported by evidence and the writer does not even give a source. This is because no source actually infers that muhammad called for their execution (rather narrations claim that he was angry). Seems to me to be written by an Islamophobe. Change this please as I am unable to make edits.Omar.mahmoud28 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A source is given (that 119 that appears at the end of that sentence), and looking into p.189 of "An Introduction to the Quran," the material is supported by the source. I'm also finding that it could be additionally sourced by [http://books.google.com/books?id=6J0WnWABM34C&lpg=PA61&dq=muhammad%20execute%20Banu%20Qaynuqa&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false this source and this source. This source, which is more pious than academic even admits that Muhammad had to be called to show mercy to them (indicating at the least that he was going to call for some sort of unmerciful action).
Please assume good faith on behalf of editors, and make sure that that an addition does not have sources and is counter to sources before claiming it is unsupported. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The "wanted them executed" is certainly disputed. Other sources state that he wanted them to leave Medina and Abdullah ibn Ubayy pleaded to stop the expulsion. For example, W. Montgomery Watt writes: "Only 'Abd-Allah ibn-Ubayy tried to stop the expulsion. [...] He urged upon Muhammad the important contribution Qaynuqa could make to his forces in the event of further fighting with the Meccans -- they were said to have 700 fighting men, of whom about half were armored. But Muhammad insisted that they must leave, though he was prepared to be lenient about the other conditions." (Watt, 1974, Muhammad: prophet and statesman, p.131). Also, the source cited is not reliable (An Introduction to the Quran, from 1895), see [1]. Wiqi(55) 23:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
History is written by winners, we know; still we have to give preference to first hand citations than to what someone from distant would state. Even within the sources, it is not clear whether Muhammad wanted all of them to be executed or not, and there was a discussion about what to do with them including options for executing and enslaving them. As we find there is a dispute, the sentence in the article should be considered for a rephrase. --» nafSadh did say 00:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I would probably support this, but we need first to find sources putting a different point of view. Formerip (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Book: 64 Hadith: 4078 of Bukhari (MMK translation 5-59-362) somewhat supports the narrative that is in current version in this Wikipedia article. --» nafSadh did say 04:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
While the hadith supports that Banu Qaynuqa were exiled, it doesn't support Muhammad "wanted them executed". Even concerning their exile, some sources state that it "never took place during Muhammad's lifetime".[2]. The earliest source that supports what's in the article is al-Waqidi.[3] However, it is his explanation and not part of the narrative. Other sources like Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham (in addition to Watt and others) make no mention of it. The current article is reporting what al-Waqidi wrote as truth, which is one sided, other sources do not make this claim and his account of the exile is disputed. Wiqi(55) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It is unclear whether he wanted to execute surrendered men, but it is clear that he killed some men (on battle??). Is there any source from Qaynuqa or Jews perspective? I searched over Muslim and Bukhari, there is really nothing much about it there. Can't find much of other source. This might seem silly; but probably this single phrase has pivotal role about characterization of the Prophet. We need more care :/ (confused, resigning from this discussion for now). --» nafSadh did say 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The chief of Khazraj tribe was Sa'd ibn Ubadah, not Abd-Allah ibn Ubaiy who wasn't the chief of any tribe at all. This is the first mistake in the sentence. The second mistake is the claim that the Prophet Muhammad wanted them executed. This is absolutely a false claim.--Eyewitness44 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It is true that the Prophet Muhammad was the Hero of Heroes, and that He was victorious over all His enemies who fought against Him in battles [just as it was prophesied about him in Psalm 45]. However, He always judged His defeated enemies with Grace [with the exception of Banu Qurayza who were judged by Justice].
Banu Qurayza were judged by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh "a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad", not by the Prophet Muhammad Himself. This is why they were judged by Justice rather than by Grace.
Prophet Muhammad judged all his defeated enemies with Grace [Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, the Jews of Khaybar and the polytheists of Mecca are included]. The only exception was Banu Qurayza, who were judged by Sa'd ibn Ubadah not by the Prophet, and he judged them with Justice not by Grace.
This great example of the Prophet was observed later by his Companions [i.e. his Disciples] during the Muslim conquests. For example, when Omar entered Jerusalem in 637, he judged its people with Grace. He didn't kill any single citizen and didn't destroy any single church [including the church of the holy sepulchre].--Eyewitness44 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Depictions

Please could the depictions of Muhammad be removed as some readers may find it offensive. There may be differences of opinion between people with regards to if these images are appropriate, however to avoid disrespect to even anyone's opinions it may be best to remove these images. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just Cleaning123 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for an explanation.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's include this

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart, reprinted in 1992 with revisions. It is a ranking of the 100 people who, according to Hart, most influenced human history.

The first person on Hart's list is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad. Hart asserted that Muhammad was "supremely successful" in both the religious and secular realms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A_Ranking_of_the_Most_Influential_Persons_in_History — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musafirsafwan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Musafirsafwan: That used to be there but it was decided the author was an inappropriate source. "He has described himself as a white separatist[1] and is active in white separatist causes." --NeilN talk to me 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: I agree that white seperatism is not good and I agree that prophet Mohammed supported equality among all human beings. But still why the author is an inappropriate source. We don't want to judge the prophet by one who is against the view of prophet ? Can you expand your point a little bit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musafirsafwan (talk • contribs)
Because his views may be less objective than mainstream historians. He also pushes fringe viewpoints, as he has Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford instead of William Shakespeare on the list (see Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship for more info). --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Sources and content with respect to the Historiography of Muhammad's life

Either Historiography of early Islam and Historicity of Muhammad are refered to as main articles but nothing out of the actual research is being quoted or sourced here. Sorry thats ridiculous. Serten (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably because this is a biography, not a treatise on historicity. As a biography, it's already rather lengthy, so there is no point duplicating detail that already exists elsewhere and is well referenced. You are welcome to try your hand at fixing problems, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think ist the other wa round, a biography of a 7th century person needs to take historicity into account, if not its just myth telling. Serten (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but a biography should be the output of the historiography (at least, such of the historiography that is reliable etc) but shouldn't spend much time discussing the historiography itself. As Amatulic says, we have other articles for that and in any event, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, there's no point duplicating them here. As far as historicity is concerned, it isn't necessary to have much discussion in the article: again only the historical facts, to the extent expounded by reliable sources and subject to WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV should be in the article. If you've found any problems in that regard, they should be debated on the Talk page rather than in the article itself. DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
We have already an article of Muhammand in islam, which is refered to in rather lengthy prose, we don't need another one. That said, the current version has an undue weight issue. Serten (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
That's too vague for anyone to comment. If you have any specific edits in mind, go ahead and suggest them. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

False claims !

The article claims in one place that Prophet Muhammad "worked as a merchant in the period between 583–609" and it also claims in another place that "it is known that he became a merchant and was involved in trade between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea." ! However, it doesn't provide any reliable sources to support these claims. These claims are plainly false. They have no basis anywhere in the primary sources about the life of Prophet Muhammad. I recommend that these claims be removed from the article.--ENT 70 (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone show me where in the "primary sources" about the life of Prophet Muhammad it says that he "worked as a merchant in the period between 583–609" or that "it is known that he became a merchant and was involved in trade between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea." ?!--ENT 70 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't sound terribly controversial...--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources are not what we generally prefer to use. What we look for are secondary sources which fulfil our definition of reliable. The statement on Indian Ocean/Mediteranean is sourced (see citation in article). On the face of it that source fulfils our definition of reliable. Do you have a specific challenge to make on the reliability of that source? (Note: you cannot say it is unreliable merely because it makes an assertion with which you disagree. Also, if by "primary sources" you mean hadith etc, we do not depend on or limit ourselves to sources approved by Islamic tradition/scholarship. For that please see Muhammad in Islam and not this article.) As far as the dates 583 - 609 are concerned, you are right that there is no citation. However, on the face of it they seem plausible/probable and don't seem controversial. Why does it matter? DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source should be based on references to primary sources. In other words, how could a secondary source know that Muhammad worked as a "merchant between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea" when there is no mention of such a thing in the primary sources about his life?!
The same is about the another topic: how could a secondary source know that Muhammad worked "as a merchant between 583–609" when there is no mention of such a thing in the primary sources?!
I am plainly & simply asking anyone to provide the primary sources for these claims. If there is no primary sources, then the claims aren't reliable.--ENT 70 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not how it works here. We have a secondary source on the Indian Ocean/Mediterranean point. If you want to challenge that, you have 2 options. Either you put forward a case why that source is not reliable eg it was written by someone who was not an expert in the field. Or you produce other secondary sources which say it was wrong. At the moment all you are doing is putting forward your view that what is in the primary sources doesn't support the secondary source. That's not permitted in Wikipedia - see WP:No original research. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you read this please: Secondary source. It says that "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere"
My question is: "where is it originally presented that Muhammad worked as a merchant between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea"?--ENT 70 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea. I've already explained we don't check secondary sources against primary sources as we don't engage in original research. You are asking the wrong question if you want to challenge this. DeCausa (talk) 06:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have no idea, then why are you discussing something you have no idea concerning it?!
Did you read the definition here of what a reliable secondary source is: Secondary source. It says that "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere"
If you can't come with a secondary source fulfilling this definition, then your secondary source is not reliable.
A reliable secondary source should provide references to primary sources. If there is no references, then it doesn't fit the definition of reliable secondary sources.--ENT 70 (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to "come" with anything. The statement in the article has a cited secondary source for it. Have you read the cited source? I've explained to you what you need to do if you want to challenge that source. It's up to you whether you do it or not. DeCausa (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The statement in the article has a cited secondary source "which doesn't fit the definition of reliable secondary sources". Did you read the definition of secondary sources here. Please read it before replaying next time.
The secondary source you are talking about doesn't cite information originally presented elsewhere. It merely invents these information. This is why it doesn't fit the definition of "reliable secondary sources".--ENT 70 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The sources used for these passages are "An Introduction to the Quran (1895)" and "Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History (2005)", respectively. Is there a problem with either of these? Tarc (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
These sources are also secondary sources from 1895 & 2005 which don't cite primary sources within them to support these specific claims. Thus, they also don't fit the definition of reliable secondary source concerning this specific issue.--ENT 70 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok ENT 70, you have made your point. Numerous users have tried to explain Wikipedia to you on this page, on your own talk page, at WP:ANI and at Muhammad in Islam. It's does not matter if you understand it or not, you still need to respect it. We will not edit this article, or any other article, in accordance with religious beliefs of any group or person. You've already been warned by several admins for your refusal to WP:HEAR what others are saying.Jeppiz (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

|}

Excessive Reliance on Ibn Ishaq and Al-Waqidi. Also a Major Error

"While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it were raised starting from the 10th century, on theological grounds. The objections continued on this point until rejection of these verses eventually became the only acceptable orthodox Muslim position"

This statement gives the wrong impression. The story of the so called "Satanic Verses" was never widely accepted by early Muslims. It never held any weight. The vast majority of early Islamic texts make absolutely no mention or hold this story to any level of esteem. None of the major seerahs hold this as authentic. The vast majority of early Muslim scholars have denied its validity.

There seems to be an pro-orientalist bias within this article that places an excessive emphasis on Ibh Ishaq and Al-Waqidi and does not at all mention historical Islamic figures like Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, Imam Hanbal, etc. Who were far more famous and more widely accepted scholars (most do not consider Ibn Ishaq and Al-Waqidi to be scholars). Not to mention the only surviving work by Ibn Ishaq is not the original piece, but rather what was edited by his student Ibn Hisham.

Malik bin Anas Bin Malik bin Abu Amir Al-Asbahi (715-801 C.E.) or Imam Malik-- lived cloest in the time to the life of Prophet Muhammad of all the collectors of the hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc). He was born more than 80 years after the death of the Prophet. Imam Malik was a complier of a respected hadith collection, called Muwatta. Imam Malik was a hadith scholar. Imam Malik called Ibn Ishaq a liar and an imposter for writing false stories about Prophet Muhammad. Imam Malik has said that Ibn Ishaq "reports traditions on the authority of the Jews". [9]

There are many critics of Al-Waqidi:

Imam Shafi: "All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Madinah there were seven men who used to fabricator authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi."

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal of Al-Waqidi: "He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions."

As we can see, the some of the greatest and most respected early Muslim scholars considered Ibn Ishaq and Al-Waqidi to be inaccurate sources.

There is also an inaccuracy in calling Ibn Ishaq as the earliest biographer of the Prophet (S), as he was not. As I have stated beforehand, the only remaining copy of Ibn Ishaq's seerah was done by his student Ibn Hisham. Not to mention that there are many other historical seerahs that trace their origins before Ibn Ishaq.

Here are a few:

Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma (d. in Mu'awiya's reign, i.e., 41-60 AH), was a young companion of the Prophet. Parts of his writings on Maghazi are preserved in the Ansāb ofal-Baladhuri, the Ṭabaqāt of Ibn Sa'd, and the works of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari and al-Waqidi.[1]

Abdullah ibn Abbas (d. 78 AH), a companion of Muhammad, his traditions are found in various works of Hadith and Sīra.

Saʿīd ibn Saʿd ibn ʿUbāda al-Khazrajī, another young companion, his writings have survived in the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal and Abī ʿIwāna, and the Tārīkh of al-Tabari.[1]

ʿUrwa ibn al-Zubayr (d. 713). He wrote letters replying to inquiries of the Umayyad caliphs, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan and al-Walid I, involving questions about certain events that happened in the time of the Prophet. Since Abd al-Malik did not appreciate the maghāzī literature, these letters were not written in story form. He is not known to have written any books on the subject.[2] He was a grandson of Abu Bakr and the younger brother of Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr.

Saʿīd ibn al-Masīb al-Makhzūmī (d. 94 AH), a famous Tābiʿī and one of the teachers of al-Zuhri. His traditions are quoted in in the Six major hadith collections, and in the Sīra works of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sayyid al-Nās, and others.[1]

Abū Fiḍāla ʿAbd Allāh ibn Kaʿb ibn Mālik al-Anṣārī (d. 97 AH), his traditions were mentioned in Ibn Ishaq and al-Tabari.[1]

Abbān ibn Uthmān ibn Affān (d. 101-105 AH), the son of Uthman. His traditions are transmitted through Malik ibn Anas in his Muwaṭṭaʾ, the Ṭabaqāt of Ibn Sa'd, and in the histories of al-Tabari and al-Yaʿqūbī.[1]

ʿĀmir ibn Sharāḥīl al-Shaʿbī (d. 103 AH), his traditions were transmitted through Abu Isḥāq al-Subaiʿī, Saʿīd ibn Masrūq al-Thawrī, al-Aʿmash, Qatāda, Mujālid ibn Saʿīd, and others.[1]

I recommed you read this: http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"Answering Christian claims" is not a WP:RELIABLE source (neither is Answering Islam for that matter).--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"The vast majority of early Muslim scholars have denied its validity." This is incorrect. You can read about the reality on Satanic_Verses#Early_Islam. You should also read the passage about John Wansbrough's historiography.
This attempt to cast aspersions on Ibn Ishaq and Al-Waqidi is rather boring. Shii (tock) 18:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I did what you said, reading Satanic_Verses#Early_Islam. To my surprise it says that it (the story of the verses) is generally considered a fabricated incident as the chains of narration are weak! Kiatdd (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The comment by the i.p is actually right, the historicity of the incident (initial temptation and later redaction) is far from certain, my impression from page Satanic_Verses is that scholars, whether Muslim or non Muslim, disagree on the historicity issue.
The source of the i.p's confusion appears to be the word "early Muslims"(in "this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims"), who are these "early Muslims"? Early relative to us? or to them? are 9th century Muslims early or late? Kiatdd (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
extended discussion with WP:IDHT user who is now indef blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree that this sentence "While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it were raised starting from the 10th century, on theological grounds. The objections continued on this point until rejection of these verses eventually became the only acceptable orthodox Muslim position" should be removed. The sentence is merely an "assumption" made by some group of people.--ENT 70 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha by "Bunch of people" are you referring to scholars/historians of Islam? --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't scholars/historians of Islam who made this "assumption". It was a specific group of non-Muslims.--ENT 70 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
[Qur'an 53:1] I [God "Most High"] call to witness the Star when it plunges, [53:2] Your Companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, [53:3] Nor does he speak out of his own desire. [53:4] It is but a divine revelation, which is revealed to him. [53:5] Bestowed on him by the Extremely Powerful.
Thus, The Qur'an itself plainly debunks this "fabricated" story of gharanik.
When Anti-Muslims quote [Qur'an 22:52] which reads: "And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet...", they miss the most important keyword in this verse which is "Before you". This means that [Qur'an 22:52] is only about the prophets & messengers before Muhammad. It is not about Muhammad himself.
Because of these Qur'anic verses, Muslims can never - at any time - accept this fabricated story of gharanik as authentic.--ENT 70 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Who are these "specific group of non-Muslims"? What you are talking about is by no means an area I am an expert in, but it seems you are merely arguing against a set of scholars and historians views based on your own beliefs. Chiefly, "non-Muslims" are inherently non-trustworthy (credit to you, the Quran and those 'delightful' Hadiths do clearly state they are not!) and therefor any material produced on Islam from them that you disagree with is instantly, inherently "anti-Muslim" and therefor invalid in the fields of historicity and academia. Furthermore, we should all conform to your desires here, no? Well, no we won't. This encyclopedia does not set out to pander to one set of beliefs. Read: WP:NPOV. You need to elaborate and tread carefully. Don't dismiss views because you disagree with them based on your religion, we'll ignore that outright. Bring your cards to the table from a stable, neutral viewpoint. Actually study the sources you disagree with, for instance. Don't take this too personally, it's just I've seen a monstrous amount of "outraged" Muslims coming here to rant about their displeasure on how the Encyclopedia is portraying their "prophet" - everything from the Images row to some crap about how "handsome" he was. Yawn. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why you are trying to distract the conversation toward many other topics. Let's concentrate on this sentence, okay?: "While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it ...etc".
This sentence is a POV. It is merely an "assumption" or an "imagination". It is made by a specific group of people, and it is extremely disputed. If you want to keep it, then I suggest to edit a little like this: "a specific group of non-Muslim scholars have a point of view that this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims...etc" ... is it fine for you?--ENT 70 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Mainstream Muslim scholars have rejected this because it undermines Muhammad's credibility. If we were to present it in the way you suggest, it would just be a way of promoting that particular POV. We must present it in a way which represents the balance if views in reliable sources and not in a way which seeks to promote a particular religious point of view. DeCausa (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This specific group of non-Muslims have made this "assumption" because it undermines Muhammad's credibility. Presenting this "assumption" of this specific biased group of people, as in the article, would just be to promote a particular anti religious point of view.--ENT 70 (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No they haven't: that's the difference. DeCausa (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
No they have: that's the difference. --ENT 70 (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't care if these sources are from Non-Muslims or not. Stop using this in your argument. There is no "assumption" here - there is different scholars, who are reputable in their fields, giving their academic views on the subject. Just because they aren't blinded by a dogmatic faith which orders Atheists to be burned and calls women cattle, doesn't mean we should disregard their views. You have come up with zero legitimate evidence to prove these sources are unreliable, other than them being "non-Muslim". Why sure we can have the opposing views in the article for balance, and we do - don't we? As in, views from people who adhere to your beliefs. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
What you said about my faith is offensive and merely lies. Please stop distracting the conversation toward other topics. Let's stick to this sentence: "While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims,...etc". This sentence is an "assumption"/a "POV" made by a specific group of people. Thus, it represents the perspective of this specific group. The sentence, as a result, should be changed like this: "A specific group of scholars see that While this incident received widespread acceptance by early Muslims,...etc"--ENT 70 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

CE?

It says he was born 570 CE not AD, minor fix that needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.25.177 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See Common Era, which is the same as AD only it doesn't cause non-Christians to falsely claim that Jesus is their Lord ("Anno Domini" = "Year of our Lord"). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit page Successors Section

From a Secular point of View, the Prophet Muhammad had only one Successor,who is Abu Bakr, Ali is Believed by the Shia Muslims that he shoud've Succeded the Prophet, not that he Actually Succeeded Him, and Mahdi is a Future Character who did not Appear yet so i advise you to Remove him.

Also Ali Pledged Allegiance to Abu Bakr after the Death of the Prophet.

If you want to propose a change, then propose a specific change, complete with wiki-markup and citing reliable sources to support the statements. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ethnicity: Arab"

The usage of "Arab" was different in Muhammad's times. Some usages only covered the nomadic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, i.e. Arabian Bedouins. The linguistic pan-ethnicity of Arabs in the modern sense did not start forming at least until the Rashidun stage in the Arab-Muslim conquests, from the commonly accepted year of Muhammad's death: 632 CE. Ethnically, Muhammad was an Adnanite -- a Quraysh tribal from the Banu Hashim clan, to be even more precise. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 08:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis is incorrect and ignorant. "Arab" existed as a distinct ethnicity since centuries before hijra (multiple pre-Hijra ethnically Arab prophets of Allah are even mentioned in the Quran e.g. Saleh). The Prophet actually used to frequently call himself an "Arab", including in his last sermon when he was performing his hajj. Khestwol (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many sources to rely on, but this time I'll just stick to the Quran, which makes use of the word "Arab" (3RBI) several times, particularly in Surat At-Tawbah. From the context it's clear that semantically the word did not encompass sedentary Adnanites such as Muhammad, though English translations use "Bedouin" in place of "Arab" because the meaning of the word in Modern English is indeed very different. Here's 33:20, for example: ". . .and should the Confederates return, these [hypocrites] would prefer to be in the desert, among the Arabs, asking for news about you. . ." Really, the word "Arab" and even the word "Arabian" are not all too useful in English if you're interested in any sort of precision, seeing that historically Adnanites are more closely related to Levantines than to Qahtanites. Not all ahadith concerning the Farewell Sermon are authenticated; care to cite your source? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
213.109.230.96. Well, the term you are talking about is "ʾAʿrab" (أعراب, "Bedouin", see Arab (etymology)) because that is what the Quranic verse 33:20 you referred to talks about. It is not same as Arab. The Prophet Muhammad was definitely not ʾAʿrab. He was ethnically Arab. As for Adnanite and Quraysh, these are genealogical tribal confederacies, not ethnic groups. Khestwol (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
A3RAB is a plural form of 3RB, and AL is merely the definitive article. AL-A3RAB is not etymologically equivalent to "Bedouin," since the English singular "Bedouin" is derived from the Arabic plural BDUIUN, not A3RAB. After double checking, I see that the Quran does not use the word 3RBI anywhere to describe a person or group of people, including Muhammad, and only uses 3RBIA in reference to the Arabic language.

The A3RAB are therein contrasted not with any subethnic group per se but with the people of a city. The sedentary Adnanites of Medina referred to the nomads surrounding them as AL-A3RAB and viewed those as outsiders to some degree, despite recognizing their close racial bonds. In the early times of the Caliphate, the conquered peoples referred to the conquerors, most of whose military forces were Bedouin, not as Muslims but as Ishmaelites, Hagarites, Saracens, etc. Other sources use "Ishmaelites" synonymously with "Arabs," even though the Qahtani Arabs are not descendents of Ismail ibn Ibrahim.

Yes, the Adnanites are a genealogical confederacy of tribes, and a genealogical confederacy of tribes is the notion of an "ethnic group" in the traditional Mideastern worldview. Similarly, the Israelites, both Jewish and Samaritan, are a genealogical confederacy of what is left of the 12 tribes descending from the 12 sons of Israil ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim. Adnanites are called "Adnanites" because it is through Adnan that they are descendents of Ismail ibn Ibrahim; the Qahtanites, who too inhabit the Arabian Peninsula, are not descendents of Ismail or Ibrahim, if I may reiterate, but have a fairly long history of being referred to as "Arabs." Arabic is the language of the Adnanites; Yemeni Qahtani languages are more closely related to Semitic Ethiopian languages and, to a lesser degree, to Omani Qahtani languages, than to Arabic. The biological genetic data more or less correlates with the linguistic and historical evidence.

In contemporary English usage, the words "Arab," Arabian" and "Arabic" all mean different things. Here "Arabs" refers to a pan-ethnic group defined purely on linguistic terms and encompasses those peoples who in the course of Arabization came to adopt the Arabic language. Arab identity grew among Arabic-speaking peoples to the current level of significance only in the 20th century with the rise of the Nasserian pan-Arabist movement.

Nevertheless, we can put the semantics aside and stick to the lexis. If you put all the ahadith together, you could get an account of almost every day in the life of Muhammad. If he had ever used the word 3RBI to describe himself, then chances are, it had been recorded. I have failed to detect any such occurrence in Sahih al-Bukhari. By the way, I'm experiencing some difficulties locating the same passage in the original Arabic text and would appreciate it if you told me, if you could, what words the original uses in 5:57:50 where my English translation says, ". . .I also recommend that he do good to the 'arab bedouin, as they are the origin of the 'arabs and the material of Islam. . ." 213.109.230.96 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't arbitrarily define terms. Like I wrote, there is still a complete difference between "Arab" and "ʾAʿrab", in both modern and classical usages of the terms. The article I linked (Arab (etymology)) says "in early Islamic terminology, ʿarab referred to sedentary Arabs, living in cities such as Mecca and Medina, and ʾaʿrāb referred to the Arab Bedouins, carrying a negative connotation due to the Qur'anic verdict just cited." And you are wrong on Adnanites, they are not a ethnicity, they actually spread into multiple ethnic groups and societies over time as they migrate to various parts of the world and assimilate. Most "Quraysh" or "Qureshi" today are non-Arabs (many of them self-identify as Indians, Persians, etc). A genealogical confederacy of tribes is a quite different thing from an ethnic group. Khestwol (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, but I did suggest that we temporarily ignore the semantics, i.e. definitions, whether arbitrary or not. The alternative, then, would be to find a passage in the Quran, Hadith or Sirah where Muhammad (or his Ahl al-Bayt) designates himself (or is designated) "Arab," whatever the word meant at the time. However, the Quran, at least, uses the plural اعراب only in reference to certain nomadic groups, and عربي only in reference to the Arabic language. Allow me to remind you that contemporaries believed the Arabic language to have emerged among nomadic Arabs who predated their sedentary descendents. As I've said, ʾaʿrāb (اعراب) is a plural form of ʿarab (عرب); see Wiktionary:عرب. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
All of what you said about the Adnanites is true also about the Jews, and yet most non-American Jews at least do consider themselves a people or "ethnic group" (which, if you ask me, is just common sense); however, all of this is irrelevant because it concerns our days only, while it is the days of Muhammad that this question concerns. There have been other Ishmaelites besides the Adnanites, e.g. the Qedarites. If you dislike these terms, I suggest "North Arabians;" see Classical Arabic#History. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this topic is important because Islam, albeit a universal religion rather than an ethnic one, does have a specific ethnic coloration, as do all religions, because social processes do not happen in some vacuum outside the confines and contexts of time and space, and no child is begotten without a parent. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and lest someone think that the lineage of Hashim has been lost in the pages of history, I must remark: there are dynasties today claiming descent from Ali; for example, the one heading the anti-Palestinian regime in Jordan, whose population is predominantly Palestinian. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

{{Muhammad's ancestors}}

Iranian Religion

Iranian at the time were Zoroastrian when Muhammad started promoting Islam to all the countries in the region.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasminmazloom (talk • contribs)

Yes... What does this have to do with the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
...and um...Mo' died several years before the Muslim conquest of Persia...and yes...what exactly is this...thing...--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Please remove any images of Prophet Muhammad where his face is shown because this is extremely disrespectful to the Islamic religion. These include [Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg],[Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg], [Gagarin_PropovedMagometGRM.jpg],[Maome.jpg]. This would really be appreciated, thank you. Swagg1235 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Swagg1235. There's been extensive discussion about this and consensus on Wikipedia is that images of Muhammad can and should be included in the article. However, if you wish to view the article without images, there is a link at the top of the article which allows you to do that. Formerip (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2014

please write (PBUH) very next to name Muhammad like Muhammad(PBUH) Fazanmunir1 (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done we don't use ṣalawāts here. - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

FA thoughts

I did the massive prose cleanup a little while ago, and it has been (relatively) stable since. Should we submit this for FA status or is there any glaring issues anyone can see? Tivanir2 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with it just being GA. If it got approved for FA, the indef semi-protection would have to come off for the duration of the front page presence, that presence would be very public and the news would quickly spread (much as the petitions about this article with hundreds of thousands of names has spread), and vandalism from offended Muslims worldwide would be nearly impossible to control. I think it's more trouble than it's worth, personally. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware that it would need to be off of semi protection, and I agree that would lead to massive amounts of vandalism. I will reconsider my proposal then, as I think it will generate more problems than it is worth. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Excessive inline external links to USC Quranic website seems redundant and distracting, I once tried to complete the Sura pages of Quran (text of the Quran) and use template:verse for internal linking but it's a difficult task. Qur'an seems to be the most important thing in his career, could have more coverage. Templates look unusual and sometimes link to pages which are not in good shape, lots of red links and citation needed templates, et cetera.Kiatdd (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I figured that any minor issues would be correctable once FA is started, but with Amatulics' observation that it would be a vandals playground I have discontinued the option. This would be a constant battleground to stop removal of images where it to be a FA. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify: it would be unprotected only for the 24 hours it's on display on the main page. I'm not sure if it's a policy, but it's certainly been the practice that "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" will have its main-page featured article editable by anyone. After it drops off the main page, the semi-protection can be restored.
It wouldn't be the first time that a contentious article reached FA status. For example, when Intelligent design became a featured article, while it was featured on the Wikipedia main page, many editors worked overtime to keep the vandals in check. It can be done. It's tiring, but lasts a day. I'm just concerned about scale. Intelligent design offends Christian fundamentalists. This article on Muhammad, with its images, bothers a bigger population. We can give it a shot, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
We're not a bureaucracy, though, surely an exception to the "it must be unprotected for 24h" rule could be granted in this case. At the very least, a proposal for such could be made and then we'll see how it is received. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I very much support allowing TFAs to run unprotected, but that is the exact type of situation IAR is for. There is no way it would be in anyone's best interest to unprotect an article such as this if it were to survive a FA gauntlet and ultimately reach the front page. If we get that far, I would support maintaining semi-protection. Or at the very least, pending changes protection until we confirm that semi protection is better. That wold take about a half hour, I think. Resolute 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Being TFA isn't an achievement of any great magnitude, and isn't worth the hassle. If I had it to do over again, I would have figured out a way to quash the nomination of Natalee Holloway.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I second that being TFA is not much great of a deal. But, as Amatulic fears, it can become a great deal. In fact many info presented here is considered untrue by some. Current state of the article is delightfully great considering how it handles this very sensitive article and balances between so many different views. But, if it is featured and kept unprotected, it can trigger unrest outside the scope of Wikipedia. Even just being featured and having images of the Prophet can be used by some instigator. Let alone the possibility of totally vandalizing the article to represent Wikipedia as evil "Judeo Christian" entity. We all remember the Sam Basile situation! – nafSadh did say 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
What outside agitators may or may not do if this article appears on the main page is absolutely, unequivocally NOT a concern for this project at all. I cannot emphasize that "NOT" there enough. Our only concern here is if we can avoid vandalism of the article, hopefully by being granted an exception to the unprotect norm. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
That may be your only concern. My preference would be to eliminate both TFA and DYK from Wikipedia. There's no need for beauty pageants for our articles.—Kww(talk) 22:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ideally it (outside agitation) should not be a concern of Wikipedia project. See Tarc, I mentioned "outside the scope of Wikipedia". But, it is worth keeping in mind. An outside unrest can however directly impact the project. BUT, keeping that aside, tackling vandals will be tremendously hard job. And fanatics, instigators and agitators can form mob very quickly to undertake massive vandal; and that may very well surpass this article. In a nutshell, I used to think FA is so much of a deal, but it is not. – nafSadh did say 23:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm. I actually like the main-page FA and the DYK list for finding new and interesting things to read about. Just about all scholarly journals have similar features. These are certainly much better than the useless drivel I typically get when I hit the Special:Random article link. I'm proud of the couple of DYKs I have, and hope that the exposure my articles got gave others something interesting to read. I'm also proud of articles I've brought to GA status. HOWeVER, the increment from GA to FA I regard as a huge amount of effort for a rather minimal improvement. And exposure of a FA article on the main page involves a day of pain for those who worked so hard to bring it there, if the article has controversial content. For me, GA is good enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
We can make it work either way. Right now I am concerning myself with redundancies which will take a while to remove anyways, as I see several within just the first few paragraphs. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

In addition to an earlier request, There are certain pictures that needs to be removed from the article. Our religion does not allow us to make pictures of Prophets. S.M. Usman Yazdani (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED Cannolis (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

I wish to make small amendments in the article. I wish to add the prefix s.a.w. (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) arabic every time the Name MUHAMMAD s.a.w. appears. The prefix sallallahu alayhi wasallam is equivalent to Peace be upon him in Arabic. S.M. Usman Yazdani (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: see WP:SAWW. We don't do that here on Wikipedia Cannolis (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

Add S.A.W along with the name Muhammad S.A.W because is not common spokesman or leader. He is the Messenger of God.Syed Faris Bn Rashid (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Syed Faris Bn Rashid (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, specifically item Q5. Favonian (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014

hey remove pictures immediately Syed Faris Bn Rashid (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Did you read the FAQ linked to in the answer to your previous question? Favonian (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

remove pictures potraiting Muhammad

Hello Editors,

I kindly request you to you remove pictures potrait Muhammad from this page, as this is against the islamic law to potrait picture of a human.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.95.35 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you don't want to see them, follow the instructions. Cannolis (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cannolis, I have managed to hide all the images as per the FAQ but this still appears in the islamic depictions section on the main article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad_destroying_idols_-_L%27Histoire_Merveilleuse_en_Vers_de_Mahomet_BNF.jpg
Could you advise on how to remove it as well. By the way, the above person with the ip address is not me. Thanks Mbcap (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure. You may want to try disabling all the images on this page or do click to view, see Help:Options to hide an image Cannolis (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Mbcap, see Talk:Muhammad/images/example css. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

True Date Of Birth/Died

Born 5 May 570 (14 Rabiulawal -53AH) - 8 June 632 (14 Rabiulawal 11AH) use Astronomical Calender..on 14 Rabiulawal is Monday..(Full Moon) [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromr69 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe that Muhammad was born on 5 May 570? There are various traditions for the date/year of his birth - all of which are different. Your argument furthermore assumes that the calendar used in Mecca around 570 is the same as the later Islamic calendar. AstroLynx (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Islamic Western Calendar.png
Islamic Western Calendar
File:Islamic Western Calendar-.png
Islamic Western Calendar

From the very beginning, historians and writers of Seerah have differed on the date of birth of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. There are disagreements even for the ‘year’ of birth of Prophet Muhammadصلى الله عليه وسلم so, naturally we have different views regarding his ‘month’ of birth and ‘date’ of birth. Considering the fact that a wide majority of the historians have mentioned the ‘month’ to be Rabi ul awwal, one can safely assume that the month was Rabi ul awwal. Furthermore, it is proven from Authentic Narrations that his ‘day’ of birth was ‘Monday’.

Abu Qatada Ansari رضى الله عنه reported that Allah's Messenger صلى االه عليه وسلمwas asked about fasting on Monday, whereupon he said: It is (the day) when I was born and revelation was sent down to me.

(Sahih Al Bukhari – Kitab As Sawm)

Use this link for Islamic calendar converter [5].

Yes, I am familiar with this link (it's one of my own websites - thanks for citing it) - did you read the section "Note on early-Islamic chronology" warning about using such converters before 10 AH?

But where you get the date of death of Prophet Muhammad on 8 June 632..that true it on Monday when the full moon of Rabiul Awal..

This appears to be the commonly accepted date for the death of Muhammad but for this date too there are various traditions. Although all agree that he died on a Monday, the day is claimed to have been the first, second, 10th or 12th day of Rabī‘ al-Awwal (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, vol. IV, pp. 364-367). AstroLynx (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

POV about the Ahmadiyya and others

User:Kww reverted me twice, and claims my edit was "riddled with POV about the Ahmadiyya and others". But I see my edit as fine because it is consistent with the refs and notes about the Ahmadiyya and the others. What is wrong with it in regards to the Ahmadiyya? Khestwol (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

We've argued the details of that wording many, many times. The Ahmadiyya are not the only Muslims that believe there have been other prophets since Muhammad, and there is no need to use adjectives that would make them seem less Muslim than other groups.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
My edits did not imply any of the two points you raised. I had in it "but also some other smaller sects." So again, my edit was fine and consistent with the refs and notes about the Ahmadiyya and the others. Khestwol (talk)
"Mainstream" would imply that there is something off-kilter about the other beliefs. Your main body text also says "by the mainstream Muslims throughout the world, except for the Ahmadiyya sect", while you mentioned the others only in the footnote. You are not only introducing problems the old text doesn't have, if I take your protestations at face value, you don't think your changes actually changed anything. In that case, why make them at all?—Kww(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Kww, and (conversely) the reverted edit also gives disproportionate emphasis on the Ahmadiyya. The reverted to text is more encyclopedic in tone. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Khestwol, I also reverted your edits before Kww's double revert for the reasons already mentioned and also because you slipped in the word invoke. Please do not replace the word "discuss" with invoke for the sake of NPOV. The lead is good enough as it is. Mbcap (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would still like the lede to be changed and copyedited, to make it look more encyclopedic. Khestwol (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
By all means, your contribution would be welcome. Mbcap (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
What about your change is "more encyclopedic"? It looks to me more like an attempt to highlight the Ahmadiyya as being not quite as Muslim as other Muslims.—Kww(talk) 23:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions?

I edited the page with what I believed to be reliable sources, but my edit was reverted twice. The first time it was because the sources were questionable, the second time was because the section was given "undue weight". Please help me to more fully understand the motivation behind such reverts. In particular, I want suggestions for reliable sources on the LDS view on the matter. I understand YouTube being reverted, but it seems like an actual statement given by the LDS church on the matter of Muhammed represents the churches view on the subject. I also fail to understand why my edit exemplifies undue weight, particularly because the weight guideline is used in neutrality disputes. My edit doesn't really jeopardize the neutrality of the article. Or does it? I personally don't think so, but maybe you guys do. Thoughts? Jordanjlatimer — Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a party to this dispute, but I'll say that the weight in a biography article should generally be given to text about the life of the subject, not about views other entities may have on the subject. Such details belong in other articles such as criticism of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. However, there is a considerable amount of weight given to the Orthodox Christian view on Muhammad. Should we remove this section as well? If not, how do we decide what stays and what goes? Should we make a separate article entitled "Non-Islamic views on Muhammad"? I am just throwing out some suggestions.Jordanjlatimer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanjlatimer (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm also uninvolved and I saw your edit. I don't think the edit was "wrong" but I agree with the user who reverted based on WP:UNDUE. Mormonism is, globally speaking, a very small religion and not in direct contact with Islam. Just as it would be undue to have a long section on how Jainism sees Joseph Smith, I don't think a long block quote about how Mormonism (or any other smaller religion) sees Muhammad is particularly relevant. Orthodox Christianity is not only much larger, it is also the main form of Christianity in the Middle East and has been in direct contact with Islam for more than 1000 years, so it could be argued that a longer section on its views has its place here. Jeppiz (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. I just think that it is noteworthy that Mormonism has often been compared with Islam on numerous occasions. In fact, Joseph Smith was sometimes referred to as the "American Muhammad". I thought that perhaps the connection between the two religions and their two founders would be of interest to those reading an article about Muhammad. But again, I agree and if the community feels that it is undue weight, then so be it.Jordan Latimer (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit page title request

Please Edit the page title from Muhammad to Muhammad Paigambar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahusha (talk • contribs)

@Mahusha: Please read WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN talk to me 06:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious paragraph

The article currently contains the following paragraph (P2), added on January 8 2015:

Muhammad is considered to be the third most significant figures of all time, [9] however he is the first person on Hart's list.[10]

That's the paragraph in its entirety. This paragraph strikes me as suspicious for several reasons, but rather than blindly reverting the page, I'm posting here for wider consideration. My thoughts:

1. The insertion is grammatically incorrect -- should be "third most significant FIGURE of all time", singular.

2. Moreover, it appears to sit outside of the general flow of the article, doesn't explain itself thoroughly, and doesn't read as being particularly "encyclopedic".

3. It makes an extraordinary claim ("considered to be the third most significant figure of all time"), then provides no context or further explanation. It gives just a single citation for this, namely a 2013 Time Magazine article. The Time article itself appears to be a puff-piece plugging a book ("Who’s Bigger? Where Historical Figures Really Rank") and contains a mere list with little elucidation. The Time article even explicitly states "We don’t expect you will agree with everyone chosen for the top 100", and ends with a disclaimer stating that the article's opinions are those of the book's authors alone.

4. Including an early paragraph in a WP article which states plainly that someone "is considered to be" something, and then basing that only upon a citation as flimsy as the one above, seems rather weasel-wordy.

5. In the very next sentence, the paragraph contradicts its previous claim ("however he is the first person on Hart's list"), but makes no mention of who this Hart is. It just drops that name right in, as if this is someone the article has already introduced/mentioned. But actually, this is the only time the word Hart appears in the entire article. It turns out that Hart is one Michael H Hart, author of a book called "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". This book actually has its own WP article, which notes "The first person on Hart's list is the Prophet of Islam Muhammad, a selection that generated some controversy".

6. This WP article already contains a sizeable and detailed section called "Legacy", where such material could be dealt with.

So essentially, this weird paragraph seems to be saying that according to one individual's personal opinion, Muhammed is the third most significant figure of all time; and that according to a second person (whose work was described as having been received "controversially") Muhammed comes in first. Leaving aside the nebulous/absurd concept of dealing with "most significant figure of all time" in an encyclopedia to begin with... I just cannot see any reason for including this paragraph in the article at all, let alone placing it so prominently by itself in P2. One can presumably find any number of books subjectively claiming that any number of figures are the "most significant" of all time; this proves nothing and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

If this paragraph happened to add any value to the article at all, it could possibly be relocated under the existing "Legacy" section. But, given the above, this paragraph seems like it might be a rather quick and POV edit, perhaps slipped in by a partisan individual whose purpose was not to genuinely improve the article, but rather to advance their particular angle.

Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.104.231 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

IP is referring to this edit, which reintroduced material by a self-identified white nationalist. Prior consensus is not to have this material in the article. I have reverted the addition on that basis until it is clear there has been a change of opinions. Dolescum (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unlock please

This page has been protected since May last year. Is there any good reason why it should not be unlocked now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.98 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you've heard of the Charlie Hebdo shooting? Getting an account so you can edit is easy and free. --NeilN talk to me 08:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
It's actually been protected for several years without interruption except to increase the protection level temporarily. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q7 for an explanation. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The full name in Arabic is spelled wrongly

The full name in Arabic is spelled wrongly, it is written : ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم While the correct one is : أبو القاسم محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب بن هاشم I wish to see it corrected soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maandhia (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that shows this? There is no source cited for the name given in the article, and you cite none either, so it is difficult to determine what is correct. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, Google translate (!) renders two differences from the version in the article: ibn becomes bin (and I see an extra letter in the three times that word appears) and al Hashim is missing. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Maandhia
Only difference in Maandhia's suggestion from the article's version is in first word "Abu". In the article there is no special symbol. Maandhia suggests placing a hamza above alef. Such additions are not part of actual bare-bone spelling. In a more detailed spelling, for Munammad (محمد), mHmd would be written with a shaddah ( ‎ ّ) on second m. There would be many variations on using such "details"; so it is best to use only letters without any extra detailing symbol. – nafSadh did say 13:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Major faults in the article

There are major faults in the article. Here are some of them:

  • In the paragraph of al-Isra and al-Mi'raj, it says that "Ibn Ishaq, author of the first biography of Muhammad, presents the event as a spiritual experience;". This is false & dishonest citation. Ibn Ishaq said that some people believed that it was a physical journey, while others believed that it was a spiritual journey. He mentioned them both. However, he himself presented the event as a miraculous physical journey between Mecca & Jerusalem. I checked his book here. In addition, the journey wouldn't be miraculous or unbelievable if it was spiritual.
  • In the paragraph of al-Isra and al-Mi'raj, it says that "Islamic tradition states that in 620, Muhammad experienced the Isra and Mi'raj,". This is not accurate. The journey of al-Isra and al-Mi'raj is mentioned in both the Qur'an & the Islamic tradition, not only in the Islamic tradition. Surat al-Isra begins with the following Qur'anic verse: "Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al- Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
  • In the paragraph of al-Isra and al-Mi'raj, the passage which starts with "Some western scholars...." should be removed because it takes large space & because it only reflects the misunderstanding of Islam in the Western world.
  • Al Aqsa name is used to describe the whole area surrounded by the wall at the southern-eastern end of walled old Jerusalem. The place encompasses more than 200 buildings, domes, schools, wells, etc. Then it is not only the mosque with the golden dome, the Dome of the Rock, nor the mosque with lead dome, Al Masjid Al Qibli. Both of them are part of the walled Al Aqsa mosque.[6] In the Arabic Wikipedia, there is a separate article for al-Masjid al-Qibli & a separate article for al-Masjid al-Aqsa. They don't confuse between the two. al-Qibli is a part of al-Aqsa, and so is the Dome of the Rock. In the paragraph of al-Isra and al-Mi'raj, al-Aqsa Mosque is represented as if it is itself al-Masjid al-Qibli, while this is not accurate.
al-Masjid al-Qibli + Masjid of the Dome of the Rock = al-Masjid al-Aqsa
This Masjid is called al-Masjid al-Qibli. This Masjid is a part of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. It is not al-Masjid al-Aqsa itself, but it is a part of it.
This Masjid is called Masjid of the Dome of the Rock.
al-Masjid al-Aqsa is a Qur'anic term which refers to all the area of the Temple Mount. The seventh verse of Surat al-Isra "Qur'an 17:7" speaks about the Temple of the Jews and refers to it with the word "al-Masjid المسجد".[7] because the Qur'an considers Solomon an Islamic Prophet, it considers his Temple an Islamic Temple (In other words: "The Aqsa Mosque").
al-Masjid al-Qibli + Masjid of the Dome of the Rock = al-Masjid al-Aqsa[8]
  • I believe also that another passage should be added to the paragraph in order to mention the correlation between the Ascension of Muhammad in the Journey of al-Mi'raj & the Ascension of the Human-like in the vision of Daniel 7. This correlation was discussed by David Benjamin Keldani in his book "Muhammad in the Bible".

--77.92.17.167 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lamb of God

Since Muhammad was called al-Amîn as-Sadîq, and the article does acknowledge this:

Due to his upright character he acquired the nickname "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and "al-Sadiq" meaning "truthful".

Could Muhammad be the Lamb of God mentioned in the Book of Revelation? the Faithful & Truthful? The Amen?

  • In the Book of Revelation: There are 24 prophets mentioned + The Lamb who was given The Sealed Book.
  • In the Qur'an: There are 24 prophets mentioned + The Seal of the prophets Muhammad.

My secondary source is:

al-Amîn as-Sadîq, The Amen (Faithful & Truthful)

The Prophet Muhammad was the fulfillment of the passages of Revelation (19:10-15). The passages confirm that the last messenger (referred to as the "Messiah" or "Christ" or "Lamb" or "son of man") would be the person foretold by the Messiah 'Issa (so-named Jesus).

~ Margaret S. King‏, Unveiling The Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

My primary source is:

مُطَاعٍ ثَمَّ أَمِينٍ, Muţā`in Thamma 'Amīn (Obeyed there & Faithful)

[That] indeed, the Qur'an is a word [conveyed by] a noble messenger [Who is] possessed of power and with the Owner of the Throne, secure [in position], Obeyed there [in the heavens] and trustworthy (in Arabic مُطَاعٍ ثَمَّ أَمِينٍ, Muţā`in Thamma 'Amīn).

~ Qur'an 81:19-21

I strongly believe that this should be mentioned in the article. The book of Margaret S. King is a reliable secondary source since she is an anthropologist who has studied Middle Eastern societies, both ancient and modern.[9] --77.92.18.14 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there any significant amount of source that explicitly makes this exact correlation? – nafSadh did say 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There is relatively a significant amount of source about Muhammad's fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies (in both the Old & the New Testament). The one I cited above (i.e. Margaret S. King‏, Unveiling The Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls makes this exact correlation between the Lamb of God & the Prophet Muhammad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.17.167 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So far the evidence you presented do not warrant enough significance to this theory to add that to this article. There are so many books about Muhammad, we cannot cover all of those information in this article. Only main stream major viewpoints shall be here. More details can be elsewhere in the Wikipedia. – nafSadh did say 16:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There is another article where this might be more relevant, see Muhammad in the Bible. Wiqi(55) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of transliteration (spelling) of "Mohammed"?

Is there a section or article or archive anywhere in Wikipedia that discusses how his name is spelled in English? I gather the preferred current spelling is "Muhammad." The spelling I am familiar with is "Mohammed," which also comports more with the pronunciation I have heard in a dozen Middle Eastern countries. ("Mu" = "moo," which sounds undignified to my ear.) "M'hamed" would be even closer, but is less common. I see from Google's Ngram that by 1945 "Muhammad" was becoming more popular. So this isn't a request to change any norms, I'm just curious if this question is addressed anywhere. Thanks. Benefac (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was curious about the same thing and once looked through the archive to see what discussion there had been. I couldn't find anything very definitive: the question has been asked a handful of times with either no one responding or a very pefunctory discussion. I suspect this spelling does conform with WP:COMMONNAME. I also suspect that Muh has become more popular than Moh in recent years because it is closer to Arabic pronunciation (M'): "Muh" being /ʌ/ (as in 'shut') rather than /uː/ (as in 'moo') DeCausa (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for relaying your research findings! In a future lifetime I will learn the International Phonetic Alphabet (and become polylingual while I'm at it :-) ). I was reading the "h" as attached to the second syllable, not to the first syllable: "Mu-hammad" or "Mo-hammed". So "Mu" vs "Mo" (as in 'muchachos', 'mucho,' 'music' or 'mutiny', vs 'mother', 'mom', 'mod, etc.). The "ad" vs "ed" ending is also not instinctive for me -- to my eyes/ears Muhammad reads as: "Moo-hahm-madd" (sorry I can't do the IPA! :-) ). "Mhamed" is even simpler -- and is used by some people, although a diacritic like "M'hamed" is clearer to me. Anyway, just musings. I'll try to train myself to use Muhammad. Benefac (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Benefac: To answer your original question, yes, we do have an article on this topic. See Muhammad (name)#Lexicology. The spelling "Muhammad" is the closest transliteration to the Arabic name. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

....according to someone who once edited a Wikipedia article. Formerip (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
...according to the article Muhammad (name). Looking at it again, I see that section is unsourced. Wikipedia seems to have adopted the convention of using the spelling "Muhammad" consistently throughout all articles that mention him. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
شكرا، أمتلك. هل التحدث والقراءة والكتابة باللغة العربية؟ ما هي الدول العربية لم كنت تعيش في؟ كم سنة هل يعيشون هناك؟ . Amatulić, I see that per your link, "its actual pronunciation differs colloquially, for example, ... in exclusively religious contexts, talking about Islam: IPA: [moˈħæmmæd] -- "Mo". As Formerip states, no source is given for that standardization of spelling, in fact the reference in that section makes the point that: "The name has one of the highest spelling variants in the world." The next section, Principal Transliterations, says: "The name is transliterated as Mohammad (primarily in Iran and Afghanistan), Muhammad (in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Malaysia), Muhammed (Arab World, primarily in North Africa), Mohamed, Mohammed, Mohamad and Muhammad (Arab World), Muhammed, Muhamed (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Muhammed, Muhamed, Muhammet, or Muhamet (Turkey and Albania)." So, again, if anyone knows or can find it, how did Wikipedia end up standardizing on Muhammad, and where is that discussion? Is this due to the large population of editors from South Asia -- India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia? Thanks! Benefac (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that what you quoted above also says the Arab world uses "Muhammad" as well as three others. I speculate that "Muhammad" perhaps covers the broadest range of countries. As for why the convention on Wikipedia exists, well, if a source can be found for the statement that "Muhammad" is the closest transliteration, then that may explain it. Wikipedia:Muhammad doesn't offer any enlightenment, but maybe it can be found in the talk page archives. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
In most English scholarly publications M.'s name is given as Muhammad, or more precisely, Muḥammad. See the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. AstroLynx (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that should really be all that's relevant per WP:COMMONNAME. The closeness to Arabic pronunciation or otherwise is actually irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming it is correct, then it probably takes care of the title. However, the article doesn't currently acknowledge the existence of any alternative EL spelling, which it probably should. Formerip (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Huh. I was staring at Vgent's comment for a while, not seeing the difference between Muhammad and Muḥammad. Then I scrolled my display a bit and realized that the little dot under the ḥ wasn't just dirt on my monitor. It looked like several similar specks. Time to clean my monitor. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Might be worth a couple sentences in this English-language article, if someone can find the references in the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, per user AstroLynx/Vgent. Benefac (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

M.'s name is of course found in numerous places in EI2 and EQ. The principal entry on M. in EI2 is in vol. VII, pp. 360-387; in the EQ it is vol. III, pp. 440-458. Both EI2 and EQ can easily be found online, at Internet Archive (follow the link on the Talk page of EI2) and on Library Genesis. AstroLynx (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just looking into most popular translations of Bukhari and of Muslim in an archive I rely on. Both uses the spelling Muhammad. Probably at some point last century Muhammad became the de-facto standard spelling by most of the scholarly community. The assumption of Benefac that the spelling Benefac became popular because most editors are from South Asia is somewhat counter-factual; because most popular spelling there is with Moh- rather than Muh-. Probably the use of -u- to represent -ُ ‎- (dammah) is very common in West (especially in US). From my personal experience, though I spell my name's Mostafa part with Mo- most people tried to write it with Mustafa when I told them my name. – nafSadh did say 18:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked but haven't yet found the discussion about the best English transliteration/spelling of Muhammad/Mohammed, in either the Encyclopedia of Islam ("EI2") or the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an ("EQ"). It must be there, I just haven't found it yet. Could anyone hyperlink to those discussions of spelling, and include them in Muhammad (name)#Lexicology? Thanks!! There are a dozen links in the talk page of EI (btw, all three editions are in that one article: EI1, EI2, EI3).[10] Fwiw, the four I tried all lead to EI1 (not EI2). I didn't yet find discussion of the English spelling in EI1. I'm not challenging this spelling; rather it seems appropriate to explain to our readers why scholars' consensus is 'Muhammad,' as seems to be the case. (Although, if one combines the usage of "Mohammed" and "Mohamed", the usage comes closer to "Muhammad," and the former seem to be growing in use the past decade.) I made no assumption about South Asian editors, I simply repeated what is said in the unsourced Wikipedia article, and asked a question. Benefac (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Dear Sir. Thanks for your objectivity in speaking about the prophet of Islam Prophet Mohammad (MPBUH), I know how hard it would be to write about someone with such huge number of followers and I know that pleasing them all can be impossible. My request is to simply remove all of the pictures or drawings characterizing our prophet. Out of respect of our prophet, we Muslims never draw his shape or figure and this is a sensitive matter for us, so I kindly ask you to pay attention to millions of Muslims feeling of dis-respect by figuring the prophet (MPBUH). to clarify my claim I will attach a campaign link pledging you to simply remove the pictures, I have nothing to do with this campaign but that I signed on it just like thousands other. https://www.causes.com/actions/1772679-sign-the-petition-to-to-request-wikipedia-editors-to-respect-other-peoples-religion Thanks for your understanding and looking for your earliest response. Best regards Abdulrahman Alsoufi Abdo Soofi (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the message about images located near the top of this page. --NeilN talk to me 13:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Need to remove the images that describe Muhammad. thanks Ashraf kamal 2015 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the message about images located near the top of this page. --NeilN talk to me 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam#Personal_names
  2. ^ http://unveiling-christianity.org/
  3. ^ http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/11/prophet-muhammads-alleged-suicide.html
  4. ^ http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_prophet_muhammad_s_contemplation_of_suicide_disprove_his_prophet_hood__assuming_he_did__
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/Archive_28&oldid=1092052050"