This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2021
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello, I just wanted to suggest that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is not the founder of Islam! Think about it, if you say he was only preaching what Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Peace be upon all) preached who again were chosen and sent by the same God, how could that same God have different religions for different prophets? So the truth is that Islam came into existence when the first ever human being was created that is Prophet Adam (Peace be upon him). 49.206.50.102 (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This has been dealt with extensively. The short answer is that there is no shred of evidence to suggest anyone before Muhammad taught the same religion, no evidence at all that Abraham, Moses or Jesus adhered to Islam (and quite evidence that they did not). In the absence of any evidence for a religion called Islam existing before Muhammad, and as long as academics continue to hold that Muhammad founded Islam, that is what Wikipedia will say. We don't forward our own beliefs here, we merely report what academics say. As this is not the place to debate this, any answer that tries to make an argument based on belief will be removed as per WP:NOTAFORUM. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2021
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
No sect of islam can ever doubt on the finality of prophet hood of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. If anyone does not believe him to be the last prophet, he is not muslims or follower of islam according to holy quran.The Holy Quran, Surah Al Ahzab 33:40
Two translations of this Ayah follow:
O people! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, butverily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in the
line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything.
Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (heis) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the
Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.
(The Holy Quran, Al-Ahzab 33:40)
Muslim Scholars, since the time of our belovedProphet(sallallaho alaihe wassallam), have understood
this verse to mean that no new Prophet or Messengerwill be sent to humanity until the day of judgment. 154.192.47.71 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2021 (2)
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
PLEASE ADD THE SYMBOL " ﷺ " AFTER EVERY TIME THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD v IS MENTIONED AS IT IS OBLIGTORY FOR EVERY MUSLIM TO TELL " ﷺ " EVERY TIME WE TAKE OR HEAR THE NAME OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ. AND PLEASE INSERT " رضي الله عنهم " EVERY SINGLE TIME THE NAME OF A COMPANION رضي الله عنهم OF MUHAMMAD ﷺ IS TAKEN. PLEASE ENTER " عليه السلام " EVERY TIME THE NAME OF A PROPHET OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى ( EG- IBRAHIM عليه السلام, ISMAIL عليه السلام, MOSA عليه السلام, ISA عليه السلام, ADAM عليه السلام ) IS TAKEN. AND ENTER " سبحانه و تعالى EVERY TIME THE NAME OF ALLAH سبحانه و تعالى IS TAKEN, WHICH MEANS " MAY HE BE GLORIFIED AND EXALTED "
A MUSLIM,
REGARDS 31.205.59.137 (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There was an spelling mistake on name of Prophet Muhammad. It's correct spelling is Mohammad And the correct name of the prophet Mohammad birth place is Makkah
not mecca. Mecca is the wrong spelling
according to the Islamic scholors 103.199.182.251 (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2021
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
this page should add this symbol ﷺ. Quran it makes clear mention that whenever we say the Prophet Muhammad’s name it should be said with one of the following SAW, SAWS, pbuh, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, or the symbol ﷺ. Mr.Mwiki.ion (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Please add ﷺ after the name of prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
If You want to add 'peace be upon him' instead of ﷺ . because ﷺ in Arabic some people can't understand who is non muslim. its also ok to write peace be upon him after the writing name of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. because without telling this it is not good so please give respect to our prophet. Thank You♥️ Hamidlz786 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, please change the starting lines. Muhammad ﷺ[a] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader..... I said this because on the articles of Abraham and Moses and other prophets, the same starting is seen so why not on Muhammad ﷺ. Also there should be Hebrew as well since Hebrew was spoken by Jews of Arabia at the time (See Sahih al-Bukhari 7362). ShuratiMuslim 7:04 4 October, 2021
Not done I'm not sure if the Manual of style (MOS) says anything about this, but it is conventional at Wikipedia to provide the full name and transliteration in the main body for articles on historical Arabic figures, and there's no good reason to not do this here as well. Also note that we cannot include ﷺ (=SAW ṣallā Allahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam, 'may God bless him and keep him safe'), per MOS:SAWW (also see more generally MOS:ISLAMHON). ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. Abdullah II of Jordan states "According to family tradition, Abdullah is the 41st-generation agnatic descendant of Muhammad's daughter Fatimah and her husband, Ali, the fourth Rashidun caliph." That seems the right place for it. Also mentioned at Sayyid. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
also the point It has mentioned him as the "founder" of Islam witch is biased and quite misleading rather they should've qouted that Muslims believe him to be the final prophet of Islam... Ameershahul29 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
You mean "He is believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam"? Already in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The first line is also ghastly wrong by saying Muhammad founded Islam. Who says that, except non Muslims! And ill-informed Muslims. So biased. According to Islamic teachings, it was founded by God and practised by all the prophets including Jesus. Thus the opening line is an anti-Islam lie. I expect nothing less from Wikipedia actually. Just letting the odd good folks know.
it is quite misleading and misguiding for it to be written as muhammed is the founder of Islam... This is a biased view since Islam has no founder but rather you should've written it as muhammed was the final prophet of Islam according to Muslims and so and so....
it is also misleading for a person who doesn't know about Islam come here and see muhammed "founded" Islam... Ameershahul29 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
The only misleading and misguided statement is the Muslim attempt to coopt Christian and Jewish religious figures as Muslims. --Khajidha (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure Christianity and Judaism are more similar, if not more friendly to each other than Islam. I mean they are all three Abrahamic but one comes from the son Ishmael and the other Isaac. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:1445:3fb2:d4eb:811c (talk) 01:21, 27 Jan 2022 (UTC)
You clearly haven't read the Quran. This is incorrect as the Quran is more factually and historically correct than the Bible making it more accurate to the stories and prophets within it. And before YOU respond. Google who wrote the Gospels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Not sure what edit you're requesting. The FAQ already clearly addresses why, for encyclopedia purposes, Muhammad is considered the founder of Islam. —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
You can request an edit to the WP article about Muhammad on this talkpage we're on right now. The article is currently under a degree of protection, see WP:BLUELOCK.
However, some requests have been made many many many (many) times before, and are unlikely to be acted on. See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage (if you are on a phone, it's easier to see in "desktop view"). Per WP:RNPOV we can (and do) state the view/belief that Islam has been around since Adam, but in context. Btw, who are "we"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Prophet Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. This article is incorrect. He's the final prophet of Islam. The statue of him in the US Supreme Court even expresses this. Please update this article or allow us to provide the correct content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.80 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In two years after the signing of the Hudaybiya Treaty, Muhammad’s army had become strong enough to overrun the Quraysh. Therefore, he altogether threw away the ten-year treaty and ordered preparations for attacking Mecca. He wanted to take the Quraysh by surprise. As preparations went on, he kept praying to Allah: ‘‘O Allah, take eyes and ears from the Quraysh so that we may take them by surprise in their land.’’ Ravan Agnihotri (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
<M. A. Khan : Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery>
Not done Please read the FAQ at the top of the page (specifically the answer to Question 5) before making a request here. That's why the FAQ is there to begin with. Singularity42 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format after reading the FAQ above this page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos20:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022
This edit request to Muhammad(S.A.W) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
is a scholarly work, not a work of fiction. Whether or not you [or I, for that matter] regard it as valid is irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes unless you can show that his report of Ibn Hisham's work is not true. I have reworded the sentence slightly so that it says that "Ibn Hisham wrote in the preface to his biography of Muhammad" rather than the non-neutral word "admitted" (per MOS:CLAIM). I have also added the source he cites. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This is not neutrality. It's disrespect.
Please change the title 'Muhammad' to 'Muhammad (PBUH).' Adding 'PBUH' (peace be upon him) after his name is the very basic form of respect given to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Even when taught in Religious Education, 'PBUH' is included with his name.
Why are racist evangelicals the source under criticism? Some of these sources are pure conjecture and hateful rumors. Muhammad seems to be the subject of the longest-running smear campaign in history. Nice try, people can think for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.110.236 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any examples to offer? Constructive suggestions perhaps? Or is this just one of the usual drive-by comments made by lazy people with too much time on their hands? Improvements happen through collaboration, not by lobbing random complaints. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Please Add " ﷺ " After the Name of Prophet Hazrat Muhammad ﷺ. This is Compulsary
This makes about as much sense as a British traffic cop on vacation in the United States trying to issue citations for all those drivers who are driving on the wrong side of the road. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This kind of rhetoric is not helpful, and can only ratchet up tensions in a sensitive topic area. A neutral "no, and this is why" type of msg as the first responder did is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
False information
Muhammad (s.a.w) was not founder of islam.
But he was the last profet of allah
Islam is a deen not a religion. The founder of islam is adam(a.s) 103.111.34.163 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
So right at the top of this page and the page you were just at to type this message, it asks you to read the FAQ to see if your issue is addressed there. It is. Please read the answer to Question 6 at the top of the page. Singularity42 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Islam was not founded by Muhammad (pbuh) but Muhammad was the last messenger of Allah .Allah has sent islam from start of this world for every human being
Kindly go through the Quran where Prophet muhammad (pbuh) is always shown as a messenger of islam not the founder..Islam was way behind Muhammad pbuh birth..from the time of first human being Adam alaisalam..kindly go through the Quran there are number of refrences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:B:FB95:6A78:46CC:85F2:B2A (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Besides reading the answer to Question 6 (which that big bold-letter box asked you to read before posting this), I literally just answered this question right above your note. Usually a good idea to read the page you are about to post on before, well, posting on it. Singularity42 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
As per various early sources, documented by Stephen Shoemaker, Muhammad bin Abdullah died in 634-5 AD and not 632 AD, after launching the conquest of Palestine. On the other hand, as per Shoemaker, the Islamic biographies indicating that Muhammad died in 632 AD are 8th century texts, thus less reliable. Teerthaloke102 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead section currently states he is: "believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though the modern Ahmadiyya movement diverges from this belief". This is not entirely accurate and the difference is actually more subtle. Virtually no branch of Islam, except perhaps the Quranists and some modernists, believes him to be final in an absolute and unqualified sense since they believe Jesus is still alive and expect his return after prophet Muhammad's death, though they do not see this as violating his finality. Conversely, Ahmadis too believe him to be the final prophet though they too do not view the coming of a subordinate prophet upholding the law of Islam as violating his finality. Both positions qualify the finality in some way and the Ahmadi position on this doesn't diverge from this belief, if it does at all, any more than that of most other Islamic groups who believe in a living Jesus. The statement as it currently stands is therefore misleading.
I propose that the statement: "he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in all branches of Islam" more accurately covers both positions. The different understandings of the term 'Seal of the Prophets' can also be outlined in a footnote, or reference to the Ahmadiyya movement omitted altogether from the lead. I would welcome other ideas. -- Sirius8616:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Seal of the prophets is more accurate, yes, and linkable. Though in the sense of finality, Jesus returning on judgement day doesn't really affect this. It would also be best to avoid statements about Ahmadiyya belief in the lead since the status of this religious denomination within Islam is heavily disputed, and it is in any case not really due in the lead summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Definitely link it, otherwise the term would be confusing to people like me who, upon first seeing it many years ago, wondered how and why Muhammad would have obtained a seal as a pet.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2022
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first paragraph it is wrongly mentioned as prophet Mohammed is the founder of islam . But according correct islamic sources from sahih bukhari and Muslim and also from quran itself , prophet Mohammed is not the founder of islam, he is final messenger of islam . Please correct it. Thank you 2409:4071:D94:2578:0:0:FAC8:D601 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This talk page seems to continuously recieve the same sort of questions about things that are already covered in the FAQ. I think we need to at least consider the idea of reverting these basic questions instead of constantly answering them, as they don't add any substantial value to conversations about improving the article. Has a moratorium on these questions been considered before? --Spekkios (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Most people don't read talk page headers. In fact, I daresay most people who post these repeated questions are drive-by editors who never return to this talk page. I have, in the past, reverted such questions from this talk page and replied on the editor's talk page (if it's a registered user and not an IP address) but I've found, typically, that the account was created solely for the purpose of repeating a FAQ question here, and years later that is still the only edit ever made by the account. So it isn't just drive-by postings, but also drive-by account creations. If we revert them all with an edit summary linking to the FAQ, then I'm confident that 90% of the time, the questioner won't even notice. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Note also that for editors like the IP in the section above this page looks something like this:[2]. I can't blame them very much for ignoring the FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
That tells me that we should have a "sticky" section at the top of this page that never gets archived and links to the FAQ. I believe if there is no dated signature in the section, the archiver leaves it alone. I've just added it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at this on mobile, I see a section title "Frequently asked questions". If I am fired with righteousness, it has nothing in that title to make me pause to bother looking at it. As can be seen from the other (equal status) section heads, these are not questions but outright assertions that the article as it stands has grave theological errors that need to be corrected! right now! So can anyone think of a more 'attention grabbing' section head that will actually intercept such misunderstandings? "READ THIS FIRST" is maybe too much? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If you are fired with righteousness, or just a bit banner blind or whatever, you wont bother to look at it on non-mobile either. Still, making it more visible can't hurt. I'll try bolding the title. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2022
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please don’t write Muhammad it is disrespect please write *The Holy Prophet* and add peace be upon him or salallahu alayhiwasalam.also the Holy Prophet Salalahu alayhiwasalam passed away at the age of 63. 92.239.10.85 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Considering there is very little evidence that Muhammad was a real person, shouldn't the article address the historicity of his existence? 47.40.144.152 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2022
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was not founder of Islam. But, according to Islamic doctrine, he was the last prophet of Islam. Islam started at the beginning of time, and not with Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). This is basic Islam. The Qu'ran itself is the main source of this. Holy Qu'ran, Chapter 33, Verse 40. Please change the detail, in this article which incorrectly says that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of Islam, as per the most authentic source about Islam - the Qu'ran itself. Change it into stating, that according to the Holy Qu'ran itself, he (pbuh) is the last prophet of Allah (swt). 77.71.186.229 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Haven't you discovered mouse-over an sfnp citation and the short citation pops up and them the full book. Brilliant. And also a lot easier and clearer to write citations: compare {{sfnp|Smith|1875|p=22}} with <ref name="smith 1875" /> {{rp|22}} if you are lucky, a long embedded citation if you are mehh or an uninformative name like "BBC" if not.
There are several citations pointing to Peters, 2003, but there are two entries in the reference table. Without the books in-hand, I can't resolve where the pointers are supposed to go. Typically I would add "2003b" to one of them, but I would just be guessing which one was intended. If someone has the books, please help, or I might just remove them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk18:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2022
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done. He was also a real life leader. The second sentence says " According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet divinely inspired". --Mvqr (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2023 (2)
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello i would like to edit this page because a link to Muhammad's father is a redirect to another link i would like to edit that, thank you. Abu calaf (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Please ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse about how much editing experience you must have before you may edit a high-profile article like this. As I'm sure you must realise, it has to be defended against malicious editing so that is why it is semi-protected. I don't know what precise change you want to make but per policy Wikipedia:FORK, his father has a dedicated article and only the most important elements would go here. But if you want to make a specific change, then please start a new request in the form "In the section ABC, please change DEF to XYZ ". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Abu calaf As for the link being a redirect, it's because there are multiple ways to convert Arabic spelling to English. There is nothing inherently wrong with the link—or, I would not attempt to change the spelling without getting consensus for a change in the spelling first, and that requires discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from Muhammad was copied or moved into Criticism of Muhammad. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
FAQ #5: Wikipedia's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Wikipedia is required to maintain. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.Cuñado ☼ - Talk01:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images
So are we sure that marrying a 6 year old girl is not pedophilia? This sounds like NPOV and religious appeasement to me. Or do we go by whatever the culture at the time believes is pedophilia? is there no cutoff age for pedophilia if there is a culture for it? Jamesman666 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe he was a pedophile, if he wasn't then we must change the wiki of everybody who was accused of having intimacy with a child of at least 6 years old, or is it not pedophilia when so called "prophets" do it? Jamesman666 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Is adding the estimated year of First Revelation helpful?
I just added “circa 610 CE” to the Intro. This timing launches the sequence of Islamic events in that paragraph, and I believe that this small additional clarification will help students of this major Article. However, I know that more experienced editors review all changes, and I happily defer to your judgment on this. Thanks for your consideration. Left Central (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Classical Arabic Pronunciation?
Shouldn't the Arabic Pronunciation be added? It's not even under the name section, yet it lists the Anglicized pronunciation. I don't want to edit this page without asking first, I'm sure this page is a controversial one to edit, to say the least. Yoleaux (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad's Death.
Muhammad's death was mostly likely caused due to him eating poisoned food served by a Jewish lady following the conquest of Khaibar. He himself believed it to be the cause of his death. The reason given for the poisoning is because she wanted revenge for her family who were killed.
In Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713, Aisha is narrated to have said: "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, Ifeel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."
In Ibn Sa'd, Vol. 2, p. 252, : "The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaybarand I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein, which is a vein in the back"
These sources are WP:RSPSCRIPTURE sources, and not of much use in the WP-context. You can check the talkpage archives for earlier discussions on this. Do you have any WP:RS modern historians or other scholars who talk about this, it's historicity, theological meaning etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
One of the information written contradicts one of its sources. This WP article says:
Due to his upright character he acquired the nickname "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين), meaning "faithful, trustworthy" and "al-Sadiq" meaning "truthful" and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.
While one of the sources, Esposito agrees with this; the other source, Buhl and Welch, state that "al-Amin" might be just the name his parents gave him, which is the masculine version from the same root as his mother's name "Amina".
I propose changing the sentence to
"Muhammad was often called “al-Amin” when he was young, meaning "trustworthy.” While Esposito considers this to be a reflection of his nature, Buhl and Welch argue “al-Amin” as a common Arabic name at the time, and suggest that it could have been his given name, which is a masculine form from the same root as his mother's name, "Amina.”
Instead of naming specific scholars, I'd prefer it be a more general sentence: 'Muhammad acquired the nicknam "al-Amin" (Arabic: الامين, meaning "faithful" or "trustworthy") when he was young, but historians disagree about whether the name was a reflection of his nature,[citation to Esposito] or whether the name was given to Muhammad as a masculine form of his mother's name "Amina".[citations to Buhl and Welch] Muhammad also had the nickname "al-Sadiq" (truthful) and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator.[citation to ...?]
@Anachronist, I more or less agree with your suggestion. However, regarding “al-Sadiq” I can only find the mention of it in Khan's book, which I personally doubt is a reliable source. As for "and was sought out as an impartial arbitrator", I cannot find this anywhere in the sources on the page numbers given. I think it’s better just to remove it.
Also, after reading Buhl and Welch's Encyclopedia of Islam[1] in a little more detail, it appears to me that this WP article cherrypicks (or censors?) some of the information from the book. There are some important details that were (apparently on purpose) left out. To begin with, I'd like to suggest adding these to this WP article as well:
In creating his religion, Muhammad, apart from adopting Abrahamic doctrines, was also inspired by the Meccan polytheistic religious traditions. This is evident in how he kept the belief in the existence of djinn, who are frequently mentioned in the Quran, as well as in how he Islamized a number of Meccan pilgrimage rituals into the hajj. [page 362] In his moments of inspiration, Muhammad was reported to have had seizures several times, which led him to be accused of being djinn-possessed, a soothsayer, or a magician by a number of people in his time, but was considered strong evidence of his prophethood by those who believed in him. [page 363] Muhammad didn't encounter any significant opposition from the Meccans during the early stages of his prophethood as they were mainly indifferent in him. This was true until he publicly attacked polytheism in the area. [early part of page 364]
@Kaalakaa: I have no problem eliminating the last sentence in my proposal. I had included it merely to preserve the original content, without examining the source cited. I made the change to the article, excluding that sentence.
Your recent comment looks to me like a different topic, with the source supporting the assertion about Muhammad being the "founder" of Islam, which has been a contentious topic on this talk page in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Regarding my latest addition proposal, the source is the same as the one being used multiple times in the article. Why is it that only the portions of the book that are favorable to the subject are allowed to be taken while the unfavorable portions are not? Isn't that against WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:NOTCENSORED? And doesn't this article itself say that Muhammad was the founder of Islam?
Also, even if anything more that suggests Muhammad was the founder of Islam cannot be included, it seems to me that the part of my proposal that raises the issue is only in the first paragraph. The rest of it doesn't, and rather provides important details about the context of the problems that occurred during Muhammad’s life. Like why many people in Mecca at first did not accept him, my proposal addresses some of the reasons, which, of course, are sourced from reliable sources that are used over and over again in this article. Unlike what the current revision seems to be trying to imply, that those people were just mindless and barbaric people who opposed him and his followers for no reason. Kaalakaa (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Sexuality of Muhammd
Can we have an article describing the Sexuality of Muhammd? 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)~~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)43.242.178.35 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Please remove the word 'Founder' from the introduction. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not the founder of Islam. Islam is not something created by any human or any other creation. Allah Himself introduced it since He created the universe. It is the complete code of life chosen by Allah. Islam has always been there. With the passage of time people have deviated from Islam and Allah has sent prophets and messengers time to time and prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet and messenger in this chronology. Also, every messenger is a prophet but not vice versa. So, "The last and final messenger of Islam" would be more accurate and better introduction I believe. Ihtishamqabid (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
"Following the battle of Khaybar , Muhammad was offered a roast sheep from Zaynab bint al-Haarith. [1] This particular woman was a widow of a man killed during the the battle. [2] The food was laced with poison. [3] Muhammad got sick as a result of this poisoning, but it is debated as to whether or not it was a contributing factor to his death. [4] One mad died from eating the lamb that had poison. [5] Muhammad did not immediately die from the poison. [6] This is because Muhammad died 3 years after the poisonings. [7]"
One thing is that you should do better than WP:BAREURL. See WP:TUTORIAL on how to add refs better. Your first two refs seems to be some sort of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, but you state it as fact in wikivoice, that is not good enough. This source may or may not be good for some sort of MOS:PLOTSOURCE, but I don't know what this source is, so I can't say. One or more Ḥadīth, perhaps?
The Spencer book is afaict retelling some religious text, not history. Can't say for sure since many pages are not available, including the reference section.
Your 4th ref, Ayman S. Ibrahim, from what I can see, seems to state quite clearly "Impossible to know if this is true ... sunni claim that a jewess poisoned Muhammad ... narrative requires us to believe..." so that at least seems like written from the perspective of a historian. Interestingly it also talks about Muhammad's wives poisoning him.
I don't know if this story has a place in this article per WP:DUE, but if so, it needs to state clearly where this story comes from, and what modern historians etc think of it's historicity etc. The Zaynab bint Al-Harith article is pretty awful in this respect, it seems to take religious text and say "yep, that happened." Ping to @AstroLynx if you wish to comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I guess, I have seen it in a number of sources that he was poisoned. It was stated in a number of sources that it was by a Jewish woman, but I didn't include that because I didn't want to turn the article into something anti-semetic. Muhammad did have a lot of battles with some Jewish tribes and those battles have their own wiki articles. I know that a large number of sources speak about the poisoning, so much so that I thought it would be beneficial to include it. [1][2][3][4]BlackAmerican (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind including a more concise variant of it attributed to sources. Something like this:
Zaynab bint al-Haarith, a widow of a man killed during the Battle of Khaybar, is said to have offered Muhammad a roast sheep laced with poison, killing one man who ate of it and making Muhammad ill. Some Muslim traditions argue that this contributed to his death three years later.
":::Zaynab bint al-Haarith, a widow of a man killed during the Battle of Khaybar, is said to have offered Muhammad a roast sheep laced with poison, killing one man who ate of it and making Muhammad ill. Some Muslim traditions argue that this contributed to his death three years later." BlackAmerican (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I do agree that "is said to have" is weak and definitely needs an attribution, even if it's a primary source like Hadith. The last sentence would need a reliable source citation. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
And which refs do you intend to use? Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful. There is no doubt that this story exists, but good academic sources are needed to show it's WP:DUE for this article. Is there a couple of excellent biographies on Muhammad around, and how do they treat this episode? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam so please could you change it as Islam actually began when man stepped foot on Earth. Deezwhodeeznuts (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Please be advised that the infobox image was changed in this edit. I do not opine on the change; I just mention it here in case it slips by anybody's watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I started a kneejerk revert until I noticed that the original image is also used to head the {{Muhammad}} directory, so I concede that a different image is appropriate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
That was a mistake, because {{Muhammad}} is displayed in this article right after the lead image, thus duplicating it. The problem has now been solved by Dêrsimî62, who picked a new lead image.
However, since the old lead image looks better, these two should perhaps be switched (bring back the old lead image and use the new one for {{Muhammad}})? ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)16:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad is one of the most important individuals in history and founded a religion with more than two billion followers today. How can it be that this article hasn't yet been featured? Marginataen (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Checking what's in the "Article milestones" template above, it seems nobody has been willing to try getting this article through the WP:FA process. On the plus-side, it's a relatively stable article, so if you're up to it, try. Will probably be a lot of work, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
It is just baffling to me that an article about a 20th century Chinese politician like Li Rui is a featured article but not Muhammad. The Li Rui article is way shorter than this one. Does this article need more content, or has it a change to be featured in its current form? Marginataen (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Marginataen: You'll see at the top of this page that it is a good article: see WP:GACR for the criteria to be considered "good". Then look at WP:FACR to see what an article needs in order to be considered a featured article. Note that appropriate length is one of the criteria. Bazza (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done. Please state exactly what you want to change first and provide a reliable source. NM08:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent editing
@kaalakaa has taken the Prophet Muhammad's action out of context to promote an Anti-Islamic bias. His edit in the "Onset of frictions with the Quraysh" section, says this "Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose." this is false, as the teachings of Muhammad has been prosecuted when he began teaching it.
Next in the "Beginning of armed conflict" section, the user Kaalakaa, had put that he had received divine revelation to attack the Meccans while in a time of peace, however, before the revelation of Surah At Tawbah Meccans had confiscated the property and had violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, which gave a 10 year truce between the Muslims and Non Muslims. One of his sources is Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh, a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian author.
Also, in the Battle of Badr, the false claim that Umar desired for all the enemies to be slain, which is cited by Muhammad by Maxime Rodinson, a book which came under controversy.
As well, the user had changed the "Battle of Uhud" section, originally was "The Meccans were eager to avenge their defeat. To maintain economic prosperity, the Meccans needed to restore their prestige, which had been reduced at Badr". The user changed it to "In 625, the Quraysh, wearied by Muhammad's continuous attacks on their caravans, decided to take decisive action. Led by Abu Sufyan, they assembled an army to oppose Muhammad."
As well, the user falsely claimed that "according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad disclosed that he had received a divine revelation of a planned assassination attempt on him by the Banu Nadir, which involved dropping a boulder from a rooftop. Muhammad then initiated a siege on the tribe", this claim can not be found in any of Ibn Ishaq works, in English or in Arabic.
As well, the user sites numerous other anti-Islamic sources besides the two above:
Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah by David Bukay, another pro-Israeli.
Religion in Politics by Arun Shourie, a Hindu nationalist who has who has voiced support for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a militant Hindu nationalist group
Muhammad and Jesus: A Comparison of the Prophets and Their Teachings by William E. Phipps, this book has been criticized for its poor scholarship on the Prophet Muhammad.
I request that any edits done by this user should be undone. It is likely that these edits were to reflect on the user's personal or ideological agenda.
I left a note on his talk page but failed to respond. I am in need of third party to resolve this, as the user seems to lack communication with me.
You allege false claims, but we go by what reliable sources say. Of the sources cited, are any of them misprepresented or taken out of context? Is there any sentence that is not backed up by citations? A source that is biased may not necessarily be unreliable. If you believe those sources you mention are unreliable, have you started a discussion about them at WP:RSN?
@Kaalakaa: the comments above deserve a response from you. Honestly, you haven't been engaging much about your numerous edits, and the article was fine before you started making substantive changes. If I reverted it back to June before your edits, would you discuss then? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Biased sources are not intrinsically a problem, but if an editor is selectively utilizing content from sources with the same bias intent on effecting a more critical tone, that could be concerning. This is also a GA-class page, the underlying assumption of which being that sweeping changes should not really be required. However, I think I've checked in a few times to see what's going on on this page, and haven't really seen evidence of such a problem, so it may be best simply to assess the content in question to ensure that the relevant passages are still balanced. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, @Anachronist, for notifying me about this matter. It has come to my attention that the user @Chxeese is currently on a mission to revert all of my edits, based on accusations of Islamophobia. However, these accusations are insufficient to justify such actions and can be considered personal attacks. Regarding his message to my talk page, it was actually posted merely 10 hours ago, which I was inactive for that entire time, because, you know, people have real lives and need to sleep. All my edits are grounded in reliable sources, including this one that the user @chxeese has accused of being false.
"Around 613, Muhammad began to preach to the public. Initially, he had no serious opposition from the inhabitants of Mecca, who were indifferent to his proselytizing activities, but when he started to attack their beliefs, tensions arose."
At first Muhammad met with no serious opposition and in not a few cases his preaching fell on fruitful soil. In the words addressed to Salih in sura XI, 62 we may find a hint that Muhammad had at first aroused considerable expectations among the Meccans. In addition to Khadidja, who is consistently said to have been the first believer, and several men including Abu Bakr, the manumitted slave Zayd b. Haritha, Zubayr b. al-Awwam, Talha b. Ubayd Allah, Abd al Rahman b. Awf, Sacd b. Abi Wakkas, and Muhammad's cousin AH [q.vv.], who are also said to have been among the early followers of Muhammad, the sources mention a number of other converts in Mecca, the majority of whom appear to have been young or of no great social standing, while the well-todo and influential held back (XIX, 73; XXXIV, 31 ff; LXXIII, 11; LXXX, 1 ff; for a detailed analysis of the social standing and the tribal affiliations of the Meccan converts, see Watt, Mecca, 88-96). This became still more the case when the full consequences of Muhammad's preaching became clear, that is, when he openly attacked the polytheism of his native town. Up until this point most Meccans appear to have had little interest in devotional meetings, and thus had been rather indifferent to Muhammad's activities.
@Iskandar323 Well, actually, a number of the sources I used can also be found in the revision before mine, including the aforementioned Encyclopaedia of Islam. However, it appears that certain information from those sources has intentionally been excluded and misrepresented in that revision, seemingly to prevent the subject from being seen negatively. So, it's clear when talking about cherry-picking, who are the ones who actually did it. As for the remaining sources, I relied on more recent works such as Russ Rodgers' Generalship of Muhammad and Richard A. Gabriel's Muhammad Islam's First General, both of which are extremely reliable. And, because you know, age matters. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have to say I have been somewhat concerned by what's happened to the article over the last three months. It's not that I have a particular concern over any individual edit. I've been watching this article for over a decade and Kaalakaa has carried out the only substantial re-write I've seen in that time. There's been very little discussion about what's been done - I haven't had the time to look into such voluminous changes. I'm hoping that other experienced and knowledgeable editors have been looking at them, but I don't know if that's the case. I note and agree with Anachronist's comment that the article was basically fine before the changes, so that adds to the concern. Such big changes by one person with hardly any discussion is an unusual thing to see in such an important, prominent, already substantial and sensitive article and makes me a little anxious. I'm inclined to agree with Anachronist's suggestion above of reverting the article back to June and examining the changes step by step. DeCausa (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The article was also heavily edited in June by a different, now-blocked user, so if this were to be the approach (I'm not really advocating it) then reverting to a May version would be better. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @DeCausa. I appreciate your opinion, but WP article content doesn't always have to be the same. As per one of wikipedia's content guidelines: WP: AGE MATTERS. Several sources used previously are really old, like W.M. Watt's Muhammad at Mecca and Muhammad at Medina, published in the 1950s. These two sources were heavily relied upon in the previous revision. Furthermore, that revision had several issues, including misrepresentation of sources and the inclusion of original research, as evident in the following passage:
He also feared that others would dismiss his claims as being possessed. Shi'a tradition states Muhammad was not surprised or frightened at Gabriel's appearance; rather he welcomed the angel, as if he was expected.
The sources used were
Emory C. Bogle (1998), p. 7.
Rodinson (2002), p. 71.
However, upon checking the two sources, I discovered that they don't align with the passage at all, instead I came accross something interesting. Consecutively:
The spirit ordered Muhammad to "Recite!" three times before he composed himself well enough to receive his first revelation, which became the first part of sura 96 or the Qur'an. He decided to throw himself off the mountain to end the insanity or curse, but the spirit moved closer and repeated, "Oh Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God."
Muhammad was deeply distressed. 'I considered throwing myself from the top of a mountain scar,' he said.
Also, not to mention the many important details that were omitted, such as the fact that the Quraysh initially didn't show much concern or resistance towards Muhammad's proselytizing until he attacked their faith, which eventually led to tensions. And how, since the aftermath of the battle of Badr against the Quraysh, he had already expressed his intention to expel all the Jews from Arabia. This occurred before he accused them of treason one by one and launched attacks against them. It's like omitting the part where Hitler was the first to start invading other countries and putting more emphasis on his accusations against the Jews, thus making it seem like he was the victim, thereby justifying his actions. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm ... the out-of-the-blue comparison to Hitler really does not inspire confidence that you have been going about your editing here in a neutral, grounded and source-led manner. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
No matter what, it's what the sources say. If you find it incorrect, feel free to raise your objections. They are important to explain the origins of Muhammad's conflict with the non-believers. Should we leave them out in order to be more neutral? No, I don't think so. Neutral here is not neutral content, but neutral editorializing on what the sources say. If the sources say so, say so. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Kaalakaa, that's not the question. As you would appreciate, the choice of sources and the choice of how to use and represent those sources in a complex subject such as this is not straight forward and not black-and-white. That's why most major articles will have extensive debate and (mostly) a WP:CONSENSUS reached on how to treat what the sources say in order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. That hasn't happened in the case of your edits. I'm not saying that's your fault - that's just how it is. Part of the reason for that is the volume of what you have done over a relatively short period time. That's an exposure for this article. WP:AGF, I'm not alleging you have a POV to push - although Iskandar's point is that the analogy you made with Hitler undermines confidence that that is not the case - but there may be a lack of visibility for other editors of the judgments you have made. Having that is always the best guarantor of an article's NPOV. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I would be interest in others' views. DeCausa (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be much better if you examine the current version. Because when I edited I also made several revisions to my own edits. Kaalakaa (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Per the above and below, I would also have to agree with Anachronist. It looks like the page has been taken in an unconstructive direction in recent months. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, @Anachronist. could you please clarify? DeCausa mentioned that you suggested "reverting the article back to June and examining the changes step by step," but in your post, I see you simply saying, "If I reverted it back to June before your edits, would you discuss it then?"
Your comment doesn't seem to me to be a suggestion, as DeCausa indicates, but rather a warning that if I don't discuss this, you will revert the edits back to June. However, I am currently discussing it.
But in case my interpretation is wrong and DeCausa's is correct, then this could pose a problem. I've spent almost three months researching books and writing this article. How much more time would be required if this edit is reverted to June and examined edit by edit? It would be very unconstructive. Additionally, I have made several revisions to my edits. What if the changes that people perceive as problematic are actually the ones that I revised later? Kaalakaa (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the part in the lede that states Muhammad united Arabia
This part in the lede
Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity
Is not sourced at all. So I thought it was probably based on the body text. But the body only says:
Muhammad united several of the tribes of Arabia into a single Arab Muslim religious polity in the last years of his life.
Uniting several of the tribes of Arabia is not the same as uniting Arabia. And after I checked the sources given. It turns out that none of them state either the former or the latter or anything along those lines.
And in Richard A. Gabriel's Muhammad: Islam's First Great General p. 208, it is noted that it was only after the conquests during the caliphate of Abu Bakr that Islam came to rule over the entire Arabian Peninsula.
Abu Bakr’s military operations were carried out simultaneously and in four different directions over almost eighteen months with the result that all Arabia fell to the Muslim armies and accepted Islam.
@Iskandar323 You removed sources, including those published by distinguished university presses, on the basis of them being unreferenced. Then you deleted the statements that were supported by them. What do you mean by that? Please explain. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: You don't seem to get the point. Unreferenced means not used on the page. The sources section is for sources used on the page, not random collected works that could be used on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: Please see MOS:REFERENCES for further details. If you would like to include a list of General References separate to the page's sources then you may do so if you think any of the removed sources were referenced even though not attributed, but again, please be aware that such a list is still intended for sources that have, on some level, been referenced in the creation of the page, not just as a list of potential sources that just refer to the subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Then why did you remove this part along with its eight sources?
Sexual intercourse with female captives or self-owned slaves was allowed in Islam, and no consent was required from the women.
You also changed the short description from 'Founder and main prophet of Islam' to 'Founding prophet of Islam.' Just so you know, I didn't modify this part. It was already written that way in the version before I started editing this article. And I've never come across any sources that refer to Muhammad as the 'Founding prophet of Islam.' Kaalakaa (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Those were separate edits, with separate edit summaries. I made the short description shorter and more concise. The edit is about content, nothing more, so I'm not sure what "Just so you know, I didn't modify this part." is meant to be refer to. The sentence I removed is not about the subject (Muhammad) or the specific episode in question; it is a piece of broad-brush off-topic side-commentary of little biographical merit. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
No evidence for the age of a particular wife at consummation of marriage
The use of expressions like "دخل بي" (dakhala bi) and "وبني بها" (wabanaa bihaa) do not mean having sex. It is said by people including a person having scholarship in Islam there is not a single reference which says at what age this wife had consummated marriage with with Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Mistranslation of expressions like dakhala alaiha, dakhala bi as "consummation" maybe for ease of use or for perhaps non-availability of a single word for "living together after marriage" appears to have caused all the misunderstanding.
Moreover the Qur'anic verse 3:37 contains the phrase دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا (dakhala alaiha). Any of the interpreters we know have not said it refers to intercourse, says M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, an Islamic scholar (Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022) where he says expression like "dakhala alaiha" is seen to have to used both in the hadith and (Islamic) history to refer to the meeting with this wife and Islamic prophet Muhammad. He also says this linguistically means only "met", "lived together at night", "Nabi (Islamic prophet Muhammad) entered one's aramana -- which could mean a palace as per https://ml.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%B4%85%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%AE%E0%B4%A8 ".
M. P. Musthafawal Faizy states that there is no evidence which says what happened at that night.
The book's publication program can be seen here : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3lQeXk-JIg
M. P. Musthafa Faizy conclude that the expression like "dakhala biha" and "dakhala alaiha" does not firstly mean intercourse and ascertaining any meaning for such expression could be done only after knowing what happened afterwards.
I haven't touched this part. But we base our articles on reliable sources. If reliable sources state that Muhammad began having sexual relations with Aisha when she was 9 years old, then write it as such. Not based merely on what we consider to be true, as it falls under original research, and Wikipedia prohibits content based on original research (see: WP:OR). Now, do the sources you have brought forward qualify as reliable as per WP:RS? In my opinion, they do not. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for your misunderstanding. The source I brought was for questioning the realiabilty itself of the sources cited in the article, not to cite in the Wikipedia. I say the cited sources are misrepresentation or mistranslation of the sources they relied on, at least for this part.
Moreover even understanding of the Arabic language would be sufficient for this.
Anyway the paragraph I edited contained three mistakes.
As for the history, it contains tradition, DNA test, archeological findings etc.
No. As far as I know, we don't dismiss reliable sources based on unreliable ones. Actually, I would love to refute that argument of yours because the word "dakhala" is also employed in Quran 4:23, and numerous translators and commentators of the Quran interpret it as "consummated the marriage" or "gone in unto them," which is a euphemism for "having sexual intercourse." However, I don't think we can engage in such a debate here as per Wikipedia's policy that the talk page is not a forum. Kaalakaa (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
However we would be able to discuss the realiability of the cited sources for this purpose.
It seems things are getting more clear. So is how far the translation and interpretation of the term is related to it.
The English language has a problem with wide use of "consummation" which is used to refer to "complete marriage having sex" which is not apparently seen in other languages including maybe Arabic. So in such languages the usage would "veed kooduka" in Malayalam which means to meet and begin to stay together in a house after marriage; the similar pattern appears to be seen in the Arabic language also. Hence such usage in such other non-English languages has no meaning of completing marriage having sex. But use of that expression to negate would likely mean that the process of having sex has not happened.
In short English translation sources could not used for this purpose and sources that relied on such English translations could not be used for this purpose. Instead Arabic original source or orginal Arabic source supported by the secondary source thus the really secondary source is needed to be used instead.
Here the above source -- the book by M. P. Musthafal Faizy is reliable enough for this purpose because the book is authored by an Islamic scholar who is well known and a member of 40-member body of Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama of EK Sunnis : https://samastha.info/326/ . Moreover this part relating to it which is a kind of fact-ckecking with his scholarship. Moreover the book itself is for refuting or contradicting such things.
Furthermore, if you or others are still unsatisfied, a person showing "Adani"; a term which is used apparently by the Islamic scholars studied in Ma'din Saqafathi Sunniya; as part of their name also seen to be asserting that similar statement that in a debate in Clubhouse where other people who apparently have deep knowledge in both Islam and the Arabic language were present. Hear this Clubhouse debate in Malayalam from the 4:37:00 hour time.
This is said to show the discussion was not done by any random uneducated people or in an inappropriate way; more importantly to support the book.
Whatever is the reason the book by M. P. Musthafal Faizy is far more reliable for Islamic matters than such cited sources for several reasons because he is a learnt person from authoritative and foremost sources, especially for this purpose.
In the 4:23 Qur'anic verse while it appears that it would have been possible to say "stay/meet together" (which appears to be translated as relation), it seems that other evidence compelled to interpret that way while the Qur'anic verse 3:37 in a different way. Hence these appear to be the interpretion while the primary meaning has no meaning of having sex. So it appears to be a matter of interpretation. Hence is the different translations/interpretation for the Qur'anic 4:23 verse. See it here : https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st64.htm
Here in the English literal we "..... your custody from your women (wives) whom you entered with them (F), are forbidden on you, so if you were not entered with them (F), so no offense/sin on you...." :
Here "entering with someone" could mean entering into same place/room/building similar to seen in Qur'an 3:37, both of which has no primarily any meaning of having sex. If there was the Qur'an 3:37 the similar expression in Qur'an 3:37 would mean having sex which is not the case at all.
All this are said to check the realiability of the cited sources.
M. P. Musthafal Faizy has categorically said there is no evidence to show "what happened at that night". Hence the basic or primary or first meaning has to be relied on.
Moreover misrepresentation of any of the source of chain of sources by the latter source has to be rejected for the simple logic that if A says a person's colour is black, B can quote only as such, B cannot quote it as "A says a person's colour is black with white spots". What the latter source is only allowed to conclude which is otherwise called analysis, possible prediction, categorisation, labelling, giving legitimacy, showing different narratives, giving strength to a view over the other etc. with due evidence.
[[Wikipedia:REPUTABLE]] All reliable sources would not be reliable for all purposes.
"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
Moreover the certainty that the finding will not change is near zero.
All these are said to check the realiability of the cited sources, particularly for this purpose.
I know what original research is. I have considered that part too. To solve that problem if you think it is necessary to cite this M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book, I would be happy to cite this book with page number and quotations. Neutralhappy (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm assuming this is the part of the article you want to rewrite per your 2022 book:
According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage. Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.
Is that correct? Note (in the article) that this text is very well cited, and the Aisha article goes into more detail. For the interested, there's also discussions about Aisha's age at Talk:Aisha.
NeutralHappy, M. P. Musthafal Faizy is religious leader in Kerala - and from what I can see is affiliated to one of several Sunni factions in dispute in that Indian state. Clearly he's an advocate of a particular religious point of view. He also has no prominence outside of Kerala. Given the large number of citations supporting the existing text, even if he was a reliable source which may be unlikely it would certainly be WP:UNDUE to insert his views into the article. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
1) The following is written to examine the realiability of the sources.
2) also to convince and thereby lessen the need for stronger evidence
3) to examine the due weightage
More proof for the reliability of book : the book has not been disputed by others, particularly this part of the book. There is no chance to dispute this part of M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book. Sajeer Bukhari ( who belongs to the AP Sunnis of Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India) was present in the book releasing programme as seen in the above video. Moreover this book has been presented to Sheik Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India by the author himself as seen in M. P. Musthafal Faizy's Facebook post. All this shows the book is not disputed. There is no expectation for any dispute.
Moreover there is no dispute about this part of the book. There could not be any because the ultimate reliance will solely on the original sources.
Furthermore this claim is not known to be part of dispute among any groups.
From secular perspective also the ultimate reliance will be solely on the original sources which have been mistranslated for this purpose. Opposite could be true.
Hence it is not imposing one's only point of view over others.
In addition, note that there is no "Kerala Islam" to say there is no prominence of him outside Kerala. In Kerala nearly all Sunnis follow the Shafi'i madhab and the Ash'ari creed is seen to be adhered to.
However that is not problem at all because Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed, the Grand Mufti of India, has been recognised as the Grand Mufti of India by people belonging to Sunni Barelvis who follow Hanafi madhab.
So unchallenged nature towards this part of book by Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed's group and others shows this part is not a disputed part.
His acceptance could imply acceptance by nearly all Sunnis around the world since he is a world renowned scholar.
Similarly statement by M. P. Musthafal Faizy implies the acceptance by all Sunnis.
M. P. Musthafal Faizy also has authored "Interpretation of Qur'an : Comprehensive -- 12 parts" as stated in this book's front part.
The M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book has 399 pages as 399 is written in the front page of last sheet.
M. P. Musthafal Faizy is both an Islamic scholar and a writer. He has authored several books as listed in the front part of M. P. Musthafal Faizy's this book.
His Facebook page's top portion also contains "writer".
Apparently M. P. Musthafal Faizy has considered, for this conclusion, all known historical records and hadith for this to the extent that the conclusion could not be contradicted.
So it is unchallenged and undisputed part of the book.
Considering all this majority and mainstream Muslims would have no problem accepting this view which they are implied to have been holding based on the original sources in the Arabic language. All including non-Muslims, including any scholars, are expected to accept it since it is easily verifiable.
"When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
As for the book cited the book satisfies two of these three conditions. It is a book soley for such purpose, secondly by an expert in the field, thirdly it was released it was in the author's presence as seen in the video. So it is clear the author apparently agrees that the publisher has published the author's views and words authentically and has not fabricated the material.
Whenever there is dispute over the translation of a text, the original source is needed to be used to know which translation is correct sice coul not be any other solution.
Hence clearly Wikipedia:WEIGHT weightage would be towards the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's view.
"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
"[c] The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered."
Wikipedia:REPUTABLE considering this secondary sources cited especially the English sources that contain "consummate" which is incorrect here for this purpose are pseudo secondary sources since they are misrepresentation/misunderstanding/mistranslation of the text they relied on. Hence they are not reliable sources at all for this purpose.
Furthermore I say the cited sources against this view are FALSE secondary sources because the primary sources do not contain cited content while also it being BASELESS reaserch, not even original research, and thus they are UNRELIABLE sources while apparently it also being in the language -- English -- with a different use of the expression or word is WIDE. Considering these things I question use of these sources for this purpose.
The prominence in the reliable sources including original text of the source language -- Arabic -- is "stayed together" or "met together" or here "began one's life together with another one".
Now we need quotes from the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book which is one of the important things. :
"പലായനത്തോടെ ഇവരെല്ലാം മദീനത്തെത്തി അബുബകറി(റ)ന്റെ വീട് മദീനയിൽ 'സഹ്' എന്നിടത്തായിരുന്നു. മദീന പള്ളി യിൽ നിന്നു ഏതാനും കിലോമീറ്റർ അകലം. അവിടെ ആഇശ ഃ യുടെ ഒമ്പതാം വയസ്സിലാണ് വധുവരന്മാരായി രണ്ടുപേരും ഒന്നു ചേരുന്നത്. പിന്നീട് പള്ളിയുടെ അടുത്തായി താമസം.
ഇപ്പറഞ്ഞ ഒത്തുചേരലാണ് ചിലർ മധുവിധു ആഘോഷമായ ശാരീരിക ബന്ധമായി സാക്ഷാൽ സംയോഗമായി എഴുതിവച്ചത്. ആ രാത്രി അവർ എന്ത് ചെയ്തു? എത്രമാത്രം, എവിടെവരെ എന്ന തിനു ആർക്കും ഒരു തെളിവുമില്ല. ഇവർ ഒത്തുചേർന്നതിനു ദഗല ബിഹാ തുടങ്ങിയ പ്രയോഗങ്ങളാണ് ഹദീസിലും ചരിത്രത്തിലും കാണുന്നത്. ഒത്തുകൂടി, രാത്രി കൂടെ താമസിച്ചു, തന്റെ അരമന യിലേക്ക് നബി കയറിച്ചെന്നു സാമ്പത്തിക എന്നൊക്കെയേ ഇതിനു ഭാഷാപരമായ അർത്ഥമുള്ളൂ. "ദഗല കാണുമ്പോഴേക്ക് 'ജിമാഅ്' (സംയോഗം) നടന്നേ എന്നു വിളിച്ചുകൂവി രസിക്കുന്ന ചിലരുണ്ട്.
മർയ(റ)മിന്റെ ഉമ്മയായ ഹന്നത്തി(റ)നെ പോറ്റിവളർത്തിയത് സകരിയ്യാ(അ)യാണ്. ഹന്നത്തിന്റെ പിതാവ് ഇംറാൻ മരിച്ചതാണ് കാരണം, സകരിയ്യാ ഹന്നത്തിന്റെ മുറിയിൽ ഇടക്കിടെ കയറിച്ചെല്ലാറുണ്ട്. ഇതേപ്പറ്റി ഖുർആൻ (ആലുഇംറാൻ 37) ഇങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞു. “അങ്ങനെ സകരിയ്യാ അവളുടെ മേൽ കടന്നപ്പോൾ..." ഇവിടെയും "ദഗല'യാണ് പ്രയോഗിച്ചത്. എന്തോ അറിയില്ല നാം അറിയുന്ന വ്യാഖ്യാതാക്കളാരും ഇവിടെ 'സംയോഗം' നടന്നെന്നു പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. തൽക്കാലം രസിക്കേണ്ടെന്നു വിചാരിച്ചിരിക്കും. ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ 'ദഗല ബിഹാ', 'ദഗല അലൈഹാ' എന്നൊക്കെയുള്ള പ്രയോഗ ത്തിനു സംയോഗം ചെയ്തു എന്നത് ഒന്നാം അർത്ഥമല്ല. എന്താണ് സംഭവിച്ചതെന്നറിഞ്ഞ ശേഷമേ ഏതർത്ഥവും ഉറപ്പിക്കാവൂ.". (Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022)
English translation : "With feeling, all of them reached Madina. Abubakar (RA)'s house was in the place - Sah; which is some kilometres away from the Madina mosque. It is at the age of 9 of Aisha that they both met as the bride and bride groom. Later their staying became near the mosque.
It is this said meeting that is written by some as the actual intercourse which is the celebration of honeymoon of physical relation. What they did at that night? No one has evidence for how much, to what extent. The expression including 'dakala biha' are seen to be used to refer to their meeting together in hadith and history. It linguistically has only the meaning such as "met together", "stayed together at night" , Nabi (Islamic prophet Muhammad) entered one's "ARAMANA"-- [which could mean a palace]. There are some who enjoyably speak out of having happened جماع (intercourse) immediately on seeing dakala.
It is Zakariyya (AS) who brought up Hannath (RA), the mother of Mariyam (RA). This is because Imran, the father of Hannath (RA had died. Zakariyya often entered the room of Hannath (Alu Imram 37) . About this Qur'an says this way : "Thus when Zakariyya entered on Mariyam....." . Here also dakhala is used. Any reason; we do not about. None of interpretors we know has said intercourse has happened. For the time being they would have decided not to have the enjoyment. In short meaning for expressions such "dakhala biha" "dakhala alaiha" "had intercourse" is not the first meaning. It is possible to ascertain any meaning only after knowing what happened."
(Vedam Yukthi Vadam : page 354, M. P. Musthafawal Faizy, publication date : 2 July 2022)
Whatever may be the reason the change I going to make is simple and just the same as I did here which I think would not need to cite this book of M. P. Musthafal Faizy, which also would not be a disputed change and apparently a consensus version which would likely be viewed as just removing a meaning of a statement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1172135387
Moreover I am not suggesting to remove those inappropriate citations.
After all this is a matter of having the understanding of the Arabic language to understand the primary meaning of such expressions which would apparently be possible even if the realiability of the M. P. Musthafal Faizy's book is not established or used to make the change. Neutralhappy (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Neutralhappy, I got pinged by you and then I see this with its edit summary which doesn't really make any sense and I don't understand. In any case, I skimmed over your post which is too long (see WP:WALLOFTEXT). You say things which don't really carry any weight in Wikipedia. For example, whether this book "has been presented" to the Grand Mufti of India is of no interest to us. You haven't said anything that means that Wikipedia editors should take any notice of what this person has written. Before you post anymore can you pleae read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:DUE. Otherwise you are just wasting your and our time. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Safiyyah bint Huyayy
The recent edits have gathered controversy, rightfully so. One problem I noticed regards Safiyyah bint Huyayy.
The article claims that the Prophet didn't wait for Safiyyah's next menstrual cycle before having intercourse with her, supposedly violating his own commands. What the author rather purposefully seems to ignore is that there is a general consensus that Safiyyah was the Prophet's wife. In that case, he wouldn't have to wait for her next menstrual cycle.
For the sake of argument, let's ignore that there is a consensus of Safiyyah being the Prophet's wife. Three sources have been cited for this particular matter. The first one is "Essential Islam" by Diane Morgan. Morgan seems to write just about anything from food recipes to dogs to eastern religions. I couldn't find anything about her credentials or who she even really is. The second one is "Understanding Hadith" by Ram Swarup. A Hindu Nationalist that heavily dislikes anything abrahamic, especially Islam. The third source is "Muhammad" by Maxime Rodinson. This book has caused a lot of controversy in the Muslim world, not without reason. Rodinson had a very interpretive and politically motivated approach to Islam and the Prophet, and he arguably isn't a good source for the more detailed aspects of Muhammad's life. Admiral90 (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Karsh
Efraim Karsh's work Islamic Imperialism seems like a particularly problematic work to reference. Karsh is generally known for his polemical stances and this book has been singled-out by many reviewers for that exact problem, with Richard Bulliet pointing to it as "selling ideology, not historical acumen" and having "myriad problems", while Jonathan Berkey remarked that it "misconstrues its history in some important ways". The weight of these statements strongly suggests that we should not treat this book as a particularly reliable source, or use it without attribution. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't looked into those criticisms. However, the book was published by Yale University Press, which I think is enough to make it very reliable. Secondly, the passage it supports, regarding the Muslims' attack on the Quraysh caravan at Nakhla during the month in which the Quraysh forbade themselves to shed blood, can also be found in other sources. I can search for and provide those additional sources later if you'd like. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
So, our article, based on Karsh, presents Muhammad as effectively pretending that the raid wasn't with his approval because there had been criticism of it. Our Raid on Nakhla article presents it in the traditional Muslim view that Muhammad was angry because he hadn't actually authorised it. It would be interesting to know whether the Karsh interpretation is the generally held one in the RS - or is this an WP:UNDUE presentation of Muhammad in a negative light, specific to Karsh. I don't know the answer. What I can see is that our statement that and he postponed the allocation of the spoils until a verse was ultimately revealed, legitimizing the attack isn't supported by what Karsh says. The timing of the distribution of the booty and the appearance of the Quranic verse aren't, as far as I can see, linked. DeCausa (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
It seems that my edit in the article on the Raid on Nakhla was also reverted by @Chxeese, with the reason given as 'cleaned up.' Haha.
@DeCausa, in response to your question, whether the information you are referring to is due, of course it is due. This raid marked the first successful Muslim raid on the Quraysh caravan after several failures, and this information is well-supported by multiple sources, as I have just provided. Regarding the phrasing, it appears that the distribution of the booty did occur before the revelation of the verse, but Muhammad did not take his share, which was one-fifth, until the verse was revealed. As mentioned here,[1] here,[2] and here.[3] Thank you, I've just modified the passage. Kaalakaa (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with the assessment that this part has been taken in a direction that does not even reflect Karsh. The other source now introduced and being quoted for this material is Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim turned Christian apologist, from the book Answering Jihad: A Better Way Forward from the US evangelical publisher Zondervan, so a non-academic, in an off-topic book, from a religious publisher. If this is the sort of sourcing that has been used to replace W. Montgomery Watt, well that is simply fairly inexplicable. A new polemical and not particularly neutrally titled subsection has also been introduced in "Inception of animosity against the Jews", expanded from a short paragraph previously. Overall, the signs of a tendentious direction of travel are adding up. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Iskandar323, have you even read the current revision? I have added 4 more sources. If you want, I can remove that Zondervan one, and replace it with better sources as well. I used that one simply because it states that it was Muhammad's 7th raid. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Late update: I have also added two sources as a replacement for the previous Zondervan source. Let me know if you still want more. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem remains that the section now presented an imbalanced and one-sided set of views on the episode with little respect for the full breadth of scholarship. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Iskandar323, I just found out that this material is also supported by Watt.[4] Haha.
Muhammad gave him a sealed letter... to proceed to Nakhlah... to ambush a Meccan caravan. ... There, however, some misgivings were expressed on account of the Meccan having been killed in the sacred month of Rajab, when bloodshed was forbidden. Muhammad at first kept the booty undistributed and did not accept the fifth they offered him. But eventually a revelation justified their action.
This article has gone through extensive changes since it underwent a GA review last time. The changes have been so substantive, with wholesale replacement of prose and sources, that it's hardly the same article anymore.
It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".
On this talk page, there have also been disputes raised about the changed content.
There are still some parts in this article that come from the version before my edits that I think are problematic. However, I have no issue with reassessment as long as the article presents the subject accurately without leaving out important details that some people might think could have a bad impact on the subject's image, which leads to overall disinformation. In accordance with WP:OM and WP:NOTCENSORED. Kaalakaa (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, since the language has deteriorated through editorialization and the page populated with numerous undiscussed sources, the page is a very different creature from whatever it was before. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
If this is so obvious, may I know why it was not reassessed until now? As indeed its misleading to show this article as a good one, when it was given that status for a completely different article that was suddenly changed in entirety by one single editor. Jopharocen (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Suspect sources
There are at least a few sources with pretty suspect scholarly credentials being used unattributed and without buttressing by more academic works. Two works in particular that have drawn my eye are the 1961 book Muhammad by Maxime Rodinson, a Marxist historian with strong political leanings. Aside from being dated, the work was written with a expressly sociological slant, which is fine as an analytical viewpoint, but makes a poor recipe for unbiased statements. Then we have the 1970 book The Life and Times of Muhammad by John Bagot Glubb, another dated and even less scholarly work by a British military officer with a hobbyist interest in Arab military history. A more recent source example with quality issues of the same vein is the 2017 The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, this time an American former military man and public speaker who has dabbled in academia as a side-gig, but who falls well short of subject-matter expert. I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, but if this page is to restore any semblance of quality, it is going to need to return to mainstream subject-matter experts and biographies. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I do remember adding Rodinson myself once following this discussion[4]. I'm not sure books on the subject from the 60s are necessarily dated in this context, I expect significant areas of knowledge/scholarship hasn't changed much (while others have, of course), but then I again I have certainly not read them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem with Rodinson is not just that it is dated, but that Rodinson was a prolific scholar with little focused expertise on the subject in question here. His only tenured position (as far as his page currently goes) was in classical Ethiopian; he was most specialized as a linguist. Again, he is a perfectly valid source for a certain perspective (sociological) on the subject, but he was not exactly the stuff of a rounded historical biography expert. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Celebrated, popular and novel for the time it might have been, but the better parts of any analysis from the 1960s should surely have, by now, found their way into more recent works. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the lead, per the linked discussion I added "born in Mecca" to the body in 2019,[7] cited to Rodinson. Hmm, the article was GA then too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The page was last affirmed as GA in 2012, and I doubt it will remain so for long. What's you point? My point was that you could cite no one (or practically anyone) for a fact as mundane as that in the lead, i.e. it is irrelevant there if it is Rodinson or not. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
My point is that a source like Rodinson may be an acceptable source for a lot of basic stuff, and there is no reason to purge him from such things. And again, I wasn't talking about the lead. Before I added it, the body didn't mention that Muhammad was born in Mecca. Old story, but an amusing oversight in a GA article. GA:s can absolutely become non-GA over time, no question about that. And of course, even GA:s are not perfect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, the book by Russ Rodgers was published by the University Press of Florida, so it's definitely very reliable. Your opinion about him doesn't matter. As for Rodinson and Glubb, they'd already been cited here multiple times before I even started editing this article. It's strange that you only have a problem with them since I began pulling out apparently embarrassing details about the subject. You're okay with Watt's books written in the 1950s, but you call Rodinson's first released in the 1960s and Glubb's in the 1970s as dated? And again, your opinion doesn't impact the reliability of these sources. Maybe take this to the WP:RS noticeboard. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: Please stop personalizing your posts. I do not care about you or your edits, and I am completely unaware of what sources you may or may not have added to the page; it is irrelevant to me. It is not my opinion that Russ Rodgers is a mere adjunct lecturer, not a tenured academic with any relevant specialism; these are facts. Being published by a university press is not an automatic rubber stamp that validates any of the material contained in such as work. The expertise of the author remains deeply valid. That is why I am discussing it here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: I'll add that one of the reasons university presses exist is to publish books by authors who need those publications to be considered for tenure. Certain fields require books, not just academic journals, for this. Just because some obscure lecturer publishes a book with a university press doesn't automatically make it a reliable or notable source, and doesn't mean the monograph got an adequate level of peer review either. The author matters more than the publication house or publication date, and the citations that author received probably matter the most. Something written in the 1950s may still be relevant today (as an analogy, see any of Albert Einstein's papers), and if Watt is a better established source, then that's what we should use, unless some other notable source (not some random book that happens to be published by a university press) has provided more up to date analysis. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, The reliability of an author is not determined by us (this is the same as original research) but by the academic community, which includes reliable publishers, such as University presses. That's one of the reasons why we don't accept self-published books, or books published by vanity presses. Unless the author has a track record as a subject matter expert in a certain field, then his self-published book may be acceptable as a source for articles on that field. Kaalakaa (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: The reliability of an author isn't determined by a university press either. A university press accepting a manuscript isn't the same as peer review. A university press accepts manuscripts that it deems may have may have academic interest, but it is basically one step up from a vanity press or self-publishing. The number of citations an author gets in other scholarly literature is more indicative of reliability. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist I'm sorry, but just like I don't agree with your comments in this topic (which, in my opinion, appear to endorse content based solely on personal observations in a museum), I also can't agree with those two particular comments of yours.
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
Is there any evidence that Russ Rodgers' book received an exception and did not undergo an adequate peer review process from them? If there isn't, we can't hint that his book is lacking in that regard, because that's the same as original research.
Regarding Rodinson and Glubb, in this revision that received the status of a good article, they are cited multiple times. I kind of find it strange that only after the apparently embarrassing stuff about the subject is extracted from their books are they then questioned. If I were to do the same with those Watt's books that were released in the 1950s, I wonder if he would also be questioned. Kaalakaa (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: This constant allusion to the motives of other editors is not very healthy and is rather indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Wikipedia is a collegiate community; please treat it as such. Peer review is also not so black and white; there are different qualities of peer review. There are plenty of scholarly journals, for instance, that claim peer review, but whose process is held in little regard. It is not useful to oversimplify. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the next step is to look up the peer reviewers themselves and see if they are also subject-matter experts. If they are not, the peer review process is likely more of a rubber stamp than a marker of academic esteem. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: It is interesting that you bring up a non-sequitur unrelated conversation rather than address the actual argument here, which you ignored, to wit: citations to an author's work matters. A publishing house's claims of peer review, while helpful, aren't as relevant. You are putting far too much weight on the publishing house and less on the actual work that was published. Universities have faculty who engage in fringe theories and crackpottery, and they get published by university presses, for example Ward Churchill being published by Harvard University Press (he lost is job for academic unprofessionalism). Claiming that the value of a source depends on who published it, well, that claim doesn't hold water. Look at the author, look at the work and the citations it gets. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course, Watt's book has received more citations, given that it was published in the 1950s, compared to Russ Rodgers' more recent book[2] from the 2010s, published by the University Press of Florida. I'm sure this same pattern exists in scientific literatures, even though newer research may have updated or corrected older information.
Correcting your point again, 'Life and Times of Mohammed' by Glubb has actually received at least 130 citations.[3] It even earned a review that I believe is quite favorable from Watt himself.[4] Publications that cite Glubb's book include Kecia Ali's book,[5] published by Harvard University Press; Lesley Hazleton's book,[6] released by Penguin; and Richard A. Gabriel's book by the University of Oklahoma Press,[7] where the title is abbreviated as 'Life and Times.'
That's the idea, yes. Glad you're on board. I take it from the above that Rodger's work remains just as obscure as initially surmised. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323:, you said that Russ Rodgers falls well short of subject-matter expert. I'm sorry, but that Bloomsbury link that you provided seems to disagree with your claim:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter experton insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
Also, keep in mind that this isn't some self-published work. This is a University Press of Florida publication that's been peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida.[25] Thus makes the books highly reliable, as our WP:RS states:
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Also, please remember that we have WP:AGEMATTERS. Your argument that accuses a recent source of being obscure just because it has much fewer citations compared to a source released in the 1950s is completely inconsistent with that guideline. Kaalakaa (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: Please stop sloganeering and explaining sources to some unknown audience. It always helps to read what people are saying before responding. I haven't claimed that the sources above are not reliable. I have highlighted that there are various areas for improvement, with several dated, non-expert sources currently in circulation on the page. You are, however, incorrect above. It is well within the remit of editors to form local consensuses on the usability of sources, though that is, again, not the topic here (yet). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
A) That's his publisher praising him, which ... of course it would. That's how your promote your published works; B) The text is probably written by Rodgers himself and submitted to the publisher to post (obviously); [and C) the subject here is Muhammad, not insurgency movements or any kind of warfare in general (clearly his main specialism), but a personal biography, so even if we were to trust these COI extollations, it would still not be a perfect source for extracting well-rounded biographical material on an individual.] But mainly just A & B. If you take anything that you find on the internet as golden then we are never going to be able to have a mature source discussion. Please use WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: A) you were the one who brought that link, remember? B) That book of his was not published by Bloomsbury, and again you're practicing WP:OR here. C) Why did you only cite his expertise in insurgency movements and left out the early Islamic warfare part? We always refer to the Early Muslim conquests as the conflicts that began during Muhammad's time, not the wars that took place in the early 20th century. Kaalakaa (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't link to Bloomsbury so that you could treat it as scripture, and yes, Rodgers has published with Bloomsbury, so they are his publisher (and publicist). But look, this is getting silly. If you have no interest in seriously discussing sources then be my guest and don't, but I'm not interested in this increasingly sad and shallow mimicry of an actual discussion. Rodgers is no expert by any of the usual metrics and is barely cited. But if you simply don't care, and all you value is the rubber stamp of something being published, that's your prerogative. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Remember, this "The text is probably written by Rodgers himself and submitted to the publisher to post" is merely your WP:OR, as well as this "Rodgers is no expert by any of the usual metrics." So they don't actually hold any weight here.
I repeat. This book[26] by Russ Rosgers is neither some self-published work nor a work that published by vanity press. This is a University Press of Florida publication that's been peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida.[27] Thus makes the book highly reliable, as our WP:RS states:
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Regarding your statement that "Rodgers ... is barely cited." This looks like a case of WP:IDNHT. Like I already told you multiple times, we have a guideline named WP:AGEMATTERS, which means that Wikipedia prefers more recent works. Naturally, more recent works receive far fewer citations than much older works. Therefore, your argument that Rodgers' more recent book is obscure because it has far fewer citations than Watt's book published in the 1950s is completely inconsistent with that guideline. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It is absolutely if Rodger's bio was written by himself or not: it's posting by Bloomsbury is meaningless, since a publisher's website is not a credible source. You are focusing on everything but anything of value. These excuses for the lack of citation are meanwhile ridiculous. The book has been in print for more than a decade, and there are only half a dozen English-language citations. And realistically, if a book has any currency at all, it is more likely to be cited sooner rather than later - interest doesn't magically develop decades later. Rodgers is much more pop history author than serious historian. He is not obviously mentioned on any university websites as a adjunct or visiting anything. I think your staunch defense of this source has far more to do with the fact that you have littered the page with extraordinary statements supported by Rodgers as a standalone source than anything else. Given the weakness of Rodgers, WP:ECREE may well apply to many. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
You were the one who brought that link to support your previous claim; now that it's been used against your claim you dismissed it. @Iskandar323. Do you have any proof that that text was written by Russ Rodgers? If you don't, then it's merely a WP:OR. Do you know what a vanity press is? Can you tell whether Bloomsbury is a vanity press or not? Can you inform me of the differences between vanity presses and university presses? Kaalakaa (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
No one is using the Bloomsbury link for anything; it is worthless - I merely held it up to point out that Rodgers has little to no academic background. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323: Haha, and now you're claiming that it suggests he possesses little to no academic background. Where exactly does it mention that?
Bloomsbury and University Press of Florida aren't just any publishers or vanity presses where anyone can pay to get their book published. WP:RS clearly says that books published by well-regarded academic presses are regarded as reliable.
* Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
This means that the "citation counts" in the next prong are to find out whether works outside the above category are reliable. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean that there is no evidence that he is a historian rated by any other historians or academia in general in any real sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Nah, you clearly said:
No one is using the Bloomsbury link for anything; it is worthless - I merely held it up to point out that Rodgers has little to no academic background.
Now, where exactly does that Bloomsbury link that you previously provided mention that?
The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review and are slated for publication, ensuring that the peer review process is thorough.
Posting that has been worthless every time you have posted it. Yes, it's a university press. That makes it reliable in the broadest sense, and, at bare minimum, reliable for attributing opinions to Rodgers. That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject, especially if his lone opinions are not supported by other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Why are you avoiding my question above regarding the Bloomsbury link you provided? Haha. And regarding this opinion of yours.
That doesn't make Rodgers a necessarily good source on this subject
Which part of our content guidelines supports that? The book is clearly about Muhammad; it is a joint publication from 11 universities in Florida and has been peer-reviewed and assessed by academics from each of those universities, and our WP:RS states:
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
I just found out that that Rodgers' book[29] is cited by Kecia Ali in her book "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014),[30] published by Harvard University Press. One of which is for her statement:
"We learn that her wealth gave him the leisure for retreat and reflection." (p. 114)
Kecia also praises and recommends that Rodgers' book, saying:
"A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad" (p. 270).
Yep, so only the book's input on military matters is really rated by anyone, which is in line with it being a military-focused source. It is the input on non-military matters, where the author has no expertise or background, that is the problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I was about to make the same comment: how is approval from military academics relevant to how this sourced is being used in this article? But just to be clear: The UPF faculty advisory board, composed of faculty members from each of the 11 universities in the State University System, assesses and approves all books that have passed peer review is irrelevant. It was "peer reviewed" by a potentially a couple of academics. That's it. In any case, who cares what 11 universities in Florida think. WP:DUE means that Rodgers POV needs to carry weight in the global Muhammad scholarship community and you've consistently smoke screened addressing that issue. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. Yeah let's just start an RfC. What do you want to ask? If the book by Russ Rodgers is WP:DUE or not? Or should we bring this to arbitration instead? Kaalakaa (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
That is not how it works. Weight does not apply to the source in general; it applies to the usage in any given context, be it a single statement or even just a phrase. More process is not what is needed here at this time; it is more consideration and discussion of weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, then why did you put the "dubious" and "undue" tags to all the information cited to this[34] Rodgers' book? Why do you keep attacking his reliability with various accusations that are mostly proven false [1]? Why don't we just ask RfC, are all material sourced from this Russ Rodgers book[35] on the article Muhammad WP:UNDUE if no other sources are added to support it? Kaalakaa (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi again, @Anachronist. Regarding your recent revert that cites WP:BURDEN, [8], the policy states that
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
The passage already has a citation with it, however, in case you want the text from the source, here you go:
Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).
Also, I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran. However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him. Here's a text from the Cambridge Companions to Muhammad, page 39:[1]
When we read the Qur¯anic Meccan passages alone, without benefit of post-Qur¯anic interpretation, Muhammad emerges as a mortal prophet who still has no miracle other than the Qur¯an, the book he received from God over the last twenty-two years of his life, first in Mecca (610–622 CE) and then in Medina (622–632). Muhammad appears in these passages as a man who both warns of the oncoming Judgment Day and brings God’s message of mercy. But in the post-Qur¯anic sources, a different Muhammad emerges; these sources move away from the mortal Qur¯anic warner toward an ideal hero whom later generations of devoted believers have shaped and read back into the Qur¯an by means of its exegesis.
@Kaalakaa: I am not arguing that the statement was unsourced. I am saying that for a biography, we don't need to put undue emphasis on analysis of statements of faith. Whether Muhammad was shown one miracle or multiple miracles is a point of theology, not history, and is therefore unnecessary to include here. Such a theological distinction belongs more in an article like Muhammad in Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa if that's the case and that's the argument you trust to be the neutral view from this book, then this whole article Muhammad has no meaning to be there, since almost all of it - whether before June or after - is based on post-Quranic sources. When you say:
I think there has been consensus among secular scholars that the historical Muhammad had no miracles, a notion supported by the Quran.
I can say that I also think that there's a consensus among secular scholars that no historical figure performed any miracle as they'll be considered myths from the secular perspective, which I'm fine with that as long as you don't alter the fact that its been always a fundamental belief before the secular analysis. You can deny that Jesus ever performed miracles or deny his entire existence in the 1st century, but you'll not say that this rejection is the fundamental belief among Christians as per the Gospels, as clearly it isn't.
As for the Quran CLEARLY mentioning miracles during Muhammad's time, I've already discussed that in the Recent neutrality concerns, and you've ignored to respond.
Its true that the word Mi'raj was not used in the Quran, but the event of the Ascension itself has been described in the Quran[2] where it describes his meeting with his Lord at Sidrat al-Muntaha, even described that as the greatest miracle[3]. The Quran has no notion that Muhammad is without a miracle when it clearly mentions the angels being behind the Muslim victory at Badr[4]
As for the Isra' itself, which is the Night Journey to Jerusalem, since the very word Isra is mentioned in the Quran it was not possible to deny it as Mi'raj. Therefore what you did to struggle to deny the miracle, you doubted that it was to Jerusalem, and even claimed that Jerusalem is merely a belief among Nowadays Muslims and that there's disagreement among where the destination was, which you showed no references to this nor any source. I'm still wishing to see when did Muslims ever disagree on that the destination of the Night Journey was Jerusalem at any point in history!
However, Muslims living a few centuries after his death began attributing miracles to him.
There's no evidence that at any point in history the Muslims didn't believe that their prophet performed miracles, we can only see this denial in latter centuries, but never among the earliest, as the earliest surviving biography compiled by Ibn Ishaq mentioned tons of miracles performed by him, which I think you're aware of. Even the miracles compiled in canonical books of hadith are cited with chain of transmissions that goes back to the companion who narrated to have witnessed them. So the only possible way to assure this information is to have traveled to the 7th century to ask whether they believed Muhammad performed miracles or not, as the earliest sources says that he did. Jopharocen (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
^Hinduism & Islam: The Common Thread (Sri Sri Ravi Shankar) (2002) [Kindle edition]. Santa Barbara, CA: Art of Living Foundation USA. 2002. p. 20. The Prophet Mohammed and His Appearance in Vedic Literature The Vedic text Bhavishya Purana (Parva 3, Khand 3, Adya 3, texts 5-6) predicts the appearance of Mohammed. Therein it states: "An illiterate teacher will appear, Mohammed is his name, and he will give religion to the people of the desert."
@M.Bitton: Yes, I know it's in that cited source. I am asking for a look at the primary source, to make sure that the author of the cited source didn't engage in some creative interpretive license in that quotation. Christian history is rife with "scholars" who take liberties interpreting prophecies to justify certain points, especially when trying to align opposing worldviews such as Christianity and science, or in this case Hinduism and Islam. We can indeed state that Ravi Shankar claims this, but it would be even better to see an actual translation rather than a cherrypicked quotation. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, googling around, it seems that this prophetic claim is more prevalent than simply being promoted by Ravi Shankar and the translation I found bears little resemblance to Shankar's quotation. There also this and this - the second of which offers some context, particularly the view that the prediction isn't about the prophet Muhammad because "there is no mention of Muhammad being a prophet. Bhavishya Purana clearly says that the land has been infested by evildoers with demonic nature whose leader is propagating them. The evildoers name is Muhammad." ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist: my bad (I misread your comment). While there are plenty of sources mentioning this claim, I couldn't find any that I would describe as reliable. According to this questionable source (similar to the ones that you cited), "Mleccha" means foreigner. Whether Ravi Shankar's claims belong in the article is another issue. M.Bitton (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. The source you found, although original research, is a more thorough analysis than Ravi Shankar's, and does a good job debunking the assertion that there is any sort of prediction about the prophet Muhammad. While it would be factual to mention that Ravi Shankar claims this, I also agree it would be WP:UNDUE for Wikipedia to link Hinduism with Islam in this way, particularly in light of the fact that the appearance of the prophet Muhammad in history had no effect on Hinduism. Therefore I'm comfortable declining this edit request. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
^KHAN, A. D. (4 August 2021). A History of the Sadarat in Medieval India VOLUME- I (PRE-MUGHALPERIOD). K.K. Publications. pp. 36, 37, 72. ISBN9788178440767. Retrieved 2 August 2023. The Arabs placed the Hindus including the Buddhists, in the second category of Ahl-i Zimma, the Mushabaih-i Ahl-i Kitab. The verdict to give the status of Mushabah-i Ahl-i Kitab to the Hindus, including the Buddhists, was probably based on the fact that although there is no mention of Hindu scriptures in the Qur'an, there are specific references and prophecies about the Prophet himself in the Hindu scriptures. The one in the Bhavishya Purana rendered in English runs thus: 5. Just then an illiterate man with the epithet teacher, Muhammad by name, came alongwith his companions; 6. Raja (Bhoja in a Vision) to that Great Deva, the denizen of Arabia, purifying with the Ganges water and with the five things of cow offered sandal wood and paid worship Foundation of Sadarat in India 37 to him, 7.0 denizen of Arabia and Lord of the Holies to thee is my adoration. O thou, who hast found many ways and means to destroy all the devils of the world, 8. 0 pure one from among the illiterates, O sinless one, the spirit of truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration. Accept me at thy feet. One passage in the Atharva Veda reads: "O people, listen this emphatically, the man of praise (Muhammad) will be raised among the people. We take the emigrant in our shelter from sixty thousand and ninety enemies whose conveyances are twenty camels and she-camels, whose loftiness of position touches the heaven and towers it. He gave to Mamah Rishi hundred of gold coins ten circles, three hundred Arab horses and ten thousand cows." Accordingly, the life and property of the Hindus were assured, 'they were permitted to reconstruct their temples (damaged in war or otherwise) and to live in their houses in whatever manner they liked.(8) References: 6. Bhavishya Purana, Parv 3, khand 3, Adhyay 3, Shalok 5-8. 7. Atharva Veda, Kanda, 20, Sukta 127, Montra 1-3. 8. Chach-Nama, E.D.I. p. 185.
I'm not sure it can be used. Per the author's words "there are specific references and prophecies about the Prophet himself in the Hindu scriptures", it seems to me this is written from a religious perspective, assuming these scriptures are supposed to pre-date Muhammad. Publisher's about page [9] didn't help me, and I have no idea who KHAN, A. D. is. I do think this is an interesting POV, reminds me of Muhammad in the Bible. If it is to be mentioned in a WP-article, it would be good if we could nail down who it is who believe this text refers to the prophet Muhammad, and if there is objection to the idea. If it's a very small group, it may not be interesting enough to mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
That book seems to be self-published. The publisher website is defunct, and the copyright is held by the author rather than the publisher. Also, I can find other sources that say these texts are inconclusive. Muhammad isn't explicitly named (a name that sounds similar is used) and nowhere do the texts say it refers to a prophet. Bhavishya Purana, Parv 3, khand 3, Adhyay 3 is referenced, but the translation I found does not say what these authors claim it says. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
You mean the "Then he started his journey of conquest and reached near a place where a man named Mahaamada (Mohammad) dwelling in that place, who is residing there as a teacher, teaching his student." translation, right? Doesn't sound much like what Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said. But if people have read this and concluded that this is about the prophet, I'm less than astounded, it's what people do. Christ = Krishna, it's just common sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
SD: "Sacred books of Hindus contain the history of universe. These books also contain foretelling of future events." It's not a source I like in this context. Assuming there are useful refs in the Ved Prakash Upadhyay WP-article, I see us potentially arriving at something like this for the Muhammad#Other_religions section:
"According to Hinduism scholar Ved Prakash Upadhyay, Muhammad is mentioned in Hindu texts that pre-dates Muhammad."
It's clear that this is going nowhere, but the result of this RfC is not necessarily an endorsement of the articles current state. Discussion about whether particular sources are due/undue should continue on the talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I think a that's to big of a mouthful, yes feathers has been ruffled but the content need a further debate. No blanket rollback. IP says: Works better yes. 213.237.84.215 (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: I also support this given how the quality of sourcing has been degraded in the interim in such a sufficiently systemic way that restoring the page from its present point would otherwise simply involve 500 edits in the other direction. I am not fond of the idea of extreme rollbacks, but in this instance it feels warranted. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Opppose because, aside from my opposition to restoring that unnecessary "battle record" that was added by a sockpuppet, overall the edits are a net improvement, albeit with problems introduced. In all those edits since Kaalakaa began editing this article, several excellent edits were made (I daresay most of them) and good sources added, with some minor exceptions. I think it's a better idea for us to embark on a project to review one days' worth of Kaalakaa's edits at a time, and ask Kaalakaa to voluntarily self-ban from this article (but not the talk page) until this task is done. One can do this easily in a single diff using the "compare selected revisions" feature. For example, Kaalakaa began editing on 12 June. Here is the single diff showing the result of all edits for 12 June. The text changes look OK to me, although I cannot judge the sourcing changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - The edits are a mix of good and bad, so I can't get behind abandoning everything. Also questionable that this RfC was started by an IP. Cuñado ☼ - Talk22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose -(Summoned by bot) AFAI can see, most of the edits are broadly constructive and the IP proposer hasn't made a case for such a drastic revert - nor detailed specifically what is wrong with text or sourcing for the present version. The proposed cure here is too drastic and we need specifics as to flaws in either content or sources. Pincrete (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This is quite a muddle. There are some issues pointed out in the above (multiple) threads. The problem is there's clearly non-policy POV-based complaints there intermingled with some legitimate concerns around use of particular sources and WP:DUE. The corpus of edits are similarly difficult to untangle. Clearly many (most?) are fine. But what's more difficult to ascertain is whether there are some subtle and not-so-subtle shifts in the article driven by choice of source etc. There's a general lack of understanding on this because so much has changed in such a short time. I really don't know what the answer is. I agree a general roll-back is excessive. On the other hand I'm not sure Anachronist's proposed day-by-day review is feasible either. Probably not a helpful comment from me! :) DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The version of the article before my edits was plagued by numerous issues, such as WP:SYNTH[1]; WP:OR[2][3]; source misrepresentation [4][5], [6], cherry-picking by leaving out important information that seemed to adversely affect the subject's image from sources (which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED), etc. In my edits, I tried to correct these things, incorporated the previously omitted essential information (which if not included would cause disinformation), and added some more significant details based on the already existing sources and other more recent ones as per WP:AGEMATTERS. It took me almost 3 months to do this, so it wasn't short. And no one was disputing my edits until a new user, @Jopharocen, based on his understanding of primary sources, raised an issue with my edits, accusing me of putting my own interpretation of the primary sources into the article, which is proven wrong here. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons stated by Cuñado, Pincrete, and Kaalakaa. And my own rationale: people raising "neutrality issues" does not necessarily indicate a problem with the article; Muhammad's article will be contentious no matter what it looks like, due to the special interest in it from various groups. And even if it did have a problem, getting rid of all edits over a wide period, whether "good" or "bad", is not the right course of action. JM2023 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose a large rollback. It takes more work to look at edits one by one, but that work was put in one by one by an editor trying to improve the article. If editors are concerned, review the edits and fix them. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (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.
"Inception of animosity against the Jews" section
This section was given a "POV" tag back in August, and has received some discussion on this talkpage, but I think it's worth dedicating a discussion topic specifically to it. Is the section as currently written undue? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The title is egregiously POV - it's a massively leading title that basically attempts present a take on the story ahead of a reader reading the content, and is one of the more in-your-face examples of the page having been rewritten in an editorialized manner. It also steps outside of the general chronology of the parent section (which would naturally begin at the "Following the Battle of Badr..." paragraph) to instead provide a somewhat argumentative intro paragraph on general relations between the Muslims and Jews that assists in setting up the POV then conveyed by the title. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: Sorry, I can't agree with the deletion of the content, but if it's about changing the title, I'm open to that. The content in this section is important for understanding the causes of the subsequent events. Wikipedia is written in sections, with each section containing only a few paragraphs. To make it easier to categorize, I created the section about the origins of the hostility towards the Jews, separate from the previous section which is about the start of the armed conflict with the Quraysh. This is more or less similar to the World War II article, where even though at the end of the section on the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) already discusses the event in 1939, the next section on the Japanese invasion of China (1937) goes back to discussing events from 1937. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
That first paragraph is essential for informing readers about Muhammad's motives for his subsequent actions toward the Jews. Unless you want to violate WP:NOTCENSORED, go ahead and delete it. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Conflict with the Jewish tribes in Mecca" as that is the specific Jewish tribes and not the religious affiliation that was in conflict.
Sorry, but, for your information, there were no Jews living in Mecca at that time. They resided in settlements outside Mecca, such as Medina, Khaybar, Fadak, and others. That's why when the Quraysh people wanted to inquire with the Jews to verify the prophethood of Muhammad, they sent two individuals, Nadr and Uqba, to Medina. Kaalakaa (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Historian Russ Rodgers argues that while there are accounts of some Muslims being beaten and a few being tortured, the early record shows that only one, or perhaps two, were killed, and even these cases are questionable. He further contends that had the Quraysh acted more aggressively, Muhammad’s nascent movement would have been obliterated.
According to the 19th-century orientalist Julius Wellhausen, when Muhammad arrived in the city in 622, the Jewish tribes were allied with the two Arab tribes as subordinates. However, 21st-century historian Russ Rodgers disagrees. He argues that during Muhammad’s second pledge of Aqaba, members of the two Arab tribes stated that they had to break certain alliances with the Jews due to the nature of the pledge. Rodgers infers from this that it was the two Arab tribes who held a subservient or, at most, an equal position to the Jews, since otherwise, the Jews would have been drawn into the covenant.
I think if Russ Rodgers is the only one saying something, and no one else is quoting Russ Rodgers (extremely probably given his low to non-existent impact factor), then it is definitely undue to be presenting his views - least of all his "inferences", for which we can in fact read "unevidenced claims outside of general scholarship". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hemiauchenia: The Russ Rodgers' book in question is:
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. … In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion
Therefore, the information in this book is also strongly WP:DUE. The book wasn't questioned until @Iskandar323 claimed, based on this link he brought forth, that Rodgers "falls well short of subject-matter expert." When I checked the link, the content actually contradicts what Iskandar accused, stating instead that:
Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army
When I informed him about this, he dismissed it, and he then tried to divert attention to Rodgers' expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [11]. After I told him that the "early Islamic warfare" refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [12], he said "the link is worthless" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [13]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [14]. His typical arguments are that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [15] who has a hobby in history [16]. He appears to be unaware that there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [17](even a specific directorate dedicated for them [18]), and Rodgers is their command historian [19], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations [20]. And as far as I know, his book is the only publication from the University Press of Florida that discusses in detail the life of Muhammad from the standpoint of his generalship. And this tells something. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT and stop repeating the same tired and refuted arguments over and over again in different threads. This spamming of the talk page with identikit responses is becoming disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Those blurbs about authors are typically written by the authors themselves. It doesn't contradict the assertion that Rodgers isn't a significant source that deserves any weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is important for clarifying to others about your false accusations against a reliable source. Whether they want to read it or not is their business. I provide the diffs and evidence that your accusation against Rodgers based on this link, that he 'falls well short of subject-matter expert,' [21] is a false accusation [22]. The same goes for your accusations that Rodgers is just a person with modest military expertise [23] who has a hobby in history [24] and "has little to no academic background" [25]. Because the fact is,
there exist historian positions within the U.S. Army [26] (even a specific directorate dedicated for them [27]), and Rodgers is their command historian [28], whose research results are, among other things, used to furnish the commander and staff with historical perspectives during the planning and implementation of operations. [29]
Is there any diffs that you have refuted these or proved your accusations? Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you can quote it here. Kaalakaa (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The issue in this section is about Russ Rodgers' statements, and he is one of the sources. What are you even talking about? You were the one who started casting doubts on his credibility, marking all material sourced from him with 'undue' and 'dubious' tags [30] based on your many accusations against him, which, as I have explained above, are proven to be false. ~ Kaalakaa (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Can you clarify what you mean by 'here'? Are you referring only to the two statements above or to the entire article, like how Iskandar labelled all material sourced from Rodgers as 'undue' and 'dubious' based on his allegations against him, which turned out to be incorrect? Kaalakaa (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
"Here" refers to the article, as well as this talk page. The incorrectness of the allegations has not been established. I have responded to some of your arguments already that I found wanting, and I am not interested in rehashing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Sorry, but I think that I have explained just above how those accusations are incorrect by providing diffs, links, and direct quotations. If you don't inform me specifically where my explanations are wrong, how can I respond? BTW, have your read the book? 🙂 Kaalakaa (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change '''Muhammad'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah''', '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{langx|ar|مُحَمَّد}}; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]]) to '''Muhammad ibn Abdullah'''{{efn|He is referred to by many appellations, including '''Messenger of God''', '''The Prophet Muhammad''', '''God's Apostle''', '''Last Prophet of Islam''', and others; there are also many variant spellings of Muhammad, such as '''Mohamet''', '''Mohammed''', '''Mahamad''', '''Muhamad''', '''Mohamed''' and many others.}} ({{Naskh|{{langx|ar|مُحَمَّد بِنْ عَبْدُاللّٰه}}}}; {{transl|ar|Muḥāmmad bin ʿAbd ʿAllāh}}, <small>lit.</small> 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah'; {{circa}} 570 – 8 June 632 [[Common Era|CE]]).
If there is no reliable source cited in your changed lede, or already in the article elsewhere, for "Muhammad ibn Abdullah", then this change is very unlikely to be executed. JM2023 (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
But no source is needed for this; his full name being "Muhammad ibn Abdullah" is a known fact, plus "Ali ibn Abi Talib" in the Ali article is unsourced yet accepted, as well as "Umar ibn Khattab", etc. ―Emperor ÖSMAN IXXVMD (talk)12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
muhammad's "full name" is not a known fact, and just because other articles don't source a full name doesn't mean they're not supposed to. we don't have to cite the sky being blue because everyone knows the sky is blue, but most people don't know muhammad's full name. for example I didn't know his full name. JM2023 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim is in the article, first paragraph under Life, with a source. In reality, I don't think there's any standard answer on how far back in the genealogy to go with the Nasab. I suspect somewhere there's a WP:CONSENSUS view that "Muhammad" uniquely satisfies the MOS:FIRST requirement for this article - it's not going to be confused with any other Muhammad. Plus there's the footnote. (Btw, EmperorÖsman, Appellation = Name.) DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
so if it's already in the article and sourced then it can be placed in the lede unsourced, but it's up to whoever answers the request on whether to do that or not; I don't have the power to edit ECP articles, so it won't be me JM2023 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work like that. Before using using the edit request functionality, a consensus must first be obtained for the edit. That's not been done in this case - I've switched the request to 'answered' because of that. DeCausa (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
clearly that doesn't occur very often, I didn't even know about it. Maybe it is supposed to be like that, but I've never seen it done like that. I assumed it works the same way as any other edit, which is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycleJM2023 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:MOSISLAM regarding the NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"
Currently our article, under the household section, there's a paragraph (which I haven't touched yet) that reads:
According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,[1][2][3] with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old.[a] She was therefore a virgin at marriage.[2]Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.[b]
The issue is the latter part that I italicized. There are 4 sources provided, two of which:
Doesn't talk about any recalculation based on her sister Asma's age at all, but
Aqqad cleverly skirts the authenticated Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari in which Aisha herself reports that she was nine at the time, addressing it only obliquely by suggesting that Aisha was fond of emphasizing her childhood spent in the nascent days of Islam and how young she was during the faith’s formative days. ‘Aqqad thus allows his readers to reconcile their faith in the Prophet’s complete rectitude and even in Islam’s collective historical corpus with what many had come to accept as the ‘natural’ and ideal norms for marriage.
More conservative Muslim scholars objected to this rereading of the Prophet’s life. They sensed the epistemological turnover behind ‘Aqqad’s defense of Islam. Not only did it upturn the hierarchy of authority within the Sunni scriptural canon by ignoring a clear text contained in Bukhari’s august Sahih, it also broke with the Shariah consensus on marriage age. No member of Egypt’s religious establishment showed more displeasure with ‘Aqqad than Ahmad Shakir. In the spring of 1944 he penned a number of popular journal articles excoriating the famous wordsmith’s book on the Prophet’s most active wife.
The only reliable source that supports the statement (of our article) is the following one:
Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126.
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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
However, the author has released a revised edition[15] of the book in which that statement no longer exists, seemingly having been retracted.
And according to Kecia Ali in "The Lives of Muhammad" (2014) published by Harvard University Press, p.173:
In the late twentieth century, in a renewed climate of criticism of Islam, divergent tendencies emerge in Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Muslim scholars engage in apologetics to justify Aisha’s marriage. The dominant strategy is to contextualize it as historically appropriate to its time and place and to play up, as with the multiple marriages, the politi
cal motivations behind it. A less common strategy recalculates Aisha’s age at marriage based on other indicators in the sources.
Which means this statement in our article:
Modern Muslim authors who calculate Aisha's age based on other sources of information, such as a hadith about the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma, estimate that she was over thirteen and perhaps in her late teens at the time of her marriage.
I'm sorry, so after neglecting all of the other active discussions on due weight and balance you're now asserting these points here? If you've got time to burn on more minor points, how about you address the elephant in the room that is your own pushing of marginal sources across the whole page? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: I agree with removing the questionable sources. However, this part should summarize Aisha#Age at marriage and consummation, which does include a short discussion of the dispute about Aisha's age and how it came about.
Additionally, the conclusion "therefore she was a virgin" seems like a non-sequitur and is irrelevant to this biography of Muhammad. The fact that a 9-year-old would be a virgin isn't a controversial claim that needs a source, and doesn't need to be stated at all.
It might be worth replacing the sentence about recalculated age with one saying that her accepted age wasn't in dispute until recent times in response to criticism. But again, this is a biography about Muhammad. It's enough just to state Aisha's age and be done with it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Aisha's age shouldn't even be in dispute, it's even in the FAQ people are supposed to read. Certainly such fringe and unreliable claims should be removed from the article. JM2023 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
About 19 days have passed. It appears there are 4-0 in favor of removal of the text, so I deleted it in accordance. If anyone disagrees and has reliable sources to back it up, feel free to raise it here. Kaalakaa (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
^Barlas, Asma (2012). "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. University of Texas Press. p. 126. 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. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.
Aisha (ra) was earlier engaged to Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn Adi.
Later, when Prophet ﷺ proposal came, Abu Bakr went to discuss with his friend Mut'im.
His wife's Umm al-Sabi replied: If Abu Bakr doesn't come back to his previous religion, then engagement is off.
Above incident proves
- Aisha-Jubayr engagement happened before Abu Bakr accepted Islam 610 CE.
- Further, Aisha-Prophet's marriage = 624 CE.
- Also, Imam ad-Dhahabi: Marriage occured in 4th year after Hijra 626 CE. (Tarikh al Islam wa al-Wafiat al-Mashahir wa al-Alam, Vol III, p 288) ed by Dr. Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri Beirut 1st print.
Hence, Aisha age should be ‘more than’ 14-16 years. So, Bukhari/Nasai hadees on 6 years of marriage is #fake.
It made sense to have a sub–talk page just for images discussion back when it seemed like we were getting arguments about the Muhammad images several times a day, but now it happens so seldom I don't see why we need it anymore. The regular talk page should be able to field all discussions now. Anyone object to discontinuing it? The archives will still be accessible. —Chowbok☠14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we should keep it. Image related discussions do come up and they get moved to that sub page.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In this sentence/passage :
"In December 629, after eight years of intermittent fighting with Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The conquest went largely uncontested and Muhammad seized the city with little bloodshed"
There is almost no context at all on this event, and makes it seem like a conquest without reason, it is highly advised that the reason is mentioned, so,
Please Change the above passage in itallics to:
"...fighting with Meccan tribes, a peace treaty was broken and Muhammad gathered an army...",
as mentioned in this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Mecca".
Context is important, and adding a link to the treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah) is preferable as well.
This is a major event, and mentioning the 8 years of fighting makes it only fair to let the reader know about a treaty that existed, and a brief on what caused the event to occur after 8 years.
Thank you. Yahya AGX (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources if there were Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were in opposition to Muhammad.
@Iskandar323, in your latest edit to the article [31], you wrote the edit summary as:
"retitling - "Opposition" was the stable section title, and "Quraysh" is incorrect, as various Meccan tribes were in opposition"
Are there reliable sources that support this, that there were Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were also in opposition to him? Kaalakaa (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Obviously the Quraysh were the dominant, ruling tribe, but there were plenty of different tribes in Mecca, which was by no means tribally monolithic. There are plenty of sources that discuss these events simply in term of the "Meccans". Esposito, for example:"Meccan opposition escalated from derision and verbal attacks to active persecution. The core of the opposition came from the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe." (my bolding there - the emphasis being on the Quraysh being the core, not presumptively the totality of the opposition) ... so this example and other similar sources make this pretty clear. In contrast, I don't see sources suggesting that the opposition was exclusive to the Quraysh. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
"the Umayyad clan of the Quraysh tribe", so it's still the Quraysh tribe.
What I'm asking is if there are sources that say that there were other Meccan non-Quraysh tribes that were also in opposition to Muhammad at that time, since afaik many sources use Meccans and Quraysh interchangeably. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
If the sources use Meccans (general) and Quraysh (specific) interchangeably, that means the information is ambiguous, and only the general term can suitably cover all the bases. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa: you are correct, source speaks only about the Umayyad clan as the core of the Quraysh tribe - at least in this specific source and quote.. ౪ Santa ౪99°08:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Article on Muhammad is clearly biased against him. I am not a Muslim, and for the most part I am an admirer of Wikipedia. But this article is an embarrasment to Wikipedia.
Compare the Muhammad Wikipedia entry to those on Christ and the Buddha. The latter have a sympathetic tone. Whoever wrote this has no understanding of Muhammad's teaching, and they are trying, at every point, to deconstruct. 76.212.86.226 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad, Jesus, and Buddha are all different people with different actions and morals, of course the articles are going to be different. Muhammad's life and doings are reported neutrally from reliable sources. If you have a problem with the article, it's a problem you actually have with the sources, so you'll have to take it up with them. JM2023 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
In sub-section 3.1.8 Hijrah, Muhammad's action is described rather subjectively as "prudence." Seeking consensus to replace "Muhammad acted with prudence and sent an agent" with "Muhammad sent an agent" in order to retain the purported fact while removing the judgement call as to whether that action was prudent or not, hopefully better adhering to WP:NPOV by prefering nonjudgmental language. ShoneBrooks (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Shonebrooks: Hi, I don't mind the word itself being removed. I merely tried to adhere to the source, which uses the wording "after his failure at Ta’if, he proceeded with care and circumspection." I simply reworded the phrase "care and circumspection" to "prudence" to avoid copyvio and since, according to dictionary.com, they have about the same meaning. Btw, Shonebrooks, thanks for your efforts in copyediting. 🙂 — Kaalakaa(talk)09:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Shonebrooks, "Preferring non-judgmental language" isn't the same as NPOV. WP:NPOV requires neutrality in the representation of sources. If the sources have "judgmental" subjective opinion and we don't reflect that then that is a violation of NPOV. However, in this case I agree it should be reworded, but because it's unclear what is meant. I don't have access to the source - why was it "prudent"? I suggest it needs to be expanded to explain why - if the source does. Indeed, I find a lot of the wording in that paragraph quite opaque - it doesn't really explain the sequence of events very clearly, in my opinion. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting they are the same. I was merely pulling point #4 from the WP:NPOV page's Explanation section, "Prefer nonjudgmental language." My POV is that describing an act as either prudent or imprudent would be equally more judgmental than if I avoid either qualification and just describe the action with a more neutral/factual tone. Hope that helps assuage any lingering concerns.
To @Kaalakaa's point, since that POV was included in the source, perhaps it should be retained as neutral reporting of the source's non-neutral POV.
Together, your input draws two related questions to the forefront of my thinking.
1. Which would better adhere to WP's spirit of neutrality, retaining judgmental language (favorable or unfavorable) in the source, or removing it to leave purported facts described without such subjective qualification? This is more of a WP guidelines question, I think.
2. If WP:NPOV is better served by retaining the subjectivity found in such a source, in this specific case, does anyone know of similarly reliable secondary sources that describe Muhammad's action here more critically? If so, then NPOV should perhaps be sought by balancing the one with the other. At the moment, I don't know of such a source. ShoneBrooks (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@DeCausa:If the sources have "judgmental" subjective opinion and we don't reflect that then that is a violation of NPOV. No, not really. How we reflect that matters. A source using biased or loaded language isn't a license for us to do the same, using non-neutral language in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Doing so violates NPOV. Inclusion of non-neutral terminology would need attribution in the prose to whoever uses that terminology, and simply citing a source isn't enough. If it seems awkward to attribute the biased terminology, then we remove it and just report the facts. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Anachronist: no that's not what I was saying. I was referring to sources (plural), not an individual source. If sources are "judgmental" about Hitler, we reflect that per WP:DUE. What you are talking about is an individual source having an idiosyncratic opinion. The point I was countering is that "judgmental" language is inherently anti-NPOV. It isn't and avoiding opionated language when called for by the sources and DUE is a violation of NPOV (per Hitler). DeCausa (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate the thought that went into these comments. Thank you. Thinking carefully about @Kaalakaa's description of the source text, I can now see how the word "prudent" could be read in a neutral voice when its secondary usage is applied; "careful in providing for the future." So leaving it unchanged seems reasonable to me now more so than upon first review. However, changing the phrase to "Thinking strategically, Muhammad sent an agent" probably captures the idea of the source's intent (Muhammad was not just making half-hazard decisions here, but was thinking about how best to meet his objective/s), with less potential to confuse that statement with a more judgmental assessment as to whether his action was "prudent" (wise) or "imprudent" (unwise), and thus avoiding the need to determine if other sources with different assessments might need to be added to balance such a view. Any major objections that change being applied? ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Shonebrooks: Hm... so I just checked the books in my library and noticed that Rodinson and some others also cover this fact, but they don't seem to give such a commentary. Though if it still needs to be included, which I don't mind, but "with prudence" is not okay, how about changing it to "with caution"? Anyway, from my reading session, I also found some important information that I think is worth including, and so I've done some rewriting of the article. I also moved the first paragraph of the Medinan Years section into the beginning of the Hijra section, so that there would be no need to repeat who Banu Aws and Khazraj were and the background conditions in Medina at that time, etc. If anyone objects, feel free to raise it here. 🙂 — Kaalakaa(talk)04:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Kaalakaa Yes, "Cautiously" or "With caution" were a couple options I was entertaining alongside "strategically" or "In a calculated move." I can live with a "prudence" variation, as you see fit. ShoneBrooks (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone else find the timeline template too long and distracting? I just changed it to collapse by default, but it doesn't seem to work on mobile. I checked other historical figures like Jesus and Alexander and none of them have this template. What is the best approach to do here? Move it, delete it or else? — Kaalakaa(talk)19:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, really? Your phone browser is set to desktop view, perhaps? Or maybe it depends on the brand? In my case, let alone collapsing, even the "hide" option is missing. 😅 — Kaalakaa(talk)12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOSISLAM Cannolis (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done I'm not sure if the Manual of style (MOS) says anything about this, but it is conventional at Wikipedia to provide the full name and transliteration in the main body for articles on historical Arabic figures, and there's no good reason to not do this here as well. Also note that we cannot include ﷺ (=SAW ṣallā Allahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam, 'may God bless him and keep him safe'), per MOS:SAWW (also see more generally MOS:ISLAMHON). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Note: Closed pending an ongoing discussion, feel free to reopen when consensus is achieved. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Note: I have set the status of this request to "answered" while editors seek consensus on what edit to make. Xan747 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Declined based on the discussion above, but we can revisit this if more reliable sources are found. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Resolved