Talk:Muhammad/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Anybody know if Muhammad was for censorship?

Anybody know if Muhammad was for censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.195.21 (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

I just removed a lot of non-Muhammad pictures. The text too is bloated and unnecessary. The article does not have to talk in length about everything - thats why we have the sub-article links. This is like having 10 articles on one page. It should be trimmed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer using sub-articles. Rklawton (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems With Introduction

Is it necessary to list Arabic text, Arabic translations, transliterations, so frequently? The first paragraph has so many things going on that it's unreadable. Look at the first sentence: "Mohammed was the founder of Islam." Do we really need 36 words to convey one simple thought? The Arabic text for "Mecca" and "Islam" are certainly not needed.

I would also argue that "He was also active as a diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action[10]" isn't a good description of Mo. First, the writings of a 19th century French poet shouldn't be considered reliable sources for an encyclopedic article on a historical religious figure. Second, the author of the citation, Lamartine, didn't write "diplomat," or "mechant." Third, Laratine doesn't call Mo "an agent of divine action," so the supertext footnote should be moved, so that it follows "military general." And fourth, Laratime doesn't write that Mo was a general (I've never seen anyone bestow rank upon him); Laratine calls Mo a "guerrier," which I don't think translates to "military general." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.46.213 (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction required concerning Shahada

The First Half of The Shahada is missing, where Shahada is "I testify that there is no God but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is a messenger of Allah" please add the missing part

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archives missing?

Resolved

When I go to archive 23, the newest I see above, I get discussions from 2008. Is there some error in the archiving function? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, it seems to be dumping everything into Archive 22, and now that archive is massive. I'm not familiar with the archive settings, but I'll take a look and see what this involves. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seems that when miszabot was first added to this page, it was hard-set to archive to #22, which is now over 700k. It is easy enough to set the configs right, but it will take me a few steps to size down the super-sized #22 so things will be readable. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Should be all set now. The most recent archives are in #23, and from this point forward it should create #24 and so on as needed. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Caricatures

can we have a section about the caricature controversy? especially with images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.17.64 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is the wrong article. There is extensive coverage in Depictions of Muhammad. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Last years in Mecca

I don't think this is in the right place (under the Final Years sections) This happened before even migrating to Medina....should be in some other section before him migrating to Medina Seektrue (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

There's nothing left to say. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:35, 11 May 2010 (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.

---

I dont see why we can't have images of muammid. wikipedia is not censored 82.25.130.155 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I count six images of Muhammad in the article. How many do you think it needs? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DNFTT. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:34, 11 May 2010 (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.

Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew is allowed, Swami vivekananda is allowed but not Prophet simply Muhammad

Its very strange to look at people calling themselves neutral and un biased. But the same set of Neutral?!!? people will allow honorifics to the leaders of their religion. But when it comes to islam they say be neutral.

Can some one explain me Why Prophet Muhammad is not allowed when Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew, Swami Vivekananda etc ar permitted in wikipedia? Are the policies only for a particular religion? Wasifwasif (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's actually a good point.—Chowbok ☠ 14:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but the correction is to use Joseph, Matthew, and Vivekananda.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OP and Kww. Better disambiguators for Joseph and Matthew would be Joseph (New Testament) and Matthew (New Testament) or something similar. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare it to the article Jesus: there are lots of Muhammads and lots of Jesuses, but we all know who we mean when we say 'Muhammad' or 'Jesus'. (Just to be clear, I am not comparing Jesus and Muhammad here; they are just contrasting examples of how the most well known figures do not generally take any additional title in their article name.)

As for 'Saint', it should just be used where needed for disambiguation (and where it is the name by which that person is commonly known). So, for example, Saint Thomas Aquinas is just Thomas Aquinas (altho' he is often, and unnecessarily, referred to as Saint in many articles).

So, I took this page name as a compliment to Muhammad: he is the Muhammad.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing I glean from this is not that this article is in the wrong because those articles do not meet the standard established by consensus, rather the opposite; those articles should be changed. Peter Deer (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, and I don't understand why the Saint Matthew article was recently renamed that from Matthew the Evangelist (as per the other three evangelists). The motion to move Swami Vivekananda to simple Vivekananda ended without consensus and so has stayed with the (obviously?) incorrect article title. Saint Joseph is a little harder as there is no other common name for him, so far as I know; that is probably the case for a handful of other saints too (for example, Saint George, for whom the tag 'New Testament' dab wouldn't work either). Most saints though do not have 'saint' in their article name (see all the Saint Catherines and all but one of the Saint Josephs for example).

So, yes, this article is correctly named, but at least some of the examples listed by the OP are, as they complain, incorrectly named (in my humble opinion etc.).

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the title names of Saint Joseph, Saint Mathhew and Swami vivekananda has to do with policy of using common names in Wikipedia rather than the honorific thing. For that matter, personally i would not oppose a motion to rename this to Prophet Mohd. Arjun^codename024 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But as the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) guideline says:

Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This comes back to the all-or-nothing problem though. Even individuals who have different titles, titles not acknowledged by all groups who hold them significant, or multiple titles (for instance, whether or not Jesus would be called "Prophet Jesus", "Rabbi Jesus", or "Jesus Christ") which is similarly contentious to the use of 'saint' regarding the apostles of Jesus, because not all groups who have a relevant interest in the subject refer to them by that title, and it is not a title they referred to themselves as in any official capacity like a king or a prime minister or a pope. (However, I am aware Muhammad referred to Himself as a Prophet, and is recognized by all institutions of Islam and the Baha'i faith as a Prophet, so that does add that additional wrinkle to the naming issue.) Peter Deer (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I doesn't add a wrinkle because we don't use titles in page names regardless of how widely used they are. There is far more agreement that Obama has the title "president" than that Muhammad has the title "prophet", but neither of their pages use the title because that's not how our naming convention works. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Draw Muhammad Day

It is supposedly 'Draw Muhammad Day' today and I notice that this article is illustrated with five drawings of Muhammad - all ancient paintings from religious manuscripts. Doesn't this suggest that the current violent controversy and ban on such images is entirely unhistorical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.43.37 (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See Depictions of Muhammad. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The section is only one sentence long and doesn't mention anything specifically. Is there a reason for this? As it stands the addition is meaningless. Why not provide examples? I can think of several common criticisms of Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.6.217 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Allaha or khuda is not what is muhhamad

Muhhamad is only a prophet god is allaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.126.39 (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please do not post unless it is in regards to improving the article. Your statement makes no sense Smitty1337 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mohammed (PBUH) IS the last prophet as it is written so in the Holy Quran. Therefore, those who don't believe what is written in the HQ, aren't really Muslims. So it's not "Most Muslims", should be "All muslims".

Source: (From the HQ) Al-Ahzab, verse #40 // سورة الأحزاب, آية 40

Ottin Z (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)O.Z. 22/5/2010

That's an excellent example of the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Nevertheless, the phrase "most Muslims" in the article should be qualified or sourced, because the statement means that some Muslims don't regard Muhammad as the last prophet. I agree this does look strange. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a No true scotsman fallacy. the action in this scenario (belief in Muhammad as prophet) is a requirement for the Subject (being muslim). Take for instance "Most aethiests believe there is no god" makes no sense as a person would by definition of the word aethist, immediatly cease to be one, if they believed in any god. Smitty1337 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying whether a denomination is part of a given religion is very tricky and full of POV. Nevertheless, I think we would have a fairly wide consensus that someone who did not view Muhammad as a profit is, by definition, not Muslim, even if they share all other aspects of the religion. Just like how we could say that a Unitarian is not a Christian even if they follow all of Jesus' moral teachings. So, I think we can probably drop the qualifier "most". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Smitty: Yes, it is a No True Scotsman fallacy. We are not discussing whether belief in Muhammad as a prophet is a requirement for being Muslim. We are discussing specifically the phrase in the lead: "[regarded] by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an" (emphasis mine). All Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet. It is reasonable, however, that some Muslims may believe the possibility of other prophets coming along later. This doesn't make them not-Muslim.

If such Muslims do exist, then saying "they aren't True Muslims" is a fallacy.

Similarly, a good many Muslims (the Shia) believe there is nothing wrong with images of Muhammad in this article, in spite of the majority (Sunni) insisting that it's "forbidden" in Islam. Muhammad was the last prophet at the time the Qu'ran was written. It's conceivable that some Muslims are aware of this, and it isn't forbidden to interpret the Qu'ran in a rational manner.

The word "most" was put in there by somebody for a reason. Before it's removed, I'd like to know what the range of views is among Muslims regarding Muhammad being the last prophet. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Muslims believe Jesus was taken bodily into heaven and that he will return to be a witness against the unbelievers during the resurrection. So in that sense, Muslims believe a prophet will once again return to earth. Rklawton (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not you define followers of Ahmadiyya Islam "Muslim". Most Muslim authorities do not, but they do and a subset of them believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a prophet. nableezy - 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, I'm skeptical that the writer of that phrase "most Muslims" had the sense in mind that you describe.

Thanks Nableezy! You just taught me something new.

Regarding Ahmadiyya Islam, Christianity has an analogous situation. Most Christians don't regard Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian, but Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves the only "true Christians" (this may be a generalization but it's based on me asking one of them). In other words, it is not Wikipedia's place to define who does or doesn't belong to a religion; how a group defines themselves should be sufficient.

So I'd say it is correct for the article to say "most Muslims" believe Muhammad was the last prophet.

Perhaps a footnote after the phrase "most Muslims" should be added to explain what "most" means, citing Ahmadiyya Islam and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and the fact that Muslim authorities disagree whether this group qualifies as Muslim. Without some sort of explanation, the phrase looks pretty strange in context. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad Sal ALLAHu alaihi wa Sallam (May the Peace and Blessings of ALLAH Subhabahu wa Ta'ala (swt) be on him was not the founder of Islam and there is no evidence to back this claim, but he was the messenger of Allah, it says so in Surah Fattah, surah #48 of the Holy Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sister R (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment isn't relevant to this discussion thread, and has been answered in the next section. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If truly "most" muslims believe that he was the last prophet then why were there huge wars between muslims and Musaylimah who pretended to be a prophet after him ? Plus, the source given after the phrase clearly says "Seal/Last of the prophets" and once again, if someone doesnt believe in this which is written in the Holy Quran then they aren't muslims, their religion is merely similar. Islam is like a one-package deal, people can't pick this and ignore that, just take it (all) or leave it (all). BTW, the drawings are forbidden for both parties in Islam, not just the Sunni. Ottin Z (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)O.Z. 30/5/2010

How you define "Muslim" is irrelevant. If a group seriously considers themselves Muslim, then we call them Muslims. At most, we can mention that there is disagreement over whether this or that group is actually considered Muslim. Wikipedia cannot present points of theology as verifiable fact.

Christianity is the same way, basically a one-package deal, but there are many variations, and some groups do not consider other groups Christian. Just as they all accept the Bible, they have many interpretations, such as the world being created in 6 literal days or 6 figurative "days". Similarly, it is conceivable that "last Prophet" could be interpreted as "last up to the time the Qu'ran was written" or something like that. There isn't just one correct way to interpret the Qu'ran, no matter how fervently you wish it to be so. As discussed above, there is clearly one group of Muslims who accepts a prophet after Muhammad.

BTW, the drawings are not forbidden by all parties; see depictions of Muhammad for further information. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction Required in Article Regarding how to write paternity

Hi.. Please note I like to draw your attention that while writing paternity for muslim names there is an error which is as follows:

In article about Prophet Muhammad it writes Muhammad ibn Abdullah it should read Muhammad Bin Abdullah. It totally changes the whole relationship. Bin means Son Of and ibn means Father of. Like Abdullah ibn Muhammad..is correct..

I hope Iam able to convey my point. Similarly I have noticed when they write the names in arabic language same error is there. I do not know how to go to arabic letters and can explain how it effects with replacing a letter.. I know the letters but do not how to find in wikipedia.

I will be glad if some one can fix this error and others like imam abu hanifa article I am sure the same error is there.

Thanks

____

Abdullah ibn Muhammad is correct?? .. NO, ibn and bin or ben , are the same , they mean " son ", however , ben and bin are familiar, like slang... about, imam abu hanifa , means imam father of hanifa, not son of hanifa

if we say Abullah ibn Muhammad, that means, Abdullah is the son of Muhaùmmad

abu أبو = father

ibnu ابن , bin , ben بن = son

محمد ابن عبد الله = Muhammad ibn Abdellah

الإامام أبو حنيفة = imam abu hanifa

--- Correct, I concur, Ibn = ben = son Thanks

Edit request from ahmed.wajahat, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would request to add the following line to the second last para of "European and Western views" section of Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) page.

Famous French writer, poet and politician Alphonse de Lamartine believes Mohammad as the greatest man in history as: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad?”

Ahmed.wajahat (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for this quotation? The Alphonse de Lamartine article contains that quote without a citation, instead linking to a French Wikipedia article which also doesn't seem to contain that quote or a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if a valid citation could be provided, is what a poet/politician "believe" significant in the larger picture ? Am sure there are around another one and half billion people considering him to be the greatest man in "history"! Arjun^codename024 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is significant in the context of western views espoused by a notable historical figure. That's why we have a section on western views in this article. The other 1.5 billion non-notable people who share the same belief don't matter in this context. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting, if not notable; the European consensus on Muhammad at the time was extremely hostile, as far as I know. Zazaban (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Founder of Islam?, NPOV dispute

"Mohammed was the founder of the religion of Islam and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God" is not a neutral sentence because "defining Mohammed as the founder of Islam" is a orientalist view. Muslims believe that he was a prophet of God and the God sent Islam and they don't believe that he founded Islam. The wording should be changed.

The starting paragraph in Islam article shows how one can write neutral sentences: "Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of the one, incomparable God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad's teachings and normative example (in Arabic called the Sunnah, demonstrated in collections of Hadith). Islam literally means "submission (to God)."[1] Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive (see Islam (term)).[2][3]" Kavas (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest the opening sentence be reworded?—Chowbok ☠ 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam was sent rather than founded? What's the difference? I don't get it. Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is: "Muhammad was the person that Allah chose to be the prophet of Islam, but Muhammad didn't "find" Islam, it says in the Quran that an angel called "Jebreel" was sent by god and was told to teach Muhammad Islam so he can guide his people. " (from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Muhammad_the_founder_of_Islam)Kavas (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I used the first sentence in Moses and changed it but you can improve it better than me: Mohammed was a prophet of God, according to the Quran, the central religious verbal text of Islam. Kavas (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found another sentence: Mohammad was an Arabian diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, a messenger and prophet of God.Kavas (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Muhammad is" vs. "Muhammad was"

First of all, I am no expert on Islam or Muhammad, but the opening line seems strange to me. It currently reads "Muhammad is the founder..." Deceased historical people generally were something, and are not considered to currently be something (i.e. "Muhammad is"). So it seems to me that all sentences should be "Muhammad was the founder..." I understand there are exceptions for someone like Jesus, who is considered to be both a semi-historical figure and also often believed to be an eternal conceptual entity. But Muhammad isn't considered by Muslims to be "eternal", is he? They don't think that he still exists though (besides in Heaven or whatever), right? Even though he was a prophet, that's different than being eternal. I mean, Joseph Smith is a prophet, but his article doesn't say "Joseph Smith is the founder and prophet of the Latter Day Saint Movement." That would seem a little strange. So, with your approval, I think it should be changed so that every sentence refers to Muhammad in the past tense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.144.10 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 May 2010

I can think of two reasons: (1) stating "Muhammad was the founder" would imply that he was the founder some time in the past, but not anymore. He was the founder, and still is the founder; (2) the sentences that follow are also in the present tense and it may seem awkward to mix tenses.

The use of past tense in the Joseph Smith article seems strange to me. He is still the founder. I think it's more correct if the lead sentence in Joseph Smith were changed to present tense, but then it wouldn't fit with the rest of the paragraph. So I guess either way works, depending on how the paragraph is written. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not solve the grammatical problem with, "Muhammad founded..."?82.71.30.178 (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The dispute here is not of the past or present tense; the point i am trying to make is that he never ever was the "founder" of Islam but the messenger of ALLAH. So if you could kindly remove the mis-information about his being the FOUNDER of Islam i am sure it will be appreciated by all Muslims. Thanks, Sister R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sister R (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Amatulić, thanks for bringing this up. It seems that the lead sentence requires the use of 2 different tenses. In the first usage, Muhammad "was" the founder of Islam, a specific event which occurred in the past. In the second usage, Muhammad "is" currently regarded by Muslims as a prophet. I tweaked the article's text to reflect this.

Sister R, the concept that Muhammad was a messenger of Allah represents a point of theology rather than a verifiable fact. Since there was no religion called Islam before Muhammad, the common English-language usage would have it that he is the founder. In the specific case of how Wikipedia uses the phrase, this is not done to cause offense, but to maintain a neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone. Doc Tropics 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Muhammed was a messenger of Allah according to Muslim belief. What you claim yo be common English-language usage is in fact orientalist view. Kavas (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And Muhammad is not the last prophet, either - at least not according to the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran states that in the end of times Jesus will return. That would make Jesus the last prophet. Rklawton (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh... Jesus is a prophet before Muhammad. If he returns, he'd still not be the final prophet. Ogress _smash! 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Qu'ran, he'd be the last prophet to walk this earth - with Muhammad sandwiched between. The Qu'ran mentions no other prophet coming to earth after Jesus' return - so that makes Jesus the last prophet. Rklawton (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this argument even happening? the word Is or Was is a first person singular past tense indicative of "Be", a verb, describing the first person singular "Muhammad" in a past tense, Because he is not currently alive. If you use the word "is" the word does not imply a present tense on the object "founder" it implies it on the Subject "Muhammad" and it is grammatically flawed. Forget all the other arguments about points of theology, the man Muhammad is dead he WAS not IS. If i made the sentence "Muhammad was a man" that is accurate he was a man while alive and still is a man in death; "Muhammad is a man" is not correct because the "is" as I'm showing here, does not provide a tense to the object "Man" only to "Muhammad" and in this sentence it would appear I'm claiming that he still is alive. Smitty1337 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion carefully, you'll see that this argument isn't happening. It was happening :) until 26 May, when Doc Tropics tweaked the wording. The discussion since then is about who is the last prophet, Jesus or Muhammad. That's off topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RKlawton: Jesus the Messiah (peace be upon him) will not introduce a new faith when he comes back from the heavens according to Islam, therefore he won't be a NEW prophet. He is going to save the faith of Islam with the Mahdi/Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi (peace be upon him). Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) throughout the Qur'an is referenced as the FINAL PROPHET AND THE FINAL SEAL OF THE PROPHETS. I am sure Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Prophet Jesus the Messiah (peace be upon him) knows more about Allah/God and Islam more than you do. END OF STORY HaterofIgnorance (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only the end of the story if you are claiming to be Muhammad or Jesus. Otherwise, you are just another believer with very little familiarity with the history of your faith or understanding of how it has been corrupted over time. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)?, originial research

Do Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) part belong to the Mohammed article or is it the result of discussion here? A new comer would think that the FAQ section is an Encyclopedic content. The material in FAQ part is unsourced and I think that it is originial research. It should be clearly stated what this section is. (For example, that sentence "the Shi'a do not strictly prohibit these images" is not about Wikipedia policies, but it is a unsourced fact about Mohammed or Shias.) Kavas (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear that Talk:Muhammad/FAQ is a sub-page of this talk page. Just look at the link; it starts with "Talk:". The FAQ is not referenced anywhere in the Muhammad article. The FAQ contains no original research; it summarizes consensus from past discussions and refers to other pages that do have the appropriate citations, such as Depictions of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the source of "the Shi'a do not strictly prohibit these images" which made me to think that this part is originial research of Wikipedian editors on Mohammad's depiction in history. In the page we see depictions taken from Sunnis, and the FAQ does not mention "There are many Sunnis who do not strictly prohibit these images"!Kavas (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a confusion on unsourced Shia issue on FAQ. You use (Ilkhanate) manuscript in the page, but do you know that Gazan Khan converted to Sunni branch of Islam and not Shia and Ismail I converted to Shia after many years? Does it not prove that Sunnis also depict Mohammed?Kavas (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Founder of Islam!

One of the biggest errors attributed to Prophet Muhammad is the claim that he founded Islam. No verse in the Koran says that Muhammad started Islam. The Koran clearly states that Muhammad only followed in the footsteps of previous prophets but didn’t bring any new religion. According to Islam, all prophets taught the same message of Islamic monotheism.

They were human beings who taught the people around them about faith in One Almighty God, and how to walk on the path of righteousness. Some prophets also revealed God’s word through books of revelation. It is this message that Prophet Muhammad came to fulfill.

Koran 42: 13: “The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Nuh, that which we have sent by inspiration to thee and that which we enjoined on Abraham, Moses and Jesus namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein.” In the Koran, Prophet Muhammad is ordered by Allah to devote himself to Islamic monotheism.

In fact, in another verse, the Koran shows that Muhammad followed and believed what the other messengers before him taught. Koran 2:285: "The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one of them believes in God, His angels, His books, and His Messengers".

According to the Koran, Islam was only perfected in the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad. 5:3: “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”

Islam is a universal religion that was inherited by Muhammad from the other prophets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Determom (talk • contribs) 2 July 2010, 22:59

The purpose of this article is not to describe only what the Koran says. The Koran is unnecessary for describing Muhammad as the founder of Islam. What you describe above is a point of theology from the Koran, rather rather than a verifiable fact. There was no religion called "Islam" before Muhammad; therefore, common knolwedge and common English usage describes him as the founder. And many reliable sources also refer to Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources say, not what individual editors personally believe. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what you write as "founder of Islam" is the Orientalists' belief. "There was no religion called "Islam" before Muhammad" is also an orientalist view. Muslims do not belive that. English sources are generally written by Christians, they even say "Mohammed is the false prophet of Turks". Kavas (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does not exist to promote an Islamic viewpoint, Christian viewpoint, or Orientalist viewpoint. It exists to describe what reliable sources say. The religious affiliation of sources is irrelevant if the sources are considered reliable. I have no problem with putting a qualifier in front of "founder of Islam" saying that's how Westerners view Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine for me, that's all I want to say. Or someone could write a better sentence one day!Kavas (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for that sentence: Mohammad was an Arabian diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, reformer, military general, and, according to Muslim belief, a messenger and prophet of God. Kavas (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine proposal, but violates WP:MOS#Relative emphasis. If the article does not provide equal weight to all those things Muhammad was, then they shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. I also see no problem removing the claim he was a "founder" although the point that the religion called "Islam" pretty much appeared on the scene due to Muhammad should be indicated somehow. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Some 1,500,000,000 people believe that he is not founder of Islam and other 4,500,000,000 people (if they know his name) think that he is the founder of Islam. Kavas (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And your point is? What you describe there sounds like a consensus for calling him the founder. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: The Christian's view of Mohammed and Muslims' view are different. Why don't we seperate the page as we did in Jesus, the Christ? I see Medieval Christian view page exist, but it does not include today's view. Kavas (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem creating an article on Modern Christian views on Muhammad. That really has nothing to do with a biography of Muhammad, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you don't object to above idea.Kavas (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This gets brought up all the time. Can't people read archives!? The only thing that's historical is that Islam didn't exist before Muhammad and it did exist after Muhammad. End of. Tripsin (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's only a belief (or non-belief) ! Muslims believe the opposite. Supporting one belief is not NPOV. Kavas (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This has only been discussed in great detail about one million times. Please see the assorted archive pages. I would also ask Tripsin to review the archives, where it will become apparent that the question isn't as simple as "Islam didn't exist before Muhammad". It is a semantic confusion surrounding the term Islam as (a) an Arabic word and (b) an English loanword. The proper reply is that we are en-wiki and use "Islam" in the usual English sense. Etymological notes on the meaning of the Arabic word can also be supplied.

This is, as so often, a case of political correctness gone wrong. English used, correctly, the term Mohammedanism. Some angry Muslims objected to that, because of the prohibition to worship Muhammad (Long String of Worshipful Attributes attached in brackets!). So now we use "Islam" instead. But that's not ok either, because Islam doesn't mean "Mohammedanism", it refers to "piety". Sheesh. Let it be made clear that across en-wiki, we use Islam in the sense of the English word, as defined by OED

"The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism"

i.e. whatever the Arabic meaning, Islam in English is by definition the movement founded by Muhammad. --dab (𒁳) 15:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to work in this issue, I am not sure today Islam means Mohammedanism. In recent years, the Western researchers published many books, I have to look at the books that I can find in my library to say something in this issue. Kavas (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we use "Islam" instead. We? Does the word refer the editors here? Kavas ([[User

talk:Kavas|talk]]) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Founder of Christianity? for comparsion

In Jesus, only at one place "founder" word is used:

Jesus of Nazareth (c. 5 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE),[3] also known as Jesus Christ or simply Jesus, is the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. Most Christian denominations assert that he is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead.[6] Islam and the Baha'i Faith consider Jesus a prophet and also the Messiah.[7][8] Jesus' teachings were first addressed to the Jewish people, but Judaism gives Jesus no special status. The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels,[9][10] though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.[11] Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,[12][13][14][15] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[16] Aside from these few conclusions, academic debate continues regarding the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation.[11] Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the FOUNDER of an independent religious movement. Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse.[17] Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse.[17]Kavas (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph on the Apostle Paul: Paul of Tarsus, also called Paul the Apostle, the Apostle Paul, and Saint Paul, (Ancient Greek: Σαούλ (Saul), Σαῦλος (Saulos), and Παῦλος (Paulos); Latin: Paulus or Paullus; Hebrew: שאול התרסי‎ Šaʾul HaTarsi (Saul of Tarsus)[3] (c. 5 BC - c. 67 AD ),[2] was a Jew[4] who called himself the "Apostle to the Gentiles". According to the Acts of the Apostles, his conversion to faith in Jesus took place in a profound life-changing experience on the road to Damascus. Together with Simon Peter and James the Just, he is considered among the most notable of early Christian leaders.[5] He was also a Roman citizen—a fact that afforded him a privileged legal status with respect to laws, property, and governance.[4][6]Kavas (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with a biography of Muhammad. Are you suggesting that because Jesus is called a "founder" in one place, that this article should also call Muhammad "founder" in one place? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, FOUNDER but according to WHOM? "Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the FOUNDER of an independent religious movement" Kavas (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just semantic hair splitting. Both Jesus and Muhammad are the founders of a religious movement each. Neither movement was founded ex nihilo but based on earlier religion. This is just a matter of looking up "founder" in a dictionary. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As I know it, Jesus was trying to change Jewish thought or at most create a new sub-branch of Judaism. It was Paul who went and made it into a whole separate religion, so Paul would be better described as the founder. As far as I know, there is no Paul in Islam. Thus, Mohammed is the founder, even if he was just the latest prophet. He founded the group that believes he is the latest prophet (Islam). Similarly, Baha'ullah is the founder of Baha'i: he and his followers claimed he was the latest prophet. He started the group that believes that. Metallurgist (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proper use of English language

I am bit confused. There is a certain word in the English language which is defined as use of pre-teens for sexual gratification. Why is this word not used in the article since Wikipedia should be neutral: NPOV? Meishern (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to pedophilia, the answer you seek is found in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Read the FAQ 2) Muhammad took and consummated a marriage with a 9 year old. This does not imply a sexual interest in children let alone a primary one (Khadija was old, other wives were older as well). It only implies he did an act which may have been the result of pedophilia or may have been the result of cultural pressures for marriage, etc. 3) Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, and we are not here to diagnose the objects of our articles 4) With all of these other issues, a responsible encyclopedia does not use inflammatory language to describe actions. None of what we write should be prejudicing the reader's views or obfuscating the established story of what happened. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions. gren グレン 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Illustrated images posted in this artcle

Illustrated images shown in this article is against faith and believe of all Muslims. These images bring our level of tolerance to its end point. This is however an offensive act against Muslims. I strongly not only condemn post of these images but also strictly demand for the removal of these images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.110.144 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Muhammad/images for more information on why consensus has determined the images to stay. Jmlk17 17:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus

I have changed some words in the "important notice" part. I used "prior consensus of editors here", since consensus can change in future. "Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images" sentence is moved above. Kavas (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My goodness people. Such arguments about trivial things. Mohamed PBUH, was the lead (should I say instigator) of the current Islamic faith. this line should be added, as it doesnt break any guidlines and is true my most accounts. He helped to end the worship of multiple gods. He is the central figure, so why the bickering about who what when where???? He also DID not engage in pedophilia, it was common custom at the time to marry off daughters to gain social status. he was at that time growing in the ranks as an influential figure in Arabic society, as well as coming from a prominent tribe. It would be common practice for a family to offer a daughter to gain access to this exclusive "club" per-se. As for consummation of the marriage, what proof exists of this date and age? It may be in the Koran, but it may be mistranslated, misinformed etc. By Muslim law, you cannot consummate a marriage unless the women (YES WOMEN) is able to bear children. A women can be in a western viewpoint a child, but in nature, if she can breed, she is an adult. Lets not forgot its been a 1.5 thousand + years since then. Many things can be misinterpreted, re-written (think King James bible anyone). Also that long ago, it was VERY VERY difficult to live to age of 25! so the earlier the better. It seems a few people on this talk page just want to banter about trivial things. AGAIN people, 1.5 thousand years ago might as well be a million years ago. What will people write about us on Wikipedia in a thousand years? I'm a non-practicing anything, but I do alot of study on religion. What is missing from this article was the creation of Sharia law (or whatever it was called by him) that still in most form exists today. This man was a great man as was Jesus, Moses Abraham etc. The best thing about Mohammed (PBUH) is that he was told of this proficy (spelling) by a christian, he treated women with respect (which ALOT of muslims misinterpret except in Egypt where I live as a foreigner) maybe if more Muslims knew this, they would be kinder (spelling) to Women & Christians in their own countries. I personally believe if you live a good life, do good things, life (or lack there of) will work out for you in the end. Perk (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a big, and important article. Talking about changes, whether small or big, is much more important here in light of that. Also, if you're an Atheist, why do you use honorifics when mentioning Muhammed's name? Also, I think most of your message here is better suited for a forum. Eik Corell (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point Eik. I use the honorifics becuase its standard practice in Egypt (where i currently work)and I dont want to offend anyone, I would rather not argue. Also I'm not an athiest, I believe in god, just dont believe in organized religion (i was raised catholic). To much problems with organization. To me that equals DEATH-DESTRUCTION-XENOPHOBIA-ETC. Like I said, if God doesn't like the fact that i didn't follow one of MAN's rules of worship, thats between me and him and also then I guess alot of us are going to burn! becuase everyone thinks they are right and nobody thinks they are wrong.

So what about islamic law, was it created by Mohammed? Should it be added, at least as a supplement. Perk (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.169.4 (talk)

The Koreshites being Muhammad's tribesmen

Whence does this claim originate? I see no mention of it in the article, so I'm wondering where I should look for sources? __meco (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Banu Hashim page. Unflavoured (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just found out that this is just a variant spelling of Quraish. Now, this article is categorized into Category:Quraish, however, there is no mention of this connection in the article as there should be. The category could be removed if the corresponding information isn't inserted into the article. __meco (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Early biographies

Didn't know what headline to put, so...yeah. Anyway, In the early biographies section is this:

Many scholars accept the accuracy of the earliest biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable

Which seems kinda contradictory so maybe it should be rephrased or expanded or something? Something like "While many scholars accept the accuracy of the earliest biographies, their true accuracy is unscertainable" or "Though their true accuracy is unscertainable, many scholars accept them as accuracte" or something. Just a random suggestion. 71.97.59.52 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) ha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.199.63 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Islam an Arabic word or English? and is it the religious system of Muhammad ?

dbachmann wrote (in Archives 24): This has only been discussed in great detail about one million times. Please see the assorted archive pages. I would also ask Tripsin to review the archives, where it will become apparent that the question isn't as simple as "Islam didn't exist before Muhammad". It is a semantic confusion surrounding the term Islam as (a) an Arabic word and (b) an English loanword. The proper reply is that we are en-wiki and use "Islam" in the usual English sense. Etymological notes on the meaning of the Arabic word can also be supplied.

This is, as so often, a case of political correctness gone wrong. English used, correctly, the term Mohammedanism. Some angry Muslims objected to that, because of the prohibition to worship Muhammad (Long String of Worshipful Attributes attached in brackets!). So now we use "Islam" instead. But that's not ok either, because Islam doesn't mean "Mohammedanism", it refers to "piety". Sheesh. Let it be made clear that across en-wiki, we use Islam in the sense of the English word, as defined by OED

   "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism"

i.e. whatever the Arabic meaning, Islam in English is by definition the movement founded by Muhammad.

However, I have searched some English books. The books usually define Islam as "submission to God", and I have not found any book which defined it as "the religious system of Muhammad". Some of the books I have read are The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman, and Historical dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec. Yes, some of them define Muhammad as a religion founder. But, they never say Muhammadanism is a correct term. Kavas (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Other religion

Its stated that Guru Nanak saw Muhammad as a propounder of the Hindu theological entity or concept called Brahman. Sorry but nowhere in any Sikh scripture is that stated explicitly. I think this is offensive to Hindus and violates Hindu sensitivity. Please change.

And infact if you actually read the Guru Granth Sahib, the Gurus claim Sikhs to be superior than the Muslims.124.197.127.138 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is cited in any Sikh scriptures one way or another, but if it is included in a reliable source, as per WP:RS, whether that source is a scripture or not, it can qualify for inclusion. And, regretably, as I personally know from elsewhere, content is not determined based on whether or not it is offensive to people, because just about any statement about religious matters will be offensive to someone. On that basis, we cannot use it as a basis of determining content; we would have very, very little content on a lot of subjects if we did. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guru nanak dev ji never included the quranic verses nor any guru added any praise of muhammad. Even aurangzeb and other mughals tried to do that but in vain. Sikhs never converted into islam even after barbarically forced. They choose better to die than converting to islam. IN Shri Guru Granth Sahib, no where muhammad is mentioned. Guru nanak dev ji said: "manas ki jaat sabhe eke pehchan bo" "all humans are same" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhharpreet.chd (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sheryar91, 14 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Id like to request of an established user to please edit the Holy Pophet PBUH article by adding Prophtet infront of the Holy Prophet PBUH,name.

Sheryar91 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Sheryar91 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It won't be done. As noted in the FAQ above, we do not include honorifics in such a fashion. Resolute 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

pls add "PBUH" after the name Muhammed.

Hi, This is a request which is not difficult to comply with. The full form of PBUH is 'Peace be upon him', which i guess, if added will not hurt any one, but on the other hand, it will definitely bring joy to many. In any case it is just a good gesture towards a person. Compementing or blessing any one is what every religion teaches. Hence my suggestion of adding "PBUH" after the name Muhammed might not hurt any one in any way, nor it might create any negative stir. Pls think about it. This may prove good in long run.

--Walnutpen (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? Even the Arabic version of this article isn't that extreme. Rklawton (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a good gesture towards a person, then we should add it after every person's name in every article in Wikipedia, right? thx1138 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as some people would like the honorifics after the mention of his name, I don't think it would follow with WP:NPOV, though that is more of a guess. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia to describe events, concepts, language and people of importance and many other things. but encyclopedias are not there to honor someone, only to present the information with a lack of siding of the encyclopedia... what I'm saying is that saying (PBUH) after his name would give a concept of the encyclopedia having religious backing which wouldn't be neutral. Dayofswords (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

to add this if from the FAQ:

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Muhammad

It is recommended to remove 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 Islamic prophet Muhammad is the recommended form. Dayofswords (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that this conversation has been had again and again and again, and instead of debating here, we should just refer people to the archives. 2tuntony (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On this day

An event from this article is featured on Wikipedia's main page in the "On This Day..." Section. And I think the template up at the top of this talk page should reflect that since I think 3 other events are. Not being very experienced with templates and things, I'm not quite sure how to do that... Thanks for the help! Flightx52 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That particular "on this day" fact refers to the article Hijra, because it's in boldface. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A Secular and Neutral Point of View

I would like to praise wikipedia and it's administrators for their sincerity in their principles, and patient and polite response to every one of the (sometimes inflammatory) demands that the pictures depicting Mohammed be removed. I think these pictures of Mohammed are well chosen since they come from highly intelligent persian/ottoman artists of past centuries by whose time the notion of being tempted to worship Mohammed because of an image has long since evaporated. Modern Muslims who are offended by this should question the relevance of such a prohibition in a contemporary context and realize that this prohibition itself is a manifestation of the growing influence of the fundamentalist ideology of the Wahabbist movement which gives mainstream popular Islam the draconian reputation it may have today.

Such images are very useful for those of us wishing to gain knowledge of the historically ascertainable Mohammed from as neutral and secular point of view as possible. Being offended by these images and the fact that honorifics (PBUH/SAW) are not given to each mention of Mohammed's name is unreasonable in the light of intelligent discourse. Masry100 12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Your words speak for many participants here, I believe. Please remember, however, that article talk pages should not be used as a soapbox to air one's views about a topic, but rather should be restricted to discussing ways to improve the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a quite common misconception. The talk pages , are meant to, on occasion, do just that. Acting as a soap box, so those same people do not alter the articles in a negative way. __Wes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.164.171.198 (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP says no, they aren't. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of precision...

I made a minor change to one of the captions in the article. I changed "Muslim beliefs" to "Muslim belief", as it was referring to one specific belief. I also wonder, would it be more precise to say, "according to Islamic belief"? 2tuntony (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence suggestion

Resolved

The very opening sentence needs (relatively minor) work.

the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets and by most Muslims the last prophet as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40

That is a mess at the end, and difficult to understand.

What about something like:

the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims, as the last prophet (as taught by the Qur'an 33:40–40)

It probably really needs to be rewritten to be more legible by someone who really understands the nuances of what it is attempting to say, but at least my suggestion above would make it a bit more legible.

SiltedTea (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the change. I think your version is an improvement but could use further improvement. No comma is needed before 'and'. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot; there is no Edit button, only a lock icon. That's why I made the suggestion here, so that someone with more power could consider doing it. SiltedTea (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also made some other minor changes. You should be able to edit the page directly in a few days when you become WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Zunaid 08:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no comma before and? Kavas (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just not proper punctuation is all. Dayofswords (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper punctuation!? Why do you claim this? (It does not look to me like a matter of being proper or improper at all, but rather a judgment call as to whether the clauses are too long and separate.) SiltedTea (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

My issue with this being classed as a 'good article' is that I feel that the 'Other Views' section appears somewhat dismissed. I believe that this section ought to be either expanded, or deleted. At present, the reader may simply read the extensive section on Muslim views, then scroll down and see a one-liner on 'other views', which understandably can cause anger or upset, should they fail to see the views states in the Western and European views section. I would suggest that, were this section to be expanded, it include references to some of the portrayals of Muhammed by non-Muslims which demonstrate some popular opinion.

I would be interested to know what people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwarner7264 (talk • contribs) 28 September 2010

Are we reading the same article? "Other views" isn't a 1 liner.

"Other views" gives extensive coverage of European and Western views, just below the section on Muslim views. "Other views" then goes further to elaborate on views in other religious traditions, ending with a one-liner section about criticism of Muhammad, which could easily be moved to a "See also" section. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As Amatulic points out, the section on "Other views" provides a reasonable level of content, it is the "Criticism" subsection that is brief to the point of bluntness. I am the one who added that subsection a few weeks ago and I had deliberately left it short due to the controversial nature of the subject. On review, it is admittedly too short to provide useful context for the link to Criticism of Muhammad, which was my original intent. Would it be better to expand the content and context, or simply reduce the link back down into the "See Also" section? I suspect it is information that readers will specifically look for and should probably be expanded, but I'm reluctant to increase the article's exposure to more contentious editing than it already sees. Either way, I don't want my clumsy editing to be responsible for lowering the overall quality of the article so I will certainly bow to consensus! Doc Tropics 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One way to flesh out the Criticism section is to re-state or paraphrase the lead from Criticism of Muhammad which is supposed to provide an overview of the rest of the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It fails to summarize the article adequately. Until the lead in Criticism of Muhammad is fixed, I don't see the point of trying to summarize it in the Muhammad article. Therefore, I think the link to Criticism of Muhammad should be relegated to the "See also" section for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point; I've removed the subsection pending a rewrite of the intro to the main Criticism article. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment / Original research

I have commented on the article talk page regarding the original research that is currently in this article. No article with original research has any business being a good article. 2tuntony (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the OR policy appears significantly flawed. In no circumstances does an internal link to another WP article constitute Original Research; your assertion is simply wrong. Doc Tropics 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This article obviously has a number of editors who blindly stick up for each other, which, in itself poses a problem to a GA. 2tuntony (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's what it says: "Not all Muslims believe Muhammad to be the last prophet. For example the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet also." There is no WP:RS used to back up this claim. If I follow what you are saying, then I may add the following statement to the article: "The Nation of Islam considers Elijah Muhammad to be a prophet as well. In addition, Louis Farrakhan has claimed to be a prophet of Muhammad." I take it you will have no objection if I insert this claim as a reference. 2tuntony (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a parallel reference which directly backs the statement. You can't footnote a footnote. Additionally, I would consider the Nation of Islam to be another example of an Islamic group that believes there have been prophets since Mohammed. Go ahead and add that case to the footnote if you wish. These seem to be fairly direct parallels to the Mormons, who some claim are not Christians.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

All Muslims

ALL muslims think MOHAMMED(PBUH) as THE last messenger of ALLAH, NOT "most muslims"---this is the most WRONG saying, CORRECT it or the whole article becomes FALSIFIED, the beleief that MOHAMMED(PBUH) as THE LAST messenger of ALLAH, is one of the CENTRAL THEMES OF BELIEF IN ISLAM , WITHOUT IT every other saying in ISLAM becomes QUESTIONABLE, so CHANGE THE "most muslims" PART IN THE BEGINNING of the article, or your ARTICLE becomes COMPLETELY FALSIFIED and you have NO RIGHT to distort THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL BELIEVE IN ISLAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.32.203 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 29 September 2010

Moved this down from in the middle of the templates. To the OP, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was also a prophet. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You can also argument that of the one billion+ Muslims, there is bound to be a few or more who have a different view of it. And Cap Lock is not needed to state your point...Dayofswords (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly worth discussion. As I understand it, most Muslims hold that those who consider themselves to be Muslims, and yet deny Muhammad to be the final prophet, are, in fact, not Muslims. 2tuntony (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony, you are correct, but the Ahmadiyya consider themselves Muslim. If the line was changed then Wikipedia would be stating that the Ahmadiyya are not Muslim. Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance the status of any particular group. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone claims to be something that contradicts what that something is, then I don't see how Wikipedia would be stating anything. Since Messianic Jews "call themselves" Jews, should we refer to them as Jews, so as "not to take a stand"? 2tuntony (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2tuntony, see the no true Scotsman fallacy. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an absurd analogy. By your logic, Messianic Jews would be Jews. There is quite a difference between a Scotsman who doesn't care for a traditional Scottish dish, and someone who claims to subscribe to a faith, while denying a fundamental belief of that faith. 2tuntony (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a question: is it actually a fundamental Islamic tenet that there will be no prophets between Mohammed and the second coming of Jesus Christ? This sect is not denying the divinity of Muhammed (which I would agree make the identification as "Islamic" pretty questionable), simply adding an additional divine figure.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And, yes. (Not that it matters, of course.) But the Qur'an states that Muhammad is the final prophet of God. 2tuntony (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a matter of definition: one group calls itself Muslim, while the other claims that by definition they are not Muslim. I think that in general it is not our roll to define terms in an exclusive way, so we should normally err on the side of using the words "most Muslims". However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, so if Muhammad being the final messenger is a defining belief of Islam (not just one belief of many), then we should probably say "all Muslims". Whether or not we decide that his being final is a defining belief, we should be consistent about it, so if it is a defining characteristic, it should say so in the opening of our Islam article, which it currently does not. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is "self-identity", or how people define themselves. This also comes up in other religious articles; many Christians try to exclude Latter Day Saints (ie, claim that the LDS church isn't really Christian), but since Mormons self-identify as Christians that's how WP describes them. While it's certainly reasonable to note that some Muslims exclude Ahmadiyya, the proper place to do so is in that article, not this one. Doc Tropics 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd better go over and fix our article on Judaism. Think how happy those Jews for Jesus will be when they find out that simply calling themselves Jews means Wikipedia has to do the same! 2tuntony (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with 2tuntony on this point (although I don't necessarily agree with him about the central issue of the Ahmadiyya). In almost any social group there will be sub-groups that differ from the central tendency, so including anyone who self-identifies as a member of a group means that when talking about social groupings, we will always have to preface facts by saying "most members". There must be some line where we can say that person A does not meet the defining characteristics of group Z. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly where this "self-identity" policy is listed. The KKK claim to be as wholesome as the Boy Scouts. David Duke swears he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Admitting to being rather new here, I have never seen in Wikipedia anything that states that if someone or something identifies themselves as something, we then declare that as fact. I respectfully ask that you show me where it says "the Wikipedia policy is self-identity". 2tuntony (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is veering off the subject, which is "most" versus "all". WP:NPOV policy requires that Wikipedia must not take a position regarding who is and is not Muslim. The Qur'an states Muhammad was the last prophet. But does it completely and unambiguously exclude the possibility that another prophets may appear after Muhammad? There exists a group of Muslims, presumably who have studied this point in great detail, who recognize a more contemporary person as a prophet. The article could use weasel words like "the majority" of Muslims consider Muhammad the last, or it could say "nearly all", but "most" is simpler and accurate, with a footnote to explain the word "most". It would violate the WP:UNDUE policy to include any explanation in the lead section. This is an article about Muhammad, not about distinctions between Muslim sects. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think NPOV demands that we accept all self-identification. The problem here is that identifying these small splinter groups as Muslim is the only reasonable categorization. It really is more parallel to the Mormon faith than cases like the Messianic Jews. In the case of the Messianic Jews, they have a trait which is more normally characteristic of Christians than Jews. Thus, both objective reasoning and the reasoning of the majority of Jews comes to the same answer, and we basically lump Messianic Jews in with Christians. In the case of the Islam splinter sects, there isn't another place to put them. By any objective standard, they get grouped with the Moslems for the simple reason that their religious beliefs are most congruent with Islam, much like Mormons are grouped with Christians based on their self-identification as Christians and congruence of religious beliefs.—Kww(talk) 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad is not the FOUNDER of Islam

Greetings of Peace! I would just like to correct the common mistake committed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike when referring to Prophet Muhammad (saw) as "founder" of the Islamic Religion for the reason that:

"Islam or submission to the will of God and testifying to His Oneness has been the religion of Adam, Abraham down to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. It is the faith and message which all the Prophets conveyed. Its profession and propagation did not start only during the time of the Prophet Muhammad but dates back to the first Prophet Adam pbuh. Hence, it was not Muhammad pbuh who created it(religion of Islam) and therefor was not the one who "founded" it. He was just a mere propagator, preacher and messenger of one and the same message by all the Prophets.

Norhassan 01 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Muhammad/Archive 23 where this is discussed in several sections. Basically this is a problem of terminology. In the context of "Islam" meaning "Mohammedism", Muhammad is the founder, because there was no religion called "Islam" prior to Muhammad. In the literal meaning of "Islam" being "submission to God", Muslims would want everyone to believe that Allah is the founder of Islam, which would basically push a religious point of view in the article.

Personally I'd have no objection to calling Muhammad the "prophet" of Islam rather than the "founder". But strictly speaking, in English usage, "founder" is technically correct. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But, Mohammedism is an outdated term which would basically push a Christian point of view in the article. The books usually define Islam as "submission to God", and I have not found any book which defined it as "the religious system of Muhammad". Some of the books I have read are The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman, and Historical dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec. Yes, some of them define Muhammad as a religion founder. But, they never say Muhammadanism is a correct term. Can you give me the names of modern books which define Islam as the religious system of Muhammad? Kavas (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Although some books use "founder of Islam" term, we have to admit that it is a non-Muslim POV. Kavas (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But certainly not exclusively a "Christian" POV. If you take the perspective that all religions are fictional constructs, Mohammed is the founder of Islam as well.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have wrote: Mohammedism is certainly a "Christian" POV, "founder of Islam" is a non-Muslim POV. I have not wrote the founder of Islam is a "Christian" POV. Kavas (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a non-Muslim POV, this is an encyclopedia article not a religious text, so we write from a neutral point of view. Please note that the Muslim POV is clearly explained as well (messenger, prophet, last law-bearer, etc.) in the same sentence. Thus we convey what people's beliefs are on the subject without actively endorsing those beliefs or presenting them as facts (which would be non-neutral). Doc Tropics 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, founder of Islam is used in some neutral sources like Britannica. My point is that Islam does not have the meaning Mohammadism as definded by User:dbachmann in modern times. Can dbachmann or you give me names of some modern books (other than English dictionaries) which define Islam as "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism", the books I have read (The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman, and Historical dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Adamec) use classical "submission to God" definition. Kavas (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The two aren't correlated. Islam is believed by Muslims to have pre-dated Mohammed and been practiced by Adam, and no one is disputing that. However, since all religions are created by men, and Adam is a mythical character, no secular encyclopedia could take that perspective as literal truth. The belief that Mohammed did not found Islam is a portion of the Islamic belief system, and has no validity outside of it.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read The Qur'an : an encyclopedia, edited by Oliver Leaman? I don't think it has a Islamic point of view. Kavas (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but if it actually defines Islam as a religion practiced by Adam, it certainly is biased: it promotes elements of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism as literally true, not just as a common elements of historically linked mythologies.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You are speculating about a book you have not read. Indeed the encyclopedia uses this definition in Islam article and does not use it in Muhammad article. This is the definition of Islam in Wikipedia you can read online: Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam Muhammad's teachings and normative example (which is called the sunnah in Arabic, and demonstrated in collections of hadiths). Islam literally means "submission (to God)."[1] The words Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, and Islam are grammatical derivatives of the Arabic verb meaning "surrender, submit" (see Islam (term)). Wikipedia does not define Islam as "The religious system of Muhammad, Muhammadanism". Kavas (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I never said it did. It does, however, define Islam as a "monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an". It does not state that it is true, it says that it is "considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God". It then explains that the name comes from the Arabic verb meaning "surrender, submit". In the same way, my name means "peaceful wagon-making warhelmet", but I certainly am not a warhelmet, nor have I ever made a wagon. I tend to be relatively peaceful, though.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That definition is perfect, "considered by its adherents" to be the verbatim word of God. In last discussion, Amatulic suggested this: I have no problem with putting a qualifier in front of "founder of Islam" saying that's how Westerners view Muhammad. What about adding a note saying Muhammad is not considered founder of Islam "by adherents of Islam"? You can improve the sentence or use a similar sentence. Kavas (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it would be counterfactual. Prior to Mohammed, there was no "monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an". After him, and because of him, there was. The Islamic perspective should probably be explained, but there's no reason to make it appear to have any bearing on reality.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a fact: Muslims do believe Muhammad is not founder of Islam but they believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion as stated in Al-Ma'ida, 3 in Qu'ran. Why is Islamic perspective on "founder" of Islam (at least as a footnote) not explained here? I don't say you should write "Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion", but I say we should write "Muslims believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion" Kavas (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "The Islamic perspective should probably be explained". That's different from removing the description, or from noting the description as a "Western perspective". From all secular perspectives, Mohammed was the founder of Islam, and that description should not be removed or minimized.—Kww(talk) 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that "The Islamic perspective should probably be explained", why don't you explain it by writing Muslims believe Allah chosen for them Islam as a religion as a footnote? Yes, the article has this sentence: Muhammad is a prophet. But it does not explain Muslims believe Allah chose for them Islam. Kavas (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that Muslims "consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets."?—Kww(talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Partially fair. Yes, it mentions the Islamic view that Islam comes from Adam's religion. But, it does not explain the main Islamic belief as stated in Al Maide 3. Kavas (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Britannica and other sources say Muhammad is founder of Islam, but no modern book (except English dictionaries) define Islam as religious system of Muhammad, but they use the Arabic meaning of the word. If you can name the books which don't use Arabic meaning of the word, I can read them. I am against the editor's point of view in this talk page that Islam's English meaning is different from its Arabic meaning. Kavas (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion went to a different point, the editors insisted on the idea Muhammad is the founder of Islam. I am not providing arguments against it, I propose to report Islamic viewpoint on this issue in a non-biased way. But, this is not my main argument here. No one provided a modern English source other than ED that does not use Arabic meaning of Islam. I assume English meaning of the word changed in modern times and no one argues the opposite. But, they say "Muhammad is the founder of Islam". I know this. Don't reply to me with this if I write Islam means submission to God, but please name the sources that do not use the Arabic meaning of the word Islam. Kavas (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is debating the literal meaning of the term "Islam", which is indeed "submission to God". Similarly, I don't see that the term Mohammadanism appears in the article (where it wouldn't be appropriate for general usage) since it's a rather archaic Christian form not used in contemporary academics. However, neither of those issues relates to the topic of Muhammad as the founder of Islam. The former points regard terminology and linguistics while the latter is a matter of historical fact. If Muslim beliefs regarding Muhammad have not been explained thoroughly then we should rewrite and expand the information, but it would still need to be written from a neutral point of view, not presenting beliefs as facts. Doc Tropics 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

But, there were at least two editors, they supported the thesis that Islam means Mohammadanism and they used it as an argument to show that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Do you agree that it is irrelevant to this debate? Kavas (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the things mentioned here don't have to do with Muhammad and would belong in the article on Islam. This is the article about Muhammad. Muhammad can be described as "founder" of Islam in the most common sense of the word "founder". Just as Bahaullah can be described as founder of the Bahai Faith, and so forth. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It seems that use of the term "Mohammadanism" in this discussion has clouded rather than clarified the issue and I suggest we simply move past it. We may reasonably need to add text further explaining both the literal translation ("submission") of the term Islam as well as beliefs about its origin; this topic comes up often enough that it probably needs to be addressed somehow. Per Doctorx0079's observation above, the main Islam article is actually the best place for most of the content though, and as I tried to explain previously we will always need to differentiate between beliefs and facts and present both from a neutral point of view. Doc Tropics 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if editors move past "Mohammadanism" when supporting the idea that Muhammad founded Islam and users here ask them to move past it when I'll not be here. Kavas (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If I would to write a report about any religion that is not my faith, I will need to ask someone (more than 1 person) in that faith on what they believe in. It is not going to be from my point of view. Any point of view by me will be biased and might be even wrong.

Here, what Kavas argued about is the article being written Muhammad as the founder of Islam. In Islam, Muslim doesn’t believe that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. There is also no source of Muhammad claimed that he’s the founder of Islam.

Reason of this Wikipedia is to be the source (not the only source) for people to read more about what they would like to know. To maintain the standard of this site, this article should be what Muhammad in Islam is all about. Not from yours or anyone point of view.

If the Jewish, the Christians or any other faiths who would like to read more about Muhammad in Wikipedia, they would like to know what Muhammad is all about in Islam. Not from any other point of view. Rawpedia (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The focus of a Wikipedia article should always be factual. The facts about Mohammed are presented, including what Islamic beliefs are about him. Islamic beliefs themselves are never presented as facts, as no religious belief should be presented as fact.—Kww(talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For policy reasons the article is not written from an Islamic point of view, but rather a neutral point of view. Similarly, articles like Jesus and Buddha are also written from the neutral point of view. Thus, all religions and all people are treated equally and all are written about in the same manner. This is considered entirely proper and correct for an encyclopedia where the goal is to provide information without endorsing any particular belief or philosophy. Doc Tropics 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

A "reference" has been inserted into this article, which is no more that original research. An editor has added an "explanatory note" concerning "Muslims" who do not believe Muhammad to be the final prophet of Islam. This "note" redirects to a controversial Wikipedia article. For the claim to remain in this article, it should be backed up with reliable sources, rather than redirect to a disputed article. 2tuntony (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a supporting direct reference. Trying to define a splinter sect as not being of the primary faith is not a reason to reject a perfectly sound explanatory note.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

An ADMIN has spoken. So let it be written, so let it be said. 2tuntony (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, consensus has spoken. You stand alone in that discussion. It happens.Resolute 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, slap my ass and call me Susie. Why would we write something that makes sense when we can go with CONSENSUS? 2tuntony (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I did not "define a splinter sect as not being of the primary faith". I simply objected to the original research that is being masqueraded as a "reference". 2tuntony (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If something makes perfect sense to everyone but you, maybe the problem isn't with the writing....Doc Tropics 19:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you took the time to survey each and every editor of this project to conclude that it makes sense to everyone except me. 2tuntony (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a review WP:AGF and WP:NOTTHEM is in order, for participants here. There is no original research masquerading as a reference. It's simply a footnote, like many others in the article.

It is possible to split the notes and references into different sections. Order of the Stick is one such article, using the "group" keyword in the ref tag, to distinguish between two groups of footnotes. Perhaps that structure would be more useful here, to avoid 2tuntony's confusion about what constitutes a reference versus simply an explanatory note. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just organized the footnotes into a separate section, and renamed "References" to "Bibliography" so that the non-footnote could be in a References section. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The bad news is we got trolled by a sockpuppet/banned editor. The good news is that Amatulić's changes to the format and structure were good, solid improvements. Time to close this section and move on. Doc Tropics 17:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, if people want to add an explanatory note, they'll do it right. It's easy: just add the parameter group="n" inside any <ref> tag to make the note appear in the notes section rather than the references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images has been nominated for deletion. This template is useful for addressing objections. I think editors interested in this talk page can comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page if they want to use this template in the future. Kavas (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

'note' clarifying word 'founder'

A clarifying note is added by me to word 'founder' of Islam being used for Muhammad. There is deletion by a reader on the plea that wiki doesn't accept Quran's verses as reliable source. If the accepted translation of Quran's verses are not the reliable sources then which is other best source for explaining the matter related with Islam, is not understood by me. Adam is referred in the verses of Quran,which proove that Adam is a first holy person considered in Quran ,as it's first prophet, which is also well known fact.Would somebody else further comment on the issue ,such that necessary clarification can be added and unnecessary disruption can be avoided.--Md iet (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The Quran was written by a guy who claims to have talked to an angel when he was alone and there were no other witnesses. If that's all it takes to count as a reliable source, then I guess the crazy homeless guy who says that angels are talking to him is also a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.236.16 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for what it says. It does say that Adam was the first prophet - Islam not having the same concept of Original Sin as the Catholics. However, the facts on the ground are that Muhammad founded the practice, customs and key holy text that underpin Islam, Muhammad preached it and people joined him, and it is therefore true to say that in the earthly sense (which is all we can talk about on Wikipedia) he founded what we today call Islam.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that the Qur'an isn't a reliable source for what it says. The problem here is that we have an editor who has insisted (on this talk page and in edit comments) on adding religious beliefs to the article as if they were facts. There would be no problem in presenting those viewpoints as what Muslims believe as a matter of faith, but that isn't what is being done in the article, likely due to the editor's difficulty in communicating in English. Furthermore, because this is not an article about Islam, there's a question of how appropriate it is to go into undue detail about Muslim religious beliefs in a biography article. The subject is relevant, but should not be the focus. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know what the problem is. I honestly think he means well, but there is a huge language difficulty, and probably a cultural one too, in trying to talk about Muhammad or Islam outside of a religious context. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two problems with this editor. The first is that he insists on adding material to the article which seems to endorse a religious bias. The second is that he has considerable difficulty with both writing and reading English. When he makes additions to the article, other editors have a hard time reading it. Then when they object to something he added, he doesn't understand what they are saying. When editors object to his religious bias he seems to literally not understand what they are saying, at least in some cases. I wonder why he does not stick to a Wikipedia in his native language. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear all, thanks for understanding my problems and my intention as well. Hope, you will bear with me and help toeing religious issues, which is becoming hell of the problems in today's world. Please don't go deep into my English, grammar, and spellings.

Till you understand, what I want to convey, it serve my purpose. You all are here to improve it to Wiki standards.

I don't want to put them as real facts but it is very difficult to draw border line between facts and beliefs. Wrong beliefs are making our life miserable. There were some facts ,which converted in beliefs ,now people has become so rigid to this beliefs that these have become hindrance .This facts/beliefs to be put in proper ways to harmonize the present world rather than complicating the issue.

Religious topics are important for this cause, as English is media, through which it can reach to a bulk of masses, I insist to poke into it, please bear with me.

As now we agree that Quran is important source and its translation approve by wiki can be counted as reliable source for considering as one POV. The note which I have added for clarifying word 'founder' can be suitably redrafted for edition. The draft suggested is: ‘Muhammed strengthen the religion to be known as 'Islam', as Islam’s basic principle believe in its first prophet Adam, the real originator^{[Quran 7:20]},^{[Quran 2:37]}.'--Md iet (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if we can't use the Quran as a source, I think that Md iet is making a good point. Muhammad is not formally called the founder of the religion, and there should be some mention of that alongside the line where we call him such. There are plenty of Western examples where we give a subject's de facto and de jure roles. The first example that comes to my head is when we say that someone is "appointed by the queen on the advice of the prime minister". In that case we say what happens on paper and what happens in real life. Similarly, we should say what Muhammad's actual role is (founder) and what his on-paper role is (one profit of many). That said, it would probably require a re-write of the whole first paragraph to make it sound good. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a sound point. I'm not volunteering to rewrite the lede at the moment, and Md iet shouldn't do it because his English is not accurate enough to get the point over, but perhaps we could try hashing it out in talk a little. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph is perfect, explaining and clarifying the point. Only the word 'founder' making lot of confusion and a point of dislike amongst a section of people, need to be addressed immediately.Meantime complete rewrite is effective, may help phrasing the 'note' in a better way and implement.--Md iet (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the sentence in question

We cannot just remove the first sentence of the article. The article must give a definition of who he is historically before it starts going into Muslim mythology. We do need a citation for the now-removed first sentence given that it is controversial. There are plenty of sources that use the word "founder", including dictionaries. Nevertheless, is there a more neutral word we can use to say that he founded the religion without implying that the religion was brand new. What about saying that he "established" the religion? Can we say that he founded Islam based on older monotheistic religions? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to state the historical fact, that he founded Islam, before mentioning that in Islamic mythology he was merely the restorer. ðarkuncoll 09:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have warned Md iet for continuing to remove the sentence containing the word 'founder'. I note he has asked for a reference for the use of the word - can we find one? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

how about this? http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/ :Chapter 9 "The Birth of Islam and the Proclamation by Muhammad of his Mission : When Muhammad was 40 years old, he was commanded by God, through His angel, Gabriel, to declare His Oneness to the idolaters and polytheists of the whole world, and to deliver the message of peace to an embattled humanity. In response to this command of Heaven, Muhammad launched the momentous program called Islam which was to change the destiny of mankind forever. " Phrases used are Birth of Islam, and Muhammed launched the momentous program called Islam, and note also Chapter 3 titled "Arabia Before Islam" thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good at first glance. I'd also find a general history book so that we had both a muslim and non-muslim source. As an asside, since WP:MOSBEGIN tells us that "the first sentence should give a concise definition", I'd like to point out that the word "founder" is used in the definition of Muhammad in Merriam-Webster dictionary, Oxford dictionary, and Chambers dictionary. On the other hand, Encyclopedia Britannica uses the word "established" in the first sentence. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Elen, Is same warning issued to restorer,who is restoring the material without justifying the source,just telling that it is historic fact is not sufficient.I have warned him, Admin also should warn him immediately

Further to above discussion ,my comments are as under : The report appears to be correct,but there are hidden information embedded in it,so before using specific word 'founder',it has to be correctly analysed. There can be birth and rebirth of one thing ,may be in different format, but every time it is called birth. When we go into deep ,there are different interpretations, and that carry lot of weightage and can change the whole meaning and scenerio. Islam is a new format of religion given by Muhammed, but he may not be the 'founder' ,as religion was existing before Muhammad also. Quran is considered to be book of Islam,then how can it refer Adam,Noah,Musa(Moses) and Isa(Jesus) as it's prophets, tells the history and fact behind religion. Hence we can't draw conclusion of founder from word 'birth' refered above,and word 'program' refered also tells meaning in itself. Word 'founder' needs lot of elaboration,and it's direct use needs lot of care.Proper references and clarification are required please.Hence it is to used in the article with full care,and it's inclusion in the article at present is not justified as per wiki norms, hence I initiate deletion again till we reach on consensus,hope all will agree--Md iet (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

Are you joking? Of course Muhammad was the founder of Islam, and this is such basic knowledge that it is ridiculous to even discuss it. If Muslims believe that Islam was founded earlier by Abraham or Adam or someone else, this is by no means the belief of most human beings. This is an international encyclopedia, NOT an Islamic one. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 05:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,for the messup, I was erred in the way the redone was done without showing the perfect citation detail on the page concerned and double standard done on Wiki policy. Nobody was in mood to understand my view that how come a matter remain on article without proper sourcing detail.First it should be discussed,citation placed on page and then redo to be done.

Now all the reliable sources depicting 'founder' word in the matter is pointed out by Arctic.Sorry,Arctic I didn't see the sources pointed out by you earlier seriously before I was blocked,anyway advantage,I got the lesson.

Now we should think seriously on the matter discussed above in last section of adding a note, making the thing clear such that'founder' word will also remain and things are clarified in positive way that there is no ambiquity and all readers get all point of view and matter is crystal clear to have harmony and neutrality.--Md iet (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "ridiculous" discussion, it is a simple matter of paying attention. I have tried to promote a reasonable, informed approach to this about five times over and it got buried among the pov-pushing every time. The problem is not in the term "founder", it is in the term "Islam". It is correct to say that "Muhammad was the founder of Islam", but it is incorrect to say "Muhammad was the founder of al-islām". Think about it. Yes, it boils down to this: it was a mistake to replace the perfectly adequate "Mohammedanism" with the politically correct "Islam". "Muhammad was the founder of Mohammedanism" is a no-brainer. This is a matter of educating our pov-pushers that the English word "Islam" means "the religious tradition founded by Muhammad" and not "submission to the monotheistic Singular God". Muhammad was obviously the founder of the former, and just as obviously not of the latter. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hazimkamal, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove an image of a donkey depicting prophet Muhammad. it is offensive.

Hazimkamal (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that we cannot honor your request to censor the article, as Wikipedia is not censored. To ensure you do not get offended, please go to the top of this page and click on the FAQs. Look at Q3 to read instructions that will ensure you will not see images that offend you. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see any picture of Muhammad as a donkey. Has the problem already been resolved? RobertMfromLI is correct that we cannot remove all images per our policies, but all images should depict Muhamad correctly, not as an animal. Please add a new request if there is still some problem there. One possibility is that there was an old picture that your browser's cache hasn't purged; you may want to try removing your temporary internet files and seeing if that corrects the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it - it was template vandalism on Template:Allah. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-14t08:08z ^{[donation needed]}

That's how I noticed what the problem was... I saw your your AIV and followed it backwards. Nice catch. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done (ec)My sincere apologies Hazimkamal. The edit you speak of did NOT show up in the article history. Someone changed the image at one of the template pages this article uses. That has now been corrected, and the picture of the donkey should now be gone (which I have verified). The editor who did that has been submitted for admin review to ban them. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The vandal has been blocked indefinitely by Alison. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested full protection of the template. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-14t08:18z ^{[donation needed]}

Let me know if anything else strange appears. The sockmaster for this account seems to have been adding that image to a few templates. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Much thanks Elen, I've added it to my Watchlist. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Fahad86, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to remove the images that portray the full physical appearance of Muhammad (p.b.u.h), as this is completely against the teachings of Islam and might lead to unnecessary issues, spoiling the respect that certain muslims might have for Wikipedia.

Thanks and Regards

Fahad86 (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Muhammad Fahad

Sorry, but no. Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Prepubescent

Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) reverted back the claim that the traditional sources say that 'Aisha was prepubescent, yet none of the cited sources state that 'Aisha did not hit puberty when the marriage was consummated at 9 (as a side-note, there is a reason why there was a waiting period of 3 years).

This still remains a POV and sorry, unbacked statements such as "9 is definitely prepubescent" is not enough to undo my change. In fact, there are many studies conducted on puberty that invalidate Doc Tropics's assertion. To cite one, by the Journal of Pediatrics, girls as young as 7 years old are hitting puberty: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-3079v1

For now I undid his change and removed this claim, until a traditional source that explicitly says so is found. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Back then seven-year-old girls did not drink as much bovine growth hormones as they do now. The average age of puberty has been going down for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.233 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The easy way to fix that without removing content was to change "prepubescent" to "9". Doc Tropics 22:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.149.48.51, 26 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} sir, the work of wiki is undoubtedly unmatchable,but i have one request regarding this page on MUHAMMAD(SAW), ..

kindly add "(PBUH)" after his name as "MUHAMMAD(SAW,PBUH)",the personality which is in itself unmatchabl, and not only this place it after the name of each PROPHETS mentioned in QURAN.

I shall be ever thankfull to you for your cooperation.

may GOD(ALLAH) bless us all.

thank you

180.149.48.51 (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Why would you place SAW and PBUSH after the MUHAMMAD? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

PBUH stands for peace be upon him. Muslims use it to politely refer to Muhammad. It is not required for other to do the same, but it's polite.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PBUH for editorial policy on Islamic honorifics. Peace be upon you. --S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey srich32977, if you can't honor someones traditions, then why are you an editor on this page? I did write a credibility note regarding this pages entirety since there not a single sign of respect on this page. Please have this page removed. HShaltout747 —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

HShaltout747: if you read WP:PBUH you'll see why we don't use honorifics. Please read the FAQ on why we don't follow the Islamic rules. Which are different for some factions of the religion I might add. And Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz has mentioned that abbreviating the Salah goes against a command of Allah. (See section Commentary regarding abbreviating the Salah on Muhammad at Peace be upon him (Islam)). Jarkeld (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute i thought we are talking about an article about islam? or are we talking about something different? i mean, its okay to follow the islamic rules in one way and non islamic in another, referring to the point that its okay to display the images of the prophet and at the same time you can remove the honorary titles because you feel okay with that. Peace be upon you my friend. Again, i repeat my questioning, the writers have no background about islam, nor its traditions and have no respect whatsoever for the readers. I ask you to remove the entire post because of continued illiteracy regarding the topic. comment added by HShaltout747 —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Actually, it's an article about Muhammad as a historical figure. Religious beliefs about him are documented, but they aren't the focus of the article, and actually holding those beliefs isn't a requirement for editing the article.—Kww(talk) 20:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

All im asking is that if your writing about a religious historical figure that he be portrayed in that exact same way. If its such an ordeal and an impossible task, then i ask that the page be removed for credibility reasons. HShaltout747 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't delete pages for reasons like that. We have a deletion process, but we'd only delete for reasons to do with our guidelines ans policies and even that requires some sort of consensus. Religious beliefs should not influence our articles. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucracy??. Your talking about bureaucracy here? on wikipedia?? i thought this was an encyclopedia talking about facts. Dude, if your talking about history then you mention historical facts and their dates and influences, right? and if your talking about religion then you HAVE TO MENTION RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Dude were humans, were smart and were not bots. FOR GODS SAKE MAN, you could atleast mention the belief, if you dont want to mention the honorifics, they can be atleast mentioned (eg, Muhammad (as in islamic beleifs PBUH, and where ever you want to display an image, you can put it on a separate page and put a footnote saying displaying of this image is not honored by muslims). This way everyone would be happy with your legitimate and truthful warnings and notes, heck you can even throw in some of your favorite references and policies if you like. On the other hand, if you cant be responsible for the creativity of the content then please have it removed. HShaltout747 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a page about the depiction of Muhammad & the controversy at Depictions of Muhammad. Jarkeld (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You put the controversy on a separate page and not the images? I wont go through that point.. but im reading there now.. brb.. HShaltout747 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You (HShaltout747) aren't asking for facts, you're asking for the format of the article to be a certain way. As Jarkeld notes, we do have an article that explains the facts about both the religious and non-religious perspectives on the pictures of Muhammad. Similarly, we have an article that explains, in detail, various perspectives on the use of PBUH, at Peace be upon him (Islam). That should satisfy your request for facts, right? Finally, if you personally don't want to see images of Muhammad, you can actually block them. Full information can be found on question 3 of the FAQ, here: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. We don't have any way to make it so that the article automatically adds in PBUH after the Prophet's name, but at least we can help you out with the images. Note that our policies are not different than any other Western encyclopedia--if you look in Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, you will both see images of the Prophet and no use of PBUH or other honorifics.

Chill dude, were on the same side, im just trying to show the reading public the facts. Since readers want to know about the prophet then they should know EVERYTHING, right? Im still reading through the article that Jarkeld pointed out.. oh btw i did try that css thing, and it didnt work. Im still getting the images being loaded on the Muhammad (PBUH) page. And like i said earlier, if you cant handle the responsibility, then you shouldnt even be posting that page.. As for the Brittanica comparision... so that makes wiki any more credible huh? Guess ur happy knowing ur much better now huh?... HShaltout747 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What about presenting images by "put it on a separate page and put a footnote saying displaying of this image is not honored by muslims" is a part of presenting facts? That would be acting as if Islamic beliefs should influence our behaviour, not presenting a fact about Muhammed.—Kww(talk) 02:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was implying that we should tell the valuable readers the FULL truth. Meaning: if you want to show the viewers a realistic photo of the prophet, and you believe that is probably a good thing, then i was supposing that we might as well tell the readers that even though we are displaying this image, please note that it is not accepted by the Muslim public in general as a footnote. Incase you don't find such a truthful message appealing for you on the main page of the article, then i was suggesting of putting the entire images WITH the footnote on a separate page, whichever is more convenient for you. HShaltout747 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean like at Depictions_of_Muhammad?JanetteDoe (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We also have an entire article dedicated to the subject of Aniconism in Islam. Note that not all Muslims object to such images, there are widely varying degrees of tolerance. In short, these images won't be moved or removed, and our coverage of the subject is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Doc Tropics 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As for your question about "realistic photos", this is covered in the answer to Q2 of the FAQ on Muhammad. Your question of "not accepted by the Muslim public in general" is addressed in Q1 of the FAQ on Muhammad.JanetteDoe (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Look here is a living example: couple of years ago, there was a famous tv series that was about the life of the late Sheikh Al Shaarawy, which was acted by a famous egyptian actor. In the early years of this actor, his life was considered as a normal movie star would live, hang out, drink, women u know..not the religious contemporary lifestyle. Eventually the actor was selected to do the role for the infamous Sheikh Al Shaarawy, which i think he did it well, regarding his profession. During that period he started selecting religious characters to act for other tv shows, and he started to follow the faith. Sounds good yeh? Today that actor has selected to do various characters at the moment, and not relating to religious ones. Do you see my flow? Im talking about symbolizing the actor to the character. Now back to our track of our conversation regarding the prophet? The public muslim community does not find a suitable character to symbolize the prophet. So by displaying any sort of image, you are already falsifying that image in itself, hence the entire articles credibility. Im trying to explain the full truth, which you only want to show half of to the general public. On a different point the depictions page you have linked to, is a depiction entirely on itself. How am i supposed to explain or discuss anything there? Why is the south park photo there? have we really gone that far?

where is the human reasoning? how is anyone supposed to learn anything from a south park photo depicting the prophet? You speak about an encyclopedia. You speak of knowledge. You speak of Reasoning. Show me where i am wrong in this? I am not asking you to change your ways, im not asking you to censor any material. All im asking is that you speak the full truth about the matter, don't hide behind bureaucracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HShaltout747 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try one more time, and I'll be much blunter than usual in order to try to get the message through: religious beliefs are irrelevant to the construction of an encyclopedia. It simply doesn't matter what Islamic religious beliefs would be about what material should be included, what should not, and how it should or should not be depicted. All decisions about content are made on a purely secular basis. Islamic beliefs about the depiction of Muhammad are discussed in great detail in multiple articles, but they do not guide the construction of the article.—Kww(talk) 00:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Kww isn't just expressing a personal opinion, but the clear will of the community based on many lengthy discussions, as espoused in various policies. This is not "bureaucracy", it is a community of individuals dedicated to the encyclopedic goals of our shared project. Doc Tropics 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Look dude, browse to the George_W._Bush page (In popular culture) and tell me that was the most you can write about or even put some south park photos of the 43 president. You could might as well, thrown in some bushisms for education, or how about those monkey emails we all got through our spam? nope? not depictions of the president? or not worth your time writing about that?

Im reaching my end here, i see im talking to a wall. Problem is im an idealist, one man can't change the world.. so im gonna go back to my realist life and quit this jib-jabbing. Lemme go find that youtube video portraying Akhmed the terrorist and try to laugh my face off before i start to be called a terrorist myself. In true honesty thank you for even replying. PEACE! HShaltout747 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya is not a Muslims

all Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last prophet --213.166.157.24 (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.157.24 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect "all Muslims" may be a very big generalization. Do you have any citations to back up that claim? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"all Muslims" is not a generalization at all. in fact, believing that Muhammad is the last prophet is one of the fundamentals of Islam. Hence, one is not a Muslim if he believes otherwise. so ahmadiyyas are not Muslims. sorry, but i dint kno where to comment. - Irisrune —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, December 10, 2010 (UTC).

See Talk:Muhammad/Archive 24#All Muslims. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They disagree and consider themselves Muslims, right? Christians have the same issues with other Christians, claiming some groups are really Christian (true Christian) and others aren't Christian. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on issues such as this and is not going to declare that some groups are Muslim/Christian and others are not. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Respect as to other religions.

Listen is this Wikipedia used alone for its users and administrators? Or is it used for the hundreds of thousands audiences that watch this page. If this page was used by your moderators alone then it would be polite to remove these images. If this Wikipedia article is used for reference by thousands if not even more Muslims and non Muslims alike then why would you continue to show any respect in the least regards for Muslims. They specifically asked you to remove these pictures but you had refused referring to some talk between your staff. Again these pictures are extremely offensive to the Muslims world not the Arab world as many people mistake. It doesn't matter if these pictures are censored or not. Posting up pictures of our Prophet(pbuh) overrules everything and comes out to be extremely wrong. Can you please remove these pictures of our beloved prophet (pbuh) who specifically request his nation not to draw people's faces and especially himself, because he had feared his people to start worshiping him as they did to the Messiah, Nabi Isa (A.S) or Jesus A.S,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul3basid (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. In there you will also find instructions to prevent your browser from showing the images in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.178.187.193, 15 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please kindly remove the picture depicting prophet Mohummad PBUH. I hope you realize the religious sensitivity. Regards

180.178.187.193 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Please kindly take the time to read the talk page before making such requests. I hope you realize how annoying it can be to receive repetitive requests. Regards.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

discrimination against women?

Fancy.kira has twice now tried to add an unsupported statement saying that Mohammed has been criticised for discrimination against women. The attitude of Islam to women is complex, and I would not support such a sentence without a very good academic source. The consensus of opinion I have seen is that Mohammed at the time gave rights under law to women, who had not previously enjoyed that level of rights under previous regimes - ie he set out to improve the position of women. That these rights today seem unjust and repressive is a feature of changes over time. If there are academic sources that support opposing views, then that should be brought out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request you to either read the Shariah Laws yourself (from Shahih Bukhari) or read about what is happening in the middle east to women. You could take a look at several sites like http://www.homa.org (When a 16 year old girl was shot to death in Northern Tehran for wearing lipstick about a month prior to her death, Dr. Darabi could no longer handle the guilt she felt about her favorable involvement in the Iranian Revolution, and the way women were being treated in Iran, she finally decided to protest the oppression of women by setting herself on fire in a crowded square in northern Tehran, on February 21, 1994. Her last cry was Death to Tyranny Long Live Liberty)

People have been always afraid to say something against Islam or the Muhammad because the Muslims seem to arrest them, execute them and stone them to death. For your kind information, it occurs even now. Use either Google or check this page http://www.homa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=55 --Fancy.kira (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also read the below mentioned text from http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/IslamWoman.htm of Dr. Younus Shaikh who was given a death sentence by a legal Islamic court in Pakistan for blasphemy.

Before the advent of Islam, the pagan Arab women generally enjoyed a respectable status in society; many of them Khadija- the first wife of the prophet of Islam, had the right to engage in business and choose or dismiss their husbands in a matrilineal fashion; they took part in most activities of war and peace including public worship. In female oriented Arab paganism, goddesses had special status; in Mecca, the female goddess Al-Uzza........

It was highly unusual for a man of pre-Islamic Arab society to have more than one wife in his house; and it is quite certain that polygamy was introduced and encouraged by the prophet after the revelation of Islam.

--Fancy.kira (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I invite your attention to Women in Islam. (And, with pages and pages of archived discussions regarding this article, I venture the subject of discrimination has been broached before.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also venture to suggest that this article is not the place to campaign against present day offenses against women by present day Islamic states. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't fair to judge people in antiquity by modern morality and more importantly that isn't what wikipedia is for. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the points above, to add it to this article would require sourcing of criticism against Muhammad, not against Islam. I sympathize with your point, but you really require quite specific sourcing to make it stick.—Kww(talk) 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. "In female oriented Arab paganism, goddesses had special status" is the sort of fluffy nonsense best left to the 1970s. We can report such opinions if they are voiced in scholarly publications, but it is a waste of everybody's time to raise such points based on something you found on the internet. Women in Islam have enough problems in real life, it isn't necessary to bring up fantasies about a Matriarchal religion pulled down single-handedly by the sinister and moustache-twirling Muhammad. --dab (𒁳) 12:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the template

User Jess567 added a template for the article. Though the intentions were probably good, something like that should have been discussed here first. It took a long, long, long time to get a semi-stable compromise for the images used in the article, so consider carefully what you will use in a template. Unflavoured (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.99.111.131, 29 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the graphic pictures of prophet muhammad from wiki because there is no such photos found so far as prophet Muhammad,it may be a vulgar creations of who want to hurt Muslims.so kindly remove that paintings of Prophet Muhammad

Jamsheerabdulla (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's a notice at the top of this article about it. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Someone added an infobox, and someone else removed it. Neither edit was made without any explanation.

I don't see the problem with having an infobox in this biography article, although I would use the lead picture already in the article, not a portrait of Muhammad. Jesus and other bios of historical religious figures have infoboxes, why not Muhammad? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now it has been restored, but with the original image of calligraphy per your suggestion. Looks good to me, although the "Known for" text needs to be tweaked a bit. On the whole though, the infobox is useful and brings this article into line with others, so it looks like a "Keep". Doc Tropics 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Prominent Islamic prophets

A template

has been prepared depicting all Islamic prophets and well discussed at Talk:Jesus in Islam and Talk:Islamic view of Moses. The template depicts the linkage between all at a Glance and would be a value addition to this article also. Suggestions if any please.--Md iet (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a good template for articles about Islamic views of traditional religious figures (see Islamic view of Moses or Islamic view of Abraham and others linked in the template). However, I am uncertain of its value in this article. The template presents a religious belief about lineage. This article isn't about Muslim views, and it isn't about a religious figure steeped in myth and legend, but about a real, comparatively contemporary person. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear you agree it's a good template for articles about Islamic views of traditional religious figures. Then Let me clarify ‘Muhammad’ is such a figure not only to be considered as Islamic but he itself is Islam. On the one hand he is called 'founder' of Islam and no one wants to argue or clarify 'this' word further and you want to convey that he is not traditional religious figure that too of Islam. Please revisit your comment and see deep in to it.

Do you want to say that Jesus and Moses was not real person? Is Muhammad being contemporary not a religious person? These all are religious person and religious belief hold good for them. Muhammad being the most contemporary amongst them more authentic information available with us it doesn't mean that all previous happenings are just myth and no truth. I would say main theme is truth but glorified as time passed.

There is nothing called Muslim view for the Muhammad who is 'founder' of Muslim. Do You mean to say that Muslims view point for a Muslim Muhammad is not true. In that case I fear we have to make a new article with title as 'Islamic view of Muhammad'.

If you want to say the template is on Islamic view and it should be clarified than in the template itself 'Islamic' word is already mentioned. Hope I am able to convey my view point.--Md iet (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of the diagram. You could just as easily in the article say "Muslims believe that Mohammed was a descendant of Adam, Abraham and Ishmael". But even then, so what? As I understand it the Muslim belief is that all Arabs have that ancestry (I might be wrong on that). It just doesn't seem particularly interesting or valuable piece of information that that is the Muslim view. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a important Islamic point of view linking all prominent prophets, which connect all religion. The message conveyed by the template is not as simple as "Muslims believe that Mohammed was a descendant of Adam, Abraham and Ishmael" narrated. Template also convey point of view being confirmed in all related articles which are also linked through this template. We may agree to include the template to convey all interconnection in collective way at a glance which is a valuable input please.--Md iet (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the point. It's an "important Islamic point of view". But I don't think it's important for anyone else and what goes in Wikipedia isn't determined by what's important to Muslims alone. DeCausa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Dear Decausa, as I clarified above this is article on Muhammed 'founder' of Islam and Islamic view will be the main input. All the view need not be acceptable to all, but Wikepedia is common platform and all the view are to be presented with due mention of whose view with all sources and keeping neutrality . That is what I explained above.

Please see ‘isra and miraj’ section of the article this is purely mythological Islamic belief and it is included. There is similar logic behind the inclusion of this template please.--Md iet (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

All views are not to be presented. Only notable ones with reliable sources. You haven't convinced me that this diagram is notable enough to be included. Indeed, I'm not convinced this diagram would be notable from a Sunni point of view either. Generally, genealogical connection is a Shia concern. DeCausa (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear my further answer below may satisfy your query about notability. As far as I know Shia Sunni difference is on the Issue of Ali, which is after Muhammad. This template is depicting era before Muhammad and can't affect sunny POV.--Md iet (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You say of Muhammad "he itself is Islam". I think many Muslims would disagree with you. Muhammad introduced Islam to the world. He is not Islam, himself.

Nobody is saying he is not a traditional religious figure. This article, however, is a biography of Muhammad, not an article about Islamic views toward Muhammad. Those views are appropriate to include, to a point. The lineage depicted in the image stretches that point too far for the purpose of this article. It is far more concise, and sufficient, to state that Muslims believe that Muhammad is descended from Abraham.

Nobody has said Jesus and Moses are not real persons. They are, however, more ancient figures steeped in myth and legend, who lived long before any written history was recorded about them. Therefore it is appropriate to show the traditionally-believed genealogy in a "Muslims view of..." article about them.

Nobody has said the Muslim viewpoint is not true. However, religious viewpoints are considered "true" only to the adherents of the religion. This article is a biography. A secular biography. While Muslim beliefs about Muhammad are relevant, that is not the point of this article that has already grown too long. ( reply by Amatulik)

Muhammad 'he itself is Islam'. Amatulik, please don't go by word by word meaning , what I mean to say is Muhammad is so much for Islam that we can't dissociate him from Islam.

If we all agree to state that Muslims believe that Muhammad is descended from Abraham. This template is only telling this nothing else from Islamic point of view. The difference is , it is telling other things also:

1-Abraham is descendant of Adam and Noah - Any difference of opinion ?

2-Ismael and Ishaq are son of Abraham - Any difference of opinion ?

3-Moses is descendant of Ishac - Any difference of opinion?

4-Isa is descendant of Maryam and Ishac -Any difference of opinion?

5-Ismael and Abdul Mutalib are in between link to Abraham to Muhammad - any difference of opinion?

I hope Amatulik that there is no difference of opinion on all the 5 points listed above,please let us discuss if there is any. Else we are summarizing all 5 general point scattered on which Islam also agree to the 'Islamic point' that Mohammad is descendant of Abraham. If this template presents all these points together, I feel inclusion of this template is justified giving all information at a glance.

I believe the information given is not at all affecting secular biography of the person but further substantiating it.--Md iet (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding geneology article Adnan gives list of complete family tree from Muhammad to Ismael year wise with all references and reliable sources.--Md iet (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm against including the diagram because it doesn't comply with WP:UNDUE and is not notable enough for this article. DeCausa (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet - yes, there is difference of opinion of those 5 points. They are religious beliefs, particularly the early ones, as there is no historical basis or evidence for the existence of Adam. As such, they have no place in a biography article. I will note also that the Adnan article does not state the lineage as fact, but rather as something believed by religious tradition.

DeCausa: Perhaps if the diagram clarified that this represents an Islamic view? Maybe the title could be changed to "Relationship of six prominent Islamic prophets according to Islamic tradition" or something similar. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think it gives undue prominence when the article could simply say that "Muslims believe that he (like Jesus) was descended from abraham etc. " or something similar. As you said, it's already a long article. DeCausa (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, we are not giving any undue prominence to anybody, simply jotting down all the view in a single template, making simpler for everybody to understand it in a one glance. Request to understand the effort please. As righty suggested by Amatulik, 'as per Islamic tradition' phrase is added in template to clarify any further doubts.--Md iet (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In the two thousand years in-between Abraham and Muhammad, the family trees would have spread out so much that it is virtually guaranteed that Muhammad is descended from both Issac and Ishmael. Do the lines represent inheritance rather than descendance? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly descendance (assuming Isaac and Ishmael ever existed). Md iet, a diagram is visually extremely prominent in the article - that's why it's inappropriate. There's no historical support for this supposed genealogy. No one has supported its inclusion and I therefore think this topic is closed. DeCausa (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How come there is no historical support. All the article Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ismael, Ishaq, Moses, Jesus, Adnan and Muhammad etc. mention complete genealogy with all the references cited. This is important with respect to Muhammad and Islamic views are justified in article of Muhammad, who represents Islam. There is positive contribution for development of template from all except you DeCausa. Let us wait further if there is any further suggestion on the template please.--Md iet (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no historical support because Adam and Noah are either gross exaggerations of history, metaphorical, or entirely fabricated stories. Adam, because he last point where we could have had a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam living at the same time is 200,000 year ago, not 4,000. Noah, because there is no geological evidence of a global flood in the last 4,000 years. I do agree that the chart is important for the Islamic view of Muhammad, so I would support it going in the Muhammad in Islam article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No version of the nabi tree is necessary. The information is already in the article. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, it isn't necessary for this article. The diagram is more appropriate in articles specifically about Islamic views, such as Islamic view of Moses, Islamic view of Noah, Muhammad in Islam, etc. No compelling reason has been offered to include the image in this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that when section like 'Isra & Miraj' mythology and photo depicting Mohammad receiving revelation from Angel Gabriel can exist in the article why not this important Islamic view point. By giving logic that this is secular biography, no mythology and requirement of historical evidence etc. seems avoiding this 'tree'. This view of Islam bring major religions on one platform, is main compelling reason to include this tree, any way it seems that there is a majority against this move, I don't know Why? ‘Muhammad in Islam’ has very few reader compared to Muhammad. People don’t go there, even I saw the article today, because it not thinkable that on Muhammad also there will be separate article for Islam as Muhammad’s prime article should tell about Islamic view first. Any way thanks for your suggestions.--Md iet (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As there is separate section exist within the article for specific Islamic view, the 'tree' may find space there. As this article is most read on Muhammad, we may agree for it.--Md iet (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too large and therefore its prominence is not proportionate to the importance in Islam of the information it conveys to go into that section. I wouldn't object, however, to a sentence in the text sumarising the Muslim view of his genealogy. However, can you provide a source to demonstrate that his ancestry is important to Islam - given that, in the Islamic view, all Arabs are descended from the same people (with the exception of Abdul Muttalib) DeCausa (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We all have tried to reduce the template max we can, and there will be further modification as it moves. Figure is such a tool that gives this type of information in a one glance, no text can convey. Ancestry from Adam to Abraham is described in all genealogy, Abraham to Muhammad is well known in Islam, and Abraham to Moses and Isa are well accepted in biblical references. Muhammad ancestry is important to Islam to make Islam etc understand that Muhammad, Isa and Moses are not other but of a same family. Family tree can only convey this. Through this template this view will be propagated and known to all readers as these article have 30 to 40 times more viewer. Sub title on Islamic view gets viewer in tens whereas main articles get viewer on thousands. Where is the need to involve all Arabs in the discussion, here we are talking of Muhammad, and Muhammad is important for Islam not others. Abdul Muttalib is important as he is his grandfather, why you want to exclude. His name is mentioned to get understand the in between links.--Md iet (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like religious evangelism. I don't think that's the purpose of Wikipedia. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Doctor, following Wiki norms if readers can be properly educated, I don't think Wiki guideline would be violated. Education can be of any type, please let it be religious.--Md iet (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the tree needs to be seen by as many people as possible. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see religious education the same way that I see plot-lines of movies. Given that Adam and Noah were fictional or metaphorical (based on genetic and geological evidence), we have to make sure that we are not mixing up the historical person of Muhammad with the in-story characters. I think the tree mixes them up here, but is more clear in the other article. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of Wiki is to educate as many as possible, if tree become via media, it help serving purpose of Wiki. It is right we should live in history not in story. If there is no Adam and Noah it will not affect purpose. OK, Let us device some more practical tree without story part.--Md iet (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, please stop pushing this idea. Several editors have now opposed it for this article and no one has supported it. It is not appropriate for this article. DeCausa (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please DeCausa , Don't reject something straight forward. It is human to oppose any change. Let me have your all view on item below more concise only historic. {{Ibrahimi Islamic Prophets}}

Just to add my voice, I also think the template is interesting, but it's so large, and the article already has so many visuals, and the information it adds could be added in text instead, that I can't see a justification for crowding up the article more. I think the religious/historical issue is already dealt with by the fact that this template indicates it is according to Islamic tradition. Furthermore, I think it is terribly incorrect to say that this is the historical article, given that articles like Jesus, Buddha, and Abraham all include very large sections on how their religion(s) view them, and historical analysis are the secondary articles (like Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus). But, nonetheless, that doesn't overcome the page layout issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK you agree to combine history with story, but due to size constraint also we have tried to reduce and make concise. Tree is best media for explaining family structure, no text can compensate this. If there is suitability, space can be always justified. For Interesting template always there can be some compromise. Let me try further to make it further small.--Md iet (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some more points to consider:

• The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If the information conveyed in this diagram is notable enough, i.e., has been mentioned in scholarly sources or was influential in the development and perception of the "idea" of Muhammad, then it should be added to the article, regardless of whether it's true, unscientific, offensive, religious, or secular. These POVs are irrelevant to this discussion. Although, we should use the right wording per WP:RNPOV, which I think is already covered.
• As for the words vs diagram, and assuming notability, I find the diagram more useful and more consistent with how similar information is being expressed in other main articles. For example, see this table in the Jacob article.
• A couple more points with regards to the diagram itself. I don't see Abdul Muttalib as significance enough to be mentioned in this diagram. Deleting his name should further reduce the size of the diagram. Also, the coloring (white vs. green boxes) and choice of using "six prominent prophets" seem arbitrary and need explanation (What about the other names mentioned are they not prominant? And what does the coloring signify?).

Wiqixtalk 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a small section in the article on the Islamic view of Muhammad's legacyy. It's small because there is also a full article on the Islamic view. So that section is a summary and should only have the most significant and notable aspects of the Islamic view of his legacy. Md iet has not cited any source to say that this genealogy is significant for Islam let alone a source to indicate that its of such great significant that it should be included in the summary section. In my opinion (FWIW) I doubt that the genealogy has great significance for Islam. I think this (in part) because, as I understand it, Muslims believe all Arabs are descended from Ishmael (and all Jews from Isaac) so there is nothing distinctive for them about Muhammad or Jesus's genealogy. But, probably more importantly, I also think this because mainstream Muslims don't believe Muhammad gets his authority from this genealogy. But I am of course open to being corrected on this - so, yet again, I ask Md iet to provide a source to demonstrate that this is a significant belief of Islam and warrants being in the summary section on the Islamic view in this article. And Md iet, just to be clear - because I think there may be a language problem here - I am not looking for a source that just says the genealogy is believed by muslims, I would like to see a reliable source that says in the context of Muhammad's legacy it is very important for Islam. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, please don't confuse mixing all the things together. Geneology notable in all the sources is just sufficient for inclusion in article as rightly pointed by Wiqi. All linked article clearly refer to all reliable sources for notability.

Thanks Wiqi to understand the importance of figure over text in this particular context.

Regarding inclusion of Abdul Mutallib and others are to just further make obvious the link in between. We can remove Abdul Mutallib if we feel. These Nabi are most prominent Six that’s why the title was given, but there is no notability on the number noticed by me hence the word Six can also be deleted. As far as prominence is concerned all are prominent figures but color distinct them as prominent prophets.--Md iet (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my question (yet again) and provide the reliable source. I therefore strongly oppose including any genealogical diagram. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet said the linked articles have reliable sources, but he did not give a source for the tree. Perhaps he got it from the wall of his mosque? - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the tree itself isn't what DeCausa was asking about. I don't have a problem with the tree as a traditional religious belief. I don't think any Jewish, Christian, or Muslim scholar would have a problem with it. However, it has no factual historical basis. But that isn't the real issue.

The bigger concern is the question posed by DeCausa: We need a reliable source that indicates that the relationships shown by the tree is (a) a significant belief in Islam, and (b) are critical to the Islamic view of Muhammad's legacy. We have a full article on that view; the diagram should go there. A summary section has no need for it, particularly if the lineage shown has no great significance for Islam.

The diagram is appropriate for articles about Islamic views. This article is not such an article. Its purpose is to provide a biography and summarize the views of others. The diagram has no place in a summary section. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There's anothr issue behind getting sources for its importance to Islam: I think the diagram may be seen as of sectarian importance only. The Shia's historically have attached much greater importance to heredity than the Sunni's. This has been generally focussed on Ali's descendants. However, I suspect (but don't know) that it may apply to Muhammad's ancestry as well. I don't know the history of the articles, but it's interesting to note that the Shia article gives prominence to the 'traditional' genealogy whereas the Sunni article doesn't. I really think it's important to have solid sourcing on the importance of this for all muslims before considering it - to avoid accusations of sectional POV-pushing. I think itt's strange that MD iet isn't willing to produce these. DeCausa (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

When as genealogy information is verifiable from all linked article, why there is need to get the source which weigh its importance. As rightly pointed out above the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If the information conveyed in this diagram is notable enough then it should be added to the article, regardless of whether it's true, unscientific, offensive, religious, or secular.

Please refer discussion in section followed, why the religious and other discussion restricted in this article is not understood.--Md iet (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet: I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding policy, here. Either it's a language issue, or one of just understanding our formal system. You seem to be acting like "verifiability" and "notability" are equal, and they're actually not even related. For that matter, you're not understanding verifiability. Although, I realize that part of the problem is that some of us have been using the word "notable" incorrectly, so I'll try to be more careful in my wording I'll try again, but if this doesn't make sense, I think you're just going to have to trust us.

Just because something is verified, does not mean the information belongs in the article. That is a backwards statement. The rule about verifiability is that if something is unverified or unverifiable, and it is challenged, it must be removed from an article. Similarly, unverified information which is dubious or negative or otherwise non-neutral should also be immediately removed. I believe that no one is (or should be) contesting that the genealogy in your chart is correct. However, just because your chart is verified as correct does not therefore automatically mean it belongs in the article. For example, I can provide, if needed pretty strong, verifiable evidence for Muhammad having had 23 chromosome pairs. It's definitely true, and also definitely verifiable. However, that information is not in the article because it doesn't fit the scope of the article. While technically this is a consensus decision, it's one that is never likely to be tested because no one would ever attempt to include that information.

One possible policy based objection to the template is WP:OR. That is, the objection isn't that this information is unverified, but that your exact specific collection of it is original research. That is, we accept that the genealogy is accurate, but that you made a choice, based only on your own research, about which people were important enough to include in the picture, and which were not. You can overcome this objection by providing us with reliable sources that state that this particular genealogy is something that reliable sources/scholars would consider to be a "standard" or "useful" tool in thinking about Muhammad.

The other objection that has been falsely raised the issue of notability. First, let me step back and say that, actually, notability has nothing to do with this discussion. Notability, as Wikipedia uses the term, is only applied to the question of whether or not a subject should have it's own separate article. So, instead we have to use a more general question alluded to in my previous paragraph: Given that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of things we could verify about Muhammad, which of them should go into the article? Others have alluded to the concept of WP:DUE, although, surprisingly, they're also wrong there, too, because WP:DUE only applies to opinions, not assertions of fact (yes, yes, they're actually the same thing, but on Wikipedia we pretend like they're different, just like they do in science and in courts of law). So, it seems like, again, we have to fall back on consensus.

And this is where we've really been at, all along. The majority of people commenting here object to the template being in the article. Some of us object because we don't think it fits well, visually. Some of us object because we don't think the issue of Muhammad's genealogy is important enough to him as a person or him as a religious figure to be included (this is kind-of an appeal to WP:NOT, but somewhat subtly and indirectly). Others take a middle view, essentially asserting that since the issue doesn't seem to be that important, a prose description will serve the same purpose as a picture, and thus is a better solution. The way that you can overcome all of these objections is by providing us with reliable sources that show that this genealogy--that is, this specific selection of people--is an important concept for people in the field. I apologize that some (including maybe me) have misused the term notability, when we should have been saying "encyclopedic" or "consensus-based importance."

(Side note, I think someone above was concerned there might be an NPOV issue here as well, but I didn't exactly follow that thinking, so if anyone still thinks that's a problem, you'll need to summarize yourself). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" or "consensus-based importance" seems going deep into technicality of rules and justifying the things in that perspective. I hope in interest of the subject these rules should not be made scapegoat and if the things are being done in positive sense is to be understood. Anyway I would try to get the solution in the perspective you explained. Thanks for kind explanation.--Md iet (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, I'm going to 'assume good faith' and assume you're not understanding the English in these various posts. It's very simple: just provide a reliable source (eg a book by a reputable scholar) saying the genealogy you have reproduced is not just believed but is also important to Muhammad's legacy for muslims. If you can find that, you might get a consensus to include it in this Article. If you can't, then you have no hope and should give up. Can you just say why it is not possible for you to do that? You have up to this point been saying why you should not have to do it. Please say whether or not you are aware of such a source.DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would rather have each claim made in the diagram discussed (and sourced) separately. For example, the claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael (already mentioned in article) is well-known, uncontested in Muslim tradition, and found in the earliest of sources (like Sahih Hadith). It would be interesting, and very useful, if each connecting line and name shown in the diagram can be sourced in a similar fashion. Also, not all Arabs claim descendance from Ishmael. See, for one example, the Qahtani Arabs. Wiqixtalk 11:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's right - the Ishmael myth may also includes those Arabs - see here. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the more commonly held view. If you're interested, have a look at Enc.of.Islam (2nd, entry "Arab"). Also, the Ishmael "myth" presupposes that they were other Arab tribes present in the Arabian Peninsula by the time Ishmael moved there. Wiqixtalk 20:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. For the purposes of this discussion, the Ishmael myth applies to a lot (most?) Arabs so insn't very distinctive. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Decausa here are the sources which list prophets whom special preference given in Islam:

http://themuslimvoice.wordpress.com/tag/prophets/ http://www.iqra.net/articles/muslims/persons.php http://www.islamtruereligion.com/prophets_in_islam.htm http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/prophets.htm

These list mention five of them counting from Noah. Beginner Adam is self understood, and somewhere this is also explained.

Hope this resolve many queries of why these only and why they important to Muhammad's legacy for muslims.--Md iet (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, please read WP:RS, which is Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. None of those qualify, as far as I could tell--they're all self-published websites with no indication that the publishers are reliable in the sense we mean. We're looking for books published by reliable publishing presses (ideally university presses), academic journals, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, you are wasting everyone's time. I've read each of your 'sources': (1) None of them support your diagram: they don't describe the prophets' ancestry. The first three just list/discuss the important prophets. There is no (or almost no) information on the their descent and ancestry - and certainly nowhere near enough to support the diagram. As far as the last one is concerned, all it says is that Arabs are descended from Ishmael and Jews from Isaac. (2) There is nothing in any of them to say that Muhammad's genealogical relationship to the other prophets is important to Islam. In fact, I would say that this one, if anything, supports the view tbat ancestry is not important. It discusses how a prophet can be recognised (attributes etc) and ancestry is not mentioned.(3) As Qwyrxian says, these are not compliant with WP:RS anyway - not that it matters because they don't support your case. DeCausa (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I accept what you say about notability etc. but it isn't just about consensus, I think it's also about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources pointed out is just to justify that selected are prominent for Islam. For ancestory sources are already mentioned in all the articles concerned. As suggested by editor Wiqi, even all the individual link can be discussed and have reliable sources.

The sources pointed out are web sites representing Islamic facts, even Face book (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=100285034878&topic=23351&start=0&hash=613868642aac7e4943563b3fd9bd7909)and Yahoo site (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090703065326AA3Fh7Z)also discuss on the prominent prophets and same thing answered their. Wikipedia:RS allow multimedia materials by a reputable third-party properly cited.

Genealogical relationship have its own importance. I suppose Wiki policy don't ask for every information to be important. The web(http://www.islamtruereligion.com/prophets_in_islam.htm) clearly write: ‘Traditionally, five prophets are regarded as especially important in Islam: Noah (Arabic:Nuh), Abraham (Arabic:Ibrahim), Moses (Arabic:Musa), Jesus (Arabic:Isa) and Muhammad'. This web further list all reference also.

This is just basic information, simple diagram we want to convey, I don’t know why there is so much fuss about secular/historical/religious /importance/space limitation etc and all type of issues. Anyway no need to waste more time on the the issue, I have given my point of view if readers feels it’s worth inclusion it will find its way.--Md iet (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Decausa here are the other sources which list prophets genealogy and even complete tree is provided:

http://boltwolf.tripod.com/id93.html

http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=567 ‘PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S (sa) GENEALOGY ‘

http://www.forum.noorclinic.com/thread.php?topic=19126.

http://mrishaanshareef.blogspot.com/2008/08/family-tree-of-muhammed-nabi-sal.html

That's all please, Thanks you all.--Md iet (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not getting it are you. I don't how many times the same thing can be said. These are just blogs. Read WP:RS before suggesting any more sources. They don't say anything about the genealogy's importance to muslims anyway. DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are various confusing statements but as Qwyrxian explained I can take from above discussion that the information given in template are having reliable sources as per Wiki and eligible for inclusion, but it cannot be included as DeCausa doesn't think its importance for finding space in the article.

If this is the case, I have explained my views on why it is important to include here. Importance of presentation can only be explained, it is very difficult to find further proof for it as it is perception and we may not find reliable sources where exactly it is written that it is important to present in this form in this particular religion. Decausa , please try to understand, my feelings. Now if there is question of getting consensus on importance, this is related with how we perceive the importance for something, we may not find documented proof.It is well known fact that family tree is best way to explain genealogy.

I have already given some evidence that the selected prophet have special importance in Islam, I hope these sources can be counted for strengthening the view, as we cannot include all 25 or more prophets, it will become too clumsy to present.

Now as I explained this tree making cohesive three big personality of religion and bringing together in name of family tree. We can understand how much will be its impact if it has some impact on readers who see it with my point of view.

If this information is technically verifiable as per Wiki, its importance can be judged only when it is given chance.

I hope the tree deserve a trial run for the article please on the above ground.--Md iet (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you are unable to find any source demonstrating the significance to muslims of the genealogical connection of these prophets. I am therefore strongly opposed to its inclusion. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Md iet, that is exactly the opposite of what I said. Your sources do not meet our reliable source guidelines, and they do not say what you claim they need to say, anyway. So, no, I do not accept the template being in the article. I don't know why you thought I said it was okay, but I didn't. You need a reliable source that says this particular genealogy (these people, and not others) are specifically an important grouping in Islam. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, still there is issue for sources, hope the following are sufficient to justify my basis.

For specific prophets selection, here is the quote;

‘The meaning of the word Rasul is a messenger. Allah sent many prophets and messengers to mankind. Amongst them, the names of twenty-five are mentioned in the Qur'an. From within the list, the Qur'an states the names of five Rasul who are the Mighty ones. These are: Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad (s.a.w.).’ Source: University of Southern California Compendium of Muslim Texts". http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.RASUL.html. Retrieved 2007-01-03. Hence to describe further only these mighty ones are logical and encyclopedic.

For genealogical link reference are clearly given in all related articles but for ready reference Islamic and general sources are as under:

Book; Art Thou That Prophet?

By Abu Noah Ibrahim Ibn Mika'eel Jason Galvan (Abu Noah) (p.33) ( geneology quoted for Muhammad to Adnan, Ibrahim, and Adam) http://books.google.co.in/books?id=NR8y5dp83GwC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=rahmat+ul+lil+alameen+Art+Thou+That+Prophet&source=bl&ots=qZgtmAXDbL&sig=T8MklM411oInprJg20LkG64cGOM&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

A Dictionary of Islam: Being a Cyclopaedia of the Doctrines, Rites ... By Thomas Patrick Hughes (p.19) (Muhammad to Adnan)

Book of Genesis 25:12-16

Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah, vol. 1, pp. 58-66

[Ibn Hisham 1/1,2; Talqeeh Fuhoom Ahl Al-Athar, p. 5-6; Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 2/11-14,52]  ( for Muhammad to Adnan)

[Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 2/14-17] ( Adnan to Ibrahim) [Ibn Hisham 1/2-4; Rahmat-ul-lil'alameen 2/18; Khulasat As-Siyar p.6] (Ibrahim to Adam) --Md iet (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, looking specifically at the links you provided -- These are forums posts and blogs, which are specifically listed as unreliable per WP:RS. Furthermore, they don't show how or why this descent issue is important to Muslims. Eik Corell (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did some googling myself to see if I could get a sense of the importance of Muhammad's ancestry in Islam. Interestingly, the only things I turned up are Shia-inspired blogs like this one. Now, I don't really doubt that Muslims (if they are literalist) follow Md iet's genealogy - although strangely he doesn't seem able to come up with a decent source. (I would have thought that would have been fairly easy.) What I do doubt is that much significance is attached to it, at least by Sunnis. Shias may be different. They certainly attach importance to descendancy from Muhammed for the 12 Imans etc. It wouldn't be surprising therefore if they are more interested in Muhammad's ancestry than Sunnis. In any event, this is not a topic for this article but could make an interesting one in Muhammad in Islam - if Md iet ever turns up the sources, which doesn't look likely at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Source: University of Southern California Compendium of Muslim Texts". http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.RASUL.html. is on study done by university, sources noted at articles of WIKI. This gives basis for selection of mighty prophets for the template. Other sources suggested for genealogy are books and others documents referred extensively. Qwyrxian, hope these are reliable source that says this particular genealogy (these people, and not others) are specifically an important grouping in Islam.

For justifying importance for decency, let us hope we get some solution and consensus.--Md iet (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Md iet, so far the consensus is that you are trying to insert information into the article to further a Shia point of view, but you do not have even one reliable source, so it's no good talking about getting consensus. We already have it, and you're the one outside it.

That last link was to an online glossary based on a booklet designed for non-muslims. It's not nearly enough to justify putting the diagram in here, because you have provided no evidence that this traditional linkage is important to Muslims. In Christianity, Jesus is traditionally supposed to be descended from King David on both Mary and Joseph's side, but this has no particular significance for most Christians. Are there instructional materials for children or converts that you could point us to, that show that Muslims are taught about this as an important thing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen for suggestion, let me try further if I can get relevant source.--Md iet (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this article about Muslim views?

So, in the above discussion, part of the issue revolves around whether this is the "historical" or "secular" article, or this is the "Muslim" view. I would like to ask why there is a presumption by so many writers here that this is the "historical" article? If you look at Buddha, Jesus, and even Abraham, the majority of the article deals with the perspective of the relevant religion(s), with "historical" analyses being secondary. In fact, for Jesus, the historical issues are the secondary articles, such as Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. I don't see why this article should be substantially different from how the major people/characters from other religions are treated. In other words, perhaps this article should be renamed to "Historical Muhammad", Islamic views of Muhammad moved here, and some of "Historical Muhammad" incorporated here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Those seem like poor analogies to me. The further back in time you go, the more you have to rely on religious belief and tradition for information about people. This is especially true for figures like Abraham or Moses, and especially Adam.

A better analogy might be Joseph Smith, Jr.. Both individuals have similarities. They are both reasonably contemporary, with better historical records on them. Both Muhammad and Smith founded a religion in a similar fashion (the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad, and the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith). Both held similar views regarding women. And so on. And both articles are mostly historical accounts, with summaries of longer articles about religious views, teachings, etc. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would posit a further distinction. Christianity is about Jesus: it's about who he was and what he did, as told in the new testament. The 'religious' view is therefore paramount. In a sense the historical Jesus is of secondary importance. Islam is not about Muhammed. He was 'just' a messenger. Who he was is not anywhere near as important as the verbatim word of God he transmitted in the Qu'ran. What he transmitted wasn't about himself. I therefore think there is a logic for the 'religious' Jesus and the 'historical' Muhammad being the 'main' topic in an encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can explain exactly, and please don't take this the wrong way because I know that this is your culture speaking through you, but that sounds offensive. To claim that one religion deserves fundamentally different treatment because its major prophet lived about 600 years later than another one is, frankly, nothing but cultural prejudice. It's really no different (although nearly the opposite) than the way the religion of the native peoples of the Americas was rejected because they were "obviously" uncivilized primitives (not, of course, my opinion). Again, I don't mean to say that you are being offensive on purpose, but merely to point out that you're making a value judgment, consciously or unconsciously, on the value of one religion versus another one, and couching it in an inaccurate and really irrelevant argument.

Furthermore, Jesus and Muhammad are far closer to contemporaries than Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Yes, I understand the similarity you're drawing in terms of their function in the religion (i.e., not divinity but prophet, as compared to Buddha and Jesus), but there is no question that the documentation available on Muhammad and the early founding of Islam is much closer to that surrounding Jesus and the early Christian church than it is to something that occurred less than 200 years ago. I don't see how Muhammad is so fundamentally different from the key players in other pre-modern religions that his "main" article should be primarily secular, while the "main" articles for the other religions should be primarily religious. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. There isn't a culture speaking through me, only a detached kind of scientific point of view. I have an intellectual interest in religion, that's all. I have not claimed that one religion deserves different treatment because of the time its prophet lived. All I have said is that better information is available for more recent individuals, and it behooves us to focus on that rather than religious tradition and mythology. Furthermore, I have made no value judgments about religions although I can understand how it would seem so. This isn't an article about a religion we're discussing, but rather about a founder who claimed that a written book was revealed to him. As such, I believe my analogy with Joseph Smith is valid. I do agree that Muhammad lived closer to Jesus's time. Even so, DeCausa makes a good point that Christianity is all about Jesus, therefore the focus of an article about Jesus would logically be different than an article about an individual who founded a religion that isn't all about him. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One other point is that there really isn't strong evidence that Jesus actually existed at all. It isn't possible to write an article about a purported "historical" Jesus. Mohammed is a completely different situation: while his status as a messenger of supernatural forces is debatable, there's no reasonable doubt that he existed.—Kww(talk) 02:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Having just come from reading the RfC on Template:Jesus regarding Jesus myth theory, Kww's claim is flat out wrong, and the viewpoint of either a small minority or a tiny minority or a fringe tiny minority, depending on which perspective you take. Please, let's not mix up our controversies here.

Regarding Amatulic and DeCausa's points...your points about focus make more sense to me. My intuition still tells me something is off with the argument, but my so-called "rational mind" hasn't caught up with it yet to put into words what I'm thinking. I'd still love to hear more views on the issue, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think DeCausa makes a good point. Jesus was a historical person, true, but the Christian view of him is all mixed up with weird after-the-fact prophesies and Dionysian myths so that he's as much a mythological figure as a real person. Really, the equivalent figure to Muhammad in Christianity is Paul, not Jesus.—Chowbok ☠ 10:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm not flat out wrong: our article on the Jesus myth theory is a a shameful thing, based primarily on Christian sources. Efforts to correct that have been rebuffed. That aside, try to actually find the documentation and sourcing. Chowbok points that out as well: even if you accept Jesus' existence, the facts about what he did have become hopelessly corrupted over time. We can write an article about Mohammed the historical figure that references reliable histories. We cannot do so about Jesus.—Kww(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(Peace Be With Him (PBWH))

I'm a constantly training semiotician, and I'm amused by conversations about religion. Thus I prefer to use (PBWH) after I've written the name of the seal of prophets: Muhammad (PBWH). The effect of using this apellative is comparable with a signal saying: I'm ready to talk religion.... This is of course an almost hopeless case in regard of academic discoursive practices, and the eventuality of changing manners. But we may include something about the phenomenon in the article. I don't feel scholarly fit, although I hope for a semiotic finnish.--Xact (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please place new talk page entries at the bottom. I have done this for you.

Please also see WP:PBUH if you haven't already. We don't include honorifics after a persion's name in a biography.

I am unclear about what "phenomenon" you are suggesting to be included in the article. Something about changing manners? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that greater discussion on the use of honorifics belongs in Muhammad in Islam, which could definitely use a lot of attention. Resolute 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They don't belong to Muhammad in Islam page if they don't belong here, since WP rules do not change from page to page. Kavas (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Xact was wanting to cover in an article the phenomenon of honorifics. This is a perfectly sound topic for an article, and the suggestion was that coverage of honorifics (their origin, history, modern usage, what is indicated by them, why people choose to use them etc) might fit in the Muhammad in Islam article. It would be along the lines of coverage of titles of the english aristocracy, or there's an article covering all the names Jesus is given in the bible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, if he does so, I suggest that he addes Turkish honorifics, which includes "Peygamber Efendimiz", which is Persian+Greek actually. Kavas (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We already have two articles dealing with the subject. See Peace be upon him (Islam) and Islamic honorifics. Wiqixtalk 18:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

May be so but it should also be covered in Muhammad in Islam. It's not a very good article and if it were improved (with better linking from this page) then some of the - what appears to be - hostile muslim opinion of aspects of this article may be ameliorated. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing verse #?

Perhaps I'm just ignorant of the style used for Qur'an citation, but it looks like the in-text citation in the last clause of the very first sentence of the article is missing the actual verse number. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Final Years in Mecca section

This was in the wrong place, and I corrected it. Unflavoured (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Images of Mohammad ( SAW )

It is obligation of wiki to delete all the images of Mohammad according to terms and conditions of wiki. Wiki says to stop offense on this website but these images are creating offense in minds of millions of people of the world. More than one billion Muslims got hurted because of these pics. Wiki's aim should be to share information rather than hurting billions of people or creating hatred among different religions. It is prohabited in Islam to make sketches of Prophet Mohammad ( PBUH ). It is request of one billions Muslims to remove these pics immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armyoptimist (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the linked discussion at the top of the page that explains why we don't do that. Note that all of those billions of people can have the images blocked so that they don't see them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

writing content

Whereever an article starts it starts with, "According to muslim traditions". I completely disagree to this part as this is not only tradition, these are historical proven fact and has been proven right by many references. The Hadith are not mere traditions but actual facts and teaching of Prophet Mohammed(PBUH)collected by carefully cross referencing different people from different areas. His life and teachings should be an example to others. What is not right or not proven by facts or does not have proper reference is rejected by Muslims all across the globe. It is pretty evident that Islam and Muslims are projected in a very wrong and objectional manner by people across the globe and this article is no different. If one reads from a neutral point of view the entire article would show negative traits and a negative critism of the religion ISLAM. Would request the editor to be unbiased in his writings and only then can others be unbiased in reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.144.14 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are presenting a religious point of view, and this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. What is believed or rejected by Muslims can be presented as exactly that, but not as a fact that everyone else must believe. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if the IP will come back, but to him/her and others—would it be any better to use a phrase like "According to Muslim teaching" or "According to Islam"? To me, those both seem equally neutral, but if the specific concern is the word "tradition" (and I can understand how that might feel negative, even though I don't think it's intended to be), then maybe an alternative word might be a better choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me that "tradition" might be considered non-neutral. I have no objection to those alternatives. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, "Muslim tradition" is different than "According to Islam". For example, "There is no God but God" and Muhammad is prophet according to Islam, but according to "Muslim tradition", "King Ashama converted to Islam". Kavas (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain the difference? I don't understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think he's trying to say there's a diffence between what's in the Qu'ran or the Hadith/Sunnah (or interpretation of these by the Ulema) and what's developed as a popular story in the history of muslims outside of these. Actually the article may be pretty loose on using the the terms 'tradition', 'traditions', and 'traditionally'. I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure, but I think these terms in the article are sometimes used to mean hadith, sometimes sunnah and sometimes a 'tradition' outside of both these. I think someone who knows the subject needs to do a word search and replace the 'tradion' phrases with the right technical term. It's especially confusing because the article (correctly) defines the sunnah as the traditions of the prophet so there is an implication that whenever 'tradition' is used, it's meaning sunnah - but I'm pretty sure that doesn't work. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i am the one who started this string. Tradition, teaching and belief are all different things though they are at times considered similar.As rightly pointed out by kavas the difference in teaching and belief.When it is mentioned, and i quote, "Muhammad's life is traditionally defined into two periods: pre-hijra (emigration) in Mecca (from 570 to 622), and post-hijra in Medina (from 622 until 632). ." This is right because over the period of time this is how we follow his life and has become the tradition of referring to Mohammed (PBUH) however when it is mentioned," According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad's wife Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet," this is inappropriate as this is not tradition but fact that she was the first one to believe him and accept Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.144.14 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Tausique (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And, again, please understand I mean no disrespect, as I'm trying to understand: is the distinction you put above universally held? That is, do all major sects of Islam agree that "Khadija was the first to believe he was a prophet" is fact? I ask because I know that in other religions I have studied, certain things are considered "fact" by one sect/denomination, while other's consider it an interesting story, while others consider it to be metaphorical only. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the question back to him is why does he believe it is 'fact'. If it's because it's in the Qu'ran, in the article it should say "according to the Qu'ran....". If it's in the hadith, then it should say "according to the hadith...". To that extnt I sypathise with the IP. Saying "according to tradition..." is lazy and imprecise, and, as I said earlier, is confusing. Obviously, it goes without saying that it can't be presented simply as "fact". (For his benefit: the mere fact that it is a tenet of faith for muslims is not enough to make it a fact for the rest of the planet.) DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact because it is in the Hadith and yes it is a universally held fact. The first person to accept him as the prophet(PBUH) was Khadijah(ra) and there is no point of argument on this. However my argument is not only to this fact, there are many points which are debatable as they have been referred as "According to tradition" whereas they are actual facts. I am in the process of going through the entire acticle and then would get back with actual reference and citation from The Hadith and then would request the writer to make changed accordingly to the article. For a Muslim there are only 2 universal guiding principles, First the Holy Quran and then The Hadith. Anything apart from this is not acceptable and hence not right. If there is anything pointed or written about life of the Prophet(PBUH) it has to be proven from the Hadith else should not be quoted.Tausique (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is a fact because it is in the Hadith." No, just because something is in the Hadith doesn't mean it's fact.

Please read the commentary above. There are ways to rephrase "according to tradition" more precisely. You are missing the point that beliefs held by Muslims are not facts for the rest of the planet, they are just Muslim beliefs. If you claim some statements are "universally held" then you must show sources other than Islamic sources. Remember, this is not an Islamic encyclopedia. Also, the Hadith is considered a primary source. See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Primary sources such as the Qur'an and the Hadith are fine for referencing what Muslims believe, but the point of this article is not to state what Muslims believe, but to describe a biography using reliable historical sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic, have you really studied Islam? Hadith is the most reliable historical source. It was written 200 years later than prophet's time, nevertheless there's not a second source that is more reliable than hadith. Hadith means narration and desribes what has happened in prophet's time. But, there are many fabricated hadith. (See Ignác Goldziher). Let me ask you one question, can you tell me a source which doesn't use hadith and tell you who the first Muslim is? There are many Orientalists who partially or completely reject authenticity of hadith, but in this case we have no other sources to tell you who the first Muslim is, and you should delete this sentence from Wikipedia. What's the relation with writing this and "your" belief/disbelief on Islam? You just write history here. As you should abide by WP:NOR, if "Watt (1953), p. 86" uses this term (according to tradition), keep the current form: "According to Muslim tradition". But your argument is irrelevant and in error, I'm sure Watt used hadith to desribe this event, since there's no other source, or all other sources use these hadith books. Kavas (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kavas, of course you are right that the hadith is ultimately a major source for Muhammad's life - but the important word here is 'ultimately'. You seem to have misunderstood the WP policy on primary sources. All it means is that editors can't go directly to them and cite them as a source. This is, amongst other things, to avoid personal interpretation of that primary source by the editor. The way it needs to be handled is to find a reliable secondary source who uses the primary source. The principle of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of reliable secondary sources on a topic. Of course, any author of a secondary source will 'interpret'. But the point is we rely on (or debate the reliability) of a well-known author. We can't do that for an editor. For example, I can read the Treaty of Versailles and give a summary of it. But who am I and why should I be trusted to get it right? However, a summary by a famous historian like AJP Taylor could be a candidate for a source on the Treaty of Versailles because his reliability (or otherwise) can be discussed by all.

Thanks. I'm not suggesting anything contrary to the WP policy on primary sources. I think we should use a similar language to the language used in reliable seconday sources like "Watt". But, my point is simple: You don't have to be a Muslim to use hadith to write Muhammad's biography. Because otherwise you could probably not write a biography. Kavas (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it means that a neutral scholarly source (ie not written from a muslim religious point of view) needs to be found saying that according to the hadith Kadija was the first muslim - and that that proposition is likely to have been true. The editor who wrote that this is "according to tradition" was following the rules if that is what Watt said. But Watt appears not to be a good source in this case (or at least too imprecise). Tausique, sorry I may have sent you on a 'wild goose chase'. You will be wasting your time if you go searching for the hadith references (for the reasons I've just explained.) Why did you say that the hadith is universally accepted? Do you really believe that atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Budhists (i.e. the overwhelming majority of the planet) believe that the hadith are indisputable fact? (And not all muslims accept the hadith - see Qur'an alone, and as Kavas says, even orthodox muslims reject some hadith as inauthentic.) If you still think the Hadith are 'universally' accepted, then read Hadith#Western academic scholarship. You have to understand for those of us who are not muslims, the hadith is not indisputable fact, and if you try to make the changes you want just based on the hadith alone, I am sure it won't be accepted. DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulic and DeCause, firstly i am not sure which all historical Authentic source have u used to write these articles. As you say they are written records by non muslims to view Prophet Mohammed(PBUH) in a neutral way. What is the authenticity of those records. When are those books written from where you have taken them as reference. What time was it written, what evidences were taken down. You call these articles neutral! i see them as Anti Islamiic. I agree that a Non muslims would not consider Haidth as completely authentic but it is true for other religions also. What written records can we give for Buddism or hinduism and even Christianity. At least for Islam we have written records which is authenticated by Multiple scholars. Muslim, Bukhari etc. Plz change your view point first. See Islam from an open mind set and read and understand The Quran and Hadith and then judge for yourself. Do not go by what media and some fanatics say about it. Don't be judgemental.Tausique (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about one set of religious beliefs against another. Your reference to Christianity, hinduism and Buddhism shows you've missed the point - other religions are treated in the same way. For example in the Jesus article it says "The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus’ life; nevertheless, these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature." The same can be said of the hadith. Islam can't be treated in a different way to other religions, which is what you seem to want. This is nothing to do with being anti-Islam. (And by the way, I have read parts of the Qu'ran and the hadith. So what?) DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

it seems you did not understand my question. I asked what historical sources have u used and what are their sources. If you can give me a good reference and which is authenticated and accepted by scholars then i will accept it. Plz do let me know the source of your research.and dont read a part of Quran and Hadith, Read it fully that too with meaning then you would know what Islam actually is or rather what it is not.I do not want you to treat Islam differently, i just want it to be treated in the same manner you treat others which i am not sorry to say but is the fact.Tausique (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

the sources are in the Article - look for yourself. If you object to any of the scholarly articles or books cited, then bring it up on this Talk page. And it's not 'my research' - I haven't contributed to this article (not in any significant way anyway). DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, anyone who has given Islam a cursory study would know that the Hadith are not considered completely reliable sources even among Muslims. Sunnis and Shias disagree about the reliability of the narrators and transmitters. Shia prefer narrations sourced to Ali and Muhammad's family. Sunni trust narrators whom Shia reject. While we can reference these sources, they are nevertheless written with a biased point of view, intent on glorifying Islam and Muhammad. As such they present a religious belief, not necessarily historical fact. DeCausa's analogy with the four gospels chronicling Jesus's life is apt. One must consider all reliable sources to get an accurate, neutral picture of the history of the time. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

We already refer to the exact Ayya and Sura numbers when quoting the Quran, in addition to at least one secondary source. We should just follow a similar approach when referring to information found in Hadith and Sira (i.e., "According to an account mentioned in Tabari (number in footnote) ..."). The fact that some Muslims do not consider a source reliable makes it even more important to explicitly refer to that source. Also, we can't really claim anything about Muhammad without relying on Muslim tradition. A catchall phrase like "According to Muslim tradition" seems rather redundant, although "according to Muslim beliefs" is acceptable when dealing with religious views per WP:RNPOV. Wiqixtalk 20:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. We have a template {{cite quran}}, which could use improvement. It currently just links to the Qur'an article, and not to the specific verse like {{bibleverse}} does, linking to biblegateway.com. Is there an online Qur'an with linkable verses that one could use? Similarly, if there's an online Hadith with linkable quotations, we could make a {{cite hadith}} template. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But just to be clear, the Qu'ran isn't used as a source in the article. The source cited (in the footnote) is the secondary source. The Qu'ran reference used is added as part of the Article because it's cited by the secondary source (or should be). DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Amatulić, both {{cite quran}} and {{hadith-usc}} link to the verse they are supposed to. For example Quran 4:28 and Sunan Abu Dawood, 1:15, {{cite quran|4|28|s=ns}} and {{Hadith-usc|usc=yes|abudawud|1|15}}. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right. My mouse must have missed the verse number the first time, so I only saw the Qur'an article. I was unaware of the existence of the hadith-usc template. Thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am coming late to this but I am unaware of any Muslim group that rejects Khadija as the first convert. The story of Muhammad's reception of the first revelation and his immediate flight in terror to hide weeping beneath Khadija's robe is a beloved tradition. While the authenticity of the many ahaadith is debated, this event is considered a crucial part of his revelation. I think the introduction "According to Muslim traditions" perfectly suits this situation, given that the event is only recorded by Muslims.

I would be interested if anyone knows of a competing tradition, because admittedly this is not my speciality.

Also, Happy Mevlüt to y'all. Ogress _smash! 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mdatifshamim, 17 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

since Islam prohibits using image of prophet i would request you to remove pictures of prophet Mohammad(p.b.u.h.) in your article.basically if you put pictures of prophet you are portraying wrong picture of Islam in the world Mdatifshamim (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Declined—Kww(talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ that's linked at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unicode Ligature Form of محمد

Err... in regards to said ligature form, well: it's not showing up for me, and I've checked and everything seems kosher with my system (Mac/Snow Leopard/RockMelt~Firefox~Safari, fonts support this character). Two questions: 1. Should we not use the "full" Arabic form "محمد" in reference to the Prophet's name in the opening sentence of the article and leave the footnote as is? Currently the footnote would stand alone fine with the ligature form cited. 2. Is there some formatting cue that needs to be added to the ligature form(s) that would make it render correctly in browsers? Ogress _smash! 14:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unicode ligature ﷴ renders fine for me in Google Chrome, Firefox, and Opera. It doesn't work for me in Internet Explorer 8 (even with encoding set to UTF-8) or on Safari Mobile. I have no objection eliminating the ligature code and using the full Arabic form. I have just done so. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.101.103.123, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please remove depicting images of PROPHET MOHAMMED (S.A.W), please my friend, its hurt us Muslims.

78.101.103.123 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Declined Please see the FAQ linked at the top of the page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedophile

Mohammed was a Paedophile why isn't that stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.213.254 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to support that claim? --Dekker451 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources. However, this is already addressed in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging someone who lives 1400 years ago on today's standards, very smart. Why do you people even reply to obvious troll posts set out to offend certain people? >_> --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Asimali700, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please change by most Muslims, the last prophet of Islam as taught by the Qur'an. to this by all Muslims, the last prophet of Islam as taught by the Qur'an.

because as by reference no.3 ^ Qur'an 33:40 he is the last prophet and anyone who doesn't believe in qur'an is not considered as a muslim

in the Notes no. 4 : Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is not considered as Muslims by most Muslims in the world

Asimali700 (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Qur'an is not a reliable source, because your point here is your interpretation of the Qur'an. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, read the footnote attached to that statement in the article. There are groups who consider themselves Muslim who recognize later prophets. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Danishullahkhan, 8 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The currently says: Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) "was the founder of the religion of Islam"

This is totally incorrect. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was not the founder of the religion of Islam, he was the last and the final messenger of Islam. The religion of Islam was founded since time immemorial, since Prophet Adam stepped on this earth. So please correct this enormous mistake that will mislead people about Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Thanks you.

Danishullahkhan (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this...It is a huge mistake...It will surely mislead people of other faiths...Muslims believe Islam has always been in existence (i.e. since Prophet Adam)...Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not the only messenger of Islam...There were many others before him...But he was the last messenger of Islam... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EXquisite Inception (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No one is misled. The article says "Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets." It's just that people who are not Muslims (most people on the planet are not Muslims) don't accept as fact what you happen to believe as a matter of faith.DeCausa (talk) 10:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed at length on this talk page in the past; please see the archives. Basically you are stating a religious belief, not a neutral statement in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is an artifact of the English language that the word "founder" is appropriate because there was no religion known as "Islam" before Muhammad came along. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I wouldn't object to some other wording. Instead of "founder of Islam", perhaps "known for introducing Islam to the world" or something similar. The point is we need to mention the one fact that makes Muhammad notable, as well as maintain the secular tone of an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP's view is explained in the second half of the first sentence and all of the second sentence. The only way that we could make it more clear would be to reorder the first sentence to say that he is regarded by Muslims as the final messenger and by everyone else as the founder. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any harm in adding after "founder of Islam" something like "(although Muslims do not consider him the founder because they believe Islam pre-dated him)"? For me (as a non-Muslim) that actually gives me some information. It seems to me to clarify the connection between him being founder and the last sentence of the paragraph, which to the casual reader is slightly contradictory. (I know it isn't really, but often the 'casual' reader needs things being quite explicit to get the info across.) DeCausa (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a smaller tweak, just to that last sentence: "Thus, rather than founder, Muslims consider Muhammad ...". It's the state the obvious principle. /ninly_(talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue was raised by me earlier also and no solution found till date. I also feel the tweak suggested by Ninly will serve the purpose.--Md iet (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a little clumsy to add the information to the sentence, but it works pretty well as a footnote. I've added one to that effect. Please feel free to fix my somewhat awkward wording, and (especially) to source it.—Chowbok ☠ 10:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Note seems not convey the meaning properly. All the justifications already exist in the lead Para only slight link is to be given to word 'founder'. The tweak suggested as "Thus, rather than founder' fits perfectly, if any better suggestion on the wording available you may suggest.--Md iet (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say.—Chowbok ☠ 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note modified now seems clarify the position better.--Md iet (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

First a simple question: Wouldn't it be according to the neutrality ideal of the wikipedia community to let the Muslim population have as much to say in regard of the presentation of Muhammed(PBWH), as the Christian population have influence on the presentation of Jesus(PBUH)? If all other religious adherents and others in general stated in an imaginary Wikipedia that Christians believed that Jesus created the World. Whereas the Christians would like the article to say that Jesus in fact was the Son of God, sent to redeem all people and so on, would it in such a case be as evidently erroneous to seek for a compromise? Hopefully it could bring a solution in which the Christians, in this case, not necessarily found the information on Jesus to be based on grounds of infidelity, or anything like it. My point is that if the information given on Wikipedia is against your religion, it is a great possibility for abjection, in best case a mutual disregard. In regard of the importance of a hightened sense of Discourse ethics I propose that the main article is moved from Muhammad to Muhammad (PBUH). And full accept for the correction proposed by Danishullahkhan. There are full support for a betterment of the climate in the sphere of inter-religious talk by all religious authorities. Wikipedia, including this talkpage, should therefor strive towards efforts that help such. The proposed changes will do so. --Xact (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the neutrality policy says that we don't add any "opinions" to articles without citing them, not that we allow people who are involved to decide what they prefer best. By your logic, we could "neutrally" allow biographical subjects or companies to expunge all negative information about themselves because that's what they preferred. I think, perhaps you're confusing the requirement that article content be neutral with our desire that all people can edit regardless of their personal opinions. It is correct that our neutrality policy contradicts the requirements of some groups. But that will always be true. For instance, we have articles on Democracy, even though reading about that subject in China is forbidden; should we remove or somehow hide that information? Similarly, many religions prohibit openly discussing sexuality, so should we strip out all of those articles? And what about those religions that consider bare arms on women to be a prohibited form of nudity--must we purge all such pictures? And what happens when the preferences of two groups are contradictory? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Xact, should the contents of the Ahmadiyya article be determined by Ahmadiyya adherents or Islamophobia by Islam-haters and Satanism by Satanists? DeCausa (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that you're missing my point, and avoiding my question about intercultural neutrality. My dissident point of view in this case, doesn't necessarily imply that I am in the opposite position of your stands. I simply take it for a reality that christians do edit Jesus and Muslims Muhammad (Peace be Upon them both). Indeed, I hope both edit both, as I hope atheists edit God. I believe I am pointing my finger to a problem that needs to be solved. Wikipedia are perhaps regarded more in tune with worldviews held by White Anglican Saxon People. I don't identify myself as a cultural relativist, but I'm humble enough to not to assume my cultural background as of priveleged status in regard of truths and facts. In regard of the 'Ahmadiyya'-arguement; it would be an asset for the article if it would be considered not offensive by Ahmadiyya adherents and that they could enjoy parttaking in the talk:pages. The Academic standards are erroneously held to be a merely western ideal summoning. --Xact (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing belongs at WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not Talk:Muhammad. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Xact (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because (and this may be a misunderstanding) you seem to be seeking a change in the policy on verifiability, which currently says that the content of articles must be verifiable by reliable sources. A Muslim (Christian, Buddhist, pagan, atheist etc) who wishes to add or change content in any article, including the articles on Muhammad, Jesus etc, must be able to find a published source for it. You appear to be saying that a religious person should be able to edit the article and insert their own religious knowledge/opinion, which would be a big change and require community consensus, which it is very unlikely to get. Now it may be that what you meant was that as editors on the English Wikipedia tend to be western (although we have a considerable number of editors from the Indian subcontinent), they tend to preferentially use sources in English which, in the case of Muhammad, tend to be from a western viewpoint. This is almost certainly true, although good editors strive to avoid it, if they have no Arabic, then sources in Arabic are inaccessable. This may mean that a good deal of scholarly information is not included, and may be known only to Arabic speakers with an interest in Muhammad. A position that we should encourage those with access to such sources to take an interest in editing the article, and bringing in more sources, is a good one, as it would introduce a more rounded view and help to prevent errors.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Elen at the roads... Yes, it is a misunderstanding. With all due respect, among academic scholars of religion there are people of all sorts of religious orientation. To held a view does not imply that one cannot be scientific in one's approach and study. To have a life is an indication that one is biased. A proper academic approach is to a matter of being aware of it, and put one's biased orientation into context. I am Norwegian. I will be biased in regard of how I edit Norway and related articles. I'm an artist, I have a view on art, it affects me in how I read, and write about Henrik Ibsen. I'm trained in Semiotics, holding an higher degree, it's like a plague in my mind, reading, or editing philosophy related articles, or politics, not to mention history. The huge difference between wikipedia and other encyclopedia is exactly that the articles here do not have a single subjective author and signature. When we are not aware of that, it sometimes turn out to be a most embarrasing feature of the wikipedia, as is examplified by the current english Muhammad (PBUH) article. I'm emotionally saddened by how it looks right now. Both in regard of the image-debate, and the pointing at him as the founder of the Religion of Islam. It is embarrassing because it reduces the academic standard of Wikipedia enormously. It is incredible insensitive to the otherwise scholarly awareness of the problem regarding 'religion' as a scientific concept and subject of study. Especially in connection with the challenge of translating the 16th Century invention of using the Latin concept 'Religionem' as scientific concept, into Arabic 'Din', the relationship between religion and science is profound. It is an unsolved issue. It is terribly misleading to signal it differently. To state in the very first line of the article that Muhammad (PBUH) (I say without regarding myself a muslim) is the founder of the Religion of Islam, is tremendously ethnocentric, i.e. biased, an example gratia of not-neutral. The Prophet is explicitly stating that he is not a founder of Religion himself (citation needed, but it shouldn't be to difficult to find). It is hard to believe such narrowness of mind which is here displayed. It is utterly unscientific. With 'unscientific' I signify rational cognition dictated by libidinal forces such as desire and fear. The fact that the vast majority of the western world are indoctrinated from child school and everyday media that Islam is a religion founded by Saint Muhammad, does not make such an assumption scientifically valid! On the other hand, it is a question of how the concept 'Religion' is defined. If an excommunicated person within a religious community continue to gain followers, allthough claiming the same authenticity in regard of lineage, we may come to agree that this is a possible way for a religion to take form (as the years go by). But even in such a case, the Prophet, could hardly be seen as the founder, as his christology relates to excommunicated Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, some 300 years ahead of him. In matter of fact, it would paradoxically, be more in line with a neutral ground to state that Muhammad (PBUH) is the originator of the heretical movement called Islam, or Mohammedanism. This is NOT my suggestion, but simply an attempt to show the graveness in regard of the breach in understanding; or what I see as lack of realising inherent ethnocentrism. Scientific standards is a matter of ethics, as metaphysics is about physics. --Xact (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you see so many problems with the article, why not fix it yourself? You should be able to edit the article since you are a registered user. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Because xe knows that there isn't consensus to make the changes xe is suggesting. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

He should be able to change consensus with good enough sources. "Because that's how I feel" is of course not a good enough reason. If you can cite verifiable sources then it's fine. IF. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Baphomet

The main problem with this article is that it draws too heavily on the Muslim view of Muhammad. Muhammad was an extremely influential person, and belongs to the history of the whole human race (for good or ill). We would never, for example, consider having an article on Hitler written largely from the standpoint of neo-Nazis. In particular, other people worshipped Muhammad who were not Muslims. As is well known, the Knights Templar worshipped him under the name of Baphomet (or at least were accused of doing so, which is just as noteworthy). The figure of Baphomet survived in European belief, and was famously depicted by Eliphas Levi, as pictured. Baphomet has since become a very important deity in European and American Neopaganism. The article should mention this. ðarkuncoll 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see Muhammad resembling Baphomet is one of several spellings of that name (ie, "Mohamet"). Arabic is rather weird about many words having multiple spellings when written with the Latin alphabet. The circumstances of the destruction of the Templars make the assertion that the Templars worshipped Baphomet rather dubious. Frotz (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually the Baphomet article has citations to this connection with Muhammad, as well as to a claim that some Templars were bringing Islamic ideas into the group. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless neopagans consciously worship Muhammad under the name Baphomet, I can't see the relevance. The fact that they worship a deity who was given a name by Levi which he got from the trumped-up evidence aginst the Templars, and which in turn is thought to have been an orthographical error for "Muhammad" is, well, tenuous in the extreme and really just trivia. So, besides the "Baphomet connection", who else worships Muhammad? If no one, I can't really see the point of the original post. DeCausa (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying that, you appear to be making a judgement about the validity of Neopagan practice compared to that of Islam. ðarkuncoll 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I said "unless neopagans consciously worship Muhammad under the name Baphomet, I can't see the relevance". If you have sources showing there is a worship of Muhammad (albeit under the name Baphomet), you might have an argument for a mention under "Legacy", though it would need some back-up on numbers etc. But if not, what's neopaganism got to with it except a tenuous name link? And who are these others that worship Muhammad? In any case, even if neo-pagans do worship Muhammad, what specifically would change in the text of the article outside of 'Legacy', in your view? DeCausa (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Lead might have to change to something like: "...is considered the founder of the religion of Islam, and is regarded by Muslims as a messenger and prophet of God and is also considered by neo-pagans to be a deity linked to the Sabbatic Goat and often called Baphomet..." If we thought we got a lot of postings about PBUH, "founder" and images, well........ DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. We have a separate page for this crap. Besides, this horse is dead. You're all just wasting time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, which crap? The Baphomet crap? Which page does it belong on? Or are you referring to something else? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think itsJamie was referring to the images thread I moved to the sub-page. He posted it after I moved the thread, but maybe he had an old version cached or something. Pretty sure he doesn't mean the Baphomet thread. We can still beat that horse plenty should the desire take us.—Chowbok ☠ 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, exactly. I thought this was still the "images" discussion (which was apparently removed before I posted). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, a different question

Who decided that all image related discussions must be on the subpage? This is not standard Wikipedia practice; in fact, I don't know of any other talk pages that use this format (outside of project related pages). Of course, there may be some I do not know, but the point is this: I'm now arguing that the "Big red hand" at the top of this talk page is fine, but that having a subpage is not. Can anyone provide me with a policy compliant rationale for allowing the hiding of a legitimate discussion related to the article on a subpage that has approximately 10% as many watchers as this page? Because I certainly don't know of one.

Furthermore, I would also like clarification: if other editors insist that the debate goes there, then, if we can get a (policy/guideline compliant) consensus on the subpage to remove one or more images, then we can go ahead and remove them, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk:Muhammed - so give that some time to work itself out. at any rate, I think I'm going to go ahead per DeCausa's suggestion in the other thread, and replace the "muhammed at that ka'aba" with a simple image of the ka'aba. There should be plenty of those in commons, and there's no need to use this particular picture for illustration. Then let's talk about the other pictures, one-by-one. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You may want to edit the description as I don't think they made photographs in the 11th century. Jarkeld (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

whoops! lol I'll do that know. also, It seems to me that the two images at the start of the 'Final Years' section are entirely irrelevant. I'm tempted to simply remove them outright. what do you think? --Ludwigs2 00:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That link is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk:Muhammed, BTW.—Chowbok ☠ 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For information, I've also raised a Wikiquette Alert here regarding User:Ohnoitsjamie's description of the thread as "crap". DeCausa (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't be serious.—Chowbok ☠ 00:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two other editors have already added comments agreeing with me. DeCausa (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, have you noticed yet that discussion of the images generates 90% or more of all comments about this page? To the extent that no other issue can be addressed? (Perhaps you weren't around when it was at 99%). The images issue swamps the general talk page. Hey, how are we ever going to let people bring up PBUH or all the other issues that repeat endlessly. Frankly, if you don't understand the need for a separate page, you haven't reviewed the history, ALL the history, of this issue. As for policy, guidelines or whatever you wanted for 'say-so', this is really a quite unique page, even more so than Sea of Japan.

When editors here object to personal observations like 'crap' or say that something new has been thought of about this subject, it more or less 'proves' to old observers that they haven't read all the prior discussions. And to go off and start changing things because of the 'new' discussions, borders on wilfulness, which is boldness without due consideration of prior history. (Though I can soooo understand not wanting to read _all_ the history)

And just so you can't get the wrong idea, when first here years ago I favored fewer images, even just one, such as one of the Persian ones. And basically over the months found the arguments against images either uncompelling or, more often, simply insulting (by way of tediousness).

Now I've undoubtedly insulted someone(s), but that is perfectly standard for this issue, and why you HAVE to go cautiously, and with real regard for how serious the issue is. And asking for and waiting for review of whether your 'new' is actually new. Shenme (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's not new, and no, I haven't been around this page for that long. In any event, I've gone ahead and tried to formulate a clear perspective on the Images page. As someone said at ANI, it doesn't really matter where the discussion is held, and that's true, so long as whatever consensus is culled there is respected. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Shenme, I really hate to say this, but a lack of discrimination on the part of the regular editors here is not precisely my or Qwyrxian's problem. Yes, I understand you probably get a lot of thoughtless babble on this topic; that does not mean that everything posted on this topic is thoughtless babble. You have an obligation to engage reasonable discussion fairly, even if you've heard it before, and frankly (from my side) when I start getting kneejerk responses and broad-scale refactoring from established editors, I'm pretty quickly convinced that I'm dealing with tendentious clowns suffering from page-ownership problems. That's never good.

In other words, I'm more than happy to go cautiously where I get a modicum of respect, but I'm not even going to consider going cautiously with people who try to tell me to shut up and sit in a corner.

Now, I'm going to bookmark the other page and see what's going on there out of politeness, but I want to go on record that I find the attitude that lies behind that move troubling. You could handle the same problem by a careful program of archiving (which is how it's handled on most articles); the fact that you all want to shove it off to a subpage speaks badly of group intentions. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

hatnote?

Sorry if this is a n00b question, but: has there been previous discussion about including a hatnote linking to Help:Options to not see an image (otherwise known as WP:Muhammad), so that users arriving at the article are aware that they can do this before scrolling past the calligraphic image? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How to hide it is in the FAQ, but don't know if a note for the article has ever been considered. DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It has, in the context of adding an unnecessary WP:DISCLAIMER. A hatnote would be the equivalent of a warning.

It might be better to modify Template:Editnotices/Page/Muhammad, which appears at the top of the page when anyone tries to edit, to include a note on how to hide images. I have just done this. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Wiqi55's edit moving Sunnah section

I think it's basically a good idea moving the Sunnah to the section on source's for Muhammad's life. However, I don't think it can just be lifted without alteration. In it's original position it was about the spiritual significance of the Sunnah in Islam, and that's how it's worded. However, in the new position it needs to say more about what biographical information about Muhammad it gives us. Could Wiqi55 finish the job and flesh that out? DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a better idea is to keep only the Hadith section in the lead and move the section about the influence of Sunna on Muslim culture to a subsection in the Legacy-Muslim Views. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, makes more sense. Not sure it should be a separate section from muslim views, however. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Brain tumour

Why isn't there any information about the alledged brain tumour of this person in this article? Dwergkonijntje (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we need more than an allegation, and it needs to be relevant to the article.

Do you have any reliable sources to back it up? Not blogs, not self-published websites, but actual scholarly works? I've seen a source or two that gave just a passing mention to the possibility of epilepsy — not enough to give any weight in this article.

There's also a book (Daniel B. Smith (2007). Muses, madmen, and prophets: rethinking the history, science, and meaning of auditory hallucination. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-59420-110-3.) that makes a case that Muhammad and other prophets suffered from a mental illness because they heard voices. I'm not seeing how this would fit into this article. Perhaps a stand-alone article about evidence of mental illness in prophets throughout history would be worthwhile to create, but it would need multiple sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Once you found the necessary sources, you might want to to add it to this article instead.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it fits there either. Criticism is defined as passing judgment about merits (good or bad). The sources I saw in my brief search don't appear to discuss the topic in the context of criticism. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and is a little invidious as it seems to imply someone should be subject to "criticism" for having a mental or physical illness. I think it's probably worth an article in its own right, but with a brief cross-reference to it in several of the prophet/mystic articles (not just Muhammad). In this article perhaps the cross-ref would go into Western views. DeCausa (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw quote

The George Bernard Shaw quote is nonsense and should be removed. He never wrote anything titled remotely like "The Genuine Islam", or any works at all on the subject of Islam. Here's a page with a list of his works: http://www.online-literature.com/george_bernard_shaw/ Search for it at amazon, nothing there either. Nothing anywhere except Islamic advocacy sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.114.226 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've read somewhere (in the link posted below) that it was disputed. But The Genuine Islam was a magazine that supposedly interviewed him, not one of his works. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes this explains it. Whilst not WP:RS it has the ring of truth about it. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)