Talk:Muhammad/Archive 25

Just to note, the copyright status of the lead image of this article is under discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg. If anyone has access to the book discussed in there, it would be helpful. Jujutacular ^talk 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please remove the photo depicting MUHAMMED (PBUH) in the article because it is not allowed for muslims to entertain any photographic depictions of the PROPHET(pbuh).

115.242.162.196 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See that big warning had at the top of the page? Neither this page, nor the Wikipedia in general, shows deference to any external religious concerns when considering editorial actions. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the warning had given who cares??? The images should be removed as you and nobody have any single pic or image of mohammad(saww) you guys dont have any right to play with others feeling by doing this??? if wikipedia describes the neutral point then images should be removed as it is fake images made by anyone who has lost his mental controlRaza536 (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't we decided this?Wikipedia is not going to remove the images.The same discussions have taken place endless times.Can't you guys just take no for an answer?Sam 11:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdacruel (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia treats Muhammad exactly the same as any other historical figure. That's what "neutral point of view" means. thx1138 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

well neutral point is based on equality not on false and unknown depictions as said by you???@samdacrue why should we take no for an answer of yours when you know that its wrong I just want to acknowledge you guys that whatever you do dont publish or upload false images Raza536 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you hassle the editors of all other pages about historical figures? ðarkuncoll 12:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not about hassling or interrupting its about wrong and correct well Mr.Tharkun Coll Its like that you are interfering in our religion and no matter what you do you thing its right but talking "about neutral point" then images should be removed because its not real depiction its just one's imagination which is certainly wrong and misguiding the readers.Raza536 (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

These discussions aren't exactly new.They have been going on for ages and there is even a seperate talkpage for it.My point is that when a particular argument has been rejected over and over again,what possible purpose could bringing it up again serve?On the other hand if a new viewpoint arises,it will be considered and debated.But that's not the case....Sam 15:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

For a while I was happy. I wrote that Muhammad is regarded as the founder of Islam. Then it was again changed back to what must be regarded as a politically motivated assertion that Muhammed is the founder of Islam (end of discussion). It is undoubtably true that Muhammad is regarded as the founder by the majority of the English speaking community (at wikipedia). It is similarly impossible to renounce the fact that there is disagreement about the correctness of stating that Muhammad is the founder of the religion of Islam. Muslims univocally seem to disagree. And the global community of scholars in the fields of religion, historiography, and arabic language do not agree. Why should we, at wikipedia, then state something for true, which hardly is true, or simulate a consensus which is not. For the dignity of wikipedia it must be changed, otherwise wikipedia is under the rule of the one speaking most loud. --Xact (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, all scholars, other than Muslims, all say Muhammad is the founder. Muslims believe as part of their faith that Muhammad is not the founder. I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong in this but the choice is between those who believe something because of their faith and those who disagree for reasons other than faith. It seems to me quite clear that NPOV demands that we say he is the founder but note that believers think otherwise. And that's exactly what the article says. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Because of Their Faith"

That kind of a statement is misleading. To say people believe something because of their faith is a tautology (belief = faith). It suggests that people have no rational reason for having a conviction. "Faith" is commonly abused that way. Actually people believe (have faith) for no reason, good reason, slight reason, or adequate reason. It all is "faith," whether gullible credulity or resting in the sufficiency of the evidence. Some would say that satan is founder of Islam! At any rate, the NPOV is to put "regarded as founder." (EnochBethany (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC))

I totally agree, based on your and Amatulic's points under me. Please put any comments at the end of a discussion, as I don't think it will be seen here!. AdvertAdam ^talk 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think there was a problem about that phrase at the end of the discussion. So, Amatulic suggested "Perhaps saying he introduced Islam to the world may be more accurate and satisfy all points of view, both secular and religious" AdvertAdam ^talk 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is that the article says something controversial in Wikipedia's voice. Inserting the phrase "regarded as" seems like a more NPOV way of making the statement. Using that phrase, Wikipedia takes no position, but simply states what is claimed by others. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues. Is Muhammad the first Muslim prophet (given the Message by God)? That's a religious question... and I don't know any Muslim who would call any prophet, even Adam the founder of Islam. The second issue is Muhammad the founder of the social movement that we know as Islam that came from Arabia in the 600s, yes. Muslims and historians will generally agree on that. The problem is people are reading founder and thinking of two different issues. Nothing in our historical use of founder should be interpreted as opposed to Muslim religious understanding. The best think we can do is to make our writing clearer. gren グレン 11:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Your first question is the point. To Muslims, God is the founder of Islam, which existed since the "begining of time" (and Muhammad is the last not the first Islamic prophet). To non-Muslims, Muhammad is the founder of the religious movement of Islam. I think the second question is based on a false premise, that anyone calls the "social movement" that came out of Arabia in the 600s "Islam". I think everyone means the religion when reference is made to "Islam". The "social movement" would be referred to as something like the 7th century Muslim conquests or Muslim expansion or Muslim unification of Arabia. As an an example compare the content of the WP articles Islam and Muslim conquests. DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently awaiting the response from the faculties of Universities in Norway about Decausa's arguement, stating that all non-muslim scholars agree upon regarding Muhammad as the founder of Islam. I must say, I'm convinced that DeCausa's statement will prove wrong in my part of the world. I'll for my part keep this edit war on hold until proper substantiation. I will ask all others to do make the similar research upon the question. If there is no consensus among historians and researchers on religious studies, the Neutral Point Of View will be that Muhammad (PBUH) is regarded as founder of Islam. Allthough I actually find even that statement to much marked by the western misconception, not neutral but rather muddled in an euro- & anglocentric Point Of View. --Xact (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So you believe there are non-Muslim scholars who disagree that Muhammad was the founder of Islam? Who do you think they believe was the founder then? DeCausa (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started to get responses from the Universities in my country, Norway, on the question, all, at this point, favours the statement "Muhammad is regarded as the founder of the religion of Islam", except one who is neutral. Dear DeCausa, the question is not what I believe, or believe others believe. It is not wrong of you to think Mohammad is the founder of the Religion of Islam. The problem is that such a view has as a prerequisite a definition of Religion (or Din in Arabic); there are no agreement of any such definition. It is not necessarily wrong, in my view, to regard such a social movement, with rites, forms of worship, even its own calendar etc. as a religion per definition. If so, one may promulgate such a specific definition of Religion, that makes it clear that the social movement instigated by Muhammad is exactly what is meant by the term. In order to do so, one need to invent or find another word than Din, which is the current arabic expression. Most scholars, it seems, find the question complex. Primarily because there really is no consensus on how to define religion; next, there is not easy to find a definite distinction between what is under the scope of Theology, and what is in the field of Religious Science. This is mirrored in that religion is perhaps a more secular term, than for instant the Arab equivalent Din. It seems to me that issues and statements may be interpreted as both theological and scientific, based on context, pragmatically bound; in other words it is not allways an either or situation. Religious science is continously researching the historic basis of Mohammad's and Quranic claims of regarding the prophethood of Mohammad as a matter of lineage (conferring the Jews of Medina); Islam may be seen as a prolongued christian Arianism; or, on the other side, the research into the ties, lineages of religious and philosophical schools pertaining to Zoroastrianism, and the importance thereof on the Mohammedan formulation of Islam, marks an axis of research that needs to be expressed as open rather than closed. I feel encouraged by the professional researchers (in Norway) who have replied my question concerning this discussion. After 24 hours (friday-saturday) I've received four replies. three support the formulation: Muhammad is regarded as the founder. None has so far expressed support for Muhammad is the founder, allthough one expressed, and explained me how it is not erroneously to write that he is the founder. But this religious scientist expressed himself neutral, both sides valid, in his point of view. I am learning that it is not necessarily Islamophobic to keep on arguing for the view that Muhammad is the founder, allthough I find the implicit definition of religion going along the view still to be ethnocentric. I still have a hard time getting round what the motivation is, when the entire muslim community think it is wrong. In the context of intercultural as well as the scientific it is not a Neutral Point of View. Or look to Jesus, most will find it phony to express that Jesus was the founder of Christianity.--Xact (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. However, whatever your "professional researchers" in Norway say is irrelevant as it's original research. DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, you say that "As far as I know, all scholars, other than Muslims, all say Muhammad is the founder." Upon what do you base that analysis? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Only that I've seen no one attribute the foundation of Islam to anyone else but Muhammad. Have you? I'm not aware of an Islamic equivalent of St Paul, for instance. Nor am I aware of anyone saying that Islam is so insufficiently distinct from Judaism or Christianity that Muhammad did not create anything new. (Obviously, Muslims excepted.) But happy to be corrected (I did say "as far as I know"!). DeCausa (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear DeCausa. No one is arguing against the fact that Muhammad (PBUH) indeed did cause a momentum, and movement in history. The discussion here is regarding Neutral Point of View. To express that Muhammad is regarded as the founder of the religion of Islam, is not excluding those who hold the point of view that he is the founder. To express that Muhammad is the founder is excluding all the millions of people in the predominant muslim world; who not merely on a religious, or theological basis regard Islam as the religion of Jesus, and those related to Prophetic Judaism, certain lineages of Zoroastrianism, in addition to Muhammad an so on. The researchers I'm referring to, are not expressing a novel research, but are giving their comments on this discussion. A part of one of the researchers comment states: By using the "regarded", I mean one is on firmer ground than if you use "is". "regarded" or "conssidered" describes what people do today (they consider Muhammad), while "is " do seek to describe what Muhammad should have been in a historical period it is difficult to determine. In my opinion it is always better to relate to what you can coat the safest, and in this case it is what is done today, and not the historical situation..... This is clearlyy not a matter of novel research, but a question of proper language in regard of the ethics of scientific discourse. --Xact (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless these researchers publish their comments in a way which satisfies WP:RS their comments are "original research" and are irrelevant. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. You seem to be saying that there are scholars who from a non-religious point of view consider that Islam is "the religion of Jesus" (I don't know what you mean in the rest of that sentence by the references to Judaism and Zoroastrianism). Fine, please provide the citations for this in published books or peer-reviewd articles which meet the criteria of WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DeCausa, please re-read the comment I made early in this thread above. I agree with Xact that "is regarded" is preferable and more accurate than "is", and it better satisfies WP:NPOV because it removes Wikipedia's voice from a somewhat controversial claim. All Xact wants is for the article to say that reliable sources regard Muhammad as a founder. There is no value in having this article to claim unequivocally that he is the founder. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think "regarded" provides a difference in meaning, IMO. My original post was a little misleading in that I wasn't especially challenging that wording - more the reasoning behind it. So, I suppose I should be criticized for unnecessarily prolonging this thread. (There's possibly a slight weasel words problem behind "is regarded", regarded by who? But, IMO, the implication is that it amounts to the same thing as "Wikipedia says..." because it doesn't specify who "does the regarding". In short it implies that "everyone regards" Muhammad is the founder. On your "Wikipedia's voice" point, I don't particularly see a problem with this as that it is the regular way secular historical facts are described.) I'm more curious than anything to see what the (claimed) secular argument for Muhammad not being the founder turns out to be. I suppose since that's just about my curiosity rather than changing/improving the wording of the article I should be reprimanded.... DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

....meanwhile, there appears to be a slow-motion edit war going on! (Perhaps an admin should step in, Amatulic.) DeCausa (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view either way, but if "is regarded as" and "is" mean essentially the same thing, and "is regarded as" softens the claim for those who may object to it, why not use it? Semantically, however, I agree with your point about weasel words. Perhaps saying he introduced Islam to the world may be more accurate and satisfy all points of view, both secular and religious.

I noticed the warring too. For a contentious article like this, that wouldn't quite reach the threshold of meriting administrative action. Nobody even has three reverts yet, and most have engaged in talk page discussion. There's no shortage of admins who are regular participants here. Any disruption will get noticed and uninvolved admins will be informed at WP:ANI if necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite extraordinary that all of you seem to deny or to be unaware of the fact that some people advance credible arguments for the thesis that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. These are definitely not crackpot evangelical Christians with an axe to grind. I shall mention just two names: Christoph Luxenberg (pseudonym) and Patricia Crone. It seems that the real founder of current Islam may be caliph Abd al-Malik, who was looking for a prophet along the lines of Jesus who could serve as an anchor for the Islamic doctrine that al-Malik and religious leaders were formulating after the faith had been slowly developing among Middle Eastern Arabs since the 6th century. If Muhammad actually lived, he was most likely a tribal chief in the Middle East and not a trader in Mecca.Dogo (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Where's your reliable source citations? The Wikipedia articles on Christoph Luxenberg and Patricia Crone make no reference to either of them claiming that Muhammad was not the founder, and indeed don't particularly make either of them appear as credible scholars ("Luxenberg" is actually accused of being an "evangelical Christian" contrary to your post.) [[DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Not being a religious scholar nor a historian, I have no strong opinion on the matter and I won't dream of touching the article itself. I am therefore also not going to discuss the question of whether they are credible scholars or not. However, it is a bit funny to base your opinion of them on Wikipedia articles. I suggest you read what they have written, and then come up with arguments against theirs. By the way, you do not have to search long to find other people who challenge the assumption that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Is neither of them credible? Dogo (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum, but just wanted to add a point FYI Dogo. All of Isaiah 42, in the Bible, speaks of a messenger and servant of God from the village of Kedar (second son of Ishmael in Genesis, and is now called Mecca), stopping the idol worship and bringing a book of law. If you look at non-religious history, you can realize that Muhammad is the only claimed prophet in the area, and he DID stop the idol worship in Arabia. That's just one of MANY versus that prevent the prophecy by name. Anyways, the problem is that U.S. libraries refuse to accept any Islamic scholarly studies using the Holy Bible. Even Hollywood refused the movie of Muhammad's message, so it was funded from Arab Countries. Furthermore, my University refuses any of my research papers relating to the Bible too, so I keep all my papers general: similar to the blog on my page. The point I want to make, is that most Islamic studies here, in the west, aren't reliable sources because they're self-published, and international sources from Muslim countries, like Malaysia and Egypt, are hard to find online. AdvertAdam ^talk 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. At the beginning I read "...and is considered by Muslims to be a messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: [[Allah|الله]] Allāh)...", being the last words from God (Arabic: الله Allāh). Anybody knows by the wikilink appears [[Allah|الله]] instead of the transclusion that we can see at this talk page as...:God (Arabic: الله Allāh)? The problem is present at other pages (e.g. Ka'ab_al-Ahbar#Views), but cannot understand why. Ideas? -Aleator (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. I don't see anything wrong with the template source. This may be something best reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org . ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it's been changed with a simple wikilink; but the problem still exist at other pages. I've asked at Village pump. Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

why is it that the Arabic version of this has no images of Muhammad? Also it is followed by PBUH. I thought Wikipedia was not censored. --27.2.209.144 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to complain about censorship within the Arabic article, you'll have to use that article's discussion page here. If you would like to complain about our article not using honorifics such as PBUH, you'll probably want take that matter up on the Arabic article, too, since they don't use it, either. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I will add:

This is the English Wikipedia. It is not the Arabic Wikipedia, or the Malay Wikipedia, or any other Wikipedia. Each country's Wikipedia follows their own rules and guidelines, often governed by the laws of the countries they are in. If the Arabic Wikipedia wants to (or is required to) censor their article on Muhammad, they can do so. Here, on this Wikipedia in English, we have a policy of no censorship, and no honorifics.

Furthermore, note that the Persian Wikipedia has many of the same images of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi please remove all Muhammad (PBUH) images form the page. This is very sensitive matter form Muslims. Thanks

Vicky447 (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Vicky447, Apologies, but Wikipedia is not censored, whether due to religious, spiritual or governmental beliefs. You may wish to read up on this particular matter via the links above. To summarize; discussion regarding this is at Talk:Muhammad/images, and if you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Wikipedia settings not to display them, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.

Thus, with apologies, your request is denied. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is a grammar error in the first opening sentences where it says Mohammed IS the founder of Islam. It should be Mohammed WAS the founder of Islam as he is no longer living. NPOV should be kept, Budda's page reads "was a spiritual teacher who founded Buddhism." I dont see why Mohammed should be any different, especially as he is also a non-living person. 69.166.47.133 (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it to "was", but have no opinion on the POV debate about "was the founder" vs. "was regarded as the founder", so depending on what actually happens there, the final wording may change. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea well that wasn't my issue, it was just the tense of the wording so thanks! 69.166.47.133 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. Muhammad remains the founder of Islam today and will do so for all time, regardless of whether he's dead or not, so the present tense is correct. In the example of the Buddha given above, he was a spiritual teacher but no longer is, because he's dead. But he's still the founder of Buddhism, and will remain so forever. ðarkuncoll 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Any good wikipedia article will (and should) use the past tense when speaking of what individuals accomplished if they are non-living. For example, using your logic, the George Washington article would/should have the sentence "George Washington is the first president of the United States". Are you honestly saying almost every article on dead people should be changed to the present tense in regards to their unique accomplishments? Keeping it the past tense is the way to go, since it's pretty standard form in any encyclopedia.SuperAtheist (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...equally "George Washinton is the only President of the United States to chop down a cherry tree" seems to make more sense than "George Washinton was the only President of the United States to chop down a cherry tree". DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting grammar problem. Maybe the difference here is the suggestion of an activity versus a state of existence?

"George Washington was the first president" describes a state of existence.

"George Washington is the only president to chop down a cherry tree" describes an action. Although if later presidents also did that, then "was the first president to chop down a cherry tree" is more appropriate.

"Muhammad was the founder" describes a state of existence although "founder" implies the action that he "founded" Islam, so "is" can work too. If the sentence is expanded with a past tense phrase like "...who lived during..." then "was the founder" is more grammatically correct. The phrase "is regarded as the founder" is definitely correct, because it refers to present-day.

Aargh. I don't know. My preference is to avoid the passive voice altogether, and use active voice to say something like "Muhammad introduced the religion of Islam". ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just to develop that, I think it's something to do with a state or action that's completed and cannot be "undone". Being the first President or founder is something that can never change, and calls for past tense (thereby demonstrating the finality of the statement). Where it's possible for the state or action to be no longer true at some point in the future (eg no longer the "only") ...then present tense to demonstrate the potential for change. Hmmm... DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be changed back to "was" instead of "is," some religious nut keeps changing. Its English, deal with it.72.197.69.118 (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, and you're wrong. The religious folks have no argument with "was" versus "is"; they want the word "founder" removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually muhammad (PBUH) was the founder.... although the religion started with adam according to us muslims.... the present form of islam and the name islam were given during the time of the holy prophet.... so actually he is the founder of islam ! Maniqadir96 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)maniqadir96Maniqadir96 (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, we know that, and it's refreshing to see a different Muslim point of view. There are some Muslims, however, who come to this talk page to object to the word "founder" because, in their view, Allah "founded" Islam, and Muhammad was simply the messenger.

In any case, this discussion isn't about the word "founder" but whether it should be past or present tense. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55 made a change relating to the site of the tomb in relation to the Prophet's mosque, which was rv'd by RobertMfromLI and said it was unsourced and introduced POV/bias. (Not sure why POV/bias). Here's a source which confirms the 32-edit persons comment. It is probably more accurate/less misleading to say "which was expanded to include the site of Muhammad's tomb", so I'm going to add that. On the subject of the photo, although it is a very nice one, the photo of the dome above the tomb in Burial places of founders of world religions#Islam would perhaps be more subject-specific for this article (albeit less aesthetically pleasing). In any case I'll add a pipe-link to that article to the photo caption. DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi DeCausa, the wording, with nothing to back it up (at the time) but a ref to an archived talk page conversation with a very new editor (32 edits) demanding we reword it thus, showed an unsubstantiated opinion on the importance of the tomb. Of course, because some editor, new or otherwise, claims it's "one of the most sacred" is not a reason to use such wording. It's not that I disagree with it being accurate. But the wording states an opinion, that supposedly is widely held (a point of view/POV - or opinion (bias) since it wasnt substantiated). So, when I did the revert, I asked Wiqi55 to please go back and do exactly as you just did so the change could be re-added. So, thanks for doing the legwork. It's not my area of expertise, though the pov/cite/etc stuff is something I am good at. Anyway, great job on grabbing a cite so quickly. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For ages it seems that this article has caused strife due to its pictures. Obviously all the standard answers come into play, not censored etc., but how are people supposed to know that the article may contain pictures of Muhammad until they see it for the first time? There may be instructions on talk, but I doubt many wikipedia readers even know what a talkpage is. Why don't we put some sort of header above the text in the actual article instead of hidden in the collapsed box on the talkpage, so readers who may be offended will actually know? Just a simple "This article contains images of Muhammad. If you do not wish to see them, please see here". Perhaps if some editors are warned before they see the images, they would not be so offended. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it should be done...but it won't stop the complaints. DeCausa (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good idea to include this kind of thing, any more than there should be spoiler warnings on TV and movie articles. People that are reading an encyclopedia should be well aware that encyclopedias contain illustrations.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen similar recommendations suggested before for sexually explicit materials, and soundly rejected. However, I wouldn't mind allowing exceptions here, given that we know for a fact that many people are shocked that this article contains pictures; many people, who, in fact, might be sincerely interested readers and maybe even knowledgeable editors. I don't know how we can say that people "should be well aware" that, when looking up information related to their religion, that one of the biggest taboos of that religion is violated on one of the most important topics of their religion. I don't find it at all surprising that they are surprised. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please... People are not "shocked", they come here on purpose to protest. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We've gotten many hundreds of complaints from vocal Muslims. The one thing we haven't gotten - and there's no real way to track this - is how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Muslims who have read and appreciated this article and had no problem at all with the illustrations. Indeed, many may have seen the illustrations and said something like "huh? I wouldn't see anything like this in the Arab world. Man it's nice to live in a free country." So no, I see no reason to cater to a radical minority whatsoever. Rklawton (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RKLawton: dream on! There's a reason why why it's "one thing we haven't gotten". With respect, to say something like that does show a remarkable lack of knowledge of the Sunni Muslim world. KWW's "purist" response seems to me to ignore the human aspects of what we are doing here. I think this is a case of WP:Ignore all rules (if indeed there is a rule that is relevant) so as not to get in the way of a good reader experience for a substantial part of the planet. No one is going to feel the same way about a spoiler in an article as a Muslim will be by the pictures. To my mind, non-Muslims wouldn't care about the warning, and if they do it's kind of POINTy. DeCausa (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested this not as a way to cater to a minority, that would mean removing the image. Instead, I'm trying to break the current practice of editors seeing the images complaining then being brushed off and told to look at the FAQ. If there's a footnote, then readers would already know and be able to block the images if they wanted in the first place. Basically I'm trying to further remove a legitimate basis for complaints; if there's a warning, there's really no excuse at being accidentally offended. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether they are offended or not is not a concern of this Wikipedia project; people do not have a god-given right to waltz through life unoffended by things around them. Images of Muhammad will not be removed, hidden, or obscured from view because of religious zealotry. Article semi-protection, blocks, reverting the same "OMG REMOVE IMAGEZ NAO!!!!" trolling, whatever response is needed, then do it. Or just say "no". "No" is a powerfully simple word. My wife uses it all the time. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Straw man. Think you are annswering a different question. DeCausa (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Lulz, "strawman". Please don't toss out terms that you quite obviously do not know the meaning of. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What???? Crass. DeCausa (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't know if this will be deemed acceptable by the vocal minority. My guess is that, sadly, it won't... -- Luk ^talk 15:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an attempt to try and appease anyone. That would be catering to the aforementioned radical minority, something I'm not trying to do. Instead I'm trying to remove a possible legitimate basis for complaint, improving the experience of the encyclopaedia from any Muslims who would truly feel offended while having no effect on other readers. This would not involve any removal of images, hiding any images, obscuring any images, or any such actions. It's just a header. Qwyrxian explained quite well above a possible issue with the current set up, and the header will go a long way to solving that issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes this warning any more palatable than any other warnings? Why are we more concerned about this than objections to nudity, violence, or plot points?—Kww(talk) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a problem with those either. Anyway WP:OTHERSTUFF. DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I understand your suggestion and the reasoning behind it, but I suspect it is rooted in a false assumption; that Muslims are offended by seeing images of Muhammad. It seems that in reality, most of those who come here to complain are not upset by the sight of these images, rather they are offended by the existence of these images in the article at all. No one comes to the talkpage asking how to hide the images on their own monitor, they want the images removed from the article, period, so that no one ever sees them. Since they regard it as forbidden to create the images at all, being told how to hide them (on either page) isn't enough; those individuals will still demand total removal. I'm offering my own opinion here, not hard data from a reliable source, but it's based on years of observation, experience, and discussion. Doc Tropics 17:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To get back to Chipmunkdavis's original paragraph that started this section: This is essentially a disclaimer being proposed. Wikipedia has a guideline about this: Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We're not going to set up headers or disclaimers or anything of the sort to guard against possible offense to readers. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's just a guideline not a policy. DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes the "it's just a guideline!" defense, usually the sign of a flailing, failing argument. The essence of Chipmunkdavis' suggestion is that there exists "a legitimate basis for complaints". I reject the notion that such a thing exists. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact is it's just information for a large chunk of readers (nothing more; nothing less; nothing sinister) that hurts no one, and the objection to it is just POINTy. I'm done here. DeCausa (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Policies are the standards we are all expected to follow. Guidelines are best practices that we are all expected to employ (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines). Guidelines are often treated with the same weight as policy because the community recognizes that deviations from best practices can create a slippery slope that leads to best practices being ignored due to the existence of exceptions.

That said, deviations from guidelines should use reason and common sense. The issue here is, is it "common sense" to assume that adding a disclaimer to the top of this article would prevent anyone from being offended, or reduce the number of complaints on the talk page? My view is, I don't think it would make a whit of difference, in which case we are deviating from best practices for no practical purpose.

Finally, the infobox at the top of Talk:Muhammad/images, question 1 of Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, and numerous past archived discussions (just type "disclaimers" in the search box above) already address this. There is a long-standing and well established practice of having no disclaimers in articles, particularly this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Regarding the "not all Muslims are offended/they aren't here becauase they don't exist/Sunni Muslims/etc comments") I just want to add one more thing to Amatulić's rather well worded summary of this issue (btw, I plan on borrowing the part where you describe the distinctions between Wiki-Policies and Wiki-Guidelines). (a) There are various self-identified Muslims who have contributed to this article (who exhibit no problems with the images, or at least don't voice such) and (b) there have been various talk page contributors (who also have self-identified as Muslim) who have claimed they do not have problems with the images. It's all in the logs, histories and archives. And it still boils down to creating special case exceptions that can (and will) be abused all over Wikipedia... the list of religious groups, special interest groups, corporation and individuals who have already been digging deeply for reasons to justifiy such exceptions/actions is quite large, as many of you who've been involved in discussions on some such subjects may be aware of. In effect, such proposed actions create a scenario where this is not and will not be a special case exception. It will become something needing to be a policy - otherwise, with the plethora of similar requests citing this as justification, we'll be ignoring policy a great many times.

Besides, as already mentioned, this is an encyclopedia. I've never yet picked up one that had such disclaimers before certain subject matters, or included a list of such disclaimers available before purchase. Anyway, that's my one cent (dropped the other penny someplace in the car... sorry about that). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RobertMfromLI: that's because every encyclopedia you've ever picked up before in your life was censored. No print encyclopedia includes pictures of human sexual acts. They may contain crude drawings of sexual organs, but not sexual acts. Also, my guess is that none produced in the US except maybe very recently had images that Christians would consider offensive (like images of Piss Christ). And I'd be shocked if US encyclopedias didn't have an overall pro-US bias. Is that wrong? No, of course not, because it's simply unavoidable. When Wikipedia says it's not censored, it just means that its censored in a certain way.

However, I will say that Doc Tropics point above may be valid--that is, that people aren't actually objecting to seeing the images, they're objecting to their existence. The only way to know that for sure is to test it, but I doubt we can even get consensus for such a test. Is there any chance that any of those opposed to a disclaimer would consent to a short-term test to see if there is any change in talk page responses? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, Qwyrxian, I think that's what I said. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, maybe I wasn't clear, or maybe I'm not understanding your point. What I mean is that since Wikipedia includes information that is unambiguously offensive to large groups of people that would not be found in a print encyclopedia, it's not unreasonable that people who have experience with only print encyclopedias might, in fact, be highly shocked when they come here and find one of their most fundamental religious taboos violated. Thus, we have different reasons for might needing disclaimers than a traditional encyclopedia. However, I'll say that this issue may not be one we need to worry about on such a local level, since the Foundation itself is undertaking a big study about whether or not we need to account for issues like this, or sexualized issues, or whatever, to make sure that we're actually achieving our core goal of spreading knowledge (I don't recall off the top of my head where that study is located, but I've seen it linked from Jimbo's talk page several times). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have evidence to support your notion that these images are offensive to large groups of people. We've got some vocal people who complain, but without some mechanism to measure satisfaction (or indifference) from this same religious group, we're only getting one side of the picture. Here's another way of looking at it - I wouldn't want people to read the Bible, pick out a quote oft abused by a few religious wackos and say "because he is a Christian, Rklawton and all those who share his faith must feel this way about this topic". Just as that would be absurd, so would be attributing the utterings of a few Islamofacist nutters to all Muslims. If I was Muslim, I know I'd resent being associated with those people and suspect the motives of those who would dare paint me with such a brush. Rklawton (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Um..."Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. In recent times, some Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shi'a scholars nowadays accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books, though historically they were against such depictions." (per our article Depictions of Muhammad). Per Sunni Islam, 80-90% of Muslims are Sunni, and there are 1.57 billion Muslims (approx) in the world. That's a large group of people. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, most Sunnis also hold the view that Islamic prohibitions apply to Muslims. Particularly the concern about idolatry applies only to Muslims. Rklawton makes a good point. We hear only from a vocal minority who take offense, and who believe that their rules should apply to everyone. I personally know many Muslims and I don't know any, not a single one, who have the attitude constantly on display by the complainers here. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is one, one million, or one billion is irrelevant. There's no magic cutoff point where we would ever find ourselves saying "ok, here's where we need to consider censoring the Wikipedia to appease religious fanatics". None. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to make it a numbers game--I wanted to repudiate Rklawton's claim that there is no evidence that a large number of people find this offensive. Obviously, I could be wrong. And I actually agree with Tarc, that this isn't a numbers game. I'm just thinking that if we can put the disclaimer up (despite our guideline saying not to, invoking mine and DeCausa's point that this is a special case which may require an exception, which is explicitly allowed for all guidelines), that we could 1) increase access to wikipedia by showing people an easy way for them to be able to view and contribute to the page 2) decrease the number of complaints we get on this talk page, and 3) do no actual harm to readers who aren't offended. Note that I'm not recommending blanking the picture, making them hidden by default, or otherwise impacting the integrity of the encyclopedic information we provide to the majority of our users. Now, as others have pointed out, (1) may not actually be the real issue, and it might not actually stop (2). I just think it's an idea worth considering. Finally, in response to Tarc's questionable phrasing, I would argue that the position of those who don't want to see the image is no less "fanatical" than those who insist it stay based upon a faith in the idea that more information is always better. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you there. People choose or are taught to be offended by mere pictures or words. It is their choice to be offended or their choice not to evaluate what they were taught. I don't mean to sound cruel or mean or like I am picking on people. This is simply a scientific fact supported in various studies on the matter. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. WP is censored in some cases of offence: if I chose a grossly offensive user name, under the rules I'd be reported to UAA; similarly with racist language etc. I think your post is rather condescending in that it suggests "we" have the superior education and are not subject to the same sensitivities. What you say applies to everyone - it's just that "our" sensitivities happen to be different to "theirs". I think those opposed to the suggestion seem to want to make this a battleground issue. However, I think all Qwyrxian and myself are suggesting amounts to not much more than a bit of politeness and some help for a substantial portion of our readers - and which would have no bearing on other readers. DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Username refusals are not censorship, any more then the classic "can I yell FIRE in a crowded theatre?" prohibition is censorship. Your arguments are veering into the inane and doing little but distract from the topic being discussed. I have no qualms at all about suggesting that a superior education leads one towards a more enlightened and informed worldview, ones that scoffs at the notion that drawing a picture of their prophet is sacrilegious. This is the same point of view I hold in regards to certain sects of Judaism and Christianity that insist on rendering "God" as "G-d". I've never, ever seen one of them come to the Wikipedia and demand that all Gods be rendered with a hyphen, though. Why is that? Tarc (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your pompous and uncivil participation has added nothing to this thread. If you are unable to grasp the point I made, don't bother posting. I'm sure you have no problem that "a superior education leads one towards a more enlightened and informed worldview". But that's not the point I was making either. Try reading, thinkng...then posting. DeCausa (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read it quite clearly (you aren't that complicated). You are taking a naive "it will do no harm" stance in support of adding a disclaimer, to which others have responded that it will do no good as it will not appease those that want the image removed. I myself have quite caustically responded that such people don't have a right to be shielded from things that may surprise them, offend them or their prehistoric religious beliefs. As I said the other day, people do not have a right to walk through life unoffended. We at the Wikipedia have no obligation to provide comfort, security, or safety for fringe religious beliefs. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't that complicated and no, you still haven't got it. It's nothing to do with appeasing the objectors. It's nothing to do with being "shielded from things that may surprise you", it's nothing to do with "a right to walk though life unoffended"...it has got something to do with an ability to read and understand some basic text in the English language, however. DeCausa (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And now you're simply lying, as you find yourself unable to get out of the proverbial painted-in corner. Your words above were "...so as not to get in the way of a good reader experience for a substantial part of the planet". I have said all along it is not our job to accommodate such readers, when what they demand is grounded in their own strict reading of religious texts. Their "good reader experience" impugns on our belief in not censoring encyclopedic material. Once gain, since it seems to be falling on deaf ears; no one has the right to read a Wikipedia article free of something that they find personally, morally, religiously offensive. They are certainly free to block images or what not on their end, but there is nothing we can or will do on our end. That is about as clear as I can possibly make this.

I'll tell ya what we'll do at this point, bud; you create your little disclaimer and we'll see how quickly it gets reverted. Let's see who wins that game. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen "bud", not only are you incapable of understanding simple English, you are also incapable of compying with the basics of WP:NPA (viz "liar"). "Let's see who wins the game". Are you a teenager? DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not the same. A better analogy would be to take captions from the The Last Temptation of Christ, especially from scenes showing "Jesus wedding" or "Jesus as a maker of crosses", and insisting on adding them to Jesus. I find this similar to illustrating a 7th-century person from Arabia using non-notable images of a 16th-Century Ottoman; or presenting some random artist's idea of the first revelation, which happens to be radically different than that of Muhammad, in the same section where you're expected to write about Muhammad's own account. It's just misinformation. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment regarding some of the doubts here. I agree with Qwyrxian, and many of the comments here. Actually, many of the Muslims here, in the west, are actually away from the majority sect of Orthodox Islam--Sunnis. The simple reason behind the pictures is an order from him to not do like other religious characters, so people can concentrate on teachings instead of a character. And yes, I agree with "shocked" not protest. I was shocked too, as all movies and cartoons of him is without an image too. I know it's clear that these pics won't be removed, nor replaced with face-less pics. So, it would be nice to apply this suggestion to regard fifth of the world's population, as a special case. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree. And I also (as I alluded to) do not think "offended" is an appropriate word. Nothing is being done to any Muslim by having the pictures up. Additionally, Muslim reaction varies depending on their beliefs - but again, regardless of those beliefs, nothing is being done specifically to any of them. Now, as for the 1/5th of the population stuff, that creates a very very dangerous situation. Let's dig into that a bit. All stats from Wikipedia. Trust or distrust their accuracy with that in mind. I will use the same type generalizations as applied in arguments above, because either we shouldn't be arguing using generalizations, or to keep the argument on a level playing field, we must continue to.

OVER 1/5th of the world population claim no religious allegiance^[1] - and ironically would be against such censorship. Last I checked, Christians were first or a very close second. Per WP, they are first at nearly 1/3rd the population^[1]. Interestingly, Christians of various sects have taken offense to numerous things on Wikipedia - and remember, we're generalizing, so, with that in mind, we now have to censor articles "offensive" to Christians. Buddhists are next^[1] (after Muslims)... I wonder how we are offending them?

If we make this special case exception, then we must do so for non-affiliated/atheists/agnostics and for Christians and Buddhists - otherwise, we are catering to ONE specific religion and defeating the entire purpose of having this encyclopedia. There is the true story behind making a special case exception.

I am here to help build/maintain an encyclopedia free of biases and religious censorship. I suspect many people will stop contributing the day such things change. This is an exception that CANNOT be made without destroying the whole purpose of Wikipedia and/or opening up a... poopstorm from other religious/irreligiuos groups who believe they should be special cases as well. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No censorship was proposed. I must repeat, nothing would be removed from the article, no pictures would be obscured or whatever verb you like to use. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you're proposing some sort of "here there be dragons!" warning sign at the top of the page. As far as I'm concerned it amounts to the same thing, and would create a terrible precedent. What next? "Warning, some people think this is pedophilia" at the top of Virgin Killer ? Tarc (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be censorship, that's for sure. I've nothing more to say that Qwyrxian didn't at the beginning. I don't find it surprising they're surprised. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I disagree. Censorship has been proposed, even if not by the majority who are discussing this. I've read through the numerous discussions over the years on this topic, and in each, censorship has been proposed at least once. What else has been proposed are special case actions to cater to one religion - which again amounts to something dangerous for Wikipedia.

But, let's get away from generalizations for a moment and lets look at the facts of this particular issue. If one were to plot "those offended" over time, and then look at the contributing factors for peaks in those numbers, what one finds is that the vast majority of those who complain and want the article censored have chosen explicitly to be offended. Let me go into detail on that. The peaks of "it offends me" type comments all coincide with some news coverage that explicitly states "Wikipedia is showing images of Muhammad". Thus, these people, by and large, are choosing to come here, fully aware of the content they will find, then choosing (since they have that knowledge) of violating their own religious tenets by viewing them, all for the purpose of complaining about something that did not, nor does affect them - until they chose, of their own free will, to come here and view the images and complain. If I build a fire in the fire pit in my back yard, and you, not liking fire, hear from a neighbor of mine that I've got a fire going in my back yard, then choose to walk into my yard, and choose to walk into the fire, and then complain to me that I have to put out the fire because you got burned, you would think that... what... absurd? The vast majority of our complaints on this subject are from those who knew nothing about this, and then chose to burn themselves.

The only thing I think a viable option, that does not cater to any group, would be doing something akin to what's done on porn site (not that I've ever went to any). For all anon/IP users, on their first visit (as determined by a cookie), a "Warning: Wikipedia is not censored (etc, etc)" message shows, which they can then agree to continue, or go away. If someone has registered, then obviously, they will have already bypassed/OKd that message. It cannot be a page specific thing, otherwise, as I noted above, one must apply that to a vast number of pages on Wikipedia - or, again - we are catering to one religious group. (and then another, and then another, and then another). It WILL NOT stop.

And finally, while I think it's great that people are trying to find a solution to a non-existent problem, it doesn't matter what idea ANYONE has about this; as long as the images are there, people will still complain. It is really that simple. Hence the reason why the FAQ doesnt stop that. People can already block all the images on this page, or on Wikipedia as a whole - they simply do NOT care. They want the images gone. And that is why, the problem as presented is truly non-existent. The ideas proposed are not based on the reality of the situation - because it does nothing to address that reality. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. I totally agree on the anon/IP part, however, not sure about the accuracy of "not that I've ever went to any" part, jkjk ;). I do consider editors responsible to realize Wikipedia's policies, while you got straight-to-the-point about the duty of this discussion: to aware the readers, only. I hope to see the opinion of the supporters of the idea in-general, if they think this will be helpful. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess your proposal was withdrawn. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article on Pledge of the Tree has been nominated for deletion. As best as I can tell, none of the editors participating in the discussion can speak Arabic, so it's a bit difficult to assess its notability. Perhaps someone here can help us out? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

for the Quran section Quran is held superior than all other books sent by Allah because all the other books are the books of Allah but Qu'ran is the book and the kalaam (Speech) of Allah.

184.147.54.103 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly clear what you would like changed. Can you be more specific?—Chowbok ☠ 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is completely out of place. A person reading this article would read about his childhood, his upbringing, his early life. Then suddenly, a new section that talks about his wives and children, including events that happened decades later. Then the reader goes back to reading about the revelation of the Quran, opposition, leaving Mecca, etc etc. Everything else is chronologically ordered, except for the "Wives and children" section. I will move this to between the "aftermath" and "slaves" section. Unflavoured (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Muslims regard the Qur'an as ... the primary source of knowledge about Muhammed as a historical figure. The Qur'an has a few allusions to Muhammad's life."

Possibly you mean the Koran has few allusions, rather than a few. In either case, it leaves very little to say about his life, doesn't it?PiCo (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually Qur'an says almost nothing about Muhammad (as much as I've read in translations). His life is known through Sirat-un-nabis (biography of prophet). Whatever, the Qur'an section needs a clean rewrite. » nafSadh did say 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A major change have been made in this section, by me; check it out. » nafSadh did say 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made some corrections, including restoring removed citations. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the work was quite good Nafsadh, thanks for your contributions. I was working on the same corrections as Amatulic though - some grammar, sentence structure issues, links, etc. I'd say the section looks pretty good now. Doc Tropics 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulić for improvement. I just wanted to give a quick start and soon had to go away to complete daily chores, eating & blah blah blah-ish things.

I prefer the Jibrāʾīl version over that one using parentheses, coz it gives a sense that there is some difference in the belief. @Doc: You see the sentence asserts belief not general NPOV.

DeCausa added the count of references. I don't remember the exact count. probably Muhammad once and Ahmad thrice or something.

I see the section is good enough, and the tag been rightfully removed. » nafSadh did say 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

in this text, there is a picture of the Prophet Muhammad, under the sub-heading- Beginnings of the Quran, can you please take that picture off, because it is an offence to him. there is also another picture under the sub-heading, Conquest of Mecca, called An anonymous artist's illustration of al-Bīrūnī's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries, depicting Muhammad prohibits intercalary months during the Farewell Pilgrimage, found in a 17th-century Ottoman copy of a 14th-century (Ilkhanate) manuscript (Edinburgh codex). Thank you

90.202.238.7 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. Please have a look at Talk:Muhammad/images for extensive discussion of this question, and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for means by which you can avoid seeing the images that are offensive to you. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>

Please remove the picture wrong statement. if you are not sure about any part, you should not write it. Bcoz we think wiki has belivable source.

And also if there is no Allah then nothing happen to any one, but if Allah exists then It will be worse. Dont think that your life of about 100 years is all. You spend about 40years learning to only passes for next 20-60 Years!

See you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.58.148 (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This has discussed this over 9000 times before.Unless a valid reason is bought forward,the pictures will not be removed Sam 03:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will remove all Muhammad SAW ilustration picture Poeby (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, you will not. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why NOT??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.7.226 (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

See that big sign on top? That's why not.Sam 01:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit drew my attention to this sentence in "Muslim views". What is it supposed to mean? Is it meant to be taken literally: they believe that M. is still alive? Or metaphysically, if so in what way? And what is "experience" supposed to mean anyway? It should be reworded (or if no one knows its meaning, deleted). DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe he is still alive(physically). They also do not believe in him being resurrected.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. What is the sentence supposed to mean? DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a NOTE: There are some offshoot Islamic school of thoughts, who view Islam in ways which can be regarded as Bidat, Shirk or Kufr in mainstream schools (Sunni, Shia). Many Sufi beliefs can be classified as such. Some such believers regard Muhammad in a godly fashion, while most other would not (most Muslims think, such beliefs are Shirk). I don't know much about authentic Sufi sources, but I assume they have such belief (I'm not pretty sure though, but I've heard some people expressing as such). » nafSadh did say 18:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be true but I'm still asking what does "experience Muhammad as a living reality" mean? Just to be clear: I think it means nothing and should be deleted or re-worded. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny... Yep, that edit got my attention too (thanks for pointing it out). I don't believe there is any base to re-word on, so I support deletion. Sources consider that they believe all prophets are living in heaven, but it doesn't make sense with the rest of the sentence. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the end of that sentence is pretty odd too:"believing in his ongoing significance to human beings as well as animals and plants". Plants??? DeCausa (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a simple deleting of that sentence will do. A Sufi branch's view is a fringe view, and does not need to be included here. Unflavoured (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A deletion might do best. Sufi view only, but do not tune with the context. Rather disruptive sentence than informative. » nafSadh did say 11:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. Sorry for being late in notifying here. » nafSadh did say 04:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor is attempting to add the assertion that Muhammad was the first space traveler. The source used does not mention the word "outer space," and I doubt any scholars consider "the heavens" to be synonymous with "outer space." This wouldn't be any different than asserting that Jesus was able to ascend into outer space, like Superman. I also note that the first attempt at this referred to a mythological horse as an [Islamic space shuttle, which I initially interpreted to be sneaky vandalism given the dubious wording and vague edit summary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is no real editorial control over articles (which anyone can submit), and in any case I note that the editor has been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Seemed obvious enough to me, but some around here are quick to make edit-warring accusations even when the additions seem like obvious BS to me. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I was searching through Reddit and I found this []. What do you Muslims think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.154.126 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT A MESSAGE FORUM. Sorry. This has nothing to do with the article on Muhammad. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Mohamed going to Jerusalem should be updated to include the information that this was a recent addition with no historic validity for the purpose of claiming the Jewish Temple Mount and the Western Wall as Islamic. It was only after the 1967 Six Day War that it became the 3rd holiest site to Islam. There is no mention of Jerusalem in the Koran. Moslems in Jerusalem pray with their backs to the Western Wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.27.202 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, go ahead and add it yourself. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

He just a human.Allah(God) sends rules.Allah sends İncil(youre calling holy bible), Tevrat(Tora), Kur'an, Zebur(Hz.Davud's book-you calling David).Allah is the greatness.Allah sends all messengers and books.Hz.Adem(you calling Adam), first human, he is a messenger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.189.240 (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources all state that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. The article also notes that this is contrary to many Muslim religious beliefs. Unfortunately, "my religious belief says otherwise" is not a reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If the following (ref 4) is the reference referring to "Muhammad" being the "founder" of Islam... the reference doesn't seem to quote such a thing. It states the term "preached", but it doesn't seem to define him as the "founder". On top of that the source isn't really on the topic of general held opinions that Muhammad is believed to be the "founder" of islam or even about the origin of islam. Surely perhaps a source referring to general held beliefs through the ages of what people assumed Muhammad as being would be more suitable than a source that doesn't seem to provide any insight to the claim? Faro0485 (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's reference 2. It's a major text on the history of Islam, but it's not online. Singularity42 (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We should say: "He is regarded by Muslims as the final messenger of Allah for humanity, but not the founder. Muslims consider the start of Islam among humanity with Adam, the prophet considered to be the first human being. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that Muslims don't hold the view that Muhammad is the founder. Also, this article isn't about Islam, therefore explaining a theological point seems unnecessary in this article. In the past I have proposed re-wording it to remove the word "founder" and instead say that Muhammad introduced Islam to the world, but that proposal didn't go anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The page appears quite biased (see European/Western Views). How can this page be locked off in its current form?? It's full of opinion and stereotypes about the views of Mohammed. If it causes so much belly-aching that there has to be a special FAQ catered to Muslims, then we're all fooling ourselves thinking we live in a free country and that Wikipedia's a shared resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This entire page is slanted propoganda and should be edited high and low! This is NOT an informational piece ('he was happily married...'). I think there are accounts of Muhammad raping, plundering, and being killing... Where are these FACTUAL accounts??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, PLEASE, add new topics at the bottom of this page instead of all over the place. THANK YOU. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With your editing history, you should be able to edit the article. If you have reliable sources, go ahead and edit it yourself. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol, it mentions the Bah'hai people in the top header - as if that makes any sense - that's completely out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.13.190 (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where? I don't see it. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's the very last sentence of the intro. While the info is relevant and referenced, it does read as if it were "tacked on" as an afterthought. Perhaps it would be better to move the tidbit into "Other views"/"Other religious traditions"? Doc Tropics 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still missing it. Does it use the word "Bah'hai"? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh, it did, but it isn't there anymore...I removed it. It really was just "tacked on" to the end of the intro and duplicated a single sentence from the main body of the article. While the lede should summarize the article's contents, such a minor point doesn't seem to bear repetition. If you check the article history for the last version before I edited, you'll see it. Doc Tropics 22:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see now. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change "Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn Abd Allah ....." to "Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn Abdullah .....". That is Abd Allah to Abdullah. Abdullah is the proper name. Thanks in advance. Nafisulkiron (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to change it. Abd Allah is a legitimate transliteration, albeit Abdullah is a little more common. I've just run it by Google books and Abd Allah gets nearly 200,000 hits and Abdullah gets 580,000. Personally I prefer Abd Allah as it makes the original meaning clearer (Servant of Allah). DeCausa (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and personally agree with, your preference for "Abd Allah"; it seems to be the more accurate and useful presentation. But if "Abdullah" is nearly 3 times more common, then shouldn't we use that? Possibly with "(also rendered as "Abd Allah (lit. "Servant of Allah")." after it, in order to keep the useful info? Just a thought...Doc Tropics 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after I clicked in save I thought saying "a little" more common was stretching it! DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above in a thread on the Images talk page, I think this article is spoilt by being overstuffed by info boxes and images. In some sections they run in parallel down both the left and right side at the same time Many of the infoboxes (particularly the time lines) add little. IMHO, it's pretty unprofessional looking. I would suggest:

• From the Childhood and early life section: deleting the Timeline infobox. It was recently added.
• Beginnings of the Quran: delete the two images or the "Part of a series Qu'ran" navbox, and move one of the images to the right.
• Opposition: delete the map of the Axumite Empire (it really is not significant enough to be there anyway)
• Hijra: delete timeline
• Beginning of armed conflict: delete military expeditions
• Final years: delete one of the first three images and move one. So that there is two images, one on right, one on left but not facing each other.
• Aftermath: it's a terrible map. Looks like someone drew it with a crayon. Replace with this one.
• Legacy: If the "Part of a series Qu'ran" navbox has been deleted (above) move here and delete Shahada gateway pic (not a good photo and a strange reprsentation of the shahada).

DeCausa (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In general I think this is a good idea and I support the effort. The timelines don't add anything that isn't covered in text, so they certainly seem expendable. While Navboxes can be handy, there is definitely an excess on this page. As for more specifics, I'm still reviewing a couple of those sections and will respond with particulars shortly. Thanks for bring this topic up DeCausa...I was planning to do so as well, prompted by other recent discussions  : ) Doc Tropics 16:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too, though if they could all go side-by-side at the bottom that would be acceptable. I'd keep the military expeditions, which is very specific. It's the general Islamic ones that duplicate each other. Note that most of the links here are not mentioned in the text. The same might well apply to the Hijra one. I also think this discussion should be on the main talk page - timelines are not really "images". Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Prophet Muhammad was not the fouder of a new religion. He was reinforcing the same message that other Prophets before him were relaying. He was just updating the previous way of life. Like Jesus came after Moses and reinforced the same basic message to his people. 96.52.188.132 (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It says that in the second sentence of the article. 174.91.128.84 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If your argument was that the religion was already existent, and Muhammad came along and altered it, then he created a new denomination of an existing belief system. Which would mean he founded that denomination i.e. Islam. Your own argument supports that. Christianity was born out of Judaism (as was Islam), but the specific branch of Abrahamic religion which he founded was Christianity. Muhammad founded a branch of the Abrahamic Religion called Islam; we are not claiming he founded Abrahamic religion as a whole...that would obviously be Abraham. Aside from that 174.91.128.84 is right, the distinction is explained in the article Smitty1337 (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone changed the opening of the Lead from Muḥammad ibn Abdullah to the above a few weeks ago. It seems to be part of a series of connected edits whereby articles were created for each of the named ancestors. (Looking at the articles created, it's highly doubtful that they are notable, but that's not an issue for this Talk page.) I have doubts as to whether this is a constructive edit. Although it may be technically correct, I can't find any reference to this form of the name in Google books (or even shorter versions of it). It may be there is therefore a source problem, but more to the point: is the name in this form notable enough for the opening of the lead? Also, I think it's confusing to the reader, particularly adding before Muhammad "Abu al-Qasim" (Father of al-Qasim, his son who died in infancy). I really doubt he is ever been referred to as that (and certainly not in Google books). It just seems to be put there so that the links justify the new articles created. Instead of reverting I thought it would be better to ask what others think, as it wasn't reverted when it was first done. DeCausa (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

muhammad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.129.217 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with DeCausa; I don't see why we should list all of his family tree (which is what I understand the "ibn X" means), unless that is how he is normally referred to in reliable sources. The purpose of the first line is to state his name, not his genealogical history; if important, that info can of course go into the article in a body section, but the bolded part must be his actual name. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems the editor adding this is doing so because Muhammad is the "Beloved Prophet", i.e. he wants to show respect and reverence or something. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be fair, on the question of whether it's his "actual name", as I understand it, Arabic names are quite fluid i.e. there's no rule to say how far back the ibns go. See Arabic names#Example. So I don't think, technically, it's not his name. Although usually, as far as I can tell, they don't go further back than father and grandfather. I think it is a question of how he is referred to in reliable sources. And as a search of Google books shows, it's not this. I've therefore moved it back. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What name was he given? His name certainly didn't include "father of..." until he became a father, so there is no need to list any descendants in a name. When his parents named him, likely they named him simply "Muhammad" and the other stuff about his ancestry would be automatically understood to be tacked on, but that isn't his "given" name. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We should be careful of being truth-tentative even if we believe that it is most likely that our statements should be standing against the test of time and research to come. How the first sentence in this article (per 24th of August / 25th of Ramadan) is expressed is a good example of truth-tentativity that should be avoided if we want a humble scientific approach free from etnocentric or ideological bias. It says: "Mohammad was the founder of the religion of Islam". There has been an edit-war going on for quite some time about this issue. First of all we should agree on the very obvious. Both concept of and signification of 'Religion' varies from culture to culture, there is hardly any academic consensus concerning the matter, and from time to time. The concept 'religion' denoting what it does in our days within the anglo-american and european context is quite young, according to etymonline.com it is from about 1530 ; thus referential to the dawn of secular thought in Europe. Nevertheless it would be wrong, un-intuitive, to state that Islam is not a religion. The statement that Mohammed (peace be upon him by the way) was the founder of Islam, is not merely out of tune with the cultures who are predominantly regarding themselves as muslim, but also dissonant with the enlightenment ideal of the encyclopedian tradition. Not so that such kind of statements are not abundant in the history encyclopedia. In any article of encyclopedic quality one should strive for a form of expression that can stand the trials of future investigations, otherwise it simply reiterates the dominant opinion. It is obvious, from the history of this edit war, that the dominant opinion among the editing populus of Wikipedia, that Mohammed was the founder of Islam. But if encyclopedic information are to be subject to such epistemology, it would merely mirror a social darwinistic approach to social evolution: the rule of who speaks with the biggest microphone. I regard encyclopedia ideally as a mean to prevent that. Where there is the slightest possible doubt, one should not claim something for true. To express that there is a common consensus of Mohammad being the founder of Islam, is actually better, less truth-tentative, than to bluntly say that Mohammad was the founder of Islam, but then it would be more evident that the expression is wrong, because it actually is not a common consensus on the matter. Mohammad is no doubt considered to have been the founder of Islam, even though the vast majority of people from a muslim cultural tradition, whether those are muslim or not, do not regard, nor are thought in their schools, that Mohammad is the founder of Islam. The idea of Mohammad as the founder of Islam seem to stem from a need from a christian perspective to distance (make 'other') Islam from the Jewish-Christian cultural and religious ecumene. If Islam is considered founded by Mohammad it implies that the religious practice that stems from Mohammad is pertaining to the exact definition of religion. Then it would from a scientific point of view be difficult not to consider Lutheranism as a religion founded by Martin Luther. If one from within a christian-cultural context accept this phrasing, one would need to accept a similiar phrasing regarding Jesus Christ as the founder of Christianity. According to wikipedia article on Jesus it is stated that he was pertaining to the religion of Judaism. It doesn't seem like this has caused an edit-war. I suggest that we need to look for an opening phrase which is agreeable from a neutral point of view, whereas neutral should also denote an intercultural neutrality. Another aspect of this has to do with quality of language. The first sentence is pretty absurd: Mohammad was the founder of the religion of Islam, and is considered by Muslims to be a messenger and prophet of God, the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims, the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran. Anyone disagreeing with this as an absurd sentence is totally rejecting Islam having any historic validity. That is quite harsh. If the opening phrase states as a fact, as it is, that Mohammad was the founder of Islam, and, within the same sentence expressing that Muslims are regarding Mohammed as the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, Muslims altoghether are stated as deranged from the factual. This is not worthy for an encyclopedia. I sincerly hope that Wikipedia will be an instrument for self-initiated public enlightenment according to the original idea of Diderot, not an area for reiterating one dominant culture's paranoia towards "the other" as I find this an example of. I would like to in the following to come with suggestions for a sound opening of the article. I am with my own suggestion following underneath not trying to find the most likely compromise, rather I'm looking for a quality in writing, expressing humility and honesty. The existing opening line I believe is demonstrating the problem of compromise in such a matter. My hope is that the most informed and least arguably truth-tentative (biased) suggestion will be acknowledged. Dare I believe in the Wikipedia community to share this aim:

I wanted to point out to the regulars here a new article, just created a couple days ago, therefore easy to miss: List of killings of Muhammad.

Somebody already prodded it for deletion, but the rationales given for deletion seem questionable to me. The article is well-sourced, including but not relying on primary sources. The nominator's judgment regarding "poor scholarship" of the sources should be taken up on WP:RSN, not a deletion prod tag.

As to whether the topic warrants a Wikipedia article, I'm not sure — which is why I thought I'd point out the article to the regulars on this talk page instead of simply deleting the prod tag (which anyone can do who disagrees with it). It looks to me that if the topic is OK, this might even be a Wikipedia:Featured list candidate someday. It's a well-done list. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the prod tag. The initial rationale or relying on primary sources is simply wrong, as there are numerous secondary sources. The other rationales, WP:COATRACK and notability, may well be valid, but not so obviously that this can be done without discussion. Any user who wants can take it to AfD; heck, I might even vote to delete via AfD, but this is not so uncontroversial that Prod is acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out where WP:COATRACK applies. It's a list. The lead says exactly what it is, and the list follows. A coatrack article is typically something that pretends to be about one thing but is really about something else. I can maybe see it if the author has a POV trying to make a disparaging point , but that's a stretch if the claims made aren't controversial. Anyone in history who served in a military leadership capacity would be involved in the deaths of others, no?

Whether the topic is notable is another issue, but it's hard to determine. Evidently plenty of sources make note of killings although perhaps not as a comprehensive list. I haven't examined them in depth. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That article is, in the interest of calling a spade a spade, a stupid article. Is there a similar List of killings of Moses ?! List of killings of Caesar or List of killings of Alexander !? There are none, because such lists are not encyclopaedic. The list itself uses a flawed criteria: "ordered or supported." If this is correct, a list with a possible 1 million people would be set up for List of killings of George W. Bush. By my rough count, nearly a quarter of the people included in the list were actually pardoned, not killed. Some on that list were executed after battles. Some were executed because they had committed murder or adultery ( for which the punishment is death ). The list even includes Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, who is well-known for having repented and for fighting in the cause of Islam during Abu Bakr's time. And Wahshi ibn Harb, who is also famous for having been pardoned by the prophet even though Wahshi killed his uncle, and fighting for the cause of Islam as well. I would call this article 100% "original research" except the person who compiled it seems to have done little or no actual "research." Unflavoured (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD, then. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As the person who removed the prod, I agree with Doctorx0079. I wasn't trying to imply that the article should be kept, but that this is a case where we do need the full AfD process. To quote the lead of WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion". This is not an uncontroversial deletion, though it may well be a good one. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think an AfD isn't necessary. There are other processes to gain a wider community review, such as WP:RFC and Wikipedia:Peer review. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In case folks here haven't noticed it yet, it's at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad. Seems like a good debate regardless of the outcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the picture depicting Prophet receiving revelation from the angel Islam does not allow any depiction of Prophet

Thanks 136.166.250.100 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The image will not be removed. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic law, and numerous discussions found in the archives, and explained by the FAQ above explain why we retain the images. Resolute 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Wiki pedia is not governed by Islamic rules but you should have respect for all religions and should not add the things which are prohibited in specific religions. The world should be a place of peace but because of the rubbish thoughtful people like you it becomes hell. You should respect the religions and delete these things. So what you wana prove Wiki pedia is not governed by Islamic rules but governed by extremists and anti religion groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.135.160 (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can say that anything is part of their religion by calling himself a profit. If Wikipedia takes stuff down every time a crackpot makes up a story about seeing an angel, there would be nothing left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.234.2 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

New sections at the bottom PLZ. If enough people believe the story for centuries then it's encyclopedic whether you agree or not. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Replies don't need a new section. And I didn't say the religion is not encyclopedic. I said that we can't take stuff down just because one guy says that a god wants us to.

New sections at the bottom please.Actually,if the particular "profit" in consideration is believed in by a huge number of people worldwide,he deserves his own pretty little page.Sam 15:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

^prophet thx1138 (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a new section. It's a reply. And I never said he doesn't deserve his own page. I said we don't have to remove suff that he wants us to. 74.115.199.34 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you are replying to anybody. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The OP wanted Wikipedia to remove the picture because Islam's rules don't allow it. Wikipedia should remove the picture if Islam's rules come from God because God's opinion is always right by definition. I want the OP to show his/her evidence that the rule against images is truly God's rule and not something Muhammad made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.234.2 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"God's opinion" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By keeping the images up, Wikipedia is not trying to prove a point, nor take sides, nor offend anyone. It is simply applying its policy of non-censorship universally. If atheists wanted something censored, that request would also be denied. If Wikipedia were to allow censorship at the request of the Islamic community, but not at the request of the countless other groups that want something censored, then it would be taking sides. If you would like to propose a change to the encyclopedia's universal censorship rules, the villiage pump is the place to do it, but be warned that Wikipedia's core policies require a lengthy debate to change. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not want to be rude. However, there are things to say. (Starting the following sentence with "However or But" is normally another way of saying, I am going to be rude for this time. However, I really do not want be rude to anyone. There should be ways to solve that issue in a kind manner. I am expecting a broad understanding from you as the administrators of a largely known website)

The answer below belongs to Administrator. "The image will not be removed. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic law, and numerous discussions found in the archives, and explained by the FAQ above explain why we retain the images. Resolute 16:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)"

You have stated that "Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic law". No one claimed it to be like that. If you are saying it is governed by Democracy, You still have to solve that issue (Not by telling people to change their settings not the see the image). Please see below:

"Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives." Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy>

If you are saying dictatorship (Nothing to say if it is).See below:

"A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator." Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship>

So, can you tell me what is it governed by ? We as a large community are waiting for reasonable answers. (Please do not show me any link to look at).

Please do not regard that issue as an offence.

Regards, Camurtay (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Camurtay Camurtay (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You may find this useful. Eik Corell (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a dictatorship. Editorial decisions are based on a set of rules: one of which is that Wikipedia is not censored. In that way, Wikipedia is a judiciocracy, with the talk page acting as jury. You will sometimes see votes on a talk page, but these are to gauge the feel of the community and are not binding if someone is clearly basing their vote on their own opinion and not on the rules. You will also sometimes see an administrator make a unilateral decision, but they can only do so based on the rules, and if you think an administrator is biased, you can make a complain against them. The rules themselves can be changed by consensus, which in practice sometimes means a supermajority vote and sometimes means a compromise of both positions. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope that 'judiciocracy' will soon end that problem -- KHYLN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camurtay (talk • contribs)

I hope you don't mind that I fixed the formatting on your comment. My question, though, is "what problem"? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The "problem", I suspect, is the inclusion of images of Muhammad. And if that is the case, then yes, the problem has been resolved. Policy holds that the images will not be censored and consensus supports the current policy interpretation. Resolute 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Time will show what or who the problem is. KHYLN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camurtay (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But how do we ask it? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad (pbuh) is not the founder of any religion, he is the last and final messenger. May Allah guide the person who have written this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDJOE WIKI (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia... go start another golden age, then we will talk 24.69.114.254 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See discussion above. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf ibn Qusai ibn Kilab (Arabic: محمد^{[n 1]} Muḥammad, pronounced [mʊˈħæmmæd] ^ⓘ), or simply Muhammad (also spelled Muhammed, Mohammad or Mohammed)^{[n 2][n 3]} (ca. 1 May 570 – 8 June 632)^[2] (Monday, 12th Rabi' al-Awwal, Year 11 A.H.), was the founder^{[n 4]} of the religion of Islam,^[3] and is considered by Muslims to be a messenger and prophet of God, the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims,^{[n 5]} the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran.^[4] Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.^[5][6][7] He was also active as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military leader, humanitarian, philanthropist, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.^[8]

Biovision007 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 25 where the naming was recently discussed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please remove pic of Muhammad (pbuh)its not allowed in islam

182.185.251.123 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow Islamic rules. See the FAQ at the top of the page to find out how to disable the images on your computer (along with more explanations for why the pictures are kept). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no picture depicted in the Arabic version? Has wikipedia curtailed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.86.91 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Because every language of Wikipedia has its own rules. Only the most basic, fundamental rules are shared (like "IPs can edit" and "articles must be neutral"). Even those rules end up varying, as the interpretation of them differs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting, however: the Farsii article does have the pictures; in fact, they had them before we did.—Chowbok ☠ 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have left the anon/IP a message here indicating how (and where) to properly address the biases and issues the anon indicates they have with the article and/or policies and guidelines. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, all. Is there a source for the claim that the calligraphic representation of Muhammed as used in the article is the most common one throughout the world today (as seems to be intimated in another thread above)? Or at least a VERY common one? If a source could be found, then I believe it should be noted in a citation, just as any source would be. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

See e.g. / , also / --JN466 10:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I will remove the following paragraph from the Isra and Mi'raj section as it has no citation and I could not find any on the internet. Although citation was requested 4 months ago, no one seems to be able to find one.

Knowledge Examiner (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that while "The Story of the Cranes" or the "Satanic Verses" episode is considered to be authentic by most of the scholars, it was presented as dubious based on modern Islamic theologians. The following academic sources state:

Orientalists (see POST-ENLIGHTENMENT ACADEMIC STUDY OF THE QURAN), including the most widely-read biographers of Muhammad — such as William Muir, D.S. Margoliouth, W. Montgomery Watt, Maxime Rodinson and F.E. Peters — have tended (with few exceptions) just as forcefully to accept the historicity of the incident, the orientalist logic having been epitomized by Peters: “This is the indubitably authentic story — it is impossible to imagine a Muslim inventing such an inauspicious tale.” The widespread acceptance of the incident by early Muslims suggests, however, that they did not view the incident as inauspicious and that they would presumably not have, on this basis at least, been adverse to inventing it.

Muhammad himself at this time was so cast down and discouraged that he, either from fear or in the hope of succeeding more readily in this way, for a moment raised the idols of Mecca, which he had hitherto represented as powerless, to the position of mediators between God and man. However, he soon recovered himself and declared his earlier opinion to be a suggestion of Satan, whereupon naturally the persecution of his enemies increased.

The Sira presents Muhammad as desperately hoping for an accommodation with his tribe. The event that depicts such willingness to accommodate is the episode of the Satanic Verses. The episode is famous, and here I give the minimum outline of the story. Muhammad is supposed to have praised the three goddesses of the Meccans in his Qur'an, only to have the verses removed the next day, claiming that the verses were whispered by the devil himself. Instead, a scathing ridicule was offered of these false gods.25

The only academic source I found to refuse the story did not ultimately refuse it but refuses it in its present form not denying the probability of it having a historical basis:

The story of the "Satanic verses" has been accepted as historical by most Western writers who mention it, since they find it unthinkable that it could have been invented (e.g. Gesch. des Qor., i, 101-3; Watt, Mecca, 103; A. Guillaume, Islam, 189 f.). Although there could be some historical basis for the story, in its present form it is certainly a later, exegetical fabrication. Sura LIII, 1-20 and the end of the sura are not a unity, as is claimed by the story; XXII, 52, is later than LIII, 21-7, and is almost certainly Medinan (see Bell, Trans., 316, 322); and several details of the story - the mosque, the sadjda, and others not mentioned in the short summary above - do not belong to a Meccan setting. Caetini (Annali, i, 279-81) and J. Burton ("Those are the high-flying cranes", in JSS, xv [1970], 246-65) have argued against the historicity of the story on other grounds, Caetani on the basis of weak isnads. Burton concluded that the story was invented by the jurists so that XXII, 52, could serve as a Kur'anic proof-text for their abrogation theories.

I will change the paragraph:

An early hadith known as "The Story of the Cranes" (translation: قصة الغرانيق, transliteration: Qissat al Gharaneeq) was propagated by two Islamic scholars, Ibn Kathir al Dimashqi and Ibn Hijir al Masri, where the former has strengthened it and the latter called it fabricated[77] (see Science of hadith). The hadith describes Muhammad's involvement at the time of migration in an episode which historian William Muir called the "Satanic Verses". The account holds that Muhammad pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, praising them, and appealing for their intercession. According to this account, Muhammad later retracted the verses at the behest of Gabriel, claiming that the verses were whispered by the devil himself.[78][15][n 9] Islamic scholars have weakened the hadith[79] and have denied the historicity of the incident as early as the tenth century.[80]

to:

Muhammad desperately hoping for an accommodation with his tribe, either from fear or in the hope of succeeding more readily in this way, pronounced a verse acknowledging the existence of three Meccan goddesses considered to be the daughters of Allah, and appealing for their intercession. Muhammad later retracted the verses at the behest of Gabriel, claiming that the verses were whispered by the devil himself.[78][15][n 9] This episode known as "The Story of the Cranes" (translation: قصة الغرانيق, transliteration: Qissat al Gharaneeq) is also known as "Satanic Verses". Some scholars argued against its historicity on various grounds.[] While this incident got widespread acceptance by early Muslims, strong objections to it were raised starting from the tenth century based on theological bases. The objections continued to be raised to the point where the rejection of the historicity of the incident eventually became the only acceptable orthodox Muslim position.[80]

Knowledge Examiner (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Some historians assert that Muhammad proclaims a religion of violence, only shrouded by poetry. I'll let you guys make that decision for yourself. If you want to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect this alternate perspective, go ahead do so, but my hand will have no play in that. I'm only providing the alternate perspective. After all, this is the "Discussion" page. Do with the info as you wish. Farewell.
COice6 (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That might be more appropriate to discuss on Talk:Islam or Talk:Criticism of Islam or maybe even Talk:Criticism of Muhammad. This talk page concerns the biography of Muhammad rather than the religion he introduced. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth revising this to "Hanif, later Islam". Surely, he couldn't have been the member of a religion he had yet to found. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Because Muhammad established/introduced/founded/whatever the religion of Islam during his lifetime, it is reasonable to assume he was a follower of it, particularly if it was divinely revealed to him. He may have followed another religion previous to Islam, but I'm not sure that's appropriate for the purpose of the infobox, although the change proposed is reasonable. Is it documented that he was a follower of Hanif? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The section "Pre-Islamic Arabia" gives some insight; I just think it would be reasonable, as there are sincere people who believe that Jesus was a Christian and Mohammed was a Muslim all his life... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Islam is and for ever will be the teachings and Sunnah [actions of beloved] of our most beloved Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Ta,ala alaihi wa aalihi wa sahbihi wasallam [Proper Name and Title]After all every thing was reviled to him Sallallahu alaihi wa sahbihi wasallam,Allah Thallah (God) address to him as his Rub [god] in the holy Quraan ,the condition of Imaan to be complete is to have love for him Sallallahu alaihi wa sahbihi wasallam more than your parents and children ,This is Ahadiths-e- Mubaraka (Bukari Sharief)taking these facts into account my friends he was the religion, founder, follower and every thing.There is no relation closer to Allah Thallah (god) than he is.He Sallallahu alaihi wa sahbihi wasallam is the only Prophet that saw Allah Thallah (god) with out any Partha (veil).Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.209.70 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the images of Prophet. Images are not allow for in Islam for an ordinary person, while He is our Prophet, so please remove the pictures. 202.91.82.196 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Declined. Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

RESOLVED --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to dispute the following claim:

"After the reformation, Muhammad was no longer viewed by Christians as a god or idol, but as a cunning, ambitious, and self-seeking impostor"

I see no evidence in any of the sources that he majority of Christians held those views before and after the reformation, and certainly not all, as the wording implies.

(In case it matters to anyone, I am not a Muslim, but I do have a generally favorable opinion of most people who are Muslims). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have those sources per chance? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My assertion is that the claim is not found in any source. If you want me to name sources that it isn't in, the list would be endless. Specifically, it isn't in any of the sources that are cited in the article, and in particular it isn't in the statement from Geiger referenced below.

I can't see the specific pages in Lewis (which, btw, is title "Jews of Islam" in case you couldn't check the cite due to lack of book name), but I have found references to Lewis and his works that claim he's made a similar claim through his research. Regardless, I'd love to see the actual writings of Lewis to confirm it - and his choice of wording. I know Geiger has made the claim he is a "skillful imposter". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, that was from memory. Geiger's statement can be found here and it was "skilled imposter" not "skillful". Sorry, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That book clearly says that "Renowned french arabist Antione Isaac Silvester de Sacy" held the view that Muhammad was a skilled imposter. I asked for a reliable source to back up the claim made on the Wikipedia page that Muhammad was viewed by Christians as an imposter, etc. Unless you can establish that all post-reformation Christians agree with Isaac Silvester de Sacy, you have simply shown one of the many sources that do not support the statement.

So again I ask, where is the reliable source or sources that establish as a fact the claim that "After the reformation, Muhammad was no longer viewed by Christians as a god or idol, but as a cunning, ambitious, and self-seeking impostor"? Evidence, Please. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Woah, slow down please. Let me clarify, the words Geiger used in his book, yes, attributed to someone else, use those wordings. I provided the link, figuring you understood the intent was to let you read it in full context. I didn't mean it as specifically "he said". Sorry about that.

As for the wording, I'm fine with removing it if you are correct. I believe I mentioned that too. I also mentioned I cant read the cited page (Google Books isn't showing 44-45) and don't have access to the source - hence I asked if you could post what the source actually says. And also as noted, if the source does not specifically use such bias words as "imposter", etc, then I am wholly against us using them too (err... well, so is policy for that matter). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "The words Geiger used in his book, yes, attributed to someone else, use those wordings"; No they don't. Geiger never claimed or wrote that anyone else claimed that Christians view Muhammad as a "cunning, ambitious, and self-seeking impostor." If you think he did, provide a direct quote. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if you'd understood what I meant with this, you may have understood my first posts better:

"(which, btw, is title "Jews of Islam" in case you couldn't check the cite due to lack of book name)" - I didn't find a source name, just Lewis, 2002 - and had to do some digging to find what that source might have been, so figured you might not have checked that particular source since it was incomplete. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I understand you just fine. Do you understand that I am asking for evidence to support the statement I am challenging, and that the burden of proof is on anyone who wishes to retain it?

I checked every citation I could access. I estimate that the odds of that particular claim being in a source or a part of a source that I cannot access are about the same as evidence that Unicorns and Santa Claus exist being in a source that I cannot access. Nonetheless either statement might be in there. If a claim on a Wikipedia page is challenged, either someone comes up with a citation to a reliable source or it gets removed. Directly quoting material I cannot access is good enough. Speculation that it might be somewhere in material that I cannot access is not. All I am asking for is evidence. I am going slow. I could have just deleted it as being unsourced, but, this being a topic that often attracts people with strong opinions, I chose to ask where the evidence is instead. Does anyone have a shred of evidence from any source that the statement as written is true? So far I haven't seen any. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can verify the source tomorrow with a trip to the book store. But again, that's why I was asking about that particular source. If that is one you couldn't verify, then I can check tomorrow. If it is one you managed to check, then I don't need to spend the time checking something you did. And regardless, if that word is used, I dunno about you, but I would prefer it was a direct quote due to the charged nature of the words. Anyway, my "slow down" (or whatever) comment wasn't meant in regards to the problem you see, it was meant in regards to your interpretation of my post.

So, to summarize, have you managed to check Lewis? If not, I'll do so tomorrow. If so, let's remove it. And either way, if it does indeed end up in a source, let's use it as an exact quotation to eliminate any bias or perception of bias that non-quoting may cause in how "we" write it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked Lewis or any other source that I cannot directly access from the citation links. I am concerned that you might be making a trip to the library to establish something other than what I am asking for. Again, I am asking for a citation to a reliable source that says that after the reformation, Muhammad was no longer viewed by Christians as a god or idol, but as a cunning, ambitious, and self-seeking impostor. I don't want evidence that Lewis believes that. I don't want evidence that Lewis says someone else believes that. I want evidence that Lewis or someone else says that Christians believe that. If you find that (you won't), then the question will be whether Lewis is a reliable source on the topic of the beliefs of all Christians. -Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We often deem historians reliable sources for discussing historical perceptions of a group - otherwise, we could never discuss many historical topics. And you know that. Regardless, I'll check out the sources I can find in the bookstore and let you know what they actually say. I've got no expectation that you simply take my word for their meaning or intent. And obviously (or not so obviously, perhaps), I am greatly aware of the difference between Lewis believing something and him making the claim that Christians believe it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for the disputed claim? If not, I am going to remove it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If Lewis (2002) is supposed to be Jews of Islam (1987), it's got Look Inside in amazon. The word Muhammad doesn't occur on page 45, and the word impostor doesn't occur in the entire book. But it's actually from Arabs in History (2002, Oxford University Press), , as listed in the references, which says on p. 45,

The West, too, had its legend of Muhammad, from the preposterous errors and scurrilities of medieval polemic and lampoon to the lay figure of Voltaire's 'Mahomet'. Beginning as a kind of demon or false god worshipped with Apollyon and Termagant in an unholy trinity, the medieval Malhound developed in the West into an arch-heretic whom Dante consigned to a not undistinguished place in Hell as a 'Seminator di scandalo e di scisma', and finally, after the Reformation, into a cunning and self-seeking imposter. One legend, widespread in the medieval West, even described Muhammad as an ambitious and frustrated Roman cardinal, who, having failed to obtain election as pope, sought an alternative career as a false prophet.

The last traces of Western theological prejudice may still be discerned in the work of some modern scholars, lurking behind the serrated footnotes of the academic apparatus. The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking impostor. Nor will he be satisfied with a purely supernatural explanation ... [etc.] --JN466 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So the passage may need some adjustment. --JN466 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Does this address the above concerns?
• Editors should also note the ongoing image discussions at Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution. --JN466 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The newly edited version is fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure. :) --JN466 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it might improve this article's appearance if it collapses the two timelines and the green Islam box (the last is duplicated in different format at the end of the page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to collapse the two timelines. --JN466 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed Tables. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a dispute. Its not in the FAQ, but why was Muhammad chosen over Mohammed or any of the other spellings? Just curious and it might be worth putting in the FAQ.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. I've wondered about it myself, but simply assumed that the community settled on that spelling. Certainly there is little agreement in sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Another good question is why does this article receive the "good article" rating and the one on Jesus Christ does not.

"Good Article" does not imply that the subject of the article is good or bad, but rather that the article meets the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. This is a situation that you personally can fix. Read the GA Criteria and improve the Jesus Christ article so that it is also a "good article."

Getting back to the question at hand, it should be noted that Encyclopedia Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary also chose the "Muhammad" spelling. I also found in a search that The Religious Affairs Ministry of the Government of Pakistan says to use "Muhammad." It would be interesting to see if any other countries have an official English spelling and to put that information in Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article on wiki on the various way the name Muhammad can be spelled. From the article The name Muḥammad is the strictest and primary transliteration of the Arabic given name, ﻢﺤﻣﺩ, that comes from the Arabic passive participle and triconsonantal root of Ḥ-M-D (Praise); hence Praised. However, its actual pronunciation differs colloquially Xareen (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to have some mention of Muhammad's ownership and emancipation of slaves. However, I don't think it deserves a section on its own. Therefore I'm merging it with wives and children, which I'm renaming "household".VR _talk 21:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we discuss such things before we do them with this particular WikiTopic. Reverted. ---IP logged .--.--Wes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.0.146.58 (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I also don't think there needs to be a whole section on his slaves. Muhammad was a man of very modest mean/income. He really didn't posses that many slaves. The one slaves he had was adopted by him as his adopted son, which is already mentioned in the article. Xareen (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the section was just three sentences long, it seems fine to me to keep it with household. --JN466 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in this article should note the ongoing request for arbitration, at Wikipedia:Rfar#Muhammad_Images. --JN466 02:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As a followup, an official arbitration case related to the conduct of editors involved with this topic has been opened. Anyone interested in participating may wish to offer evidence or opinions at the Workshop page. --Elonka 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear from the article, but do scholars know what religious background the prophet or his family came from, before the revelation of Islam? For example, we know that Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu before founding Buddhism. 217.43.193.136 (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is there not even one sentence regarding Muhammad being poisoned to death by a captured Jewish woman?

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." Sahih Bukhari, book 59, hadith 713

Narrated Umm Mubashshir: Umm Mubashshir said to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) during the sickness of which he died: What do you think about your illness, Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)? I do not think about the illness of my son except the poisoned sheep of which he had eaten with you at Khaybar. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: And I do not think about my illness except that. This is the time when it cut off my aorta. Sunan Abudawud, book 39, hadith 4499 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weon23snd9 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the claim was that he was poisoned and died three years later. If you want to establish that, a starting point (necessary but not sufficient) would be to find a reliable source for a poison with those properties existing at that time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What you remember or not is impertinent to the Wikipedia. what if you remember incorrectly? Can you provide an authentic source to prove that Muhammad never alleged poisoning? I second the view that this poisoning bit should be mentioned (if a good source could be cited), regardless of whether it hurts your religious sentiments or not.--71.17.188.133 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see there are flying horses mentioned in the article. Where is the reliable source that there are/were flying horses existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.197.217 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 --NWo4lifePT (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

During the introduction it mentions the peace be upon him added when speaking about muhammad or designated prophets. Would it be appropriate to add (commonly abbreviated in internet communities as pbuh) to this section? This would be informative to the readers as it can be a little confusing the first time you ever see it places like the talk pages. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also another quick change in the intro it says he lived to 632 but in the next section says he died in 622 which is correct? Tivanir2 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He died in 632 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xareen (talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I misread the passage, but thank you for the response. Tivanir2 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the abbreviations in the body of the article. --JN466 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)