Talk:Historicity of Muhammad

Historical authenticity of the Qur'an

The statement "All or most of the Qur'an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive, but it was primarily an orally related document" is not my understanding. I have read that most of his sayings were transmitted orally for about 20-30 years before being written down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.166.4 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Overview

I killed this section because it was unreferenced and seemingly unfactual. --Aminz 00:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire piece seems to have been taken over by Muslim revisionists. The point of the article is surely to detail the sceptical investigation into the historical figure of Mohamed and voracity of Islamic and historical texts in relation. It needs a major re-edit. I'll have a think. 124.181.201.178 02:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Borsabil

Summary

Like many other figures e.g. Jesus and Moses there is no evidence he existed other then his religious sources. This I find very puzzling both because of the people in the region and the times he lived. I think reading this others are puzzled too. BernardZ 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BernardZ, historicity of Muhammad is almost certain. It is different from that of Jesus, not to speak of Moses. We know about Muhammad more than any other person from ancient times. --Aminz 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ: we know much about Jesus. In fact, we know about a lot of people more than Muhammad. LutherVinci (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was in his time a minor figure. Moses is a long time ago. Muhammad would have been neither. I find it puzzling that we have nothing outside of Islamic sources to show BernardZ 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As the article says, there are non-Muslim sources as well. In any case, you should support your statement through scholarly sources. --Aminz 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That reference in that article is hardly an authoritarian reference BernardZ 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

At least it is an scholarly source passing WP:RS requirements if not an authoritarian reference --Aminz 06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC) In fact Muhammad or any other figure related to revelation is not a matter to dispute. The prevailing idea of Islam proves the prophecy of Quran that any other religious figure is not so much successful on both religios and secular levels.~~zikr

Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a.

There are major differences in it between the current Qur'an and it. I have not found any scholarly references yet to this but I think we should add something about what is an incredible find here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

I have decided to make a page on this Qur'an and maybe people can supply more details on it BernardZ 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the mainstream view of academics. --Aminz 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

why are...

Why are what appear to be some fairly non-mainstream opinions about Muhummad the only items under the "Information on Muhummad" section? Definitely not neutral. 72.74.16.200 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hillenbrand cite

The years given in YOUR Hillenbrand cite, 645-690, do not match those at Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a, 790-835, for exactly the same article. This should be checked in the original article by Hillenbrand and corrected at whichever page has it wrong. ThuranX 12:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Propriety of the quotefarm tag

Don't see the problem, assume it's a stale tag, opening this § for discussion. Lycurgus (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the historical Muhammad

This section states that there are:

"Non-Muslim sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by the Jewish and Christian communities".

However it does not go on to elaborate exactly what they are. Elsewhere in the article Harald Motzski is quoted saying:

"At present, the study of Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim community, is obviously caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography".

This suggests that there are no non-Muslim sources. Should this statement about the existence of non-Muslim sources be removed? --Pappa (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've added a rewrite template. This article really needs some work, but I wouldn't know where to start. --Pappa (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammed didn't exist (?)

I've just smoothed this article a bit - some of the English was a bit unfortunately phrased.

I see that some contributors seem to think it should be a "why Muhammed never existed" article. Since no reputable and qualified person holds such a silly view, it can't sensibly be the subject of a Wikipedia article; really, it cannot. But I think this article has real value to everyone if it lists the source data for the life of Mohammed, and it is doing this fairly well. Surely any *theories* about Muhammed should be those published by academics, and listed with references (as some are), or else omitted? After all, who wants to read amateur hate-driven opinions, in which some wonk tries desperately to fabricate a lie? (I should say that I'm not a Moslem, and interested in, but not at all sympathetic to Islam; but what *I* need is *facts* about this subject;-- i.e. what is the data on which any opinion must be based? Opinion we can all do for ourselves, after all. If I do have to enter a debate with someone, I would very much rather that I got my facts right.)

Now I see that someone put in stuff about non-Moslem sources "confirming" the Koran. Surely such wording is liable to bring accusations of pro-Moslem POV? On this basis I've modified this to making it possible to compare accounts - which it is. That doesn't express an opinion either way. But if we do want to say that these sources confirm something in the Koran, we need to be more precise as to what it confirms --after all it certainly doesn't confirm the Moslem religion! -- and we should give references to western academic literature in each case. Let's give hard data, eh? Some of the points -- such as Muhammed being a merchant -- *do* confirm what the Koran says.

One other point: I did wonder whether all this stuff on the authenticity of the **Koran** is actually in the right place? Surely it must be duplicating stuff in the Koran article? I've not done anything to it, but it seems doubtful that it should be here. I suggest that this page is basically a list of sources, and for reliability etc links to the individual page for the source? Roger Pearse (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article should not be "Why Muhammad never existed", but it also shouldn't be "Muhammad certainly existed, but we don't have evidence for that". All alleged sources have to be listed. You cannot claim there are many non-Moslem sources if you don't list them accurately with date of writing and so on. From critical point of view, religious sources like the Qur'an or hadith are the least reliable. Mcek (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

The article currently reads:

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, Muhammad is "the only founder of a major world religion who lived in the full light of history and about whom there are numerous records in historical texts, although like other pre-modern historical figures not every detail of his life is known"

I added {{rs}} to this because WP:RS says that says that secondary sources are preferred over tertiary sources. It's true that WP:RS says that tertiary sources can be used to give overviews/summaries as long as secondary sources are given for the more detailed points. However, the detailed points that follow seem to basically contradict the given summary ("when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write ... a historical biography of the Prophet"). Also, while I realize that a high-level summary can't be totally precise, phrases like "full light of history" seem unnecessarily vague. Muhammad's life straddled the border between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, is that really what springs to mind when one says "full light of history"?

I'm not necessarily suggesting that this be removed (I would have preferred an inline version of {{refimprove}} instead). Rather, if it was possible to replace it with the secondary sources that Encyclopedia Britannica used, then this position could be given more clarity and reliability. --Underpants 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) is a dated text, from 1912. I don't see how it can be considered as embodying the state of play with regard to scientific research on this subject

While you could quote it somewhere in the article, it clearly can't stay in the opening paragraphs, and it cannot be presented almost as the "final word" on the issue of "information on Muhammad"

I agree with Underpants: authoritative secondary sources (preferably, from a wide spectrum of opinions) should be presented, and not a 1912 tertiary source.Giordaano (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad's stuff

Shall we inlcude Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State? Shall we also include Relics of Muhammad ? Faro0485 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal correspondence would have been a great primary source, but unfortunately these letters to heads of state you refer to were standard letters, rather resembling modern day direct mail, meant to advertise the Prophet's brand new-and-improved religion. (Join now - double your rewards in heaven! Only while stocks last!) The relics have the same problems as relics of holy figures in other religions - their authenticity is questionable and can't be relied upon to give much insight into the historical personality. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they should be included because it mentions his name, and the end of each letter it is stamped "Muhammed the prophet of God"--BelalSaid (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible weasel words

How is it that finding a copy of the Qur'ran dating to 645 AD (15 years after the Qur'ran was written) makes the historical accuracy of the book unlikely? Would an archeologist only be convinced by finding the original draft by Muhammad himself? I think the quote provided should be taken with consideration. LutherVinci (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Then what makes the copy of the Qur'an dating to 645 AD (15 years after the Qur'an was written) is likely historical accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.226.34 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what is being asked here. When the original comment was made -- a bit over 2 years ago -- they only thing in the article mentioning the date is "The Carbon-14 tests applied to this Qur'an date it to 645-690 AD with 95 percent accuracy." There is no attached claim that this says anything at all about accuracy.

At this point, the article says, "The Carbon-14 tests applied to this Qur'an date it's parchment to 645-690 AD with 95 percent accuracy. Their real age may be a good deal younger, since C-14 estimates the year of the death of an organism, and the process from that to the final writing on the parchment involves an unknown amount of time, and parchments were also re-used often.[24] Paleography has dated the San'a manuscripts to 690-750 AD." Again, there is no claim related to accuracy here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This article could really use

A picture of Mohammed to illustrate who is being talked about, as it is unclear to any casual reader what is happening in the article when one of the only pictures is just a stack of papers. 69.166.47.133 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

inb4 jihad.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.38 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I second this, the Historicity of Jesus wiki also has such pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.51.227 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a far finickier proposition than it may first appear. There's a history of aniconism in Islam that could leave behind something of an uproar. A picture may be necessary, but not of the man himself, just for the sake of not adopting what could be seen as an anti Islam stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.217.109 (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The Doctrina Jacobi and Hoyland's Seeing Islam as others saw it

A serious ommission is lack of mention of Doctrina Jacobi, a Byzantine anti-Jewish tract, dated to just two years after the accepted date fo the death of Muhammad, stating that a "Saracen Prophet" had arisen out of Arabia. The tract is cited by even sceptics Cook and Crone as proof of the historicity of Muhammad. Reference should also be made to the book "Seeing Islam as Others Saw it" by Hoyland, which reconstructs a Muhammad and Early Islam compatible in the broad strokes with that based on Muslim historiography. Ybgursey (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Go ahead.Giordaano (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have included them in the "Non-Muslim sources" part--BelalSaid (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignaz Goldziher and the non-historicity of Muhammad

According to a recent article by Barbara Köster in the austrian daily Die Presse, Orientalist schoolar Ignaz Goldziher questioned the historicity of Muhammad as the quran presents it. As she reports, Muhammad lived in the 6th or 7th century BEFORE christ, and Islamic tradition would rather have been established as a Jewish Christian cult of arabic tribes relying on bad translations of an aramaic primal quran. Does anybody know if this theory has any support in modern science? --Derbeobachter (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it is not supported. See Seeing Islam as Others Saw It--BelalSaid (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying to support a video

Yes, I am trying to support a video made by a Youtube user on this subject, if someone could please politely respond and I will explain the situation, thank you. ~EgyptKEW9~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptKEW9 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Muhammad" as a title of Christ?

I am not sure if this belongs here; the theories "doubting" the "historicity" of Muhammad appear to be rather left-field, but here is an apparently serious suggestion that seems to imply that while Muhammad was a historical "prophet", the name "Muhammad" would have been an adopted title given to Christ in Arab Christianity, as was Ali (i.e. the historical Muhammad would have identified himself with Christ and his authority by adopting his title; Ali would be a metastasis of the same figure that became a separate "youthful hero" version in later mythology).This 2008 article seems to make the case based on early(?) talismanic inscriptions that may be understood as Christian invocations of God and Jesus Christ reinterpreted as Islamic invocations of God, Muhammad and Ali

(i.e. ya safi ya allah ya muhammad ya hannan ya mannan la fata illa ali if interpreted in Islamic terms mingles up invocations of God, Muhammad and Ali; reading muhammad and ali not as proper names, it becomes "o healer, o God, o praised one, o merciful one, o graceful one, there is no youthful hero like the exalted [raised, risen] one", i.e addressing Christ).

This seems all rather plausible, as of course Islam did start of as an imitation or regional spin-off from Christianity. The article goes on to identify the sword of "Ali", Zulfiqar, as a direct reference to the "double-edged sword" of Hebrews 4:12 and Revelation (1:16 etc.). It then all becomes a garbled reference to Christian eschatology, i.e the risen Christ ('ali') wielding the "double-edged sword" of judging between good and evil.

But this all hinges on the question of the antiquity of this talisman, and as I have no confirmation that this is solid scholarship rather than a random fringe view. It was published academically, but its tendency to cite online sources (including Wikipedia...) isn't very reassuring. It would help if there were comparable ideas expressed by other scholars as well.

So I'll not to try to insert it into the article just yet, but I thought it may be helpful to make note of it here for future reference. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So ... did he exist?

The Historicity of Jesus article states "There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically" in the final paragraph before the table of contents. Question answered.

This article quotes the opinion of a historian, however it doesn't say whether this opinion represents a consensus or a crackpot theory.

--holizz (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

well, as you would expect, the article isn't very good, mainly because it refuses to focus on its stated topic. It spends its first half on the hadith account, for which we basically have Hadith, Life of Muhammad and the Muhammad page itself. Material actually focussing on the question of historicity is grudgingly delegated to "non-Muslim" and "Western" sections.

Much like "Historicity of Jesus", this is a fringe topic, there is wide consensus for both Jesus and Muhammad being historical. But while Historicity of Jesus is at least allowed to discuss its fringe subject, "Historicity of Muhammad" does not seem to be awarded this privilege freely. For one thing, I am surprised that there is no discussion on the fact that Muhammad is quite likely an epithet meaning "blessed", so, even if Muhammad is historical this is not necessarily his actual or birth name, which opens up the possibility that the epithet may have referred to two (or any number) of (historical!) individuals which may or may not have become conflated. Again, I think it is safe to say that the mainstream position is that "Muhammad is historical", but if the article can be cleaned up, there would be a wealth of interesting scholarly material on the topic it could discuss. --dab (𒁳) 17:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Further reading section

Robert Spencer and Emmet Scott have no academic qualifications related to Islam, and their works do not appear in academic, respected, peer-reviewed publications. Not to mention that their works are clearly anti-Muslim. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

When you look up their academic backgrounds, I get quite a different impression. Qualifying their works as anti-Muslim is not a sufficient reason for deleting them. AstroLynx (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Qualifying their works as anti-Muslim is not a sufficient reason for deleting them.

That's not what I said. Please address the argument regarding their scholarly merit, which are yet to prove, and don't try to reframe this argument in ways that could only be called silly and pathetic. Spencer's reliability has been discussed numerous times here on Wiki, and shown to be utterly unreliable. The onus is on YOU to prove and justify the inclusion of a non-academic blogger like Spencer, and a polemical non-specialist like Scott whose works do not appear in academic, respected, peer-reviewed publications. If you still have doubts, I suggest you raise it with WP:RSN and come back us with a consensus for their reliability before restoration. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Spencer's work wouldn't count as a Reliable Source when appraising historical questions. He may be worth mentioning in a section on amateur historian, or polemical books written on the historicity question though. Ashmoo (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this is an obviously spurious request. --Eperoton (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead

I wonder if the lead is a bit provocative. I know that we consider each article on its own merits, but ours on Jesus starts:

"Jesus[e] (/ˈdʒiːzəs/ jee-zuss; c. 4 BC – c. AD 30/33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ,[f] was a Jewish preacher[13] and religious leader who became the central figure of Christianity. Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah[g] prophesied in the Old Testament.[14][15]

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[h] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus."

Maybe a better comparison is with Historical Jesus:

"The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods," in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')."[1] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[2][3][4] The vast majority of scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts..."

How different is the situation with Muhammad? Doug Weller talk 18:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I've never looked at this lead before. The title of the article could be interpreted in two ways. In the more narrow sense, and the one that would be the first to occur to me, it refers to the question of whether Muhammad was a historical figure, i.e., if he existed. In the broader sense, which is the actual scope of the article it refers to the methodological issues surrounding the historical study of Muhammad's life. These correspond to the articles Christ myth theory and Historicity of Jesus. The article Historical Jesus has some related discussion, but it roughly corresponds to the bulk of Muhammad, which attempts to recount the life of Muhammad as a historical person, as do most academic encyclopedias and narrative histories I'm aware of.

There are a couple of problems with the lead. First, it doesn't define the scope of the article. Secondly, it presents a tendentious smattering of observations which doesn't do justice to the article itself, which presents a tolerably comprehensive discussion of academic views. I'll mark the lead with a banner for now. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on this. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Views of Modern Historians

The section, with the heading: "Views of Modern Historians", does not justify the article itself as it merely portrays the negative findings and works of the modern historians. The aforesaid section must have a parallel analysis illustrating the "positive" works of modern day Christian and Muslim Historians as well. Most of the historians cited are none but Jews, and they were never expected to have uttered good words about Islam. Moreover, the conclusion of the section giving three pointers is also totally biased and needs to be tailored in order to justify the true essence of the article. --Haxeeb1987 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Haxeeb1987: A couple of points. First, it looks like you have been canvassing uninvolved editors about this article. Since you're involved in a dispute, this is considered to be inappropriate behavior.

Secondly, you're welcome to add properly sourced content that reflects opinions of other historians. Their religion or lack thereof is immaterial. What's important is that their views are published in a reliable source and that they have had some acceptance or influence in the academic community (see WP:FRINGE). Our article says "Today, only a minority of historians of early Islam doubt the historicity of Muhammad", and though I haven't verified the citations, this agrees with my understanding of the field. Hence, additional arguments to that effect should not be hard to find. Eperoton (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: It's my bad, since i'm new to this editing stuff. Secondly, i thank you for your kind guidance and will try to add properly sourced content to justify my considered opinion. -- Haxeeb1987 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's always so ironic to see muslims being racist towards Jews when your ideology is merely poorly bastardized Judaism and Paganism - that being said, most of the historians cited are not even Jews (one of them is even muslim) and objective facts are neither negative nor positive. 107.184.233.56 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Article needs NPOV editing

The article definitively needs editing. The opening section starts with a claim that the "existence of the figure Muhammad is proven" and mentions a debate about the "historicity of Muhammad, aside from his existence". Further down we can read that a minority of researchers does question not only the historicity of the tradition about Muhammad but his very existence. This should not remain as it is. Why not have a look at the Jesus article and how the very parallel question of historicity is handled there in the opening? A claim that "the existence of Jesus is proven" has no place there, for good reason. Kipala (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

have attempted to cleanup the problem in the lede. More work remains to be done. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

argument about the Quran

The article is a mess in part because of tangents on the Quran -- not the subject of the article -- for example

Patricia Crone and Michael Cook challenge the traditional account of how the Quran was compiled writing that "there is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century."

followed by several sentences attacking Crone and Cook. Belongs in an article about the Quran. I plan to trim this extraneous argument, which will be a lot of text. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. - BoogaLouie (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

You've been potting in a lot of good work over the past couple of days. In reviewing your edits, the stuff you removed about the Quran look like worthwhile information that shouldn't be lost. I hope you can incorporate it somehow into the Quran article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've bracketed my beliefs in Islam long ago and this was due to unbiased scholarship more than anything. I'd like for such scholarship to be better represented here. So, I'd like to work on cleaning up and making this article more neutral. Peace! Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Historicity of Muhammad citations

Hi. The citation for 'some sources maintaining that "everything he did and said was recorded"' seems to refer to the claim of one non-peer reviewed Muslim author who does not even make claims about what other sources say, whilst the following statement - 'others insist that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed' - cites two peer reviewed articles.

This strikes me as unequal footing (ie comparing a dogmatic opinion to peer reviewed articles) so I would suggest either qualifying the wording as 'Some Muslim sources claim everything he did and said was recorded, while other academic sources insist that we do not have even "a scrap of information of real use in constructing the human history of Muhammad, beyond the bare fact that he once existed.' or simply removing the text 'some sources maintaining that "everything he did and said was recorded' altogether Daniel De Mol (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove the thing in the lede that the existence of Muhammad is established.

Some serious historians disagree. Even if their views are fringe, the fact that there is some dispute should be stated.

Jasper0333 (talk)

Fringe theories

I'm not a Muslim and I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the "Muhammad Myth Theory" should be removed from the page. I is obvioulsy WP:Fringe (similarly to the Christ Myth Theory), supported by very few historians. It should not appear on Wikipedia. @Joshua Jonathan: @MPants at work:.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I disagree. It should be mentioned that it is a fringe-view, but deserves a place in an article on the historicity of Muhammad. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK @Joshua Jonathan:, but it should be underlined that it is a fringe theory, just like we underline that the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Minority view doesn't necessarily equate to "fringe". Be wary of WP:LABEL. Do reliable sources refer to it as "fringe"? Also what labeling might exist in another article has no bearing on this one, particularly if that label is similarly flawed, there is no justification for propagating that flaw to other articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Minority view doesn't necessarily equate to "fringe". It frequently does. "Fringe" doesn't mean "pseudoscience", but any theory on the fringes of scholarship. In this case, it's very clearly a fringe view, as there are only a tiny minority of scholars who hold this view, and it mostly antedates 9/11, which provides a convenient explanation for it's (negligible, but still) popularity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What labeling? The overwhelming majority of scholars believe Mohamed existed and this is explicitly stated in the article.-Karma1998 (talk)

Muhammad mythicism is indeed a fringe view per WP:FRINGE guideline. Almost no scholar thinks Muhammad never existed. It is not as widely spread like Christ Myth Theory so it has not gotten as much unified scholarly commentary because it is also not very formalized yet (may look into this further). Christ Myth Theory has had over a century of history where mythicists try and fail repeatedly, but Muhammad mythicism seems to be very recently introduced. But it is a fringe view with or without a source using the term "fringe" nonetheless.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't like slapping a label "fringe" on a topic when "a minority of historians" already works well enough, particularly if the analysis of those historians has gone through some peer review (as with Nevo and Koren). In the interest of due weight, I advocate keeping the theories from people on which we already have Wikipedia articles, and remove those that don't (Popp and Heger, it looks like). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no requirement that we use the word "fringe" on fringe theories. In fact, we very rarely do that, and only when in dire need of some synonyms for terms like "minority view". We simply treat it according to WP:FRINGE, which is, itself, an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV. We give it weight which is proportionate to it's acceptance among mainstream scholarship, and we ensure that, as we require less authoritative sources to fully document it, we also accept similarly less authoritative sources in refuting it. As far as labelling goes, we try to follow and summarize our sources. If they describe it as something that pretends to be science when it is not, we call it "pseudoscience". If they describe it as a conspiracy theory, we call it that.

And when they describe it as a minority view among scholars, then we describe it as a minority view among scholars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Historicity of Qur'an

The information regarding the historicity of the Qur'an places a disproportionate amount of doubt on the use of the Qur'an as an historical source. For example, Michael Cook and Patricia Crone, two well known members of the Revisionist School of Islamic Studies, are used to argue for doubting the Qur'an as an historical source, yet neither of those two scholars hold those same views anymore (as my citations show). Crone has since died, but both of them have affirmed, more recently, that there isn't any significant level of doubt as to the Qur'an's authenticity in the historical community. Crone's online article titled "What do we actually know about Mohammed," (which can be found on OpenDemocracy.net) shows this fairly clearly as she summarizes the general state of Islamic Studies. The original writing also included few quotes of scholars discussing the general consensus on the Qur'an and instead selects individual opinions of a few scholars and uses them to portray the scholarly community as being much more divided on the issue of the historicity of the Qur'an than it really is.Renegade4dk (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This page should be locked

Christian and Muslims will inherently argue and spam changed to an article like this same as the jesus one… the public shouldn’t be allowed to edit this page …. It should be locked like all the others…? 109.181.2.7 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Quotations

There are many quotations where it source is unclear because there are two or more citations following the quote. Further I think the author of the quote should be also named right after the quote. Ike9898 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Any quote in particular? Most seem to be one source per quote. It is possible both sources have the same quote. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)