Talk:Muhammad/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

My last edit

DeCausa, How is it unnecessary?! please, explain your point of view.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have said "unencyclopedic". You added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" is more appropriate to devotional material and shouldn't be in the lead to this article. I also think the source is dubious. I see you've reverted me - don't do that. See WP:BRD, if you want to add seomething and you are opposed it's for you to take it to the talk page and wait till you have consensus in your favour Looking at your other additions today, I'm going to revert them as well: the lead should not contain a supposed legend that he founded the Arabian equine bloodlines! Also, it is well established that the general view is that he was primarily a merchant before he entered on his religious calling. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a bit more care with your reverts in future please, De Causa? I'm going to have to change the font size of the Arabic again. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you changed it - it makes it look extremely small to me. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be clashing with the Latin text just before it (or just after it if you're reading the Arabic, I suppose). Anyway, why I did it is not really the point. Formerip (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" because this is what the Islamic view of Muhammad is (see:^{[Quran 21:107]}).
• I added two reliable sources to support my claim that he worked primarily as a shepherd (occasionally as an employed merchant & allegedly as an equestrian). On the other hand, your claim that he worked primarily as a merchant in 583–609 CE is unsourced.
• I added (in the paragraph: Names and appellations in the Quran) the Qur'anic verse: "And We haven't sent you [O Muhammad] except as a Mercy to all the creation".
• I replaced the picture in the infobox with a featured picture.
• I added the view of the Alevis because just as the view of the Bahai's is mentioned in the lead, the view of the Alevis should be mentioned too in the lead.
• The Islamic view of Muhammad is different from the Baha'i view. This is why I separated between the two.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, what else do you want to discuss?!--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti, I think that, from an objective viewpoint, being a merchant is one of the facts about M we can be most certain of because, as well as being mentioned in Muslim sources it is also mentioned in at least one earlier non-Muslim source (pseudo-Sabeos, who is generally thought to be reliable). On the other hand, my impression is that early Muslim writers believed M to have been a shepherd when he was a boy, rather than being a shepherd as his primary occupation as an adult. On that basis, I don't think your edit here was right, although there may be sources I am not aware of.

I also don't think it is correct to put Alevis in a list along with Muslims and Bahais. Alevis consider themselves to be Muslims (whereas Bahais do not), so it wouldn't be appropriate to mention them separately as if they are not Muslims.

I don't have a problem with the change of infobox image, though. We reached a decision not to have an actual image of M in the infobox, so the image there is really just decoration, and your choice does look nicer. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, thank you for your response. Could you please show me at least one single Muslim source of the early Muslims which specifically states that Muhammad worked as a merchant in the period 583–609 CE? Please be noted that I mentioned in my edit "that he worked occasionally as an employed merchant".

As for the view of the Alevis, I think it should be mentioned in the lead just as the views of the Ahmadiyya and "Nation of Islam" are mentioned, but if you don't agree with me, then it is okay. I won't mention their view.

Do you have any other objections?--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you're not aware of any Muslim sources that say M was a merchant, or just none that give those specific dates? I wouldn't have a problem with removing the dates and just leaving the word "merchant".

I don't have any specific objections to your other edits, but maybe "last of the prophets" (or "seal", but I think some readers wouldn't understand it as easily) would reflect something that is more commonly said than "lord of the prophets". I agree that it would be OK to clarify that M doesn't mean precisely the same thing to Muslims and Bahais.

My lack of opposition shouldn't be taken as a green light, though. Please wait a reasonable time for other editors to comment. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I notified you in the comment above that I mentioned in my edits "that Muhammad worked occasionally as an employed merchant". In other words, I didn't delete the sentence. I only corrected it.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda garish, honestly, but not too hacked up about it either way. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A matter of opinion, but garish can be good. The image also has the advantage of authenticity over a design put together by a Wikipedia editor. Sincere good luck with the Gamergate thing, BTW. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ربيع and لغد: (@"Spring", i.e. you're pipelinking your name to that). My responses are:

1. I added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" because this is what the Islamic view of Muhammad is (see:^{[Quran 21:107]}) "As a Mercy to all the creation" is devotional language and inappropriate for the lead. Including it adversely affects NPOV.
2. I added two reliable sources to support my claim that he worked primarily as a shepherd (occasionally as an employed merchant & allegedly as an equestrian). On the other hand, your claim that he worked primarily as a merchant in 583–609 CE is unsourced. It's not unsourced it's in the body of the article with a citation. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of what's in the article not introduce "new" material. Most sources refer to Muhammad being a merchant and/or camel driver. Some refer to him being a shepherd in his youth but that's not the main description of him prior to his prophethood. I suggest that shepherd is mentioned in the childhood section but is not necessary in the lead. The "equestrian" legend is trivia and certainly shouldn't be in the lead. I don't know even if it is warranted in the article.
3. I added (in the paragraph: Names and appellations in the Quran) the Qur'anic verse: "And We haven't sent you [O Muhammad] except as a Mercy to all the creation". That's ok IMO.
4. I replaced the picture in the infobox with a featured picture. There's a separate discussion on that. Pictures are a sensitive issue on this article and changes should always be agreed on the talk page first. It's a very nice pic, but I think the original picture was clearer for the general reader in the context of the infobox.
5. I added the view of the Alevis because just as the view of the Bahai's is mentioned in the lead, the view of the Alevis should be mentioned too in the lead. I think this is giving undue weight to the Alawis to include it in the lead.
6. The Islamic view of Muhammad is different from the Baha'i view. This is why I separated between the two - follows on from the above comment.

DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Calligraphic Representation in Infobox

Why is there a Calligraphic representation in the infobox?

It was shown that the community consensus is that the infobox should not contain a calligraphic representation. An appended Community discussion shows that most contributors are in favor of an unveiled photo of Muhammad. If assigning a "+1" to "support", and a -1 to "oppose", option A has the largest tally in the ACD.

In addition, the vast majority of pages for prophets have their picture. I refer to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. This is despite that fact that, as with Muhammad, no one would know what these people looked like (and are definitely not likely to have been Caucasian).

rkbauer (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you perhaps misread the Muhammad images RfC? The top box, which is the consensus finding of the 3 admin panel rather clearly says "In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox." Tarc (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Calligraphic representations of Muhammad are by far the most common form, and thus must be given precedence to represent a neutral point of view. Veiled and unveiled representations are significant but minority choices, and thus receive some, but diminished representation. As noted, this has been discussed to death, and is a pretty inescapable conclusion. WilyD 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I light of this edit can Rkbauer clarify why he/she should not simply be regarded as trolling? DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see the attempts to insert the South Park image til now, that is quite beyond the pale. I've taken the liberty of informing this user about the discretionary sanctions that this article is under, so, hopefully that will suffice. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How could they find that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in, when there clearly was not? A simple tally shows that the strongest consensus was to show him unveiled. Why would they do a poll if it doesn't seem to matter?

Furthermore, how is calligraphy of Muhammad's name considered a representation of Muhammad at all? How does it being "most common" imply a neutral point of view? It seems like showing a picture of the topic (such as what is done in every every other topic, from George Washington to Rape is more neutral than showing calligraphy.

The most common depiction of Jesus is him at the last supper. Why isn't that the picture in his infobox? All of the answers I'm getting seem like excuses and cop-outs. From "the panel decided the community wants the calligraphy to be shown, even though that's not what the community decided", to "a representation that isn't really a representation is the most common one".

rkbauer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with the closing admins if you want, not here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The editors who closed that discussion were not supposed to do a simple tally. They were not supposed to count an argument 15 times if it were repeated by 15 editors, but to weigh the arguments in the context of Wikipedias rules and guidelines as best they were able to, and make their decision based on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's certainly not what a "strongest consensus" is. I'll take NeilN's suggestion. rkbauer (talk 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, if you're going to dabble in these contentious areas you need to understand Wikipedia policy, which you currently don't. On that point, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." and "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Also you should read "Wikipedia is not a democracy". DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead picture

While this is gorgeous, I'm not sure readers unfamiliar with Muhammad would know what symbols represent his name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That might be true, but I don't see how it is any more problematic than the other image in that regard, and the purpose of the infobox image isn't actually to teach people to spell something in Arabic. Formerip (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The current caption makes it clear what the picture is. 'Muhammad's name followed by his title "Apostle of God"' leaves the reader asking what is what. My two cents, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response NeilN. I think that readers unfamiliar with Muhammad should become familiar with him. Don't you agree?--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but the caption you used doesn't help with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to write a more clear caption.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, please check the image now on commons. I added an annotation on the image.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The annotation is a good idea. If the caption could point out the two phrases to the reader that'd be great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, gorgeous is the word. A real improvement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gorgeous it may be, but I liked the simple elegance of the green one better. Easier to read, not that I can actually read it. If we keep the new one, should we remove "common" from the description? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the best one ever (IIRC it was a featured image on another Wikipedia) was File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.png before copyright concerns forced it into a nearly useless extremely low-res image. The full size version was gorgeous. I could probably upload a slightly larger version that would still comply with fair use. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The image of medieval Christian reception of Muhammad

Earlier this month I put an image of the Fresco based on Dante into the article, to show how Muhammad was widely portrayed in a whole civilisation for a long part of history. It was removed because of consensus I haven't seen on not to put in "provocative" images. This was not "provocative", it's an actual part of history. It isn't a Charlie Hebdo or South Park picture (yes I know the South Park picture is ridiculously neutral, but a cartoon hardly matches religious art based on a great work of Western literature). If we're going to remove works of art of a negative nature, we may as well spring clean Otto von Bismarck, Benito Mussolini, George III of the United Kingdom amongst many, many others - unless Wikipedia has rules set in stone that Muhammad must be treated differently. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That image (I think it´s the one you mean) can be seen in the article Depictions of Muhammad, a subject interesting enough to have it´s own article (unlike for the other people you mentioned), and in my opinion it fits better there. The consensus about pictures in the Muhammed article formed after a reasonably thourough discussion here: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you mean this edit where you've added the pic and the helpful caption that the depiction "puts Muhammad in hell"? "Not provocative" is ... interesting. However, when you were reverted I'm not seeing any reference to it being called provacative, just that previous consensus decided that there should be no image at that point. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: As I explained in my comment that you removed from your own talk page two weeks ago, the relevant discussion on this matter can be found at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17#Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images. Furthermore, as I also explained, due to the contentious nature of images in this article, we don't add any new image to this article without first discussing it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Arabic Language version has no images of Mo

Why there is historical images of Mohammed and his face in English version and not Arabic, this is double-standards and kow-towing to fanatics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.6.68.5 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the Arabic Wikipedia. We have no say on content over there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The paintings here aren't "historical images", they're just artistic depictions. And there are plenty of articles here that Westerners would never allow English Wikipedia to put pictures depicting... for example a depiction of a rape. Islamic culture taboos the depiction of Muhammad, that's no different except it's a different culture.47.55.34.242 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, look at the lead picture for Rape. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Child pornography would have been a better example. A depiction of the subject anywhere in that article would run afoul of the laws of the United States and also Florida, where the Wikipedia servers reside. Therefore, you will see no depiction of child pornography in the article about it. There are some near examples that do cause offense, and have been the object of much edit-warring, such as the lead image of Virgin Killer, which caused all of Wikipedia to be banned briefly in the UK, although that image is notable all on its own as described in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

btw the servers moved to Virgina a while back, no? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Who knows, what with distributed cloud server farms so widely available now. I mentioned Florida in my earlier comment because that's what I recall the FAQ mentioned. It's probably out of date. Even so, although Virginia may have less stringent pornography laws than Florida, I doubt that depictions of actual child pornography would be tolerated on any server residing in the United States. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I live in Virginia, Amatulic. If anything, Virginia's porn laws are MORE stringent than Florida's (even drawings and other non-photographic depictions that don't involve actual children can be considered child pornography here). Not sure why I felt compelled to mention that since it's of little relevance to the discussion at hand, but boredom can prompt the most off-the-wall research at times. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2015

sir, As there is prohibition of paintings and statue depicting Prophet Mohammed (PUH) in Islam. Please remove paintings showing Prophet Mohammed (PUH). Farazmr (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Farazmr: Not done: Please see the box near the top of this page, beginning "Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead change

I apologize if I brought this up before as my memory is terrible. I propose removal from the lead of the "Muslims discuss Muhammad and other prophets of God with reverence, adding the phrase "peace be upon them" whenever their names are mentioned" as it is mentioned briefly in a single section. I feel that two references and an image don't exactly make it notable enough for the lead of a 150k article. If everyone else believes it important enough to maintain I won't contest it, but I am trying to do another quick scrub to make this hopefully smaller and ready for FA attempt. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I will include a full rewrite proposal as a few other places can be fine tuned. I will try to get that finished up in the next hour. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 – 8 June 632[1]), full name Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم), from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. Believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 1] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[2][n 2] While non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets in Islam.[4][5][6][7]

Born approximately in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[9][10] Muhammad was orphaned at an early age and raised under the care of his paternal uncle Abu Talib. After his childhood Muhammad primarily worked as a merchant.[11] Periodically he would retreat to a cave in the mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer; later, at age 40, he reported at this spot,[9][12] that he was visited by Gabriel and received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to Him is the only way (dīn)[n 3] acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to other Islamic prophets.[13][14][15]

Muhammad gained few followers early on, and met hostility from some Meccan tribes. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia; later he and his followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed. He destroyed pagan idols in the city[16] and sent his followers to destroy all remaining pagan temples in Eastern Arabia.[17][18] In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from the Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. Before his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.[19][20]

The revelations (each known as Ayah, lit. "Sign [of God]"), which Muhammad reported receiving until his death, form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the "Word of God" and around which the religion is based. Besides the Quran, Muhammad's teachings and practices (sunnah), found in the Hadith and sira literature, are also upheld by Muslims and used as sources of Islamic law (see Sharia). While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and other premodern contexts were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable.[15][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivanir2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tivanir2. After omitting the line, I think your version is better than the current version. However, both versions seem to give undue weights to Ahmadiyya and Bahai faiths, both of which are tiny minorities, each less than 0.5% of the Muslims. So if we are to add weights to views held by tiny minorities of the Muslims, we must also add all other views, e.g. the view of the Alevis (whose population seems a few million higher than either of these two minorities, or at least not lower than either of them), who believe in the unity of Muhammad with both God and Ali ibn Abi Talib. So I think the lead, currently giving undue weight to Bahais and Ahmadis but ignoring Alevis, needs to be made balanced. Khestwol (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid giving undue weights in the lead, as per WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS the solution is to either also add Alevi and other views, or remove all the tiny minority views. Whichever option maybe considered better. Khestwol (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the original consensus was to limit it to two as it was mostly suppose to highlight differences in the various faiths but I would have no issues with that. I would like to see other people weigh in because I am at best a periodic editor as my primary job keeps me busy for the majority of my time. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can not see any consensus. I recently saw an editor trying to add Alevis to the lead in fact, but one user reverted him. Where is the consensus discussed? Khestwol (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed a few archives back and gets rehashed on a semi regular basis. Like I said I would not have an issue including it, but I am just one editor of many so I tend to wait for additional people to weigh in and discuss. Tentatively I would be in support of the change currently as I do not see it causing any problems with the article as it stands. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for supporting the addition. For more info on the Alevi view of Muhammad, here is one article I just found: Haqq-Muhammad-Ali. Khestwol (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not include Bahai or Alevi because it would be providing undue weight. The lead is a summary of the article and as Bahai gets one sentence right at the end of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead. Mbcap (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the undue weight problem can be fixed either way. 1.) Mentioning the Alevi view (in the lead); or 2.) removing the Ahmadi and Bahai views. Khestwol (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although I have no objection to mentioning in a footnote, as is currently being done for the Ahmadiyya Muslims. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As no one else has weighed in I will go ahead with changing it to a footnote and rewording the lede. If I mess it up feel free to revert it has been a while since I have done any major editing so I might be rusty. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike that I will suggest a change as how to modify a note escapes me at the moment. I believe the rewrite should look something like this:

• Believed by Muslims[n 1] to be a messenger and prophet of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 2] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind. n 2 would be the current n 1 and the new n 1 would state that this includes the Bahá'ís, Alevis and other religions that recognize Muhammad as a prophet and declare themselves Muslim. Thoughts?

As Bahai faith is almost always discussed as one of four major Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia, and as Muhammad is an important prophet in Bahaism, the lead should mention it. Also, Ahmadiyya sect makes a very important distinction and shall be there in Lead too. However, Alevi and other Sufi views are too complex to be succinctly presented and do not warrant that much weight. But, I don't either see much discussion of Sufi view in the entire article either. Also note that, Sufisms are considered branches of Islam, while Bahaism is a different religion. So, I posit, I present Bahai and Ahmadiyta view succinctly in lead and leave branches of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Sufi etc, even Aharejtes, Alavis) to be discussed in later sections. About PBUH/SAW, we may add a note in the lead. – nafSadh did say 18:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Bahai is not "almost always discussed as one of four major Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia." Even the article Abrahamic religions devotes discussion to the three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I disagree that the lead should mention it, Ahmadiyya, or any other minor sect. A footnote currently devotes space to that, and a footnote is where it belongs. A footnote is also the appropriate place to add a note about PBUH/SAW, not the lead. This is a biography article. Discussion of various religious beliefs, particularly minor ones, is at best tangential to the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ta'if Statement Needs Revision

The following statement needs revision: "Muhammad then visited Ta'if, another important city in Arabia, and tried to find a protector, but his effort failed and further brought him into physical danger."

A main purpose of the journey to Ta'if was to invite people to Islam. I think this should be mentioned. The physical attacks followed after inviting people to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015

Please add "Peace be upon him" after his name, that is for the respect that all Muslims use after the prophet's name. As, somehow, it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_%28Islam%29

Thanks,

135.23.135.144 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done, please see the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thanks, Nakon 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"unified"?

The first sentence contains false information. Arabia was not unified under Muhammad. There was intermittent combat during Muhammad's reign. And shortly after his death there were the Ridda wars. Plus Muhammad himself described several of his subjects as "munafiq" which means antagonist. Thefore the first sentence needs to be altered. Anyone with even a semblance of knowledge on Islamic history knows that there was no unity. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't say he unified Arabia, and doesn't say that this happened during his life. The lead says that Muhammad "unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam" (emphasis mine). Unity in religion doesn't necessarily equate to peace and tranquility. Do you have an alternative suggestion to offer? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic: There was no religious unity either. The very word "munafiq" means someone who pretends to be Muslim. Therefore there were religious pretenders back then. I propose changing the lead sentence to "was a man from Mecca who is believed by Muslims and baha'is to be a messenger and prophet of God". Full stop. Get rid of the entire "unified" nonsense. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the archived discussion that led to the formulation of the existing sentence: Talk:Muhammad/Archive 26#Lead sentence alternatives. That discussion was more focused on the best way to rephrase the lead without using the contentious term "founder". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Full name of Muhammad

Shouldn't the arab ط in al-Muṭṭalib be طّ (with shaddah) like Abdul-Muttalib (عبد المطّلب)? Reference 1, below the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Muttalib, argues for a double of that T.82.75.153.10 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks likely, yes. I'll let someone with better insights make the edit if it should be made, but the IP's suggestion looks right.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Shaddah is modifier and is not mandatory part of Arabic writing. Such modifiers are used to help readers -- and there is no universal standard of using such modifiers. Hence, the name of Muhammad is written purely in Arabic letters only without any modifiers. Hence, it is rather safe to keep the names as it is now. – nafSadh did say 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Architect?

Should this be included? Ping I'm feeling slightly mellow. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not see any support for "architect" in the body of the article. Khestwol (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He may have promoted new elements of building design (or not), but I don't think it is usual to so describe him. This partisan account doesn't do so, nor mention much in the way of specifics. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

Dear Wikipedia, us Muslims believe that prophet Muhammad does not have any pictures/drawings and we completely refuse any drawing of him, I personally feel really really insulted to see that the website is ignoring this fact and is posting rough, ugly drawings of prophet Muhammad himself that doesn't add any information and doesn't have any creditable sources, and so, I am kindly requesting the staff to remove this images, and I sincerely hope you take my request into consideration... 5.156.128.38 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. You can probably guess that you are not the first person to raise this issue. After a lengthy discussion, which you can read here, Wikipedia has made a decision that it feels it is appropriate to include some images of Muhammad in the article. If you do not personally want to see the images in the article, we have provided an option of hiding them from view, which you can do by clicking on the link at the top of the article. Formerip (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

this article is too rough and it hinders the belief ofone third people of world

SSafee ADNAN (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested any specific changes.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, only less than 1/4th of the world's population is Muslim. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

Kindly Add ﷺ after name of Muhammad ﷺ Adeelkhan87 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia's Manual of Style discourages adding honorifics after names, as the absence is more neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Full name

I think the name should also include "(peace be upon him)" A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a part of his name, it is an honorific. For the reason that your suggestion has to be declined, please read WP:PBUH. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

confused

"The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; many of the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context.[32][33]" Bennett's book says that the quran lacks history about the prophet but doesn't say that "the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context". Please EXPLAIN kindly A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) @ User:Tarc

Actually it insults the Quran A.A.Wasif | Talk 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Insults the Quran" is not possible, because the Quran is just an inanimate object. And Bennet's book isn't the only reference cited. Even so, the odd English vernacular used in that sentence suggests it was copied and pasted from the source, and should be changed. Unfortunately I don't have either source for verification. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the source on google books here: Muhammad and the Origins of Islam By Francis E. Peters. p. 261.

And Bennett's book here: In Search of Muhammad. pp. 18–16.

please check

Guess what I waited 3 days for a reply. I am going to remove that line now.The 2 references dont say anything about the "the utterances recorded in the Quran lack(ing) historical context" and i think that it is okay to remove it. Before putting it back again check the references. please. I am not going to sit and watch this DRAMA.A.A.Wasif | Talk 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert. I've just checked the Clinton Bennett work you linked to and it clearly states, right at the top of page 19: "Thus the Qu'ran does not, as it were, tell Muhammad's story - we cannot deduce from it when he was born or when he began to preach." That would support the claim that the Quran lacks historical context. Dolescum (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah the Quran doesn't tell about many stories about many prophets because it's not necessary, not because it lacks historical context. So if I were to say that the Quran doesn't tell a prophets's story, does it mean that the Quran lacks historical context? QURAN IS A GUIDING BOOK, NOT A HISTORY BOOK TO CONTAIN ALL THE STORIES OF ALL THE PROPHETS. I SUGGEST YOU USE YOUR BRAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Al Wasif (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, it seems. It's not that the Quran should "tell many stories about many prophets", its that there are no dates or mentions of specific dates or persons / events that can be attested to in the records of other documents. Take the crucifixion of Isa as a counter-example, the religious texts directly mention the presence of Pontius Pilate in those events. Pilate's existence is attested to in the independent Roman writings of the period such as those of Tacitus. Thus, there is historical context.

Might I also point out that insulting my intelligence is quite rude. Behave yourself. Dolescum (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am going to delete this sentence because we cannot synthesise information. Dolescum you have used a sentence in the source to state that "that would support the claim that the Quran lacks historical context. Please could you provide a reference which states "the Quran lacks historical context". I will self-revert if a source is found. Mbcap (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've taken a quick look on scholar. Would this text prove sufficient? To quote: "Because the Quran provides almost no historical context for any of its passages". Two citations on scholar. I'm still digging, though. Dolescum (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dolescum, a military propaganda journal does not quality to be a reliable source. I agree with Mbcap and Abdullah Al Wasif, the statement was unsupported in RS and we better delete it. Khestwol (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a military journal, not a military "propaganda" journal. And for the assertion in question, it cites a clearly reliable and authoritative source: Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (New York: Oxford UP, 1999), page 70. That same author has also published in peer reviewed scholarly journals: Reuven Firestone, “Conceptions of Holy War in Biblical and Qur’_nic Tradition,” Journal of Religious Ethics 24.1 (1996). The source is reliable enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a very controversial statement, either, so I don't understand the fuss. Who believes that the Quran provides a historical context for any substantial subset of the utterances it quotes? That's a completely different thing from saying those utterances are false, or misreported, or anything, it's just that there's no information that says that a particular statement was made at some particular time in relation to some other event.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Abdullah Al Wasif:, You already said it, "NOT A HISTORY BOOK"; listen to yourself. Also note that, Wikipedia is not a religious text, but written from a WP:NPOV. – nafSadh did say 23:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Nafsadh I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. I just removed the sentence because it was unsupported by the citations. the citations clearly dont say anything about Quran lacking historical context. I think that sentences which are unsupported by the citations should be removed. How is that related to me disputing with NPOV. Couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

"Also note that, Wikipedia is not a religious text, but written from a WP:NPOV" Yeah i understand WP is not a religious text but what were you trying to say. I know exactly what I'm doing here and that is removing unsupported material. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 09:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we don't have a language barrier here. A.A.Wasif, can you explain to me what you think the text you keep removing means? It's quite obviously a true statement: the Quran doesn't identify the historical context for statements that would allow the reader to precisely know when and where they were said.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text a little bit. I hope both parties will be happy nowFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that appears far worse. It would imply that there are a significant number of scholars that believe that the Quran does provide sufficient material to provide a historical reconstruction. I don't think there's anyone that believes that.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is an entire field of study dedicated to the historical contexts of Quran. You can google Asbab al-nuzul anytime you want. I dont want to get into a long drawn out discussion. You can see for yourself that the study of Asbab al-nuzul has been ongoing since antiquity.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt that studies to place the Quran into historical context are ongoing, or that most of the events documented in the Quran have a historical basis. That's quite different from saying that the Quran itself provides that information. After all, if it did, it wouldn't be a topic of continuous study.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello FreeatlastChitchat thank you for the last edit, it appears a much more accurate generalization now. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way is it more accurate? Could you please address my objections?—Kww(talk) 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that the Holy Quran is historic. Simple as that. even then I am not outright deleting your text as you can see from my edits.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The text you modified doesn't contradict that: it simply says that the Quran doesn't provide all the information necessary to place its contents in context. This is what I was saying earlier: it seems apparent that the objections are to something the text doesn't say, and your "corrections" have made it worse.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The text I modified contradicts the historicity of the Quran. I did not want to outright favor one point of view so in order to maintain a NPOV I edited the text to say that some scholars think that Quran does not give historical context. What is your argument btw. Should the text say that Quran is not historical? Should it say that it is historical? or should it talk the middle path?. My text is the middle way, if you want to favour one POV please tell me which oneFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it did not say that the Quran isn't historical, it said that it lacks historical context, and it said that quite well and quite neutrally. The Quran doesn't provide sufficient information for us to provide dates for its major events: historians still argue over when Muhammed was born, when he died, when his ministry began, when he believed that Gabriel appeared to him, the dates of his various marriages. It's widely agreed by Muslims and non-Muslims that the Quran is founded in historical fact, but it doesn't provide enough detail to allow its contents to be precisely placed in history.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And I said that there are sources which say that the Holy Quran does have historical context. Therefore the NPOV is to say that some scholars claim that it lacks contextFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source that indicates the contents of the Quran can be accurately placed in world history? There's certainly not any consensus among historians as to that. Any source that claims it has dated all the events in the Quran would fall afoul of WP:FRINGE, as not even most Islamic scholars make that claim.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be fringe? There is an entire page of such sources which tell you which Qur'anic verse is about which event. I guided you towards that page earlier.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why I think we have a language barrier: you point at things that support my position and use them to support yours. Asbab al-nuzul describes efforts to reconstruct a historical context for the Quran, and to separate the history from the exegetical. The very fact that this needs to be an field of active study, with the results being debated by different historians that come to different conclusions, says that the Quran itself does not provide sufficient historical context to allow its contents to be placed in history. That's all the original text that you modified said, and it said it well and neutrally.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is certainly a language barrier. This also indicates that, we might have to find a better wording to express the same thing so as to make it understandable to wider audience without getting them confused. – nafSadh did say 18:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, User:Nafsadh. I also have to agree with User:Kww, as per his last comment. Everyone: no one is denying that the Qu'ran has historical value, and can inform historical events. But so far as I'm aware, there is no unanimous agreement on the historical context of individual Suras, their transmission, or even the chronological order of said chapters. All of these are hotly debated, by religious, secular, and skeptical scholars alike (albeit for varying reasons and using different methodologies). That this issue exists in such magnitude obviously validates what Kww saying. There are no shortages of reliable sources saying this. I found several in just a few minutes. Though, to be honest, the original sources were perfectly valid for that purpose... If you want more, that can be done quite easily. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we seriously discussing whether the Qur'an is a 'historical' source per se? I thought most modern scholars viewed it as a syncretic blend of Judaeo-Christian mythology, mixed with selective elements of Arabian paganism (i.e. djinn) to be perfectly honest...almost everything in it is copied or at least heavily influenced by the Jewish Tanakh. Politicogarn (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the historical events it recounts, certainly. Even if you reject the religious interpretations, there's no particular doubt that Muhammad existed, that he said he was visited by Gabriel, and that he conquered a large territory using an army that was motivated by the belief that he spoke for a supernatural entity.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We are seriously way beyond from where we started our discussion. Let us focus on whether (and if so) how to rephrase the very sentence in question. Not to mention, it is some hundred sentence talk about *half a sentence*. – nafSadh did say 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not really so confusing. See, I didnot even read the Quran and maybe you did not as well and yet here we are fighting over an issue we may not even have the slightest possible knowledge. Just to answer your question Kww it was written that most of the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context but the source failed to specify which utterance(s). You tell me which utterances and I promise I will self revert. I also agree with nafsadh. But I think that it is best to just keep it from from where I left it. Expressing the same thing with different wording would not confuse people but would need to have a strong source supporting it. And that's all I ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Al Wasif (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Quinto Simmaco please tell me how the source supports the statement "

and some scholars are of the view that some of it's verses lack historical context" the source does not say that and also fails to specify which verses. Please, for my satisfaction's sake tell me one such verse since you say that you can find more sources. Thanks A.A.Wasif | Talk 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The onus is not on us editors to do original research (finding verses), but rather, to report what reliable sources say. The source for the statement is in Peters, pages 259 and 261. In fact, the entire section is on that. Bennett is simply citing Peters, and agreeing in part. Similar claims can be found in the "Encyclopedia of Islam" itself, (ref: Raven, W. (1997). "SĪRA". Encyclopaedia of Islam 9 (2nd ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 660–3. ISBN 90-04-10422-4.) Donner, (ref: Donner 1998, p. 125) and Hoyland (ref: Hoyland, Robert G (1998). Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin. p. 591. ISBN 0878501258.) To be perfectly honest, given that the original source clearly supports the material, and since your initial raising of this issue was on the basis that it "insults the Qu'ran", I am personally wondering whether this isn't in reality an RNPOV issue. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Quinto Simmaco Thanks. A.A.Wasif | Talk 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will appreciate a more neutral wording. Though unless some user shows the assertion "many verses lack historical context" is well supported in reliable sources we may have to use FreeatlastChitchat's wording I think. Khestwol (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a neutral wording, well supported by sources. I don't know how anyone that has studied the Quran at all would believe that most of its material is supplied with historical context. It's a spiritual and religious tome, not a history text, and there's still controversy about the chronological order of its material, much less the dates. The people objecting seem to be reading the text as saying the Quran is false or some similar reading. Since that's not what the text says, it's hard to take the objections at face value.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think anyone who studied Quran would believe that most of its material is supplied with historical context. But here AAW, who put forward the question, admitted that he didn't study it. He also asserts, he doesn't have slightest possible knowledge of the matter in question, while assuming none of the other editors either. So, please lets close the debate unless someone can find a more "understandable" (a.k.a. less offensive!) write. But there is no substantial source that warrants removal of the (part of) sentence. – nafSadh did say 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kww and Nafsadh. It's perfectly clear that the statement is sourced and that some users don't like it is of no relevance whatsoever. Further edit warring or discussion based on personal objections rather than respecting WP:RS could be seen as disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am trying a rephrase. – nafSadh did say 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

4 Concubines

According to the page for Maria_al-Qibtiyya, in Ibn al-Qayyim's biography the prophet is said to have had 4 concubines; should this be mentioned in the article? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Dear admin, Kindly hide the face of prophet Muhammad[pbuh] in the images. Let me know if any assistance required. MohamedZameer74 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See /FAQ. Wikipedia is not censored. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Daughters

According to most Twelver Shia Fatima was his only daughter. The other three were raised by him but were not his. The info box should indicate this in some way. Ashkljma (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source before claiming he had one daughter. No reliable source says he had one daughter. Khestwol (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a crazy thing. As discussed at Khadija bint Khuwaylid#Shia view and Genealogy of Khadijah's daughters, there is a view in Shia Islam that Zainab, Ruqayyah, and Umm Kulthum were either Khadija's children from a prior marriage or the children of Khadija's sister. In either case, Muhammad raised them as his own. Sunnis generally accept that all of these were Muhammad's biological daughters (along with Fatima, whose parentage isn't disputed). Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Still, the number of daughters in the infobox should depend on history-related reliable sources only. Khestwol (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Such sources as may claim to say that only one daughter was "true" are fringe and therefore not worthy of being included in the article.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And which sources are those? It's not like we have their birth certificates. It's an ancient disagreement, and pretty much any source is going to end up going back to either Shia or Sunni traditions. Dragons flight (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashkljma, you are also putting your personal WP:POV, unsupported by any reliable source, in the article Battle of Uhud. Khestwol (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, I am trying to make Wikipedia more neutral

Why do you suggest that Sunni sources are reliable and Shia sources are not? Not only is this offensive it is against WP:POV. 15% is a significant minority and Shia and Sunni sources should be weighted equally.Ashkljma (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It is only about scholarly sources, it is not about Sunni-Shia sectarianism. We have included both Sunni and Shia views in the section "successors" in the infobox. But we cannot do so here, unless the alternate Shia view could be supported per the policy WP:RS. Khestwol (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a Shia sunni conflict. This is merely a sourcing issue. Content which is present in reliable sources that are not fringe sources will be accepted in the article no matter what the POV. secondary sources are always biased to a certain degree. You can yourself see in the article that the section about succession has been created where Shiite views have been mentioned, the section is linked to the article abour succession where even more shia views are given. So saying that Shia views don't get mentioned in the article is just not true. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, 5 April 2015

Kindly remove the part after and including section 8.2. The mentioned sections contain views such as "similar to an idol or a heathen god" and "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again" and also "always the imposter" These are statements which go against what Muslims believe and want to portray, and the article is about Islam. Muslims as a body should be allowed to give the world the image they want to give, and this is not what the image is. People with authority and high positions may like to have evil images and pages (containing stories etc whatever) on the web about themselves removed, msulims would like the same.

86.36.65.57 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Reason. Non-Muslim views of the Holy Prophet May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him are what "non " muslims have written. As muslims we cannot dictate what others have written. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this article is not about Islam, or about representing someone's religious preferences. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/FAQ should be WP:Muhammad/FAQ

Please see this thread to comment. Thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

White supremacist is neither WP:DUE nor "historical Christian"

A user repeatedly inserts a long section sourced only to a white supremacist in the section on Historical Christian Views. First of all, it's obviously misplaced. How is a contemporary supremacist a "historical Christian"? Second, is this really due here? I'd argue it's wildly WP:UNDUE and that there is no reason to report (at length) the opinion of this person. Third, the user who keeps inserting it has not provided any reason, and blatantly ignores WP:BRD.Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was my edit here. I request you all to check it whether it was right or not.Sharif uddin (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please indent your answers. Despite numerous calls for an explanation of why you feel a contemporary supremacist is a "historical Christian", and why this is WP:DUE, you just keep commenting without engaging in the discussion. What's your reasoning?Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I added some line in the article and a user rollbacker rollbacked the edit here. Should I revert my edit and was my edit appropriate? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I already started a discussion above. No, your edit was not appropriate, as I explain above. (And I did not rollback the edit, I reverted it and explained why.)Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, Napolean Bonaparte was not also a christian historical but his compliment has been mentioned here. How do you explain it? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You link to a Tamil film actor (Nepolean) and I don't find any opinion from any Tamil film actor in the article. And once again, please indent you answers properly.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Napolean Bonaparte.Sharif uddin (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[287] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[288][289] Sharif uddin (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And what is your argument? You added a whole paragraph about a white supremacist, and you defend it with the argument that we have a a short sentence about Napoleon? Apart from the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, one of the most famous persons in history is infinitely more DUE here than some white supremacist.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If we could stop nitpicking Sharif uddin's spelling for a moment? Napolean is an extremely notable historical figure. Hart is an obscure author/white supremacist. The two opinions have greatly differing weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have objection in adding a para, instead may I add the first line only? Sharif uddin (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it WP:DUE?Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"famous book" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The harts book is very very famous in muslim world. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC) It is also famous in the non-muslim world also. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's no doubt moderately famous as its author has a Wiki page Sure (though I've never heard about it, but that's no argument) but we could find a lot of famous books and famous people's opinions about Muhammad. Literally hundreds that are even more famous. So why this book in particular?Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please provide references that attest to the book's stature and reputation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not listing a racist's opinion alongside those of Leibniz and Napoleon, i.e. historical people of some renown. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2015

Dear editors,

Request: I ask you to kindly replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" or the word "idolaters".

Reason: Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed in one God like the Jews and Christians, but they associated with him sons, daughters, and partners whom they considered to be their intercessors with God. This pre-Islamic belief is quite evident in several verses of the Qur'an like:

Qur'an 39:3 it is to God alone that sincere obedience is due. And those who take other guardians besides Him say, "We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to God." Surely, God will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. God does not guide anyone who is bent on lying and is a disbelieving liar.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Qur'an 12:106 and most of them, even when they profess belief in God, attribute partners to Him.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed, for example, that the angels are the daughters of God:

Qur'an 17:40 What! Has your Lord then favoured you with sons and Himself adopted females from among the angels? What you say is monstrous.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Notes:

• The Arabic word for pagans is وثنيون/Wathaniyyoon. This word has never been used in any Arabic sourcebook to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians.
• The Arabic word for associaters is مشركون/Mushrikoon. This is actually the word used in the Qur'an, the books of Hadiths, the Arabic literature and the Arabic history to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Although it is common in the West to translate the Arabic word "مشركون/Mushrikoon" into the English word "pagans", this translation is false and could result in a corrupted cross-cultural understanding.

Further explanation:

• The religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians was quite similar to the religion of Sabians. Sabians believe in one God. However, they associate 360 powerful "semi-gods/idols" with him. They believe that the 360 act as mediators between God and the creation. It is well known that pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians had 360 idols too. There are also other similarities like the veneration of angels and stars.

Loved & Beloved (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say,  Not done. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English terms as commonly understood by English speakers. There is nothing wrong with the word "pagan" in the context of this article, although in some instances the word, used as an adjective, could be removed without harming the meaning of the text.

In historical contexts, a "pagan" is simply a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. It can also mean someone who has polytheistic religious beliefs. It doesn't really matter what the Quran says, what Hadith books say, or whether an Arabic word was mistranslated to "pagan" because we are not using those sources in this article (nor should we). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Reason. Islamic sources have translated the Word مشركون as pagans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated the first verse of Surah A-tawbah as 'A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-' (ref: Ali, Yusuf. "I-Tawbah verse 1". Quranic Arabic corpus. Retrieved 5 April 2015.)

Translating the word مشركون/Mushrikun into the word pagans is common in the West (among both Muslims and non-Muslims). This is why Yusuf Ali translated it in this way. However, you can see that most of the translators used the words "associaters"/"idolaters"/"polytheists" instead the word "pagans".

• (The translation of Maududi) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of disavowal by Allah and His Messenger to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity and with whom you have made treaties
• (The translation of Daryabadi) Qur'an 9:1 Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.
• (The translation of Pickthall) Qur'an 9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
• (The translation of Wahiduddin Khan) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists, with whom you had made agreements.
• (The translation of Saheeh International) Qur'an 9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

The most accurate translation is "associaters". "idolaters" & "polytheists" are acceptable translations, but translating the word "Mushrikun", which is derived from the Arabic word "shirk", into the word "pagans" is truly a corrupted translation. The Arabic word for pagans is quite different form the Arabic word for associaters.

"Pagans" is specifically used to describe those who don't believe in the Abrahamic God & in the common aspects among the Abrahamic religions such as the existence of angels and demons. It is not acceptable to use this word to describe the Sabians, for example, or the Yazidis, or the Mormons, or the adherents of similar religions. Being an Abrahamic idolater is not the same as being non-Abrahamic at all.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Still  Not done. Reason. Pagan has been translated as 'An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion' in This Reliable Dictionary. Therefore you cannot drag out this semantic debate unless you provide a source which contradicts this dictionary and is equally, if not more, reliable. your own POV and Original Research does not count as source.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Idolater" has also been translated as "One who worships idols" in the same reliable dictionary you cited. Thus, the word "idolaters" is as correct as the word "pagans" per the reliable dictionary you cited. The question is "which one is more practically used?!" you provided one single translation of Yusuf Ali and said to me: "look! here is it", so I came to you with 5 more reliable translations and said to you: "look! here are they".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly being a mushrik does not mean that one has to worship idols, I have no idea where you got that from. Worshipping anything other than one single God will get a person under the heading of mushrik in Arabic. A person who does not believe that there are multiple gods but rather he believes in angels or whatever will not get under this heading per say. I think this is why you have been mistaken. There is a huge difference between 'God' and 'demigod'. So as idol worship is not required for a person to be a mushrik the term idolaters is not going to work(A person who worships the sun is a mushrik but not an idolater). The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-Islamic non-Arabic Western source which acknowledges what I saw saying concerning the fact that pre-Islamic Arabians were "associaters":

Even in pre-Islamic times Allah was distinct at Mecca because he had no idol. But idols had come to be associated with him and this was the issue in the Islamic reform. Thus at first Muhammad was not concerned with regulating the life of a community of believers ... but rather with reforming the beliefs and practices of his fellow Meccans. "Reforming" is a more appropriate term than "converting", because the Qur'an also reveals ... that the worship of Allah was already well established there before Muhammad. What was at question, then, was not simply belief in or worship of Allah, which the Quraysh certainly did, but the Meccans' "association" as the Qur'an calls it, of other deities with Allah, a practice that seemed to accept the existence of other gods in the "exalted assembly" while at the same time denying that they had any autonomous power, though perhaps they could help men if God so willed. It was thus the associationism (Arabic: al-Shirk) of the associaters (al-Mushrikun) which was the object of Muhammad's and Islam's condemnation of what was going on in the Kaabah and his religious revolution consisted essentially of removing the associated "gods" which were detracting from the uniqueness of Allah. Polytheists were condemned on this basis; Christians escaped full condemnation since theirs was a book-religion, though the Trinity was condemned for its implicit associationism. John F. Healey, ISBN 90-04-10754-1, page 84

Notice how the author called them "polytheists" & "associaters" instead of calling them "pagans".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I will just copy past what I said earlier so that it can be noticed by you, I think you did not notice it before "The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better."FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to copy paste what you said earlier. What you need to do is to notice what I said in the first place. I said: "replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" OR the word "idolaters". I gave you two choices instead of one. You came to me with a translation by Yusuf Ali. I came to you with five more reliable translations than Yusuf Ali. You asked for a secondary reliable source. I gave you what you asked for: John F. Healey, who is neither Arab nor Muslim, used the terms "associationism" & "associaters" to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabians. If you insist on disputing the legal usage of the word "associaters" because of your dictionary, then you should not dispute the legal usage of the second choice I presented; that is the word "idolaters".

To be noticed here is that your argument -that the word "idolaters" can't be an appropriate translation of the word "Mushrikun"- is your own Original Research and POV. You didn't present any reliable source to back up your argument. According to the "reliable dictionary" you used, an idol is: a-An image used as an object of worship/ b-a false god/ c-any being (other than the one God) to which divine honour is paid. This means that the term "idol" can be applied to describe a demigod or a false god; which means that the usage of the term "idolaters" to describe the pre-Islamic Arabians is quite fine.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, "associaters" isn't a word, so you aren't really offering a choice here. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Loved & Beloved do you read my comments before replying? I'll just 'copy paste' the reasons as to why your inclusion of idolaters and associaters is not possible.

1)Let us discuss idolaters first. Now according to all dictionaries idolaters is a term used to describe worshipping of idols. This is not a POV, this is in every single dictionary. The very word is derived from idol. So this word cannot be used in place of "Mushrikon" because a person who is "Mushrik" may not worship an idol but still have more than one god. Like the people who worship the sun, moon and the stars. Therefore the word 'Pagan' is a better choice. FYI no word of one language can be translated into another completely with all its meanings and the word Pagan is the best translation, a whole lot better than idolaters. But if you find a dictionary which is reliable and says that idolaters can be used for a person who worships multiple gods no matter what kind, we will be happy to accomodate you.

2)Associaters is not in the dictionary dude. I checked and rechecked. Link me the one you are using. No disrespect but i cannot find it in the free online, oxford or webster. Perhaps there is some obscure dictionary giving this term, link it please.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am still very convinced that the word "Abrahamic idolaters" is far more accurate than the word "pagans" in the description of pre-Islamic Arabians. It is clearly evident that the Prophet Muhammad didn't face any problem in preaching the "Abrahamic God" to the Arabians or in calling them to believe in Abraham and his son Ishmael: They (the pre-Islamic Arabians) were already believers in them. The hard mission for Muhammad was actually to make them believe that the idols whom they associated with the "Abrahamic God" are false.

Since the word "pagans" is not practically used to describe "those who believe in the Abrahamic God", I am going to replace the word myself with the word "idolaters".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

This is obvious WP:SYNTH as the Qur'an cannot "respond" to anything written after it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was initially just going to modify it instead of revert it, but I'm not going to restore it.

• "declared himself to be the Messenger of God" carries a sense that he was stating a fact, while "since he claimed prophethood" is neutral
• "He has been criticized by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries" makes no chronological sense. Are folks from his time still alive? "had been" is more accurate.
• The Quran is a primary source, and so needs a non-primary source for any interpretation.

And looking into it further, the source cited is not the most academic source, and while it does say that Muhammad preached the equality of humankind, it does not say that he was criticized for that idea in particular. If the material is restored, I will revert it instead of modifying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All we really need is a summarization of the lead of Criticism of Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, Tarc. Khestwol (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

Sar777 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC) remove all image

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

lol, smooth 77.165.250.227 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove pictures from this site - Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015

Hi, There, please remove imaginary picture (Painting picture of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam). By posting picture of our Prophet you are hurting the feeling and love of followers of Last Messenger of Allah.

My humble request please remove images of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam) as this is not his real picture and no one can make his picture, without evidence please don't post pictures.

Thank you on advance, Abdul Rauf Raufsbu (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Hello! I think you misunderstand what purposes the images in the article serve. The article is not saying "this is what Muhammad looks like". The images are there to show how people in the past have depicted Muhammad. Also, Wikipedia does not censor its content for anyone's beliefs. I'd suggest you take a look at this page for more on that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the notice at the top of the page, as well as the FAQ (particularly questions 1, 2, and 3). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the title into: "the Prophet Muhammad"

Just as the Christian honorific titles have been considered for the titles of the articles of Paul, Peter, Mark, Constantine I and other Christian figures, I demand that the Islamic honorific titles be considered here in the same way.--Grey 34 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Demanding is not going to get you anywhere. AstroLynx (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics have been added to those other articles because they are natural disambiguators. Muhammad needs no extra detail. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreewith Grey 34 Why not? The disambiguator Muhammad the Prophet seems very natural to me. —M@sssly^✉ 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Agree, a WP:NATURAL disambiguated title like "Muhammad the Prophet" might be used as title. Other ambiguous titles in high need of natural disambiguators: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Wikipedia should not have ambiguous titles as per its own policy of using commonly recognizable names as title. Khestwol (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, there is no need for a disambiguated title. Jesus is at Jesus, not Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ the Savior and we have a Jesus (disambiguation) page, similar to Muhammad (disambiguation). The articles named in the original post have disambiguated titles because they are not the primary topics for the names Paul, Mark, and Peter. Those arguing for a name change do not seem to understand Wikipedia's naming policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jesus is not as commonly used as Muhammad for other meanings than the original meaning. Thousands of notable and millions of othrr people use(d) "Muhammad" as given name, or a first name. Khestwol (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Please name one other "Muhammad" that comes close to this subject in terms of notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • As per Google Books search, the 2nd, 7th, and 8th results while searching for "Muhammad" was for Muhammad Ali. Other notable "Muhammads" include thousands of others. The disambiguation page Muhammad (disambiguation) is poorly written, it misses many people who are called Muhammad and who have their articles on Wikipedia so we can expand that page too. Khestwol (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Note I put "Muhammad" in quotes. One name. Not two. All your books call him "Muhammad Ali", not just "Muhammad" on its own. In fact, the Google books search shows "Muhammad" on its own is actually used for the prophet Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
          • There have been billions of men who bore the name "Muhammad" around the world and throughout the last 14 centuries. A very great number of them were reputable ones. So, if the policy of using "natural disambiguators" is needed in the article of "the Christian Apostle" Paul, then it must certainly be needed in the article of "the Muslim Apostle" Muhammad. There is no need for a double-standard policy toward Islam-related articles, Mr or Mrs NeilN.--Grey 34 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Hyperbole is of little use here. Again, name one "Muhammad" that comes close to this subject in terms of notability. I would also point out that Jesus is a popular name in Hispanic culture but Jesus is at Jesus because none approach the notability of the religious figure. There is no reason to ignore our naming policies for Islamic subjects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP does have a bit of a point; why is Mark's article title Mark the Evangelist, not Mark (evangelist), if all this is is a case of disambiguation concerns/needs? At least from an outside point-of-view here, it looks like bias towards Western religion. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NATURAL plays a part here. The first solution is, "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". The parentheses solution states, "Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." (emphasis mine). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Tarc. We need a WP:NATURAL disambiguator as per WP:CONSISTENCY with Paul the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, etc which use natural disambiguators too. Out of the several options that came to my mind, the most common has been "Muhammad the Prophet" as per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open a move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good reason for a move. The current title is OK in my opinion. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also oppose a page move. Faizan (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Hadith directory. Faizan (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: How is this related to "Hadith directory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssly (talk • contribs)

That is actually a silly argument, Khestwol. Because I can use your exact argument to state that we need to leave the title as-is per WP:CONSISTENCY with Jesus. NeilN is correct here. There is no need for any disambiguation for this article. Tarc's statement actually argues the need to move Mark, Peter, Paul, etc's articles, not to add an honorific to this one. Resolute 13:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see that even in the articles of Jesus and Mary the terms "Jesus Christ" and "Blessed Virgin Mary" are highlighted with bold lines in the very beginning of the lead. Why then don't we highlight the term "Muhammad the Apostle of God" with bold lines in the very beginning of the lead of this article? We can say in the lead for example: Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God, a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. I won't ask to change the title anymore if you accept to include this statement in the very beginning of the lead. What do you say?--Grey 34 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey's argument is worth considering, we may add a "Peace be upon him" or "Apostle of God" since he is always referred to in that manner in the Islamic world. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

There is no picture of Mohammad in the portrait. Edit and put him in? 24.68.200.205 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed extensively already, please search the archives, and read the ArbCom case linked at the top of this page. Consensus is to use the most common depiction in the infobox, and the most common and widely-accepted depiction is calligraphic. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Critic of atheism????

I have never heard him be referred to as a critic of atheism. Of polytheism, certainly '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Eeeh. If someone wants to go down the rabbit hole, that entire category is a mess. There's an 11th century archbishop as well, which is no less anachronistic. Resolute 00:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Birth Date

The supposed birth date of Muhammad (22 April 571), proposed in the previous section, is pious fiction. Several other dates have been proposed in the past (see the archives [3]) and at best we can only say c. 570 CE. AstroLynx (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Featured article nomination suggestion

Hi. I had inserted an FA template on this article without discussion (didn't know procedure); apologies for that. So I would like to suggest that this article should have FA status; it's detailed, with sufficient inline citations and good references, and is a good article. Its written well, and despite its sensitive nature, adheres to WP:NPOV. I believe it suits FA criteria. What do you think? Please contribute and discuss and let's decide on whether to nominate this article or not. Thank you! Akhi666 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until that's cleared up. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 01:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on that and contribute if I can Akhi666 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in nominating it (or any other article, for that matter) for FA. This isn't a beauty contest in the first place, and the attention it attracts is generally disruptive and unwelcome.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If an article matches the high standards that Wikipedia aims to achieve, it obviously must be given FA status, regardless of the topic of the article. This is not about some "beauty contest". The benefit in nominating articles is clearly to point out the few that are high quality (less than 0.1% of all articles on the English Wikipedia). Akhi666 13:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this opening for the lead instead of the current one

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 22 April 571 – 8 June 632), is the central figure in Islam. Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man. Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God, a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets, a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims as an indicative that no genuine prophets will be sent after him.

Sources

What are your opinions?--Grey 34 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement about Muhammad the Apostle of God should definitely be added as per reliable sources. As for the other statements some maybe reworded with special care. The current version of the lede is giving an WP:UNDUE weight to Bahais and Ahmadis while not giving the DUE weight to sects like Alevism regarding the various religious worldviews. Khestwol (talk)

We cannot simply say "Chosen by God" in Wikipedia's voice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We have used "refers", which does not imply Wikipedia's view, the same way as "Blessed Virgin Mary" in Mary (mother of Jesus). And congrats to NeilN! --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fauzan. No objection to "refers to" but shouldn't we highlight how he's referred to in English by his followers? Isn't that "the Prophet Muhammad" rather than "Muhammad the Apostle of God"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC) By the way, "Chosen by God" refers to the second sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be up for some discussion. I think that "Apostle of god" is more common with non English speakers. Can someone gather a bit of data? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see adding things to the proposed lead but I think it needs to continue to be a quick summary of his life. I don't know if we currently have apostle of god as one of his titles, and it certainly can be added with the source, but I don't necessarily favor the section change when the current listing flows much smoother to me. I will see what I can come up with writing wise to incorporate the additions. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:NeilN here; in the English speaking world, I've never heard him referred to as "Apostle of God", except rarely, and nearly always in a laudatory or semi-laudatory manner. I've only honorific I've regulary heard paired with his name was "prophet", in the format of "the prophet Muhammad". This lede is already one of the longer ones I've seen. Most of the information suggested is already there, but much more neutrally worded. That being said, I do think that we could add some more information regarding his various honourifics (as a brief synopsis of the forked article in the original suggested change), but specifically in the "Names and appellations" section (though without the 'in the Quran' qualifier). Also, while I believe you were acting in good faith, User:Grey 34, I'm obliged to point out that your original suggested change to the lede could be seen by some editors as rather promotional toward a specific religious point of view. Not the content, per say, but the wording specifically. For your own benefit, I highly suggest that you read some of our policies, especially WP:RNPOV and WP:NOT. I sincerely apologise if that sounds a bit patronising; rather, my intention is that (as new user) you be made aware of those fundamentals so that you can become a regular and successful contributor here. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad sealed his letters with this name: محمد رسول الله, which is best translated as "Muhammad the Apostle of God"

The name "محمد رسول الله", which is commonly transliterated as "Muhammad Rasulullah", is best translated as "Muhammad the Apostle of God" although it can also be translated as "Muhammad the Messenger of Allah". This is the name with which Muhammad sealed his letters. In addition, this is the name given to him in Qur'an 33:40 and Qur'an 48:29. It doesn't matter which name of Muhammad is most commonly used in the English-speaking world. What matters is which name is most commonly used among Muslims worldwide because the proposed opening of the lead says: Islam regards Muhammad ... and refers to him as ... So it is about how Islam refers to Muhammad, not how Muhammad is commonly referred to the English-speaking world.--Grey 34 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the calligraphy in the infobox reads: "محمد رسول الله" [i.e. "Muhammad the Apostle of God"]--Grey 34 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the origin of the honourific. While we strive to present a global (yet neutral) perspective of encyclopaedic knowledge, this is the English Wikipedia. You said: "It doesn't matter which name of Muhammad is most commonly used in the English-speaking world. What matters is which name is most commonly used among Muslims worldwide..." That's not true. The lede is indeed meant to by a brief summary of the article contents, but the naming conventions used in the lead are to follow WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:HONORIFICS, and to be viewed through the lens of the English speaking world, as that is our audience (hence, for example, why we don't call ISIS something like "Islamic State", or "Da'esh"). We still include the information, and we're still encyclopaedic, but we remain neutral, and give weight to neutral, independent sources. I'm not arguing against including the information whatsoever, but rather assigning it undue weight and contravening those aforementioned policies. Your suggested edit didn't really suggest any substantially new content.

Regardless, my comment to you was regarding your rewrite, which was substantially less neutral. Especially this: "Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man." That's POV, and can't be said in Wikipedia's voice. Nor is it universally true, or what reliable sources uniformly say. That's in addition to singling out the Amahdiyyahs, indirectly, as 'non-Muslims' with "Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets", and supporting that with two unreliable sources that are apologetic in nature, against Amadhiyyahs... While we can certainly elucidate and expound upon what reliable sources say about Islamic theological views of Muhammad, and how most 'orthodox' Muslims view Amadhiyyahs, the lede paragraph of Muhammad is not the place to do it. We also absolutely cannot present a specific religious worldview in Wikipedia's voice. We need to be especially careful about being NPOV in the lede, as it is the first thing a reader sees. At all times though, need to abide by reliable sources say, without assigning undue weight to specific religious views, as per RNPOV. Any such views would need to be qualified (or quoted), being framed within their specific context. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco, I will copy and paste what I wrote before because it seems that you didn't read it or perhaps trying to ignore it: Just as the religious titles "Jesus Christ" & "Blessed Virgin Mary" are highlighted with bold lines in the opening of the lead of the articles Jesus & Mary, I proposed to mention & highlight the religious title of Muhammad in the opening of the lead of this article. That was my argument... is it clear for you?

And the religious title of Muhammad is typically: "Muhammad Rasulullah" [i.e. Muhammad the Apostle of God] just as the religious title of Jesus is "Jesus Christos" [i.e. Jesus the Messiah].

As for your claim that I have singled out the Ahmadhiyyahs, it is false. I didn't single out the Ahmadhiyyahs in the proposed opening, but it seems that you are not familiar with the topic and don't know that the Ahmadhiyyahs themselves believe, just as all other Muslims, that Muhammad is the one through whom God sealed the prophets. The only difference is in the interpretation of how Muhammad sealed the prophets. That is why I said: "a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims" and didn't say "that has been interpreted by all Muslims". This is the website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and you can read yourself on it that the Ahmadiyyas do believe that Muhammad is the Sealer of the prophets.

The current opening of the lead is very much inappropriate! It is inappropriate to say in the opening that: "Muhammad is a man from Mecca who unified Arabia". This sounds very strange opening for me. It will be much better, more appropriate, more accurate and more neutral to say that: "Muhammad is the central figure in Islam". Then to mention that "he is believed by all Muslims to be the ideal man & the Chosen one". Then to mention that "he is regarded in Islam as the fulfillment of the prophecies and the restorer of the Abrahamic faith". Then to mention that "he is regarded in Islam as the Apostle and the Sealer". Then, after this opening, one can move on to mention the views of the other religious groups such as the Baha'is, Jews, Christians, atheists and others on Muhammad.--Grey 34 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, those are titles by which those figures are commonly known in English, and are bolded per WP:COMMONNAME. And what you said concerning your suggested change regarding the mention of Amadhiyyahs, while still assuming good faith, is disingenuous. I checked the sources. Singling them out, regardless of the POV non-RS, I'd argue is not even appropriate, especially in a lede. That was also not your only suggestion; you suggested a rewrite of the entire opening. The parts that I quoted were copied directly from your initial comment. The revised wording you gave, regardless of the occasional qualifier which you suggested mitigates it, either presented those views as factual or as universals, which they are not. The title of "Apostle of God", for example, is almost never used by non-Muslims, as was directly claimed in your revision. Lastly, we don't have a schema of Islamic views "first", and then all other views second. To the chagrin of many, this is a secular encyclopaedia. I've refrained from mentioning this, but I checked your contributions. Aside from an apparent promotion of Islam in your userspace, the only other edits I've seen is a push for honourifics to be added to the title, and then later, the lede of the article. I'm trying to give you some decent advice that any editor would impart to a new user with edits like, "Just as the Christian honorific titles have been considered for the titles of the articles... I demand that the Islamic honorific titles be considered here in the same way. (emphasis added)" Aside from serving the purpose of disambiguation (which is not an issue here as per the hatnote), those few titles that still have an honorific are named according to WP:COMMONNAME, and the MOS, as these are names by which they're commonly known to most English speakers. The same applies to bolded titles in the lede. There isn't any systemic bias here. Muhammad is not even remotely known as "Rasulullah", or "Apostle/Messenger of God" in common parlance.

This isn't really a content dispute; I'm explaining why such edits would largely been seen as contrary to policy. And incidentally linking you to the foundational policies of Wikipedia so that you know why I've said what I've been saying. I suggest you read them; I don't want to be overly "bitey", as this was meant to extend a professional courtesy, and neither do I want to repeat myself ad infinitum unless absolutely necessary... So I'll disengage now. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it at all (I hate it) when someone accuses me of doing or saying something I didn't do or say. I didn't single out the Ahmadiyyahs as non-Muslims in the proposed opening! with all my love and respect to you user:Quinto, this claim in particular is utterly incorrect. I have actually included the Ahmadiyyas as Muslims in the statement: "Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets" because the Ahmadiyyas do believe that Muhammad has sealed the prophets (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophethood_(Ahmadiyya)#Seal_of_the_Prophets & see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatam_an-Nabiyyin#Ahmadiyya_Interpretation). The difference is only in the interpretation. The classical and most commonly established interpretation among Muslims is that he is the last one and no genuine prophets will come after him (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatam_an-Nabiyyin#Traditional_interpretation).

My suggested scheme for the lead: "that the lead should firstly say that Muhammad is the central figure in Islam, the Apostle & the one who sealed the prophets" is quite similar to the scheme of the lead in the article of Jesus; which starts with the Christian view about Jesus. The opening of the lead in the article of Jesus is given solely for the Christian religious beliefs. What I demand is neutrality and consistency.--Grey 34 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Let's take a look, shall we? The current opening:

"Muhammad..., from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. Believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 1] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[2][n 2] While non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets in Islam."

And your suggested revision:

Muhammad... is the central figure in Islam. Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man. Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God,The Quran records a variety of names and titles accorded to Muhammad a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets, a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers Muhammad to be the "Seal of the Prophets" (Khātam an-Nabiyyīn) and the last law-bearing Prophet but not the last Prophet.

Your revision adds nothing that isn't already there, except doxological invocation epithets. That is, honourifics that also serve as theological and/or doctrinal statements. Along with some broad, sweeping statements. You assert (for example), as a universal, that "all Muslims" take [sic] him to "be the ideal man". You also state as a universal that all Muslims believe him to be the "Apostle of God" of the Tanakh and the Gospel. Being intimately familiar with the texts of both the canons (and the varying canons between them, as well as various Islamic texts), I can tell you that this phrase nowhere appears in those scriptures. In fact, the Judaic sources are quite ambiguous about the future advent of any such theologically significant figure. The (two) more difrect references you're likely thinking of refer to the figure (who is only later known as the moshiach, due to the practise of anointing in the David line, from which he is assumed to spring)... Muslims actually believe that prophecy was fulfilled in Iesu (Jesus). Though obviously not in the eschatological or theological sense or expectations that either Judaism or Christianity ascribe to the foretold figure. While it's a moot point, it was later asserted in some hadith that Muhammad was the fulfillment of the promised "Paraclete". Neither of these beliefs (of which the first is not actually supported by the sources whatsoever) are universals in all forms of Islam, especially if you include the Amadiyyahs as Muslims. Your statement "a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts" is copied from the Jesus article, but "Christians" is replaced with "non-Muslims". Aside from being WP:UNDUE, it's also a demonstrably untrue statement.

Finally, you also removes any mention of Baha'is from the lede with your revision. This article is not "Islamic" or sectarian views of Mohammed. There are respective content forks for those topics. This article is about the historical figure of Muhammad. That means we include all relevant views, including those of the Baha'i community. You only talk about Muslim beliefs, and most of these statements I find to be misleading. Some of them, as I pointed out just prior, amount to synthesis. The rewrite does not conform to RNPOV in some places, most especially the second sentence. But most of the sentences after that, as I pointed out, likewise only present theological views of Mohammed that- while claimed to be universals- are simply majority opinions.

There might be some things worth discussing here, though I don't really think that discussion should be regarding the lede. Honestly, you do need to familiarise yourself with our policies, because while I think you have good intentions, this revision runs contrary to several of them. Aside from the wording, it's also certainly not an improvement to single out the Amadiyyahs, and remove Baha'i views entirely from the opening.

You stated: "The current opening of the lead is very much inappropriate! It is inappropriate to say in the opening that: "Muhammad is a man from Mecca who unified Arabia". This sounds very strange opening for me." [sic] It reads that way, as I said, because this is an article about the historical figure of Muhammad, and not just his theological significance to Muslims. On a secular encyclopaedia. And there are a variety of views regarding him. This opening was hammered out, after years of discussion, because it was found to be amenable in terms of balance, and was specifically neutral. I originally replied simply to caution you as a new user, and point out why that proposed edit would be seen as either inappropriate, or even POV-pushing; so I thought I would speak up after your unsuccessful "demand" to change the article title. I've now spend an inordinate amount of time detailing the specific issues with it, and given you haven't specifically addressed those issues, I have to wonder if you had read any of those policies I had previously linked you to. The current lead expresses the essential points, in a neutral way; very much the same way that the opening of the lede on "Jesus" does. The wording on that lede, which I've re-read several times in response to this article, is actually quite conditional. The lede is only meant to be an essential summary, and not a repository of laudatory views of Mohammad. The very next section specifically has to do with his titles, honorifics, and epithets; what you wanted is already in that section: in the second sentence, in fact.

As an aside... I'm completely on board with battling systemic bias, but objectively, I don't see it here. There is no double standard here as you alleged, an overt Christian bias on the article, and certainly no suppression of WP:THETRUTH. Implying that these are issues here will not get you far. Like I said, I'm more than willing to entertain and discuss proposals that both conform to policy, and are appropriately placed. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey 34, I thought your edits were so obviously wrong and the arguments in opposition sufficiently persuasive that I assumed any reasonable editor would recognise that fact. I was therefore quite surprised to discover today that not only have you included them, you have been edit-warring to keep them. There's very little support and certainly no consensus for your changes.—Kww(talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Quotes

We don't stick quotes [4] into articles with no context. There's no analysis of reception, impact, or even why the quotes are historically famous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template.--Peaceworld 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic prophet Mohammed"

This is like saying "Christian Messiah Jesus". It is obtuse, and unnecessarily verbose. There is no Mohammed in the Bible, and thus there is no confusion in just calling him "prophet Mohammed" when disambiguation from other persons named Mohammed is needed.Scientus (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the guideline, see WP:PBUH. If you want to change a guideline on Wikipedia, the place to propose and gain support for your change is on the guideline's talk page.

Also see two comments above. Wikipedia cannot refer to Muhammad as "prophet" in Wikipedia's voice, otherwise that would be adopting a religious point of view. Referring to him as the Islamic prophet disambiguates the POV from the description. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Source

I'm looking for a source, if anyone here might know of it, or have heard of it. I was told by Yemenite Jewish elders that Muhammad (being illiterate) had several Jewish associates. One of whom, they say, was a disgruntled proselyte to the Jewish religion (Abdullah ibn Salam) who wrote for Muhammad the surahs of the Qur'an. My understanding is that Abdullah ibn Salam wrote derogatively about the nation of Israel in the pages of his Qur'an, since he was rejected by those rabbis in Arabia who followed mainstream Judaism, but he followed what was to them a heretical form of Judaism, known as the Ebionite sect. They refused to give their sons to his daughters in marriage. Has anyone here heard of anything like this and, if so, what are the sources? Just curious. Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ebionites were technically Christians, they considered Jesus as the messiah (but not son) of God. But, Abdullah ibn Salam was not Ebionite. Khestwol (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So this would fit the ideological doctrine of the Qur'an which, as I noted, according to Yemenite Jewish tradition was written by Abdullah ibn Salam. Are there any sources telling us that he compiled the Qur'an for Muhammad?Davidbena (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Abdullah ibn Salam was just one of the sahaba. Khestwol (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So, from a rational point of view, since Muhammad the prophet was illiterate (no offense intended), how was the Qur'an written? What are the alternative views, if any? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, three relevant Wikipedia articles might help the curiosity: Revelation, Wahy, and History of the Quran. Hope they help. Salam, Khestwol (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder Khestwol what is the basis for your claim that the Ebionites were technically Christians! No, they were not. The term "Christians", which is Greek in origin, was used particularly, exclusively and for the first time by the Pauline branch of the Nazarenes. The Ebionites were not actually from the Pauline branch, since they rejected Paul and the Pauline branch which considered Jesus to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Before Paul, the followers of Jesus of Nazareth were referred to only with the name "Nazarenes". After Paul, the name "Christians" replaced the name "Nazarenes" by the Pauline branch who adhered to the teachings of Paul who claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was himself the promised Messiah [i.e. the Christ] of the Jews. These teachings of Paul were exclusively rejected by the Ebionites who rejected the name "Christians" and maintained the name "Nazarenes" along with their identity as Jews keepers of the Sabbath and the Mosaic law. The Ebionites were technically Jews. They considered Jesus to be a major Jewish prophet and an important messiah. However, they didn't consider him to be the long awaited Messiah [i.e. the greatest Messiah].

As for Abdullah ibn Salam, he was actually a prominent Jewish rabbi from Medina. No Davidbena, he wasn't Ebionite. He actually met the Prophet Muhammad and converted to Islam only after the migration of the Prophet to Medina. His conversion to Islam embarrassed the Jews very much (it was more like if the Pope of the Vatican himself embraced Islam), because he was a very great rabbi with very great knowledge. That is why the Jews hated him too much after his conversion and considered it a major treason.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ebionites are the ones referred to in Quran 5:82-85 as the nearest in affection to the believers [i.e. the Muslims]:

82 You will find that the most people in enmity to the believers are the Jews and idolaters, and that the nearest in affection to the believers are those who say: 'We are Nazarenes' That is because amongst them there are priests and monks; and because they are not proud. 83 When they listen to that which was sent down to the Messenger, you will see their eyes fill with tears as they recognize its truth. They say: 'Lord, we believe. Write us among the witnesses. 84 Why should we not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come down to us? Why should we not hope for admission among the righteous' 85 For their words Allah has rewarded them with Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where they shall live for ever. Such is the recompense of the righteous.

— translated by Qaribullah & Darwish

So there is no doubt that there has been a joyful contact between the Prophet Muhammad and the Ebionites, and that the Ebionites bore witness of the Prophet as mentioned in the verse above.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to add is that the Gospel of Barnabas, which considers the Prophet Muhammad to be the real long awaited Messiah of the Bible, has been considered by some modern non-Muslim scholars such as John Toland to be a Gospel of the Ebionties.[5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.59.81 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP this is not page to discuss these things but regarding the Ebionite/Nazarene scriptures, I would like to recommend you to read Dead Sea Scrolls, and James the Just leader of the Ebionites/first Christians. The Pauline Christian are not the only Christian but there were also nontrinitarian, who though regarded themselves Jews and observe Mosaic laws as did Jesus himself. That's why I only considered the ebionites technical Christians. Khestwol (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Registered User, it is wrong to call the Ebionites "Christians", because the term "Christians" is itself a Pauline term. You should call them "Nazarenes" just as they called themselves in Quran 5:82: "We are Nazarenes (Nasara)". Please respect the name the Ebionites identified themselves with. Thanks.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Hatnote

In case it isn't obvious, we can't call Muhammad, "the prophet", in Wkipedia's voice, [7] any more than we could call Jesus, "the son of God". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure! it is quite fine however to call Paul "Apostle" and "Saint" in Wikipedia's voice! everyone has got your point.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Request the removal of some of the drawings from Page the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him

Hi

I request remove of some of the drawings from Page the Prophet Muhammad those graphics that contain a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed because the drawing does not look like qualities of the Prophet Muhammad and the The painter did not see the Prophet Mohammed also the painter he lived after hundreds of years the death of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him also all Muslim scholars agree to prevent any drawings of the Prophet Mohammedpeace be upon him.

I do not speak english very well, I hope that my words do not contain errors

Thank you

2607:FC98:0:40:216:3EFF:FEAE:C95B (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request is denied per WP:NOTCENSORED. See the FAQ above, #1, 2 and 3. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Handy link: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

Please remove the images and illustrations about how Muhammad looked. J19197 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done J19197, did you read the section directly above this one? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hart again

This wikilink no longer even goes to the book, but rather the bio of Hart. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

The opening statement should be: "Muhammad is the central figure in Islam". The reason: both Muslims and non-Muslim agree on this historical and theological fact. 31.218.154.95 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If you said to me "bring me 100 sourcebooks to support your claim that Muhammad is considered by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike to be the central figure in Islam, I was going to do it; but, instead of that, you asked me to get consensus! With whom do you want me to get consensus?! With a group of anonymous internet guys who are mostly coming from the Western Christian world and who will love to propagate their anti-Muslim POVs everywhere they can. This is what I wanted to prove here; that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It doesnt matter here what scholars say or agree upon. The only thing that matters here is "who belongs to the bigger cabal?"--31.218.154.95 (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, you are WP:NOTHERE. As with your other contributions on this page, you are so taken up with your blindly obsessive rantings that you haven't bothered to check how Wikipedia operates. It's very simple. You open a thread to say "I want XYZ changed" and here are my sources to support. Is anyone going to just take your word for it? Of course not. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Is what you're proposing so obvious, so lacking in subjectivity and so uniformly and unanimously backed by all reliable sources that it requires no opinion? Yeah, right. That's why we have WP:CONSENSUS. Once, you have consensus, then you post the edit request and not before. It's very simple and all spelled out in black and white. That you are incapable of following simple written directions is your problem. "This is what I wanted to prove here". Grow up. No one's interested in what you wanted to prove. This is the internet. Anything you've said has been said a million times before, and everyone lost interest about the 96,508th time. DeCausa (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

@User:DeCausa you reverted my recent change which I claimed was merely cosmetic. I did not see any problem with my edit, so can you please be kind enough to tell me what I got wrong? My edit changed the sentence " is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" to "is the founder of Islam" because muslims also consider him to be the founder of Islam and it is a historical fact documented in almost all histories that he founded Islam. Secondly I moved around three sentences and created a new sentence, this was done because in my opinion shorter sentences tend to be understood better. Thirdly I moved some citations and notes to end of sentence because they "look" better there. I am not sure in which of these changes I overstepped my bounds. Can we discuss this a little? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-involved comment) A "cosmetic change" would typically be a MOS change that does not involve any editing to the text and its meaning. Changing "is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" to "is the founder of Islam" is not a cosmetic change. And it is certainly not an edit that can be ticked off as a WP:MINOR edit. Best, -- Sam Sailor :^Talk! 11:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But also the question of describing M. as the "founder of Islam" in Wikipedia's voice is highly controversial and has been argued umpteen times - check the archive. The current wording is a long debated compromise. Freeatlastchitchat, if you want to change the compromise, familiarise yourself with the previous arguments (and, no; muslims do not regard him as the founder and some editors in the past have argued that some non-muslims don't consider him that either) and post a proposal here. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not check the archives, being a liberal does have some shortcomings as you don't get to know the hard stances of conservatives lol. I just thought that calling a person the "founder" of a religion was the "default" for all prophets, but there appears to be quite a can of worms. Anyway, I'll leave that be, but can't we move around the text a little so that the starting lines tell what the muslims consider him to be? Afterall he is considered a prophet by the muslims. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Lede changes 22/10/15

I have changed the sequence of some text in the lede.8

• I moved the phrase " is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" so that it is now preceded by the muslim view of the subject. My reasoning is that he is considered a Holy Personage by the muslims, therefore, what the muslims think about him should be at the beginning.
• Secondly I moved the sentence " By the time of his death, he had united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and had ensured that his teachings and practice together with the Quran, which Muslims believe was revealed to him by God, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief." to the paragraph which discusses his death. My reasoning is that events look good in chronological order, therefore this should be given at the its proper place.

If you disagree please be kind enough to point out my error.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of those edits, the reasonsing seems sound to me. Jeppiz (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's an archived discussion about what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable. The consensus then, as I recall, was that the lead section should state what he did that makes him notable, and that merely being revered isn't sufficient. There was agreement that being the "founder" of Islam is significant, but recognizing that calling him the founder misrepresents the Muslim view, something else was needed. Unifying Arabia into a single polity under the religion he introduced to the area — that is the single significant thing about him. Burying that important fact way down in the 3rd or 4th paragraph unbalances the lead, in my view. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion(which may be wrong) being considered a prophet by every third person on the planet is "what, exactly, makes Muhammad notable". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the 2/3 of the world who don't think of him that way would carry more weight. Putting the Muslim view in the lead sentence doesn't follow the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead section should serve as an overview of the article. This should be particularly true for the lead sentence. The bulk of the article is about Muhammad's life and accomplishments, not about what Muslims think of him, therefore the lead sentence should also be about his life and accomplishments.

Talk:Muhammad/Archive_26#Need for consistency: Founding of Islam and the two subsections in that section contain the past discussion about this. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a poor discussion and consensus can change. It's clear that being either the "founder of Islam" or the "the last prophet of Islam" depending on your perspective is obviously way more significant than "unifying Arabia into a single polity". It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think otherwise. However, debating which of the two former perspectives comes first is rather lame. If we have to, and of the two, I think the non-Muslim view is by a rather crude force of numbers more predominant and would err towards that, but I don't have a strong view one way or the other. Just so long as "uniting Arabia into a single polity" comes a clear third. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the changes done by FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff (report) 23:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not, because the lead no longer complies with WP:LEAD in placing undue emphasis on a Muslim POV. Unifying an entire country under one religion that he founded is the single most significant thing about him. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Amatulić. This is a historical biography, and we should be giving higher priority to what he did (united a country, founded a religion) before we discuss the dogmatic interpretation of what he did. Resolute 13:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić that the lead now completely fails NPOV. However, I disagree that uniting Arabia is his primary achievement. To my mind, the founding of Islam has had a major impact on the world over the last 1500 years. It's difficult to see how that can be surpassed. The uniting of Arabia lasted only a generation. When the centre of the Muslim world moved to Damascus, (then Baghdad) Arabia soon became peripheral and slipped back to the traditional patchwork of conflicting tribal territories albeit still nominally remaining within the caliphate. A generation after Muhammad, Arabia could not be described as "united". How can such a passing achievement compare to the founding of Islam?

In September I made this bold edit which lasted a month until is was changed to the current version last week. To my mind, my edit is a reasonable compromise which maintains NPOV, gives due prominence to his most notable achievement whilst at the same time being informative as to the muslim point of view (...if I say so myself!) Before I made that edit, the opening of the lead effectively read "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." which is frankly pitiful (see above thread Talk:Muhammad#Opening paragraph). DeCausa (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No "reliable citation representative of all non-Muslims" is given to support the claim of Decausa that Prophet Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam. The views of non-Muslims are variable.--Ciphers00 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article has a cited reliable source for that statement. Also, it's not my "claim". That statement and the cited source was reviewed by editors and included in the article several years ago. I don't believe that I was even one of the editors that participated in the discussion at that time (although I could be wrong about that). I've also reverted you: you reverted because you said the "my" version didn't have consensus. Read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The "current" version is deemed to have consensus support and any change needs to show consensus support. It's the version of 22 October that needs to show consensus support not the prior version. DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The source of your statement is, first of all, void of any citation or reference. This lowers its reliability per WP:RS. Secondly, it can't be described as representative of all non-Muslim views since its author didn't make any citations or references to prove her claims.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, your newly introduced version of the lead is very bad and inappropriate. There is obviously no consensus support for it.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The variable non-Muslim views (whatever they are) should not be given a weight greater than the Muslim ones.--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You're confused. The source has been reviewed already and consensus accepts it as reliable. It's been cited innthe article for several years. The "newly introduced version" isn't a newly introduced version. The version you prefer is the newly introduced version. As already explained to you, unless there is consensus to change, the previous version remains. There is no consensus to change. DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not confused. Your version of the lede is still relatively new, and there is no obvious consensus support for it here on the talk page. Since multiple editors have shown their disapproval of it, it can't be considered as a consensus version. This is point one: your version is not a consensus version.
Point 2: you said that ["The source has been reviewed already and consensus accepts it as reliable"]. Can you add a reference to a thorough discussion or a RFC which resulted in what you are claiming to be a consensus that "the source in question" is reliable.
Point 3: The source of your statement is, as I said above, void of any citation or reference; which means that it doesn't fit the criteria for reliable secondary sources. You need to find a "comparative study" of "the religious views of non-Muslims" which was closed with the conclusion that the general view of non-Muslims revolve around considering the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam. This comparative study should have been carried out by "reliable scholar" and should be based on citations and references instead of personal opinions.
Point 4: I want you to explain the reasons or the motivations behind changing the lede the way you did. In particular, I want you to explain why you think that the lede should be started with the sentence: "is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" instead of the sentence: "considered by Muslims to have been the last prophet".--Ciphers00 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: it's not new, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS and the 'Opening paragraph' thread on this page. Point 2: It's been discussed muotiple times in mulgiple threads. The source has been innthe article at least three years. Beyond that, you'll have to do your own research. Point 3. It's not a serious proposition that non-Muslims generaly do not regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. I'm nog going to debate whether the sky is blue. Point 4: The muslim view is a religious view and a matter of faith. Per WP:NPOV, it's more appropraite for the preponderant neutral secular view to come first.DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

For 1st point: The 'Opening paragraph' thread, 'Founder of Islam?' thread, 'Lede changes 22/10/15' thread show quite the opposite of what you are trying to prove. You couldn't achieve consensus in any of these threads and at least five more editors disapproved your changes. WP:EDITCONSENSUS says that reaching consensus occurs either through discussion or through editing. You didn't achieve consensus through discussion as shown in the above threads and you didn't achieve consensus through editing since your edits were changed by both Freeatlastchitchat and me.
For 2nd point: You didn't cite any previous discussion concerning the reliability of the source in question! unless you add a reference to such a discussion, I will consider that there hasn't been such a discussion at all. "[The source has been innthe article at least three years]" is not a good argument since you yourself have already changed a lede which has been in the article for such a long time and said that it wasn't nonsense.
For 3rd point: bring a "reliable secondary source" to attest your statement. As far as I know, many non-Muslims don't consider the Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam.
For 4th point: Your neutrality is fake. If you are promoting secularism, then why don't you say that Jesus was a son of adultery (secular people are not supposed to believe in virgin births). The issue here is that you are promoting your personal religious views, not neutrality. (note: I won't respond again to this person. Discussion with him is a waste of time).--Ciphers00 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ciphers00, you need to read WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. And you're perfectly free not to discuss with people here, and that means that you leave the article. You have no right to decide with whom you interact at article talk pagess, and you have no right to edit by ignoring talk pages but you can of course pick which articles you don't edit. For the factual matter, there seems to be no support for your version while both FreeatlastChitchat and I have, broadly speaking, supported DeCausa's version. Jeppiz (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that I don't want to discuss with people here! What I said is that I am not going to respond to "User:Decausa" again. Why would I waste my time in a discussion with an WP:IDHT editor who is showing bias towards a non-Muslim view instead of being neutral ! he went further astray when he called his personal un-Muslim view "[the preponderant neutral secular view]".
Concerning your comment Jeppiz, you need to consider that none of the versions is mine. You said that ["there seems to be no support for your version"] in spite of the fact that none of the versions is mine. That version was Freeatalastchitchat's version not my version.--Ciphers00 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

'Such a Huge deal about a simple change of wording'. I would like to withdraw my change and if any admin can hide that portion of history I'd be very happy. I never intended to contend my change, I just wanted the opinion of other editors about changing the lede, simple as that, and I never said that DeCausa's version was wrong, I just moved his text around a little. Seeing that an edit war is not far away, I'd like to withdraw my changes. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite a discussion. As there are so many arguments about consensus, let me just add that I support DeCausa's version, which seem well-sourced and satisfied WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth date of Muhammad

Recently, and without any proper discussion, the birth date of Muhammad was changed from c. 570 to c. 29 August 570. In earlier discussions (see 11 June 2015[8] and especially 18 June 2012[9]) it was noted that the exact date (or even the year) of Muhammad's birth, like that of Jesus Christ, cannot be established with any precision. The currently given date is pious fiction and is only one of several other dates which have been proposed in the past. AstroLynx (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, I changed it back as the sources used weren't WP:RS in any case. Jeppiz (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would keep the original "c." (circa) as not even the year is certain. AstroLynx (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As discussed here, there is scholarly debate on the year of his birth. There is debate on when the Year of the Elephant was and even whether he was in fact born in the Year of the Elephant. It's nothing to do with the conversion into the Gregorian or Julian calendars. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Respect the belief of the religion

Kindly remove the pictures in prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It is really not appropriate for Muslims. i though there is respect in the belief of the religion, respect in the viewers, respect in the request of contributors. the text is already enough but to put picture of how prophet Muhammad looked is very bad.

the reason that the pictures must be removed is that it is really not appropriate and should not be mocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpleabd (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of this page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We're no more forcing Muslims to create images of Muhammad than we are forcing non-Muslims to follow Islam. "No compulsion in religion" for everybody. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating or displaying visual depictions of figures. Key: Prohibited MUSLIMS. If you don't follow Islam you are under no obligation to follow the rules. Just because you find something "offensive", that doesn't mean it should be removed. It's like Kim Davis: watching someone be in violation of your religious belief (in Kim Davis' case, gay people getting married) does not mean you can impose your belief on them. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

To support the opinion that the images should remain, I would point out that images depicting Muhammad are commonplace in the Shi'a school/world http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30814555 . They were also painted in the Persian, Turkish and Mongolian Muslim cultures throughout the centuries. There is no need for them to be removed.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

Bismilah Hir Rahman Nir Raheem

Thing is that kuffars, that I wish to add "Salaho Allahe Wasalam" becuase this is attached with his name.

And curse be upon that person who does not pay Salam to Him when his name is recited.

And curse be upon those who hold the salam against him.

Remember dear wikipedia, this non-sense of not adding Salaho Allahe Wasalam in not going to last long, so give up now. Waleedi123 (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't make changes to articles based on threats and insults. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC).

I don't see any threat in this edit request. He is just expressing his wish as a Muslim and basically saying that this unnecessary ban is not going to last, Wikipedia can put "Great" next to Alexander's name and add "Sir" to whoever is conferred a title by the Queen of Britain but cannot add "Peace Be Upon Him" to Holy Prophet's name because majority of editors are non-Muslims and they don't let this policy be changed so he was only saying that this bias is not going to last very long and is bound to end. Sheriff (report) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A "sir" or "great" is pretty generic, whereas "Peace be upon him" is tied to religious beliefs. With Wikipedia being a secular website, I don't think this "bias" will end anytime soon. Bitsdotlies (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

He used offensive language towards anyone that is none muslim, and he stated a demand, which is nothing more sensical than me requiring everyone to call the greater Prophet of the Latter Day Saints, PotLDS, both things would be silly. 78.95.25.186 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the "kuffars" ever added SAW to the Holy Prophet peace be upon him's name. AS the readers of wikipedia are both muslims and non muslims, we should not force them to add this here. To be frank the Holy Prophet peace be upon him never demanded from anyone that he should salute him, so be like the great prophet and let everyone live free. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Bitsdotlies (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

More clean up and questions

I think the first paragraph in early childhood needs a bit of a rewrite. I propose "Muhammad was born about the year 570[8] and his birthday is believed to be in the month of Rabi' al-awwal.[44] He belonged to the Banu Hashim clan, part of the Quraysh tribe, and was one of Mecca's prominent families; although it appears the clan was less prosperous during Muhammad's early lifetime.[14][45] Tradition places the year of Muhammad's birth as corresponding with the Year of the Elephant, which is named after the failed destruction of Mecca by the Aksumite king Abraha who supplemented his army with elephants. Alternatively some 20th century scholars have suggested different years, such as 568 or 569.[47]". Thoughts? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede question

I am trying to tighten up the lead paragraphs with wording, syntax and everything. Is there a reason we mention that he was orphaned and raised by his uncle in the lede? I know this happened but I don't think those would necessarily be lede worthy in my view. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually need to expand that. I don't know if we should be mentioning the merchant part either. Our first paragraph gives scope and clarity about him but this one seems to go in the opposite direction. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a rewrite I am working on if people would weigh in "Born approximately 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] Muhammad was orphaned, then raised under the care of his paternal uncle. Periodically he would retreat to a mountain cave for several nights of seclusion and prayer. At age 40, he reported at this spot,[8][11] that he received his first revelation from God through Gabriel. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to him is the only way (dīn)[n 4] acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to the other prophets in Islam."

Ok les chopping than I thought but I think this does better than drowning in details. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking of removing this from the lede "While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable.[14][18] Other appraisals of Muhammad throughout history, such as those found in medieval China, have also been positive." as criticisms are a subsection under legacy, so I think that would effectively make it undue. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good so far,,, ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm... if you are going to take a chunk out of this article, use an edit summary. I nearly reverted this as vandalism. Resolute 04:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

My fault. I didn't realize that was quite that large. I will try to remember them in the future. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's looking better. The lead is in the best shape it's ever been at this point. Hope it sticks and doesn't get messed around again. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Historicity

Hi, I just came from the Jesus wiki, and I saw that the info is divided in a 'Gospels Accounts' section, and a 'Historical Views' section. There is also a seperate wiki about the Historical Jesus,

This Mohammed wiki, however, seems to only convey the story of Mohammed according to the (mainstream?) Muslim tradition and sources.

Given the fact that there is also an (academic) debate about the veracity of these "Islamic scriptures Accounts", I wondered if a 'Historical Views' section could be an useful addition in the interest of informing readers as fully as possible. At the very least, a clear link to the wiki about the historicity of Mohammed would be a worthy addition to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

May his holy Noodleness keep your pastasauce spicy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.51.227 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's covered in the Sources section where there is clear link tk the Historicity article. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Bunching" of citations

User:Antrangelos has gone through the article removing the inline citations and bunching them at the end of each paragraph. I think this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and destroys the linkage bettween the citation and the statement it is supporting. I have therefore reverted here. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa If the material isn't contentious, and I'm sure the facts of the life of the individual under consideration are ascertained with some finality, why would it be necessary to have numbers within the body of the text? The numbers are confusing for a person, if they would like to freely read the material without the distraction of numbers. If a person needs to know the source of the material they might still go to >View History, where they would be able to re-locate the original relationship prior to bunching. Otherwise, considering the nature of the subject, it seems more likely the facts of the situation are more trustworthy in any case, so why would some-one need to fear losing the text-source direct connection, I'm sure people are less likely to want to distort the information unwittingly or otherwise, from source to copy within the article, why would someone need to know for certain the information upon Wikipedia matches or corresponds to the source, that they need to find the source immediately? Anyone might just go through each reference to find the source again, is that such a problem? What is the hurry for anyone who needs to find the source to any given sentence of fact? Antrangelos (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a problem: WP:INTEGRITY. It makes it imposssible to tell which citation is supporting which statement and, even, misleads into appearing all citations support the entirety of the paragraph. You are doing something which is contrary to how the vast majority of articles are set up and how most experienced editors edit, and is just wrong. I suggest you don't do it again. DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article isn't improved by introducing ambiguity by bunching the citations together. You don't know what will be contentious to any individual user, and we shouldn't make researchers hunt through the article history to figure out what citation belongs on which sentence. The relationship of citations to content should be clear and unambiguous. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

The Messenger of ALLAAH MUHAMMAD (SAAW) is not generally regarded to be the founder of Islaam. Please remove this sentence from the article because it is false and a "wicked lie". Muslims don't consider The Holy Prophet MUHAMMAD to be the founder of Islam. The sourcebook given doesn't say what this sentence is saying. The sourcebook says something different from what this sentence is saying. Add to this that the sourcebook reflects the personal opinion of the author only and is not true. 190.178.35.137 (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede again, alas

Could we open in a slightly different way, partly borrowed from another article? At present, this article leaps straight into controversy in the very first clause and the qualification "generally regarded as" doesn't really weaken the "founder of Islam" statement. "Generally regarded" has connotations of "regarded by all but a fringe minority" or of a matter of taste (Wikipedia examples here), rather than of strong disagreement from one or two billion people. Even a small change might help, for example (links, Arabic, translations etc omitted)

Muhammad is a central figure in Islam. Non-believers generally regard him as the founder of Islam, but Muslims almost universally consider him to have been the last prophet of Islam, sent...

or

Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ...

NebY (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"central figure of Islam" seems a little bland and not terribly informative. What about, "Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is seen by most non-believers as its founder, but by almost all Muslims as its last prophet..." DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is better - I was quietly fretting about the blandness of "central figure". NebY (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If Prophet Muhammad was not the "founder of Islam", why is the entire article on Islam about his teachings? The lede of the article Islam puts it rightly, that Muslims consider Islam to be "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." This is not the same thing as being "sent by God to mankind to restore Islam" as it is claimed in the lede.--Peaceworld 21:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify why you think there's a difference between the two. As far as "founder" is concerned, if it is a primordial faith (i.e since the beginning of creation) revealed, inter alia, Moses (possibly 2nd millenium b.c) and Jesus (1st century a.d.) how does someone in the 6th century found it? DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Peaceworld111's reasoning above would seem to be in tune with Ahmadi thinking. Different readers may include the Ahmadis among "most non-believers" or among the remainder of "almost all Muslims". NebY (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: If Islam is "the complete and universal version of a primordial faith" then Islam is not the primordial faith. I hope this explains it succinctly.--Peaceworld 22:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly not a mainstream Muslim view, in which all the Prophets and messengers in Islam preached Islam and not some other "version" of the "primordial faith". DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2015

Please change Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] is generally regarded to be the founder of Islam to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is the final messenger and prophet of Islam. Muslims believe that Islam is a faith that has always existed and that it was gradually revealed to humanity by a number of prophets, but the final and complete revelation of the faith was made through the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century CE.

References

86.98.137.229 (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the Muslim Wikipedia (nor the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever Wikipedia) so we don't change articles based on religious beliefs. Jeppiz (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Party responsible for fighting/conflict and Muslim converts

There is unsourced POV text in the article which seems to put the responsibility for fighting or conflict with Meccan tribes on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) which is far from truth. Although NebY's edit tones it down and i would prefer it over the previous text but it still puts the responsibility on The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and it is unsourced to begin-with. All three battles were fought because of Meccan tribes starting an advance towards State of Medina forcing Muslims to come out of Medina and meet Meccan tribes midway for a battle so they were more on a defending side than a responsible party. Also, i think it's better to call followers of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم), "Muslims" instead of "Muslim converts" especially when there is no source to support that. This needs to be corrected or removed completely since there is no source. Sheriff (report) 17:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be sourced in the lead as it is a summary of the body text that exists lower on the page. I think it is a fair summary, and fully endorse the intermittent conflict change since it describes it best in the most neutral wording. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Putting the phrase "war was imposed on him" in the lead is unsourced, untrue and actually sounds fairly ridiculous. Nothing was "imposed on him": there was an ongoing conflict which either side initiated at various times. This is sourced in the body of the article e.g. "Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca.[104][105][106] Muhammad delivered Quranic verses permitting Muslims to fight the Meccans (see sura Al-Hajj, Quran 22:39–40).[107] These attacks allowed the migrants to acquire wealth, power and prestige while working towards the ultimate goal of conquering Mecca.[108][109]" and "In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the caravan at Badr.[111]" to give just two examples. In fact, the current wording of the lead gives no indication as to who initiated the conflict. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All of these sources (104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111) cannot be verified for their content. Sheriff (report) 09:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

105 I verified through Google books in about 30 seconds. These are well known books and I believe all of them are freely available with a quick search. If there is a specific portion of the text you do not believe is supported please state it so a discussion can start. Simply saying that sources can't be verified when it is exceedingly easy to do so is not going to get people to agree with you. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think they are easily accessible then you need to make them easily accessible from within the article and you need to include the page numbers where the text is which supports the content in the article, ONUS to provide proper and accessible sources is on the party which is trying to include something controversial in the article. Sheriff (report) 13:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I clicked on the reference, went down to the reference list to retrieve the name and typed it into google. None of those actions are difficult to accomplish. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sherrif, there is no obligation to make them "accessible" they just need to exist. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. They just need to be published and reliable per WP:SOURCE. They can be offline. But, in this case, as Tivanir2 points out, they are easily accessible online - page numbers and all. We can't cater for your particular and inexplicable inability to access them when everyone else can. DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to fully agree with Mr. Sheriff here on the point that the conflict between the Prophet Muhammad {peace and blessings of God be upon him} and the Meccan idolaters were imposed on the Prophet. Quran 2:216 says "Fighting has been enjoyed upon you while it is hateful to you..." & Quran 22:39 says "Permission to fight has been given to those who are being fought , because they were wronged...". I have also to point out for Miss DeCausa here that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. This is why we can't trust whatever you tell us about a source if it is not accessible and checkable by the others. You have already misquoted the Quran. Why should we not assume that you have misquoted the sources! The Prophet Muhammad didn't attack a Meccan caravan before the Great battle of Badr except in the cause of restoring the wealth that Muslims had lost during the Noble Immigration. Then the Great battle of Badr itself was imposed on him when the Meccans wanted to attack Medina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.44 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well dear IP, whether you like the policies or not is, frankly speaking, irrelevant. A source does not have to be online, and that is that. I would also encourage you to read WP:AGF. Jeppiz (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

All I must say to your wall of text is where are the reliable sources? You are approaching the subject from an impassioned and dogmatic view. As I already demonstrated the sources are easy to verify with very little leg work. I suggest a review of both Wp:NPOV and Wp:TRUTH policies. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Lengthy verbatim suggestion

very long post

Historical Christian views See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet.[276] Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[277] According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise.[15] Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.[15] In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal,[15] and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again."[15] Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad: Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).[278] However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".[279] After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way.[15][280] Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad.[15] Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker.[15] Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion".[15] Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as "[a] silent great soul; [...] one of those who cannot but be in earnest".[281] Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.[282]Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain. Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man."[283] Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[284] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[285][286] According to William Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell, recent writers generally dismiss the idea that Muhammad deliberately deceived his followers, arguing that Muhammad "was absolutely sincere and acted in complete good faith"[287] and Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship for his cause, with what seemed to be no rational basis for hope, shows his sincerity.[288] Watt says that sincerity does not directly imply correctness: In contemporary terms, Muhammad might have mistaken his subconscious for divine revelation.[289] Watt and Bernard Lewis argue that viewing Muhammad as a self-seeking impostor makes it impossible to understand Islam's development.[290][291] Alford T. Welch holds that Muhammad was able to be so influential and successful because of his firm belief in his vocation.[15] Other religious views See also: Judaism's views on Muhammad Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.[292] Criticism Main article: Criticism of Muhammad Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his morality, warfare, and his marriages. CHANGE TO Christian views Christians generally do not consider Muhammad to have been a prophet. Historically, most Christian writers considered Muhammad as self-serving, violent or a deliberate spreader of a false revelation. In modern times some Christians, particularly theological liberals, have regarded Muhammed as genuine, usually but not universally while asserting that the Quran was not a revelation from God. [15][287][288][290][291] Many theological conservatives and apologists in contrast, consider Muhammed to have been violent and self-serving. [CITE: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.graham.muslims.who.kill.christians.are.emulating.muhammed/49817.htm; http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/index.html ] See also: Medieval Christian views on Muhammad The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a false prophet.[276] Another Greek source for Muhammad is Theophanes, a 9th-century writer. The earliest Syriac source is the 7th-century writer John bar Penkaye.[277] According to Hossein Nasr, the earliest European literature often refers to Muhammad unfavorably. A few learned circles of Middle Ages Europe – primarily Latin-literate scholars – had access to fairly extensive biographical material about Muhammad. They interpreted the biography through a Christian religious filter; one that viewed Muhammad as a person who seduced the Saracens into his submission under religious guise.[15] Popular European literature of the time portrayed Muhammad as though he were worshipped by Muslims, similar to an idol or a heathen god.[15] In later ages, Muhammad came to be seen as a schismatic: Brunetto Latini's 13th century Li livres dou tresor represents him as a former monk and cardinal,[15] and Dante's Divine Comedy (Inferno, Canto 28), written in the early 1300s, puts Muhammad and his son-in-law, Ali, in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again."[15] Cultural critic and author Edward Said wrote in Orientalism regarding Dante's depiction of Muhammad: Empirical data about the Orient...count for very little; ... What ... Dante tried to do in the Inferno, is ... to characterize the Orient as alien and to incorporate it schematically on a theatrical stage whose audience, manager, and actors are ... only for Europe. Hence the vacillation between the familiar and the alien; Mohammed is always the imposter (familiar, because he pretends to be like the Jesus we know) and always the Oriental (alien, because although he is in some ways "like" Jesus, he is after all not like him).[278] However, Ibn Warraq has challenged Said's assessment of Dante's work as seriously flawed, writing: "Said does not come across as a careful reader of Dante and his masterpiece, The Divine Comedy". Warraq argues first that Said is oblivious to the allegorical content of The Divine Comedy; second, that Said ignores the historical context of Dante's work (i.e., Dante and some of his contemporaries believed that Muhammad was a schismatic Christian who intended to usurp the Pope, thus a heretic); and third that Said misinterprets Dante's placing of three notable Muslims (Avicenna and Averroes and Saladin) in the outer circle of hell: "these illustrious Muslims were included precisely because of Dante's reverence for all that was best in the non-Christian world, and their exclusion from salvation, inevitable under Christian doctrine, saddened him and put a great strain on his mind".[279] After the Reformation, Muhammad was often portrayed in a similar way.[15][280] Guillaume Postel was among the first to present a more positive view of Muhammad.[15] Boulainvilliers described Muhammad as a gifted political leader and a just lawmaker.[15] Gottfried Leibniz praised Muhammad because "he did not deviate from the natural religion".[15] Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1840) describes Muhammad as "[a] silent great soul; [...] one of those who cannot but be in earnest".[281] Carlyle's interpretation has been widely cited by Muslim scholars as a demonstration that Western scholarship validates Muhammad's status as a great man in history.[282]Henri, Count of Boulainvilliers (1658–1722), wrote Vie de Mahomed which was published posthumously in 1730. He presents the Prophet as a divinely inspired messenger whom God employed to confound the bickering Oriental Christians, to liberate the Orient from the despotic rule of the Romans and Persians, and to spread the knowledge of the unity of God from India to Spain. Secular views of Islam: Voltaire had both a positive and negative opinion on Muhammad: in his play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète he vilifies the Prophet as a symbol of fanaticism, and in a published essay in 1748 he calls him "a sublime and hearty charlatan", but in his historical survey Essai sur les mœurs , he presents Muhammad as legislator and a conqueror and calls him an "enthusiast", not an imposter. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), brushing aside hostile legends of Muhammad as a trickster and impostor, presents him as a sage legislator who wisely fused religious and political powers. Emmanuel Pastoret published in 1787 his Zoroaster, Confucius and Muhammad, in which he presents the lives of these three "great men," "the greatest legislators of the universe," and compares their careers as religious reformers and lawgivers. He defends the Prophet, too often calumniated as an impostor. In fact, the Quran proffers "the most sublime truths of cult and morals"; it defines the unity of God with an "admirable concision." The common accusations of the Prophet's immorality are unfounded: on the contrary, his law enjoins sobriety, generosity, and compassion on his followers: the "legislator of Arabia" was "a great man."[283] Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[284] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[285][286] New Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens consider the Quran to be a fabricated work and Muhammad of poor moral character [CITE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CADoG-gu5Zk] Other religious views Judaism's views on Muhammad Very few texts in Judaism refer to or take note of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad (Mukhammad). Some of them deny Muhammad's declaration of receiving divine revelations and call him a "false prophet", while other texts acknowledge him as being a true prophet sent by God. In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to claim that Muhammad was a ha-meshuggah ("the madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets. [CITE: Norman A. Stillman (1979). The Jews of Arab lands: a history and source book. Jewish Publication Society. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-8276-0198-7. Retrieved 26 December 2011.; Defending the West: A Critique of Edward Said's Orientalism By Ibn Warraq Page 255; The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History page 21; Links as per "Judaism's views on Muhammad" page. Baha'i views Bahá'ís venerate Muhammad as one of a number of prophets or "Manifestations of God", but consider his teachings to have been superseded by those of Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahai faith.[292] Criticism Main article: Criticism of Muhammad Muhammad has been criticized ever since he claimed prophethood. He was attacked by non-Muslim Arab contemporaries for preaching monotheism. In modern times, criticism has also dealt with Muhammad's sincerity in claiming to be a prophet, his ownership of slaves, his treatment of prisoners, his torture and killing of Kenana ibn al-Rabi, his marriages (particularly of Aisha and Zaynab bint Jahsh), that he was a religious syncretist, his psychological and medical condition, and his warfare and methods therein.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Request new style for the view of picture

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

---

Humanidk again --NeilN talk to me 06:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I request to made a new style where pictures can either be show or hide. Recently, I am making some progress about this. What do you guys think? P.S, I force alt-f4 earlier when i look at those pictures. Too bad for me, I have now seen the picture and may still in my mind. We usually don't look at the picture of prophet. Not kidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserve notbe block (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) I am not sure how people got consensus to include them to begin-with. I am asking for a new consensus. Let's start a discussion. You cannot include something which completely offends the other party. We need to strike the balance. Sheriff (report) 09:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) This discussion should be conducted on the Muhammad images Talk page. AstroLynx (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) To the original poster, you can setup your browser not to automatically display pictures and it is written up in the FAQ though it is a little difficult to follow. As for a "new consensus" if you can figure out a new argument that doesn't hinge on offense by all means bring it up. I would however suggest you should look at both the archives and previous RFC. If you don't have a rational that is already covered in there it is likely this will just be a rehashing of years past. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC) These drawings don't have any encyclopedic or artistic value and are certainly irrelevant to the historical person of the Prophet Muhammad. Why then were they put in the article? I will tell you. "To offend Muslims" only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.44 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC) They do have encyclopedic and artistic value, therefore they are relevant. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC) By your argument that means every single article before the invention of the photograph should have no images because they have the potential of not showing a the true characteristics of the subject. If we included things like Dantes' Inferno, like it used to, I could understand the comment of being purposefully antagonistic. Every image in this article shows a historic event. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC) @Alexis Ivanov, No, they don't. Please clarify their relevancy. @Tivanir2, I think you go so far. What (talk) means is that is neutrality of the picture that the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality. Putting pictures to offend Muslims should not be supported in here. I have support to delete the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deserve notbe block (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexis Ivanov and Tivanir2: How does a fake depiction of Gabriel delivering verses to a fake depiction of The Holy Prophet Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) adds encyclopedic value while article details in words that when and where were verses delivered. Human mind is well developed to portray how they might have been delivered and same is true regarding other depictions. They do not add any encyclopedic value beyond the information present in the article. Sheriff (report) 14:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I understand where you coming at, but there is no photograph hence everything artistic depiction is technically fake. They have encyclopedia and artistic value because it is how people viewed it, whether right or wrong, that painting of Gabriel was from the Ilkhanate period. Hundreds of years later. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One more question, do we have sources to confirm that these depictions are as they are described like for example "painting of Gabriel" is from "Ilkhanate period" and it is "from the manuscript Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani" as i do not see any sources which confirm this. Same for other such depictions. Sheriff (report) 15:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see if the archives or commons has the information but I do know they are pulled from manuscripts that are quite old. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See Jami' al-tawarikh with numerous links. AstroLynx (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

These drawings are WP:UNDUE in an article about the Prophet Muhammad. Given that the Prophet is the central figure in Islam; in which these drawings don't have any due weight at all, putting them in an article about him is a sign of bad faith or incompetence. They have due weight only in articles related to the persons who drew them.--5.107.104.74 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that Muhammad is a central figure in Islam does not confine this article about a historical figure to Islamic thought. As a rule, we use depictions of historical figures wherever available, and Muhammad is no different in that regard. Resolute 17:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pictures (images technically) that depict the subject aren't undue. If we were trying to show random everybody draw Muhammad day cartoons, those would be undue. Even the Dantes Inferno picture was removed for being needlessly offensive since it didn't add anything to this article. Is there a policy based argument for removal of these images? Tivanir2 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

The opening paragraph

..is horribly clunky. I know it's been discussed umpteen times before, but neverthless I've had a WP:BOLD go and tried to do something with it with this edit. The problems with the existing text are:

1. The first sentence is really uneccesarily cluttered with the name information. It seems to have grown over the years. I've moved most of it to a footnote. It's massive detail for the opening - and very off putting for the average reader think. Also, it's a notional name composed according to a presumed formula rather than evidenced as his actual name.
2. If you take out the name, dates etc, what you are left with is "Muhammad, from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." Is that really the best we can do with the first sentence? Surely, the first sentence has to be about founding Islam (in the non-Muslim view) and being the last prophet of a restored monotheistic faith (in the Muslim view)? sure, the unification of Arabia shaould be in the first paragraph but really isn't where his long-term importance lies.

So I'm ready to be reverted... DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Now the lede is better and more balanced than the previous version. Khestwol (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - actually what I was trying to do was not disturb the balance but make it more readable and informative (and encyclopedic). DeCausa (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What he was actually trying to do is to add more anti-Muslim sentiment to the lead by pushing his anti-Muslim POV in the very begining of the opening. The first statement in this article now about Muhammad is a non-Muslim POV.--31.218.175.248 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Not writing from Muslim POV is in accordance with WP:NPOV and is not "anti-Muslim". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

1. 1 Writing from "non-Muslim" POV is not in accordance WP:NPOV. #2 The anti-Muslim sentiment of the systemically biased wiki is evident throughout the article. 3# Changing the opening of the lead by making the first statement about Muhammad to be a non-Muslim POV against him is an "anti-Muslim" behaviour. 4# Do you dare to do the same with the articles of "Christian figures".--31.218.152.222 (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't dare.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously..... User 31.218.175.248, he presented a neutral opening article. There is nothing wrong with that mate. Please stop nitpicking. 02:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.169.79.46 (talk)

No, he didn't present a neutral opening or a neutral article. The opening and the article are not written in accordance with WP:NPOV.--31.218.152.110 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You've made that point (repeatedly and tediously) and failed to gain any consensus. Time to move on. Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the ones actually who failed to provide any counter-argument for my point. Till now, no one of you addressed the issue I raised. I wanted the oppening of this article to be neutral and unbiased toward any group, but you still want to keep it biased toward a non-Muslim POV. Opening the article directly with a non-Muslim POV is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. However, you clearly are not going to face any problem for this violation of WP:NPOV since wikipedia is systemically biased toward your side and most admins here will be at your side. This is what i think has been clear enough in my comments here.--31.218.154.95 (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I get that I'm joining this discussion late, but I just have a question on the "newer" version which states "...but by almost all Muslims[n 2] as its last prophet sent by God..." As an absolutely impartial editor to this subject, WHY are Ahmadis/Ismailis being counted among Muslims here? By definition, a Muslim considers Mohammed as the last prophet...full stop. Ismailis are Muslim like Mormons are Christian; they can call themselves whatever they want, but they do not fit the definition. Is there some Ahmaddiya editor here that is insisting this be included or is it some editor who is again unfamiliar with the subject matter and feels they should give any minority viewpoint the same weight? Just curious.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We identify groups on how they self identify. This is regardless of dogmatic practices or self defined requirements, ergo why mormons are considered christians regardless of what the church at large may describe them as. Tivanir2 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"We" meaning who? Are you speaking on behalf of Wikipedia? If so, do you have a reference setting this precedent?Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

Undo the last edit of Tivanir2. Obviously a bad-faith edit against the consensus of the discussion above.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC) 5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to user:SheriffIsInTown for undoing it.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the Throne Verse

What is the Throne Verse doing under Muhammad#Establishment of a new polity? It seems awkwardly placed at best, perhaps even irrelevant to the article. Delete maybe? - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important for context but I think it is a little wordy. When I get to that section I will see what can be reduced without losing context or readability. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually checking it again I would agree that it is unnecessary in that spot and adds little to nothing. Anyone have a suggestion for a better section? Tivanir2 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You might as well delete it, the verse is about God's power, maybe switch it with the verse in which God orders Muhammad to fight in 22:39-40, this the earliest verses to command Muhammad to fight. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Decided to boldly go ahead and remove it but it looks a bit weird. Would it help if we moved one of the next sections pictures up to compensate? Or maybe get a different picture for that area. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea on removing it. But I'm not sure on getting picture from different area. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: Sometimes a suitable image simply does not exist. Not everything needs an image, especially not if it is for merely decorative purposes. It looks fine to me now on my 1024x768 pixel tablet; maybe it's your screen resolution? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I was on my phone at the time editing so it is likely that it was my screen. As long as it is not starting to look like a massive wall of text without breaks it's fine. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing that should actually be disputed

The thing that should actually be disputed is "the narration that Mrs. Ayesha married the Prophet Muhammad at the age of 9". The authenticity of this narration has been widely questioned by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike. This narration was mainly narrated by one person only (called Hisham ibn Urwah) and is inconsistent with other narrations found in the Muslim books of history and tradition.

Reasons for considering that narration unauthentic and unreliable:
Point 1. All Muslim scholars of history and tradition stated that Ayesha was 10 years younger than her sister Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years Before Hegira. Per WP:CALC, 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years Before Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was born 27 years before the Migration of the Prophet.
  

1. Original text: كَانَ لِأَسْمَاءَ يَوْمَ مَاتَتْ مِائَةُ سَنَةٍ وُلِدَتْ قَبْلَ التَّارِيخِ بِسَبْعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً، وَقَبْلَ مَبْعَثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً،
   

English translation: When Asma died she was 100 year old. She was born 27 years Before Hegira, and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation.
Source: Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Volume 24. Page 77. [10]

1. Original text: وكانت لأسماء يوم ماتت مائة سنة ، ولدت قبل التاريخ بسبع وعشرين سنة [وقبل مبعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بسبع عشرة سنة]. وولدت أسماء لأبي بكر وسنه إحدى وعشرون سنة .
   

English translation: And Asma was 100 years old at the time of her death. She was born 27 years Before Hegira [and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation]. Asma was born for Abu Bakr when he was 21 years old.
Source: Majma al-Zawa'id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami. Volume 9. Page 260.[11]

• Examples of sources stating that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha

1. Original text: وكانت هي وأختها عائشة وأبوها أبو بكر الصديق، وجدها أبو عتيق، وابنها عبد الله، وزوجها الزبير صحابيين رضي الله عنهم. وقد شهدت اليرموك مع ابنها وزوجها، وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين
   

English translation: She, her sister Aisha, her father Abu Bakr, her grandfather Abu Atiq, her son Abdullah, and her husband al-Zubair were Companions - God bless them -. She participated in the Battle of Yarmouk with her son and her husband, and she is ten years older than her sister Aisha.
Source: Ibn Kathir, the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.

1. Original text: قال ابن أبي الزناد: وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين.
   

English translation: Ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated: and she (Asma) was ten years older than Aisha.
Source: Ibn 'Asakir. History of Damascus. Volume 69. Page 8. [12]

Per WP:CALC, 27-10=17. This obviously shows that Mrs Ayesha was born 17 years before the Hegira and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet was 18 years old.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Point 2. Ibn Ishaq states in his Sirah Rasul Allah that Mrs Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" together with her father Abu Bakr and her sister Asma and lists them among the earliest converts. Stating that Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" instead of saying that "she was born in Islam" means that she was definitely born before 610 and that her age at the time of her marriage can't be less than 18 years old.

You may have a point, but the way to incorporate it into the article is via reliable secondary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. In the article on Aisha there's a discussion of a view that her youth may have been exaggerated by early Muslim historians to exclude doubts about her virginity. Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Synth. Find a group of reliable secondary sources that state what you are trying to put together and then we can go through it. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually think this would be an appropriate and legitimate discussion (keyword) in the article. You will never reach a consensus, because a) 1200 years of Muslim scholars have not and b) as I mentioned above, there are conflicting versions in SAHIH narrations of the hadith. So, if we are to accept the ahadeeth as a primary source (i.e. a first-hand account of the events from the people in question) then these accounts contradict themselves. There is no reason why we could not write "according to XXX Aisha was XXX when she married, while YYY states she was YYY". That is completely valid. But NOWHERE...repeat NOWHERE...does any reliable source say she had reached puberty. This is all conjecture and apologetics/speculation based on a preconceived notion "working backwards". I really wish certain people had not been so obstinate at the beginning of this discussion, inventing information that was not there. Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: You were given reliable sources (both primary and secondary) which say that she had reached puberty. Read the quotation from the book of Imam Nawawi that I gave you above.--5.107.112.147 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tivanir2: the policy that applies here is not WP:Synth. Actually, the policy that applies here is WP:CALC which says that "Routine calculations do not count as original research". Given that the sources say precisely that "Asma was 10 years older than Aisha" and that "Asma was born 27 years before Hegira", stating that Aisha was born 17 years Before Hegira and married the Prophet at the age of 18 can't be considered as synthesis or original research. Read WP:CALC which is very clear on that point.

@Eperoton: here are some of the secondary sources by modern Muslim scholars and Imams alike:

• This dates refers to the early days of Islam. For it is known that Aisha’s sister Asma, who was born in 595, was 15 when she became a Muslim. This indicates the year 610, when the Prophet started to receive the revelation and this then shows that Aisha was at least 5, 6 or 7 that day and that she was at least 17 or 18 when she married the Prophet in Medina.

  — Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar. Reşit Haylamaz. ISBN 978-1-59784-266-2. Published by Tughra Books in 2012. p. 203.

• CONCLUSION: In light of the above discussion, there can be absolutely no doubt that any narration stating that Ayesha was 6-9 years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, is inaccurate. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Ayesha was 19-21 years old at the time of her marriage.

  — Prophet Muhammad’s Wife Ayesha: Her Age at the Time of Marriage. An article by Prof. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.

• We can say that ‘Aisha was at least 19 when she got married according to the sources we have.

  — Nabulsi Encyclopedia. Orientalists or liars. An article by Dr. Mohammed Rateb al-Nabulsi.

• Furthermore, since her sister Asma, ten years older, was 100 when she died, and since it is a matter of record that Asma died more than seventy-two years after Aisha's wedding, a calculation based on those numbers put her age at the time of her consummation at greater than seventeen.

  — Muslim, Christian, and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share. ISBN 978-0-9813882-0-5. David Liepert. ‏Page 262.

• Aisha might have been twelve or thirteen at the time of marriage (and older at its consummation).

  — Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past. Denise Spellberg. Columbia University Press 1996. ISBN 978-0231079990. 197-198, n. 4.

• On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married.

  — "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texas Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏

Register an account so I can thank you on a well job done. Sheriff (report) 18:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, though we need to be careful about classifying sources according to WP:RS. Author's religion is immaterial here. What matters is whether the publication has gone through mainstream academic peer review, in whatever country that may be (since this is an article about the historical figure of Muhammad, as opposed to Muhammad in Islam). The book by Asma Barlas meets that requirement, but the rest look like they may come from faith-oriented publishers. Traditional Islamic scholarship can also be cited, but it should be attributed as such. Eperoton (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wp:Calc is for a single source making the claim. You fused half a dozen sources, hence Synth. Tivanir2 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes...I for one am very aware of these newer apologist arguments that directly contradict the 10 other narrations of Sahih Bukhari (a first hand source, if we are to believe the Hadeeth collection/methodology) that say she was 9. Trinacrialucente (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015 - Rationale and Discussion

Suggest some changes to the Non-Muslim views. In a nutshell, there's no description of contemporary Christian views of Islam, and no section on secular views at all. Both of these are

Currently there are some odd features: 1) Christian views only incorporate Historical christian views. Insofar as historical views are relevant so are contemporary views.

2) Christian views don't have any sort of summation or introductory sentence. Would suggest a general summarisation at the top that "Christians generally do not believe Muhammed was a genuine prophet; their assessments of his moral character differ with theological conservatives generally asserting that Muhammed had poor moral character, while liberals assert that he was genuine." or similar. I'd suggest subsuming the fellows in 3) as the citation for the second half of the sentence and perhaps some high profile case of a theological conservative as a link for the former. Franklin Graham is the most recent high profile one that springs to mind. (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/franklin.graham.muslims.who.kill.christians.are.emulating.muhammed/49817.htm)

3) Christian views appear to focus on academics with views that are highly unusual in a) Christianity or b) academia (and are not representative of their own body of works to boot). As the paragraph is the only one describing 20th century Christians it does a poor job of representing 20th century Christian thought.

William Montgomery Watt regarded the Koran as divinely inspired which is highly uncommon in Christianity. while Richard Bell made his name with his thesis that Muhammed took elements from Christianity. (http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=islam.) I can't find much out about Welch except that he is a retired professor and a secondary source listing him as a proponent of Bell and noting that this stance is rare. (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0661 )

As per 2), these do represent some liberal Christian strands of thought but are quite misleading when presented as the only modern Christian thought, as it implies an orthodoxy which doesn't exist.

4) Where are the secular views of Muhammed? They are entirely absent. This state of affairs simply shouldn't continue. A descriptive outline of the various takes on him would be useful. My impression is that the summary in 2) with the word "theological" swapped for "political" would be accurate. New Athesists are highly critical of Muhammed and the Koran. I recall some rather strident atheist critiques, and other liberal defences of him. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/christopher-hitchens-on-the-koran-mohammed-and-islam.66177/ 9 mins onward would, I suggest, be representative of New Atheist opinions on Muhammed.

SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems too much to get every modern view of Muhammad, maybe couple sentences on how he is viewed negatively or something. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a point in mentioning criticism of him in the article as anybody who believes in his prophet-hood cannot be critical of him and most people who do not believe in his prophet-hood has some kind of criticism of him in their mind. It's the universal truth, most people who are not Muslim has some kind of negative view about him otherwise there is nothing barring them to enter Islam. If you want to mention criticism, you can just simply add this sentence, "Most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and atheists etc. have been critical of him historically." and that should be good enough. Summed it up for you! Sheriff (report) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That's rather trite. It is entirely reasonable that a reader might want to know *why* many people don't like Muhammed when others revere him, even if you ren't interested. Agree that it shouldn't be too long as per Alexis's comment. By the same logic it would be spurious having criticisms of Jesus, or for that matter, most historical figures of any ideological importance.

A good overview article ought to summarise its main points succintly and provide a link to another article for detail. Agree there is no need for a lengthy exposition - maybe a compromise such as: "Most Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans and atheists do not believe that Muhammed was a genuine prophet. Many of them are critical of hs conduct, particularly vis-a-vis his motivations and conduct with regards to warfare and women." Which would be a fairly accurate and entirely succinct way of summarising it, with no implied judgement for or against said criticisms.

My criticism of this article, to summarise above more succinctly, is fivefold:

1. It's ludicrous to lump in historical figures such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Napoleon in any section entitled "Christian views on anything". Can we just agree on that right now? I mean, its Voltaire!
2. Secular views are missing entirely.
3. Christian views shouldn't be entitled historical Christian views, it should just be Christian views as modern views are as relevant as historical views.
4. The Christian views section as its written with only one nonrepresentative implies that the modern Christian view of Muhammed is basically positive when it shoud describe it as either split or basically negative with dissenting liberal views. This is caused by selective citation of some rather unusual academics who are not very credible as being representative of academia or Christians as a whole.
5. The criticism section is noninformative and fails to succinctly summarise the main criticisms of Muhammed, as per discussion above.

1. Does anyone disagree with the above criticisms, if so which?

SeanusAurelius (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that section is poorly organized. The content is basically: 1) medieval Christian views; 2) positive Western views; 3) views from other religions; 4) criticism of all kinds. The main cause of imbalance comes from the fact that all of these except #2 are treated in separate articles. So, #4 is represented by the lead from that article, which happens to be very brief. Eperoton (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Founder of Islam?

The phrase "to have been the founder of Islam" is really horrifying as it is not true, and moreover it is in the first line of the article. This stuff should be removed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase says "Muhammad is generally regarded by non-Muslims to have been the founder of Islam" which is perfectly correct, and sourced. Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Did not know that this thread existed but i started a new thread below, i would appreciate if both (RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি & Jeppiz) can reply. Sheriff (report) 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted

All images of the Prophet Muhammad is forger Prophet Muhammad no painted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdoadawy92 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abdoadawy92: So? Images of most ancient historical figures weren't painted by the subjects themselves, or even painted while they were alive. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone making this complaint at the Jesus article where all the image would be forgeries by this definition.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ta'if section

I don't think it technically qualifies as early life. Any suggestions on where this addition should go? Tivanir2 (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A New Hope

I'm more or less ok with the current version of the intro paragraph. I don't think there will be a version that satisfies a clear majority in the short term, so the controversies will continue. I do think the current version is at least substantially better than the one proposed by Neby, which is so hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair. The intro sentence should be crisp and to the point; it doesn't need to hash out the nuances and controversies surrounding Muhammad. That's what the rest of the article is for.UBER ^(talk) 05:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have tried my best to keep it concise and free of POV, it is quite painful to go through a long drawn out discussion about the lede every time someone thinks that his POV is better than the consensus of wikipedia editors. My personal opinion is that we should let the notes and the links do the talking, they are there for a reason. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

By "the one proposed by Neby", do you mean the ones I proposed above at Talk:Muhammad#Lede again, alas and DeCausa refined? NebY (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. What "non-believers" think of Muhammad or Islam can come later in the article, to avoid clogging the lead paragraph. That version just pins the subject of the article under the microscope right away. It doesn't get the encyclopedic tone right.

And of course there's no comparable statement for other religious figures. Try and imagine the following kind of opening for the article on Jesus: "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, who non-believers think was just another human being [or insert any other claim by non-Christians] while Christians believe he was the Son of God." Now hopefully you understand the total insanity oozing all over the version you support.UBER ^(talk) 06:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

to be frank calling anyone "non-believers" is blatant POv, for everyone is a non believer. for atheists I am one of the non-believers and for me they are non-believers. So basically this is pure POV. Secondly I am not sure why there is so much hate going on about calling him the founder of Islam, can anyone point out any single source which says that "muslims do not consider him to be the founder of faith"? For when I googled the term "founder of Islam" I got lots of muslims authors in my search. So there is much hue and cry about nothing. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@UberCryxic:I favour succinct openings too. It would also be good to have a fairly stable one. I watched this article for a while after seeing some of the conflict here spill over into abuse elsewhere, and I looked at the history. Opening with the "founder of Islam" statement without any qualification seemed to attract trouble and qualifying it with "generally regarded as" or "widely regarded as" didn't seem to improve matters, for good reason. So I suggested a couple of alternatives. I wouldn't care much whether "non-believer", "non-Muslim" or some other phrase was used. I am rather baffled by your calling my suggestions "hopelessly misguided with its bias and terrible linguistic construction that it's almost beyond repair". I was seeking to remove bias and the sentence construction is still better than that of the current lead, with "whom" reaching unnaturally into the middle of the preceding clause for its antecedent.

You mention our article on Jesus. You'll notice that it isn't very similar to the current lead of this article. It carefully begins with a mainstream Christian view of Jesus. This article begins with a description of Muhammad as the founder of Islam, then into an Islamic view.

I do not "understand the total insanity oozing all over the version" that I proposed ("Muhammad is a central figure in Islam, seen by many non-believers as its founder, but by most Muslims as its last prophet, sent ..."). Could we have a calmer discussion? NebY (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It "seemed to attract trouble." So what? Lots of things attract trouble on Wikipedia; there are people who routinely object to the basic ideas in the articles on evolution, global warming, and a million others. That doesn't mean we stop from stating the obvious.

You nix your own point with the Jesus analogy. Why doesn't this article also begin with a 'mainstream' Islamic view on Muhammad? Why does your version begin by what 'non-believers' think of him?UBER ^(talk) 06:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me give my 2c. @FreeatlastChitchat: The reason is because for Muslims, Muhammad is not the founder of Islam, who would be theoretically Abraham, or Adam - Islam professes to be the original monotheistic religion of Abraham, so theoretically it cannot be Muhammad, per the Qur'an. The last prophet argument and the founder argument are solely made by kafirs (non-believers of Islam). Note how Islamic preachers often use the term reverts for its religious converts. I agree with @UberCryxic:, the article should follow Jesus and have a mainstream Islamic introduction to Muhammad (PBUH). By the way, contrary to the article's declaration, even if it is sourced, all Muslims, per Qur'an, have to believe that Muhammad is the last prophet, otherwise they cannot be considered Muslims (unlike the Bible, the Qur'an is very clear on this and many other issues). The difference is that there is another word in Arabic which means messenger, used in the Qur'an that doesn't denote law-bearing and is used by the Ahmadiyya to declare new so-called prophets. For more info, read the here: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). --92slim (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim we have been over the prophethood bit long ago, please see the archives of talkpages here, at the Ahmadiyyah article and at the Prophethood (Ahmadiyya) article. There is a long standing consensus on that matter which cannot be changed by your views. so I will not even start to discuss it with you unless you have something new to add which has not been covered by previous discussions. As for your view that muslims do not consider him to be the founder of their faith just do a quick google search. Amina Adil calls him founder, so do these guys him, him. Just look through this google search, there are a lot of muslim writers. So I am not sure where this started from. now as I have given you sources as per WP:BURDEN it is your duty to provide reliable sources which say that he is not considered the founder by muslims, then we can compare them. ty for the opinion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: These sources (included in the article): declare that he is continuing the religion of Abraham, therefore he cannot be the founder of Islam if it is Abraham; please spare me your fallacies. The article is already contradictory. As for the Ahmadiyya, I don't care too much because they are not really mainstream Muslims, but it's just their views are not being respected in the article already. --92slim (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim so you have no sources that state that "muslims do not consider him to be the founder of their faith". Your inference from the sources you quoted is WP:OR and in the presence of WP:RS supporting the fact that many muslims call him founder, such OR amounts to nothing. Perhaps you can try to find actual sources, otherwise, this isn't looking good for your case. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You really succeed in avoiding logic, don't you. Here you go, smart ass: many many sources say he was not. --92slim (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim 16 sources say he was not, while THIRTY FIVE HUNDRED SAY HE WAS clearly the fringe view has been brought to light. Ty man. Ty very much for this search you linked. Plus many of your 16 are non reliable self published books. NOT all, but many. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Qur'an 6:163 says that Muhammad was the first Muslim. In addition, It is related by Abdullah ibn Abbas that the Prophet said: "The very first thing that Allah Almighty ever created was my soul". In addition, when the Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) was asked: "since when you have been a prophet?" he replied: "when Adam was between the soul and the body, I was a prophet".[13]--5.107.107.53 (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to the above possible sockpuppet IP, please don't quote hadiths as they're not sources. @FreeatlastChitchat: You're so devoid of logic it's ridiculous. Your link (35 search results for muhammad the founder of islam) doesn't have 35 ones that prove he is the founder, as you already know. They are quotes by people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a book about the pyramids, another about Jewish History and another about Bible Apologetics and another called Terror and Liberalism. I think you know nothing about Islam, seriously. THIS is the correct search (9 results for muhammad is the founder of islam). Notice the first source: From the Islamic point of view it is not correct to say that the Prophet Muhammad is the founder of Islam or that he was preaching a new faith. (source - Africa from the Seventh to the Eleventh Century By Ivan Hrbek, UNESCO. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa). Try again. --92slim (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly not only socking, but also you're blocked and I'm gonna report you, @Religions Explorer:. --92slim (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that you are confused! I am not a sock-IP of anyone. I have been visiting this talk:page for a long time. See my contributions above in the debate about the age of Aisha and see also my contribution in talk:Aisha. I was accused of being a sock-IP of Msayati & SpyButeo previously in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msayati/Archive and the investigation showed that I am not.--5.107.107.53 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to 104.236.132.30, who is a sockpuppet per his edits clearly. Well, all IP's are blocked from editing now, so byebye sockers. --92slim (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@92slim your source is not written by a muslim and therefore when compared with a book written by a muslim specializing in religion, this book will fall short. So we cannot say that only non-muslims consider him to be the founder of faith. I will propose a compromise in an RFC, lets see what happens. Please comment in the RFC instead of this section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: What a great reason! I am astounded, since the ones in the article aren't written by Muslims either. --92slim (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 30 January 2016

I request you to allow edit one area of this page. It is because one area of this page has falsified information. It is about ahmadiyya Muslim community tool tip on second line on first paragraph of article. This information in located on the tool tip on the second line of article. Ahmadiyya is not a Muslim community. They are out of Islam. It is because any person or community who does not believe Muhammad as a last prophet, are out of Islam. This is the basic fundamental rule of Islam. So please remove the tool tip "n 2" from second line of first paragraph which is creating confusion to readers. 39.55.119.177 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is one theological viewpoint, otherwise known as the no true Scotsman fallacy. The Ahmadiyya considers themselves Muslim. Like all Muslims, they follow the religion of Islam, and they consider the Quran to be word of God as revealed by Muhammad. Nothing else is required, particularly any idolatry of Muhammad as you suggest. They might even claim that the Sunni and Shia versions are false religions and the Ahmadiyya are the only true Muslims, just as Jehovah's Witnesses claim they are the only true Christians (just ask one of them). To any non-Muslim, to any secular person, they are Muslim, and the reliable sources available (mainstream news services and even scholarly literature) refer to them that way, therefore so does Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on your person, I am going to comment on your contribution which is clearly void of any citation, source, or sound argument. Instead, it is totally your POV. This is ridiculous! why don't you go to Jesus article and insert these views of Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons into the lead just as you are doing here. Mormons self-identify themselves as Christians just as Ahmadis self-identify themselves as Muslims. You and some other editors are clearly WP:NOTHERE to help improving the article but only to push certain disruptive POVs into it.

Support removing the views of the Ahmadis from the lead as per WP:UNDUE.--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, first we have a No true Scotsman fallacy, and now a straw man fallacy. The views are not described in the lead, but rather in a footnote, so there is no undue weight. That is the appropriate place and in line with the NPOV policy. Wikipedia isn't taking sides by mentioning them and is not stating anything about their validity of their claim to be Muslim. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the straw man fallacy in your comment actually not in mine as you clearly didn't address my point although it was very clear. Once again, and I will try to make it clearer for you, why don't you add a footnote to the lead of Jesus article inserting in it the views of Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses (exactly just as you are doing here - inserting the views of fringe groups in a footnote in the lead). Or is it that you prefer a double standard policy instead?--2002:C302:FC40:0:EC4:7AFF:FE0D:C0BD (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your comparison doesn't work. The Jesus article already says "The great majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural." -- This acknowledges the existence of groups such as Jehovah's Witness, the Latter Day Saints, and Unitarians. There's just too many of those groups to put in a footnote, whereas the Ahmadiyya community is one of the few groups regarded as Muslim by secular sources that do not consider Muhammad to be the last prophet.

Still, if your complaint is really consistency and you're not just trying to engage in sectarian marginalization of the Ahmadiyya community, go to Talk:Jesus and ask them to put in a footnote after that sentence providing JWs, LDSs, and Unitarians as examples. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Relentless POV pushing

The tireless POV-pushing here is getting very repetitive and downright disruptive. One cannot edit the article without seeing a big flashing notification about not to use honorifics, yet SheriffIsInTown just keep inserting (PBUH) in flagrant policy violations as in this latest edit [14]. Apart from that obvious disruption, I also question both whether a comment by the Dalai Lama is due and, more to point, if it's accurately reported. All Sherif is given is an article from a site I doubt fulfil WP:RS, and even that article only reports what another article is claimed to have said. As per WP:BRD I'm restoring the article and strongly urge SheriffIsInTown to start respecting basic policies such as not inserting honorifics when editing. Jeppiz (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted myself and restored the grotesque policy violations by SheriffIsInTown but I hope some other user will undo them. It's a major weakness in WP that dedicated WP:SPA accounts far too often get their POV through purely by being disruptive and ignoring the policies if policies stand in the way of 'the higher truth'. Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have used the discretionary sanctions that apply to this page to topic ban SheriffIsInTown from the topic of Muhammad for 1 month. All editors to this page are expected to follow our neutrality policy and respect established consensus. HighInBC 20:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it POV or simply a habit born out of practicing a faith? When those who follow Islam speak of their prophet, they add in PBUH and indeed, find if offensive when that is omitted. Regardless, continual reversion to include the honorific without appropriate discussion is ban worthy, as it is highly disruptive. ThanksHighInBC!Wzrd1 (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

user:Jeppiz, user:HighInBC It seems that the one who is pushing POV is the one making the baseless claims. I might think "Great Britain" is no so great, however, according to Western traditions and norms, it is commonly referred to as such. Similarly, I might think that Alexander the Great, should not be referred to as "great," however Western cultural norms dictate otherwise. Why Wikipedia favours Western norms over Islamic traditional norms is an important matter of discourse, which may be discussed in detail elsewhere or in another section. For this issue, however, I feel, 1 month is too excessive. Xtremedood (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain is the name of a country (coming from French Grande Bretagne to distinguish if from the smaller Bretagne). The name of the Muslim's prophet is Muhammad. Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There are many examples, i.e. the Catholic Saint named Peter is referred to on WP as "Peter the Venerable", "Mother Teresa" (even though Mother is not her real name), Christina the Astonishing, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremedood (talk • contribs)

We have guidelines about naming conventions, as well as WP:PBUH specifically to lay out Wikipedia's standard practices regarding Muhammad. This talk page is not the place to get those guidelines changed if you object to them. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: if you wish to discuss an action I have taken you are welcome on my talk page. If you wish to discuss the consensus regarding honorifics then you can discuss it at the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Islamic_honorifics. HighInBC 02:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed as WP is WP:NOTAFORUM and the discussion proposes no concrete changes to the article. The 'creation of a Muslim Arb Com' cannot be decided on this talk page, it needs to be proposed to the community at large. All registered users are reminded of WP:DRN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.