Talk:Muhammad/Archive 31

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

Please change term "founder" for prophet Muhammad instead of it use "Last Prophet" because according to Islam Muhammad(Pbuh)was the final messenger however islam was existing before humans. sources- islamqa.com Answering-Christianity.com Irf.com Trueislam.com

thankyou

Sheik Saad (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done We write articles according to academic consensus, not according to Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Revert this change: . At best, it's pointless and potentially confusing; at worst, it's an attempt to push POV.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done It was already reverted days ago in this edit. Honestly don't see why though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

On Google when u search for the Prophet, the dates on the Google infobox (FOR Wikipedia) state the years in AD instead of CE... here on wikipedia is fine, but why can we can Google to change from AD to CE on their site? They are representing wikipedia, and I didn't know how to contact them or if they get direction from here.... please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.43.177 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Because AD (Anno Domino) and CE (Christian Era) have the same meaning – Google apparently prefers to use AD. I don't think that there is anything you can do about this. AstroLynx (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

CE means "Common Era" actually. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

We do not control Google or the Google infobox. We are not affiliated with them, they just use whatever they feel like. That's their fault, go talk to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He clearly said "I didn't know how to contact them" you might wanna go easy on him Ian. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Only the paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" is taken from us. See Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Hey! I'd like to add to the Early social changes under Islam I'd like to add: Before the Conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, Mecca was renown for its religious tolerance and anyone could pray at the Kaaba which held many gods, and was also a safe sanctuary. Hundreds of idols were housed along with a black meteorite worshipped by Muhammad's Quraish Tribe. Two years after making a peace treaty with the Meccans, he returned with an army and took Mecca by force. With his companions he broke all the idols at the Ka'aba except the Black Stone ending religious tolerance in Mecca. ^[1] CriticalRationalThinking (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UNDUE. All this does is put a tendentious spin on events already described elsewhere. The source is marginal and does not reflect a mainstream academic interpretation. Eperoton (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose because of uncritical irrational thinking. Treaty of Hudaybiyah was signed so Muhammad and his followers can make Umrah, Mecca wasn't for religious tolerance, nor is the black stone a meteorite nor is it worshiped. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The "tendentious spin" could be fixed simply by removing the last phrase "ending religious tolerance in Mecca" which smells like an editorial opinion. If that phrase is removed, then the paragraph just re-states what is already described elsewhere. The article should focus more on Muhammad's biography. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Please remove the comic character you used to describe prophet Muhammad PBUH. Its a request from all the muslims. Anaskhan5023 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - There are no "comic characters" there are some historic images, which will stay for the reasons given in FAQ 1 at the top of this page. - Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence's proposal to reword this passage "According to traditional sources". "Claim" runs afoul of WP:SAY and it's even hard to tell whether or not "dictate" does too, because it just isn't idiomatic English. Sources can "dictate" a choice, but not a proposition. Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, "dictate" seems weird when talking about old documents, so, if "claim" is an issue to some, then I would definitely go with "According to traditional sources" instead. Dhrm77 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dhrm77 here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article not simply say that he is the founder? Is there any doubt whatsoever that he is the founder of the religion? --Oddeivind (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Because he is regarded as the founder mainly because of Western historians, and he is not regarded as the founder based on Muslim historians and Muhammad himself. So "widely regarded as its founder" is a good phrase right in the middle. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

With a year of birth of c. 570, and a year of death of 632, the infobox calculates an age of death of 61-62. However, in the few sources I saw, including the main article itself, he is reported to have died at the age of 63. I am not an expert about Muhammad. I don't know which source on this subject is considered reliable. Can an expert on the subject fix this? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

All that inconsistency comes from his birth which occurred during Year of the Elephant Wikipedia chooses the c.570 C.E. route to keep consistency. His age of death is around 62 years old. 63 meanings the Year of Elephant was on 569. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that not all the days of 570CE match the Year of the Elephant? If so, then it is possible that, according to traditions, Muhammad died in fact at the age of 63, and was therefore born in 569CE?

My point is, even if most days of the Year of the Elephant fall in 570CE, if specifying a birth year of 570CE makes the template calculate an age of date wrong, then we should probably change the western version of the year of birth. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well we don't know exactly, we just know it is around 570, that is why we have circa. Also you have to note that the age of 63 is a common age of Muhammad when he died in Islamic sources which uses the Lunar Calendar, there might be inconsistency because we use Solar Calendar here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

His lunar age was 63 years. By solar years (which are on average 11 days longer than lunar years), his age was less than 63. Khestwol (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the islamic lunar year is always 12 moon cycles, it lasts 12*29.53 days or 354.36 days. So, 63 lunar years would be 61.12 solar years. Now if we broaden the meaning of "63 years" to 62.9 to 63.9 years because of likely rounding, we get 61.02 to 61.99 years. So Muhammad would have lived 61-62 solar years (or probably died in his 62nd year). Would that be the consensus?

If so, can we add "(solar)" and "(lunar)" in relevant places to clear out the apparent confusion? Dhrm77 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at this discussion:Talk:Muhammad/Archive 30#Protection for Muhammad Timeline in Mecca template?. AstroLynx is claiming that there is no consensus to write "AD 570" as the birth year. We know he died on Monday, 8 June AD 632, which is 12 Rabi' I, AH 11. He was born in the Year of the Elephant. Most sources assign this year to AD 570. Most sources give his age at death as 63, which will be lunar years as Muslims use a lunar calendar. The day of the week and the date enable us to pinpoint his birthday to Monday, 12 Rabi' I BH 53 in the lunar calendar in use at that time (which kept the months fixed relative to the seasons), which is 2 June 570. His age in lunar months at death was exactly 767 which, converted to the fixed - length lunar year introduced by Omar, is 63 years 11 months. I propose that in the infobox we give his dates as 2 June 570 - 8 June 632. His age at death will then automatically appear as "62". Dhrm77's proposal is defective because it doesn't take account of the nasi which was inserted throughout Muhammad's life until he cancelled it at the Farewell Pilgrimage.

AstroLynx points to sources which suggest alternative dates for the Year of the Elephant, but he is wrong to deduce from that that the AD 570 birth date is unreliable. It is independently verified by what we know about other things in his life, for example Ali and Khadija's dates and the date of the Call to Prophethood, which can be pinpointed astronomically. We also have his age at death discussed above. He cites two books which are referenced in de:wp:

• M J Kister, "The Campaign of Huluban: A New Light on the Expedition of Abraha", Le Museon 78 (1965), pp 425 - 436

• Lawrence I Conrad, "Abraha and Muhammad: Some Observations Apropos of Chronology and Literary Topoi in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 50 (1987), pp 225 - 240.

The German article says these sources date the Year of the Elephant to 547 or 552. However, Kister refers to a tradition that Muhammad was born 23 years after the "Expedition of the Elephant", and 547 + 23 = again 570, so AstroLynx's objection does not stand up. 86.160.51.6 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The placement of the section

"These marriages were contracted mostly for political or humanitarian reasons. The women were either widows of Muslims killed in battle and had been left without a protector, or belonged to important families or clans whom it was necessary to honor and strengthen alliances with.[249]"

after discussing the marriages to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha not before implies that those marriages after Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were for political or humanitarian reasons and the marriages to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were not. Is this intentional or just poor placement? Sawda bint Zama was a widow and nn the page about Aisha her marriage to Muhammad is referred to several times as having political significance and there are several references supporting this view. Perhaps this section should be moved to follow after the death of Khadijah bint Khuwaylid or corrected to:

"These marriages and those to Sawda bint Zama and Aisha were contracted mostly for political or humanitarian reasons. The women were either widows of Muslims killed in battle and had been left without a protector, or belonged to important families or clans whom it was necessary to honor and strengthen alliances with.[249]"

Thoughts? NickPriceNZ (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In this edit, Xtremedood did the following:

• Reversed the meaning of a sentence cited to Lewis, that is, changed this:
  "Economically uprooted with no available profession, the Muslim migrants turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with Mecca"
  to this:
  "After the Muslim had moved to Medina, the Meccan pagans turned to raiding Meccan caravans, initiating armed conflict with the Muslims"
  (notwithstanding the nonsensical part in the middle about Meccans raiding Meccans).
• Removed a relevant sourced statement "According to Watt, the change may have been less sudden and definite than the story suggests – the related Quranic verses (2:136–2:147) appear to have been revealed at different times – and correlates with changes in Muhammad's political support base, symbolizing his turning away from Jews and adopting a more Arabian outlook."

I reverted that edit with a request to support the changes on this talk page. That didn't happen; instead, Xtremedood reverted back.

Because this is a 1RR article, I am requesting here an explanation for those two rather significant changes. I do not have the Lewis source, so I cannot check it, but it seems odd to me that the meaning of a statement would be changed to the opposite. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The introduction of the new source clearly indicates that the raids were started by the Meccan Pagans. I have added a quote for further clarification. As for Watt's perspective on the change of prayer direction, this is a POV of the author and focusing on one point of view is not encyclopedic. Xtremedood (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the point of view of that obscure source you introduced is even less encyclopedic. At least Watt is a widely recognized historian. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Lewis writes: "The immigrants, economically uprooted and not wishing to be wholly dependent on the Medinese, turned to the sole remaining profession, that of arms. The state of war between Medina and Mecca provided the occasion for its exercise. Raids on merchant caravans were seen as a natural and legitimate act of war." He doesn't seem to say explicitly how this state of war came about.

This is obviously a complex and controversial issue, and I think there's room to reflect a greater diversity of perspectives, including Islamic perspectives, perhaps using more careful phrasing and putting some details in a footnote. What I'm not clear about is the nature of this new source. There are hundreds of modern biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims, dozens of them by leading Islamic scholars and public intellectuals. I can't find any information about Afzalur Rahman. Who is he, and how do we know his view is significant enough to be featured here? Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Watt writes: "In the raids the Muslims were taking the offensive. Muhammad cannot have failed to realize that, even if the raids were only slightly successful, the Meccans were bound to attempt reprisals. In these little raids, then, he was deliberately challenging and provoking the Meccans. In our peace-conscious age it is difficult to understand how a religious leader could thus engage in offensive war and become almost an aggressor. The first thing to be said in explanation of Muhammad's behaviour is that the raid or razzia was a normal feature of Arab desert life. It was a kind of sport rather than war. [...]" A lengthy analysis follows. Eperoton (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-Dawoody discusses various views on these: (ref to Firestone) "first, the emigrants saw that the Meccans’ caravans were lucrative targets and second, and more importantly, he adds, contradicting his earlier portrayal of the Muslims as initiators of aggression, that the emigrants sought revenge because “they had been treated so abusively by their own Meccan kith and kin.” He also admits that Muslims “avoided physical aggression at almost any cost and suffered physical and emotional abuse as a consequence.”..." and in another instance "Armstrong accepts the idea that the Muslims resorted to the then “national sport” of ghazw against the caravans of the Meccans because the Meccans persecuted and expelled them from their homes." and, "The alleged intention of the Muslims to take the property of a Quraysh caravan in compensation for the property they had been forced to leave in Mecca was met by Abū Jahl’s determination to prove the unchallengeable". He also has an extensive discussion on ghazw in Arab history.

18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Watt also highlights the element of revenge: "The Emigrants went on razzias because they thought they had been badly treated by their fellow-Meccans." I've rounded up other major academic sources, and I feel compelled to quote them here because the variety in their ways of telling and analyzing this sequence of events makes it extremely difficult to reflect the range of views adequately in the article. A couple of things seem clear enough, though: the current sentence oversimplies what we get in the RSs and there is no suggestion of the Meccans initiating the armed conflict.

 He was soon drawn into an armed struggle with Quraysh, perhaps for control of the trade-routes, and in the course of the struggle the nature of the community was shaped. They came to believe that it was necessary to fight for what was right: 'when Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected his gracious purpose . . . He gave permission to His apostole to fight and protect himself'. Albert Hourani. A History of the Arab Peoples, p. 18.

 Why did Muhammad take up arms? Leaving aside the vexed question of the vulnerability of Medina to its powerful neighbour, we can be fairly sure that Muhammad wished his followers to be able to worship in Mecca or its environs, perhaps especially on the hills of Marwa and al-Safa', which, as much as or even more than the Kaaba itself, were integral to early Islamic ritual. Perhaps this wish, combined with the powerfully activist nature of his belief, led Muhammad to begin hostilities soon after the hijra. p.190 Chase F. Robinson, in New Cambridge History of Islam

 Beyond Medina the most determined opponents of Muhammad’s efforts to extend his influence and his message were his erstwhile fellow citizens, the Quraysh of Mecca. Mecca and Medina became locked in an intense struggle to win over other towns and groups of nomads, a struggle in which Mecca, with its established commercial and tribal ties, initially appeared to have the advantage. Muhammad, however, launched raids against Meccan caravans, seizing valuable booty and hostages, and, more important, disrupting the commercial lifeblood of Mecca. p. 10 Fred Donner, in Oxford History of Islam

 When visiting the holy places in and around Mecca became a duty of the Muslims, it became inevitable that some way would have to be found for them to gain entrance to the sacred territory from which they were excluded (XXII, 25 f.). Since some peaceful agreement appeared most unlikely, the result was the inevitable necessity of forcing admission to Mecca. The Prophet also had an account to settle with the Meccans, for by expelling him they had triumphed over him in the eyes of the world and the punishment repeatedly threatened upon them, partly in the form of the stereotyped retribution of the godless in the "punishment stories", had not materialised. This led to a new divine command, referred to in the Sira literature as "permission to fight" the polytheists. The Helpers had pledged themselves to defend Muhammad only if he were attacked, and the merchants of Mecca were not inclined to oblige him by initiating hostilities. The Emigrants had not pledged to fight, and it went very much against their feelings as Meccans to fight members of their tribe and blood relations. [...] After he had sent different men with small armed forces who did not succeed in encountering the enemy, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Nakhla [...], where they succeeded in capturing a caravan. One of the Meccans was killed, however, and, although possibly unplanned, the fighting took place during the month of Radjab, one of the sacred months in which all fighting was forbidden. The rich plunder was taken to Medina, where in the meanwhile a storm of indignation had broken out. The people eventually accepted the tragedy, after being calmed by the revelation of II, 217. (F. BUHL-[A.T. WELCH]) "Muhammad", Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed.

 Always commanding the Muslims to turn the other cheek when they were in Mecca, God now allowed them to stand up for their rights: "Permission has been given to those who fight because they have been wronged. Indeed God is most able to give them succour; those who were driven from their homes unjustly, for but saying ‘Our lord is God’. And if God did not repel one group of people with another, monasteries, temples and places of kneeling where God’s name is mentioned would be destroyed." (Quran 22:39–40) The Muslims soon began raiding Meccan caravans, and Muhammad began pursuing alliances with other Arab tribes, both Muslim and pagan. pp. 30-31 Jonathan A.C Brown. Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford.

 One of Muḥammad's moves early on in Medina was to organize raids (ghazw) against his own tribe and its allies. [...] Although the significance of the raids has been debated, with some designating them as mere Arab “sport,” other analysts of Muḥammad's political strategy view them as part of a larger mission to liberate Mecca for the believers in order to establish the religion of the one true God. Muḥammad did not personally participate in all of the raids, and on one such occasion, at Nakhlah, his followers engaged in a skirmish, in spite of Muḥammad's instruction to merely scout, which resulted in the shedding of Meccan blood at the hands of Muslims in one of the four “Sacred Months.” Although Muḥammad is said to have been aggrieved by the incident, the Qurʾān legitimized the action by stating that “oppression is worse than slaughter” (2:191). The Qurʾān further empowered Muḥammad and the believers to engage in armed conflict because “they had been wronged” (3:195, 22:39). Mahan Mirza, "Muhammad", The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics

I'll give myself and others a chance to process this before suggesting how to handle this in the article. Eperoton (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on this, I think we can safely ignore the opinions of Xtremedood's non-notable source. The best way to treat this would be to omit any mention of who initiated the conflict; it is enough to say that there was a conflict between Meccans and Muslims, and perhaps describe some key events. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This current article, is largely written from the perspectives of orientalists. To put the ideas of orientalists over the 1400 year old research of non-orientalist academics, thinkers and writers of the Mid-East is highly biased. I think it is important to take into consideration these perspectives, as to get closer to neutrality. I also do not see it as a non-notable source as well, since the author has authored a variety of publications which have been well-received. Xtremedood (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As has been pointed out repeatedly, it's clear that Xtremedood is not here to build and encyclopaedia but to right great wrongs. I would ignore it, just revert and take any further violations directly to ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: As I wrote above, I agree that this article should also reflect Islamic or non-Western perspectives, but we need to distinguish several different issues here. First, statements of fact have to be sourced by mainstream (i.e., secular) academic sources, while religious sources can be used as RSs for beliefs and viewpoints. Secondly, NPOV requires reflecting views in proportion to their prominence in RSs, and it so happens that Western universities and publishers like Oxford and Cambridge are the most influential academic players worldwide. This may lead to some cultural bias (though these publishers give voice to many more authors connected with Islam through cultural or religious background than they used to), but that's a side-effect of following NPOV. Thirdly, to reflect non-Western perspectives, we need to make sure that we are doing so appropriately. I find this challenging, both because with books published in some Muslim-majority countries, and especially on this topic, it can be difficult to distinguish secular history from religious history, and because it's more difficult to figure out "significance" of the source. If you have credentials for the author you cited or reviews of his work, please share them.

I'll make my own attempt to gather some significant Islamic viewpoints: 1) Muhammad Husayn Haykal, a leading Egyptian public intellectual in the first half of the 20th century, whose biography of Muhammad "attempted to synthesize Islamic piety and “scientific” historical method", per The Oxford Dictionary of Islam; 2) Mohammed al-Ghazali, "arguably one of the two or three most influential Sunnī Islamic thinkers of the twentieth century" per The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World; 3) Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, whose book is cited by The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World in its article on Muhammad with a note that it represents a "devout and traditional perspective on Muḥammad's life"; 4) Tariq Ramadan, who probably needs no introduction. Here are the relevant portions, conveniently available in English:

 The majority of historians think that the Muslims, led by Muhammad, thought of avenging themselves on the Quraysh and of declaring war against them. [...] That by means of these raids, [...] the Muslims sought to wage war against Quraysh and to attack its caravans is an opinion which cannot be accepted without hesitation and scrutiny. [... analysis ...] It is more likely, therefore, that these early expeditions had only psychic objectives, and were meant to press home to the Quraysh the realization that their own interest demanded that they come into some kind of understanding with the Muslims. [...] Rather than to bring war and hostility, these expeditions were intended to put an end to the old hostility, to guarantee to the Muslims the feedom they sought for calling men to their religion and to ensure for Makkah the security it needed for its caravans to al Sham. The Life of Muhammad. Muhammad Husayn Haykal pp. 258-260

 The wisdom behind sending out these expeditions in succession can be summarized in two points. Firstly, it made the idolaters and Jews of Madinah and the desert Arabs around it feel that the Muslims were strong and that they had overcome their former weakness, that weakness which enabled the Quraish in Makkah to put a ban on their beliefs and liberties and seize their homes and properties. [...] Secondly, those expeditions were a warning to the Quraish of the consquences of their folly [in opposing Islam and persecuting Muslims] Fiqh al-Sira. Mohammed al-Ghazali pp. 238-239 

 Provocative actions continued and Quraish sent the Muslims a note threatening to put them to death in their own homeland. Those were not mere words, for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) received information from reliable sources attesting to real intrigues and plots being hatched by the enemies of Islam. [...] At this precarious juncture, with Quraish intent on pursuing their aggressive and devilish plans, Allâh, the All-High, gave the Muslims the permission to take arms against the disbelievers: [...] The permission to fight was already there, but in the light of the status quo, it was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah under their control. [...] With a view to implementing these plans, the Muslims commenced real military activities, which at first took the form of reconnaissance patrols delegated to explore the geopolitical features of the roads surrounding Madinah and others leading to Makkah, and building alliances with the tribes nearby. The Prophet wanted to impress upon the polytheists and Jews of Madinah as well as the bedouins in its vicinity, that the Muslims had smashed their old fears, and had been too strong to be attacked with impunity. He also wanted to display the power of his followers in order to deter Quraish from committing any military folly against him which might jeopardize their economic life and means of living, and to stop them from persecuting the helpless Muslims detained in Makkah, consequently he would avail himself of this opportunity and resume his job of propagating the Divine Call freely.  The Sealed Nectar.   Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. p. 91-92

 Some of the Quraysh went further and even decided, in violation of the honor code respected by all the clans in the peninsula, to seize the property and belongings the emigrants had left behind in Mecca. When they heard of this behavior, which was considered shameful and cowardly, the Prophet and the Muslims who had settled in Medina were angry. It was decided, six months after their exile, that they would attack the Meccan caravans passing near Medina in order to take back the equivalent of their belongings expropriated in Mecca. Ramadan, Tariq. In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad (p. 96). Oxford University Press. 

I'll take another breather before attempting to put this all together. Eperoton (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Good work dude. I'll support the addition of these details, they definitely help the article clear up a controversial point. cӨde1+6^TP 00:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Relatives and 'Ahl al-Bayt' aren't the same people. Ahl al-Bayt is/are Muhammad's "Family of the House" that is, Spouse(s) & children. (I've corrected the Infobox person)..--Eğitmen (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, as the edit had obvious factual errors. Please provide academic sources, not opinions. Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from transliteration and sourcing problems, I don't see why we need a "relatives" field in the infobox. The term "ahl al-bayt" is discussed under "children", and there's already a "parents" field. The infobox isn't for listing every second-degree relative. Eperoton (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As a minimally invasive solution, I've added a link to Family tree of Muhammad to the relatives field. Eperoton (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

So, in the answer to the first FAQ, it states that Wikipedia is bound to the laws of "Florida, where most of Wikipedia's servers are hosted." However, in the article on Wikipedia, it states in Wikipedia#Policies and laws that Wikipedia is bound by the laws of the "state of Virginia, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are located." Which one is it: Virginia or Florida? Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hobbes Novakoff perhaps you can peruse this particular section, it will give u the info u need. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so that one says Florida. But then, I go here and it says that "By January 22, 2013, Wikipedia had migrated its primary data center to an Equinix facility in Ashburn, Virginia." But, in the sentence before, it repeats the line about Florida and Amsterdam... Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't these questions really belong somewhere else? They don't have anything directly to do with Muhammad. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

They are directly related to an assertion about legality in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Maybe the sentence in the FAQ could be restated in more general terms, that Wikipedia is bound by the laws of "states in which Wikipedia's servers are hosted." ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is happening here and why we should care about Florida or Virginia? Do different state laws really have an effect on Wikipedia articles? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are a resident of the United States, you should know that state and local laws regarding internet content can be significantly more restrictive than federal laws. Snarky comment: @Alexis Ivanov: you live in Mordor according to your user page, so you are probably unaware of such things that happen in the land of mere mortals.) Florida has its own obscenity laws, and the state can (and has) shut down servers that host content deemed obscene by local standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have edited Talk:Muhammad/FAQ to remove references to specific states, referring to "laws of locations where Wikimedia Foundation servers are hosted" and linking to Wikimedia Foundation#Hardware, which more likely to be kept up to date than this FAQ page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the depictions of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.). Ans review this article in the light of book "Seerat un Nabi (SAW)" by Shubli Numani. And add "P.B.U.H." or "SAW" everywhere with name of Holy Prophet(SAW). The Free Contributer (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Both of these situations are addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

To The Free Contributer: Why do you care? What difference does it make to you what Wikipedia says? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

To Doctorx0079, why add unnecessary comments when C.Fred answered his request. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

They're honest questions. I'd like to know. I would like him to explain what he hopes to achieve with his comment. Although I suppose he probably won't elaborate. But I thought it was worth a try. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

His achievement is to bless him every time Muhammad is mentioned, as Quran 33:56 "Indeed Allah and His angels bless the Prophet; O you who have faith! Invoke blessings on him and invoke Peace upon him in a worthy manner." Wikipedia editors are striving to have NPOV, you can bless Muhammad at your own discretion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if they want to get brownie points they should do it somewhere else. WP:NOTHERE . -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing is a brownie point. let's just focus on the neutrality of the article. NPOV Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it offensive to muslims to see Mohammed depicted in a visual form? Why aren't they having a shitfit about this page trying to take it down? leopheard (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the archives. Also, that image was created by a Muslim, at the request of Muslims, for other Muslims. It's only particular sects that have a problem with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Sunni and shia differ. Read depictions of muhammad. BurtReynoldsy (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Please extend the word MUHAMMAD to MUHAMMAD(ﷺ) ThankYou Ahmedkaleemmohammed (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please see WP:SAWW. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The top section should state, under other names known by, "Rasullah" or "Rasul Allah," and not, as incorrectly stated, "Rasul." Muhammad Abdullah 1434 (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Names and titles of Muhammad shows the name as ar-Rasûllah. Is there objection to the following change?

Rasul ar-Rasûllah (Messenger of God)

That would seem to present the name and its translation more correctly, and I don't see it as a great inefficiency of space in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

ar-Rasûllah is not correct: there's a syllable missing. We can use the form ar-Rasûl'Allâh, which is misidentified as toponymic at the bottom of the infobox. Eperoton (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also ar-Rasûl'Allah is linguistically incoherent, there's also no chadha to use the double r in ar-R..., it should be Rasûl'Allah.

15:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Ah, of course! No definite article in the construct state. Eperoton (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tafseercomparison.org/study2.asp?TitleText=Study%202:%20Verse%205:3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Would like to edit this page, as this page contains depicted picture of Prophet Mohammed SAW. Would like to remove the depicted pictures from this page.

Wsmanzoor (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. However, there is a longstanding consensus that, because Wikipedia is not censored, pictures of Muhammad are included on this page. Users may opt out of viewing the images; directions are in the FAQ. Users who attempt to remove the images will find them quickly restored. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• This Hijri Date corresponds to Friday, 8 June 632 CE
• 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal AH (Hijri Date) on Arabic calendar corresponds to April 25, 571 which is the correct birth date of the Prophet, this can be checked by any Islamic Calendar : Hijri Date Converter..

71.191.11.9 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal corresponds to April 24-26, 571 AND May 6, 570: Thus CE 570 cannot be a correct birth date.

• April 25, 570 cannot be the CORRECT birth date Because May 6, 570 corresponds to another Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal date
• Since it is well-known that the birth date of the Prophet was on April 24-26 (Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal), this corresponds to April 25, 571 Because the other Hijri 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal matches to May 6, 570

71.191.11.9 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC) 71.191.11.9 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't try and calculating, it is not worth it, you are also entering Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS area. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources (and you would need quite a few since scholarly consensus is no confirmed date) that supports your assertations? If not this is non actionable. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed several times in the past on the Muhammad talk page – I suggest that you first read the talk page archives. B.t.w. 8 June 632 (Julian) was a Monday, not a Friday. So before you post more misleading dates, try to find a reliable date converter. AstroLynx (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the lead as written isn't necessarily bad, but there are things discussed that aren't exactly fitting (such as his work as a merchant.) I am proposing a rewrite to prune some of the unnecessary portions that aren't super noteworthy or weighted in the article. Tivanir2 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I need to sit down and do a full rewrite from scratch. Some of the sentences are setup weird and will need some major work. I will do that when I can get some Tim at a computer. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Those must be the poorly healed scars of old edit wars... Hopefully, we won't get into another big controversy. I'm happy to help if needed. Eperoton (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and I will let you know. My hope I it should be a concise set of paragraphs, and if I find anything difficult to correct I will post it here in this section. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Well crud. My school workload just doubled so this will be on the back burner for a bit. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait until you're out of school and have a career and kids. I'm amazed I find time for Wikipedia at all anymore. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• 24-26 April 571 at the age of 61++++ which is the closest correct date since it matches to the last week of April
• 5-6 May 570 at the age of 62+++ this cannot be true since it was on the first week of May
• 16-17 May 569 at the age of 63++
• 27-28 May 568 at the age of 64+
• 8 June 567 at the age of 65 which is not possible.

There may be a 2 days of shift on the above dates. 71.191.11.9 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't posted a reliable source that definitively states what you want changed. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid date does not match to CE 570 this is obvious and CE 570 should be deleted.

71.191.11.9 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You do not indicate which date converter you are using but the dates which you cite suggest that you are using a date converter based on the current Islamic calendar in which the days slowly drift through the year as the years pass on. However, there is plenty of evidence that the Meccan calendar in the days of Muhammad was actually luni-solar and was kept in approximate synchrony with the seasons by intercalating an extra month (probably at the end of the year) every two or three years. As we do not know how the intercalary months were actually regulated during Muhammad's time it is impossible to exactly convert Meccan calendar dates into Western calendar dates. I would also be interested to learn which "Islamic" sources claim that Muhammad was born in April or in May. AstroLynx (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Further reading:here 71.191.11.9 (talk) 16:18,7 August 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't support the notion that a specific, exact day is known. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What supports that it was 570 then ?71.191.11.9 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The sources already cited in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Nothing, as far as modern historiography is concerned. Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) says: "There is better reason to believe that he may have been born later in the 570s." The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says "The exact year of his birth is not known, but the early 570s appear likely." However, the latter lists the dates as "c.570–632 ce" in the same article, as do several other Oxford encyclopedias. Our use of "c. 570" reflects RSs. Eperoton (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasoning: If 12 Rabbi-ul-Awwal - Mawlid = The celebrations for the birthday of the Prophet has overwhelmingly accepted and the Gregorian birth month of the Prophet is well-known as April, then the only possibility from the above list should be CE 571. This corresponds to the date of 25 April 571 which is 12th of Rabi' al-awwal in [[Islamic calendar|Arabic months 71.191.11.9 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please consult WP:V and WP:RS. This article separates traditional beliefs from what WP:RSs tell us about the facts. The dates reflect prevalent use in academic sources. Eperoton (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I read that The 12th Day of Rabi' al-awwal is the most popular date from a list of many dates that are reported as the birth date.71.191.11.9 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with 'popular' or 'traditional' reports is that they are unreliable. There are also traditional sources which claim that Muhammad was born on a Monday – your preferred date, 25 April 571 (Julian), fell on a Saturday. AstroLynx (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Article claims that: 12th day of Rabi' al-awwal (25 / 26th day of April, 571 CE) (Sunni Islam), 17th day of Rabi' al-awwal (30th day of April / 1st day of May 570 CE) (Shia Islam)71.191.11.9 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the cited articles do not support your claims. And please stop inserting similar unsourced claims on the Mawlid page. AstroLynx (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Some researches and studies demonstrated that this figure of Arabia never existed historically. Anything about this? --79.75.61.180 (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A right wing fringe theory Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

And there is an article titled at Historicity of Muhammad. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The verb (dâna) from which this noun is derived means 'become obedient'. It has nothing to do with 'path' See E.W Lane Arabic-English Lexicon p.942 (Pamour (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC))

reference from Holy Quran 33: 40 does not claim that Muhammad is the Last Prophet of Man Kind as it is quoted. (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php#033.040) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.246.153 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a translation issue. One of the three translations says "Last"; the other two say "Seal", which could still be interpreted as being the last. I think the note covers this sufficiently. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the literal words that the verse used "Khatam an-Nabiyyin", Seal of Prophets implies Last so it is the same. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

My request is that after the name Muhammad (representing the ONLY the prophet Muhammad) i would like to insert (s.a.w) so his name anywhere stated on Wikipedia should state Muhammad (s.a.w) this is due to the fact that Peace be upon him (Arabic: عليه السلام‎- ʿalayhi as-salām), abbreviated "pbuh", and peace be upon them (abbreviated "pbut"), are phrases that Muslims say after uttering or hearing names of any of the prophets.

In Arabic, these salutations are called ṣalawāt. In English texts they are often abbreviated with the use of "SAW" (in accordance with the Arabic words (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or pbuh (which stands for "peace be upon him" in English).

Quranic Evidence:

(33/56)Allah and His angels send prayers on the Prophet: O ye that believe! Send ye prayers on him, and salute him with all respect.

The Islamic scholar, ibn Kathir, titled the section in his Tafsir (i.e., explanation of the Quran), regarding this verse, the Command to say Salat upon the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Hadith: The evidence for sending salat on Muhammad is not limited only to the Quran

The prophet Muhammad said:" the miser is the one in whose presence I am mentioned, and then he does not send the Salat upon me."Narrated by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad.

Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said, "May he be humiliated, the man in whose presence I am mentioned and he does not send Salat upon me; may he be humiliated, the man who sees the month of Ramadan come and go, and he is not forgiven; may he be humiliated, the man whose parents live to old age and they do not cause him to be granted admittance to Paradise." Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi,

ranked by him as "Hasan gharib" (Good but only reported once).

Abu Hurayrah said,that the prophet said:

"Whoever sends one Salat upon me, Allah will send ten upon him." Hadith narrated by Muslim, Abi Dawood, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nissai.

Mismail123 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Please read WP:SAWW. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also reading the FAQ section in this talk page is recommended. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also it looks like you are not here to build an encyclopedia but trying to score points with your deity. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad is the central figure in the Islamic faith and widely regarded by non-Muslims as its founder. In the majority of Muslim traditions he is considered to be the last prophet sent by God. Traditionally Muslim doctrine states that he was sent to restore Islam, which Muslims believe is the original, unaltered monothestic faith of other prophets. (footnote of prophets)

Muhammad was born approximately 570CE in the Arabic city of Mecca. Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by his paternal uncle Abu Talib. Periodically he would retreat to a mountain cave for seclusion and prayer, which would later be the site that he claimed his first revelations from Gabriel. Years later he would begin to preach his revelations which angered the Meccan leaders eventually forcing him to flee the city. As he gained followers and converts war became a constant, and eventually the city of Medina was conquered by Muhammad. Before his death in 632CE Muhammad had united the Arabian peninsula under a single religious banner.

Beyond his military accomplishments Muhammads importance to the Islamic faith is paramount. He proclaimed that there was one God, and only through complete surrender to his will was the only acceptable path. The revelations that he received from his secluded prayer from Gabriel would form the basis for the Quran, while his teachings and practices would form the sunnah. These materials are seen as the perfect word of God and form the basis for many Islamic practices that continue to present day.

Well, comments and queries welcome. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Any feedback before I get bold? Tivanir2 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the second reminder. The first one slipped off my radar. A couple of points:

1. People are Muslim. Doctrines and traditions are Islamic.
2. I think we should mention something about the "other prophets", either through examples or in another form. I like the existing version because it lets us avoid tricky definitions (biblical, etc).
3. "for seclusion" sounds odd. I prefer "a secluded mountain cave for reflection and prayer".
4. "which" in the same sentence has an ambiguous referent. How about: "and it is there that he reported being visited by Gabriel to receive his first revelations at the age of 40"
5. For the remainder of the lead from that sentence on, your proposal doesn't strike me as an improvement over the existing text, which seems fine to me (aside from the OR about way/din which I keep forgetting to fix).

Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I will mark up the changes and expand on the religious portion a bit. Mainly I am trying to trim it and make it more concise without losing anything of importance. I will give another stab at it when I can get on my comp again. Tivanir2 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible. The lead isn't that long, and likely reflects some cases of hard-won consensus. I suspect removing further content from it will prompt other editors to insert their version, leading to further disputes. Eperoton (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I know a lot of people over the years have fought long and hard over it but it jumps around a bit and does need some trimming. My overall goal is to get the article to FA status by the end of the year. It's going to be a long frustrating road, but I think it's possible. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break as I am resetting the lead template. Fixed up with concerns addressed from above:

Muhammad is the central figure in the Islamic faith and widely regarded by non-Muslims as its founder. In the majority of Islamic traditions he is considered to be the last prophet sent by God. Traditionally Islamic doctrine states that he was sent to restore Islam, which Muslims believe is the original, unaltered monotheistic faith of previous prophets^{[n 1]}.

Muhammad was born approximately 570CE in the Arabic city of Mecca. Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by his paternal uncle Abu Talib. Periodically he would retreat to a secluded mountain cave for reflection and prayer, and would later be the site that he proclaimed his first revelations from Gabriel. Years later he would begin to preach his revelations which angered the Meccan leaders eventually forcing him to flee the city. Muhammad migrated to Medina with his followers in 622CE in an event known as the Hijra. In Medina he united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. In a largely uncontested attack, Muhammad gathered 10,000 men and marched on the city of Mecca, which was seized with little resistance. Before his death in 632CE Muhammad had united the Arabian peninsula under a single religious banner.

Beyond his military accomplishments Muhammads' importance to the Islamic faith is paramount. He proclaimed that there was one God, and only through complete surrender to his will was the only acceptable path. The revelations that he received from his secluded prayer from Gabriel would form the basis for the Quran, while his teachings and practices would form the sunnah. These materials are seen as the perfect word of God and form the basis for many Islamic practices that continue to present day. Tivanir2 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm inspired by your can-do attitude and I agree that the lead can be improved. However, taking a closer look at our discussion so far, I'm afraid we haven't been moving in the right direction. For example, we've been working out a long sentence about the cave, which isn't an important detail. The Conquest of Mecca is also given more space than it deserves. Conversely, the existing lead largely leaves out the events in Medina, which actually form the bulk of biographies of Muhammad as well as of our article. We also have to say something about the content of his preaching in Mecca.

I'd like to make a counter-proposal. I once summarized this material in History_of_Islam#Islamic_origins (last two paragraphs). This version also reflects a current scholarly perspective on the state of the peninsula at the time of Muhammad's death, while what we have now is rather idealized. How does this version look to you? Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are good paragraphs from what I see. I will re-read the article again and see what we have for weight to try to fix up the article better later today or tomorrow. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the current lead has undue weight issues (hell I have removed at least three things so far because of weight) and I am doing the rewrite based off what is in the lead currently, which might be causing a few issues. Give me a day or two and I will get it squared away with another rewrite that is hopefully better and more concise. Tivanir2 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why I am unable to download the main article of the Mohammad? MAXhTareen (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Mohammed" is the English-language version, enshrined in the old saying "If the mountain won't come to Mohammed." English idiom permits no revisionistic alteration of such phrases, and the spelling and pronunciation are the time-honored plain ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.149.180 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. See the article Muhammad (name). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

14.139.206.66 (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC) only two Wives 1 Khadija bint Khuwaylid 2 Aisha bint Abi Bakr

What is your request? Are you claiming he had only two wives? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read through the texts it constantly switches back and forth from what would be near excerpts from a religious document, and the rest reads like normal text. I just realised it today when I was adjusting a passage for tone. I think a large review of all the rest is going to be necessary for this to but FA status. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about a person of history. If available an image of the actual person should be made available for historical reference, every other page of historical peoples has an image of the person for historical reference purposes of identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.247.103 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

... Is this an attempt at Reverse psychology? There are no historical pictures of him, but we are not removing the artistic representations featured throughout the rest of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The most common depiction is calligraphic, so that's what we use here. This has been discussed in the past. Maybe we should have another FAQ entry about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Q4? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Right. It's covered already. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Prophet Muhammad's (Peace be upon him) name must carry the following words after his name " Peace be upon him ". Usman 13 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not on this wiki, see WP:SAWW. Materialscientist (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a neutral encyclopedia, and Muhammad's name will not feature Islamic honorifics and nor will anything else on this website. As has already been said by Materialscientist, see WP:SAWW as well as the Wikipedia rules on Islamic honorifics Bitsdotliestalk 03:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please dont change the name of Allah! Allah is not a god. Allah is one. God has goddess. So please edit the mistake. Change God to Allah.. MD Zahidul Islam Fahim (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I dont know which policy is this the result of. Swingoswingo (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There are people who have a strong preference for one or the other usage. Current consensus of WP community on this point is expressed in the Manual of Style (WP:ALLAH), and it favors using the word "God". Eperoton (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This request makes no sense in English. Taken at face value it says that Muslims worship something that is not a god, not divine. I can't believe that Muslims would accept such a characterization of their faith. --Khajidha (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the previous commentator. Allah is the Arabic word for god used by Arabic speakers of all religions, as is clear from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Yster76 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I want to edit few pictures in this article because it is violating a religion that prohibit pictures of God and his messengers,followers etc. 39.45.157.64 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests must be posted to the pictures subpage, but unless you have very compelling arguments this request will not be granted. Jarkeld (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

please see: User:Ymblanter Talk > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ymblanter#content_reverted.2C_article:_Muhammad

the proceeding material:

Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim, ^[1] <----- (was born about the year 570^[2])

I can't see any reason to not include this material, User:Ymblanter has suggested: If there are objections to your edits there is always material to discuss....You may ask yourself first why in this article, which is very high profile and exists almost since the very beginning, nobody before you added this material to the lede. 21:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1a16 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@H7asan, Aaboelela, Reddi, Mustafaa, Brutannica, AAA765, Zora, Anonymous editor, Proabivouac, Opiner, Itaqallah, ALM scientist, and Arrow740:

Well, for one thing, it isn't appropriate to cite WP:TERTIARY sources, such as other encyclopedias, for the purpose of supporting claims like that. Britannica got that information from somewhere else, and that's where we should look.

I don't have an opinion either way on whether to include the full name in the lead sentence, or display it in the infobox as it is already. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The lead box shows > Born Muḥammad ibn `Abdullāh

Britannica shows > Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim

1a16 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

Syedrizzwaan (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@ERDINC: The policy WP:PRIMARY prohibits us from interpreting primary sources such as hadith. To keep this addition you need to find a non-primary WP:RS which interprets the poisoning mentioned in hadith to be Muhammad's cause of death. If you find an academic source making this inference, we can mention it as a fact; if it's a source that describes a traditional belief, we'll describe it as such. Otherwise, this is a violation of WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the policy violation was not addressed, I'm reverting the addition. Eperoton (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The first part written in the appearance section looks inaccurate when you compare the description given in Sahih Al-Bukhari, widely known among muslim scholars as the most authentic book of hadith. The current description is written by Al-Tirmidhi, a notable scholar who wrote one of the most famous books of hadith, among the list of the kittabu-sittah, the six most well known books of hadith. That book he made though had many weak, false hadiths, and also many authentic hadiths, but Sahih Al Bukhari is known to be fully authentic due to the rigorous process the author betook to verify them. Al-Tirmidhi also got the description through narrations attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and many of these prove doubtful as the Shia's could have mixed false ones with them too. Bukhari says that he had neither curly hair nor lank hair, but the description in Al-Tirmidhi says he had curly hair. On these conflicting descriptions, the authenticity of Bukhari is hugely more reliable. Please edit it according to the more authentic texts. --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

All this article is doing is quoting a passage, not making any judgment about the reliability of the description. Do you have a substitute quotation? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't be doing WP:OR into authenticity of primary sources, with or without sectarian arguments. The section is based on academic citations, and that's how it should be. Eperoton (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@AbdullahwaMuhsin- There are better things to study than this Mo's hairstyle i.e. Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, Banu Mustaliq, and (oh yea) Aisha and female slaves. Swingoswingo (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

We have two conflicting sources, and we must take the source that has the strongest authenticity. This is pre-existing scholarly work, not anything new. I haven't followed up on this for a few weeks by the way, I was a bit busy. Also, I noticed how after I wrote the main body above the exact quotation attributed to Ali ibn Talib which I challenged changed. Look at the edit history. It did not have what it has now, "did not have lank or crisp hair", and surprisingly, it says crisp, instead of curly which it is suppose to be as I quoted,, nn purpose, so it doesn't contradict the statement further on saying "He had thick, curly hair". In the beginning of the quote, it says "was not fat", but in later in the same quote in says " was proportionate, stout," which goes against the beginning statement. The author changed it after I talked about it, and I used evidence from Sahih Bukhari, not from Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi's book Shama'il al-Mustafa, yet he wrote what I said that was given in Sahih Bukhari. I strongly challenge the historical accuracy of this source because not does it go against the established books of islamic tradition, the hadith, but also itself. It's just very odd. I say we instead replace the descriptions given from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authentic books of Islamic recordings of the prophet, the first one being in Book 61, Hadith 57 of Sahih Bukhari, which says "Narrated Anas: Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was neither very tall nor short, neither absolutely white nor deep brown. His hair was neither curly nor lank. Allah sent him (as an Apostle) when he was forty years old. Afterwards he resided in Mecca for ten years and in Medina for ten more years. When Allah took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard." and "Narrated Al-Bara: The Prophet (ﷺ) was of moderate height having broad shoulders (long) hair reaching his ear-lobes. Once I saw him in a red cloak and I had never seen a more handsome than him."" (Bukhari Book 61, Hadith 60) --AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Restored material cited with academic sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this is an academic source itself is doubtful. The statement contradicts itself. The author changed the "academic source" after I pointed out it's fault. These academic sources are drawn from primary sources. The primary sources themselves are corrupted, if the author wrote what he actually read. I have clearly explained my position. I kindly request the review of a more prominent administrator. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Schimmel's book is an academic source. We're using the translation it gives and our quote hasn't changed since early March, though different translations of these descriptions are likely to diverge because of the rather difficult Arabic vocabulary they use. Now, it actually looks like Schimmel concatenates two different narratives from al-Tirmidhi (by Ali and his son Hasan). I think we can correct that based on the primary source. However, we can't just use a different primary source based on our judgement of its authenticity. That would violate WP:PRIMARY, and modern historians often have very different assessments on authenticity of Islamic sources from the traditional Islamic assessments. Eperoton (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That clears up some of that. Early March was actually when I wrote this part of the article and when the quote changed. Modern historians may often have very different assessments, but they relie on Islamic assessments, and at the end, the Islamic scholars know their work, which was based on honesty, reputation, and other tight guidelines. Any Islamic scholar would agree that Sahih Bukhari is more authentic than the book of Tirmidhi Schimmel has took from. Since this is a grey area for some part and you have clarified on the matter through pointing out two narratives, I will put those two recordings from Sahih Bukhari and leave yours in place. Thank you for cooperating on this matter.

In terms of authenticity assessments, the differences are due to methodology. Traditional Islamic scholars have relied on isnad criticism and consciously avoided judging authenticity on the basis of matn. Modern historians tend to be skeptical about the chains of transmission and use standard methods of historical criticism instead. As a result, modern historians tend to give more credence to earlier sources than the later canonical hadith compilations.

I think the additions are ok, though the section may have become a bit too long. If other editors find them problematic, I would recommend moving the quotes from Bukhari to Muhammad in Islam, which reflects the Islamic perspective. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

How would it be if the hatnote just read For other uses, see Muhammed (disambiguation) ? Siuenti (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How would it be if the hatnote just read For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)

I.e. remove the "Muhammed redirects here" which doesn't seem to need to be said. Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Siuenti (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't say "Muhammed redirects here". And it hasn't been changed recently either. I don't see anything wrong with what it says now, that is "This article is about the Islamic prophet. For other people named Muhammad, see Muhammad (name). For other uses, see Muhammad (disambiguation)." It says all that needs to be said. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, on autopilot. You wouldn't want to remove "This article is about the Islamic prophet" I presume? Can you explain who is benefiting and how? Siuenti (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's hard to put into words but you still don't like the idea, don't worry about it. I'm still trying to figure out the right answer. Siuenti (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus and Abraham both have lengthy hatnotes, while the one on Napoleon (for comparison) is shorter. --Acjelen (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I might have a go at simplifying some of them. Siuenti (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The user is edit-warring in the article, presenting sources written in the 7th century and contradicting every mainstream literature as "reliable secondary sources". They revert me and call me "vandal", I am involved, and I have no time now to bring them to WP:3RR. Will try to do this in the morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"We" already had a discussion about this at Talk:Muhammad#Cause_of_death. I just left them a 3RR warning. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Note This user has now been blocked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Please explain this undiscussed revert which seems to have wiped out many uncontentious changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The revert is to the version of 21:57, 25 December 2016‎ and the reverted changes didn't result from any "edit warring" that I'm aware of. It sounds like the editor was away for a few months and thinks the last version of the page they remember is the current consensus. It's not. Intervening changes were reviewed by active watchers of the page and got consensus status in the interim. Eperoton (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I missed their comment above. "This history is a mess" - well, yes, the same as any other actively edited article. Wanting to change one paragraph does not mean you wipe out months of other changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above isn't even about changing an entire paragraph, but rather replacing the two opening sentences. Eperoton (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@User:NeilN and Eperoton. Yes I restored a version that is quite old, but when I cam online there actually was an edit war sort of thing going on. So I just went ahead and reverted to a version which I knew was stable. Of course my revert is open to revision as I have made no attempt to reinstate that version. My only effort was to prevent an edit war. I can see that the holy warrior has been blocked now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I added an alternate spelling. MohammedMohammed^محمد 06:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of alternate spellings, but they're all so obviously related that I don't see the point of listing them besides "Muhammad", which is clearly preferred in modern academic sources. Eperoton (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Should all the Quran verse references be changed to https://quran.com ? It seems like a better website as it also has English translation right below the Original Arabic verse. Knightplex (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It's better than Perseus for Arabic speakers, since the Arabic text on Perseus is often badly mangled, but Perseus has the benefit of providing multiple translations, which is more useful for those who can only read the translations. Also, the Quran template used to point to the USC CMJE version, and was redirected to Perseus when that site temporarily went offline. It will probably be redirected back now that it's back on. Eperoton (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, what is with the first paragraph of this article? This is a textbook case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is supposed to represent reliable sources, which, almost be definition, are secular historical sources. We are currently engaged in hedging that suggests that the historical perspective is treated the same way by Wikipedia as the doctrinal perspective. Well, it's not. The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect. And before somebody takes off and decides I'm an Islamophobe: I've spent a long while dealing with similar stuff on Hinduism, the religious POV of choice in some of the articles I have dealt with. Vanamonde (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It didn´t use to read like that. Here´s an example from january: . Calling someone a "prophet" in WP:s voice like that is problematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It most certainly is problematic. May I take it that you support a rewording, possibly similar to what I have suggested here? Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Could we not just revert to the January version? Or do you find that problematic? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You may. I think the january version is pretty ok, better than the current. Is there some recent lead-rfc that could help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The version in January is slightly better, because it says "central figure of Islam" rather than "prophet"; but it still is trying to hedge, by saying "known among non-Muslims", thereby creating a false balance problem again. Wikipedia's voice should say what the scholars say, period. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I was ok with the phrasing "central figure of Islam" for quite a while, and have even personally reverted some attempts to change it, given how prone to dispute the definition has been in the past. However, that has changed when another editor pointed out that it only appears in a couple of marginal sources, while "prophet of Islam" is used by Encyclopedia of Islam, which is the most authoritative academic encyclopedia of Islamic studies. It's also used by the Oxford encyclopedia cited there. I'm not personally enamored on either definition, but changing it back based on our subjective assessment of false balance would not be a WP:NPOV treatment of the currently available sources. I'm pretty sure there's no single definition that will satisfy everyone, and I'm open to other policy-based rationales for arriving at a "least bad" version. Eperoton (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that if we say he is a "prophet of Islam" that we are violating the NPOV policies, as we are not making the claim but Islam and it is well supported that (most of) Islam considers him a prophet. It is worth noting that other religions such as the Bahá'í Faith identify with him as a prophet too, and so it would be a blatant lie to say he is only a prophet in Islam. However he is not a central figure in that faith, but is in Islam. The encyclopedias that you mention likely suffer from a systemic bias of looking at Muhammad from a single departmental perspective instead of holistically. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

At that time, I also reviewed all entries on Muhammad at oxfordreference.com, though unfortunately I didn't save the definitions and my subscription is currently being renewed. "Prophet of Islam" also appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium and The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. "Founder of Islam" is found in several other encyclopedias. Several encyclopedias use other wording or don't attempt to start with a definition at all. None used "central figure", as far as I can recall. I do have a concern about the current use of these sources, namely that it's not entirely clear whether they're saying "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam" or "this article is about the Muhammad, prophet of Islam, and not another Muhammad'. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past, disputes about this passage devolved into editors arguing about the truth and trying to construct their own definitions rather than examining and arguing about RSs as WP:NPOV demands. I don't think those discussions were policy-compliant and I didn't participate in them. If that happens here, I'll step aside again. I do want to point out that the cited Jan 3 version of the opening paragraph was a syntactic monstrosity. Eperoton (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In the past, there have been many discussions about the word "founder", but those have died down now that the word isn't being used in Wikipedia's voice. I have no problem with the current lead sentences, myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the current version is false balance. There are no reliable sources I know of which deny that he is the founder of Islam. There are plenty which state that Muslims believe him to be the prophet of god, which is something we should say: but we cannot equate doctrine with reliable sources, nor imply that reliable sources are un-Islamic. Eperoton is right, the "central figure" phrase is probably a problem, so how about the following (ignoring the last two sentences for the sake of simplicity). This is a straightforward statement, from the same sources. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Anachronist, and Emir of Wikipedia: Would any of you be opposed to this formulation? Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad^{[n 2]} (Arabic: محمد; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)^[1] was a religious, political, and social reformer who founded the religion of Islam.^[2][3][3][4] Within Islamic belief he was a prophet, or God's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.^[3][5][6][7]

WP:FALSEBALANCE is about balancing mainstream scholarly views and fringe scholarly views, so it's not relevant here. The relevant part of the policy is WP:RNPOV. It doesn't explicitly state that academic views should have primacy over religious views, though I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the body of WP policies. I think by placing the secular interpretation first, we follow that general idea. In a different article, stating the secular view in WP's voice would have been ok (though I can't resist noting that you're following a tradition in these discussions by changing phrasing without changing sourcing, so that your refs don't really support your text). In this case, practical experience shows that doing so would likely revive the endless disputes which plagued this page before. This page just happens to attract stronger reactions than most. For example, you're objecting to the definition here, and not, say, the definitions at Moses ("a prophet in Abrahamic religions"), Aaron ("a Prophet of God"), or Isiah ("Jewish prophet"). Likewise, others will come along to present strong objections if "founder" in WP voice goes back online. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton, I have dealt with a vast number of objections to content on Wikipedia based on religion, and I know the form that they take. Their persistence/frequent occurrence does not make them legitimate. If the price of encyclopedic language is more disputes, then so be it. The version I proposed above is based on the sources therein, because it is a basic enough statement that all reliable sources are going to support it. The other prophets are utterly irrelevant. If changes need to be made there, they should be made there. If you really want a counter-example, I'd suggest you take a look at Jesus, which avoids these problematic formulations, and is a featured article. Do you have specific issues with the wording I am proposing? Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If I had come across either the current or your proposed version without looking into the sources, I would not have objected to either. They can both be reliably sourced. Having done some systematic source review, I believe that the current version should get somewhat stronger weight due to the sources involved (the two encyclopedias currently cited may not seem "encyclopedic" to you, but they happen to be arguably the two most authoritative ones on the subject). Because of this, I don't think your proposal is an improvement, and your objection strikes me as ideological rather than policy-based. That would translate into a "weak oppose". Additionally, I believe that your version has little chance of gaining long-term consensus, and I'm concerned that what will come in its place will be even less of an improvement. This strengthens my objection somewhat, but not enough to stand in the way if I see consensus clearly swinging your way. At this point, I'm not sure how to interpret the recent silence of the other participants in this thread. Eperoton (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, here's another phrasing the currently cited sources would support: Muhammad was a religious, political and social reformer who gave rise to the Islamic civilization. From a modern historical perspective, he was the founder of Islam. etc Eperoton (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As per Vanamonde's suggestion The paragraph should say "Muhammad was a historical figure who founded the religion of Islam. Within Islamic doctrine, he is the prophet of God" or something to that effect., I have reverted the article to a stable version. It now says that according to non muslims he is the founder, but muslims do not believe that and consider him to be a "holy Prophet". There seems to be edit warring going on as well, the history is a mess. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Before I tackle the lead rewrite I am going through the main article to improve the flow and information presented. If I should bork something feel free to revert as my wording is not always the best. Since I have time (and some of my personal issues are better) I will be attempting to stop by more to work on this article for cleanup. Hopefully FA won't take too many hours or submissions once the rewrite is complete. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

WIP, posted shortly. 2604:2D80:840A:EA71:7D1F:45B6:DF37:2122 (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Again this was me, and again I am fairly late on this. Once the body is written a bit better I will submit a few lead paragraph options to better encapsulate the entire article. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The prophet Muhammad (PBUH) died at the age of 63. The Qur'an was revealed to him at the age of 40 and it was revealed over a span of 23 years and he died after the revealation. Shadman Sakib Sami (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shadman Sakib Sami: Do you have any reliable scholarly sources to support your assertion? The age of death reported in this article is based on reliable sources. What sources can you offer? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We know exactly when the Prophet was born:

He was born on 2 June 570 (12 Rabi'I) and he died the day after his birthday (i.e. 13 Rabi'I). He thus lived for 62 years and 1 day. This is not unusual - Husayn ibn Ali lived 55 years to the day, from 10 October 625 to 10 October 680. Muhammad thus died in his 63rd year. By our reckoning he lived for 62 years and 6 days (he died on 8 June 632). The historians of the time, however, didn't use our reckoning - they reckoned in terms of the Muslim calendar of the day (which is the same as the present Muslim calendar). Muhammad lived for 767 months and 1 day by their reckoning, which is 63 years, 11 months and 1 day. 84.9.195.162 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was brought here by the RFC to look at the lead paragraph. It was poorly written. Here is how it is now:

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎‎; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is the prophet of Islam and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims. According to Islamic doctrine, he was God's Messenger (rasūl Allāh) sent to confirm the essential teachings of monotheism preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all branches of Islam, except some modern denominations. Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity and ensured that his teachings, practices, and the Quran, formed the basis of Islamic religious belief.

The lead should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Generally speaking, it should use words and context for the average reader. Like you're explaining it to your grandmother who knows absolutely nothing about the topic. Here are some of the problems:

1. Pronunciation is extraneous information that is included a few paragraphs further below. Including it here balloons the first sentence and makes it less readable. The whole bracketed phrase with arabic and dates is removed by Google when trying to bring the important text out first, so it appears... "Muhammad is the prophet of Islam..."
2. Prophet-founder is a term used by most encyclopedic sources and a term that a normal person would understand quickly. Alternatively it could read: "prophet, on whose teachings Islam was founded"... or "religious leader and founder of Islam". The religion of Islam is based on Muhammad's revelation, I'm not sure what the objection could be of calling him founder.
3. Saying "...widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims" is poorly worded and smells like it's the result of people fighting over wording. That needs to go. This phrase does not establish context or notability, and it is not among the most important points about Muhammad.
4. Starting a sentence with "according to Islamic doctrine" is also poor form. It says, "what's coming next is not a neutral POV". You need to explain what he did to become notable, not what he is according to doctrine.
5. His notability is largely: he converted most of the polytheistic tribes of Arabia into monotheism, and he established the second largest world religion. Neither of these are currently mentioned.

Here is my attempt to very briefly identify, establish context, explain notability, and summarize important points:

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎‎; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is the prophet-founder of Islam, the world's second largest religion. He was a trader who began teaching monotheism among mostly polytheistic tribes of Arabia. By the end of his life, most Arabians had converted to his teachings and Muslims regard him as a Messenger of God in succession to Jesus, Moses, and Abraham.

If that is unacceptable, I welcome better suggestions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this rewrite. In order: 1) Inclusion of pronunciation and life span is standard on WP; 2) "Prophet-founder" is an idiosyncratic term that isn't used for Muhammad by most (if indeed any) encyclopedias; 3) I don't like that phrase either, but as you can see from the discussions above, there's no consensus for changing it; 4) Attributing religious views is exactly what we should be doing per WP:RNPOV, and Muhammad's place in the Islamic doctrine is a major part of his notability; 5) Both those things are mentioned, though not precisely in that form.

Many people (including me) have made suggestions in the RFC above and the preceding discussion. However, they haven't been able to reach consensus on their proposals. That has also happened many times in the past, and what we have now is a result of slowly evolving compromise. Your bold rewrite was a well-meaning attempt, but it suggests a lack of familiarity with the long discussion found above and the issues involved. Eperoton (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus and compromise has left a poorly worded introduction. You need a wider range of input, someone with a fresh look. If you ignore commentators (who happen to be familiar with the subject and Wikipedia) then you will remain defending a poorly written lead section. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Fresh perspectives are welcome and your views aren't ignored, but we all need to work within the limits of WP:CONSENSUS. If you'd like to change the first paragraph, I would suggest reviewing the RFC and related discussion above to get a sense of which proposals have been opposed and which incremental improvements have a chance of getting consensus. Eperoton (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Muhammad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tafseercomparison.org/study2.asp?TitleText=Study%202%3A%20Verse%205%3A3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323131933/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=10061 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=10061

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly suggest the editors of this article to please do deeper research into muhammed. There seems to be a lot of important information left out of this, in order to make the prophet appear prosecuted.

Please refer to the Quran - also to this website:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

In the Article referring to muhammed, this is stated under the "Opposition Section"

According to Ibn Saad, opposition in Mecca started when Muhammad delivered verses that condemned idol worship and the polytheism practiced by the Meccan forefathers.[76][80] However, the Quranic exegesis maintains that it began as Muhammad started public preaching.[81] As his followers increased, Muhammad became a threat to the local tribes and rulers of the city, whose wealth rested upon the Ka'aba, the focal point of Meccan religious life that Muhammad threatened to overthrow. Muhammad's denunciation of the Meccan traditional religion was especially offensive to his own tribe, the Quraysh, as they were the guardians of the Ka'aba.[79] Powerful merchants attempted to convince Muhammad to abandon his preaching; he was offered admission to the inner circle of merchants, as well as an advantageous marriage. He refused both of these offers.[79]

'What is written in the article portrays muhammed as being persecuted. The following was taken from www.thereligionofpeace.com and you can at the below link information on the website such as:

"TROP is not associated with any organization. The site does not promote any religion, but it is not hostile to religion. We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, women, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/about-site.aspx

According to Muslim historians, the Meccans were actually quite tolerant of Muhammad preaching his new religion. Mecca was an open society where different religions were respected. Polytheists, Jews and Christians lived and worshipped side-by-side, especially during the holy months, when pagan pilgrims would travel long distances from beyond the city to perform their rituals at the Kaaba.

Muhammad brought on the resentment of the local people not by preaching Islam, but by breaking with Meccan tradition and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167), "[Muhammad] declared Islam publicly to his fellow tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I have heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them." (al-Tabari Vol.VI, p.93)

Although asked to stop, Muhammad continued to stir up trouble by “condemning” the local religion, causing the Meccans great anxiety:

[The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183)."We [the Meccans] have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man [Muhammad]. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him." (al-Tabari, Vol.VI p.101)

Not only was this an insult to the people and their traditions, but it also threatened the local economy, which depended on the annual pilgrimage. Still, they were so eager to live at peace, that they offered Muhammad money if he would stop stirring up trouble:

They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188) Further proof that the Meccans did not have a problem with Islam existing side-by-side with their own religion is found in the episode known as the Satanic Verses. According to Muslim historians, Muhammad briefly agreed to their demand to cease disparaging the local gods and recognize the rights of others to their religion:

When [the Meccans] heard that, they rejoiced. What he had said about their gods pleased and delighted them, and they gave ear to him… When he came to the prostration and finished the chapter, he prostrated and the Muslims followed their prophet in it, having faith in what he brought them and obeying his command. Those mushrikūn of Quraysh and others who were in the mosque also prostrated on account of what they had heard him say about their gods. In the whole mosque there was no believer or kāfir who did not prostrate. (al-Tabari, the Tarikh Vol. 1)

The Meccans were clearly relieved that the unprecedented tension over religious beliefs was broken. They rejoiced by praying alongside the Muslims at the Kaaba. They accepted the Muslims once Muhammad accepted them.

Unfortunately the period of peace and brotherhood was short-lived. Muhammad soon reneged on his words after his own people began to question the contradiction between his previous claims and his new-found tolerance for other faiths. This incident, particularly his about-face, had the effect of ratcheting up the tension and hostility all the more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curarenatura (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad&action=edit&section=5

TROP can hardly be considered an unbiased source with a reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. Their own "about" page clearly shows their stated purpose is to "explain the threat that Islam truly poses to human dignity and freedom, as well as the violence and dysfunction that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings." The website does a decent job linking to other reliable sources, though, but for as a source of history I wouldn't consider it reliable; we should instead defer to other sources cited by TROP and examine them on a case by case basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yea that website is known to be a Zionist disinformation website that can be easily debunked as non-sense by anyone with a degree in Islamic history, a modern term for that website would be "fake news" Not to mention that website does not cite to any valid sources and when it claims to cite to valid sources, the sources do not back up what it claims. Pretty much anyone trying to copy and paste that Islamophobic drivel onto Wikipedia is just some conspiracy theory historical revisionist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force#Criticism 67.80.214.161 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

That website is an unreliable, biased source, but so are you. It is surprising how you aren't part of their website. I guess you are just trying to look sly by opposing them, just for this one matter, when you actually deeply believe in their website as a whole. When Muhammad said those verses, Shaitan had slipped it upon his tongue, as the books record it. Also, notice how it was the only event like that. That mistake only occurred once. You aren't any different. Muhammad didn't just reject their beliefs and many, many, gods, but also their traditions, such as burying their daughters alive because they were considered a shame to the family, and their trivial tribal wars over negligible matters such as someones's camel drinking from another's well or eating from another's garden, along many others. They were so deep rooted in these matters, they couldn't see what was right or wrong, so anyone opposing them, they saw them as enemies in their delusional minds without even thinking. AbdullahwaMuhsin (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The painting portraying Rasulullah (peace be upon him) are totaly objectionable cause it hempers the gravity of the article and it hurts cause it is against the order of Rasulllah(peace be upon him).my request to the editor is to remove the paintings. Srzs1 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes the painting is inappropriate and false. Rgabido (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)