Talk:Muhammad/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Okay, POV (point of view):

You've said "Has nothing to do with Hindu scriptures as such". But your original write-up had these lines "In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad".

The views of orthodox Hindus are to be represented Fine. Which views? and by whom? Could we be a bit more clearer?

1.This is what the user Paul B said in this thread:

The problem is undue weight. These are extremely obscure opinions, not in any way representative of Hinduism. By listing these very obscure opinions as the views of Hindu "scholars" we create the idea that these are standard or at least common views in Hinduism, which they are not. Frankly, if we were to have a genuinely accurate account of Hindu views of Muhammad it would include a lots of very negative opinions, similar to those listed in the Christian section.

2. You have linked to the Gaudiya Vaishnavism article, but it does not say anything about Islam or Mohammed.

3. You do not even look at references provided where it is clearly obvious how Hinduism and Mohammed are connected.

Hmmmm...which references can we take seriously? Let's re-examine these claims once again:

1. Mohammed is none but Lord Kalki himself.Siddiq Hussain who has stated this is the founder of a semi Hindu-Islamic cult called "Deendar Anjuman". Going by that yardstick we can take what cults like the raelians said and include that in mainstream religious views.

2. Here's another vague write-up from the article:

Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death"

The obvious question no matter what references you may cite would be: How?

So these "authors" are actually admitting that the Vedas predicted Mohammed like say 2000 or 3000 years ago? How many Muslims would admit that? for that matter, how many Hindus or Christians or any religious creed would accept that?

In fact, one could take any passage from any religious book, twist it completely and prove just about anything.

If it's "point of view" of various representatives then:

1. Consider the "Mecca is a Vedic Shrine" as an alternative viewpoint of "Hindu views of Islam.

2. Consider another "viewpoint" by the Audarya fellowship which says that the Jews were actually the "Yadu" people of Dwaraka. (The author maybe trying to draw similarity to the words "Yudah (Judah)" and "Yadu (Yadava)"). Here for example:http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-culture/184144-jewish-origins.html

3. There is an external link in the Star of David of David article which claims that "As an archetypal symbol for the sacred union of the opposite energies, it is the "yin-yang" of western civilization. Formed by the intertwining of the "fire" and "water" triangles (the male "blade" and the female "chalice")..."

Why not include the above within the main "Star of David" article itself?

If the above views can be incorporated within their respective articles, then we could also include the "Mohammed in Hinduism" views also! Obviously, there are thousands of viewpoints to any single topic. But with all respect and seriousness, would you be able to include all of them?freewit (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many lies in this para=

In following para, yogindar sikand is a muslim convert and his name is mentioned as Hindu representative. The first statement is a lie as he is not a hindu representative. The whole paragraph was cheating as it was referring to Yogindar Sikand and his works as works of Hindu representative.

Representatives of Hinduism held a variety of views on Muhammad, some with an assertion that the prophet was none else than the Narashansrishi of the Vedas, predicted in the Atharva Veda.[183] One of the prominent Vaishnava proponents, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada maintained that Mohammad and Jesus, were empowered representatives of God, saktiavesa avataras.[184] In a variety of other points of view, some translated the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad.[185] In 1926 Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures, however this view is not a widely accepted doctrine.[186] On the other hand Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[187] Mohammad is sometimes linked to the passage of the Rig Veda declaring that Narashams rishi will arrive as the "last divine messenger" (antim deva duta), who shall "dispel all darkness" and "conquer death".[188] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Skant, do you suggest that Yogindar Sikand is not representing views of Hinduism here? If he is a convert to what tradition is he convert to? Do you have a suggestion as to the inclusion of specific personas or their specific Hindu views, please share them with us here.Wikidās ॐ 14:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to note that the section has been removed. This appears to be a good deletion, in my opinion. The deleted section was not about the views of Hinduism, rather it told the views of a few obscure Hindus. They are entitled to their opinions, and maybe even to some sort of separate article. There may indeed be some more representative mainstream Hindu views on Muhammad worth including -- But the deleted views are certainly not representative of Hinduism as a whole, and their inclusion in this major article gives them Undue Weight. Not in this article please.

If someone with more knowledge wants to stub the paragraph into a different article, and put a see also in this article, that would be appropriate. --nemonoman (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is being discussed and is not being removed. At present just because you are 'pleased' nothing will change. The section on Hindu views is required, I do not know a number of Hindus, but all Hindus leaders are not only notable but also their views are to be considered. If you have any particular other information and sources that are to be added to this section, please feel free to add. Wikidās ॐ 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again:)......

but all Hindus leaders are not only notable but also their views are to be considered.

Who? Could we have atleast some names of these Hindu leaders?

The section on Hindu views is required

Fine. Understood. Include the "Mecca was once a Vedic shrine" article. If you feel that's idiotic, then consider adding what Swami Vivekananda said about Islam:

1. "The Mohammedan religion allows Mohammedans to kill all who are not of their religion. It is clearly stated in Koran,"Kill the infidels if they do not become Mohammedans"

Obviously, many muslims and others would object...But you've simply said "Swami Vivekananda, on the other hand, would often question validity of the revelation without renunciation and would portray Mohammed's life and teachings in a non-exclusive manner"

What does that mean? Could we perhaps have that in more simpler English so that laymen and other "scholars" out here would understand......

In a contrast to him some Hindus would illustrate that Manu and Noah were actually one and the same person and "people of Noah" could have been Indians,[187] and would even translate the phrase "the last prophet", suggesting that Vedic deity Agni is none other but Muhammad

And here we go (once again!)with the "last prophet" crap! Agni and Mohammed???? Some Hindus also hold that "Mecca was a Vedic Shrine and Shiva worship was prominent and others held the view that the Aryans were remnants of the Atlantean race". Ah that sounds very scholary! Some Hindus...others.....???

By the way, please double check the spelling of "Gandi", it's supposed to be "Gandhi" and should link directly to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhiand not to Gandi

About some of the references you've cited (we've already discussed some of them "ad nauseum" times!) :

183:^ Haque, Zeyaul. "A Hindu view of Islam, The Milli Gazette, Vol. 2 No. 1

Zeyaul Haque has also said "The Vedas, which predate the prophet (pbuh) by several centuries, predict his birth, writes Dr. Upadhyay.".

Beautiful! We should have a separate sub-section saying that the Vedas are the "super scriptures" of the world! Amazing! Astounding! By the way, they also predict the arrival of Abraham, Noah, Jesus, Mohammed et al!

187 and 188

Sikand (2004) p. 138 and Sikand (2004) p. 140

I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy? Let's look at another "gem" of an article which he has written here:http://www.countercurrents.org/comm-sikand230204.htm

He has made a huge mess and has "assumed" that some of the "punishments" mentioned in the "Manusmriti" against the lower castes has actually been followed strictly by the Upper Class.

The Wiki article about [Manu smriti] very clearly points out that there are lots of interpolations and the "The Bhagavad Gita contradicts many statements in Manu Smriti, including the fixture of one's Varana at birth, and has always been accorded a higher authority by the people in daily life."

So how can we exactly "cite" this guy as a valid reference?

And another point to ponder here: All these references are only the "positive" aspects of Mohammed (that too most of them are fringe views).In other words, they simply "glorify" Mohammed without taking into account the negative aspects. So much for neutrality!

What's the point in adding the tag "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2008)" and simply rewriting the "Mohammed in Hinduism" write-up? If it's disputed, remove it and replace/rewrite it once the issue is resolved. freewit (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have put answers in the section below - It appears to me as POV based and quite uneducated section removal. 13:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources and POV removal of material

Correct understanding of how to achieve neutrality in this article is critical at this stage.

I appears that some editors are engaged in the specific POV removal of material. However the criteria for inclusion of material is to present the matter form many different points of view. For example section on Hindu views should present reliable sources and/or specialized Hindu views. The List of Hindu Gurus is quite long, while all on the list are notable, the main representatives of Hindu Philosophy that had expressed views from a variety of points of view on the subject, not all but we can select from the Modern Leaders of Hinduism, shortlisted as: Aurobindo, Coomaraswamy, Gandhi, Narayana Guru, Radhakrishnan, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Ramdas, Dayananda Saraswati, Sivananda, Swaminarayan, Vivekananda, Prabhupada, Chinmayananda, Pandurang Shastri Athavale. This list is a result of a consensus of the Hindu Philosophy representatives selection. The sampler of the views (without being Undue) should be included in this article. The views are not always positive, and do not have to be, but under WP:YESPOV the balance should be archived.

Normally blogs or unreliable only publications (the biased editors above are using) and should not be used in the article, I would suggest just ignoring any notions based on such unreliable garbage. However the views published by reliable publishing houses are to be upheld, unless a clearly negative academic review is found. RoutledgeCurzon is a reliable publisher of non-fiction academic books and journals, unless otherwise suggested the publications on the subject are reliable sources. Editors need to understand it is not that 'the views of editors' on a particular opinion express that matters, 'I do not like this guy' just does not cut it, how reliable are these opinions? It is not 'Views of orthodox Hindus' that are to be represented, it is views in Hinduism that are based on reliable sources. You actually need to study sources that are used for the references before asking a number of questions that do not make it. Only a bunch of Blogs and completely unreliable sources were used and it was to remove perfectly valid and reliable sources to the section in question. I am sure User:Freewit(myself) and User:Nemonoman need to review the sources and stop indiscriminately removing the section. If you doubt a source put an appropriate tag. You ask for example: "I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy?" The source you are bring up is unreliable, the RoutledgeCurzon source is reliable - and you are not even sure if it is by the same author? Give me a break, you are clearly not a specialist in the field, be it phonetics of spelling Hindu names or understanding the nature of the tradition that has no single founder, no recorded beginning or a centralized dogma. Hope that clear up your doubts (if that is possible). But note that your removal of material puts in jeopardy the quality and neutrality of the article. I will in the meantime examine other section when I have a bit of time.Wikidās ॐ 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My response to the above post

Nice:)...By the way, it's been quite sometime since I "removed" the article. That's why I'm using the talk page....It's very, very easy to call names....I could have kept removing that article a multiple number of times, you know...I did not do that for the simple reason that it's not a very nice practice.

When did I say that I was a "specialist" in that field? Re-read my posts once again....I do not know who made that "Gandi" spelling mistake. I can still see that "Gandhi" is misspelled as "Gandi", therefore, I'm taking the liberty of correcting the spelling mistake. You can obviously go and see who has edited, of course!

You ask for example: "I'm assuming that it's the same Yoginder Singh Sikand guy?" I was trying to be sarcastic, but of course, it seems to me that humor seems to be lost in the Wikipedia. I KNEW that it was Yoginder Sigh Sikand perfectly well.

I am sure User:Freewit and User:Nemonoman need to review the sources and stop indiscriminately removing the section.

Please go back to the editing history and you will see that both of us have not edited the article for quite some time.....In fact, I could keep doing multiple edits, but that would seem pretty childish and of course, you (or some other person) would obviously keep doing multiple reverts:)......

Give me a break, you are clearly not a specialist in the field, be it phonetics of spelling Hindu names or understanding the nature of the tradition that has no single founder, no recorded beginning or a centralized dogma. Hope that clear up your doubts (if that is possible)

Spelling mistakes? Your second paragraph starts with "I appears that" instead of "It appears that"! Completely irrelevant point but all of us humans make mistakes, you know!

Indeed, but were you not the guy who included "In Other Religions" within the Dashavatar article? How well researched was that? Every Tom, Dick and Harry KNOWS that Islam has nothing to do with the Dashavatars of Vishnu, but you included an argument from Islamic Fringe Views. Nothing wrong, but why within the Dashavatars of Vishnu? Let me quote again from your "Dashavatar write-up":

While mainstream Isalm does not accept the notion of incarnation of God, founders of Bahai faith have accepted a number of prophets as manifestations of God in much of the same way.[15] Prominent islamic leaders of Sufi were sometimes refered as avataras.[16] Theologically some Sufi Muslims went quite far to accommodate Hinduism: Pir Sadruddin of Ucch in the early fifteenth century is believed to have adopted the Dasavatara scheme of the Vaishnavas and declared that one of the close associates in this tradition, Ali, was the tenth avatara of Vishnu.[17] In 1926, Siddiq Hussain's two-volume Kannada book, Ja at Guru Sarwar-i 'Alam, argued that the Muhammad was actually Kalki Avatar whose arrival had been predicted in the Hindu scriptures.[18] While Mirza Ghulani Ahmad argued that avataras Rama and Krishna were prophets of God who had foretold the arrival of Muhammad as God's last law-bearing prophet.[19]

I fail to understand why you included it within the "Avatars of Vishnu" article? If you claim to be a "scholarly" person, then you could have just included the above info in perhaps the "Avatar" section? We had to talk it out in the talk page and only then you agreed. Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra#The_.22Islamic.22_avatars_of_Vishnu.21

I still do not claim to be a "scholar", but I'm no novice either. If you were so sure of yourself, why did you remove it from the "Dashavatara of Vishnu" article? Obviously, nobody's perfect not even scholars!

However the views published by reliable publishing houses are to be upheld, unless a clearly negative academic review is found. RoutledgeCurzon

Hmmm....We're talking about "Fringe Views" here. So what if RoutledgeCurzon publishes it? For centuries, people "believed" the Aryan Invasion theory. I do not need to repeat that so many "reliable" people believed in it, published it and propagated it. Even today some textbooks still stick to the "Aryan Invasion Theory". So does that make it correct just because they are from reliable publishing houses?

The need of the hour is not just "scholarly" material but common sense. If you do have the patience, please read through this article which provides a decent write-up on the usage of the words "Narashan Rishi" in the Rig Veda. But, why would you read it? It does not come from a "reliable" source!This article has been penned by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari, "a Professor in the Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta" http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1913 freewit (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Discussions on different articles are to be kept in separate places. The answer to the above is - if RoutledgeCurzon publishes it is a valid view, but because it is not a mainstream view, it should be placed towards the end of information entry. However there is no way to suggest if it is or not. Do we have a survey done of the Hindus on that and it is an accepted reliable source? There are quite a few things that you may not understand, therefore a suggested route is to add information on the subject that you do understand, is verifiable and based on reliable sources, and please refrain from disruptive editing or removals. Material can be moved from one article to another, the guide to this is WP:SS, I may suggest writing an article specifically on Hindu views on Islam and Mohammad and link it in as a sub-article. I am sure there is sufficient material from reliable sources on that. Wikidās ॐ 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I think you miss the point here. No-one is disputing that the book is a reliable source. That does not mean that its contents are relevant to this article. It just means that its contents are likely to be factually accurate. The views it discusses are not mainstream, but represent extreme minority positions of isolated individuals. By accumulating these views in a paragraph the section creates the false impression that these are common views within Hinduism, or that they at least represent notable opinions. This is an issue of undue weight and notablity. Here's another example, Savitri Devi believed that Adolf Hitler was Kalki. If we had a section called "Hindu views of Hitler" in the Hitler article, and included a list of pro-Hitler opinions from Hindus that would be very, very misleading wouldn't it? It would create the totally false impression that Hitler had a significance in Hinduism, which he does not. It would not matter if these opinions were reliably sourced, since it is easy to reliably source the fact that these views exist. What would matter it that it would be undue weight. Paul B (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Really bad example Paul: Kalki article clearly states: The writer Savitri Devi (pseudonym of the French writer Maximiani Portaz) attempted to synthesise Hinduism with Nazi philosophy, claiming that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was Kalki. Her views have been repeated by Miguel Serrano and other neo-Nazi esotericists.^[14]^[15]

Also bad example because Portar is not a Hindu. To suggest that views of Hindus, that are accepted as reliable and notable, be a minority, are not to be expressed here is a clear example of how Wikipedia should not be build. Savitri Devi views are extreme minority, offensive to Hindus but still they are part of the divine Kalki article. Just because you or someone else does not like the fact that for last 3 months the views of Hindus were expressed about Mohammad, it does not mean they should not be expressed. Wikidās ॐ 09:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidas, I know perfectly well who Savitri Devi was, since I have a biography of her. In fact I wrote the sentence in the Kalki article that you quote at me. You completely miss the point. The point is that there are views of Hindus about everyone and everything under the sun. Because there is no offical "Hindu" opinion, we really only have the views of individuals. In these circumstances only notable ones should be included, if they represent groups with significant support or are widespread. The ones listed here do not count as notable in any meaningful sense. The claim that Muhammad was "predicted" in the figure of Agni is not even a Hindu view. It is the view of a Muslim seeking to convert Hindus, and it's not even a notable view among Muslims. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, leaving aside Savitri Devis views:-) which you think do not belong to Hitlers article, from your extensive experience of Hinduism, which views on Mohammad in your views are to be reflected. Other editors suggested different people, what will be your selection of a variety of views. You have already confirmed that there is no one dogma on this. Wikidās ॐ 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Paul? Wikidās ॐ 06:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any notable views that belong to significant groups, but maybe you can find evidence otherwise. Ironically perhaps the most notable one is the derogatory opinion expressed in the BP. The attempts at reconciliatory opinions might be relevant if they were presented as such - in other words if they were placed in the context that explained why they were being articulated. Paul B (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to try again? Wikidās ॐ 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Add to his [Muhammad] early life a little?

Wikipedia rightly states that Muhammad (pbuh) was a merchant, but it fails to mention that he was also a Shepherd for most of his young life. I was going to edit and add, but I guess its better to discuss first, anyone else think its a relevant point??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrainTC (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hold it to be relevant, too.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about adding that link?

The Holy Qur'an, translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any wikilink to the film Mohammad, Messenger of God within the article?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

several other religions

what are the several other religions that acknowledge Muhammad as an agent of divine action, please? thanks.--74.56.12.36 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about adding that link?

well Asalamo Alaikum to all Muslim well its the duty of all muslim to say PBUH wehn u listen or read the our Beloved Holy Prophet Name well i also request to the this web site to also add these 4 words with the name of Muhammad(PBUH) WELL ITS A HUMBLE request to please replace the name and write like this Muhammad(PBUH)

God WILL bless u and that will be thanks from all the muslims of the world to u so please replace this name and write new like this Muhammad(PBUH)

And one more request is to please please finish this small cartoon which is really rude and its not good to make the mock of others religion whatever ur religion but respect the other religion so pleae please please finish this from the web site u can understand it a request from all over the worlds mislims God Bless u olease please do it for humanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.96.75.147 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion, however Wikipedia policy is not to include honorifics as part of the article content. The usage of PBUH is stated in the lead, identifying the reverence to which Muhammad's name is held within the Muslim faith. To do more than that would violate our neutral point of view policy. Reso lute 00:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can the in line salawat be used here ?

It's customary in Islami erature to use Salawat after the name of prophet Mohhamad .
I want to ask can we use it - with limited usage - in the articles that deal with the religious aspects of the prophet Mohhamad (only in the begining of the article I mean) ?
Like this : "Muhammadﷺ‎" or like this "Muhammad"
Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It is POV in the extreme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Why_is_Muhammad.27s_name_not_followed_by_.28pbuh.29_or_.28saw.29.3F 86.133.167.108 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested

An Edit is requested. I made a recent study on Muhammad's father. I found an interesting discovery.. According to Ibn-Hashim and Ibn Ishaq (Historians) Muhammad's Father and Grandfather married 2 different women in the same day. Abdullah married Amina and Abdul-Muttalib married Hala. According to records Muhammad's father died a few months after marriying Amina, Records also show that Hamza (Son of Abdul-Muttalib and Hala) was 4 years older than Muhammad. Which means that Muhammad was born more than 3 years after his father's death since Abdullah and his father married in the same day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inreet (talk • contribs) 09:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

i want to edit a pic on this page give me the rights or how can i become the established user for editing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaerian (talk • contribs) 06:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Achieving "established" status is simple: your account simply has to exist for four days, and you have to have made 10 edits. That's it. You can read Wikipedia:User access levels for more info on this. However, I would go to Talk:Muhammad/Images and post there before editing any images on this page, since this is such a controversial topic. Also, in the future, you should ask questions like this on your own talk page, using the {{helpme}} template. {{editsemiprotected}} is for requesting specific edits to this article. Thanks, and happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Need clean-up

Some links are broken, but I am not sure whether these links are intended to be included in this article or not. Can anyone help? Thanks. --Minjokherald (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

US Presidents Descended from Muhammed

Books detailing the descent from Muhammed of US Presidentsroduce . And other Western leaders, in Europe, Mid East and Americas.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.176.63 (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Obama's connection to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Genes get redistributed so much that there will be very large numbers of people related to any historical figure. Even if this book is accurate (it certainly isn't good enough for the article) then it's not surprising. Hut 8.5 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I must disagree. Obama is categorically not related to the Easter Bunny. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As Muhammad had more wives than Tommy Manville, there's a good chance that anyone with eastern hemisphere ancestry has Muhammad in their family tree. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of the profit's name

Why are there so many images of the word Mohammed writen in various foreign (this is english wikipedia after all) languages which tell the reader nothing other than it is possible to write Mohammed in other languages? Yet the useful images that show Mohammed are moved right down to the bottom where they can't be seen? I guess this is a failed attempt to appease the religious fundamentalists which is not working. This seriously compromises wikipedia's stated aims of being neutral and as the content is being controlled by religious opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.231.130 (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite understand your complaint, as far as I can tell every image in the article is justified and in the correct place in relation to the text. If you're here to stir up trouble then don't bother. You may be an exception, but most people have better things to do. RaseaC (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are we resorting to dumb insults, this appears to be the response of someone with an agenda to defend, the complaint is clear and simply put and easy for an individual to understand, it appears that you are pretending not to understand to further an agenda

The editor referred to concerned Muslims as 'religious fundamentalists' that is stirring up trouble and I stand by what I said. The editor claims that 'useful' images depicting Muhammad have been moved to the bottom for some shady reason. There's two points on that: a) it's not true, the second picture in the article is of Muhammad b) the reason the images at the bottom are there is because it is the most appropriate place for them - this article is scrutinised by many editors every day, if there was a better place for them they would be there. I wish my life was exciting enough so that I had 'hidden agendas' and was a part of some conspiracy theory, but it's not: sorry to disappoint. Also as a point of reference, sign your posts. RaseaC (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The so called concerned Muslims that want to sensor the internet are religious fundamentalists this is a fact and not name calling. It is ridiculously sensitive to claim otherwise it is in fact not stirring up trouble but a true statement, that is totally reasonable to state, I stand by what I said. "a) it's not true, "the second picture in the article is of Muhammad" you are clearly not seeing the same article as me as I can see 3 images of the word Mohammed written in various foreign languages before I see a useful image. and as for your what appears to be a rant about "this article is scrutinised by many editors every day" in case you haven't noticed anyone can take it upon themselves to comment and contribute on and to this site, meaning your statement is meaningless nonsense and against the spirit of this site, further I never said the words 'hidden agendas' that is you demoniseing me and putting words into my mouth that I did not say "Also as a point of reference, sign your posts" another lame attempt at trying to slur any oposeing view to you own as someone who dos not own an account can not sign a post! Nothing I said warrants dumb insults and even if it did it is not good form to post dumb insults whether you stand by them or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.198.85 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Two images are of his name because they're being used in navigation templates, one of which is an Islam and not a Muhammad template. (imho, it makes sense in the case of the Muhammad template; it's more aesthetically pleasing than the other images we have, and because of the iconoclasm that's common in the religion right now it's also more representative of what one would actually see representing Muhammad). The first actual image of Muhammad is #4 (and almost immediately under the TOC), and it's in the "sources for Muhammad's life", which is absolutely appropriate considering that it's from a text about him. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FAQ images

Unfortunately the FAQ doesn't have its own talk page, so I'm raising this here.

User:Amatulic has twice reverted in a set of various provocative image links on this template for the purpose of illustrating that Wikipedia is not censored. That Wikipedia is not censored does not imply that prominently linking that which may be provocative is automatically okay. I believe this list of images should be removed from the FAQ again; relevant information is found on the linked WP:CENSOR, but there's no need to shove it into people's faces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with referring to examples of other images. My only quibble is that there are too many examples. A "such as... X, Y, and Z" seems sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the images in question are linked, rater than displayed, this complaint is wholly without merit, IMO. Being offended by linked images is just...silly. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yathrib vs Medina

The article uses these two in various places. Perhaps it is more accurate to say 'Yathrib (now called Medina)' once and for all at it's first mention and then use 'Yathrib' afterwards. Thoughts ? MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please...

{{editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.

Done. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad and Terrorism

A new section should be added to discuss the theme of Muhammad and Terrorism. There are many academic sources and whilst the debate might be heated it should be addressed in Wikipedia. --82.35.58.145 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll pass, thanks. A simple google search of mohammed and terrorism turns up blogs, forums, and highly partisan riffraff. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What does Muhammad have to do with terrorism? He didn't kill blow people up. He only fought those who attacked him. He acted in self defence. Read the article please. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at that— we have an article on Islamic terrorism. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I guess we need to write the facts that a lot of non-muslim authors wrote great words about Prophet Muhammad. It will be fair to mention those words too (not only criticism). See for example this article in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100) Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.95.85 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

To save time, post any questions about images at Talk:Muhammad/images. If you post them here, they will get moved there OR DELETED. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PBUH?

This is probably too much to ask, but for muslims, the name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is usually followed by saying or writing "Peace and Blessings be upon him (PBUH)," as I have just demonstrated. Perhaps this should be added where the Prophet's (PBUH) name is mentioned? Thoughts? Cheese1125 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The established protocol is not to use blessings afterwards. Cf. Wikipedia:MOSISLAM. Ogress _smash! 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason individual's might choose to use PBUH, but that reason would not apply to an encyclopedia. Rklawton (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Isra and Mi'raj

On the section of Isra and Mi'raj under the thumbnail of Masjid al-Aqsa, the caption reads 'The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the site from which Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven.'. This is technically not correct, as it is from the Dome of the Rock, which is adjacent to the al-Aqsa Mosque, and part of the same compound as al-Aqsa that Muslims believe he ascended to heaven. If someone could change the caption and picture please. M2k41 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general..."

We need to add "highway robber"(or a similar word) too, he hijacked a number of caravans and plundered them. T.R. 87.59.76.74 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Brigand? Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. RaseaC (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What to Call the People who started Caravan Raiding? The problem with Western historiography of the Muslim history

It seems that some users tend to deliberately offend Muslims and exploit their sensitivities about the person of Muhammad. To hurl insults at the central holy figure of Islam has a long history going back to the medieval Europe. Though abated to a large extent, this practice continues to resurface, one way or the other, in our apparently enlightened era. However, I think that Muslims should respond to such indecency with dignity and reason as two wrongs do not make a right.

In the present case, this "neutral" article states "facts" that "[e]economically uprooted and with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca". Taking cue from such "facts", willing people can let loose their imagination as to what could be the best word for such practice, "highway robbery or what?

Well, the part of the article under discussion is clearly biased against Muslims drawing on two writers namely Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt. Bernard Lewis is a Jew and have good reasons to depict the early Muslim history the way he has done. Watt is a Christian cleric who also happens to be a professor. Imagine a professor imam writing Christina history! Could that be acceptable as a neutral point of view?

The problem with western historiography of the Muslim history is that the narratives of historians like al-Tabari and Ibn Hishsham are considered "unreliable" because they lived a few centuries after Muhammad. However, an author living fourteen centuries after Muhammad bearing the label of "academic" says something based on selective use of the same "unreliable" materials and it becomes a "neutral" and "reliable" statement. All you need is some good imagination and speculation. Ehy! If al-Tabari, for instance, says that it were Meccans who threatened migrant Muslims and their hosts of war discard it because al-Tabari livid three centuries after Muhammad. (By the way, why historians are called historians? Do they write history or live in history?). If the argument is that the religious confession of these historians colored their narrative, then why not to apply the same criterion to the writers who came up with the caravan raiding "fact"? Or is it only the Muslim confession which can color the historical narrative? Haqju (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Even though Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was 9, he was definitely not a paedophile. Similarly, I think it will be shown, that although he hijacked caravans and plundered them, he was definitely not a brigand. ðarkun coll 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the standards of his culture and his time, the consummation of his marriage to Aisha would not have made him a pedophile. Similarly, you would have to show that he was considered a brigand by the standards and culture of his time, not through modern-day social filters. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point. He was definitely not either of those things. The very notion is absurd. ðarkun coll 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. OK. I mistakenly took your earlier statement as sarcasm. You meant what you wrote. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what were the standards back then of brigantage and padophilia? Frotz (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't worry about that. We mention that according to traditional Sunni sources he married a 6/7 year old and consummated at 9. And that he and his people were involved in raiding caravans. There is no need to give him these labels when we describe what he did. The reader can decide if they want to call him a brigand or a pedophile or if they want to justify as okay in his time or come to whatever conclusions they want. gren グレン 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That approach keeps things neutral. Folks 100 years from now might have their own interpretations, and they don't need to sift through our views to get at the historical records. Rklawton (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that few of those claims are actually supported by references from reliable sources. They are either wikilinks to internal articles related to the subject or just generic links on the subject without reference to the subject. Given the consensus here (for what may be considered by some to be adverse descriptions) is that the references have to be contemporaneous to the time frame involved we should only really accept references to these descriptions which date from the time of Muhammad. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically which claims require references? Rklawton (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Muhammad being described as "a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general". In a objective way, of course, we can call Muhammad a diplomat in that he dealt with representatives of states or peoples. Still, we have a very different contemporary understanding of what a "diplomat" is than people had back in Muhammad's time. Of course, you can pick any single leader of any given tribe who made new laws, and explain how he can be called a diplomat, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, and military general... perhaps not merchant. That being said, I don't think these descriptors need sources, and I think brigand carries too many specific connotations. We could call Muhammad a "raider", though, as easily as a "military general". -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't use modern terms to describe him, they're interpretive (biased). We should describe him as his contemporaries described him. Rklawton (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We can use modern terms if we have sources that use those terms. Right now we have

diplomat - wikilinked to Muhammad as a diplomat - which seems OK.
merchant - wikilinked to Islamic economics in the world - in that the only reference to Muhammad is "To some degree, the early Muslims based their economic analyses on the Qu'ran (such as opposition to riba, meaning usury or interest), and from sunnah, the sayings and doings of Muhammad.". That is a bit thin for a lead paragraph.
philosopher - wikilinked to Early Islamic philosophy which is referring to developments that happened after Muhammad was dead.
orator - wikilinked to Orator - a dubious claim given that if what Muhammad said was sourced from Allah literally then this would make all of us Orators if we spoke the Iliad aloud.
legislator - wikilinks to Sharia and Sharia had developed in the Islamic Golden Age onwards and so well after Muhammad was dead. Thus this wikilink is anachronistic.
reformer - wikilinked to redirect of Early reforms under Islam. Given Bernard Lewis describes the Constitution of Medina as a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad then a benevolent Dictator is more appropriate.
military general - wikilinked to Muhammad as a general so I would guess OK.

So it seem clear that we drop the claims that are poorly supported by those wikilinks (i.e. merchant, philosopher ,orator, legislator and reformer unless people find better wikilinks or reliable references to that claim. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a few I think are less relevant than others, but they do seem to be cited in the article. Philosopher is one that should probably go IMO. Orator would probably apply to the speeches he gave such as the one during the last pilgrimage. Merchant seems OK as Muhammad was a merchant pre-prophethood, and did make quite a few prescriptions with regards to monetary dealings. Re: reformer, I don't see how Lewis' comments are relevant. And unilateral proclamation doesn't mean that the other parties did not agree, almost all academic sources call it an agreement. You can also refer to Serjeant's highly detailed study on the constitution for similar points. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Aisha's age revisited

In other pages mentioning Aisha, her age is given as 5 or 6 with supporting references (ie: Aisha, Muhammad's wives). Why is it not the same here? I see awhile ago there was a revert war between the words "young" and "5 or 6 years old", but with the current supporting pages and references, I think the text should be changed to include her age here too. Thoughts? --Judgeking (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it's sourced. Rklawton (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, it's kind of pointy and probably fails the undue emphasis clause. The point also isn't totally undisputed, and is better dealt with where there's space to deal with in more in-depth. Wily D 12:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sourced" wasn't the issue back when the discussion took place. POV pointedness was. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. In the passages about Muhammad's marriages, we don't mention the age of each of his wives when they married him (and this would be excessive). There doesn't seem to be much basis to unduly focusing on one or two ages just for the sake of it. ITAQALLAH 15:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the other ages can't be found Mohammad's earliest biographies, but his early biographers thought Aisha's age was significant enough to mention - repeatedly. And her age is used as justification for child-marriages even today. This makes it both significant, relevant, and notable. Rklawton (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your attack on motives does nothing to counter the points I made above. Rklawton (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the ages probably can be found in the biographies, or at least deduced from them. Specifically, which early biographers made repeated mention of Aisha's age but didn't mention others'? As for your second point, that may well make it noteworthy for an article like Islamic marital jurisprudence so long as its significance in that context can be verified, but I don't see why it merits inclusion in the sentence in question (esp. if that significance itself isn't explored). ITAQALLAH 18:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That no other motivation exists for introducing it is a big part of the problem though. Aisha was a more significant figure than any of his other wives, and more is known about her. But the place to go into nitty-gritty detail is here. Muhammad's marriage to a child is used in some contexts to justify the practice today, but the place for that discussion is here. To put it in here serves no purpose other than to disparage, and is thusly incompatiable with a neutral point of view by putting an undue emphasis on a point to promote an anti-Muhammad, anti-Islamic POV. Wily D 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a scholarly source that references Mohammed's marriage to Aisha that does not also reference her age at betrothal. This makes noting it here quite neutral. Rklawton (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not find that claim to be very believable, honestly. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, give it a try![1] Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea. Articles etitled "Aisha in trouble", Christo-centered books from 1889, and excerpts from overtly bigoted websites like answering-islam.org? I'll pass, thanks. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources listed are of varying reliability and significance. I'm sure most academic biographies would mention the respective ages at marriage. But what makes Aisha's age uniquely significant here as compared to other wives? The context of child-marriages doesn't necessarily make it noteweorthy here as I opined above. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How can stating facts (like someone's age) be anti-anything? A fact is not POV. If a fact makes you uncomfortable, that's your issue, not Wikipedia's. --Judgeking (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The manner and the context in which a "fact" is presented can indeed by POV, as we see quite clearly with this subject matter. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How you choose to present facts, what facts you choose to present, et cetera, all reflect a point of view. It's even well recognised in policy: WP:UNDUE. Wily D 17:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I included the ages of all wives. And why not? Muhammad's age is mentioned in the Marriages section and throughout the article. There is no undue weight placed anywhere that way. --Judgeking (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning all the ages is a nice CYA attempt, but it isn't gonna fly. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the edit speaks for itself. Anyone reading the edit immeadiately knows why it's being added, what POV it's trying to push onto the reader, all of that. An article is neutral when you can read it and not know the POV of the author - is this edit the POV is as subtle as Mechagodzilla on PCP. Adding the other ages is not the disguise you're looking for, it doesn't alter the POV being pushed. Wily D 18:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit is just the re-addition of material that was removed earlier. What about removing the ages of subjects, is that not POV? And Wily, what we're worried about here is how the article reads, not the history of the edits. If editing a certain section of an article is POV, then Wikipedia should just shut down, since every edit would be POV. --208.124.175.34 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest? The "search other sources" challenge intrigued me, but I was very surprised to find that encarta's article on Muhammad doesn't mention Aisha's age when it talks about her. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Encarta's article[2] is much shorter than this one. Rklawton (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Count me as one who sees no reason this information should not be included. If you look at European kings who made political marriages, the ages are included. So why not here? This is ridiculous. I want a good reason, WP:POINT is not one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE that's the issue. The information is included time and time again. One can only harp on it so long before it's too much. Wily D 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a valid one, whether you like it or not. WP:UNDUE also comes in to play. I will repost a response I made on this the last time the subject came up;

"Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here; the issue of Aisha's age stems from a decidedly Western-oriented, right-leaning agenda of painting Islam in general and Muhammad in particular in the worst light possible. That does not make it any less notable of course, which is why a section of the "Criticism of..." article is devoted to it, Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. But placing it on this page serves no purpose other than to criticize, and that is quite inappropriate and out-of-place"

Summation; appropriate in Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad. Here? Not so much. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a separate criticism article a POV fork? And I never said one should be critical of her age. That's a value judgment. Like I said before, look at some of the royalty pages; ages are mentioned all the time at the time of weddings, they are considered relevant. Why is in only this one page it's considered undue weight? Leaving out relevant information because others don't like it would be violating WP:POINT, in my opinion. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a sub article because Muhammad is probably the single most important or influential human in history, and requires more than ~60K to discuss to a reasonable depth. Wily D 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that alleged "5 or 6" was in dog years. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, didn't you say "because it's anti-Islam" is a worthless argument? I guess you were wrong. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no laws or customs based on the age of his other wives but there are laws and customs based on Aisha's age so I think it is very important to state her age clearly here. Bluetd (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is, it isn't relevant to an article about Muhammad himself, other than to make a veiled criticism. The controversy about the girl's age is covered in the appropriate articles. Tarc (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Her age is relevant to any mention of her. If the profit of Islam was a pedophile, then it is relevant to any discussion of him. Lacarids (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i don’t know why you guys are so worried about the age .....In fact, you all know that humans are different by culture and by climate I cant live there at north pole ...or at himalyas..but i am so fine in the desert with hot sun and the people who lives in deserts or in the extreme hot condition they grows faster & the women in Saudi Arabia reaches puberty around 9 or 10.Prophet Muhammad had a contract of marriage when Aisha Radi Allah was about 6 & when she turned 9 and reached her full puberty as its quite normal here in Saudi Arabia then her father sent her to Prophet Muhammad PBUH & the couple lived happily quite nicely.. ….but at least we should read good stuff about Islam & should have at least basic knowledge of Islam before saying something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont know why i am being ignored,deleted,blocked....please as per wiki policy there is a freedom of speach.let the people read my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What? Did you say something? (Signing in and signing your statements helps.) Bluetd (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please don't publish any WORD regarding prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from unauthentic Islamic scholars' writings. Like, it's mentioned here that fasting and pilgramage (hajj) are not in Qur'an. This is a big lie, fasting (Sawm) and hajj are mentioned in Qur'an.

In accord with the above I have removed mention of an empty space next to the grave of Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) There is no empty space in the tomb. According to Ibn Kathir (Sirt Ul Nabawaiyya, Vol IV) when Abu Bakr was buried in the chamber the feet of the prophet were uncovered due to lack of space. This empty space is a myth concocted by modern-day Mullah. The only source quoted is from a little-known western writer. (SEMTEX85 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your contributions. Any scholarly sources, however, are valid for citing in this article if they meet the WP:RS and WP:V policies. "Authentic Islamic scholars" do not have a monopoly on the historical knowledge about the Prophet. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC

name

Before making an edit I wanted to clear this. I think that Muhammad's full name (as it is usually given) should be present, for reference. It would appear thus: Abu-l-Qāsim Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد بن عبدالله).

I don't think there's a problem with mentioning this in the beginning of the article. Frotz (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not the name used in the Arabic version of this article. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad's face is blurred out in pic Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg

Please note: regarding the artist's 16th-century depiction of Muhammad and his companions advancing on Mecca, I observe the following. Muhammad's face is blurred out with white (to match the white cloth on his head). The pic file is "Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg". Picture should be reverted back to a previous version of the picture if possible.

Wimfort (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This so called "previous version" is long gone. I mean hundreds of years. Hell, it probably never existed. Most art depicting Muhammad has his face censored. The original artist probably did that, because Islam dictates that that art depicting Mohamed's face should not be made. But if the original artist didn't do it, then somebody else somewhere along the road did. --68.199.39.111 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

you want to read depictions of Muhammad. This is how the picture was originally created. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

to tell a seeriouse mistak with respectively

dear sir, iread about muhammed , but at firstly in article tells prophet muhammed is the founder of islam. it is not correct, he came in sixth century only. befor that came number of prophets. adam was the first man and first prophet.since his period have ther islam . so how we can consider prophet muhammed is the founder of religion. actually islam is compleeted by muhammed. he is the last prophet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.31.125 (talk • contribs)

Prior to Muhammad's preaching, there was not a religion called "Islam". That makes him the founder. Frotz (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yes Islam not founded by Prophet Muhammad PBUH Allah sent his messenger to mankind just to reveal the truth it means Allah God is the founder of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While it is generally accepted that Islam originated with Muhammad, devout muslims believe Adam was the first prophet and thus the origin of Islam. Coradon (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Adam, Mosses, Jessus were following the path of Allah but it was not islam indeed they have preached the same thing like monotheism. there are 4 devine drived books what muslims believe in and without believing in them they cant be a muslims & those books have nothing to do with Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All religions are man-made. The holy books connected with these religions are believed to be the word of God. But in each case, the religion itself is an invention of humans. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We've only been through this about a dozen times, and the replies to the anon still miss the point. The point is that in English "Islam" means "Mohammedism", while in Arabic, islam means "piety". Yes, Muhammad was the founder of Mohammedism. No, Muhammad wasn't the founder of "piety". Please, at least the regulars at this article should get this right by now, because this is truly a faq. --dab (𒁳) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Islam" is a built-in POV-push then. We should stop calling the religion "Islam" and start calling it "Mohammedism". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the English meaning of Islam is the religion founded on the teachings of Muhammad. Just as Christianity is the religion founded on the teachings of Jesus. 'Islam' means in Arabic that very same thing. The meaning of the word 'islam' in Arabic isnt piety but generally translated as the act of submission. Yes, Muhammad wasn't the founder of piety, he was the founder of Islam. Mohammedism is a made up word first used in a time where Islam was presented in Western academia as the teachings of a mad man, or a renegade cardinal of the Catholic Church. I think we have moved beyond that time. Unless of course you would like to name Christianity Jesusism. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "Islam" meant "submission (to God)", and you've confirmed that. Calling Christianity "Jesusism" would be fine by me, because giving it the name "Christ" is also a built-in POV-push. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting you should say that, as the Arabic for Christianity (المسيحية) takes its name from the word for Messiah, pretty much meaning literally 'Messiahism'. Guess Christianity has been pretty successful in pushing that POV. Nableezy (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

see, i am a muslim and i know the best about Islam we muslims would never say that all the religions are man/human but some how there are editions in Bible that are obviously by humans we believe in Allah/God & we dont impose any one to believe in it. but, what we believe is for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the Islamic view of Muhammad, that article exists at Islamic views of Muhammad. Nableezy (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

kindly elaborat the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Id rather not, this page is meant to be used discussing the article, not general discussions on Muhammad, Islam, or religion. There are any number of forums on the internet for that, and by choice I have not joined them, precisely for this reason. Nableezy (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

now that like a good boy speach is silever but the scilence is gold.. we will keep sayiing that Islam is devine derived religion not founded by Mohammad. Allah is the one and Mohammad is his messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The religion known to us as Islam did not exist before Mohammad came along. He is the founder of that religion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

hmm you don't know your father till he tells you so...???in that case he is your founder the one who tells you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that supposed to make sense? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Let me rephrase it. When is your father your father? Is it when he tells you he's your father - or sometime before? Of course, I don't think it applies to Islam. Muslims believe two things above all else: there is one God and his name is God, and Mohammad is his messenger. Therefore Muslims could not have existed or practiced Islam *before* the messenger. This does not deny the fact that there were previous prophets and many people who learned from them and worshiped God. However, none of these people believed Mohammad was his messenger (he hadn't been born yet), and so they didn't practice Islam - where faith that Mohammad was God's messenger is required. Rklawton (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what the anon is saying. He is saying that Islam existed from the time of Adam and was perfected by Muhammad, not created by Muhammad. Of course, that is Islamic theology and really doesn't bear much on the article saying Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From a Muslim's point of view, that makes a lot of sense. I agree that Mohammad would not have considered himself to be a founder at all. He thought of himself as the messenger and was often referred to as such during his lifetime. Indeed, Mohammad built on a foundation of monotheism and his earliest conflicts were against its corruption with idol worship, so he saw his work as a continuation of previous prophets' works. So, let's put our brains together and sort out a way of expressing this relationship. For starters, I think we can agree that he didn't "create" a religion from the ground up. As a result, the term "founder" isn't strictly accurate. I'm open to other ideas - with the obvious caveat that the description reflect the world view rather than a particular religion's view. Rklawton (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the language now is fine, but if we really have to get super accurate I would say the best wording would be 'whose teachings the religion of Islam was founded on' but that is passive, dont know what wiki says on that. But I think founder is fine. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I feel. However, given the concerns expressed above, I see no reason why we can't strive for "super accuracy". I'm not sure about your proposed wording, though, and "founder" isn't so far off as to make this a crisis of any sort. "Islam's last prophet" might work. Rklawton (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let’s put up the things in this way. Is Jesus the founder of Christianity??? What about bible? Written by Jesus??? Or it’s an intuition?? Be more factual, how humans can be a founder of any religion or a writer of the holy books its impracticable for us to create a single verse by mentioning each aspects of our daily life routines lets suppose If that is the case than there is no need of GOD no need of churches and mosques or temples.I hope you believe in GOD too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually not all of us believe in God and Wikipedia is written from a secular (or at least neutral perspective). As for Jesus, I think most Christians would consider him the founder of of Christianity. The historicity of early Christianity is not as clear as that of Islam and as such it would be non neutral to claim that Jesus was in fact the founder of the religion (even though that is the belief of most Christians). Jesus the man certainly did not write the bible, no one claims this, the new testament was written by numerous authors after his death. --Leivick (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

brother you are right that is why we are not discussing secularism. the comments for the people who believe in GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

These comments should be for improving this encyclopedia which is intended for all people whether they believe in god or not. --Leivick (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's be careful not to mix faith with facts. Muhammad is the founder of the religion we call Islam. That religion did not exist, as such, before Muhammad came along. The Islam faithful would like to consider God to be the "founder" of Islam. Likewise, Jews might argue that God is the "founder" of Judaism, and Christians might argue that God (personified as Jesus) is the "founder" of Christianity. Judaism was a gradual process of development, and Abraham and Moses were among its "founders". Jesus, just before allegedly ascending to heaven, exhorted his disciples to baptize people in His name, so in that sense He could be argued to be the "founder", but in reality it was his followers on earth who founded the actual religion. Jesus (or God personified) merely inspired them. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, or "the last prophet" of Judaism, if you will. Jews don't regard Jesus as a profit at all, of course. Muslims believe Jesus was "a" prophet, but not "the last" prophet, as that distinction goes to Muhammad. None of these faiths makes any of them "true" except to their respective followers. Wikipedia has to deal in verifiable facts, not "truth". I could make the case that the true founder of Christianity was Emperor Constantine, because without him, it might well have died. In any case, Muhammad and his disciples founded the religion we call Islam. God may have existed forever, and may have inspired the religion we call Islam, but the religion itself did not exist until Muhammad and his disciples established it. That's the verifiable fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Islam faithful would like to consider God to be the "founder" of Islam -- no, Baseball Bugs, you did not pay attention. "Islam" literally means "submission to God". the point is that Muhammad was not the first person to "sumbit to God", because that would have been Abraham by his status of Hanif. This isn't about bias, it's about terminology. We English speakers by "Islam" mean "the religion founded by Muhammad", more properly called Mohammedism. Muslims by "Islam" mean "submission to God". It is true enough, according to their view, that Muhammad submitted to God, but it would be too much to claim that he was the first to ever do this. This is the "error" they are objecting to, not because they want us to believe tha "God is the founder of Islam".

I am a little bit annoyed because this is about the tenth time I draw attention to this terminological problem, and it still doesn't appear to sink in. --dab (𒁳) 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying. The point is that the literal "submission to God", as a religious concept, has allegedly been around ever since God created man just so man could submit to Him, apparently. And that the religion called "Islam" did not exist until Muhammad and his disciples founded it. Let me ask you this: Is the word "islam" different from "Islam"? That is, as a normal word vs. as the name of a religion? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In Arabic or English? Arabic does not have case, Islam == islam in Arabic. In English there is no word islam as far as I know, but Islam is defined (by Princeton WordNet) as "the monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Koran" which also contains this tidbit: "the term Muhammadanism is offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad, founded their religion" Definition. Nableezy (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The name "Muhammad"

Impnoon (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) The name "Muhammad", when refering to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), must be prefixed by "(PBUH) Peace Be upon Him" --Impnoon (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Impnoon (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As this page discusses in great depth, that's against the encyclopedia's standards. Check Wikipedia:MOSISLAM... or read the rest of the page. Ogress _smash! 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Even the Koran doesn't require this. It's more of a self-serving blessing where the speaker expects to receive ten times the blessing for himself. Rklawton (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And if it did, it would say "suffixed", not "prefixed". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing. The Arabic version of this article does not do as you suggest. Perhaps you should talk with them about it. Rklawton (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Muttalib AlQorashi

was the full name of the Prophet. So it should be corrected in the article accordingly(Ilaila (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

As per the section above, please explain why the Arabic version of this article uses only "محمد بن عبد الله". Surely that Wiki's editors are familiar with this person. Rklawton (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

At least that's the article name. The full name at the top of the article is "Mohammed bin Abdullah bin Abdul-Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd Manaf" with "Mohammed bin Abdullah" (as we have it here) in bold. Rklawton (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A mistake that no one can deny

Dear brother, it was good to learn about your knowledge on Mohammad as you have given much of your time to this topic. Anyhow there is one discrepancy that maybe because of low knowledge of Arabic since its not your Mother Tongue probably. Under the Heading "Traditional views" and subheading and subheading "Muslim veneration" we've got a short column for images along with description and its says "Topkapı Palace gate with Shahadah and his seal. The Muslim Profession of faith, the Shahadah, illustrates the Muslim conception of the role of Muhammad – "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Messenger."Please correct it with its real meaning, which is "Topkapı Palace gate with Shahadah and his seal. The Muslim Profession of faith, the Shahadah, illustrates the Muslim conception of the role of Muhammad – "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger." Well I know that you must be thinking of saying Allah means GOD in Arabic and you will be right in that case but if you understandin of the Arabic Language and the then Arabs or todays Arabs you'll get to know that they used the word Allah as the name of "GOD". Hope you got my point. May Allah Bless you with the real knowledge and peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marijusmani (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Friend, I have moved your request to the bottom of the page. It is the place we go to look for new questions. Otherwise, we might overlook your note. I see you wish to change the word "God" for the word "Allah" in the image caption. Please observe that the caption translates the entire quote into English for the benefit of our English readers. It is possible that our English readers may not know that "Allah" translates to "God". Some might even believe "Allah" is a different god, much like the Hindus have many gods. For that reason, we took care to translate each word into English as accurately as possible. This will make its meaning clear for English readers, and it will not confuse those who read and speak Arabic fluently. Indeed, those individuals can read the word in its proper form in the Arabic version of this article. Rklawton (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, using "Allah" in English-language articles instead of "God" could feed anti-Islamic prejudice. I have observed that many Christians make a point of saying "Allah" when referring to God's name as spoken by Muslims, as a subtle way of expressing that "Allah" is a "false" or "fake" God, i.e. that Islam itself is "false" or "fake". Assuming good faith here, I doubt the requester wants to encourage that kind of prejudice within wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

please read the Allah article. It would generally be a good idea to read existing Wikipedia aricles before bringing up topics that have already been discussed to death several times over. --dab (𒁳) 16:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, now. Assume good faith. Don't be like me and assume that these characters are just trolling. Assume, instead, that they are simply ignoranimusses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

ahem, I wasn't assuming bad faith. I was in fact assuming cluelessness, not trolling. The annoying thing with the countless kids coming here to complain is that they are utterly clueless, both about Wikipedia and about the history of their own religion, and then talk down to editors who have researched the actual fact in painstaking details for them to read up upon if they just weren't too full of themselves to pay attention. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Marijusmani (talk · contribs). The Islamic deity is known in the English language as Allah, not as God. The name God is strictly reserved for the Christian deity. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. Nableezy (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aecis is giving, tongue in cheek I presume, an impression of the "anti-Islamic prejudice" scenario alluded to by Baseball Bugs above. Needless to say, Wikipedia hasn't any more use for Christian bigotry than it has for Islamic bigotry. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your point, Dbachmann? Are you accusing me of anti-Islamic prejudice and Christian bigotry? In case you failed to notice, my post wasn't tongue in cheek, it was sincere. Fact of the matter is that the islamic deity is known in the English language as Allah, not as God. Calling him God creates a lot more confusion than calling him Allah. And that has nothing to do with bigotry or anything else that you're trying to read into it. Aecis·(away) ^talk 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. الله, Arabic for Allah, is most often translated as God. There is not a Christian monopoly on the English word God. Taken from God (word):

Capitalized, "God" was first used to refer to the Judeo-Christian concept and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allāh, Indic Ishvara and the African Masai Engai.

God is the English translation of any languages supreme being, so long as it is a monotheistic faith's beliefs. In a polytheistic faith god would be used. Nableezy (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the theory of the dictionary. But in the reality of everyday life (because we're writing for everyday readers, not for dictionaries), the Christian deity is called God and the Islamic deity is called Allah. Just like the Jewish deity is called Jahweh. That does not mean that the person using the names Allah or Jahweh sees them as fake or false, where Baseball Bugs got that ludicrous idea from is beyond me. And we're not talking about the Arabic word Allah here, we're talking about the English word Allah. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish god is called God in English, not Jahweh. thx1138 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"English word Allah"?! There is no such English word. It's borrowed from Arabic. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of the term loanword, Amatulic? If Allah isn't a proper English word, neither is offal or Yankee or filibuster or algebra, or so many other words. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Allah is the transliteration of an Arabic word, which is translated to God. Nableezy (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your poing being? Remember, as I said above, that we're not writing for the dictionaries, but for the everyday reader. Our philosophical musings are useless if they cause the reader to get the wrong impression. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So what is the false impression? And we are writing for an encyclopedia, I dont understand your objection based on 'we're not writing for dictionaries'. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Let me rephrase it. We are writing for our readers. Our readers are people of flesh and blood, not dictionary books. Even if your definition and explanation are ethymologically correct, they are not in line with everyday life and everyday use of these terms. In everyday life, the name God is used to refer to the Christian deity and the name Allah is used to refer to the Islamic deity. That's what we've got to work with, because that is the way the readers will best understand what we're trying to say. And that (being understood) is ultimately our purpose and our goal. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be no distinction between Allah and God. They are the same deity. This should be explained in the main article. Htcs (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"They are the same deity." Thank you for sharing your religious pov with us... Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then the problem appears to be that we dispute what God is used to refer to in 'everyday life'. The word God, in everyday life, is used to describe a singular supreme being. The word is used as the English name of any number of religions supreme deity. Not exclusively the Christian deity, or the Jewish deity, or the Muslim deity, which would be argued that they all refer to the same Abrahamic deity. It is also used in other non-Abrahamic religions that have a singular supreme deity. I do not know why you insist that the word God is only used for the Christian deity, if you could explain that it would be helpful. Nableezy (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Aec is revealing a personal bias, with claims that "God is used to refer to the Christian deity." That is not true. Muslims who speak English also use the word God to refer to their deity, as I know from extensive personal experience. This is a non-controversial non-issue. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the word "god". That's the most neutral and objective word to use in this article, unless the context refers specifically to a Muslim reference to Allah. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure Amatulic, whatever makes you feel good. Could you first explain what bias exactly I'm revealing? And could you then explain how your fallacy is relevant here? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you answer why you say that 'God is used to refer to the Christian deity' as opposed to its definition of referring to any monotheistic faiths deity? Nableezy (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps look over the Allah, God (word) and God (specifically God#Names of God) articles. Nableezy (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why I'm saying that? Because there's a world beyond the books. A world of real people, of the readers we write for. Please think of them. If everyday use doesn't correspond to the strict dictionary definition, everyday use should be our priority, because we are writing for everyday people. And in everyday life (look outside), the word God is used to refer to the god of Christians, whereas the word Allah is used to refer to the god of Muslims. That has nothing to do with bias or anything, as some here have said, that's one of the most ludicrous and childish accusations I've come across in the past few months. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My question is why do you say that everyday use of God only refers to the Christian deity? Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the last 80,000+ hits to God on Google News. How many of them are about the Christian god, and how many are about for instance the Jewish god or the Islamic god? And let's look at the last 13,000 hits to Allah. How many are about the Islamic god, and how many about the other deities? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a world of real people, and real Muslims routinly use the word "God" in English. Your claim that everyday use of God only refers to the Christian deity requires justification. You have given no justification beyond stating your own personal opinion. I get 378,000 google hits containing Allah and God together. That doesn't prove anything. The fact remains, the word "god" is the most neutral and objective term. "Allah" is specific to Islam, "God" is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No, your 378,000 hits don't prove anything, because you need to look at the hits themselves. Have you bothered to do so? And have you bothered to look at mine? How many times did the word God refer to the Christian god and how many times to the Islamic god? And how many times did the word Allah refer to the Islamic god and how many times to any other deity? If you want to pretend that I'm busy spreading my opinion (which is a load of rubbish, but nvm), you should at least have the courtesy to explain which opinion you think I have. Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have provided actual reason for why the word God refers to things besides the Christian deity, if you could provide some that says it only refers to the Christian deity it would be appreciated. The Arabic word Allah translates to God. I do not understand why you say the word God in the English language only means the Christian God. The word God does not, in either 'everyday life' or 'real life', mean only the Christian deity. Nableezy (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I just did. Do I need to copypaste the links? Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No you didnt, what you provided were examples of people talking about a Christian God using the word God, which is perfectly natural. Also in that link was a rather interesting story of Christians using the word Allah to describe the Christian God. If you have something that says God is only used for the Christian deity that might help you make your case, as of yet you have not provided such a source. Nableezy (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So there are countless cases of people using the name God to refer to the Christian god, you even go so far as to call it "perfectly natural", and still you don't see the point? What kind of proof do you need? Are you only convinced when people use it that way 1 million out of 1 million times? Aecis·(away) ^talk 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly natural for Christians to use the word God because they are describing a singular supreme being, as it is likewise perfectly natural for Muslims to use the word God because they are describing a singular supreme being. Nableezy (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it. I include it here not as an authoritative source but as a succinct articulation of the point.

God (word): "The use of capitalization, as for a proper noun, has persisted to disambiguate the concept of a singular God, specifically the Christian God, from pagan deities for which lower case god has continued to be applied, mirroring the use of Latin deus."

The reality of the matter, however, is that Nableezy will not win this argument. However, it is up to him to choose how he wishes to spend (or waste) his time. Rklawton (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You left out a bit from that definition in the God (word) article: Capitalized, "God" was first used to refer to the Judeo-Christian concept and may now signify any monotheistic conception of God, including the translations of the Arabic Allāh, Indic Ishvara and the African Masai Engai.
And are you saying that Allah is a 'pagan deity' and not a 'singular God'? Nableezy (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And so we see from your contribution that "God" is indeed the appropriate translation of the word "Allah." Rklawton (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So did I 'win this argument'? Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. In the discussion above, I see no basis for the assertion that the word "God" is exclusive to Christianity, even in "everyday life". The Wikipedia article God (word) appears to agree. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We see from the evidence above that "God" is the correct translation into English of the Arabic word "Allah". And this is indeed the English language Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So all we've got is one unsourced weasel claim in an unreliable source? That's your entire argument? Where does it say that the word God "may now signify any monotheistic conception of God"? Who says so? Where do they say so? Aecis·(away) ^talk 11:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some things are just so steeped in common knowledge and common sense that the calls for "do you have a source?" sound a bit ridiculous, honestly. The idea that capital-G "God" exclusively Christian is anachronistic thinking. Tarc (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's that common, proving it should be a breeze. Go ahead. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, don't bother. If you guys wanna screw this article, go ahead. I don't care anymore. I've had enough of this childish ridiculing of people who dare to disagree (Dbachmann), I've had enough of the self-righteous belief that anyone who dares to disagree must be a biased bigot with anti-Islamic prejudice. Go ahead, run the project into the ground. I don't care anymore. After five years on this project, I've finally had enough. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, screaming "I'm taking my ball and going home" because you aren't getting your way is not the most effective way to handle being on the wrong side of consensus. Reso lute 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's screaming "you keep the ball, I'm going home." But point well taken. And he's not on the wrong side of the consensus. In fact, it's not a consensus issue. It's a "what language is this encyclopedia written in" issue. Rklawton (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been an editor for five years, and an admin for over three. Do you seriously think this is my first discussion, Resolute? I've been on both sides of the consensus, and that has never been a problem. What is a problem, is the paranoid belief that someone who dares to disagree must have some evil scheme, some kind of bias. What is a problem is the disdain, the arrogance and the self-righteousness of you (plural) and way too many others. I'm not gonna pretend that I'm perfect, he who is without sin etc. But I refuse to be part of a community like that any longer. I became involved with Wikipedia because of the mutual respect, the honest and open discussions, the good intentions. All of that has gone, so I am gone. Aecis·(away) ^talk 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You want sources? Here: Britannica (Arabic: “God”), the one and only God in the religion of Islām. Etymologically, the name Allāh is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilāh, “the God.” The name’s origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Allāh is the standard Arabic word for “God” and is used by Arab Christians as well as by Muslims.
Or from the wiki article on God: God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. In Swinburne, R.G. "God" in Honderich, Ted. (ed)The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1995.
I'll pull out some more if you want, that was a couple of seconds searching. Could you provide a source that says the word God is only used for the Christian deity? Nableezy (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay,First, Arabic is not my first language, but I am learning it and I know about eighty percent of it. "ALLAH" is the transliteration of the Arabic word. When you brek down the word "ALLAH" in Arabic, its Al-Ilah. "Al" in Arabic, means "The" and "Ilah" means "one worth of worship". So, "ALLAH", in the English language, means God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.38.142 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

indeed. This has been up at Allah#Etymology for everyone to read for only about three years now. In view of the niceties further above, I submit that people without a grasp of the concept of monotheism should be excused from editing articles on religion until they have caught up with the intellectual history of the past 1500 years or so. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Allah is not Yahweh/Jehova comes from apparent contradictions in the Quran. Please note that asserting that an entity is "one worth of worship" implies that there are others. See henotheism and monolatrism. Frotz (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, what does that have to do with using the word 'God' instead of Allah in the English Wikipedia? And you were missing the 'the' in 'one worth of worship', so saying 'the one worth of worship' does not in fact imply that others are. Nableezy (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

this is sophistry, and would belong on Talk:Allah, if anywhere. Sophistry, because casting the English translation of la ilahah as "there is no one worthy of worship" (for some reason sometimes preferred over the straightforward literal "there is no god") and then excerpting one worthy of worship to imply "one of several" is just silly. It would now be my turn to say that you are obviously not arguing based on the original Arabic but try to extract an argument from artefacts of translation. And still a very tortuous argument at that. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sophistry indeed, as the Bible says, "The Lord your God is a jealous god; you shall have no other gods beside him". Henotheism my arse. Glass houses and hurling stones, especially since the Arabic is unequivicable in its expression of tawhid in comparison... Ogress _smash! 15:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to give my two cents on the topic: the English word God refers to the concept of 'the supreme being', regardless of how the speaker conceives this idea. It was first used by English speaking Pagans, later adopted by English speaking Christians and now used by English speaking followers of all faiths and philosophical movements as the English language has spread all over the world. Similarly, the Arabic word Allah (originally derivating from the contraction of the Arabic Al Ilah, 'The Deity') is the standart Arabic word to refer to the 'supreme being', regardless of how the speakers conceives this idea. It was first used by the Arabic speaking Pagans to refer to the supreme god they believed in, and then adopted by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians and eventually Muslims. All Arabic religion-related writings, without any exception, call the supreme being Allah. This includes Qurans, Bibles, treaties of Jewish and Christian theology, ancient Greek philosophical works, modern philosophical works and pre-Islamic Pagan poetry and whatever we might think of; just like the English word 'God'.

All this to say that 'Allah' is the exact equivalent of the English 'God'. Non-Arab Muslims usually use indiferently their native language's word for God (God, Khuda, Dieu, Dios, Gott...) and the Arabic word Allah, as Muslims tend to loan their religious vocabulary from classical Arabic. If one wants to dwelve into etymology, then Allah is the Arabic version of the other Semitic words for God, such as El, Eloh, Elohim and Alaha, all used in the Bible.

In two words, leaving the word 'Allah' untranslated when speaking English is simply either incompetence or a faith-based bias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore uses the words in their correct usage. It is not bound by popular practices and misconceptions.

One can have a look at the articles on 'Allah', 'God', 'God in Islam', 'Conceptions of God' and 'Names of God'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just a detail, but "English-speaking pagans" never used the word god. If you make your argument apply to Latin deus or Greek theos, though, you would be spot on: the path from the Greek theoi to ho Theos monos indeed exactly parallels Arabic Allah, or indeed Muhammad imitates the Greek process by turning the Arabs into monotheists more than a century after the process had been concluded in the Greek world. Muslim monotheism imitates Christian monotheism, but then goes beyond it in purity by simply dumping the whole Christological mess as non-applicable. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The initial revelation date

The initial section of this page indicates that Muhammad received his revelation in the cave during the month of Ramadan. Just a nitpick, but at the time this event happened there was not yet a month of Ramadan. In other pages it notes that Ramadan is the 9th month ot the Islamic calendar, and in fact this calendar did not yet exist at the noted time. Perhaps this line should be edited so that the 'error' of time be repaired. --Dumarest (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The Islamic calendar system was started during Umar's caliphate, but the Arabic months had been in use long before that, Ramadan included. --Kabad (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but did Ramadan as such exist??? --Dumarest (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a month called Ramadan, but not yet an Islamic calendar. Kabad (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate the information. --Dumarest (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Other Religious views

I have deleted the text which explained that Guru Nanak of the sikhs viewed Prophet Muhammad as an agent of the hindu supreme god, Brahman. This was an incorrect statement and was wrongly misquoted from a source. I have searched through Nanaks texts and work using computer software and there is no mentioning of the prophet.

The only slight reference is this hymn:

Shalok, First Mehl:

musalamaan kehaavan musakal jaa hoe thaa musalamaan kehaavai It is difficult to be called a Muslim; if one is truly a Muslim, then he may be called one.

aval aoul dheen kar mithaa masakal maanaa maal musaavai First, let him savor the religion of the Prophet as sweet; then, let his pride of his possessions be scraped away.

hoe musalim dheen muhaanai maran jeevan kaa bharam chukaavai Becoming a true Muslim, a disciple of the faith of Mohammed, let him put aside the delusion of death and life.

rab kee rajaae mannae sir oupar karathaa mannae aap gavaavai As he submits to God's Will, and surrenders to the Creator, he is rid of selfishness and conceit.

tho naanak sarab jeeaa miharanmath hoe th musalamaan kehaavai And when, O Nanak, he is merciful to all beings, only then shall he be called a Muslim.

(Page 141 of Guru Granth Sahib) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anishadasoar (talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the original quote that was misquoted? Rklawton (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Era

The only reason the abbreviations B.C. and A.D. are not in this article is because those abbreviations refer to Jesus Christ, on whom the entire world's dating system is set up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leibstandarte (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the entire world, see Islamic calendar, Hebrew calendar, Korean calendar, etc, etc. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Image Protection Filter

Several weeks ago, following a request at WP:RAF, I created an abuse filter rule (#131) that prohibited non-admins from removing images of Muhammad from this page or images of Mormon garments from pages related to that issue. Both of these issues reflect long-standing patterns of image removal for ideological grounds that are against existing consensus.

Recently a possible exploit in the code was pointed out at ANI leading to a hasty patch last night, and a new bug this morning. Hopefully all of the technical issues are now sorted.

However one person disputed the very idea of such a filter, saying that removing such images is "not abuse", that having such a filter is "unwiki", etc. So, I agreed to seek further consensus. Do people agree that it makes sense to have a filter that would prevent non-admins from removing the images of Muhammad from this article?

Specifically, the filter as currently written is such that only administrators can add or remove the following images:

to these specific pages:

Muhammad
Temple garment (related to the Mormon issues)
Endowment (Latter Day Saints)

Obviously there is a conflation of Muhammad and Mormon imagery in the filter, which is related to providing a relatively simple implementation. I assume that Mormon temple garb will never actually show up here and vice versa. It is possible that additional images/articles might be added in the future if there are other areas with similar problems. The message Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-protectedimage will be shown to any non-admin that tries to remove these images (or add additional copies of them, which prevents flooding the page with images that only an admin could remove).

So, do people here think it is a good idea to protect the Muhammad images from non-admin removal? Dragons flight (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. The consensus regarding images in this article is so strongly in favor of keeping them, that it makes sense to have measures in place to prevent future vandalism. The lead image in the Virgin Killer article also gets removed frequently, and would benefit from this filter.
The most compelling reason in favor of this filter is that it selectively protects this article, which is more desirable than wholesale protection (whether semi or full), thereby allowing the article to be unprotected so that more people can edit the content. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - At first, I thought "great!" And then I thought "unwiki". Then I realized it's no different than full page protection - but only for very small, specific parts, so now I don't think it's "unwiki" at all, and I thank you for your efforts. We should remove these rules just as soon as they are no longer necessary - maybe in a few score years. Rklawton (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - I see no reason why not. There's been such difficulty with this issue that it makes sense to require anyone intending to add/remove/alter these images to clear it with an administrator first to verify such addition/removal/alteration as being in the best interests of the article. RavShimon (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Is it really necessary, there are plenty of people who revert the changes quickly. This seems the opposite of what Wikipedia should be. Nableezy (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia shouldn't need fully protected articles either, but sufficient vandalism has made it necessary. Most editors don't want to be spending their time reverting vandalism. Vandalism should be prevented instead, not dealt with by time-wasting whack-a-mole techniques. One way to do that is with article protection. A better way is to open the article content for editing while selectively protecting bits of it. That's what this filter does: prevent vandalism while allowing good-faith anonymous users to edit it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I commented at the parallel discussion at Talk:Temple garment, as I don't normally edit this article. I favor surgical protection techniques over brute-force things like full- and semi-protection for articles, so I'm in favor of this filter.—Kww(talk) 01:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, as removal of the images is indeed vandalism. I would also like to see this enabled on the Virgin Killer article as well. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, this is perfectly manageable problem without a bot. I also fear a bot will make discussion on consensus more difficult and while there is clearly consensus that we will have images, it's not necessarily so clear that we should have those images since we have yet to come up with good reasons for which images are best. It's not that difficult to revert edits that remove the images, so let's keep doing that. gren グレン 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a bot, it's a filter. As I pointed out above, Whack-a-mole is not a solution. Prevention is, and this is better than protecting the entire article. If a consensus emerges to remove or change an image, it is not a problem to get it changed. The point is, it won't change without consensus, and that's a good thing. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
'Vanishingly weak support This is a good idea here but a bad idea generally. in fact, it is a bad enough idea generally that it makes me uncomfortable to support its application here. We are permanently enshrining a content decision using the tools through a particularly obfuscated manner. Even leaving out the obfuscation from the filter itself, this is the literal equivalent of permanently protecting the page in a preferred revision. If we were just protecting the page, the request would be (rightly) denied at RFPP. We feel more comfortable using the filter and feeling comfort in the face of actions which run counter to our principles should give us pause. I will support this, but I think we should consider how many per article or content-based filters we want to have. Otherwise they may easily run away from us. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, the vandalism has been going on for far too long. The people who are removing the images don't care about consensus and have no legal grounds to force the removal. Admin involvement will force people to get consensus before removing these images. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment, This seems like a dangerous precedent to me. While I agree this page is a problem child, and it's doubtful the image issue will ever go away due to cultural differences, it is very unwiki like and a form of limited permanent protection. Sure admins can change it but they can change fully protected pages also. It seems like we are trying to sidestep RFPP. Remember if we allow this we must consider it on all of our problem children and that seems like quite a slippery slope. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
oppose -- obviously, we have a solid consensus that some historical depictions of M should be shown. But which images precisely are in the article is a matter of editorial judgement, and any editor in good standing should be able to make changes to that. For example, it is stupid to prevent any non-admin from removing Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg because obviously we never had anything like a consensus that fol. 298a of the Siyer i Nebi specifically absolutely needs to be in this article. Any specific image we use here is just one out of range of possible candidates. It is the choice of editors (not admins acting as admins) to balance image selection. As for the disruptive removals, these aren't a problem, they are usually reverted within the minute. We don't need a technological solution for that. --dab (𒁳) 17:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - I see no reason why images that are selected by editors can not be protected by admin via a script. I agree that it has to be based on consensus, thus if there is a consensus of editors reached first the image can still be changed. Nothing unwiki about it, just as images of the feature articles are protected for the day or so they are on the front page, but are based on a consensus. As a workaround the consesnus on images can be updated on a monthly basis and if bot can be programmed to be off on the last Friday of every month, it can be done by editors on that day?Wikid^as^{⇋ talk to me} 18:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The images themselves are protected that day while they are on the front page because the front page only links to a file location. If they weren't protected someone could upload a new version with whatever image they choose and have it displayed on the front page. Their presentation on related articles isn't protected. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support — Albiet, grudgingly. But yes, it may very well be "unwiki". But as with any kind of implemented honor system, there's always going to be people who will ruin it for the rest of us. This is a small price to pay for wasted time spent reverting that could be spent on better things. There's also no reason to believe that it will always have to be that way. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I see nothing "unwiki" about it. We work on consensus, and there is a very strong consensus to retain these images, as this very poll proves again. This filter prevents the most common form of "vandalism" this article sees, and thus is a positive, imnsho. Reso lute 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
oppose -- I see this article saying "Prophet of Islam Muhammad" in the left link pane and this article comes under section Islam and further in the last there is link pane of "Prophets in Qur'an" and "Islam topics", I deresay, Islamic Objectives should be entertained and these pictures must be removed.

Since the count seems to be 9 support to 3 opposed, with no additional comments for more than 24 hours, I have gone ahead and turned this on. Please tell me if there are any problems. Dragons flight (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It works. I tried a test removal of an image, and the filter kicked in as it should. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect history - revise the matter

The matter that needs to go or needs revision is

"Economically uprooted and with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans for their livelihood, thus initiating armed conflict between the Muslims and Mecca." under the heading 'Beginnings of armed conflict'.

This statement is not true as it is not even mentioned in W. Montgomery Watt's book. If you need the correct history read Muslim books and get their views before writing nonsense and those things not approved by Muslims and followers of Muhammad. Asif217 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which part is not factual? And frankly, we don't need "Muslim approval" to write an article about Muhammad here. Rklawton (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you come across this matter. Quote a correct book at the least. And Muhammad to muslims is not an ordinary man. He is a prophet and anything wrong written about the history will not be tolerated. Asif217 (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Muslims, Muhammad was a prophet, equal to any of the other prophets. And you didn't answer the question regarding inaccuracies. Rklawton (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What is not factual is that the Muslims raided the Meccan caravans for their livelihood. This is not correct. They raided because the Meccan's made it hard on Muslims to practice their religion in Mecca and therefore these muslims had to leave for Medina leaving behind their wealth and therefore the order to raid was only given to get back their wealth from those caravans that were financed by Meccan Quraish. The history is clear that no other Meccan caravans were raided except these.

Read the book - When The Moon Split By Safi ur Rahman Al Mubarakpuri on google books. Pg 146 - Sub-Heading 'Millitary Expeditions' Asif217 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Lewis reference (page 41) raiding for livelihood isn't mentioned; instead "the raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war." The Watt reference (page 105) says that "in the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive... In these little raids, [Muhammad] was deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans." I have changed the text accordingly.

Thanks for pointing out the error. In the future, I suggest that a little civility is in order when pointing out problems to editors who are working in good faith on this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. Even the text 'Economically uprooted and with NO AVAILABLE PROFESSION' is out-of-context and baseless according to history of Islam. Can you please tell me where you have taken this text from?Asif217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC). Asif217 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As you mentioned and corrected that this was an act of war and were not raiding for livelihood therefore saying that they were economically uprooted and had no available profession is not a correct statement. Asif217 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Economically uprooted" is straight out of the cited Lewis source. Just because they were economically uprooted doesn't mean they were raiding for their livelihood. The text no longer says they were raiding for their livelihood. What remains in this article is correct and properly cited. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have to use Lewis source when you are describing a Muslim prophet and his life. Even though I may not agree with Lewis, I see that you have correctly qouted what he described in his book so you can close this discussion. Thanks for making the changes. Best Regards. Asif217 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lewis is considered a reliable historian, and his written works show an unbiased interest in history. The same cannot be said for books "approved by Muslims" as you recommended earlier. Understand that history may not fit your religious preconceptions. The objective here isn't to write an article that omits inconvenient facts, especially when those facts are not in the least bit disparaging.

You did this article a great service by finding an instance where a source was misrepresented. The editors here appreciate that. By all means, if your scrutiny of this article reveals other problems, please point them out. Also, you should be able to make corrections yourself. Just be aware that contentious or controversial changes are likely to be reverted without first engaging in a civil discussion on this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Death

i think there should be a cause of death of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. i mean, what was the illness actually.--Kashi. (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta'la al Badru 'Alayna

I don't know how to cite it, but I think it should be mentioned that when the Prophet (pbuh) arrived in Medina for the first time, the children sang the Nasheed Ta'la al Badru 'Alayna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.145.182 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why should this be mentioned? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it relevant? The song is part of the story of Muhammad and is still sung today by Muslims in remembrance of his arrival in Medina. It's not strictly part of the plot, but is a interesting detail I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.61.113 (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If this is verifiably recorded by historians, you should be able to come up with a citation. Post it here and someone will add it in. However, if instead this event is a legend that grew around the Prophet, then it doesn't really belong in a biography article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE)

The mystical experiences as described by Muhammad in the Koran clearly point to the likelyhood that he suffered from TLE. This is documented in many sources.

The following is a partial list of the Temporal Lobe Seizure Symptoms & Signs as defined in

http://health.allrefer.com

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41204.htm

Lallhands (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(Possible copyright violations removed. Please don't cut and paste from other web sites; we can read what's on the links you mentioned)

This looks like a case of original research at the worst, or speculation at best. If there are authoritative, reliable sources that make a good case that Muhammad had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, those sources are still expressing an opinion. Such an opinion, properly attributed, could be mentioned in this article, but should not be mentioned as a fact. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess both OR and speculation. There are many possible causes for hallucinations. htom (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Russan painting

this isn't about the regular "remove teh images" complaints, so I am posting it on the main talkpage. It appears there has been a recent addition of an image to the long-standing consensus on image selection. The Russian painting of "Muhammad preaching" is the first modern, western (well, Eastern European) depiction of Muhammad to appear here, and to be fair to those told to "seek consensus" when trying to remove images, we should also require that consensus on talk is first established before we add such an image.

I think the image is perfectly arguable within the "western perception" section, but we need to take care. Dante's depiction of M with his entrails hanging out has a much longer pedigree in western tradition than a Russian Romanticist painting, but I do not necessarily think it would be helpful or a good idea to add such an image here. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

European and Western views

Propose to change this to Orientalist views. Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

why? Was Martin Luther an orientalist? Or would you want to exclude western views of Muhammad other than within Orientalism from the section? --dab (𒁳) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis is definitely an orientalist (the Edward Said explanation of an Orientalist that is), this needs to be made clear to the audience, as it would provide a link to Orientalism, thus maintaining a neutral point of view. And I don't understand why your so defensive dab, chill out, its a talk page. Interestedinfairness (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

you should compare the content of Orientalism with the content of Oriental studies. An "Orientalist" is an acedemic specializing in Oriental studies. Orientalism was a 19th century art style. I am not sure what it is you wish to make "clear to the audience", but if you fail to distinguish between Orientalism and Oriental studies, it is unlikely to be helpful. Dante was neither into Orientalism nor into Oriental studies. "European and Western views" is the adequate section title to encompass all Western reception of Muhammad, including Dante, Luther and Orientalism as well as Oriental studies. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

New FAQ entry

Every so often, someone comes along and posts a statement or question alleging pedophelia, presumably due to Muhammad's consummation of marriage to Aisha. The post is almost always considered disruptive and is summarily deleted per WP:DENY. However, it has happened frequently enough, sometimes from editors querying in good faith, that I think it's time for a new entry in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. I propose the following:

Q. Why doesn't the article say Muhammad was a pedophile? He married an under-age girl.

A: This has been actively discussed on this talk page. It is true that Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. However, in keeping with the Neutral Point of View policy, Wikipedia articles must not impose modern western cultural values on articles having an ancient non-western cultural context. Bear in mind that even as recently as 1890, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent for young girls included pre-teenagers (see, for example, the 1891 Age of Consent Act). In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is best not dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.

How does that look? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to se the point in having faq entries that clarify points of encyclopedic content. Anyone interested in the question should be told to go and read Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha, that is, a valid article namespace entry, not a faq. --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The FAQ was created for questions about pictures and censorship thereof, not for questions about Muhammad's life. Frotz (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I proposed this because:

The FAQ is a subpage of Talk:Muhammad, not Talk:Muhammad/images.
Only the first four of the eight questions in the FAQ deal with images. The rest clarify points of content (such as usage of the honorific "pbuh").
The question about pedophilia frequently comes up. And FAQ does mean frequently asked questions.

My proposed entry to the FAQ already addresses Dbachmann's concerns. A reader may not know Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha even exists.

I plan to boldly put this entry in the FAQ. I started this conversation to solicit suggestions for wording this new entry. I ask again: do the words I propose address the question adequately? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be included on the grounds you've discussed, just bare in mind it won't make a blind bit of difference because people that are hell-bent on re-posting the same questions are the ones too stupid/stubborn to read the FAQ. However, anything that has the potential to prevent re-posting is a good thing and ultimately anyone that posts an objection to it's conclusion isn't going to have their life adversely affected by it. RaseaC (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed FAQ entry seems to be based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies. Contrary to what Amatulić seems to assume, WP:NPOV does not forbid the mentioning of opinions based on "modern western cultural values" in an article such as that about Muhammad (on the contrary, there is a whole section containing such views). And the reference to an arcane 19th century law in a different part of the world is a non sequitur.

There might be other, more valid reasons not to mention that particular controversy in the main article about Muhammad (WP:UNDUE comes to mind, I assume the previous discussions examined the relevance of that controversy in this respect). But contrary to RaseaC I think that a FAQ entry which misrepresents the reasons which have led to a current consensus does more harm than good, even if it successfully prevents "re-posting".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid counter-argument. Keep in mind that WP:NPOV doesn't explicitly forbid a lot of things. However, the question that gets asked here is most often in the context of why the article doesn't mention Muhammad's pedophelia. That question contains an implicit assumption that he was a pedophile, and this is unmistakably a non-neutral point of view that WP:NPOV would forbid. I am not "seeming to assume" anything about the policy other than what it says.

In any case, the response to the proposed FAQ entry can serve just as well without the sentence about WP:NPOV. The answer I proposed doesn't misrepresent the reasons we don't mention pedophilia here. The reason is that the whole concept of pedophilia is irrelevant. It wasn't considered pedophilia in Muhammad's time, and would almost pass muster in several countries even in these modern times, if you look at the world map in the age of consent article. Therefore there is no reason to mention it. That is the key point, I think, that the questioners who post here fail to understand.

Here's a revision:

Q. Why doesn't the article say Muhammad was a pedophile? He married an under-age girl.

A: This has been actively discussed on this talk page. It is true that Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period, therefore there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is 9 years old. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is best not dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha for further information.

Basically, I'd like to be able to respond to such questions with "Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ". That's why I'm soliciting feedback on how a thoughtful response should be worded. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; I think that would be a useful addition to the FAQ, seeing how often the bloody thing keeps coming up. RavShimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Young

It isn't appropriate to describe Aisha as merely "young" as this leaves her age open to broad intepretation. One POV pushing editor has insisted on removing all age references even though they are supported by the majority of the academic community and sourced accordingly. In an effort to compromise, I have substituted "pre-menarcheal" for "young" as it is more accurate. Aisha's pre-menarcheal status at marriage is significant historically regardless of western sensibilities because Islamic scholars have argued that this state and her presumed virginity at the time of marriage (the only one of Muhammad's wives) serves to indicate her favored status and gives her opinions more credibility when it comes to the debates over Muhammad's succession. Indeed, it is possible that the opposing editor does so because his particular faith runs in opposition to Aisha's favored status. Regardless, Aisha's age at marriage is indisputably a matter of historical importance, one which had a great impact and the subsequent schism and should therefore be included up front in this article. Rklawton (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen this debate come up on and off for years since I was involved in the "depiction" debates. My personal take is we should be as clear about her age as the sources, and if the sources contradict then effort should be taken to represent all significant and reliable sources. Our stated goal is to be neutral after all. Chillum 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Young" is more neutral than "pre-menarcheal". We should attach a footnote explaining contradiction with sources. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The only "POV pushing" here seems to be coming from your direction, Rklawton. This topic has been done to death in the past; so much so that it is covered by Question #9 of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The controversy, such as it is, regarding Aisha's age is covered appropriately at Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha. Trying to shoehorn it into an article about Muhammad itself is just a rather transparent piling on of criticism. Not appropriate for a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth *is* neutral, and the majority of academics agree regarding Aisha's age range and all agree on her pre-menarcheal status. I'm not proposing we mention this in the context of pedophilia. It should be mentioned because it's historically relevant because it has a direct impact on the succession arguments/wars following Muhammad's death - conflicts in which Aisha exerted influence and where her status as "special" was derived directly from her age at marriage. We're are seeing these conflicts carried out even today between the Sunnis (who took one side) and Shias (who took the other side). And frankly, Muslims should be banned from participating in this decision process specifically because they have an inherent conflict of interest. Rklawton (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, that last sentence was bs. Should Christians be banned from discussions on Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Should Jews be banned from discussions on self-hatred and antisemitism? Nableezy (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, the truth isn't neutral in the slightest, not in this case. Consensus on this topic was reached after much discussion, to the point that it was added to the FAQ, right alongside the warning that the images cannot be removed. consensus can change of course, and if you think you have a case, then by all means work on garnering support here, rather than edit-warring.

However, your suggestion that Muslims cannot participate in this discussion is, frankly, quite offensive and rather bigoted. Suggesting that sort of thing would be like calling for Jews to be banned from discussing issues of Israeli apartheid. It would be in your best interests to strike out that line from your response. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Rklawton's last sentence was out of line. A conflict of interest is not a reason to ban someone from editing. We are all like journalists here, and a good journalist knows how to detach from personal feelings and write in an ubiased way. We all need to assume good faith and realize that. Even so, I also agree that this article has had its share of Muslims who would like to see the article bent toward their viewpoint.

The question here boils down to: how should this biography of Muhammad present the age of a notable wife? Weasel words like "young" don't mean much. Uncommon terms like "pre-menarche" are highly noticeable and make it seem like the article is trying to emphasize the point. Other terms like "single digit age" don't work well either. If the sources disagree on the actual age of marriage and/or consummation, but are all within a range, why not just present that range? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that the topic of age is beyond the scope of this article and should be and has been handled in other articles. I don't mind a range of ages being mentioned, but if the ranges are given then it should be explained why there is such a range; some Sunni scholars favor an early age, other Sunni and Shi'a scholars favor a later age, and I've also seen some Shi'a scholars believing in an early age. To state there is any sort of consensus on her age is silly. In the end you'll have a sentence that goes something like, "Ayesha whom he married at six or seven, but most Shi'a scholars and some Sunni scholars state sixteen," and so forth, breaking the flow of what should essentially be a concise section. Part of the issue is that on articles of Islam it becomes important to differentiate which group is saying what, you wouldn't be able to sum it down to, "Ayesha whom he married at six or seven though some scholars state sixteen," and still be fair to the reader. Such a discussion breaks the flow of this article, though is certainly WP:notable for other aspects of Wikipedia.

Also, I'm interested in regards to sources to which historians attribute the schism partially to Ayesha's age; I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but it'd be certainly interesting how we can incorporate it into other articles dealing with this topic. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your edit as well. I'm afraid that the distinction comes that Shi'a Islam as a body of 200 million believers and a fourteen hundred year scholastic heritage satisfies WP:notable and believers in the moon hoax do not. The idea that the "majority" of sources allows us to stipulate one age for Ayesha is silly, considering most of those sources come from a single religious movement and academic tradition. --Afghana ^[talk] 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As Faizhaider noted above, any awkwardness that might be introduced in the flow of text can be fixed by handling the explanation in a footnote. To use your example: "Aisha whom he married at approximately age seven(footnote: most sources put the range at six or seven although some scholars state sixteen.)" ~Amatulić (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That works, though I dislike defaulting to one opinion on a view that has significant differentiation along polemical lines, even if it intrinsically isn't of polemical value. And as stated before, I don't think it does justice to simply state the multitude of opinions, but it should be stated which group holds which opinion. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The references after the disputed sentence say that Aisha was 6 or 7 when Muhammad married her. Why are the Muslims so upset and why are they trying to replace Aisha's age with "young"? Can someone explain this please? --Lanternix (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there was an issue a long time ago where some editors with less than WP:good faith were pushing the issue of ages in a shock jock fashion taking advantage of a fourteen hundred year cultural dichotomy. I am not going to take issue with mentioning ages themselves, the issue is the ages are disputed and the 6 or 7 years of age is one that is supported by Sunni tradition more so than Shi'a tradition, a difference of opinion that is hardly new. Either way, the silly reverting needs to stop until we know what exactly we're going to do. And as always, sources can be replaced with more accurate ones giving better breadth to the issue. Oh, and ha, writing and previewing this was literally déjà vu. Déjà vu on Wikipedia, sheesh! --Afghana ^[talk] 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

All Scientologists were banned from editing because they kept whitewashing related articles, so yes, we do ban groups from editing when they can not edit without bias, and my suggestion that Muslims recuse themselves if they can't edit without bias is appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The FAQ which these same editors cite as evidence of this issue's prior resolution does not, when followed, indicate any such resolution. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The question "Why are Muslims so upset?" is an excellent one and has nothing to do with western views of pedophilia (appropriately covered in a different article). The answer is this - Aisha took sides in the succession debates following Muhammad's death. The "winning" side claims special status for her as Muhammad's only virgin bride - and they support the 6/7 year old age. They also presently outnumber the "losing" side 4 to 1 in terms of global population. The "losing" side claims she was older which diminishes Aisha's "specialness" and therefore her position on Muhammad's succession. It is this detail which helped contribute to the 1400 year-old schism between Shias and Sunnis. It is for this reason that both sides should be presented, and it is for this reason that these details are highly relevant for inclusion in Muhammad's article. Rklawton (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion was that Muslims cannot edit without bias, not that they should recuse themselves if they cant. And we did not ban all Scientologists, we banned anybody editing from a Church of Scientology IP address, not individual Scientologists editing on their own. Nableezy (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First...Er, no, Scientologists were not banned from editing Scientology-related articles; users from IPs owned by the Church of Scientology were banned from editing Scientology-related articles. That is a subtle but crucial difference, and it does not support the suggestion that certain groups are prohibited from articles on the basis of religious belief. Please do not twist reality to suit your point-of-view, rklawton.

Second, its presence in the FAQ is the result of consensus, that is all the indication you need. FAQs such as this are frequently found in controversial, high-traffic articles, they are present to help address certain points when they are brought up again and again and again. Whether it is to defend the images of Muhammad against extremists who want them deleted, or to defend the Aisha and other issues against other extremists who want to portray Muhammad in as bad a light possible, the entries i nthe FAQ represent issues that are, for all intents and purposes, settled. And if you'd care to know, I have argued just as vigorously against image deletionists as I am arguing against you now.

Third, as we have seen in the past when editors try to push this very change in the article, it is for not other reason than to get their criticisms in, the same ol "Muhammad is a pedophile!" debate. A biographical article is not the appropriate venue for you and others to air your gripes and complaints. As it has been pointed out many times, Criticism of Muhammad#Aisha sufficiently covers the pedo vs. not-pedo debate. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Muhammad has sex with a 9-year-old girl is essential for this aticle, and it would be censorship to keep it out. ðarkun coll 01:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and have failed to comprehend a single thing I said. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I have heard all the special pleading, but the fact remains that Muhammad had sex with a 9-year-old girl - or did he? ðarkun coll 01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course he had sex with a young girl, who depending on which source you want to go from, was anywhere from nine (mainly Sunni) to sixteen (mainly Shi'a) years of age. The issue is how do we present the differences of opinion, and if the age should be delved into this article when there are many other articles that go into it.

Second, the issue of Ayesha's age is hardly a defining factor in the Sunni and Shi'a schism. If you can provide sources saying it is truly important in light of Muhammad's life, go ahead. I don't doubt this issue, like almost all issues, is drenched in polemical fire, however if you really want to push the mentioning of ages, bring some sources showing her age satisfies WP:notable in regards to the Sunni-Shi'a schism. Even then, does it belong in the article on Muhammad or another article dealing with the schism? --Afghana ^[talk] 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl has no interest in the Sunni-Shi'a aspects of this, it is a red herring. Past discussions...most recently Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Aisha's age, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#What, exactly, happened between Muhammad and his nine-year-old wife?...show a rather clear motivation to push the "OMG peodophile!" angle. Agenda-driven editing is beyond disruptive. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Tarc, TharkunColl has little interest here but to create controversy, and get a bit of WP:ILIKEIT, into the article. Does he know anything about the history of 1,500 years ago, or is it a one issue 'push'? Trying to compare things of 1,500 years ago with today is like comparing chalk and cheese. The article has to be worded carefully so as not to project present day norms onto past norms. I'm amazed he is not banned from this article yet, imo. Tfz 14:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is about arguments on succession and the division with Sunni/Shia, then place it in the proper context. Here it is used to serve only one purpose. I dont object to including the age, but if it is about the topic raised by Rklawton make that clear. Nableezy (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone given any thought to my crazy idea that we should be as clear about her age as the sources, and if the sources contradict then effort should be taken to represent all significant and reliable sources? Chillum 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the Muhammad wikipedia page. In one sense, yes we most certainly want the information to be clear. On the other hand, it should not be the focus of this page, and more specific information in this regard would be best left to either the criticism page or the Aisha page. What information we do choose to include should be relevant, concise, and take into account verifiability. Peter Deer (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Stating someone's age (in years) is about as neutral as you can get. I believe that the fact that he married a 9-year-old girl is quite historically relevant. If Jesus had married a 97-year-old woman, I would hope Wikipedia would state her age, and not just say "an older" woman or a "post-menopausal" woman. These facts give us a glimpse into the interesting lives of these famous people.

Plus, it is well-known that girls begin menstruation at different ages. Some begin at 8-years-old and others begin at 16. Stating that she was pre-menopausal is completely baseless. Is there a historical document stating that she had not begun menstruating when he married her? I doubt it.

Stating someone's age is as neutral as possible. It also gives a neutral glimpse into the culture, fads and goings-on of those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnyAndBeautiful (talk • contribs)

The "its just a fact!" bit has been brought up earlier in this thread, and addressed. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Atrocities

The article does not mention with a single word any of the atrocities conducted either by Mohammad or his men. With other historical figures, Wiki does not auto-censur. It is essential for an encyclopedic account of Mohammed, to depict the suffering he brought upon his contemporaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the article Criticism of Muhammad yet? Tarc (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is absurd to refer to that article. That article contains subjective criticism of Mohammad by others. This is a biographic account (or pretends to be one) that eludes atrocities or Mohammad. It is essential for Mohammad's biography to include his conduct in robbery and warfare, and consider persons who were murdered upon Mohammad's order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs)

It is absurd to refer criticisms to an article about...criticisms? Tarc (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should also have a general overview of criticisms of Muhammad in this article - such as his violence and paedophilia - since not to do so would be censorship. ðarkun coll 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be added here if there is a separate article about the criticisms? Jarkeld (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I adhere to the Wikipedia school of thought that opposing views, criticism, and praise should be woven into the text of the article rather than given specific sections. I think we still have a ways to go on this article where all those things will be in the article, including but not limited to accusations of pedophilia, violence, and so forth. --Afghana ^[talk] 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there can be a seperate page, but on the main page at least some mention of criticisms should be made. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ question #9. This is a biography article. The job of such an article is to present historical facts about the subject, not to analyze the subject through the eyes of critics. At most, this article could have a single reference to criticism with a pointer to the Criticism of Muhammad article, but no more. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous argument. Are we going to refrain from mentioning the mass of Hitler's crimes on Hitler's main bio page? No. The only reason that the many crimes committed by Muhammad (rape, pedophilia, theft, warmongering, slave trading etc...) are not mentioned here is because some people think that the sensitivities of muslims should be catered to. Either include mention of Muhammad's countless crimes and then refer to a separate page, or remove all mentions of Hitler's crimes from Hitlers bio and instead refer people to a separate page detailing Hitler's crimes. Remember that Muhammad's fascist ideology islam killed more people than Hitlers ideology did. --80.56.229.245 (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody talks of analyzing what Mohammad did. What is needed for a biographic account is merely the clinical statement of what he did, according to canonical sources. It is nothing more than censure to say that on Mt. Hira the following happened, but than to omit what happened to the Abu Quraiza or the Uraina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts, please, using four tildes (~~~~). "Nobody talks of analyzing what Mohammad did"? Your very own statement above refers to "atrocities", his "conduct", and "murder". If that isn't "analyzing" (subjective, too), I don't know what is. Discussions of atrocities, conduct, and murder are completely irrelevant to a biography. All of that is relevant to a separate article about criticism. It is enough to say in this article that Muhammad's actions are a source of controversy and refer to the criticism article for more information.

That said, if there are historically significant events that have been omitted from this article, they should be described neutrally. I suggest you propose some text on this talk page that we can start with, for later incorporation into the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about? Have you read anything in wiki so far? I advise you to read the Stalin article, as an example. I also advice you to get a dictionary and look up the word analyzing. An atrocity and a murder are observations, a matter of fact. Further, it is beyond absurdity to state that murders etc. are "completely irrelevant" to a biography. It is plain arbitrary to block certain parts of a biography without justification. Feindfahrt (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Do you have anything constructive to contribute, or are you just going to complain that your subjective opinions aren't reflected here? If you have text to propose with proper sourcing, then propose it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have indefinitely (not infinitely) fully-protected this page. Please discuss the issue and reach consensus, don't just keep reverting. Thanks, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this article, but it isn't clear to me what is being disputed here. Can someone clarify?

The article relies too heavily upon reference 14, a link to an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam, with no page numbers, no indication of what is quoted or who thinks what. All those references need to be removed and replaced with something tighter.

My own interest was in what the primary sources for Mohammed's life are. This article isn't really very good at that. But... I can't change it! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reform

What is stated under the header of Reform is subjective and does not belong into a biography. Furthermore, the content insults common sense and is indecent. Islam codified and sanctioned slavery. How this institutionalization was a betterment in the case of slavery is not understandable. Also, it is argued that the situation of the poor was advanced. Again, subjective. Furthermore, Mohammad himself enslaved countless people. How is this conduct reconcilable with the distorted picture of someone who rejects hierarchy? This section should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feindfahrt (talk • contribs) 2009-06-26

Perhaps you should read the article more carefully. There is no "Reform" header. There is one called "Reforms" and that happens to be a summary of another article, Early reforms under Islam. If you have a problem with that article, take it up on the talk page there. The paragraph as is, is well supported by the cited sources, and adequately summarizes the larger article.

If you have verifiable, reliable, and neutral sources that support your claims, then kindly present alternative text, with proper sourcing. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The section does seem rather unbalanced to me also, although not quite as bad as that. Indeed there might be several views on whether Mohammed's policies were beneficial or not. I don't think it is a defence to say that it is a summary of another article, tho; if the material is POV, then the section should be reduced radically in size and little more than the link left. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rumour about Muhammad's horse

There is a rumor on the net that the horse that Muhammad rode to heaven had the name of 'Barack'. Is this true? 71.86.156.73 (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a dumb conservative meme. The horse's name is al-Buraq, not Barack. Homonyms, and perhaps a common root somewhere, but to say "Obama was named after Muhammad's horse" is a bit silly. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Different roots. "Barack" means like blessed, "Buraq" means lightning. --Afghana ^[talk] 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Barack" root → ك - ر - ب (Ba - Ra - Kāf)

"Bur'raq" root → ق - ر - ب (Ba - Ra - Qāf)

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider Rizvi^talk! 07:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama isn't the only person in the world named "Barack". Barack is an Arabic given name, meaning "blessed". While "blessed" obviously has religious connotations, what you consider "blessed" will depend entirely on where you are coming from and isn't inherent in the term. The Semitic root is found in the religious context of Judaism just as much as in Sufism. Bārak, or more properly Mubārak, is simply the Arabic equivalent of Benedict. --dab (𒁳) 08:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked into this and must correct myself to the effect that Bārak isn't itself a proper Arabic given name. It is apparently some sort of Kenyan deterioration of the proper Arabic Mubārak "Benedict". --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

'Apparently' non-scientific anti-Muslim POV rhetoric

"... however is contrarily regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet ..."

'however is contrarily' should be removed. The page about Moses declares him as prophet. It should be the same here as everything important about prophethood of Moses (plus more) can be verifiably attributed to Mohammad, too (miracles, etc.). Why discrimination? Is it a Christian/Jewish Wikipedia? Or is it anti-Muslim?

Last time I checked, Muhammad is considered a prophet only within Islam and Bahá'í. None of the other religions consider him a prophet unless you give Crowley's teachings any merit. Frotz (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the original creater of this sub-section, but the argument does bring up an important point: If the article is about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), the most respectable figure in the religion of Islam (and not recognized so well by any other major religion), wouldn't it only be appropriate to re-arrange the first paragraph so as to a) First mention that Muslims regard him (pbuh) as a Messenger and Prophet of Allah (s.w.t), and then follow it up with the fact that b) Non-Muslims however think of him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam.(?) The fact that the arrangement is otherwise, does give rise to a concern with regards to the neutrality of the article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The more important fact is that he founded a religion, not that the religion he founded considers him a prophet. Your suggestion puts the cart before the horse and has a non-neutral point of view, which is why it will not be implemented. Frotz (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See, that is exactly what I was talking about. Non-Muslims quite like yourself consider him (pbuh) as the founder of Islam, although Islam -by means of the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith- tells us what the truth is and how erroneous the Non-Muslim verdict is. Yes, I'm a Muslim, and that's what I believe in; hope you see the point I've raised in my previous post now. 59.160.74.254 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how presenting the Muslim point of view at the expense of neutrality fulfils WP:POV. Frotz (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Been busy so couldn't reply sooner.) Well, it does not fulfill WP:POV since it basically is NOT a POViewpoint but a fact that Islam believes in. Do you think you've got strong points to support your view of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) as a 'founder'? 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to refer to WP:NPOV. Nowhere but Islamic dogma is it stated that Muhammad was a reformer of some already-existing religion. Furthermore, there is no historical, traditional, or legendary record for the existance of Islam prior to Muhammad's ministry. That is, unless you count Judaism and Christanity as "Islam" prior to such reform, which I've heard from nobody except Muslim thinkers. We cannot present Islamic dogma as a neutral point-of-view. Frotz (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A non-Muslim attempt to explain the Koran as originating in Christian litterature is described here. St.Trond (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does that article contradict what I said? Frotz (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"is contrarily" is terrible, I agree. But see my comment below on the whole first paragraph, which is horrible to read. Roger Pearse (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

the 'Wives and Children ' section

One word in this section can give a terrible and false impression on the Prophet (peace be upon him) . That word is 'concubine'- such an act outside marriage is outlawed in islam; so to clear this issue and to get a more truthful and rounded look please go onto this link :) :

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1147955887938&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE

Because like i was you are probably a little confused :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.177.211 (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An issue that has been discussed lately by many scholars is the age of Aisha when the prophet (PBUH) married her. It is proven to be in the range of 16-19 years old. This is proven in many pages online, the following link is an example http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/show_fatwa.php?main_id=276 that proves his by linking the marriage to other events with known timings. It also argues that the enemies of Muhammad (PBUH) would not have let the alleged marriage to a child pass without using it against the prophet (PBUH). Ahmed.Al-Amir (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah. His earliest and most respected biographers are clear on this point. She wasn't that old. Rklawton (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening words

May I offer some suggestions? The header currently begins in this awful, awful way:

"Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad;[2] pronounced [mʊħɑmmæd̪] ( listen); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed)[3][4][5] (ca. 570 Mecca[مَكَةَ ]/[ مَكَهْ ] – June 8, 632 Medina),[6] is the founder of the religion of Islam [ إِسْلامْ ] however is contrarily regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله‎ Allāh), the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.[7][8][9] He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.[10]"

This is terribly bad writing. It contains a whole load of stuff that does NOT belong in the first paragraph of any article on any subject (whether true or not), because it is too detailed (it even, gawd help us, contains a koran reference! Good as a reference, terrible here). It should read something like this:

"Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh (Arabic: محمّد; Transliteration: Muḥammad; pronounced [mʊħɑmmæd̪] ( listen); also spelled Mohammed or Muhammed) (ca. 570 Mecca[مَكَةَ ]/[ مَكَهْ ] – June 8, 632 Medina), was the founding figure of Islam. He dictated the Koran. Moslems consider him the most important prophet."

Note that all the references are removed. It's inappropriate to have three references on one word in the first sentence! -- Too much detail for the summary.

I saw that some people object to him being described as the founder of Islam. But to most of the world, he was. Imagine you never heard of him, or of Islam? What do you say, that means "brought Islam into the world"?

We also need to avoid all that theological stuff, which ought to be in the body of the article. Why not have a section on this subject, headed "Islamic beliefs about Mohammed and his mission" or something like that, and go for it in there where it would be appropriate? Roger Pearse (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else happens, the phrase "however, contrarily" was an oxymoron and caused the sentence to contradict itself so I removed it. I'm willing to consider almost any alternative except that version, which was simply an affront to the English language. Doc Tropics 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Using statements like " was the founding figure of Islam. He dictated the Koran. Moslems consider him the most important prophet.", would gi9ve an impression of the article having being edited by someone with absolutely no knowledge of Islam or Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and with negligible knowledge of the semantics of the English language (simple 5-6 letter words like 'Muslim', and 'Qur'an' aren't spelled right, forget grammar and creating complex sentences!)— another 'affront' to the language. Maintaining the level of IQ that has been suggested for the article to be kept at, my choice would be to atleast write that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) "is considered to be the founding figure of Islam by Non Muslims, while Islam suggests that he was only 'the last in a series of prophets' and that Islam itself has been in existence on earth ever since the first human was created. He dictated the Qur'an to his companions over a period of 23 years (from 610 CE to his death in 632 CE), claiming it to have been revealed to him by an Angel named Jibreel (Gabriel) who was sent to him with the task of revelation by Allah (God in Islam). Muslims thus consider Muhammed as the last and final messenger of Allah, and are commanded by the Qur'an to follow Islam as taught by Allah in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammed through personally set examples during his lifetime" <make sure you use the references from the existing paragraph> A simpler alternative, would be to replace 'however contrarily' with either 'however' or 'contrarily', which depicts the exact opinions of both parties (Muslims as well as non-Muslims), while maintaining neutrality of the article. Leaving out the Muslim POV in an article about the most revered figure in Islam, can only serve to lop-side the article. 'Abd el 'Azeez (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The varying spellings is a consequence of going from one alphabet to another. Hebrew is another language noted for such things.
Hurling insults at fellow editors is unlikely to get them to see things your way.
If you're going to have any luck convincing anyone to go with the statement that Islam has been around since Adam outside of Muslim dogma, then you'll have to come up with a neutral source that says so.
If you're going to refer to "personally set examples", then be prepared to take the bad with the good.

Frotz (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How can the last in a series of prophets be the founder? Should it not be the first? St.Trond (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam was the first according to most Muslims. However, by the rest of the world, Muhammad and not Adam is considered the founder of Islam. --Afghana ^[talk] 06:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Way to go Wikipedia!!!

I'm glad to see that wikipedia has enforced its no-censore policy even in the most controversial topics like this one. This really suprised me as i thought that this was not something wikipedia enforced.EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad's tomb and Jesus

The hadith which says that Jesus will be buried next to Mohammad's tomb although more than one all are Da'if (weak) many muslim scholar said this:

Muhammad al-Bukhari in The Great History vol 1 page 292
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in Fath al-Bari 7/66
Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said this in selselat al ahadeeth al daifa number (6962)

see also this and this which are a discusion in a specialized forum in hadith

this is an answer on a question about these hadith in www.islamQA.com

I Know all these sources are [Arabic] but I'll try to find an english one

I request the sentence "Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe awaits Jesus" to be removed--Moda yahia (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Muhammed ended slavery. And said that people are equal in front of god, and that no believer should deal with people by the type of race or color. One of Muhammed's best companions (Sahabi) Bilal was a black male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjebara2 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of that is true, but most is not. Muhammad did not abolish slavery, though he and his family did free a great number of slaves. And the slavery permitted by Muhammad was not based on race, but rather specific circumstances were necessary to be taken into slavery. But Muhammad did not "end slavery" nableezy - 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, he owned a slave or two himself. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You recall correctly, but generally speaking to free a slave you have to first own a slave, so I thought that was implied in my response. nableezy - 03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Islamic nations from 650 to today are the largest holders of African slaves, I don't think Muhammad's influence ended slavery. Also, the only countries that still have slavery (excluding Chinese, Russian, etc sex slaves) are Muslim, such as of Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Even though it is technically illegal, it is still practiced.--Panzertank (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Muhammed ended slavery."

the british empire made greater strides towards "ending" slavery in islamic lands then Muhammad ever did; should we include this as well? WookieInHeat (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

founder of religion misconception

muhammed s.a.w. was not the founder of islam, infact islam was there since the first day man stepped foot on this earth. muhammed s.a.w restored the religion. in islam there are 4 books revealed by allah. tawrat{torah] which was revealed to moses, zabur'[psalms] this was revealed to dawud [david],injil[new testament] this was revealed to isaa [jesus] and the last and final revelation from god is the quran which was revealed to muhammed s.a.w. *note that the first three revelations were for particular people and for a particular time period e.g. jesus was sent for the children of israel,also *note that the first three revelations were corrupted and the text was changed to suit the people themselves. people used to worship idols,the sun and even fire and Out of his mercy allah sent the last prophet muhammed s.a.w to guide the people to the straight path and stop worshipping idols and the final revelation was sent not just for the muslims or arab's but for the whole mankind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.230.97 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Using "restored the religion" here implies that Islam had been the way Muhammed made it, once before too. When was that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.126.12 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Misleading "Founder of religion"

I think it best we don't take sides in this issue. Instead of saying he is the founder of the religion, which muslims undoubtedly reject, we could simply take that part out and state objectively that he is regarded by muslims as messenger and prophet of God. Claiming he is the founder doesn't fall under neutral point of view. Let's not forget that there are also many non-muslims who don't believe he is the founder. ~ Madesinasia (talk), 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Muhammad was the founder of Islam is a simple exercise in logic -- where is it written there was a religion called "Islam" prior to Muhammad's ministry? Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe he founded Islam? If you're talking about what Abraham and Melchizedek practiced, that wasn't Islam. Frotz (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A simple exercise in logic would have lead to a more neutral statement, one w/o bias. As for your citation of Abraham and Melchizedek, you didn't bother to state from which perspective, I assume you know there are over a billion people who think otherwise. More importantly, it's irrelevant. The entire purpose of this article was to educate people on Muhammad. Using sources. Your logic isn't a source.Madesinasia (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are these non-Muslims who don't believe Muhammad founded Islam? Frotz (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In the article both views are present in the same sentence, both majority and minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.126.188 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually true, because the "founder" misnomer is stated as a fact, with no reference to support it. It should at least say that some non-muslims think of him as the founder, but not as a general rule. The bias is evident when contrasting it to the "Prophet" title, which is claimed by muslims, naturally. Frotz asked if there are nonmuslims who believe this, and yes there were. Like Ghandi, who was a Hindu. The quote is:

It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. , Young India (23 September 1924) Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.29, "My Jail experiences", p.133. Speakoutfreely (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A neutral islamic point of view !

I appreciate the way Wikipedia is supporting free discussion and its neutral points of view as you always say.

BUT , when we come to religion , I think we should better listen to those who have faith in this religion rather than ignoring them.

I don't want to say repeated words about forbidden images nor about the criticism of our prophet Mohamed (PBUH).

But you know this is real , Our religion , ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD .

Prophets are distinguished people , they are unlike anybody else . We should show the utmost respect when we talk about them.

Wikipedia is now almost the only reliable source to get info , so why don't you tell everybody that religion is a RED LINE and prophets are far from being ordinary people and far from being criticized , only if ............

YOU ARE GIVING A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW

thanks for reading my note , DR. A.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amino158 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your religious restrictions simply do not jibe with Wikipedia policy; editing here is a privilege granted, not a right demanded. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know but as I said religion must be sorted in another category , what do you think TARC ? --Amino158 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To quote User:Resolute from here (which is where this conversation should have been posted in the first place as it plainly says so at the top to do), out of respect for Muslims who do not wish to see the images we offer a means of hiding images on your browser, as described in the FAQ at the very top of this page. Ultimately, it comes down to individual right to choose, and it is up to you to honor your beliefs. It is not up to us to honor them for you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 16:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Amin, I am a Muslim and the Islam I know tells me that open thought (relativity and all that) comes first while absolute thinking has little room. I know also about the whole debate concerning depictions in Islam; it revolves around the idea that some people who may have absolute thinking may start worshiping images. But that is not the case for people who don't hold morally absolutist stances (the opposite of morally relativist). If the depiction is informative, educative and people staring at it won't start kissing it, holding it tight or pray in front of it then there is no reason whatsoever to censor it. It is not about the depictions, it is about our closed minds. Wikipedia is about openness and enlightenment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A baby can be named "Muhammed", thus having private icons is common in Islam, according to the philosophies purported here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"A neutral islamic point of view !"

this is an oxymoron. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this comment is helpful and it doesn't address the question at all. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

pointing out the hypocritical nature of the question is irrelevant? WookieInHeat (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's practices, I believe so. I've learned that whenever someone doesn't address points directly it turns out to be just a waste of time and resources. That said, I believe both you and Amino are new users and I must believe that he didn't mean that Islam is neutral or anything of that kind —that would not make any sense since neutrality is not an attribute for religions. I believe that he is asking about removing the pictures because he believes keeping them is not neutral. I don't agree with him but at least I got what he meant and answered his question directly (as others have done as well). So you have to forgive him of his choice of words to say the least. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So "ISLAM , forbids any pictures , images or even imaginary paintings of prophets , angels & of course GOD ." If this is true, then why is it only pictures of the prophet Muhammad that you (and many other muslims) are objecting to. Doesn't Islam also consider Jesus a prophet? There are plenty of pictures of him over on the Jesus article. Not to mention wikipedia has many articles on various angels with images of them as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Islam forbids pictures of Jesus as well. This is widely known but you'd probably have to dig lil' deeper into what muslims object to. The same applies to his mother, Mary, who is considered by Muslims to be the best woman in history (click the link for references). And finally, angels fall under the same bracket. AFAIK, one of the main reasons is to avoid (opening the doors of) idol worship, venerating images created that muslims consider neither accurate nor holy.Speakoutfreely (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

please note that this discussion is duplicated on the Talk:Muhammad/images subpage. This throad should probebly be merged there. Rreagan007's question is addressed at aniconism in Islam. "Islam" doesn't forbid anything of the kind, it is fundamentalist sects within Islam, such as Wahhabism, that do. Claiming that "Islam forbids pictures of Jesus" is about as fair, or accurate, as "Christianity teaches the burning of witches". --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ::::reply to Speakoutfreely... Some Islamic traditions (nothing in the Qur'an) forbid pictures, not all. Most of the images of Muhammad, for instance, were depicted by Muslims themselves. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree profoundly with the arguments that we should "draw a red line" at religion and that we should treat "prophets as different from other people". I respect everybody's right to believe in their own religion, but nobody, whatever religion they profess, should have the right to impose their own religious restrictions on other people.Jeppiz (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a prophet? If the prophet is recognized by being allowed to talk directly to God, then most Christians are prophets. How do you introduce a prophet without simultaneously introducing an idol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To my own question: According to hadith 21257 in Musnad there has been 124 000 prophets and Muslims got the last one. St.Trond (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, the thing is that not every Muslim believes depiction is forbidden. It is a matter of interpretation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link!!!

The following sentence has an incorrect link: "Although the Muslim army had the best of the early encounters, indiscipline on the part of strategically placed archers led to a Muslim defeat, with 75 Muslims killed including Hamza, Muhammad's uncle and one of the best known martyrs in the Muslim tradition."
In the "Life" section, under the bold title "Conflict with Mecca," in the second paragraph. The current link sends the reader to the article about the Arabic letter Hamza. This is incorrect, because the sentence clearly speaks of Hamza the companion and uncle of the Prophet(pbuh). The correct link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_ibn_%E2%80%98Abd_al-Muttalib--208.75.21.90 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the correction. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to make some changes to article name "Muhammad"

hi, I am Asif Ashraf, I think that the picture on this article are no appropriate and I need to change them. I will place new pictures where they do not want to show Muhammad's(PBUH) face. Its a highly disputive matter among muslims to draw a picture or shape of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). So I fear it hurts us muslims on wikipedia too.

I agree with the written content anyhow. I will not make changes to other written content which is not related to those some images.

Please grant me permissions to edit this article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsifAshraf (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ as to why the pictures aren't going to be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Its Forbidden in Islam to draw pictures of any living being. Seeing pictures charectirizing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in a site like Wikipedia I was really astonished. I would urge you to remove the pictures immediately as this practice was/is/will never be supported by people like me who practice Islam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Surkhru (talk • contribs)

Hello, please see the notice at the top of this page and the image FAQ. As the proposed change (to remove images) isn't non-controversial, I'll have to decline this editsemiprotected request. There is an ongoing discussion about the images at #A_neutral_islamic_point_of_view_.21; you are welcome to participate in it. —SpaceFlight89 12:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So, it's forbidden in Islam to draw pictures of any living being? and yet I can Google literally thousands of pictures of "living beings" -- including Mohammad -- all done by Muslims for centuries! So when did this become such a hard and fast law? Danwaggoner (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

European and Western views

Edward Gibbon in his book decline and fall of the roman empiresays that Mohammed despised the pomp of royalty. Thomas carlyle in his book on heroes and hero worship describes Mohammed as a great silent soul ,one of who cannot but be earnest . I would like to add these statements under the level2 header European and Western views in the article Your view please --Notedgrant (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou I'll try to be bold or wiki bold ;) --Notedgrant (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You need full citations for both of those... and preferably from academic secondary sources that found their quotes about Muhammad relevant to discuss... but at least full citations of the books in question rather than what you put. gren グレン 04:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Gren .I've provided complete citations regarding Mohammed from those books How do I find academic secondary sources Please revert my changes if you find them inappropriate --Notedgrant (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"founder" , and images

Muslims believe Islam is not a theory "founded" by a human being (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Islam is a religion or a message from Allah (God) delivered to people by one of His many messengers (Prophet Muhammad PBUH). Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not write the Qur'an either; it is Allah's own words.

When it comes to religion, I believe Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers, then reflect the image as it is.

By insisting on not to remove the word "founder" Wikipedia loses its advantage of being neutral, and it takes the side of those who believe that Islam is a man-made theory.

As to the pictures, Islam prohibits portraying God, prophets, or angels out of respect to them. That is why all of the icons that picture Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) are considered imaginative figures portrayed hundreds of years after his death.

The question now is why does Wikipedia insist on using such imaginary material to back up such an article in the presence of several real photos of the Prophet's tomb, sword, and footprints? Such pictures would be very interesting, reliable, and noncontroversial.

It is not about censorship, it is about showing what is true. If an icon is set into a museum, it means it is old but not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 06:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason Muhammad is described as the founder is because of the requirements that Wikipedia be neutral. You say that "Wikipedia should listen to the religion followers" when it comes to the question of how to describe Muhammad. That does not satisfy WP:NPOV. Your statement that pictures of Muhammad are bad because they're "imaginary" is absurd. People have been smart enough for a very long time to understand that you cannot squeeze a picture of an orange and expect to get orange juice. A picture of a thing is not the same as the thing in question. Read the article on The Treachery of Images and ponder that painting for a while. Anyone confronted with a child's drawing understands that a picture of a thing need not look like a photograph. Frotz (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The images are included are historically significant depictions; they provide cultural insight and on the side, they are contextually relevant pieces of art, too. Wikipedia has actually already compromised on this issue in a way that many editors disagreed with; the images were moved down towards the middle of the article so they would not show up immediately when opening the article. Now, as for those pictures you mention, they might already have been considered and rejected due to possible copyright issues or such, I don't know. You should check with the other editors to see what they think.

The argument that these images are somehow fake or misleading, showing something that is an inaccurate depiction of something showcases a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Someone correct me if this doesn't apply to images, but, to quote WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 07:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understood there are people who believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the founder of Islam which is a man-made theory (according to their POV). On the other hand Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a messenger delivering a message from Allah that is: Islam. Now for Wikipedia to be neutral, it has to combine both points of views.

There are two possibilities: Either my assumption is right, or wrong.

If my assumption is right, then the sentence "Muhammad is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..." is oxymoronic.

According to Merriam Webster "to found" means: "to take the first steps in building". This implies Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) invented Islam. After a few words, and in the same sentence Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is described as a "messenger of God". This means Islam is a religion from Allah.

The other possibility is my assumption is wrong and the sentence is not oxymoronic.

If so, then the sentence is biased.

"he is the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

"regarded by Muslims" = maybe they are right or maybe they are wrong.

Suggestions: If Wikipedia has its reasons not to remove the word "founder", at least you can state who believes in what. For example, "Muhammad, who is regarded by non-Muslims as the founder of Islam is also regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..."

I believe the above sentence is a subjective one with no biases, and it also does not contradict with itself.

Thank you for reading my lengthy point of view. Keep up the good effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC) --Haney G. (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that won't work. The article earth doesn't say, believed by some to be billions of years old, and by some religious groups to have been created in seven days by a god 6000 years ago. The fact is that Muhammad did create Islam - there was no such thing before him. Theology does not trump truth, I'm afraid. ðarkun coll 17:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The fact that Islam did not exist before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) does not necessarily mean he created it. It could also mean Islam was created by God and was assigned to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to teach people about.

Another thing, Islam is about admitting that there is only on Creator of this universe. So, if we put the names and the practices of religions aside for a moment, we would find out that there are several religions from God - before Islam - built on the same concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haney G. (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The existence of God is merely a theological concept. Furthermore, your assertion that all monotheists are followers of Islam is palpably wrong - Jews and Christians are not followers of Islam, and would probably find the claim insulting. Again, it's just theology. ðarkun coll 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ðarkuncoll, believe me, I am not here to insult or offend anyone. It is your strange logic which is being insulting.

According to your logic there was no Islam before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as result Islam was invented by him.As you know every religion had its start and its first follower. That means if you applied this same logic to any given religion, you would come up with the conclusion "all religions are humanly made by their prophets or first followers"!!!

Many visitors here were accused of trying to force their POV's or beliefs just for disagreeing to the phrase "founder of Islam"; while this same phrase is being judgmental and is forcing a POV. If it was neutral, it would not have this huge controversy about it.

You cannot also compare your sentence about "earth" to my sentence about describing Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).Your sentence about earth might be thought of by a category of users as many confusing contemplations. While my sentence about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is a simple fact the reader himself -whether Muslim or not- believes in.

I am not here to go on long discussions about what I believe or what others believe; that would take us months and would be completely irrelevant to what I am here for. I am here to say it out loud: the sentence: "Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, is the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God..." is judgmental, oxymoronic, and free of an NPOV. I am asking Wikipedia admins and editors to restate it to some other neutral form, which I believe is not going to be a very hard task.

No further discussion on my part.--Haney G. (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What would the NPOV be ? Will this do "Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh, is said to be the founder..a messenger and the last prophet of God.(If that's fine with all editors out here)--Notedgrant (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This Article Is In A "Mess"- A Wikipedian Lesson

This article has numerous flaws that I would like to point out, and hereby gain right unto editing it. The semi-protection policy is something which should apply to an article that is almost perfect, in response to the high risk of vandalism from disputers. By perfect, I mean it satisfies all historically "very" reliable sources, and does not offend any followers of such a religion to a great degree, for after all, these are all logical people with logical minds, and will not exaggerate their beliefs so far from truth. According to the many smartass, sorry for the word but this is just extremely annoying, editors and admins who openly refuse any attempt to convince them of the non-neutrality of this article, Wikipedia is "all about truth, not beliefs". Well, putting all emotions as a Muslim aside, I will point to you the problems in the article, in the favoured and "scapegoat" point of view to whom I believe slightly hypocritcal admins and editors, NPOV.

1. According to only two hadiths, Prophet Muhammad did marry Aisha at the age of six, and consummated the marriage at the age of nine. These hadiths, however did not deploy the usual scrutinizing methods, that are constantly used by Muslim scholars to check the reliability of a Hadith. As Wikipedia is all about knowledge, you must know something to be able to judge on a topic, not express your point of view about an opposition. Wikipedia articles are not holy script. They are "not" written first in a few weeks, then remain almost unchanged for years. Those who did write the articles, however educated they are, will certainly never be the best in their field, or will never certainly be true and non-neutral in all their points of view, however many who write an article or contribute towrds it- the human psyche will overpwer in the end, by nature, the reason and non-neutrality, and unfortunately; a Western writer will speak in a very slightly biased tone towards his convictions (which will mostly be against Islam, due to the growing wave of Islamophobia in Western countries), a Muslim contribution will show slight bias against Westerners, an Indian against Pakistani, a Jew against a Muslim, a Russian against Americans, aethists against every other religion, eccetra... Those people are excused, for that is the nature of bias, and the human mind. These articles are not written by angels or prophets. That is okay. But since the majority of editors, and indeed most admins, on Wikipedia are Western, it is really difficult to ensure a NPOV when it comes to highly sensitive and respected articles as about a man such as the Prophet, whom we Muslims deem as the greatest being in the history of mankind, and as an embodiment of everything holy, not in an actual sense (he was not God) but in the logical sense of the direct connection to Allah. Refusing critcism of the article is the norm at start. But as I mentioned before, admins and editors must bear in mind if the wish to apply our highly prized NPOV, that it is impossible to write something that more than one billion Muslims consider offensive, "and" that "all" of the refusal towards any removal or editing of this portion, comes only from Western or Christian admins and editors. I do not know who semiprotected this article, but I assure you it is probably a Western admin, as is the person who wrote "all" of the controversial issues of this article, that's how sure I am. Wikipedia is not about taunting any religious group, by writing psychologically disturbed ideas then challenging others to disprove them in an article, "then" refusing any criticism, and asking others whom are offended to be civilized and accept an NPOV, or rather a Western biased NPOV!!! You can imagine how offending it is, hypothetically, if a Muslim scholar or man of religion had said in the sixteen hundreds, that what christians call a cross, is a piece of trash, and that Christians are idiots to cherish the symbol of what they believed to have been the cause of the death of their son of God, and that is retarded to think that a son of God could die, or that the Pope is a homosexual, or that the Bible is a bedtime tale, etc.... All these statements had reliable cause for the Muslim scholar, but if I were to cite possible references to them, and mention them in an article about Christianity, you would imagine how offensive this would be, and that I would be dubbed as biased towards Christianity. I could very simply state that this piece of information is encyclopedic, and that it deserves to be mentioned, and that I am adhering to a NPOV policy, when secretly I may be enjoying taunting all who read the article. Such is the very case with this article and many others, especially about the pedophile part. One cannot possibly count the number of times some notable figure had said something offensive about Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or Americans, or Arabs, etc... But one cannot also put these into an encyclopedia, using the phrase "the people deserve to know this" as a scapegoat. Surely he will not put all the offensive statements in, he'll only put what his human psyche determines to be most offensive, and out of excusable human habit, take pleasure in saying that he is still legally neutral. Wikipedia ignores emtions, that's true and just... But it should not ignore logic, upon which my whole letter is based. I mentioned before that is excusable to be slightly biased, and indeed, that is why many people contribute to the same article, and we have discussio pages. I doubt if Jimbo Wales had been an enthusiastic reader of Islamic History, and had been asked to write a section in an article about Prophet Muhammad's wives, that he would not be slightly biased. It is the nature of humans... What is inexcusable, judging by the sensitivity of this article, is the blatant disregard of criticism, in the hypocritical way I have mentioned earlier. Wikipedia has a policy against censorship, but "all" of its policies are built on logic, and acceptance and keeping an open mind. As for the topic of the age of Aisha, please read this reference to see how this article has been mistaken, and that I am not speaking on a weak reference, and that Islamic topics should be mostly written using reference to works by muslim scholars, and how many are they, besides the Quran and Hadiths, rather than Western enthusiasts or scholars, as the level of education in any western university when it comes to Islam will never rival that of an endless history in Islamic education when it comes to Arab countries, speaking out of God-gifted common sense. The reference is ^[1] A very recent study has totally confirmed that Aisha was at the age of "nineteen" at the time of actual consummation of marriage, and since any historical reference about Prophet Muhammad's life taken by anyone in the world writing anything about him most undoubtly comes, in source, from the Quran, or Sunnah transmitted by way of Hadiths and Muslim scholars' books, not by Western Historians, as at that time, there were no Western Historians studying the subject, and indeed there was no western interest in the subject or the archaeological significance for determining the existence of all these events, if you as a person believe in the existence of a man named Muhammad in that period of time in history, you as a person, whoever you may be out of the 6.66 billion people on Earth will accept one of the two sources when it comes to the source of history, which, unfortunately for all biased people out there, come from Muslims. Therefore, if muslim scholars make a mistake in the age of Aisha by way of interpretation of a weak Hadith (Hadiths are classified into many categories since, through their progression through generations, some have been forgotten, others have been unknowingly slightly altered, and Muslims prize the Hadith as an important source on the prophet's life.) only another Muslim scholar, with another strong source or Hadith, may rectify this affair, which has been done.

2. As regards the word founder; there was one particularly "smart" editor who refered a lot to theology. Theology, my friend, does not refer to religion, since religion is acted upon and is believed to have been sent from a higher being (God or Allah). Religion is a belief that is acted upon. Theology is something like the belief that UFO's exist, or like Christianophobia, or Fascism. You cannot call any belief a theology, as you then ignore the matter of spirituality. Muhammad is not a founder of Islam. Islam is not a public company, or a university!! To make a long story short and avoid several needless arguements, what should have been said is:

Muhammad ibn Abdallah "is" believed by all Muslims to be the Prophet on whom Islam was revealed by Allah... A good example is in the article beginning of "Muhammad and slavery"...

3. As regards to the pedophile affair. I have already clarified the logic behind the inclusion of offensive statements and criticsims in an encyclopedia. They have to be all or none, and they have to have reliable cause, they have to be supported by well-put-forward arguments by the person who made them in History, and they have to have a limit in obscenity and accusations, and most of all, they have to be based on a true event, as was disproved in this post, that the article is mistaken about Aisha's age!!!...

You can notice that there was a very small hint of bias in my tone, but the difference between me and others was that I do not ask you to act on this bias, only the rest of the logic included above. I was very reasonable and logical, and informative, but couldn't of course control all my emotions as a Muslim, and that further supports my statement about the human nature, and waht is excusable and inexcusable. Please take all of what I said into consideration, as this is the summary of a sea of thoughts I have about this article, and the absurdly biased usage of NPOV in many articles of Wikipedia. I have many other thoughts and emotions that I would have liked to put forward, but in avoidance of a flame war, or the extreme offence of some Wikipedians, I have controlled my anger considerably as regards to this article. I ask you to use the same amount of will power in accepting "my" NPOV.... Walid 1990 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What changes would you like in the article ?wp:bold WP:Islam --Notedgrant (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"By perfect, I mean it satisfies all historically "very" reliable sources, and does not offend any followers of such a religion to a great degree" You got one very right and one very wrong

1. A good article should always build on reliable sources and when there is a conflict, reflect credible and academic sources of both sides.

2. A good article should never shy away from offending people. The aim of an article should never be to offend anyone, but it is inevitable that it sometimes will. If we deal with topics such as religion or political ideologies, there will almost always be people who are offended no matter which we way write, as all major ideologies and religions have their followers and their contractors. It is impossible to satisfy them all, and we should not even try. We should stick to the first principle you mentioned of having good verifiable academic sources and to build on them. If we offend anyone in the process, it is unfortunate for them but we should not change the article because of that. You mention a few claims you think would be anti-Christian. Please feel free to include them anywhere you like, as long as you can back them up with good verifiable sources. Sources are what matters, not personal opinions.Jeppiz (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm Jepiz I jut read the article How can a kid own slaves (The article specifically points out that he owned slaves from birth to death ( here) ).That part of the article is unverified (unsourced)I think it should be removed --Notedgrant (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim this article is perfect in any way, nor did I comment explicitly on this article. If you see anything that isn't verified, tag it. If it remains unverified after some time, remove it.Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the part of mohammed owning slaves from birth to death then (If that's fine)I'm Gonna WP:bold :D--Notedgrant (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually we leave tags for at least a week or two, putting a tag there one day and removing the claim after just a few hours is a bit too hasty.Jeppiz (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To Notedgrant, I have to agree with Jeppiz on that point; except in BLPs, tags are generally left in place for a period of weeks to allow editors time to search for reliable sources to bolster such statements. Also, it was relatively common for slaves to be assigned to care for children, even if the child didn't "own" them. The statement should certainly should be sourced, and might benefit from revision to clarify matters, but deletion at this point is definitely premature, especially since only a part of the sentence is questioned (when did he first own slaves?).

To Walid 1990, I'll give you the courtesy of an honest answer: you're completely wrong, and the many points you make simply have no relevance to a secular encyclopedia. "Not offending Muslims" is in no way a part of our mandate or our principals, any more than "Not offending Jews", or "Not offending Croations". If we ever removed material on the basis that someonoe found it offensive, we would be failing our own principals. Regarding the "recent scholarship" about Aisha's age, there is simply no historical evidence to support the assertion that she was 19; it is a rather blatant case of contemporary apologetics, nothing more. Doc Tropics 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2. As regards the word founder; there was one particularly "smart" editor who refered a lot to theology. Theology, my friend, does not refer to religion, since religion is acted upon and is believed to have been sent from a higher being (God or Allah). Religion is a belief that is acted upon. Theology is something like the belief that UFO's exist, or like Christianophobia, or Fascism. You cannot call any belief a theology, as you then ignore the matter of spirituality. Muhammad is not a founder of Islam. Islam is not a public company, or a university!! To make a long story short and avoid several needless arguements, what should have been said is:

Muhammad ibn Abdallah "is" believed by all Muslims to be the Prophet on whom Islam was revealed by Allah... A good example is in the article beginning of "Muhammad and slavery"...

Theology most assuredly refers to religion - that's its whole point. As for UFOs etc., that is a modern form of mythology. The difference between theology and mythology is that theology is worked out by someone, and tends to disallow any form of deviation. And if Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, who is? It certainly didn't exist before him. And here's a clue - the answer is not "God", except in Islamic self-defined theological terms. We duly note what Islamic theology says on this matter, and that's as it should be. But we would be failing in our duty to censor ourselves on theological grounds. ðarkun coll 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm That's right:DThanks.--Notedgrant (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just like during the first ten days of Muharram we get an influx of Shi'a Muslim editors on religious articles, I believe we also get an influx of all Muslim editors in Ramadan. I hope this influx will lead to some improvement and not needless fighting. --Afghana ^[talk] 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Founder is the correct word in both its meaning and it can be supported by references e.g. Muhammad Hamidullah in the book title of Muhammad Rasulullah: A concise survey of the life and work of the founder of Islam by Muhammad Hamidullah (1979) clearly uses "founder". We could actually have both words i.e. founder and revealed but we can only have revealed if you can find some reliable source that says this. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Religious minorities in Iran By Eliz Sanasarian pg 19 states that "Muhammad was not the founder of Islam ,he did not start a new religion.Like his prophetic predecessors,he came as a religious reformer" --Notedgrant (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well prior to Muhammad there was no "Islam" and after Muhammad there was Islam. We need a word that describes that event and "founder" suffices well given that articles are not for experts and we have support for that word (from Muslims as well as non-Muslims). As others have mentioned, without Muhammad there would be no Islam, no Quran, no Hadith and all the other stuff. I understand the sophistry of the religious reformer claim but in the end we have to use common sense and e.g. though someone else may claim that 'x' is science, if it really is pseudoscience then we'll tag it with that as that is the common sense approach. Where a religion borrows from earlier religions it is nonsense to support claims that the reformed religion is contemporaneous to the unreformed religions for all time even though it did not actually exist as a reformed religion until a precise time. That time is its founding and unless it was a popular movement or invented by a committee, it has a very distinct founder. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At WP we quote wp:rs and form an article.It's not for us to decide what's right or wrong.According to the book Islam outside the Arab world By David Westerlund, Ingvar Svanberg ,pg2,"In western studies,Islam is often portrayed as a founder religion,whose origin can be dated back to the seventh century. Since Muhammad is regarded as the founder the term 'Muhammadanism' has been used.According to Muslims however Muhammad was not the founder of Islam and,as a consequence,they reject the concept of Muhammadanism.Islam is the original religion of humankind,founded by God .For the same reason, Islam is the natural religion,the religion which is in perfect accordance with human nature and reason." We can use According to Muslims however Muhammad is not the founder of Islam Wp:npov--Notedgrant (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is why I quoted the book title of a well known Muslim that says "founder". We can't reasonably cater for all the inconsistencies of Muslims in the lead of one article. Founder is the most common sense word suitable for this English Wikipedia, though other Wikis can do what they like according to their own editing policy. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many sources to ignore this POV .Here's another one "Africa from the seventh to the eleventh century By Ivan Hrbek, Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa Ivan Hrbek" Pg 16 "Muhammad is thus not the founder of Islam,a religion that already existed,but the last in the chain of the prophets,being the 'seal of the prophets' (Khatimu L-anbiya)." I suggest that we add both western and Islamic POV to maintain the neutrality of the article--Notedgrant (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not understanding the substance of this argument, the article already covers both "POV"s (fact and belief) extrememly well. The intro currently reads: "Muhammad...is the founder of the religion of Islam, and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God." This statement is true, verifiable, accurate, and wel-sourced. It very neatly and concisely explains both historical fact and religous belief. How can there be an issue with that? Doc Tropics 14:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"he is the founder" = decisive statement displaying no hesitation.

The statement should be somewhat like this Muhammad, is regarded by non-Muslims (or the west) as the founder of Islam though (Most of the) Muslims consider him to be a messenger and the last prophet of God.--Notedgrant (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The present lead is perfectly NPOV, more so than the arguments presented against it here.Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Notedgrant, for such a concise and extremely useful response! Your specific example of how you'd like the text to appear is also an excellent example of a productive comment in talkpage discussions. Now I can clearly see and understand your point. And I definitely do understand, although I don't quite agree 100%. I think it's because from the "non-Muslim POV" there really is no question that Muhammad was the founder of Islam which is why we present it that way. Also, it's because in English, there simply is no other clear way to express the idea that the religion we now call Islam did not exist as Islam before Muhammad. The idea that Muhammad was the last prophet is certainly acceptable as a theological statement, but in terms of "encyclopedic value" it carries less factual weight than events which can be historically established.

While I personally think that the opening sentence is clear and accurate, I would still be willing to discuss other possibilities along the lines you suggest, but it would require a strong concensus of editors to change the existing text. My first thought was maybe something like "Scholars and non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam...", but then I realized the structure implies that Muslims aren't scholars, so that doesn't work. However, it needs to be clear that for non-Muslims, his status as founder carries the weight of historical fact. Thanks again for such a cogent response! Doc Tropics 15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility would be adding the statement 'According to the Islamic point of view it is not correct to say that Muhammad the founder of Islam or is preaching a new faith or According to Muslims (or IslamicPOV) Islam is not the name of some unique faith presented for the first time by Muhammad. '

Or 'Western studies regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam but Muslims do not consider Muhammad as a preacher of a new faith but as .....Hopefully we will reach an agreement acceptable to all.Quoting Jimbo Wales Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal --Notedgrant (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, it would probably be best to avoid casting this in terms of "Western" and "Muslim" views, even though that is the historical division. Although Islam is originally a "middle eastern religion", today there are significant Muslim populations in countries all over the world, including Europe, America, and Asia. I'm searching for ways to phrase the first sentence that would still be considered accurate and NPOV by WP standards, while perhaps being less offensive to those Muslim readers who find the current language troubling. It's certainly worthwhile persuing a reasonable and civilized discussion to find some common ground. Doc Tropics 19:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't actually finished your sentence for us to consider what it is saying. You said, 'Western studies regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam but Muslims do not consider Muhammad as a preacher of a new faith but as...." - "but as" what ? I suppose we could say "messenger of God" (reference to a suitable Sirah Rasul Allah or something e.g. in Islam#Muhammad we have "Muslims view him not as the creator of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others.". Oddly enough not much room for Australian aborigines in there. We can't actually reach any agreement unless you tell us what it is that you want to edit in. Jimbo Wales is irrelevant unless you want to involve Office actions or Arbitration which is not the usual route for most content disputes. Please also explain "Western studies" and explain why you don't say "most Muslims" because I have cited at least one well known Muslim that does call him a founder. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with How about adding but& Last here "BUT (instead of and) is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and The last prophet of God",I'll wait for you guys to figure out a NPOV statement -Notedgrant (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well given that a few days ago you said to the original editor who posted their essay-length complaint was "What changes would you like in the article ?wp:boldWP:Islam --Notedgrant (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)" - I think we should just leave this article as it is then. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider adding unreferenced statements in to an article His proposed edits were not properly sourced wp:rs.I've given proper references for my edits.All significant views should be presented WP:YESPOV--Notedgrant (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The article should simply state that he founded Islam, which he did. We can then add what Muslims believe. We should also, for the sake of NPOV, also add what other religions believe - such as Christianity, which has often regarded him at best as a teacher of heresy, and at worst as an instrument of Satan. In other words, if we have one religious view - the Muslim one - why not others? ðarkun coll 22:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a page on Medieval Christian view of Muhammad,It's mentioned in the article too "While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and premodern times were largely negative, appraisals in modern times have been far less so." Check European and western views & Other Religious traditions.You are right adding an explicit statement about the belief of Muslims could be a suitable alternative.OR we can add Mohammed is widely referred as the founder of Islam (Could do as well) --Notedgrant (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

the article is fine. It should above all avoid obsessing over the "pedophilia" question just because some editors decided they want to obsess over it. It is a red herring. WP:UNDUE. The article should mention the Aisha marriage, and perhaps that some people get all worked up over it, but delegate any detail to the main Aisha article, presenting the wikilink so that, you know, anyone interested in the question can click on it and read all about it there. The "founded" thing is even more of a red herring, and we have been over this in detailliterally dozens of times. I really don't see why people cannot leave alone a perfectly balanced phrasing that was the outcome of months of detailed debate. --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

People cannot leave it around because it's a significant view .I've given sources (Reliable I presume them to be so) in the discussion WP:YESPOV' Oriental studies put Mohammed as the founder of Islam but the Islamic faith regards him as one of the prophets and the last messenger of God' could be an appropriate statement. Anyway if no one is interested then we can leave the article as it is. --Notedgrant (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all... about this 'Slaves' subsection I've noticed: #1. The topic is not significant enough to merit its own subsection, #2. The source has been taken from the the article Muhammad and slavery, and anyone familiar with the previous discussion on that talk page will be aware that the extract from Ibn al-Qayyim's work has not been independently verified and has instead been taken from unreliable polemical websites (see WP:CITE). So we don't have a clear and full representation of what IQ writes on the matter. If we could find an academic text with a comprehensive but concise coverage of Muhammad's dealings with slaves then that would be good. The current passage is not up to par with the standards observed in this article. ITAQALLAH 22:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I have to take responsibility for that. The current version was a "quick and dirty" compromise, supposed to be temporary. I think that the topic merits inclusion because Muhammad was a significant reformer as regards to slavery. Although he owned many throughout his life, it's also understood that he freed many. Since the material is sufficient to have its own article, Muhammad and slavery, it seems significant enough to include here. I agree that more scholarly references would be desireable and that the text would benefit from revision. Specific suggestions are always welcome :) Doc Tropics 23:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to whether Mohammed the "founder" of Islam or not, why not cite what Qur'an and he himself said about that, since both are the sources of the sources mostly used to present this article. As far as I'm concerned, that Qur'an refers to Mohammed as messenger who’s been sent to redirect mankind to the right path the path of Allah (God), the same course that all of his successors such as Adam, Ibrahim and Jesus followed. Someone may not believe in Qur'an as the words of God and do not believe in Mohammed as a prophet nor a messenger, which he or she has the right to do so. However, we all know that this book (Qur’an) was "delivered" to us through or "by" Mohammed, in which it's been stated that Islam is not a new religion, it's the religion of Allah (God). The point that I'm trying to make is that Mohammed had never mentioned or stated that he's the founder of Islam. Instead, he "claimed" that Islam is a religion of Allah (God). For the sake of neutrality, When writing an biography of someone we need to state his notions and believes instead of what others believe or think despite the truthiness of his or her concept or philosophy.

As regards to Aisha's age, why we all use nowadays thinking and ways of living to judge historical habits and actions. Assuming that the argument about Aisha was 6 or 9 years old when Mohammed married her, is correct and true. The question here, was that odd at that time?? I do not think so, since I'm from country where men and women married at early ages just decades ago, and it was very normal, whereas, nowadays the people are getting married at their thirties which was abnormal 2 decades ago. I believe that whenever this argument is mentioned, the extent of its normality should be mentioned as well.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by E. Mafish 41.252.50.35 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph has a logical and grammatical mistake when one sentence reads that Muslims consider Muhammad, "the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40." The issue is the “as taught by the Qur’an” pericope. Books don't "teach" strictly speaking or even logically speaking. That a book can "teach" anything is the major fallacy of Protestantism to wit: that the book "teaches" something and we folk simply ascent to said teaching. Nay, people have teachings and they may derive said teaching from their own interpretation of books and then may stumble into the fallacious claim the book teaches something, but in actuality, the individual, not the book, has a “teaching”. They who make such a claim such as that a book teaches “x” are often correct actually - the logical hermeneutic of the book is coextensive or at least consistent with the teaching of the interpreter [the person], but nonetheless, books don't teach, people do. As such, I am modifying the opening paragraph in the slightest, but much more accurate, way to read “consistent with” as opposed to “as taught by”. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.113.169 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

please change name

this my humble requst to you to please change the name Muhammad by Muhammad (sallal laho alehi wa sallam) or Muhammad (BPBUH)

Please see this link, which is in fact listed in the FAQ at the top of this page, for the explanation of why we will not do that. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Guru Nanak's view of Muhammad

Please correct the following comment in the section "Other religious traditions":

Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as an agent of the Hindu supreme being Brahman.[185]

to:

Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, viewed Muhammad as another agent of the supreme Creator, Brahma.[185]

"Brahman" is a person of a religious Hindu caste; Brahma is God, the Creator. Using "another" implies that Sikhism also respects the leaders of many other religious faiths as agents of God too.

--202.58.165.238 (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed brahman to Brahma--NotedGrant Talk 12:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

{{editsemiprotected}} The word "islām" in the lead should link to S-L-M#Islam_.22Piety.2C_Faith.22. It is presently capitalized incorrectly so the link does not point to the right section. 151.203.246.40 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Names of Muhammed

Strikes me as odd that there isn't a list of his 99 names (such as can be found here http://itgateway.tripod.com/html/nameofprophet.htm) or an article dealing with the historical process of his aquiring of these names and their uses in worship/caligraphy

Actually there is. Peter Deer (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon link

I removed this from the 'See Also' section. It does not help the article, and there is already a link to 'Depictions'. Unflavoured (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"muhammad" used for Jesus claim

" The title "Muhammad" (meaning revered and praiseworthy) is used for "Jesus"[3] on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem c. 692 CE. [4][5] "

This fringe view addition is also completely irrelevant in this article, which is not about Jesus, but about Muhammad, the founder of Islam. I am not removing it from the section non-Arab sources, but I hope someone else will, if they agree. Antipastor (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus for relevant discussion, including reference that discards the theory, I am removing this. Antipastor (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream reading of the Dome of the Rock is that Jesus is referred to as "Muhammad". You cannot find any modern, serious source that claims anything else. They may disagree ^[2] on why it was written, but not on that the title "Muhammad" is used for Jesus.St.Trond (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Slavery

Muhammad PBUH did not have slaves, its forbidden in Islam, and MUhammad PBUH fought that tradition and he and his followers liberated most of slaves. So plz change that part as its wrong. Thank you

Slavery is forbidden in Islam? That seems to run counter to history. Weren't the Mamluks, simply to mention one group, former slaves? Cutugno (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhhamad was the owner of slaves, both male and female, including concubines, wetnurse, and his adopted son Zayd[157]. Other slaves assisted him in his military campaigns.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.151.106 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember that being a problematic statement it was discussed

here While the first part of the statement is referenced the second part is not well referenced I think it should be removed--NotedGrant Talk 14:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the sources I have found mentioning Muhammad in the context of military slaves refer to different military leaders also called "Muhammad" who lived after the prophet. =Axlq 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember to keep this on-topic with the article, as Wikipedia is not a forum. There is a whole article on this very subject, which I highly recommend perusing (it has a wealth of sources that could be cited here) but I think I can clarify that the notion that slavery is forbidden in Islam may largely stem from the verse in the twenty-fourth Sura stating "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of manumission, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of God which He hath given you." (which essentially means that you can have slaves but have to free them--and pay them--if they request it) functionally, if not explicitly, ending compulsive slavery. However, this should only be included in the article if reliable third-party sources can be found and cited on this, and we do not want to create improper synthesis from primary source material. I hope this resolves it! Peter Deer (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad (pbuh) does have slaves, yet according to History, he treated the slaves well. Kangxi emperor6868 (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that Muslims did raid Christian lands as well and took many slaves, about 5 million. Norum 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic with discussion of the article. Peter Deer (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is on topic. Cheers. Norum 06:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslims raided lands and took slaves, christians raided lands and took slaves, hindus raided lands and took slaves, pagans raided lands and took slaves, atheists raided lands and took slaves, the list goes on. Zazaban (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also heard that Muhammad did this and this and also this and I know Muhammad did this...oh wait none of this is sourced and none of this is discussion of how the article can be improved.

Guys, come on, if you want to talk with people about stuff like that there's places for it, but we're trying to run a damn encyclopedia here. Peter Deer (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should discuss the slavery section. As of now it is a single sentence sourcing a 14th century author's religious book. Clearly this is not a reliable source and it wasn't even written as history. This doesn't mean that I am trying to defend the assertions of this section's creator, merely that proper citation for such a view involves consensus (or dissenting views) of notable historians--not a religious treatise.

But, before we get to proper citations I do want to question the point of the section. Why does a one sentence section which states that Muhammad owned slaves and then telling us the types of slaves deserve to be in this article. Is there a reason this has a stand alone section? I think the answer is what we currently have does not deserve its own section, it should become evident in his biography his relationship with slaves of his own, freed slaves, slaves of the community, etc. But, obviously this is a political issue which has all kind of NPOV implications so I think we should at least come up with a few options for how to present slavery in this article. Here are my suggestions:

Integration: All issues of slaves are organized temporally in the prose of his biography. This means rather than reading about Zayd or Maria out of any context year you read about his relationship with them as it fits into the context of his life, battles, adoptions, etc.
"On slavery": Similar to Thomas Jefferson, most of the personal interactions with slaves would be integrated into the biography as appropriate but a more extensive section discussing Muhammad's views--or, more likely, later Muslim's interpretations of Muhammad's view--son slavery would be added. This means we separate and leave the more value-neutral discussion in the life summary section but discuss the contentious issues of did Muhammad really want to ban slavery in the long run? Did he challenge the institution of slavery? How did he think slaves should be treated? can be discussed where they can get proper discussion around the many differing opinions of Islamic scholars (and to a lesser extent historians).

Those are my two suggestions and I suggest option 1 for now and then option 2 if an enterprising editor sees fit to craft an NPOV, well sourced section about slavery at Talk:Muhammad/slavery that editors can agree on. In any case, we need a serious discussion of this issue and find that happy medium of not obfuscating the views about Muhammad and slaves nor elevating them to undue prominence because of moral outrage over slavery. We are supposed to be value neutral and properly contextualize in a way that allows readers to make their own value judgments. gren グレン 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the slavery section (just one line) should be merged with another section. It's just a passing mention of a common practice of the time.

I also note with interest that Voltaire's play Mahomet portrays Seid (Zayd ibn Harithah) as a slave to Muhammad, although the article about him says he was a slave who was given to Muhammad's wife and then freed. The play also portrays Palmira (Zaynab bint Jahsh) as a woman captured and enslaved by Muhammad, although the article makes no mention of it. Seems like Voltaire used a lot of artistic license there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References for the beginnings of armed conflict

For the refrences [83] and [84] it must be mentiond (and cited) from which source Lewis and Watt get the information. This is because an important "claim" is made in that part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.31 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Why must it be mentioned? How far must sources be back-tracked? What is there about that claim that suggest the Lewis and Watt sources are not reliable? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad (pbuh) Founder of Islam... This is incorrect

Muhammad (pbuh) is not the founder of Islam but the last and final Messenger, to understand this please note that Islam in short means - to aquire peace by submitting your will to Almighty God, and that Islam is not a religion but a way of life or law or obligation which all the Prophets of Almighty God followed. --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"To acquire peace by submitting your will to Almighty God" is one way to define a religion. Many followers of different religions, including Christianity, think of their faith as a way of life.

If Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam, then who?

Constructive suggestions on improving the article are always welcome. Theological interpretations are not constructive here; this is a biography, not an article about Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a way of life which assumes the existence of a god is, by definition, a religion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A biography should by nature depict the truth, again Islam was not founded but perfected through Muhammad (pbuh), you cant create submission to God you have to apply submission to God. This is logic and not a whismical theological interpretation --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The the first person to practice submitting their will to almighty God was the first man Adam (pbuh) --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Justice is not done to Islam if refered to as a religion. The word 'religion' limits Islam. In reality Islam should encompass the followers life (followers should eat, sleep, wash, do business, go toliet...etc. according to Gods law and Muhammads [pbuh] teachings) therefore a way of life is correct.

note - my text is very unlikely to change anything on such a controversial page but bear witness I attempted to enlighten those who guard it. --Yasin K (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and we try to enlighten you. As you insist on knowing the WP:TRUTH, I don't think we will come very far. However, please do not insert comments in the middle of other comments as you have been doing.Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Muslims claims the presence of islam before the presence of the prophet of islam. Yet they have not single evidence to prove so. Islam stands on the five pillars of islam, one of them is the islamic witness, please if you are claiming that pre-islam there were muslims, kindly state one reference where there is any figure has said the islamic witness anywhere in history. If not then accordingly you are wrong. Trying to change meaning of islam to submission to god, then you will consider everyone who belives in any sort of God being as muslims, which is completely absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafsha711 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened to filter 131?

I refer to this archived discussion: Talk:Muhammad/Archive 22#Image Protection Filter

Special:AbuseFilter/131 was created to prevent people from moving/removing/replacing specific images in the Muhammad article. It also allows the article to go unprotected, allowing people to edit it, while surgically protecting a tiny piece of it.

This filter was working well in the past, but recently we have seen several instances of images being deleted. What happened? Are there now images in the article that the filter doesn't cover, or has the filter been disabled? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It was disabled by Prodego (talk · contribs) on 28 September 2009 with the reasoning: "People tend to watch controversial images, so this shouldn't be needed. Rarely triggered too. Disabled. -Prodego" You should invite him here to discuss his reasoning. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So because images are watched and the filter is not triggered often enough (defined by whom?), the filter is disabled to allow continued disruption of the page? That strikes me as a weak rationale for disabling it. The whole point of the filter was to allow legitimate edits by anyone without having to protect the page. Yes, I'd like to see this discussed further. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only possible to run so many filters. As people add more and more filters, if older and less useful ones aren't removed, the system will become overloaded, and none of them will work. Since the images that filter 131 watched are controversial, they are watched by a lot of people, and despite the controversy, aren't removed that frequently. Because of that I disabled 131 since it didn't seem to be an efficient use of a filter and could easily be dealt with without one. The fact is in 5 months it only had around 70 hits. Prodego ^talk 22:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Article written by a non-muslim

This Article looks like it was written by a Non-Muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.112 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a good thing. All articles should be written from a neutral point of view. It shouldn't favor one side or the other. A non-Muslim would probably have less biases. If the articles aren't neutral, then it damages Wikipedia's credibility. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It was written by hundreds of people of all religious denominations, including those who are Muslim. Reso lute 23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You phrased it better than I did. What I was trying to impart was that we wouldn't want it to sound overly biased (either for or against). Just like we wouldn't want the Jesus (alayhi salam) article to read something like "OMG, Jesus is your Lord and Savior, if you don't accept Him right now, you'll burn in Hell!" I meant to say something along the lines of "since you don't think it was written by a Muslim, then that would seem to imply that it doesn't lean overly towards being in favor of the article's subject." Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing about it is it's pretty clearly written mostly by Muslims, but the tone and POV is kept neutral. That's why it's a good article, it contains the information that Muslims can contribute on the subject but presents it with a neutral tone. We're very fortunate to have some very excellent regular contributors to this article that keep it in good shape. Peter Deer (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, they have done a good job in keeping the article unbiased Kangxi emperor6868 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe time to push to make it featured? Dragons flight (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that bringing this article up to FA standards (and keeping it there) would be extremely challenging but very worthwhile. I'm willing to support the effort. Doc Tropics 16:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, I can see some room for improvements in this article. I am more than happy to contribute both directly and indirectly to help this article reach into a featured article status. Kangxi emperor6868 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This may come as a shock, but our penguin article was also mostly written by non-penguins. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, we've thwarted attempts by penguins to edit the article, they come off as intensely pro-penguin for some reason. MisterTin (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the FA, do anyone of you knows the current status of this article and whether it is affiliated with any of the WikiProjects? Regards Kangxi Emperor (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the top of the page lists WikiProject Biography (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Islam (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Arab world (Rated GA-Class), WikiProject Middle Ages(Rated GA-Class), and the Military history WikiProject (Rated GA-Class). So there's a decent amount to choose from. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I will look dumb after I got the answer. Thanks anyway. Btw wow, all of them are rated GA class, just one more step to go. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking to contact one of them, my guess would be either Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam would be the ones to contact, But that last step from GA to FA can be a big one. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I would contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam instead, and yes, I agree with you, so let's keep on editing. Kangxi Emperor (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In the eyes of scholars

I agree that this section is almost complete dreck and needs to go. However, I think a "Notable opinions" section might be interesting. That is, what have some of the most respected personalities in history published regarding their opinion of Muhammad. We might logically divide these opinions by century or simply place them in chronological sequence. Fascinating candidates might include Shaw (as already in the section in question) Jefferson, Churchill, Lincoln, Einstein, and so on - assuming they have expressed an opinion at all. Rklawton (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Childish partialism. Why has it been removed?Thelonerex (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it was wildly unbalanced POV with no real place in an encyclopedic article. Unless of course you wish to include the opinions of those who considered him a pedophile and a madman? Doc Tropics 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarosh and sources

Please refrain from adding unknown sources which are clearly islamophobic in nature and stop adding ridiculous edits to this article find a source which is not biased or is clearly biased Errormeek (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

unnessasary judgment

Dear Sir In the article-Biography of Prophet Mohamed, particularly in the section: "European and Western views", the article cites how Mohamed was perceived by the learned Europeans of the Middle Ages which was mainly negative. This is essential to give readers a thorough and clear knowledge of the subject. However, I found a judgment in the beginning of this section describing the subsequent negative conceptions about Prophet Mohamed as "remarkably prices". This has two indications:

the citation-maker is biased because he added his own judgment to the relevant facts.
the article is unbalanced as it listed firstly positive merits of the subject then listed negative ones with a statement that praises the negative attributes.

I am a new user of Wikipedia but I think that when we are discussing debatable issues, we have to cite facts and avoid judgments leaving them for readers. Thank you for your time Fadel Reda —falkifaee (via posting script) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

The article does not state that negative conceptions were "remarkably precise"; rather, it states that biographical knowledge during the Middle Ages was "remarkably precise to some extent." That is an entirely different claim from the one you made.

Regarding your itemized comments:

The adverb "remarkably" may have connotations of bias, and the word is not necessary, so I have removed it.
I do not see what you read that leads to your point #2. What statement praises negative attributes?

That section simply describes western views. To the extent that western views are different from non-western views, the western views will appear biased to non-westerners, but they are what they are, and they are well-sourced. If you have specific suggestions concerning how to re-write that section, please make them. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think mostly what we have in this section is some poor writing. I'd suggest changing the first few lines to read as follows:

The learned circles of Middle Ages Europe - primarily Latin-literate scholars - had fairly extensive, concrete biographical knowledge about the life of Mohammed, though they interpreted that information through a Christian religious lens that viewed Muhammad as a charlatan driven by ambition and eagerness for power, and who seduced the Saracens into his submission under a religious guise.[14] Popular European literature of the time lacked even this knowledge, and portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims in the manner of an idol or a heathen god.

with a few other changes further down, this should address the kind of concerns that Fadel is expressing.--Ludwigs2 02:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

well, in the absence of any commentary I wll be bold and make this change. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to say "go for it" a week ago but lost track of this talk page. Your change looks fine to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning the facts in this section of the article and for the record, I think that the begining of the section clearly points out the Christian perspective that the Western Scholars in the middle ages were likely to apply to any facts about the prophet Muhammad. For me the problem is that the citations for that first part of the section only point back to other wikipedia articles. Where does this whole assertion about western scholars actually come from? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

the statement garbled to "remarkably prices" above used to read

"The biographical knowledge about Muhammad in the learned, Latin circles of the Middle Ages in Europe, was remarkably precise to some extent and a good amount of concrete data about his life was known."

this has nothing whatsoever to do with the (rather unremarkable) depiction of Muhammad as a heretic by medieval Christian authors. I resent the removal of the adverb[6] based on a flawed complaint, apparently based on a complete failure to understand the sentence in question. However, before restoring the statement, I do note that the "remarkably precise" knowledge of biographical facts relating to Muhammad is unreferenced, and appears to contradict equally unreferenced claims made at Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. This needs review, research and fixing. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About the phrase remarkably prices

Firstly, I would really like to express my admiration to what are you doing guys. Returning to the article of Prophet Mohamed, I am fully aware of the Western perceptions about Prophet Mohamed and I this is what you reflect in the article. Let me quot from the article: "The biographical knowledge about Muhammad in the learned, Latin circles of the Middle Ages in Europe, was precise to some extent and a good amount of concrete data about his life was known. Learned European circles of the time interpreted the data in such a way that Muhammad was viewed as a charlatan driven by ambition and eagerness for power" So, we have three channels or types of European perception about Muhammad that are mentioned in the article which are: 1- the biographical knowledge (which is described as precise to some extent) 2- a good amount of concrete data about his life 3- the interpretations of this data (that Muhammad was viewed as a charlatan...) It is not a puzzle. I think when we say that the (biographical knowledge) is precise, we are saying that their interpretations should be precise, to some extent, as well. I admire Ludwig's suggestion of putting "though" before the interpretation but it may convey somewhat reversed biased (for Islamic opinion). Anyhow, any statement of praising or disapproving a citation in debatable issues would appear as self-judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkifaee (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Precise Knowledge Leading to Negative Perceptions

In Addition, when we say that some precise knowledge led to specific interpretations, we point out that these interpretations are precise in a way or another. Fadel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkifaee (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian painting of Muhammad.

Moved to Talk:Muhammad/images#Russian painting of Muhammad. - Altenmann >t 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Site of Muhammad's tomb

Hi everyone,

In the beginning f the section "Life" there is a photo of the Mosque of the Prophet with this description:

"Al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Mosque of the Prophet) in Medina, Saudi Arabia, is the site of Muhammad's tomb."

There is a historical consensus that Prophet Muhammad built this Mosque during his lifetime; the place sacredness has nothing to do with Prophet Muhammad's tomb (despite the tomb's social significance in the area). The tomb was OUTSIDE the Mosque, until expansions for the Mosque built-area did include the grave inside it. As Prophet Muhammad was buried in his wife's house, which was adjacent to the Mosque building at that time. Saying that it's the sight of Muhammad's tomb may lead to wrong assumptions that it was built due to Muhammad's tomb presence in the area.

I ask for proper corrections to be made as soon as possible. Such as (The Mosque of the Prophet, one of the three most sacred Mosques in Islam)

Spiritmind (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Spiritmind January 12th, 2010

Wives and children

Under the paragraph "wives and children" it states that Prophet Muhammed PBUH married zaynab bint jahsh, however the article places it in context that would imply it was because she appealed to the prophet, while the real reason the prophet married her was after he received the stated verse from Sura al-Ahzab (33:37), and it was upon god's order, to inform the people that zaid is not to be treated as a son of muhammed (PBUH), as the people of quraish treated adopted sons as real sons, claiming that they should be called after the adopted father and also receive inheritance as real sons or daughters. His marriage of her was to inform the people zaid was not to be treated as a real son of him, as its forbidden in islam for a man to marry his son's wife, whether after his death or after they divorceXm1332 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)xm1332Xm1332 (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Edit request"

REQUESTED CHANGE....

Kindly remove the Pictures where Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been depicted by any art work or photographic work...because this is against the sanctity of Muslims as a whole and we all respect each others religion.

Sorry, no. Read this for the explanation why. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why Was my Question Removed About Muhammed's African Origins?

Why was my question removed about the omission of Muhammad’s African ancestry and the validity of him being the true founder of Islam? Why was it censored? Asking questions that have a historical legitimacy should not be deemed offensive and should be fairly debated. I will post it again and would appreciate not censorship but an honest answer. I will post it again:

I am curious as to why there is no mention or there is much suppression of the historical fact that Muhammad was an African? He is of the [Kore clan]. He was a Korite which is an ancient Ethiopian clan who occupied Arabia and founded both Islam and its cities thousands of years before the white Arabs from the north invaded and seized it?

Muhammad is also not the founder of Islam as has been written. The Islam, the Koran the Ka’aba and all of its major tenets were extant thousands of years before Muhammad’s birth and ultimate seizure of the Ka’aba in Medina. Al-Uzza was the principle African deity worshiped there along with the ancestral founding matriarchal clans which included the Korites.

It was the priestess of Al-Uzza who wrote the tenets of the Koran. It was originally called the “Book of Kore,” the major tutelary water deity and founding ancestral totem of the Kroties, before Muhammed destroyed the dieites and replaced them with his “divine vision” of a revised Koran.

In West Africa today, the tradition of Al-Uzza is still extant in the Mami Wata Fulani, Ewe, Guin etc., Mama Tchamba traditions. These groups can trace their founding ancestors to the original Ka’aba and Islamic traditions which predates Muhammad and the rise of patriarchy. Many of them still worship the old Islam in which their ancestors and deities are honored. See:

The Ka’aba: Before Mohammed http:/www.mamiwata.com/chamba/Page4.html

Main Page: Mama Tchamba: African Origins of Islam http:/www.mamiwata.com/chamba/mamachamba.html

The suppression of this history just to present a sanitized version of Mohammed is not accurate nor fair to the actual descendants of this ancient religion and its legitimate founding ancestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.102.208 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

because it comes from an entirely unreliable source. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That’s the best response that you can offer? Is to discredit and flagrantly renounce a reliable cultural, ethnic and religious source as unreliable, without providing any reliable sources of your own to disprove it?

Today, the special interest, revisionist’s history that is posing as legitimate scholarship will no longer stand unchallenged in the face of genuine academic, archeological and historical scrutiny. Censorship as a substitute for lack of a credible response will also not suffice.

Nonetheless, In the event that it is not censured or prematurely “archived”, I shall leave my question for others who might have the courage to provide at least an intelligent rebuttal to prove (or disprove) both of our historical assumptions as being “unreliable” sources.

BTW: I read your profile; you appear to be an interesting, creative and intelligent person. I am genuinely surprised at your caviler response. Perhaps the widespread notion that Wikipedia has lost its luster and cannot be reliable upon as a credible source might be true.--74.229.102.208 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need reliable sources to point out that your source is unreliable. Read up on what we consider to be reliable sources, and you'll understand. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, that web site "source" tried to install a script virus on my PC. On every page. Don't visit without using Avira or other virus checker.

I agree with Rklawton. That source is essentially self-published revisionist history that doesn't appear to be corroborated by anything else, least of all sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia:Reliable sources standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wives and children

Great article but after the following sentence things become a little confusing. There is some poor English there and some sentences I don't really understand.

Zaynab bint Jahsh wife of Zayd ibn Harithah's wife, in Pre Islamic Arabia adoption was common and Zayd was given to him as a slave by his wife Khadija. Muhammad freed him and took him to Kaaba in Mecca and declared Zayd his son —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.29.36 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

How does one determine which sources are "garbage" sources?--达伟 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I apologize for the use of that term. It wasn't appropriate. Second, you can read more about reliable sources here. Rklawton (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I will add that I was going to revert 达伟's edit but ~~Rklawton~~Nableezy beat me to it. Aside from the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I would have reverted due to content. The section is about names in the Qur'an but 达伟 added material about Hebrew and the Bible, which seemed irrelevant to that section. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Song_of_Songs#Name_of_Muhammad for problems with it in any case... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, AnonMoos.--达伟 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't revert 达伟's edits or include the inappropriate edit summary. However, I wanted to respond to his/her question, and felt an apology would be a good way to begin. Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I noticed the reversion, then your apology, and connected them in my head. I corrected my comment above. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Transliterations

Just curious...is there a reason we should limit the transliterations given for comparison in the footnote to French, German, Icelandic? Perhaps because (in the case of the former two), they would have been influential on English-language usage? What about Latin, Dutch, Greek, etc?--达伟 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular reason. Rklawton (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tried to display the broad diversity of transcriptions, where they diverge, focused on languages most relevant to an English-speaking audience (in general order of distance).--达伟 (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Al-‘Uzzá

Al'Uzza was the major deity who was worshipped in the Ka'aba before Muhammed was born. I see that my question about Muhammed being from the African Abysinnian clan of Korites who migrated into Arabia before the Arabs was removed.

The religion of what was renamed Islam i.e,the Book of Kore, the Ka’aba and all of its major tenets were extant thousands of years before Mohammad’s birth and ultimate seizure of around hte 6th century A.D. Al-Uzza was the principle African water deity worshiped there, along with the ancestral founding matriarchal clans which included the Korites. The Korites are the same African clan that Abraham descends. There is a small minority of them still left in Somali. The rest who were not killed crossed the Sudan and spread into West and Central Africa. They can trace their ancestral lineages to pre-Mohammed Islam. They still practice ancestral reverence and Al'Uzza still takes spiritual possession of them. The links that were posted were accused of containing a virus. According to the owner, it is block to prevent visitors from copying the site. Nonetheless it was deemed "unreliable." Fair enough, I will quote another “unreliable source” which verifies both the site’s and my own research:

At Mohammed’s birth (traditionally 570 A.D.), Mecca was a prosperous transfer point on the ancient spice route between India and a religious center to which the pagan Arab tribes made worship at the city's numerous shrines. Of these the most triangular edifice called the Kaaba (Cube), containing various idols and, in one corner, a black meteorite that had streaked out one night in the forgotten past. Mohammed was born from the family of the Koreish, the dominant tribe in Mecca. He had ample opportunity to observe current religious practices, were custodians of the Kaaba and concessionaires to the pilgrims who came to visit the shrines.

A series of armed encounters between his supporters and the Meccans led to an intercity war. It ended in 630 when Mohammed entered Mecca in triumph and destroyed the idols in the Kaaba, leaving only the Black Stone. page 101.

-The World’s Great Religions. Time Incorporated. New York. 1957

What is this conspiracy of censorship and silence to not tell the real history that this religion existed thousands of years before Mohammed? What is the problem with denying Mohammed’s African heritage? Islam is a beautiful and ancient religion. However, to write its ancient founders out of existence to justify a mythical story is the worst form of deception--74.229.102.208 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters, the website was unreliable. Next, we do not publish original research - not yours, not anyones. One might call it a conspiracy, others would just call it one of Wikipedia's pillars (fundamental rules). Finally, the one source that you do cite above doesn't add anything new to our articles on Islam. Now - this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article on Muhammad. If you wish to participate appropriately, you are welcome to edit here. Rklawton (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the website and my own reliable sources are consistent with the Time quote, how is it "original"? Also where in the article does it state or make clear that Mohammed was not the originator of Islam, or mention his African ancestry,or Al-Uzza being the Mother of the Ka'aba before Mohammed booted her out? Had that information been contained in the article and made clear, then this discussion would have been a moot issue. --74.229.102.208 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Time quote doesn't support these assertions. It does support what's already in related articles. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of source 9/ verbal descriptions

I noticed that source 9 under "Verbal descriptions" states that: "He usually wore a shirt, trousers, a sheet thrown round the shoulders...". However, according to external link 3 titled "Bedouin of Arabia" [7] which is referred to in the article about Bedouins Bedouin, Bedouins used to wear long flowing robes not trousers as the article suggests. (refer to excerpt below). As Prophet Muhammad lived in this time period and was essentially a Bedouin, it makes sense that he'd dress as Bedouins did in long loose robes and not trousers. In fact, many of the citizens of countries in the Arabian Peninsula today still dress in a similar manner.

The alternative source states that: [Bedouin traditionally wore loose flowing robes that covered them from head to foot as they knew from experience that the best protection from the fierce sunshine, wind and sand of the desert is to cover every part of their bodies.

Men wear a long cotton shirt (thawb) with a belt, covered by a flowing outer garment ('abay). In winter they may wear a waterproof coat of woven camel's hair. Their heads are covered by a large headcloth, the Keffiya, which can be white, red and white, or black and white in colour. The Keffiya is held in place by a double black cord known as the 'Agal, and it is used also to protect face and neck.]

196.221.194.139 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Maya Kazamel, 12/03/10

Question: Some say that Muhammed, in his early days, were a brigand or a high way robber. Is that true? Couldn't find anything about it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.158.79 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a few minutes to read the article and you'll see where this comes from. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Improvements

Many of the images here are unreferenced and/or poorly drawn.

Unreferenced:

File:Map of Arabia 600 AD.svg (the image this was based on cites "own work")
File:LocationAksumiteEmpire.png (no source)
File:Battle of Auhad.gif (taken from Islamic website which doesn't give sources either)
File:Muslim Conquest.PNG ("own work")

Image cleanup:

File:LocationAksumiteEmpire.png (very small using an old indicator style, should/could be brought into line with other maps in article)
File:Battle of Auhad.gif (small, not fully clear what it's representing)
File:Trench.jpeg (small bitmap, unclear what it's representing, original source could hopefully provide us a better vision)
File:Muslim Conquest.PNG (base map is fine, fill and lines on it were done in paint and need to be fixed)

Licensing:

File:Badr campaign.svg (questionable fair use... sure, it uses the data points but it's also the same map and style... could be brought into line with other map styles)

--gren グレン 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error

The line "and put an end to the conitnuous grapevine that was going around." should read "and put an end to the continuous grapevine that was going around."

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Founder"??

Can I just say, that he is NOT the founder of the religion. It is Allahs religion and Muhammad ﷺ is the Messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.166.219 (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

By all historical accounts, he is. Eik Corell (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The term founder does not speak to who created or the truth of the religion. It merely means that Islam, the historical phenomenon which came out of Hijaz during the time was founded by Muhammad. It should be noncontroversial among Muslims to say that Muhammad brought Islam to the Hijaz in the 600s. gren グレン 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

connection with Judaism and other pre-Islamic monotheistic religions

Can you please make the article explai more why Muhammad connected his new religion to Judaism rather than just making up a new religion from scratch? If he was trying to convert the Jewish people it would makes sense to make some of their Tanakh cannon in his new religion, but the article says that he was trying to convert polytheists. Is it because he was related to Abraham? Was he raised in a non-Jewish, non-Muslim monotheist religion that also saw Abraham as a profit? If so, what was that religion called? Does it have something to do with "the original monotheism of Abraham" that is mentioned in the article about Mecca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.9.119 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

there are no three goddesses that were associated with Allah as his daughters: Allāt, Manāt and al-‘Uzzá.

I agree with everyonewho say that its blasphemy , and allay ,manat , and al-ezza are not but fake gods like buddah , gods from the human imagination. I hope everyone would send me their opinoins of what i said , i am arab egyptian muslim so i think i am the best who know about these things . i only think .and if there are 3 gods how would we worship one god .and thank you. Aceriano 95 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ALLAH has no daughters. Please remove that statement from the text. It is inaccurate and does not contribute to the authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.146.165 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. It's sourced. Thanks for your concern.

Allah has NO daughters or siblings or parents or any other alikes. This's a main believe in Islam, so please don't resemble our God with gods of other religions. A source for any statement of Islam must come from Islam's holybook (Quran), no other source are valid or qualified. Thank you. Namures (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll find more information about this subject here: Satanic Verses. I think you'll find it a fascinating article. Do let us know what you think. Rklawton (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For Muslims, Satanic Verses is a blasphemy to our religion, our prophet and our God. I think you know that already, but if you don't please read about The Satanic Verses controversy. Something that's rejected by a majority of people who understand it should not be used as source, especially if without note. Thanks. - Namures (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we should include a note. Rklawton (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the history, the satanic verses are rejected as blasphemy, not because their accuracy is disputed but because it doesn't follow Islamic theology(that was established after Muhammad The Prophet), it is a notable and interresting part of Islam and sourced, I see no reason not to include it in the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards disagreement with this assessment at the moment. It seems to be a fringe theory about Islamic polytheism, somewhat similar to Biblical apocrypha. Why is such weight being given to non-canonical subject matter? Tarc (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the satanic verses are pretty widely accepted as having been written by Muhammad especially by secular scholars(not a fringe theory), but because they contradict current Muslim Theology there has been an attempt to sweep them under the rug. The wikipedia article is pretty good. I do not know how important this issue is to Muslim theology but it is interresting and there has been controversy surrounding this issue, most famously the book, Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that satanic verses are widely accepted by secular scholars, not by muslims. There should be a page titled "Secular scholars view of Islam". And we move this debatable part to that page. Or is it already available? Thanks. Namures (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That approach constitutes what we call a "POV fork," and we don't allow that. It's better to represent the various views in a single article. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORK for more details. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, an article about Muhammad should not be restricted to presenting only a Muslim point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is a secular view of Muhammad not a religious one. NPOV is important and is inherently difficult from a muslim POV Felixmeister (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of all the pics depicting Rasool Allah PBUH

Kindly remove all the pictures and cartoons(if any) depicting Prophet Muhammad PBUH since it is unlawful in Islam to draw the image of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. Moreover, such practice is considered as blasphemy against the holiest figure in Islam, Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

Waiting for a positive response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedMuhammadShahbaz (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that the images will not be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Censored. There has been a lot of discussion on this at Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. You might be interested in Help:Options to not see an image. Also please be aware that no all Muslims think the same way as can be seen by reading Depictions of Muhammad. Caution, there are images there as well. Thanks. something lame from CBW 23:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Islamic site and is thus not subject to Islamic law. thx1138 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Farewell sermon

The first quote on this page from The Farewell Sermon is not present in the Wikipedia Article on The farewell Sermon, which contains the entire sermon. This surely suggests that something is wrong here. 69.172.72.38 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=332401359&oldid=332396561 should be undone, it does not display properly with most fonts.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the HTML entity code is more universal than a font-specific character, and should work better in most browsers and character sets. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On my Mac in both Firefox and Safari I can see the old one but not the new one, so I agree with 90.179. --99.254.8.208 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference not working

Wijdan, Ali (August 23–28, 1999). "From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th century Ottoman Art". Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art (Utrecht, The Netherlands eds. M. Kiel, N. Landman, and H. Theunissen.) (7): 1–24. http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimbo Vales (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wives and Children" needs edited!

The last part of "Wives and Children" is a story about Muhammad negotiating a marriage between two people. It is long, rambling, barely coherent and, most importantly, doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject of Muhammad's wives and children. It should be taken out or, at the VERY least, edited and re-written by someone with a firm grasp of the English language. Castrostation (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, three of those paragraphs consisted of tangential analysis that rambled on and on with no sourcing, and I agree they added no value to the section. I have removed them accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PBUH

wherever the name of our holy prophet MUHAMMAD is written you must write (PBUH) in front like MUHAMMAD(PBUH).please do it thankz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krazzyraja (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed in the archives and FAQ. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No. No we don't.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Must? No. Not even the Arabic version of this article does this. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have too. As you say "our," not everyone that goes on Wikipedia follows Islam. This is the first time I've ever heard about this too... Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the article about this at Peace be upon him (Islam). Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia discourages using PBUH, as it is considered disrespectful. Jarkeld (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have all been trolled - Drthatguy (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Some Famous Quotes About Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh)

Bernard Shaw(British philosopher): “…Savior of Humanity…..if a man like him…assume the dictatorship…of world…would succeed in solving all problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Mohammed that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is being to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”

(The Genuine Islam).

Gandhi: “…not the sword that won a place for Islam.. …rigid simplicity… his absolute trust in God… own mission..” (Young India)

Michael Hart: “…choice of Muhammad…the list… world's most influential persons…he was supremely successful…religious and secular levels." (The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History).

Edward Gibbon and SimonOakely in " History of the Saracen Empire, 'London, 1870 "The greatest success of Mohammed's life was effected by sheer moral force" "It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserve our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engrave at Mecca and Medians preserved after the revolution of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African, and the Turkish proselytes of the Qur'an...the Mohametans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man."I believe in one God and Mohammed the Apostle of God" is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image if the Deity have never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reasons and religion."

A.S.Tritton in Islam, 1951 " The picture of Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other hand is quite false." --Shkassem (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Is there a reason that there is no pop culture section? It is pretty common in wikipedia to have a pop culture section?Racingstripes (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's common on other articles isn't an argument for having such a section in this one. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is in the context of deletion debates but applies to most arguments pertaining to "other articles".

Also, pop culuture sections often turn out to be nothing more than trivia sections in disguise, and trivia is discouraged. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for something relating to this week's South Park episode, the better place for it would be either the article about the episode itself, at 201 (South Park) or Depictions of Muhammad#Recent controversies. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought of it because of the episode, and was surprised it wasn't there.Racingstripes (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally favour less pop culture sections and articles in Wikipedia, not more. We don't need lists of non-notable trivia. Reso lute 02:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Aisha was 6 when she was married and marriage was consummated when she was 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1tk6YVdiVY&feature=fvw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewwankenobi (talk • contribs) 03:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So? See Q9 of the FAQ. Reso lute 03:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

[2] ttp://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199605/the.dome.of.the.rock.htm

[1]

[2]