Talk:Muhammad/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions about Muhammad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

RfC

I'm closing this RfC, having read both this discussion and the "show of hands" above. This is an important article, but I note that participation in the RfC has been low. The question presented is also a little muddled, because there are a lot of moving parts. Additionally, I note that the April 15 version of the lead section is no longer current; it has been revised.

There is consensus as to the following: (1) the April 15 version was awkward/not ideal; (2) the lead section and the article should be guided by authoritative modern scholarship (as reflected in important reference works that have been brought to bear, such as the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, the Encyclopedia Britannica, or The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions); and (3) the idea of being a prophet and founder of Islam should be included, in some form, in the first sentence.

There is no consensus for any particular wording yet; specifically I make no finding as to whether "prophet" and "founder" should be qualified/attributed in any particular way. If desired, another RfC can run on this. To combat muddling, I advise presenting a limited number of specific and complete formulations (rather than a mix and match). To combat low turnout, I recommend advertising any future RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, in addition to any other relevant places. Neutrality^talk 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Muhammad^{[n 1]} (Arabic: محمد; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)^[1] is the prophet of Islam and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims.^[2]^[3] 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.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

This is the current version (15 April 2017, UTC) of the first two sentences of the article. Several editors, including myself, have expressed dissatisfaction over this formulation, although we are unable to agree on the precise issue. Some others are content with the current version. This RFC is an attempt to forge a consensus on some of the specific points of disagreement, which can then form a basis for a formulation which may or may not be different from the current version. This is intentionally not a proposal comparing several different versions. The issues are listed below; it would be helpful if folks commenting would express an opinion about each issue, as I have attempted to separate them as far as possible, though I recognize that they are linked. Given that this is a very important article, I am planning to request a formal closure once this has run its course: so I think it's fair to say that detailed opinions and reasoning will not be ignored. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

1) Descriptor of Muhammad: Various descriptions of Muhammad have been used/suggested for the very first sentence, which is in Wikipedia's voice. These include (a) "prophet of Islam", (b) "central figure of Islam", (c) "historical figure", (d) "religious, political, and social reformer", (e) "founder of Islam", and (f) "[figure] who gave rise to the Islamic civilization". Which, if any, of these descriptors are supported by the sources, and are appropriate for the first two sentences of the article?

2) Wikipedia's Voice (1): Can descriptors of Muhammad from the modern historical perspective be presented in Wikipedia's voice, or not? For instance: can we say "Muhammad was [insert secular description here, such as "founder of Islam]" or must we say "from a secular, modern perspective, Muhammad was [insert secular description here, such as "founder of Islam]?"

3) Wikipedia's Voice (2): Which of the choices in part 1 are appropriate to present in Wikipedia's voice?

Discussion

Pinging @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Emir of Wikipedia, Eperoton, Anachronist, and FreeatlastChitchat: as participants in the discussions above: although, since we were obviously unable to come to an agreement, we really do need outside opinions as well. Vanamonde (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

My two cents WP:DUE says we should present reliable sources, duly weighted. By our own guidelines on reliable sources, these are modern, historical, secular sources. WP:YESPOV, also a part of WP:NPOV, says we should avoid stating facts as opinions. Therefore, I would answer question 2 as yes. Virtually every reliable source agrees that Muhammad founded the religion, that he was a historical figure, and that he was the prophet of Islam.^[7]^[8]^[9] Therefore, I would say that a, c, and e are supported by enough reliable sources to be presented in the first paragraph. Finally, of those statements, the statement that he is the prophet is the one that is most often qualified with "Muslims believe" or its equivalent (this is not universal, but see for instance the brill encyclopedia, the brittannica entry, and the Peters source already in the article). Therefore, c and e should be presented in Wikipedia's voice, whereas a ("prophet of Islam") should be qualified with "within Islamic belief" or its equivalent. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'll summarize what I said earlier. I believe the options a and e have broad support in RSs, while d and f have sufficient support. In particular, the term "prophet" appears in the two major academic encyclopedias already cited, in addition to the opening words of other encyclopedic entries: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions ("The last of the Prophets..."), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium ("prophet of Islam..."), Britannica ("Prophet of Islam..."), World Encyclopedia ("Arab prophet..."). The use of this term in itself does not signal a religious perspective, and some of these sources also use the phrase "founder of Islam" in the same sentence. The options b and c are undue, idiosyncratic formulations, not used in any encyclopedic entries I know, and the former especially seems to have been constructed by fellow Wikipedians without recourse to RSs. Certainly, the modern historical perspective can be presented in WP voice; the question is rather whether it should be done in this case. The unqualified use of the phrase "founder of Islam" has led to endless disputes in the past, and its qualified version represents a long-standing consensus solution, although I personally oppose the particular way it is currently qualified. Unlike Vanamonde, I don't believe it's possible to arrive at a consensus by considering these variants in isolation. We can't pick an arbitrary subset of them to fit into the definition, so the choice of specific formulations is key. I've made two alternative proposals, largely based on The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World: a OR d+f in WP voice in the opening sentence, either one followed in the next sentence by e, qualified as the modern, secular perspective. Eperoton (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Option (b) is an exact phrase that has been used,^[10]^[11]^[12] not a idiosyncratic formulation. Does this change your view? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

By "idiosyncratic" I didn't mean unprecedented, but rather not well represented in RSs. Per WP:NPOV, we should try to give different "views" proportional weight. I don't see why these 3 sources should be given significant weight in the context of hundreds of thousands of sources about Muhammad from which your search query selected them. I've come to my conclusions based on looking at all encyclopedic entries at Oxford Reference, in addition to some other, already cited sources, which had some claim to be considered a standard reference. That seems like a representative sample, unlike a collection of sources selected based on their use of a particular formulation. Just comparing rough counts at Google Books, we have about 600 hits for Muhammad "central figure of Islam", compared to some 43,000 for Muhammad "prophet of Islam". Eperoton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Eperoton, I'd quibble with many of your points, but I think there's one major disagreement that we should get out of the way. I do not believe that controversy, in and of itself, is a reason to change how an article is written. I've made this argument very many times elsewhere, and generally speaking, it has been accepted. Until we find a policy-based reason not to present the secular perspective in Wikipedia's voice, we should do so. Controversy is not a policy-based reason, and honestly, once we bend to controversy, we open ourselves up as an encyclopedia to blackmail; "if you do not change, we will raise a stink about it." Vanamonde (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's how I see this point in general terms. I would not support a variant that violated WP policy, no matter how much support among fellow editors it happened to have. In this case, I think both the unqualified variant and the qualified variant are consistent with RSs, and for the choice between them, I'm swayed by the weight of the long-standing consensus. Eperoton (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

~~:Honestly the lead needs rewritten. It minimizes sects, is worded poorly, and needs to be both trimmed and fixed. I will see if I can post a rewrite sometime in the next week to fix it up.~~ 2604:2D80:840A:EA71:7D1F:45B6:DF37:2122 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd object to the wording "the prophet of Islam" with the definite article, since it can seem to imply that Islam recognizes only one prophet. I'm sure there's a sense in which that phrase is correct, but it's just confusing if we use this term in both a descriptive sense (he's the singular prophet that's associated with Islam) and a religious-tenet sense (Islam as a doctrine recognizes many prophets). ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 22:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment Restating my sentiment from show of hands above. Just came from the RfC Religion and Philosophy page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, per many ARBCOM decisions, it should be written from the modern scholarly viewpoint. One should read here, what one would expect to read in a university textbook or an academic reference book on the subject. Hence, it should state that Muhammad founded the religion of Islam, and describe religious viewpoints as such. LK (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment I believe if the wording was changed to Muhammad is viewed by the majority of Muslims as the last prophet of Islam, and widely identified as its founder by others. it would remove the issues with stating such information in Wikipedia's voice. As for the second sentence it more or less looks fine. I still need to produce and offer a rewrite of the entire lead as I never was able to get around to it due to school. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment I believe the wording should be changed slightly. Here's how https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad states it:

  Muhammad, in full Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (born 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina), founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God.

And I believe that is the correct way to state it.

 i.e.  Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎‎; pronounced [muħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] is accepted as last the prophet of Islam by Muslims and widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims.[2][3] 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.

Also see Page 43, https://books.google.ca/books?id=bYB52g_QsOsC&pg=PA42&dq=Muhammad+prophet+of+god&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Muhammad%20prophet%20of%20god&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Not sure I understand your reasoning. The source you present first says that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Yet in your proposed version you add the qualifiers "widely identified" and "by non-Muslims". Why? Vanamonde (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I would never suggest that we copy a paragraph from Britannica! The only change I suggested was to say

accepted as the last prophet of Islam by Muslims

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Change "Muhammad is the founder of Islam" to "Muhammad was the founder of Islam". Even if he remains alive in some divine way, the man himself has died.
Change "widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims" to "widely identified by non-Muslims as its founder".

-Richard Cavell (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Idea

Here is how I would write it (refs removed):

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 he was regarded as a Messenger of God in succession to Jesus, Moses, and Abraham.

Keep it simple and factual. Regards. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

[1]
Full name: Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم, lit: Father of Qasim Muhammad son of Abd Allah son of Abdul-Muttalib son of Hashim)

References

[1]
Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63, gives 8 June 632 CE, the dominant Islamic tradition. Many earlier (primarily non-Islamic) traditions refer to him as still alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine. See Stephen J. Shoemaker,The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam,^{[page needed]} University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
[2]
"Muḥammad". Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill. 2012. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0780. Muḥammad, the Prophet of Islam. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
[3]
Alford T. Welch, Ahmad S. Moussalli, Gordon D. Newby (2009). "Muḥammad". In John L. Esposito (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Prophet of Islam was a religious, political, and social reformer who gave rise to one of the great civilizations of the world. From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of the Islamic faith, he was God 's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), called to be a "warner," first to the Arabs and then to all humankind. {{cite encyclopedia}}: hair space character in |quote= at position 259 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
[4]
Esposito (2002b), pp. 4–5.
[5]
Peters, F.E. (2003). Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians. Princeton University Press. p. 9. ISBN 0-691-11553-2.
[6]
Esposito, John (1998). Islam: The Straight Path (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 9, 12. ISBN 978-0-19-511234-4.
[7]
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad
[8]
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ze2I77lYFXQC
[9]
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=0HQCBQAAQBAJ
[10]
Nabil Mouline. The Clerics of Islam: Religious Authority and Political Power in Saudi Arabia. Yale University Press. p. 19. ISBN 9780300206616. Retrieved 15 April 2017. {{cite book}}: External link in |author= (help)
[11]
Sharma, Arvind. Part of the Problem, Part of the Solution: Religion Today and Tomorrow. Praeger Publishers. p. 68. ISBN 9780313358999. Retrieved 15 April 2017.
[12]
Dr Ataullah Siddiqui. "The Changing Perception of Islam: Christian Theology and Theologians". Markfield Institute of Higher Education. Leicester. Retrieved 15 April 2017. More significantly, the document 'shied away' (to use Kung's remark on Nostra Aetate), from naming and recognising the central figure of Islam - Muhammad. It also avoided using the name of 'Islam' so crucial for Muslims. Despite these weaknesses, the document does indicate the Church's willingness to engage with Muslims at various levels on various issues. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)

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

The inappropriate depiction

Please take in consideration the majority of Muslims more than 99% whom they refuse any depiction of their Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Also it is falsehood and not in confirm with the descriptions made by their companions, like Oum Maabad, and Ali, and others. Also the depiction of Angels are prohibited, and the painter give a proof of his falsehood because he surely never seen an angel. It is more likely the job of Christians which give the wing of chicken and birds to the angels, Muslims never say that the wings are made with feathers . Rgabido (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Also the angel depicted like a woman, and every Muslim know that angels aren't girls, that is the saying of the payens of Arabs, who ascribed Angela as daughter s of Allah, سبحانه وتعالى. Allah set replied them all in the Quran 53. Surah An-Najm (The Star)

<< 27. Verily, those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.

28. While they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and verily, guess is no substitute for the truth.>> Rgabido (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Payens is incorrect, I mean pagans. Rgabido (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WE DON'T CARE. GO AWAY. Please don't try to score points with Allah by writing such things here. See WP:NOTHERE. Allah doesn't care. No one cares. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This tone is inappropriate here, Doctorx0079. Rgabido, on the topic of images, please see the notice at the top of this talk page which starts with "Important notice". Eperoton (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rgabido, those depictions of the Prophet have to be put in their context. Generally some old work of art, particularly made from casein, tempera or even low pigment-load oil paintings glazed (on other mediums) placed emphases on particular events rather than the physical representations (because those mediums didn't allow more than that). This contrast with a physical depiction of the prophet with recognizable personality attributes (strictly forbidden in Islam) which other mediums would allow (such as statues, plain oil painting and more modern artistic expressions). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Rgabido: The matter is about the accuracy of this pictures, not their nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgabido (talk • contribs) 22:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rgabido, the image accuracy is not relevant. Technically any image before photography is considered inaccurate. These are tasteful pictures commissioned by high ranking Islamic individuals of Muhammad. If we demanded image accuracy the Jesus article wouldn't have a ton of white looking Jesus pictures on it. 00:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivanir2 (talk • contribs)

Rgabido, please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and read it carefully. You are not presenting any arguments that haven't already been addressed hundreds of times on this talk page. If you have anything new to offer, you are welcome to do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Show of hands on Full Name

External links modified

Founder of Islam edit

Chadchumley's edits

"Allegedly"

Should we put words like "allegedly" in the text? Or should we state everything like they are facts? Like that his marriage was happy, or that he did housework. I added allegedly but others didn't like that? So I guess it's better to get support than 'edit-warring.' Also, are synonyms allowed? Or should we just use the same words over and over so no one gets offended? El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Was this revert in good taste: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&diff=784717976&oldid=784716304 El cid, el campeador (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly could be appropriate in some cases but inappropriate in other cases. Only the undisputed facts should be treated as facts, but we should not hide or be biased towards to unproven statements. Depends with synonyms too, but if removing the Arabic transliteration then we should only use the same translation of a term and not synonyms. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED and similar words are identified in MOS as a term that can introduce editorial bias through unsourced expressions of doubt. They should be used if it's used in the citation(s). If there's a disagreement between RSs, there are better ways to convey it, e.g., A says that X is true but Y says that it's not. If a source fails under WP:BIASED (e.g., if we're citing a notable religious view), that should be handled through attribution. Eperoton (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I just don't think it can be a fact that anyone had a happy marriage. And saying they were outnumbered three to one but still won sounds like puffery. But I am done trying to improve pages only to be reverted. I'll go back to reverting vandalism and copy editing El cid, el campeador (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The best way to avoid contentious biased words like "allegedly" is to attribute the claim to the source, like "So-an-so wrote in Hadith xxxxx that Muhammad had a happy marriage" or something similar. That's a factual statement, without making any judgment in Wikipedia's voice on whether the source is making a factual statement. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Cause of death

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks for adding quotes. I have three related, but distinct concerns here.

First, regarding the cited sources themselves. I don't see where they assert that poisoning was the cause of death. If I'm reading it correctly, the first quote says only asks the question rhetorically and states that he was poisoned before death ("summa qabl al-maut"), as also narrated in Sunni hadith. The second quotes says nothing about poisoning at all. The quote is a bit garbled and seems to read in the original "... لما أن مرض " ("when the Prophet PBUH became ill with the illness in which God took him"). I don't know what the third source says.
The second concern, which would be relevant only if we can convince ourselves that the sources you cite actually make that assertion, is about due weight in the infobox. One statement is sourced to a standard academic reference, while the other would be sourced to religious sources which can't be even properly be used to source statements of fact, and giving them equal weight certainly seems undue.
The third concern is about putting a cause of death in the infobox at all. EI2 cited for the other cause uses speculative language: "Then Mumammad suddenly fell ill, presumably of the ordinary Medina fever (al-Farazdak, ix, 13); but this was dangerous to a man physically and mentally overwrought." We can reflect it appropriately in the text, but stating it as a fact in the infobox seems to be misusing the source. I would suggest removing that field for the infobox altogether unless we can find RSs willing to make a more definite statement.

Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Apologies for the late reply

I might have miscopied the second quote, but I thought that the word you translated as illness was poisoned (marad OR مرض). The third source was not a digital copy so I can't copy and paste it.
I can understand your concern about using the religious sources, and under that basis I would accept removal from the infobox. What do you think about having it in the text body though?
Shall we remove the cause of death from the infobox altogether?

Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Yes on the last question. I'll move the EI2 theory to the appropriate section. We can use primary sources with caution, but so far I don't see a single source which asserts that poisoning was the cause of Muhammad's death. "Marad" is just the common Arabic word for illness, as one can verify in this selection of standard modern and classical dictionaries. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Eperoton (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The third source uses the word بالسم ("beealism"). Am I correct in that this says poisoning or is it a mistranslation? Thanks for moving the other theory to the appropriate section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: It looks like bi-l-samm (with the poison), but in what context does it appear? Can you please quote a passage that's long enough to see what it's about or a give me a page number in an available edition? In this version there's a 10-page section with the number 42 starting at p. 362, and its subsections don't seem relevant to the subject. If we do find this assertion there, I would still be concerned about basing a statement directly on a single primary source. Eperoton (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton: On that version it appears on page 363 (364] is the number in the PDF) in the second paragraph. I am having trouble copying and pasting from that so could you please take a look at it in the version you provided? I understand your concern about the single source. Could we change it to sayings that a hadith in The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays says that Mohammaed died of poisoning or something along those lines? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks. Here's what it says: "Ali ibn Abi Talib went up to Muhammad, PBUH, and said, crying: you are like father and mother to me, o Prophet of God; are you killed? He answered: yes, as your folk are witness, with poison. And you are killed with the sword, and your beard is tinged with the blood from your head, and my son Hasan is killed with poison, and my son Hussein is killed with the sword..." No modern historian or disinterested reader would take it for a historical narrative, and we shouldn't present it in a way that suggests otherwise. If this is a prominent Shia belief, then we may present it as such, but do we have any evidence that it's a prominent belief? If it is, we should be able to find references to it in secondary sources. Eperoton (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Allah or God

In the Quran the name of the Creator of all the univers comprising Jesus PBUH, is Allah, and so it is in the Gospel And all the Scriptures sent by Him, there is no God except Allah. Rgabido (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Some prefer one of these terms and some the other. We follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which favors "God". See WP:ALLAH. Eperoton (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but what I mean is that Allah is a proper name, God is a common noun, we all have a proper name, and Allah deserve one that never been claimed by anyone. Rgabido (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Allah deserving such a name is your religious viewpoint. Here on Wikipedia, we strive to write articles from a secular POV.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Allah is not really the name of God, as God in Islam is immune to any specific qualifiers. In fact, naming God (as is done in Judaism, where God has a name) in Islam is similar to idolatry unless the source and the name are separated; like with the Alawites in their divine triads or Christianity. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Allah" is the Arabic word that is always used for "God" or god. The generic word for "god" is "allah". The word literally translates as "god" and that is why we translate "Allah" as "God". See WP:ALLAH. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this discussion. As per the Wikipedia style guide, we use God, not Allah. The connotations of Allah in Islamic theology or Arabic linguistics is irrelevant to this discussion.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think Zeus is an allah? You may want to check ar.wikipedia.org. The generic god in Arabic is "ilah", not Allah. As in "La ilah ila Allah" - no god except Allah. 91.155.195.247 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Allah is the Arabic for "God" (as in the one and only); ilah is the Arabic for "god" (as in what is believed by the Arabs with their multiple gods). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rgabido: This is the English Wikipedia. Here, we use English terminology. We use the English proper name "God" with a capital G. The common noun is "god" with a lowercase g. This article is making the correct distinction. The Arabic phrase "La ilah ila Allah" would correctly translate to English as "no god except God." People who are unfamiliar with English often fail to realize that "God" with a capital G is a proper noun. This is a common misunderstanding that has been discussed multiple times in the archives of this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Would "no god except Zeus" translate to "no god except God" as well? 91.155.195.247 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It would not, as this carries a Monotheistic connotation, whereas Zeus is a polytheistic god. In the case of Allah vs. God, Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion, and thereby there is no need to use specific terminology for clarification purposes.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That would translate to "no god except Zeus", as it is the same language. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Rgabido: About English terminology, there is a big problem, god mean the name of the Creator or simply a god of gods? Ok with capitalized "G" we make the difference, but what if it is only an autocapilization of a computer, what if a Hindu who worship his cow wanted to address his god by God, what about Christians when they address God, did they mean the Father or the son or the Holly ghost, if God is a proper name, then it would be of one of them. Yes Zeus is a proper name, but it is not our God, it's Greek mythology, which exist before Jesus, and in our Scriptures we found no such things there. god in Arabic is 'إله' /ˈɪlɑ:h/, 'my god' will be; 'إلهي' it's transcription will be /ˈɪlɑ:hi/, as you can see 'i' is added to mean 'my', and الله Allah is coming from إله ˈɪlɑ:h like our scholars says like Ibn Qayyal-Jawziyyayya, the root of 'Allah' is the 'Illah' and then it is transformed to Allah like it is common in Arabic language, and it is the same in Hebrew and Aramaic; the language of Jesus Pbuh, and as you know Jesus never says God or god because He never speak English, He says Allah and Ilah, the proof is in the Bible, the real name of Allah is still there, Bible > Matthew > Chapter 27 > Verse 46 'About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").' 'i' in end of the word like /ˈɪlɑ:hi/ meaning 'my god' ,Aramaic and Arabic are alike in some extent and I'm sure that Jesus was crying using Allah's name. If you see in the previous verse of the Bible, 'g' of 'my God' was in capital, god here is a proper name or a common name ? It's a common name because we can substitute my by other pronoun like 'their'. The cause of this matter is coming from the translation of proper nouns, like Messiah translated to Christ, although the translation should be honest and keep the names unchangeable, and that why the prophecy of the coming of the prophet 'Ahmed' was translated by it's meaning and it's meaning is translated to others, Even Jesus, do you know that He never heard such name, you don't believe me, have I a proof? Yes. In Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary Jesus Jesus BrE [ˈdʒiːzəs] Play NAmE [ˈdʒiːzəs] Play (also ˌJesus ˈChrist) noun = ↑Christ See also: ↑Jesus Christ

Word Origin: [Jesus] from Christian Latin Iesus, from Greek Iēsous, from a late Hebrew or Aramaic analogous formation based on Yěhōšûă‘ ‘Joshua’. Why did you change his name? That's not amazing that we can't anymore find ever the name of Allah the Almighty God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgabido (talk • contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Words, including names, are different between languages. Even when a word is borrowed from one language into another it will often change in spelling, pronunciation, and even meaning. In English, "God" (so capitalized) means specifically the deity described in the Bible (including the Hebrew scriptures). For comparison, the English word "god" is a general term for "deity". Zeus, Ptah, Frey, etc are all "gods" but none of them are "God". This is (admittedly) a bit strange, but the English language is full of strange things. As for your comment about Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, a Christian sees them as aspects of one. They are all, equally and simultaneously, God. --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, Islamic theology is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It is clear from a reading of this article by a fluent English speaker that there is no need to address ambiguities via usage of special terminology, as is the case with God vs. Zeus. As you have yourself stated, Allah translates as God, and we strive to use English terminology in English language articles wherever possible. This question has been stated many times in the history of this article, and the general consensus is to use God, not Allah.

Okay, "God" and "god" are different words in Arabic. But this should be discussed at WP:ALLAH. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

Extremely selective look at his military campaigns

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

Founder of Islam

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2017

Mary the copt listed as a "wife"

French

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

Predecessor

Grammar

Clearer Calligraphy for Image

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

It might be inaccurate

Snowsky Mountain's edits

@Snowsky Mountain: I don't enjoy reverting multiple good faith edits, but your choice of content and sources has been problematic. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedic historical article, where WP favors a scholarly style and mainstream academic references. You seem to want to take it into a more hagiographic direction, using religious and less academically sound sources. If you'd like to develop an Islamic perspective on this subject, please consider Muhammad in Islam. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

...but also remember that Muhammad in Islam isn't intended to be a dumping ground for Muslim POV that doesn't belong in this biography. It has been treated as such in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my edits to this page. The sources that I included are academic, not just religious, and are and/or use citations from non-Muslim sources, as well as Muslim sources, thus making it historical, rather than solely religious. That said, I appreciate your desire to make this page be as ideal as possible -- after all, our shared goal is to organize the information on these Wikipedia pages to make them accessible for as many people as possible. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To elaborate, Glubb isn't an academic historian. A pop-history book from a mainstream publisher meets WP:RS criteria in some contexts, but there's no justification for using his work in favor of Watt's, who is a leading academic authority on the subject. We should aim to report how historians analyze the primary sources, rather than reflect passages from books that channel them uncritically ("it is reported", "it is said"). I see no evidence that Razwy's book is a RS. Eperoton (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

With respect to Razwy's book, I would posit that it meets the terms of WP:RS well. It has been published and discusses multiple views on contentious subjects. One example of this can be found on page 119 of his book, where he discusses both the Shia and Sunni belief about the origination of Adhan, the Islamic call to prayer. In many instances, Razwy also cites multiple sources coming from different points of view on the same subject. Best, Snowsky Mountain (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Snowsky Mountain, being published is not enough to be WP:RS, and our personal opinions aren't either. It has not been published by an academic publisher and it is not clear to me what the academic status of Razwy is. Jeppiz (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Establishing paragraph needs larger context adjective (Muhammad is non a founder of "Islam")

Prophet Muhammad was killed by poison according to The_Book_of_Sulaym_ibn_Qays

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

Crucial Contexts are missing.

Deliberate POV bias, why the criticism has been diluted and made so lame

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Pronunciation of "Mahomet"

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

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

Mansoor khairi (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Muhammed (sal)was not a founder of Islam, He is one of the messenger of Allah (GOD). The founder of Islam is one and only GOD (ALLAH)

Not done: The article covers the subject from a documented historical perspective, not a theological perspective. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I had removed the edit request because it looked like trolling to me. But what you did was just as good. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi L293D. Thank you. The request is misguided for a secular encyclopedia, but not trolling. Remember that people are taught things like the above as fact. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a simple misunderstanding of translation. The Arabic word refers to the entire history of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, but the English word refers only to the movement that began with Muhammad and this "last message". --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, the description which says "Founder of Islam" at the start of the page is clearly misinformed and ignorant, the 2 sources no. 2 and 3 are also from a far right, Islamophobic view which has a political leaning. Even if you describe from so called "historical view" which is misinformed and ignorant should come in "Criticism of Muhammad" section and theological perspective should come first as that is the original source not some one sided opinion from a book from 2012 or 2009 which is the current sources. The statement "Founder of Islam" should be removed as it is false and shows Wikipedia is unreliable in its information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRightlyGuided (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: courtesy ping. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already replied here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheRightlyGuided: The simple fact is, Muhammad is known to all non-Muslims as the founder of Islam. No religion known as Islam existed before Muhammad came along and established it. The opposing view, that Islam has always existed, is a religious viewpoint that isn't an objective fact for a secular encyclopedia. If you have reliable sources that support your assertion, then name them.

I've always been in favor of removing the word "founder" and say instead that Muhammad "introduced" the religion known as Islam to the world. That is an objective fact that all Muslims and non-Muslims could agree on, but my proposals have fallen on deaf ears in the past. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Latin name

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

Information about Islam.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2018

Cause of Death

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

Wikipedia must ad PBUH OR SAWW

Slavery

SharabSalam, please see 'criticism' section (and more importantly sources) which notices slavery not only supported, but continued in the Islamic era by Muhammad. Please address this section's content and citations prior to deleting or altering the article further. You are currently edit warring, which is not allowed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: clearly that does not mean that prophet Muhammad had 'slaves' (per slavery definition). He encouraged freeing slaves . Prophet Muhammad Pbuh tried to demolish slavery gradually because at that time Arabs had lots of slaves in which it was difficult to stop slavery immediately. Regardless of this, adding this category without any prove at all that prophet Muhammad servents were slaves and that they weren't free is considered controversial what is more important, more disrespectful and unfriendly is your editwarring trying to add it before even ending the discussion so I kindly suggest you self-revert your edits. Thanks --SharabSalam (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am done for the day, but will likely peruse this topic further just in case the issue is somehow unclear or confusing...and will update this discussion and perhaps the article tomorrow. This contemporary summary notes that Muhammad did in fact own, trade, and sell slaves during his lifetime. I don't have time at the moment to dig through the article's citations, but I'll do so tomorrow. I suggest you take some time to read about the topic further. Yes, it is noted he discouraged slavery, but historical records kept by Muslims show he persisted its institution (regardless of apologia, which leans more towards religious legend rather than scholarship, which is the aim of Wikipedia). His legacy reflects the fact of slavery during his lifetime and still today in places western culture has yet to root out the practice.

The category about slave ownership previously existed in the article, so I'm not sure why you attribute its existence or inclusion to me. I simply noticed someone arbitrarily deleted it without a factual basis. I also understand its mention bothers the legend surrounding Muhammad. Secondly, it is a bit odd you are trying to warn me when the fact is I warned you about edit warring. Peace be upon you, friend. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Anachronist for helping us (and preventing me from spending too much time on this matter today)!

Wikiemirati, SharabSalam, the contention is quite simple to logically resolve:

Did Muhammad at any point during his lifetime own a slave?

If no / never, then Muhammad was not a slave owner and thus the "slave owner" category is invalid.

If yes / at some time, then Muhammad was, at least at some point in his life, a "slave owner" and the category is valid.

I hope both of you take some time to read Criticism of Muhammad#Ownership of slaves and read the sourced scholarship more importantly. Peace be upon you both, dear friends. Let us move on from legends religiously formulated to convince us of things untrue, or embarrassing, or otherwise shameful. In doing so, may we see beyond honoring things our conscience (or God's light in our hearts) would forbid us to honor or justify. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello HafizHanif, thank you for bringing my attention to this discussion. I am well aware of Muhammad's ownership of slaves, however as I understand manumission does not make you a slave owner. Muhammad has freed all his slaves as they were given to him. Please see islamic views on slavery#Muhammad's traditions on a detailed views of the slaves who were in service of Muhammad. Muhammad, at the time of his death, did not own any slaves. Wouldn't you say "previous slave owner" to be more accurate of a category since Muhammad has ceased to be a slave owner due to the act of manumission? Thank you. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If Muhammad bought or otherwise acquired slaves solely for the purpose of freeing them, then I wouldn't categorize him as a slave owner. However, if he kept slaves for any extended duration of servitude, and freed them before his death, he would qualify as a slave owner. Slave ownership was simply an accepted component of the culture at the time and Muhammad didn't question it. Categorizing someone as a slave owner isn't a moral judgment, it's simply a statement of fact. One can be kind to slaves and still be a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson could be considered one American example. Muhammad would also qualify as a slave owner if he trafficked in slaves; and at least one source says he bought and sold slaves (as opposed to buying and freeing them). Again, this was part of everyday life at that time and place. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My friend Wikiemirati, that is an important question. Taking another man as an example, consider John Jay and how he also owned slaves, yet passed laws to end that institution while himself freeing his slaves well before his death. Yet he is still categorized as a slave owner in his wiki article since he, at one time, did in fact own slaves. Realize those categories exist for a reason. Consider also that what a man did at one point in his lifetime doesn't mean he died as such. This also means that what a man did at one point means this is what he will always 'be' remembered for. Repentance is a good word to consider. The example of John Jay shows how he repented (not only in words but in his deeds). So although John 'was' a slave owner, he turned it around.

One point of contrast is that John did not give any credence for slavery's allowance, but stood opposed to it indefinitely after coming to terms with it in himself. I am not sure if the same could be said about Muhammad, since he still allowed slavery to persist despite asking for slaves to be treated better (which was a good thing). Let us consider that Muhammad had a stronger position (more influential and more powerful) than John Jay. While John had to work 'with' others, even his opponents, Muhammad had the power of his poetry and the belief that he was a prophet. As we read the Quran, we see how sweeping changes were made by the reciting of that poetry, while some things stayed the same. It would have been easy for Muhammad to also author a few poetic verses in abolishing slavery among his followers, or in all of Arabia, or for all Arabs, or all believers in God, or all of humanity / the world... but such was not the case as we can see. Peace be with you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Best way to write shahada

Lead is redundant

PBUH, SAW

Why is PBUH missing from the blessed name of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

Another edit request

birth year

Dates of marriages in infobox

Suggesting slight language improvement

Problem with "Allah"

Dates of marriages in infobox

Short Description: Founder vs. Promulgator

@Ullierlich and FyzixFighter: It is incorrect for the {{short description}} tag to contain "prophet and founder of Islam".

Argument 1: "Muhammad was the founder of Islam, Zoroaster was the founder of Zoroastrianism, Mani was the founder of Manichaeism, Gautama was the founder of Buddhism, Bahaullah was the founder of Baha'i Faith, Joseph Smith was the founder of Mormonism." This is incorrect because:

This is a violation of WP:SYNTH.
This is a violation of WP:V.
The uncited founders of other religions are irrelvenant.
Muslims do not believe that Muhammad founded Islam, because there were many prophets and messengers before him: Prophets and messengers in Islam.

Argument 2: "take this to the talk page - even Britannica ([https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad]) calls him the "founder" of Islam - this is the pattern, as previously noted, for other religions" Britannica is incorrect. Errors have been documented in it.^[2]^[3] I've submitted a correction regarding that. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam correctly states that he promulgated Islam (as opposed to "founding it"). Secondly, the exucse of a "pattern" is fallacious and violates policies as previously explained.

WP:NPOV requires that this be approached from a netural point of view. To satisfy this, the "short" description could either be:

"Founder of Islam according to non-Muslims, promulgator and final prophet of Islam according to Muslims"
"Prophet and Promulgator of Islam"

The first one's not so short, right? But it abides by WP:NPOV. Alternatively, we can use the second and more inclusive term that too abides by WP:NPOV. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

References

The talk page archive includes numerous discussions on this and, from my reading of those discussions, it appears that the consensus has been, and continues to be, that "founder" is a neutral secular term. When the majority of secular, academic sources say "founder" then we are not violating WP:V or WP:SYNTH (which is really just a special case of WP:V). The argument about other founders is also relevant. IMO, the pattern followed with Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saint movement is especially relevant. Latter Day Saints also believe that their theology predates Joseph Smith and was practiced by Adam down to Moses and Jesus and his apostles. However, since secular academic sources call him the "founder" that's what we use on Wikipedia and not the preferred LDS term "restorer". Why should this argument work for Muhammad and Islam but not Joseph Smith and Mormonism? Also, per MOS:HONOR and MOS:ISLAMHON, even if we did go to your proposal, we would not capitalize prophet or promulgator. I don't really see anything new here that hasn't been discussed over and over already on the talk page, as seen in the archives. Without an established new consensus, I don't see any reason to change the status quo. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: Secular does not equal unbiased. Christianity is an entirely different religion. There are many more Christian denominations as opposed to that of Islam. Additionally, you are comparing denominations (which are founded long after the uprising of a religion) to a religion, Islam. Moreover, your unproven claim of consensus violates the principles outlined in WP:DISCUSSED and does not relate to the short description, which was recently changed (the matter of discussion). The capitalization is not the subject of debate here, though Prophet is capitalized if speaking about a specific individual because it is a proper noun and beginning of the title/short description. MOS:HONOR and MOS:ISLAMHON relate to honorifics, not the use of the term "promulgator". Nonetheless, WP:ISLAMHON reads: "The Prophet or (The) Holy Prophet (including with a lowercase 'h') in place of, or preceding, "Muhammad"; or just Prophet preceding "Muhammad"". We could go with the first or second short description I initially suggested above. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that Batreeq misunderstands WP:NPOV. It is explicitly not about always finding a middle way. It explicitly is about representing scholarly consensus. Whether believers of a religion (any religion, nothing to do with Islam) believes something or not, that's actually rather irrelevant for Wikipedia, so the argument that 'Britannica is wrong because Muslims believe otherwise' gets things completely the wrong way around. Academic and scholarly sources are relevant. Religious tenets are not. That is what WP:NPOV says. Jeppiz (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please quote from Wikipedia's policy pages, including to support "It is explicitly not about always finding a middle way." Additionally, there are Muslim scholars. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying "Muhammad was the promulgator, not the founder of Islam, Adam the first man was the first Muslim" is a religious belief. This is not a religious website. That would be as if we were to describe Jesus as the only begotten son of God, Yahweh as the One True God, or Vishnu as Supreme Being. This is a secular resource and Muhammad is obviously the founder of Islam according to secular sources. If that offends some religious sensibilities that is no reason to convert WP from a secular resource to a faith based one.Smeat75 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Not again.

I have always held the position that we should say Muhammad introduced Islam to the world. That's a basic statement of fact that nobody would disagree with. But that recommendation has consistently fallen on deaf ears. Otherwise, if scholarly sources use "founder" then that's what we would use also. "Promulgator" means "proclaimer" or "teacher", which doesn't really capture Muhammad's role as the one who introduced Islam to the world. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I completely understand where you guys are coming from, but the short description should be modified then. For example, "Founder (secular POV) and Prophet of Islam". Promulgator is an additional option as well. Or:

"Founder of Islam according to non-Muslims, promulgator and final prophet of Islam according to Muslims"
"Prophet and promulgator of Islam"

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To add my two cents (worth a penny or more perhaps ;), I would mention the use of Presentism (literary and historical analysis) on how the religion and ideology of Islam reinterprets the past. This is typical of all people, not only Muslims or those beholden to an Arabic hierarchy as Islam promotes. To suspect that Abraham, for example, was a 'Muslim' is to paint the past according to what Muhammad was talking about. It is less about being 'wrong' in labeling Abraham as one who 'submits to God' and 'keeps his peace' (loosely what 'Islam' or 'Aslam' would mean). Notice how in Christian vernacular, there is no aim or motive to label Abraham as a 'Christian'. Why? Because it is unnecessary. There is no motive to paint the past in such a manner, since that would be leaning on the fallacy of presentism. Thus, it is proper to define things objectively and without religious zealotry or motive, to identify Muhammad as the author of Islam and promoter of such ideas. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've reset the template to how it was before the dispute of the controversial edits. That concept could also be applied to the modern incorrect statement that Muhammad founded the religion. Can you clarify explicitly what you mean and how it relates to the founder vs. promulgator dispute? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure! According to the definitions of those words, Muhammad both 'founded' Islam (did not exist before he started reciting religious poetry) and also was its promulgator (promoted and spread it). Since wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia, it is proper to describe subjects / topics from all points of view. Thus, it is correct to clarify that Muhammad believed himself to be a prophet of God (founder), but not everyone was, nor is, convinced. This is why choice words are very important. The issue is, and consideration needs to be adhered to, the religious who have been weened with religious vernacular. To talk about this man without the honorifics, or without the title of 'prophet' is like blasphemy to their minds. It is a great leap of faith / logic for such to describe things beyond those constricting bounds, unfortunately. What seems 'controversial' is a matter of objectivity, and some religious minds sadly have difficulty looking past their strictures. This goes for all subjects / topics religiously followed, even science, atheism, or wrastling ;) -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Founder, obviously. To suppose that he is not the founder is an explicitly religious belief, and Wikipedia no more should do that than it should claim that Thor causes the lightning. I can't help but notice a preponderance of editors in favour of "founder". Pinkbeast (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pinkbeast that there seems to be a rather clear c consensus, and have re-established that version. It is perfectly factual and neutral. As numerous editors have said, we are not concerned with religious POVs here (and that of course applies to any religion). For example, we do not state that Jesus was the Son of God at Jesus either, nor should we. Jeppiz (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"As numerous editors have said, we are not concerned with religious POVs here (and that of course applies to any religion)..." That's incorrect. If that was true, then Wikipedia would not describe any religious info, which is undoubtedly not the case. The Jesus article refers to him as a "son of God" and this is easily provable with a Find Command. If you insist, we shall put "Founder (secular POV) and Prophet of Islam" or "Founder of Islam according to non-Muslims, promulgator and final prophet of Islam according to Muslims".

Also, can somebody tell me why he is not considered the promulgator of Islam?^[1] – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islam

And this article refers to Muhammad as the "final prophet of Islam". By the way, the short description of the Jesus article is "central figure of Christianity". I'd hesitate to call Muhammad the central figure of Islam in the same manner, but you'll notice that the objective of the short description is to be very short. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Jesus article, in its introductory paragraph, reads "Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament." Key word is "believe". The rest of the article cites where that belief is noted. Thus where it reads "Son of God", notice it is citing the sources. The article is not arguing nor claiming such, otherwise it would be POV and other such wiki trespasses. This is the same where in the introduction to Muhammad, it mentions "belief" and then the rest of the article uses terms from the centric Islamic perspective (example: prophet of Islam, etc.). -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!! As I was going through the above discussion, i felt like adding just one point to it. Ask the "scholarly sources" who call Prophet Muhammad the founder of Islam whether the name of Prophet Muhammad's father was Abdullah (Meaning: servant of Allah) or not. Prophet's Father - Abdullah (Abdallah ibn Abd al-Muttalib). I know the "Scholarly sources" won't take into consideration religious references so I ask them to put forth the references (that they believe to be true) to disprove my point. MME Baig (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but not in the scope of this talkpage (Allah#Usage may be relevant, other deities may have been involved, etc). You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Sång...but to respond and hopefully clarify: Realize ancient pre-Islamic Arabia had very little written accounts. Most things written in the pre-Islamic era are extant items from either a Christian-Arab or Jewish societal source, and some poetry Arab-centric. Arabs (whether pagan, polytheistic, or some other religious stance) were by and large illiterates. There was no such thing as a written history or method of record keeping. Their only 'history' were narratives in oral traditions, usually in poetic sing-song rhyme - similar to Muhammad's poetry (the Quran), going back a few generations in promoting their particular tribal and familial bonds. This manner of recalling stories of the past or praising particular tribes and their exploits was very common to ancient Arabic culture, even the claims of notable family and tribal names (mentioning names like Abraham as a claim to some nobility or high position over others). The oral traditions that were written down several centuries after the fact / fictions / legends of any given Arabic / Muslim narrative is what scholars have to work with, but nothing more ancient than Muhammad's claims or those expounded by his adherents is available or verifiable. Thus why it is difficult to derive anything according to historical methodology from either pre-Islamic writings or other sources of that time regarding Muhammad's claims, short of what is found in biblical or other pre-Islamic sources speaking on Arabia, the Levant, etc.. -- HafizHanif (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we are going off topic here, but Rahmanism and this video are a few proofs. Back on topic: C.Fred, ultimately, short is relative. I suggested those options because they are both inclusive. Alternately, "promulgator" is still an accurate option (and my last question remains unanswered).

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

From the documentation for {{short description}}: "Keep it short and simple. Avoid specialist terminology. As much detail as is necessary should be provided, no more - avoid listing examples. It will be displayed on mobile view along with other possible hits, and must be intelligible to the lay reader."^{[emphasis added]} That last bit is key: a reader without specialized knowledge should be able to make sense of what the article is about. While "founder" may not be the most precise, it is the clearest to the blank-slate reader who is trying to figure out who the article is about. "Promulgator" is an uncommon word and doesn't provide clarity. "Prophet" isn't specific enough, "last prophet" doesn't make clear his special standing. If we could find a better word than "promulgator", I'd be okay with a "prophet and..." construction. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Batreeq, the problem is that you still seem to believe we should call facts "secular POV" and that we should have some kind of balance to include what Muslims believe. We should not. This is not a Muslim encyclopaedia any more than it's an encyclopaedia of any religion. Of course we should note that Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet, but that's a religious view and not something which we will, should or even could (according to the rules) place on equal footing with facts. Most Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet. Most non-Muslims believe either that he was mad, sick, or an imposter. I mean no insult by this, the same goes for all religious figures. Most Christians believe Jesus was the God, most Jews believe he was mad, sick, or an imposter. Again, same goes for every religious founder. If a man claims to talk to God, he is either right or wrong. Those who believe he is right will follow him, those who believe he is wrong will believe he is either mad or lying. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Ad-Darazi, Joseph Smith... the list is long. Saying that Muhammad was the founder of Islam is factual. Saying Muslims consider him the last prophet is like saying Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or Hindus consider him an imposter. It's a religious POV. I take it we both agree not to put it in the lead that many consider him an imposter. If we can agree on excluding that religious POV, it should be equally obvious to exclude other POV. If you are to edit Wikipedia, you need to understand that any religious POV is rather irrelevant. Articles about religions do tell about those religions, their believers and beliefs, but do not adhere to them. Jeppiz (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jeppiz (and all others reading along), lots of people have a difficult time understanding neutral 'objectivity' when all they know are religious claims taught to them as 'facts' (one-sided narratives). It is a blinding prism for some raised to understand the world through legends long believed as truth. When historical research begins to extrapolate, or reveal, what is closer to fact, or critical thinking is encouraged, the mind not accustomed to critical thinking has difficulty adjusting. When unequivocal facts are read, the mind resounds and can shake violently. And when a teaching exists that anyone 'not believing' the religious claims are enemies, such resistance to religious claims is understood as them being haters of God or of one's beloved man-leader (the so-called 'prophet' in question), that their minds usually revert to defense mode, instead of think mode. But love wins out every time. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Could you please link to the policy that states religious POV's are excluded? Also, I didn't state that all factual info must be labelled as secular POV, just the notion that he is the founder of Islam. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

And why should that be labelled as a "secular POV"? It is a fact. That suffices. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad as a prophet - non as founder per se - see concepts of fitra and other Islamic scholarship upon nature of Islam as having a wider scope than circa second millennialist academic tensions.

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/muhammad-is-allah-s-last-messenger-not-the-founder-of-islam Text mdnp (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad is the founder of Islam because Islam was not known before him. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The news article that Text mdnp linked supports my claim of not including incorrect secular information or specifying secular info. @Doctorx0079: Not true, see Prophets and messengers in Islam. We are not arguing the validity of Islam here. @Pinkbeast: Evasion (ethics). My previous question remains unanswered. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I AM NOT ARGUING THE VALIDITY OF ISLAM. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ISLAM IS VALID OR INVALID. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with the consensus that "founder" is a neutral secular term. Batreeq has so far utterly failed to convince me otherwise. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The news article that Text mdnp linked is no use whatsoever. "Anyone who reads a biography of Muhammad’s (pbuh) life can see that his prophethood was crystal clear from the time when he was in his mother’s womb" - this is not a neutral source (and the whole thing is like that). I'm not sure what question I'm supposedly evading, unless it's "Could you please link to the policy that states religious POV's are excluded?", in which case I think it is rather up to you to find the policy that says that - leaving aside the figleaf of "religious POVs" - a vast morass of mutually contradictory sources making unverifiable claims are suddenly to be taken as valid. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully not too far off topic (my apologies when I do digress), but I noticed recently this interesting detail: BBC News cites or labels Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" in their news articles. See this one about suicide martyrs (oxymoron) and this one about the first woman judge defending polyamorous relationship (which is a psychologically interesting read). I wonder: has the UK, or British whomever, become an Islamic State? Or do they label him as such to placate people's sensitivities (as we keep reading in this talk page)? Or is it something else? Anyone? Bueller? -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Same thing (labeling Muhammad as a "Prophet") with this MSN news article talking about schoolbooks indoctrinating hate and indifference inspired from Muhammad's poetry and the legends about him (Hadith, et al). I suspect there is a fear factor behind the use of the title, "prophet" capitalized, likely to subdue the typical emotional lashing out when anything less than expected is written. Notice the current talk page sections in here... It's a shame that even these news cites lost their journalistic integrity and objectivity. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides being vague rubbish with the usual paranoia about Muslims - Saint Paul is only Saint Paul because Christianity says he's a saint, but you don't seem to be shedding any tears over the way that secular sources commonly refer to him as "Saint Paul" - this seems to have very limited relevance to the topic. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish and vague, I must confess. However, poignant and precise it surely is. Let us stay on topic (alongside our digressions). What I mention is important regarding public acknowledgment derived from mainstream opinion. My opinion: it is irresponsible and fear-based. Thus we notify public opinion submitting to religious claims, and it is shameful... since it is vacant of Truth. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: WP:BIASEDSOURCES allows these types of sources. Now, the Burden of proof (philosophy) lies on you.

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the same 'news' sources I previously cited regarding Paul. Here is one article mentioning Paul. Notice how Paul is described by the news writer, and described when quoting what others say about Paul. Is this the case when Muhammad is referenced or written about by a news writer in BBC? Is this paranoia or the fact? Another from the BBC, notice the mention of Jesus and how Jesus is mentioned as 'founder' and without other labels / titles / honorifics. No one is up in arms about it. That article about Jesus should refute the contentions about Muhammad and honorary motifs, and showcase how Muhammad is the founder of that ideology. But a 'prophet' and titled in mainstream news sources? Again, very unprofessional regarding journalism or objectivity. But some of us know exactly why this duplicity is allowed. The violence that often accompanies disturbed religious emotions goes without saying... so a poetic dreamer may be honored, praised, and worshipped as a 'prophet'. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's not. Please keep this junk off this talk page. It has nothing to do with improving the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is proven. Lack of subjectivity from news sources does 'not' justify wiki's lack of objectivity. The example of the Jesus link shows him as 'founder' and doesn't give honorific titles. To do any different with another historical character would be revealing bias (and ignorance, among other things). So, two sections in this talk page have been answered. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif:: WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

According to published sources, Muhammad is the founder of Islam. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq:, I agree.. no 'original thought' is allowed when it comes to these Islamic articles, but only the repeating of lemmings (sarcasm). To echo the rational mind of Doctorx0079: According to published sources, Muhammad is NOT to be honored in fact-based information sources (which Wiki is supposed to be), but mentioned by name alone. The contention has been refuted. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: Inconclusive, and what do you mean "honored"? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

":@Batreeq: Subjectivity interprets something as inconclusive, while objectivity clarifies what seems inconclusive. Look to the former. Religious pandering beckons the use of honorifics, but such is not objective. The religious argument that Islam 'is' the ancient religion of mankind is an Islamic claim. The very use of the term 'Islam' is an initial clue. This is why some minds contest that Muhammad 'founded' Islam, but since it is centric to Islamic theology that claim is easily refuted. The real issue is the time it takes for minds fixated on Muhammad and his religion to realize their subjectivity regarding things they believe to be true. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to honor anybody. WP:NOT -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif and Doctorx0079: Nope. The published source clearly refutes that he is the founder, and a general and unspecific link to WP:NOT does not change that. As previously mentioned, "promulgator" or identifying the POV's is more accurate and unbiased. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The point with WP:NOT is the honoring business. WP is not in the business of honoring, don't know what you were talking about with that. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Please quote the passage you have in mind. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

User HafizHanif said "According to published sources, Muhammad is NOT to be honored in fact-based information sources (which Wiki is supposed to be), but mentioned by name alone." Not sure what he's talking about there. Wikipedia doesn't exist to honor anybody. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but I didn't say that Wikipedia must honor anybody.

– Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I use too many words, because it seems they are being misinterpreted. To mention that Muslims see Muhammad as "prophet" is fine (mention once), but from then on it's simply 'Muhammad', not 'prophet Muhammad' or anything else. This is a scholar-based source, not a place to promote religious narrow-mindedness or even religious arguments. Doing otherwise would be 'honoring' a person, and this is not the aim nor the point of this open and neutral source (wiki). @Batreeq:, you quoted an editorial column. That is quoting bias. Citing subjectivity. That is not scholarly, but the very point being explained here by me. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: Biased sources are permitted (see WP:BIASEDSOURCES). Original thought is not. Muhammad is an Islamic Prophet and the short description reflects that. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq: correct, citing bias sources is fine... in order to introduce bias and subjectivity and how some people see things. Such is understood when Muhammad is initially labeled a 'prophet' and that bias (or religious belief) is described. But since bias is restricted in an encyclopedia after introducing bias perspectives, then it is simply Muhammad and that is the end of it. When mainstream news sources, as I pointed out earlier, label Muhammad as 'prophet' without identifying that label as one sided, they are doing a poor job at journalism. I wonder if they are fearful of losing fingertips or heads... what do you think? (rhetorical question). Cheers. HafizHanif (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)--

Your notions of poor journalism are irrelevant. The policies including WP:OR still stand. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This discussion reveals your inability to look past your religious subjectivity. Your argument that I'm attributing OR is precisely what your trying to color the article with (by calling the man's claim, or that of his followers, as factual). The issue has been long resolved . -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Facts^[1] do not care about your feelings.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. The discussion is not over. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

[1]
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/muhammad-is-allah-s-last-messenger-not-the-founder-of-islam

We don't cite opinion pieces as reliable sources. An opinion piece by a Muslim author who is basically restating a well-known religious viewpoint isn't a valid counterpoint to the fact that Muhammad founded Islam in every sense of how the word "founded" is used in a secular context in English. We already know Muslims object to the word; that's irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant that Sunnis object to the images in this article. A religious viewpoint isn't a basis for editorial decisions in how to present a topic in a secular encyclopedia. Removal of the descriptor "founder" need to be grounded in secular and scholarly reasoning, not religious belief. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Per WP:NEWSBLOG, these are considered reliable. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And per WP:NEWSBLOG, they're to be used with care. Further, they're also to be identified as opinions. @Batreeq: Is that the point you're trying to make, that we should refer to him as the founder, but add a side point that (some) Muslim authors and scholars view otherwise? —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And such sources are definitely not considered reliable for your attempted edits in the article which have been reverted multiple times. There is no usefulness in a blog that states a common religious viewpoint. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Earlier, I suggested "Founder (secular POV) and Prophet of Islam". @Anachronist: I didn't make the initial edits - Ullierlich did. I simply reverted them because they were incorrect, and you wish to include them. Essentially, I'm not one wanting to make edits, but rather restore the {{short description}} template to how it previously was. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq: You've failed to demonstrate that it's POV. Constructively, he's the founder. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: POV stands for "point of view". What do you mean "You've failed to demonstrate that it's point of view"? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Batreeq: It is not necessary to flag facts as "secular POV" just because they do not align with religious POV. To reiterate what Anacrhonist said above, "A religious viewpoint isn't a basis for editorial decisions in how to present a topic in a secular encyclopedia.". —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That introduces bias then, which violates WP:NPOV. I have yet to find a policy that states what you quoted. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Central figure

Not to cause someone to site otherstuffexists, but look at Buddha and Jesus. Neither are described as the founder in the first sentence. How about calling Muhammad the central figure of Islam (like Jesus' lead), or saying that his teachings are the central tenants of Islam (per Buddha, more or less), or something similar? I don't think saying "Founder" is an issue, but evidently some people can't let it rest, so, this is my suggestion, feel free to ignore it. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad are all central figures, yes. But Muhammad is something more than that. Neither Buddha nor Jesus claimed to offer a divinely revealed religion complete with laws and rules. Buddha offered a philosophical approach on which Buddhism was later founded, while Jesus was considered a rabbi who offered an alternative form of Judaism. Neither would be considered the "founder"; in fact the religions founded on their teachings did not exist during their lifetimes. Neither of them had the objective to establish a new religion.

A better analogy would be Joseph Smith, who, like Muhammad, returned from a journey with revelations — in both cases, a large mass of written revelations created by a supernatural agent. And yes, Joseph Smith is indeed described as the founder of Mormonism. Both Islam and Mormonism came into being during the lifetimes of their founders, as a direct result of their own active and purposeful efforts in establishing a new religion. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Muhammad is the founder of Islam in the Joseph Smith sense. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

That analogy in comparing Joseph Smith's efforts and legacy is a decent one. Joseph Smith quoted the Bible and then introduced himself and a supposed 'revelation' and developed yet another religion, albeit one including major overtones of Christianity. Muhammad could be summarized as having done the same thing, only with Jewish and Christian overtones including Arabi-centric overtones of legend and folklore. No such thing as beheadings and cutting off of fingertips existed as a religious prescription in Judaism nor Christianity, so that is one of many details 'founded' and introduced by Muhammad. Since Muhammad is argued from an Islamic point of view as the 'perfect man' theologically, then he is surely the central figure of Islam and its model. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: "beheadings and cutting off of fingertips" is not a part of Islam nor our discussion. Please refrain from using original research to justify the use of the term "founder" in the short description (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My friend Batreeq, perhaps not all who respond to this (or other Islamic articles) are adequately qualified, or at least partially learned, in the fundamentals of the religion of Muhammad. Smiting of necks from primary source, at Muhammad (47) 4, and necks and fingertips at al-Anfal (8) 12.

Secondary source (Hadith) citing the primary source (Muhammad's poetry - the Quran), I'll quote in-full (worth reading):

(so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet. It was said that, (over the necks) refers to striking the forehead, or the neck, according to Ad-dahhak and `atiyyah al-`awfi. In support of the latter, Allah commanded the believers, (so, when you meet (in fight jihad in Allah's cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, take them as captives).) 47:4 Ar-rabi` bin Anas said, "in the aftermath of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed from those whom they killed, by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire. (source: Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir).

For tertiary sources (modern scholars who look at the primaries, secondaries, and historical accounts including centric and more objective, we find an entire wiki article already existing: Beheading in Islam. See sources regarding how far back beheadings go... and realize they are still done under the guise of following the prescription found in Muhammad's poetry. Should I also find the points of fingertips for you as well?

So if it is ignorance on your part, that is fine. Some who edit wikipedia do so to share facts, not embellish legends or make inconsiderate apologies for such barbarity argued as peace, justice, and so forth. If it is you who is the apologist, then you stand corrected by centuries of Islamic practice. Go in peace. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: Shame on you for decontextualizing the Quran and promoting your extremist beliefs. You know well what the verse means, even without scholarly explanations.

"Often quoted but rarely contextualized, the verse refers to a miraculous event in which the enemies of Islam were confronted by the angels. It does not command Muslims to terrorize other communities through bombings and acts of random violence.

Ibn Kathir explains the meaning of this verse, saying: ‎ثَبِّتُوا أَنْتُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَقَوُّوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ عَلَى أَعْدَائِهِمْ عَنْ أَمْرِي لَكُمْ بِذَلِكَ سَأُلْقِي الرُّعْبَ وَالْمَذَلَّةَ وَالصَّغَارَ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَ أَمْرِي وَكَذَّبَ رَسُولِي You – the angels – support the Muslims and strengthen their resolve against their enemies, thus implementing My command. I – Allah – will cast terror, disgrace, and humiliation upon whoever defies My command and rejects My messenger. Source: Tafseer Ibn Kathir 8:12 In the aftermath of the battle, there were signs that the angels had supported the Muslims in their defensive struggle against the persecuting army.

Ar-Rabi’ ibn Anas said: ‎كَانَ النَّاسُ يَوْمَ بَدْرٍ يَعْرِفُونَ قَتْلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ مِمَّنْ قَتَلُوا هُمْ بِضَرْبٍ فَوْقَ الْأَعْنَاقِ وَعَلَى الْبَنَانِ مِثْلَ سِمَةِ النَّارِ قَدِ أُحْرِقَ بِهِ In the aftermath of the battle of Badr, the people used to recognize whomever the angels killed by the wounds over their necks, fingers and toes, because those parts had a mark as if they were branded by fire.

Therefore, the verse refers to divine intervention by angels in support of the Muslims who were defending their city from aggression. The terror thrown into the unbelievers’ hearts was upon their realization that Allah was supporting the Muslims with angels and miracles. It does not mean Muslims have been commanded to spread terror and violence in society as a means of political change. Muslims are only permitted to take up arms against those who have declared war against them, never as a means to force people into Islam.

Ibn Taymiyyah writes: ‎الكفار إنما يقاتلون بشرط الحراب كما ذهب اليه جمهور العلماء وكما دل عليه الكتاب والسنة The unbelievers are only fought on the condition that they declare war according to the majority of scholars, as evident in the book and prophetic tradition. Source: An-Nubuwwat 1/140

Ibn Al-Qayyim writes: ‎وَلَمْ يُكْرِهْ أَحَدًا قَطُّ عَلَى الدِّينِ وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ يُقَاتِلُ مَنْ يُحَارِبُهُ وَيُقَاتِلُهُ وَأَمَّا مَنْ سَالَمَهُ وَهَادَنَهُ فَلَمْ يُقَاتِلْهُ وَلَمْ يُكْرِهْهُ عَلَى الدُّخُولِ فِي دِينِهِ The Prophet never forced the religion upon anyone, but rather he only fought those who waged war against him and fought him first. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion.

Source: Hidayat Al-Hayara 237

In conclusion, terrorism, political violence, and spreading religion by force is forbidden in Islam. Killing women, children, and non-combatants as well as initiating wars of aggression are major sins in Islam according to classical and modern authorities. Historically, the Prophet only fought battles in self-defense and to repel aggression against the Muslim community. (Source)" The tafsir of 47:4 can be found here and here.

According to The Huffington Post, "Terrorism and Islamophobia are two sides of the same coin of hate; they feed off each other. The distorted views of the 'other' held by both terrorists and Islamophobes, along with their extremist ideologies and convictions, are linked in a vicious cycle that is affecting world peace and security." (Source).

I suggest you remain on topic in regards to the article and avoid Islamophobia and trolling. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your responses exemplify an inability to look past a religious pandering to ignorance. Now arguing divine intervention of angels for the evidence of beheadings and fingers nipping is the very point of this discussion! You lost. Religious ideology has clouded your objectivity. To call me extreme while apologizing for historical atrocities is, in itself, extreme. To then share contradictory Hadith that, according to you, justifies beheading and finger snipping atrocities is ridiculous and desperate. To call my effort in identifying the facts as 'phobic' only reveals your ignorance of historical facts written by Muslims. No objectivity. No understanding outside of religious dogma. My friend, this discussion is over. -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

All, I would recommend that we all remain civil and assume good faith with each other. Religion is obviously a charged topic, so we have to be careful we don't lose sight of the fact that we are here to improve WP. Everyone is fine, but let's not let this get out of hand because we are all experienced and constructive editors - we can't let this spiral out into a religious and geopolitical debate, because this is not the place for that. Sorry if I sound preachy, I just want us to keep our goals in sight. Best ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: You knowingly posted a personal attack and off-topic information (that was not even a command to Muslims, whether or not you believe in angels). I advise you to say off topic and refrain from posting information that does not directly relate to the discussion of the edits at hand. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stay on topic yourself. The lengthy reply above has nothing to do with the question at hand; it is just as useless as HafizHanif's ramblings. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if my aim at objectivity is 'useless ramblings', but perhaps to those unsure about what I'm talking about and my lack of prose may be misinterpreted as such. But please don't start something that will only reveal dissonance on your part Mr. Pink. I've pointed out several examples of religious blindness when it comes to the aim at objectivity and neutral summaries of the facts (what wiki is about). -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your useless ramblings are useless ramblings, yes. Stick to the point; should this page say "founder"? Ideally, remove your comments above which do not pertain to that question. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps myopic minds fail to understand. It's understandable. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Who says that he was a 'founder', 'Prophet' etc.?

FyzixFighter No, this edit is not WP:Neutral because it gives the impression that the Muslim POV (that he was the promulgator of a religion that previously promulgated by the likes of Abraham) is 'wrong', and this is what has been complained about above by users like Batreeq, whereas this edit of mine avoids making the Muslim POV look 'wrong', and I avoided changing 'Founder' to 'Promulgator' or 'Central figure', but instead made it clear that this is the view held by the majority of people (and most of the people today would be non-Muslims). To give the impression that one view held by a significant number of WP:Reliable sources, even if less than 50%, is 'wrong', without specifying a valid reason, like who said what about what Islam is or what is it not, such as what Muslims mean by previous Prophets being 'Muslims' (literally 'Submitters' (to God's Will)), or what non-Muslims define Islam as, is not neutrality, but WP:bias, in the same way that merely calling him a 'Prophet' here without saying who considers him to be so (i.e. Muslims and Baha'is), and who doesn't consider him to be so, is bias, not neutrality. Leo1pard (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC); edited 05:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal: the prophet of Islam

Another secular alternative is "the prophet of Islam." This is a common description in academic sources, markedly different than the Muslim view: "a prophet of God". It is also factual and assumes nothing about what happened in early Islam. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what Wiqi55 said. I didn't want to discuss this issue here because there have been some offensive and disturbing off-topic comments by the user Hafiz and others. I would suggest this discussion be only about the topic and without insults and uncivil behaviours. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of "the prophet of Islam" would give the impression that Muhammad is the only man regarded as a Prophet in Islam, which is incorrect as he is seen by most people who identify themselves as Muslims, with the exception of Ahmadis, as the last Prophet in Islam, with predecessors including Jesus and Moses, so "main prophet of Islam" would be more accurate, since he is given more importance by Muslims than others whom they see as Prophets. Leo1pard (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Leo1pard I wasn't aware of the meaning of "the". It gives the impression that he was the only prophet of Islam and many people disagree with that. As you said "a prophet in Islam" would be more neutral and balanced than the prophet of Islam. People who think that Mohammed wasn't a prophet would not complain because it says: (a prophet IN Islam) Wiqi55 was trying to solve this problem. It would be great if Wiqi55 gave their opinion on this.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The article already says he was a prophet, in the second sentence. In my previous comment about Joseph Smith, Muhammad fits the definition of "founder". I never really liked this term myself, although I agree it's better than any of the alternatives proposed. I have advocated in the past that the lead should say something along the lines of "Muhammad is known for introducing Islam to the world" (nobody on the planet could argue with that, although it needs wordsmithing), but that suggestion has always fallen on deaf ears. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For the second sentence it is irrelevent to the disscusion which is about the short discription so please stay on the topic. The founder is not a NPOV and contradicts all of what Muslims believe.. Muslims believe that ALL prophets were calling for Islam. I think "a prophet in Islam" would be more respectful and NPOV to wikipedian readers in general except if you think wikipedia should represent anti-Islamic believes only?.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you seem to confuse things. The sentence is perfectly NPOV already. Your comment makes it seem like you think a sentence cannot be NPOV if it contradicts Muslim believes. That's not the case, neither for Islam nor for any other religion. We have lots of articles contradicting every religion, building on scholarship. It has nothing to do with being anti-Islam; quite the opposite, it's about applying the same criteria to all articles. That Muhammad founded Islam is the academic consensus. No religion calling itself Islam, having Muhammad as a prophet, and following the Qur'an existed before Muhammad. The only reason we don't call Jesus the founder if Christianity is because many scholars think that it was Paul who founded Christianity (something going against Christian belief) so for Christianity as well we follow what academic sources say and not what believers believe. Please be aware that NPOV is not about finding a compromise between scholarship and faith, it is about representing scholarship as well as we can. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Replying to what Wiqi said, I disagree that "the prophet of Islam" is a secular alternative, as there is no such thing as a secular prophet. For one to regard someone as a prophet by definition requires belief in whatever divine being with which they are supposedly in contact. Also, as far as I can see, our sources that call him "the prophet of Islam" also say that he was the founder, because whether or not he was a prophet does not speak as to whether or not he was the founder. We already cover that Muslims believe he was a prophet, and that they believe he is the last prophet. Finally, with that version, it would read "Muhammad was the prophet of Islam. According to Islamic Doctrine, he was a prophet..." which is clunky and repetitive. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the cited source is inline with my proposal: it uses "the prophet of Islam" in the first sentence and founder only later. They seem to recognize that "the prophet of Islam" is the best short description. I'm also puzzled by your sensitivity against the use of the word "prophet". Are you suggesting sources that use "the prophet of Islam" (Brill, Oxford University Press, et al) are not secular? As for the Muslim creed wording, for variety and accuracy, it can be changed to "According to Islamic Doctrine, he was a prophet of God" (or a messenger of God). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:شرعب السلام for reminding me that this discussion isn't about the lead sentence, but about the short description field in the infobox. Right now it says "prophet and founder of Islam" which appears to cover all points of view, so I don't see the problem.

Also, forgive my ignorance, but when I look at the article I don't see the short description appear anywhere, I only see it when I try to edit the infobox. Where is this showing up? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, when the article is suggested at the very bottom of the mobile site. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"Khatam an-Nabiyyin" is taken from the Bible Book of Daniel 9:24

FA nomination

Looking at the article, I think it meets the FA nomination criteria. So should I nominate it? Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Justlookingforthemoment: Why are you saying "that it meets the FA nomination criteria"? when it is NOT neutral(there is a discussion still going on), and when it is NOT stable. Please read WP:FACR again.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This section is a timesink. Ignore it. Justlookingforthemoment has been asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA on a fly-by whim, with no understanding of the criteria/requirements. If they carry on doing so they will be prevented, and at the moment it's becoming difficult to distinguish their edits from just plain trolling, so don't worry. -- Begoon 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This was once a good article, and I think it could be again. It is reasonably stable in spite of the drama that appears on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is still marked as a good article. You can see the history of its listings/assessments by expanding the "article milestones" at the top of this page. (My apologies if you meant "good" in its colloquial sense rather than its wikipedia one.) If anyone was serious about taking the article to Featured status, and willing/able to put in the work which that would entail, I'd advise peer review first, and following through on whatever issues were raised there. -- Begoon 03:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the criteria for featured status is being "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Our article here is nowhere in that ballpark. I'm not even sure this is physically possible for an article (as opposed to a very thick book) on this subject. Our current text is what Kecia Ali calls "the conventional narrative" in The Lives of Muhammad, in fact mentioning this very article as her first example. Ali's book goes on to discuss the relatively recent emergence of this conventional narrative, the lack of scholarly consensus about its historicity, and the widely different spins that it receives in popular sources written with different aims. We don't have any of that. That's not to say that we have a bad article. A few years ago Francis Edward Peters gave it a shoutout in his Oxford Bibliographies entry on Muhammad, commending it as "straightforward and balanced". It is a good article, or at least good enough to hopefully avoid filling up another talk page archive next week. Eperoton (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

"This section is a timesink. Ignore it. Justlookingforthemoment has been asked to stop nominating articles for GA/FA on a fly-by whim, with no understanding of the criteria/requirements. If they carry on doing so they will be prevented, and at the moment it's becoming difficult to distinguish their edits from just plain trolling, so don't worry." I have been asked to discuss it in the respective article's Talk Page before nominating it for GA or FA, hence I asked about it, since I felt it was very well-written with proper wordings and all. Hence thought of the same. Anyway, thanks a lot for your guidance. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my comment harsh. As was pointed out on your talkpage, GA/FA nominations of articles are usually (but not always) made by editors who have made a significant contribution to the article, and "have a firm grasp on how to apply the ... criteria: particularly, what level of prose, sourcing, etc. are required for an article to be considered ..., which are not the same as what a random editor might consider "good" for an article." Perhaps the best way for you to learn about that would be to select an article (or create one), thoroughly review the criteria at WP:GA, work on the article until you believe it meets them, and take it to peer review for feedback. You'd learn much more from that than from 'fly-by' nominations of articles you've never really been involved with. -- Begoon 08:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon Okay, I will try that. From the next time, I will be more cautious before nominating one and would check thoroughly whether it meets the 6 criteria of GA and 4 of FA. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request regarding DOB

More information provide a reliable source ...

provide a reliable source

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The DOB of Muhammed is 22nd April 571 AD (as shown by Google).^[1] Please change it. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Google could be wrong. WP could be wrong (though they don't disagree on this point). Neither are WP:Reliable sources. Look at those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång The site WP:Reliable sources does not mentionanywhere that Google is not a reliable source. The article above mainly focuses on published works or news agencies. The answer given by Google is neither any of the two, and it is shown what Google has found correct. One can always click on the "Feedback" button and can send feedback regarding the accuracy of the Date provided. My point is, if we know the exact DOB, why not write it instead of the approximate year? Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
"muhammad date of birth - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2019-03-08.

Close

(editconflict)

WP:Reliable sources doesn't mention Washington Post, Daily Mail or Oxford University Press either, that page is not for listing a bunch of potential sources (there's another page that does that to an extent).

The Google Knowledge Graph is a snazzy way of displaying some results of the search, but a googlesearch in itself is not a source for anything in a WP-article, though some of the results may be. See the "Definition of a source" in WP:RS, a googlesearch including the Knowledge Graph is none of these. If you want to use something there for a WP-article, you have to take the further step and find out if that info came from an RS or not. If it did, then you use that RS a source.

And speaking of searchresults, you may find something interesting in this one: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

So it's something we can't reliably know? Cool. Describe it as such in the article, with references if you like... Problem solved. You're welcome. -- Begoon 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of it, since this question seems to pop up now and then, it may deserve an entry in the FAQ. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. The article says "c./approximately" at least 3 times, and few 7th-century birth dates are known exactly, so I'm not sure anything needs adding to the article - maybe a note. Justlookingforthemoment, please stop being a nuisance! Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Johnbod, thanks but I am not being a nuisance. Hope you got it :-) Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're not unbiased about whether you are a nuisance or not, are you? Of course, neither is someone who think you are a nuisance ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The name of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Introduction of Khadija

The current form of this article describes Muhammad's marriage to Khadija in the following way: "His reputation attracted a proposal in 595 from Khadijah, a 40-year-old widow. Muhammad consented to the marriage, which by all accounts was a happy one." (sic) This is problematic for multiple reasons:

There are many sources that state that Khadija was not 40 years old at the time of Muhammad's marriage, as well as that she was not a widow
It is not fitting to introduce Khadija based on her age and marital status. Would we describe Muhammad as a "20-something year old bachelor" prior to marrying Khadija? It's more fitting to describe Khadija based on what she was known for at the time: being a businesswoman.

Based on these two reasons, I would like to propose changing the sentence to introduce Khadija as a "prominent businesswoman" (there are sources that attest to this) instead of her current introduction. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - at least regarding point 2. What do you mean it's "not fitting"? In what sense? If we know her age and that she was a widow, there's no problem with using that language. As for the first point, I have no idea what the scholarly consensus is but I know you will need a strong WP consensus to remove it. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Khadija bint Khuwaylid may have some useful sources, but like you say, I have no idea what the scholarly consensus is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

By "not fitting", I mean that a person is more than their age and marital status. In addition, there are many sources that state that her age was different than what is presented in the article, and that state that she was not married prior to marrying Muhammad. For example, these references state that she may have been 28 when she married Muhammad.^[1]^[2] This reference also points out that she was probably not forty at marriage and had five or six children with him.^[3] Snowsky Mountain (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

[1]
Spellberg, Denise A. (1994). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. p. 216.
[2]
Laachir, Karima; Talajooy, Saeed (2013). Resistance in Contemporary Middle Eastern Cultures: Literature, Cinema and Music. Routledge. p. 107. As some scholars argue, Khadija must have been about twenty-eight at the time of her marriage with the prophet
[3]
Rubin, Uri (1998). The Life of Muhammad. Ashgate. p. 83. In all probability, Khadija was not forty years old, and could still have borne him four daughters and one or two sons.

If there is no consensus about her age among reliable sources, it would be best if Wikipedia refrains from mentioning it. If the sources all agree that she was older than Muhammad, then we can mention that. Otherwise calling her a prominent businesswoman is appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Or "successful merchant" perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with referring to her as simply a "merchant." Making a judgement on her success when we can't even agree on her age seems silly. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Quite a few sources mention she was a prominent businesswoman. If she was well-known for that, then it shouldn't be a problem to have it in the article. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Quite a few sources have her age as '40.' Sources also list her as a widow. We don't need to throw around unnecessary adjectives, because there is no guidebook on who should choose which adjectives to use and we need to keep neutral. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so then just "a businesswoman"? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Kecia Ali's Lives of Muhammad (Harvard Univ Press) comes in handy, since she discussing what she calls the "conventional narrative" on this point. She summarizes this narrative as follows: A wealthy widow named Khadija hired him to accompany her caravan to Syria. His performance so impressed her that she proposed marriage to him. He accepted. She was forty and he was twenty-five. They were happily married for twenty-five years. Ali comments that this version of the story appears "in a striking proportion" of books on Muhammad aimed at various audiences. (p.114). She writes that "contemporary biographers almost uniformly make Khadija forty" and use the details of their relationship to present their interpretation of Muhammad's character. Khadija's age at marriage is mentioned in classical sources, although there is some disagreement about it. (p. 118) Ali argues that traditional commentators and their readers were well aware that it would be unusual for a woman to give birth to several children after reaching the age of 40, as Khadija is said to have done, and that they interpreted 40 as a round number with symbolic resonance (like the age when Muhammad is said to have received his first revelation), which expressed that Khadija was a mature, older woman (p. 119-120).

Since Ali cites our article as her first example of the conventional narrative at the start of her book, who are we to disagree. :) I think that a good way to improve the article beyond giving a conventional narrative would be to supplement it with an account of various interpretations and commentaries in footnotes. Eperoton (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget, though, that Wikipedia isn't a source. Per WP:NOTSOURCE, "printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles" cannot be used to reference or support the content of Wikipedia articles. :) Snowsky Mountain (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What about Montgomery Watt's article in Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam? (apology for the cumbersome url) AstroLynx (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that there are many sources that agree with what the article says about her, but there are also many sources (such as those listed above) that don't agree with that. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To above two, I would add Bernard Lewis (Arabs in History), Fred Donner (Muhammad and the believers) and Hugh Kennedy (Prophet and the Age of Caliphs). All authoritative works by most respected historians. AhmadLX (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

In order to get some more feedback on this, I'm just starting a "Request for Comment". For editors that may be joining the discussion: The main issue is that I would like to propose to introduce Khadija as "a merchant" instead of a "forty-year-old widow" (sic); it is important to note that many sources (such as the ones that I listed above) mention that she was not 40 years old at the time of her marriage; many sources also refute the idea that she was a widow. Snowsky Mountain (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dates in infobox conflict with other article

Prophet Muhammad probably never existed?

infobox children

Discussion about Muhammad's role re Islam

Muslims don't believe Prophet Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, rather as the last messenger and prophet of God sent to restore the the same message of monotheism that was taught by all the previous prophets.

Muhammad (Arabic: مُحمّد‎, pronounced [muħammad] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was the last messenger and prophet of God. According to Islamic doctrine, he was the last prophet, sent to present and confirm the monotheistic teachings preached previously by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Maxforwind (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: The article already notes what Muslims believe regarding Muhammad. From a secular perspective and in the general sense, though, he's the founder. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "central figure" would be more useful. Maxforwind (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion, titled "Short Description: Founder vs. Promulgator." The question of whether to call him the 'founder' is discussed there in great detail. Feel free to enter that discussion. If you have questions let me or someone else around here know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the discussion, but I still believe that the word "central figure" in Islam would be more useful. Maxforwind (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The term "central figure" actually was in this article for a long time, until Wiqi55 (talk · contribs) removed it in this March 2017 edit. Then Eperoton (talk · contribs) improved it a few days later. In my opinion, the lead sentences of that version are better than what we have now. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on a review of academic references I did at the time, while the formulations "the prophet of Islam" (my personal preference, though also with reservations) and "the founder of Islam" were both prominently represented in those sources and would be both compliant with NPOV, the formulation "the central figure" was not found in the sample at all, and would represent an attempt to construct our own definition in preference to attempting to reflect the body of RSs. While "the central figure" is not a false characterization, and one can google up at least one solid RS which uses the phrase, I'm pretty sure that it's not what WP:NPOV tells us to do. We aren't going to find a formulation that will satisfy everyone, and from my standpoint the most important thing has been to get rid of the part that read "widely identified as its founder by non-Muslims", which was even less compliant. Eperoton (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My knee-jerk reaction is that "the central figure" is a sort-of copy-paste from Jesus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't done a source review for Jesus, but a couple of editors who may be more familiar with that article have written above that the reason Jesus isn't called the founder of Christianity, is because some historians think that the credit belongs to Paul. In any case, WP:CONSISTENCY applies only to titles. Eperoton (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps someone is wondering then why the article of Paul isn't oppened with a sentence similar to the opening sentence in this article "notifying the readers that he is the founder of Christianity" (at least from a historical point of view as Eperoton pointed out here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.38.41.98 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Because there were several other people active at that time in shaping the Christian faith. Paul was probably the most influential of them all, but the others cannot be ignored. Are there any other significant figures than Muhammad who were active at that time (excluding those who were explicitly following him)?--Khajidha (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, this comes down to the fact that the English language adopted the word "Islam" specifically to refer to the movement started by Muhammad and not to the general body of monotheistic teachings that the original Arabic word refers to. The activities of the prophets before Muhammad are not discussed as part of Islam in English, they are discussed as part of Judaism or Christianity or proto-Yahvism and so on. --Khajidha (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly prophet Muhammad was born

I was searching where prophet Muhammad was born. In which place in Makkah and I found some sources that says he was born in a place called Dar Al-tabab'ah (Arabic: دار التبابعة) in Makkah here is a source in latin language. it says (دار التبابعة Domus in urbe Meccana, in qua natus fuit Muhammed). Can I add this or is it trivia since we cant really find a lot of sources that care where he exactly he was born.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that the infobox says "Mecca", but this is uncited and not mentioned in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam From personal experience, when I went to Mecca in the previous decade, there was a library near the Haram, to the east of Safa and Marwah, marked here, which had a sign saying that this was the birthplace of Muhammad, and the sign said that he forbade his Companions from entering it, if I remember correctly, which isn't surprising. Leo1pard (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC); edited 16:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

After doing more research on this I found a lot of sources claiming different places as birth place of Prophet Muhammad. Some say he was born in a place called 'Asfan in Mecca some say in a place called Souq alail(سوق الليل) and some say Dar al-tabab'iah it doesn't seem that there is an agreement where exactly he was born. --SharabSalam (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Are they all in Mecca? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is no dispute that he was born in Mecca but the exact place is disputed. Here is a source that mentions Suq Al Lail and 'Asfan as well as other places as possible place of where Muhammad was born. however it is in Arabic and I think it could be regarded as a primary source. It doesnt seem to me that there are English sources that talks about this matter.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

good enough? For "Mecca", that is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yea. Maxime Rodinson book is a solid reliable source--SharabSalam (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for merging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus against merging. MrClog (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article Muhammad in Islam should be merged into this article, because Muhammad is not very much viewed in the other faiths. There should be a section in this article that talks about Muhammad in other faiths, but I don't think it's necessary to have one article on Muhammad in general and one article on Islamic views of him. Catinthedogs (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, it's a notable topic on it's own. Also well-cited and GA-rated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, Muhamad in Islam includes ideas about Muhammad which are unhistorical but theological important, such as the idea of "Muhammadean light" or "Muhammad in later Islamic thought". All this differs from the historical Muhammad.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, agree with VenusFeuerFalle point.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, it is not only WP:notable on its own, the contradictions within this article, and between the articles, particularly on the view of whether Muhammad should be regarded as a founder or restorer of Islam or a Prophet, and likewise what Arabia was like during the days of Abraham, whether Islam was that religion upon which Abraham founded Mecca, or was Mecca founded by Abraham, and whether the Hanifs who before Muhammad who were inspired by Abraham's Monotheism did exist, the exact beginnings of the Kaaba, and what exactly does "Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa" mean (farthest place of prostration that Muhammad went to, or a building constructed in the 8th century, after his demise), thanks to what the various sources, are such that it is better to leave this article as the more secular or multi-religious view on him, even if complication due to WP:conflicting sources, and the other as precisely what Islamic texts or sources say about him, without getting into too many complications like what this article has. Leo1pard (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC); edited 18:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Usage of this image

Birth/Death dates of the Prophet (PBUH)

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as founder of Islam

About naming, titles, etc.

File:Mohammed.jpg

Please put this image in the infobox if someone removes. Used on German and Serbian Wikipedias in the lede; no reason not to use here, it's best image for infobox, the best representation; moved inscription immediately below infobox; please don't ask for discussion or consensus on talk because it's obvious, Wikimedia is not a religious organisation; if inscription is better representation, please move Mohammed.jpg below infobox, don't delete it completely (or explain such behaviour). Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead, It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Non-Muslims don't know Arabic and will not recignize that symbol seen in mosques. Also, Wikipedia does not need to be compliant with any religion, it is not a religious organization. We even have possibility to remove such images for those who don't want them, it's enough. Per previous MoS cited, not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic so this inscription could be removed because it does not represent topic any way as image, only as Arabic text. Removing all images might be good solution because MOS:SHOCK needs to be fullfilled (and neutrality as one of Wikipedia's pillars, and adding that inscription is not neutral because it's Arabic text, not English or some neutral image like image of the face). I added it following this statement on the previous MoS page: Sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia. Editors may assume, per Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, that readers are aware that such articles may contain such images. So other solution is to put it below infobox, and after it inscription, with leaving infobox empty. --Obsuser (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, one of the big arguments for keeping the image out was that putting up an image like this in the same way that is done on the Jesus article puts up a kind of false equivalency or undue weight as far as depiction goes; Depictions of Muhammed are not as uniform or popularly used/recognized in the Islamic world as ones of Jesus are in the Christian world, so putting it in the lede can be misleading. Eik Corell (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Right. If you want to use a depiction of Muhammed himself, how do you choose which one? There's no consensus and they tend to be very different from each other. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. Can we add it somewhere down in the article, not in the lede? I want to add File:Muslim_depiction_of_Muhammad_-_17th_century_Ottoman_copy_from_the_"Edinburgh_codex".jpg also, which is in French Wikipedia article's infobox. Both of these images are too relevant to miss them. Institutions that keep tham are relevant too. Currently, there are only two depictions, both with small face representation. --Obsuser (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The consensus on images in this article is unusually strong, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Consensus can change, but I think it's unlikely in this case, lead-image-wise. You can try Depictions of Muhammad, or suggest "swap image X in the body of this article for my image" Also, note the "Important notice" template near the top of this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I hope you see that "used on German Wikipedia in the lede; no reason not to use here" are very weak arguments and "it's best image for infobox, the best representation;" are very personal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I added it into proposed Depictions of Muhammad and used cropped version for File:Muslim_depiction_of_Muhammad_-_17th_century_Ottoman_copy_from_the_"Edinburgh_codex".jpg.

OK, you are right for those. --Obsuser (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Describing Muhammad as a "merchant" in the first sentence

Political Leader is not a perfect title

Dear Wikipedia team please correct this, write Last Prophet or Prophet instead of Political Leader because billions of People are being hurt with this title. No doubt Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) was an ideal and greatest political leader in history, but, with names of Prophets Jacob, Abraham, Moses (P.B.U.T), the title is Prophet, but with Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) you write political leader, that is injustice and also creates bad reputation of Wikipedia. I suggest you and request you that please change it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masood Leghari (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masood Leghari: I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the issue? He's called a prophet in the second sentence.
Alivardi (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No. WP is neutral. It does not care about your feelings or opinions. And as Alivardi says, I don't even see what you're referring to. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Masood Leghari, please don't listen to en cid, wikipedia does care about your feelings and your opinions.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: dear thank you very much you gave importance to my opinion. Dear the first title here is political leader, if you search on google, first title is political leader. Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is basically the Last prophet then he is a religious leader then a political leader. So there should be "last prophet" in first sentence and initial title.

I see what you're referring to. I changed the order to: "was an Arab religious, political, and social leader." He is primarily remembered as a religious leader, I think it can be said. And I do apologize for being brusque earlier - but I stand by what I said. Threatening WP's reputation and calling neutral edits an injustice is unproductive. I am going to again say that WP does not follow any specific creed, religion, etc. and in a sense does not "care" about your feelings. It is neutral and should present a factual record. Next time you request an edit, please do so without threatening WP or without elaborating on how the subject is the greatest figure in history. Essentially, keep it neutral. Thank you all. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I always see a conflict between neutrality and western point of view in English wikipedia, in here, it seems to be a likely similar case to me. There should be a continuous clear purification of the neutral point of view by a tolerant and honest intellectual discussion. And for eveyones kind information, google always follow wikipedia, if you change the title as prophet, from the next second, google will show you prophet in search result. So there is nothing to be mentioned about google. Lazy-restless (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Death and tomb

"He died on Monday, 8 June 632" should clarify this is a Julian date and not Gregorian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.164 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? Nobody was using the Gregorian calendar at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Muhammad fell ill" Due to eating from a poisoned sheep, which was presented to him by a Jewish woman at Khaybar. Why is the cause of death not mentioned? It is mentioned and explained in: Sunan Abu Dawud 4498, Sahih Al-Bukhari 2617, Sahih Muslim 5430, Sahih Al-Bukhari 4428. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubusia00 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

These would be considered WP:PRIMARY sources on WP, but something like this could perhaps be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay first of all, the story that prophet Muhammad was given a poisoned meat is true but there is no mention that he ate it. The story instead tells us that prophet Muhammad asked the Khaybar tribe "Did you put poison in the meat" before even eating it. The other Hadith in Bukhari which says that prophet Muhammad told Aisha that he still suffers from the poisoned meat he ate in Khaybar is a Muʿallaq Hadith^* and its Matn is disputed because that Hadith says that prophet Muhammad was suffering from the poison after 3 years from eating it which can't be true. You can't suffer from a poison for three years.

He was not suffering from poison, but from the effects of the poison (This is perfectly possible if poison damages some of your internals): Sahih Al-Bukhari 4428: Narrated `Aisha:

The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." It says literally he can feel the pain caused by the food HE ATE. Sunan Abu Dawud 4498: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) then ordered regarding her and she was killed. He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaybar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta. I study Theology on University, there is a pretty big consensus on this, mostly due to many of the hadiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubusia00 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Another thing is that Shia don't believe prophet Muhammad was died from poison, instead, they believe Aisha and Hafsa killed him because prophet Muhammad told Aisha and Hafsa that their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar, will rule after his death. So they killed him to make their fathers rule.

*Muʿallaq Hadith is when Bukhari says, "X person said...". The strong Hadith should be "X person told us[Bukhari]". When the Hadith is Muʿallaq it indicates that there is a missing narrator

--SharabSalam (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing now, but has this story at times been brought forth among Muslims as a reason not to like Jews? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Although this isn't related but...

Usually the reason some Muslims dislike like Jews and Christians is political but some use verses out of context from Quran which condemns both Jews and Christians.

Some people use quotes which are directed towards Bani Israil(Israelites). However, in the Quran "Bani Israil" were not either Jews or Christians. so... these quotes arent about Jews or Christians.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Founder of Islam is innaccurate

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019

Mecca as a prominent settlement

In the article's pre-Islamic Arabia section it is stated that Mecca and Medina were major cities in the Arabian peninsula. It is true that Madina (as Yathrib) was somewhat important and had a history before Islamic expansion, the claim that Mecca was a prominent trading outpost before Islam is disputed by contemporary historical sources and modern historians, as it can be seen in Mecca article:

The early history of Mecca is still largely disputed, as there are no unambiguous references to it in ancient literature prior to the rise of Islam.[31] The Roman Empire took control of part of the Hejaz in 106 CE,[32] ruling cities such as Hegra (now known as Mada'in Saleh), located to the north of Mecca. Even though detailed descriptions were established of Western Arabia by Rome, such as by Procopius, there are no references of a pilgrimage and trading outpost such as Mecca.[33] The first direct mention of Mecca in external literature occurs in 741 CE, in the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle, though here the author places it in Mesopotamia rather than the Hejaz.[33] Given the inhospitable environment,[34] and lack of historical references in Roman, Persian and Indian sources, historians including Patricia Crone and Tom Holland have cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.

So it might be better to use the modern opinion on this subject rather than Watt's 1953 book, Muhammad at Mecca, as two articles contradict themselves. What are your opinions? --Gogolplex (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A month has passed and I still did not get any answer or suggestions. This article claims to be a "good article" yet fails to show consistency within interconnected articles. Mecca as a prominent settlement before Islam is a flawed concept and is indeed from the perspective of Islamic historiography --Gogolplex (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Since no one responded, you should do as you think best while following Wikipedia procedures. That WP:BOLD move might provoke some discussion. Editor2020 (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2019

"little bloodshed" taking Mecca?

Muhammad as a real historical figure

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

No mention of the poison?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Rectification in Epithet (Laqab)

Muhammad as the founder os islam

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

Please add (PBUH) or (SAW) towards the end of the Prophet Muhamad’s (SAW) name

Wrong date

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

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

I need to correct one of the errors on this page University Gee in Claude (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

@University Gee in Claude: You need to tell us what the error is, so an editor with sufficient experience can make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The error is the Prophet Muhammad is not a politician University Gee in Claude (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

There are sufficient sources to support the statement that Muhammad was a political leader. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

[1]
element. 213.241.10.194 (talk) 08:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

When Muhammad Began Preaching
The article incorrectly states Muhammad began preaching in 610. Muhammad did not begin preaching until 613. The article itself says Muhammad received his first revelation when he was forty, which would've been in 610. Then, the article says he began preaching three years later, in 610. This is clearly an error and should say 613.172.1.76.53 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Birthdate
While the exact date of birth of Muhammad is not known, many sources cite "April 22, 571" as being a possible historical date (incidentally, it's also the one given by Google). Here are some factors which went into the calculation: 1. Muhammad was widely reported to have been 63 at his passing, which equates to 61 solar years 632 - 61 = 571. 2. Muhammad's birthday is believed to be in the month of Rabi' al-Awwal, with some sources offering it as being a few days earlier. 3. Muhammad practised devotional fasting on Mondays, noting that he was born on a Monday. 4. Lunar calculators give the closest Monday to that date as being April 22, 571, which would be the 8th of Rabi'a al-Awwal. Issues do arise with the calculation, such as the Arab practice of delaying sacred months to legitimize warfare; however, if a date is to be given, 22 April 571 is as good as any other -- perhaps with a clarificatory note. In any case, 571 is better than c. 570, given the reports of his death at 63 as above.Moonlight2001 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Moonlight2001, this would be original research and we don't do original research here. We just report what reliable sources say.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
That's smart. Ok, so I have to find reliable sources (like this<ref>Meri, Josef W. (2005). Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 525. ISBN 9781135456030.

Discussion

Idea

References

Alternative proposal: Central figure

Another proposal: the prophet of Islam

When Muhammad Began Preaching

Birthdate

Related Articles