Talk:Muhammad/Archive 33

Dear Wikipedia,

In the article on Muhammad, the last Prophet of Islam, you had a section on criticism for marriage 0f Aisha at a very young age. This CLAIM HAS now been refuted by validated and corroborated research. In so, AND out of transparency, you may kindly update and add the footnote that a new research (by Dr Adnan Ibrahim) has shown that the marriage was consummated when Aisha was above 18.

See page 19 and 20 in the link of the university of Leiden research below.

Thanks for your updating the page.

(personal email removed)

https://zenodo.org/record/259600/files/12866608_A_Modern_Matn_Criticism_on_the_Tradition.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems more or less covered in the Muhammad#Household section, but possibly the crit section should mention that there are other age ideas. Not that it's likely to actually change criticism Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should collapse this section. This has been treated multiple times in the past, and we mention the dissenting option(s), as it’s obviously due. But it’s also a relatively recent phenomenon, and largely in response to modern criticism, as we note. The FAQ(s) address this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and also for your action to amend the sections, accordingly. The evidence brought forward (See the link of the university of Leiden research above) is overwhelming and may even deserve a new wiki page altogether on Aisha's Age at Marriage?

I hope to be of further support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs)

@WaleedAhmadAddas: Please don't edit comments from other editors, even if it is to correct their spelling (see WP:TPO).
Alivardi (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree (it can really piss people off), but in this particular case, I have no objection ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate article, but consider editing Aisha#Age_at_marriage/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Age_of_3rd_wife_Aisha. As I see it, this is one source among several, it may be worth adding somewhere but in a WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION manner. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and I urge the specialists or subject-matter experts at Wikipedia to READ carefully and Weigh-in this NEW evidence so as not to give-in to "feeding" more on this controversy --which should not have taken place considering the evidence. It only takes one black swan to refute the statement, "all swans are white". Please reconsider.WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This new evidence appears to be a paper written by a student and reviewed by a single authority (dissertation supervisor?). I'm not sure this rises to the level of refuting other scholarly work. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Then please make the adjustment as agreed earlier by Paul August and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Also since this the first time for me to join Wiki Talks, I don't know what is the timeline for implementing the changes agreed to as I noticed here and in other few places that there is just "talk" and hardly any editorial adjustments made (and that can really "piss new contributors off" --as well said by Alivardi or Gråbergs Gråa Sång).WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You should know that Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is not a sin in Islam, not a sin in Christianity and not a sin in Judaism. It is only a "sin" in modern (i.e. fairly recent) secularism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, however I find it very disturbing (if not a bit annoying) that every time one makes a contribution, that someone new (this time Tgeorgescu) joins the discussion and comes up with another comment!! You know too well that this could DILUTE the original understandings REACHED. We will not be able to reach any closure on this section or and in this manner. So kindly update the page as agreed and add the new resource that was shared. To summarize the outcomes of all your earlier contributions under this section, they are as follows: -crit section should mention that there are other age ideas; -Perhaps we should collapse this [crit] section...and we mention the dissenting option(s); -consider editing Aisha#Age_at_marriage/Criticism_of_Muhammad#Age_of_3rd_wife_Aisha...this is one source among several, it may be worth adding somewhere; -and if you wish, you could all top it up by adding the full statement of Tgeorgescu as well: "Readers of Wikipedia, please note that Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is not a sin in Islam, not a sin in Christianity and not a sin in Judaism. It is only a "sin" in modern (i.e. fairly recent) secularism"... Wajaddas (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wajaddas: WP:Consensus requires a consensus among all active editors in an article, not just a subset of the editors. It may be that two editors reached an agreement previously. However, if the later participation of Tgeorgescu counters that agreement, then we are in a situation where we need to find a new consensus before moving forward. —C.Fred (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

any reference to Qutham name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F4:5082:F073:C4E1:BC39:BAEA:2A50 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

Planning to start a new article Draft:Islamic feminist views about Muhammad. Just informing here to see if any one interested to join in contributing newly planned article as part of Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam. According to Islamic beliefs, he was the last Prophet of Islam . And the founder of Islam was Adam. You can also check the Adam in Islam article.

According to Quran, Islam is believed to be started from the first human and nabi, Adam in Islam .

Kindly correct the information. TheChunky (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

According to actual history, Islam began with Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Lmao brother this article is about actual History and life Muhhamed Not islam's Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Please add صلی اللہ تعالیٰ علیہ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم wherever the name of Muhammad صلی اللہ تعالیٰ علیہ واٰلہٖ وسلَّم is mentioned. 58.65.150.94 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done, see WP:PBUH – Thjarkur (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Peace be upon him needed 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, please see WP:PBUH Salvio 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I read many of the talk page questions and most of them seem to be offended by the pictures and other details. A notice is put up in the talk page but most people dont visit the talk page until necessary. I think there can be a notice saying something like "Content and images on this article may be offensive to some people" or a better phrased notice. Say your opinions. MRC2RULES (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

WP has many many articles that "may be offensive to some people", see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and WP:NODISCLAIMERS. It's like the rest of the internet in that way. You can find more opinions on this in sections 3 and 4 at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images (see also the closers comment). Consensus can change, but that one hasn't yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The "warning" is the simple fact that this is an encyclopedia, not an Islamic religious tract. --Khajidha (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As stated, there is already a content disclaimer applying to the entire encyclopedia. We don't put disclaimers on individual articles. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines inevitably lead to content that some people are going feel offended about; that is their personal choice and not in Wikipedia's control. Anyone who wants to avoid being offended by images can configure their account or their browser not to show them, as stated clearly in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Muhammad Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Similar to other pages Muhammad should have a| "venerated_in =" line. Doremon764 (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, do you have examples? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think they're requesting that a "Venerated in" data field be added into the infobox, like you'd find in Template:Infobox saint. Not sure whether the infobox for this article supports that data field though.
Alivardi (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, like Ahmadiyya and Bahai. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We could add a chart similar to the ones in John the Baptist, Daniel (biblical figure), and Noah. Venerated could count Druze, Bahai, and other religions who see Muhammad as a prophet. Doremon764 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The chart on Muhammad in Islam has a Venerated section. Doremon764 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

And it seems to be a parameter in infoboxes for saints. Articles like this one, Jesus, Buddha and Rama doesn't have it. I'm neutral on inclusion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the controversy over the Prophet being described as the "founder" of Islam: I'm not Muslim myself, but it seem to me that the word "founder" does not fully represent the complexity of his cultural role to many people, and a different phrase with a similar meaning may be more neutral and accommodating. I suggest "...was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and a foundational figure in Islam. According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach..."

It may also be worthwhile to include an infobox in the header that the Prophet's name is usually rendered "Muhammad (pbuh)", "Muhammad (SAW)" or similar by Muslims. Chinkeeyong (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been debated full tilt for more than a decade here. PBUH is simply a religious reference and doesn't deserve a space in an encylopedia devoted to knowledge and secular information seeking values. PBUH is neither secular nor something that lends itself towards seeking more knowledge. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:1844:4E48:F572:8B5D (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we add PBUH to every instance of his name, as that would be misrepresentative. I'm just pointing out that that we should add a more visible note about a common way that his name is styled. Surely it is more encyclopedic to include information about the way that Muhammad's name is commonly represented by a significant subset of English speakers. Chinkeeyong (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hrm. Would adding a note to the intro (and infobox) make this more user friendly? Consider the introductory sentence and infobox fragment after adding a note (references to sources removed for clarity):

Muhammad^{[n 1][n 2]} (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, pronounced [muħammad];^{[n 3]} c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam.

We could also add a comment that the Manual of Style specifies that we don't use PBUH in the text, but that may be too meta for the article. Thoughts? —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those suggestions would be appropriate for the lead section of a biography article. A sentence could be included to the prose in the Legacy / Islamic tradition section, though, without needing a footnote. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

But that assumes people will be reading all the way to that section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the footnotes are a good compromise -- including the extra information without making the introduction/infobox significantly clunkier. What do you think of the "the founder" to "a foundational figure" change? I noticed that the search box summary is "Founder of Islam" so that would have to be changed as well. Chinkeeyong (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chinkeeyong: with the utmost repspect, absolutely not. As other editors have noted, this has been discussed ad nauseum, for years. Phrasing it that way violates some of the foundational core policies of Wikipedia, namely WP:RNPOV.

@Emir of Wikipedia: It's up to the reader how much they want to be educated. Some people only read headlines and don't read articles. These are not really people who can be educated, no matter what we do. I think it should be assumed that anyone who comes here truly seeking knowledge will have the tenacity to stick around and find it on the page. Felice Enellen (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal is that we should tacitly state what amounts to a specific religious belief in Wikivoice, which is quite simply not going to happen. It’s been repeatedly requested, in some form or another. Often framed as out of consideration for the religious sensibilities of others, which is a violation of NPOV. Muhammad is universally regarded by mainstream secular scholarship as the historical founder of the religious movement we now refer to as “Islam”. So we state that. Editors all know and acknowledge that one of the primary beliefs in that religion is that Muhammad is part of a succession of prophets teaching the same general beliefs. That this is generally the worldview held by Muslims is likewise stated throughout this article, and others, as it should be. We describe the religious belief, but per NPOV, we also state that this is not accepted by mainstream scholarship, and by extension, the consensus that there is no supporting evidence for it. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the well-reasoned reply. Chinkeeyong (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Most welcome. I was afraid I might have come off a little brusk, or less than respectful in being so blunt, but it basically boils down to that reasoning. While I’m not sure if we’ve gotten any similar requests at these articles, it would be similar for Baháʼu'lláh and the Baháʼí faith. We state definitively that he was the founder, and that it was a new religious movement of the 19th century, though they likewise believe that the Baháʼu'lláh is part of a succession of divine messengers (including Muhammad, and all the Islamic prophets), which culminated in the revelations of the Baháʼí religion. You’ll see all religious subjects being treated with a pretty evenly secular framing on the encyclopedia, in order to be “religiously neutral”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Add ﷺ after muhammed 62.88.128.142 (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See MOS:PBUH. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed some parts of the debate and am familiar with how the reference is made in English, German and Arabic scholarly literature.

1. The transliteration common among Islamists, Arabists and Semitists writing in European languages should be included in addition to that of IPA. This is the most common spelling found in the specialized academic literature of these languages and the convention should not be ignored and because the article should also serve to familiarize the reader with what they might expect in further reading.

2. The teknonym and (the first 3/4 names in the) patronym should be included within the body of the text of the introduction directly following or preceding the common short name (see English article on Omar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar for example). This is because inclusion of the nasab and the kunyah is the naming practice of the relevant epoch and region, the technical/scientific reference in the most relevant literature and Arab (and later Islamic) conventions and for purposes of disambiguation. (See also the article in German for an example, it translates as Mo/uhamme/ad with the full name... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed)

3. Lastly, despite the fact that simply putting the most common first name in the world as "Muhammad" does serve to imply the article refers to the Muhammad, and contra English and German academic conventions I believe "Prophet Muhammad" should be the phrasing. Contrary to the previous debate, the term prophet is not technically honorific in and of itself (any more than Oracle of Delphi); it was not always so used nor is/was its absence in and of itself offensive. Furthermore, it is the most common reference worldwide and it serves to distinguish and define. Cotrary to popular belief, I believe this and the addition of the patronymic and teknonymic are, if anything, more rationally humanizing than piously aggrandizing: the term prophet is technical in nature in much Islamic/Muslim literature and the rest conforms with naming practices in the contemporary local culture.

This may seem to pile on yet another voice to a contentious and fruitless debate in which all possible opinions and arguments have already been put forth twice. This is especially true given that there is already a solid convention of naming the subject thus in the relevant lanuages. Nonetheless, given the globalized state of affairs, the fact that the subject is crossculturally identifiable, the technical soundness of better defining/distinguishing the subject and the fact that conventions may be altered for any number of reasons including elegance and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.147.253 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't add honorifics to such things, any more than you'd like to see the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:PBUH 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A880:8C00:D96A:516F:D88A:59B4 (talk)

Add (Peace Be Upon Him) or (P.B.U.H.) after Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)'s name where this blessed and Holy name is mentioned in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulamm-e-Mustafa (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Please see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, question 5 for the explanation. Favonian (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Short 'NO' Wow, very polite.

That is ridiculous. What sort of absurd guideline that is to not to give due honor and respect to the beloved Prophet of billions of people around the world. We are not talking about some ordinary human being or some state's landlord. Ghulamm-e-Mustafa (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the guideline of English Wikipedia, where you have chosen to write. More at Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

We discuss the usage of PBUH in the introduction of the Muhammad in Islam article. It is mentioned in this article, albeit only in an image caption. The Manual of Style says that consistently we don't add honorifics to names, whether it be PBUH, Dev Ji, or Mr. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it's mentioned under Muhammad#Sufism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"We are not talking about some ordinary human being" From any perspective outside of Islam, that is exactly what we are talking about. --Khajidha (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

No, just no, Wikipedia can't treat anyone over anyone, with all respect to Muslims, you will never have an unbiased article if people think they should follow how they want to write an article. I am a leftist, I don't agree with people being simply offensive or people doing things to make people mad, but we can not run a Encyclopedia on peoples religious views. Vallee01 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

These comments are hilarious. These geniuses actually think Wikipedia is an moslem text, that will bend to their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.2.155 (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Please add Prophet and 'Peace upon him' or (S) or saw, etc. Rayan-Zahid 358 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, question 5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No. This isnt a muslim text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.2.155 (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello

May you please get rid of the cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is very disrespectful towards our religion. So may you please change them to images that do not contain him.

Thank you! Akthegreat1234 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Very unlikely. If you're interested in why, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Europeans like to do that. His real name is Mohamed, but they want to add a letter "a" instead of "e", so we can get the word "mad". The same thing is that they twist the word "Quran" to Koran, and "Mosque" which is actually Masjid, to add the term "mosquit". Even in the French language, Muhammad, they write it as "Mahomet", and they refer to a satanic black idol with a goat's head "baphomet" . It is abhorrent racism against a messenger who is not white skin. Uryon988 (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think his real name was Arabic: أَبُو ٱلْقَاسِم مُحَمَّد ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلله ٱبْن عَبْد ٱلْمُطَّلِب ٱبْن هَاشِم. But different languages have different spellings. The OED lists a bunch of spellings. You will need to gain consensus for a change; and claiming this spelling is based on racism without reliable sources will not gain such. (And your argument that Europeans want to use an "a" so that "mad" is included isn't convincing as "mad" is not a word in any European language that I know of.) O3000 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but "mad" certainly is a word in at least one European language. Or is English somehow not a European language anymore? --Khajidha (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Danes don't like to be without it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. The word "Muhammad" has many pronunciations and I do not need a source to prove anything, but the fact that Europeans in medieval times used to distort the name of prophet to be more "demonic" such as "Magomed", "Mahound" and "Mahomet". Hyi9900 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The same could be said for any peoples mate, the simplicity of the thing is that calling out racism due to name mispronunciations on an encyclopedia meant to be neutral is rather asinine. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A543:EA4D:69ED:1520 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe they just had a hard time pronouncing a name in a different language? No, you're right, it's MUCH more likely that they deliberately mangled the name just to piss off Muslims. (that's sarcasm, in case it wasn't clear)--Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Hyi9900: I would point out here that this talk page is for discussing changes to the article only. Are there any changes being proposed here? Paul August ☎ 15:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The article cites Medinan fever aggravated by stress as a possible cause of death, but it doesn't mention another cause of death, which is death by poisoning.

In some hadiths it is said that Muhammad was poisoned by a Jewish woman, and died because of it. Obviously I am not saying that this is 100% the cause of death, but I feel like that it should be mentioned, since Islamic scripture says that.

The hadiths that mention this are:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4512

Sunan Abu Dawud 4513

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4428

Kolyu7771 (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Kolyu7771

Per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, we don't like to use hadiths directly as sources. This has come up before, for example at Talk:Muhammad/Archive_32#No_mention_of_the_poison?. If you can find something like a modern book of history that discuss this event/it's historicity, it may have place, here or at Muhammad in Islam, I don't think it's in there either. Zaynab bint Al-Harith is a WP-article, but not a very good one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pls add a para on the journey of Prophet Muhammad to Taif, as it is missing from this page. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.60.91.203 (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not going to happen without more information and input from yourself, we are looking for contributors. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:7CEE:60BD:215A:7DAE (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secular sources that this article can cite? Taif is mentioned in the "Conquest of Arabia" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I found a section on the subject in Wikepedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_visit_to_Ta%27if which tells the story of Muhammad's visit to Ta'if. Suggest to extract a suitable section from it and add it to the main page of Muhammad, thanks again.

Saying peace be upon him after Muhammad is mentioned in sufism section in the article, but it is not only the part of sufism, it is the part of the basic fundamental islamic custom, so I think the line should be transferred in Islamic tradition section. 43.245.121.56 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Tbh, the entire paragraph feels out of place in that section, considering that it does not once mention Sufi practices, instead only referring to general Muslim views. If no one has any further issues, I'm gonna move the paragraph as this user has suggested (plus some minor copy editing to integrate it).
Alivardi (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it's out of place under Sufism. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Kindly add ﷺ with Word Muhammad, anywhere found in this article...whole article ! Humzh Khalid (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If that is something like pbuh, see MOS:PBUH. If not, what is it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the Unicode form of the Arabic ligature for SALLALLAHOU ALAYHE WASALLAM. So, no, not appropriate for use here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, certainly not. See MOS:PBUH and WP:HONORIFIC. Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The line in the first paragraph, "He is believed to be the last Prophet...", the word "believe must be removed, because He is the last Prophet whether someones believe it or not. Qureshi Bawa (talk) 04:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That is only true if one assumes that Islam is correct. In my view, he was not a prophet at all (as such things do not really exist). In the view of the Baha'i Faith, there was a prophet after Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley, anyone?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, must be a minor branch of Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Change X to Y X = Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [muħammad];[n 2] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam.[2] Y = Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [muħammad];[n 2] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] was the last prophet and messenger of Islam, commonly known as an Arab religious, social, and political leader.[2]

Explanation: Muhammad is not a founder of Islam, he is the last messenger of Islam. Islam simply means submitting to the will of the creator, which all the prophets did, and they (all prophets) called them self Muslims. 2600:1700:5862:F010:7181:CDA:8209:321 (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: From a historical standpoint, he is the founder of Islam. Compare with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which holds a religious view that Jesus is the founder of the church, but the historical account shows Joseph Smith as the founder. See threads above this for attempts to change the wording, which have yet to generate consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [Muhammad] (PBUH); c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) is Muslims religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (Salah-u-Alihe Walihe Wasalam) is the last divine prophet of Allah. After His Eminence, no other prophet is going to be sent by Allah. The Prophet of Islam, from the beginning of his mission, introduced himself as the seal of the prophets and is accepted by the Muslims as such. The subject of finality of prophethood in [Islamic doctrine] is considered to be an important matter and it is not in need of any evidence; as finality arbitration from Allah is clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran:

مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَآ أَحَدٍ مِّن رِّجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِن رَّسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِ‏ّ شَىْ‏ءٍ عَلِيماً

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Apostle of Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things.” (33:40) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

القول في تأويل قوله تعالى : مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا (40) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.141 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.141 (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add a Charlie Hebdo image of "Muhammad" to the Article. What do other people think?68.206.249.124 (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we add that? How would it be good? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That it's a bad idea. See however Depictions of Muhammad. It has the 2001 South Park one as well, which nobody cared about at the time. Those were the days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If only we could turn back the clock. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What possible encyclopedic value could it have? How does a caricature help the reader understand Muhammad? So no, we won't add it here (and probably a bad faith suggestion). Jeppiz (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Why? O3000 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not put caricatures on a page dedicated to Jesus? This is a page that relies on sources and is not nonsense Uryon988 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC) إِنَّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَالْمُسْلِمَاتِ وَالْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْقَانِتِينَ وَالْقَانِتَاتِ وَالصَّادِقِينَ وَالصَّادِقَاتِ وَالصَّابِرِينَ وَالصَّابِرَاتِ وَالْخَاشِعِينَ وَالْخَاشِعَاتِ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقِينَ وَالْمُتَصَدِّقَاتِ وَالصَّائِمِينَ وَالصَّائِمَاتِ وَالْحَافِظِينَ فُرُوجَهُمْ وَالْحَافِظَاتِ وَالذَّاكِرِينَ اللَّهَ كَثِيرًا وَالذَّاكِرَاتِ أَعَدَّ اللَّهُ لَهُم مَّغْفِرَةً وَأَجْرًا عَظِيمًا (35) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.56.141 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) reserves the prohibition of any kind of misleading information especially regarding the Religious matters. People must be aware of that act before removing/adding any contents. Either we remove all sections under page "Muhammad[]" or avoid the conflicting statements altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not subordinate to the laws of Pakistan. Eik Corell (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I come on wikipedia thinking it's a reliable source but what do I see everywhere islam getting abused what's the matter with you I see no such thing with christanity buddhism I see no muslim bashing any other religion beliefs you all edit this page based on bukhari ever wondered how can book coming 2 centuries later describe the character of our prophet. Please for God's sake don't bash islam so much I know it's easy today because we are suppressed right now but our prophet is our honor please don't post unbearable contents about our islam on your page that would be pretty good from you guys Hjjhgt (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What specific content are you talking about that's supposedly abusing your religion? Justified criticism of the faith is not abuse and is not limited to Islam only on this website. If you're talking about the Muhammad images, well this conversation has been had many times nor do they also constitute abuse, and we will not take them down. --76.67.98.129 (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Man muslims are 2 billion in the world .2 billion muslims represent that man and you allowed wikipedia's to edit the criticism page.I saw jesus pbuh page nobody talks about his criticisms.My prophet is my life please for God's sake don't allow criticism page to be edited because criticsm are taken from sahih bukhari which is not entirely reliable source as it was written 150-200 years after our beloved prophet left this world how can a person now sitting on a comfort couch edit and malign our prophets image based on a book that came into this world almost 2 centuries later.Please my prophet was best in the world. He was best please delete criticisms page and correct it from reliable sources. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjjhgt (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:145E:34D3:A748:947B (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Jesus. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Change this:

Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [muħammad];[n 2] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the founder of Islam.

To this:

Muhammad[n 1] (Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎, pronounced [muħammad];[n 2] c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)[1] was a religious leader, who is considered by many academic sources in the Western world to be the "founder of Islam",[2] A.889 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Rationale: source #2 in the article "The Oxford Encyclopedia" represents a major view in the Western academia. Thus, it should be stated that this is a view that belongs to the Western academia in order to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.889 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not the "Western academic view", it's reallity. --Khajidha (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you considering yourself the "spokesperson for reality"?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.889 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a western viewpoint, it's reality. No religion called "Islam" existed in human history prior to Muhammad. That is an undisputed fact. Muhammad is the founder in the exact same sense that Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism (both Muhammad and Smith have remarkably similar stories around them about how the religion was revealed by an angel in ancient documents that no longer exist), even though Mormon adherents also consider Joseph Smith as the last prophet.

By necessity, an encyclopedia of human knowledge must be secular, and a secular encyclopedia does not promote religious viewpoints. That is reality. This article describes the religious viewpoint, as it should, but stating that viewpoint in Wikipedia's narrative voice would violate the NPOV policy. The fact that the statement is cited to the Oxford Encyclopedia doesn't make it a "western" viewpoint. It's simply stating a fact. And this issue has been discussed at great length before; it behooves you to review those past discussion before making a request that has been considered and rejected numerous times.

I have stated repeatedly in these arguments that I'd rather the article say Muhammad "introduced" Islam to the world, and nobody would disagree with that statement. But the current consensus is to state he is the "founder" of Islam. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The view that "Muhammad is the founder of Islam" is a common view in Western academia, but is widely criticised and rejected in Muslim academia. Since this is a common view in Western academia, it should be stated, albeit attributed to its holders. Trying to promote your personal pro-Western view "as reality" is not neutral at all. Would you find it nice if Muslims try to impose their own views on you "as reality"?!

Source #1: "Muhammad is thus not the founder of Islam".

Source #2: "According to Muslims, however, Muhammad was not the founder of Islam"

Source #3: "Muhammad was not the founder of Islam".

Source #4: "To the Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad was not the founder of Islam."

Source #5: "In Christian literature, he is regarded as the founder of Islam, but according to Muslim sources, Muhammad is not the founder of Islam."

Source #6: Muhammad was not the founder of Islam; he did not start a new religion. Like his prophetic predecessors, he came as a religious reformer."

I haven't requested that the statement about "the founder of Islam" in this article be removed, but i've requested that it be attributed to its holders. Very simple thing to do.

"Submission to God" was preached and practiced by all the Israelite prophets and their followers (including Jesus and his disciples). James 4:7: "Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." James, the brother of Jesus, didn't speak Arabic. Thus, it was unlikely for him to use the Arabic word for "Islam" itself. However, it is quite clear that he preached the essense of Islam (i.e submission to God). If you search the entire Bible, on the other hand, you will not find a single verse in which an Israelite prophet preaches "the Christian Trinity" or even "Judaism". Even top Jewish rabbies admitted that the term "Judaism" was used for the first time after the kingdom of Judah. I asked some of them what was the name of their religion prior to the kingdom of Judah, and they admitted they don't know the answer. It is quite clear, however, that none of the Israelite prophets in the Bible used the word "Judaism". It is quite clear, that Abraham didn't consider himself Jewish or Christian. Instead, the Bible shows that Abraham was a "submitter to God". For example, when God ordered Abraham in the Bible to slay his son, he submitted to the will of God and didn't object.

"Ebionites", "Arians", and "Nazarenes", are names and titles that were used by Pauline Christians to describe groups of monotheists that historically existed in the middle-east region prior to the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. Although they were largely persecuted by the Christian-Pagan alliance in the Roman Empire, these groups had beliefs essentially similar to the Muslim beliefs with only minor differences.

For centuries, Pauline Christians described Muslims in their writings with names such as "Muhammadans" and "saracens", although Muslims themselves never used these names to describe themselves. It is very likely that "Arians" as well never used the name "Arians" to desrcibe their ownselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.889 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning Please read WP:NOTAFORUM and adhere to it. I removed a flagrant violation of it. Additional warning at user talk page will follow. As for the matter at hand, it has already been answered. Wikipedia is about verifiable sources, in which the consensus is that Muhammad was rhe founder of Islam. We do not follow devotional views for any religion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

None of those sources contradict what the article already quite clearly states. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is basically us writing in English, and A.889 trying to read it in Arabic. The English word "Islam" was adopted specifically for the teachings of Muhammad. The sense of "submission to God" that A.889 mentions, and which is characterized in Islam itself as something rather more like the English language concept of "the Abrahamic faiths" was not adopted in English. English language sources do not characterize Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc as "Muslims" or as practicing "Islam". --Khajidha (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist, the sources I provided above attribute the different views on this topic to their holders. This source, for example, attributes the view that he is the founder of Islam to "the Christian literature", and the view that he is not the founder of Islam to the Muslim sources. This source, also, attributes the view that he is the founder of Islam to the Western academia. It says: "In Western studies, Islam is often portrayed as a founded religion, whose origin can be dated back to the seventh century. Since Muhammad is regarded as the founder, the term Muhammadanism has been used. According to Muslims, however, Muhammad was not the founder of Islam". This is excatly what I want: that this view be attributed to its holders (Western or Christian), and the opposite view be mentioned and attributed to its holders too (Muslims). Presenting the common Western/Christian view alone as "reality" without attributing it to its holders violates the concept of neutrality.

Although the Arabic Wikipedia article on this topic is a featured article, which means its quality is higher than the quality of this article, it doesn't make any mention at all of "Muhammad being the founder of Islam" anywhere in the introduction! (although it does assign a paragraph in the body of the article to present the various Christian/Western views) This shows that this Western/Christian view is not reality, and that it is widely criticized and rejected in the Muslim literature.

While I prefer following the example of that featured article and not mentioning this controversial view about the "founder of Islam" anywhere in the introduction of this article here. If you feel like you want to mention it, then you need to attribute it to its holders instead of presenting it as reality. Otherwise you are flagrantly violating the principle of neutrality.

@Khajida: then, why does the article of Paul start by saying that "he was an apostle who taught the gospel of Christ." (a pure Christian religious statement !!!) instead of saying the "he was the founder of Pauline Christianity" (from historical and secular point of view). Isn't this a crystal clear example of the profound bias here?! Would you find it appropriate if this article starts by saying that "Muhammad was an apostle who taught the Quran of God"?!--A.889 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a point on the "Paul" thing, and per WP-philosophy, that is something to be dealt with at that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is an absolute no. We do not present facts and faith as two different views. You seem to continue to conflate the academic view with the Christian view. Christians believe Muhammad was insane, or a liar. Of course we are not going to say that. Again, we say what the academic consensus is. Concerning Paul, I think you are right, that article should not say that. Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Although the Arabic Wikipedia article on this topic is a featured article, which means its quality is higher than the quality of this article" Considering that the two articles are on different Wikipedias with different standards for featured article status, any such comparison is dubious at best. --Khajidha (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, i didn't say anywhere in my comments above that "facts and faith should be presented as two different views". Basically, this is not "facts vs faith" issue. The academic consensus in the Muslim world is that "Muhammad is not the founder of Islam", and this is not based on faith, but on evidence rooted in comparative religion and history. This field of studies was actually estabiled by devout Muslims scholars like Al-Biruni and Ibn Hazm centuries before it reached the West.

@Khajidha, you know that the Arabic wikipedia has the same set of policies and principles regarding "neutrality" and "reliable secondary sources" that the English wikipedia people claim adhereing to. BTW, do you think it is neutral and appropriate if this article starts by saying that "Muhammad was an apostle who spread the teachings of God"? If not, then why did you make such a biased phrasing here?!--A.889 (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? We are talking about academic consensus today. What academics thought 1000 years ago is utterly irrelevant; science constantly evolves. Jeppiz (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You will notice that I removed the explicit references to gospel and Christ. As for the link to Jesus in Christianity, I simply did not follow the (preexisting) link to read the article as I should have. I have now changed the link to the more neutral Jesus. --Khajidha (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• The academic consensus today, in the Muslim world, is that it is inappropriate and inaccurate to describe the Prophet as "the founder of Islam". This is manifest in almost all the academic publications here, including: the Arab Encyclopedia, the Global Arabic Encyclopedia, the Turkish Encyclopdia of Islam, and the Urdu Encylopedia of Islam, among many others in different languages. All of them refrained from using this description (i.e "founder of Islam") in their articles on the Prophet. That's why the featured article in the Arabic wikipedia has also refrained from using this description.
• Even the Encyclopedia of Islam, that was published by Brill, refrained from describing the Prophet as the "founder of Islam". It uses the description "Prophet of Islam" instead.source --A.889 (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a nonsense argument. If several sources claim "X", just finding a few sources that don't explicitly claim "X", while not refuting "X" either, doesn't invalidate the claim in any way. Your argument is akin to claiming that unless every source about Shakespeare explicitly mentions that he wrote Hamlet, we cannot say that he wrote Hamlet even though several excellent sources say he did. Jeppiz (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This argument and its example would be relevant if someone requested the removal of a certain "sourced" statement from an article because it is not supported by other sources. However, this is not what has been requested here in the first place! This edit-request has been made for the purpose of attributing a certain viewpoint to its holders, which is the correct thing to do. It hasn't been made for the purpose of removing that viewpoint entirely.--A.889 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ‎ 71.169.165.83 (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done, see WP:PBUH. Jeppiz (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"The earliest surviving written sira ... Although the work was lost..." These contradictory phrases are applied to the same work. Please rewrite in a coherent manner. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Good catch. Based on reading the linked articles in that sentence, it seems that the original work was lost, and the only things surviving from it are excerpts in other ancient scholarly works. I have revised the sentence. Hopefully it makes more sense now. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In my point of view, the paragraph is still problematic. It is now suggesting that the earliest ever written Prophetic Biography was the one written by Ibn Ishaq. However, several Prophetic Biographies or proto-Biographies were actually written before Ibn Ishaq's. Musa ibn Uqba (born c.674), for example, wrote a Prophetic Biography, before Ibn Ishaq. There is no English Wikipedia article on Musa ibn Uqba, but there is an Arabic Wikipedia article on him that can be found here. A person can also find here on this page: "List of biographies of Muhammad" an incomplete list of the earliest Prophetic Biographies or proto-Biographies written as early as the beginning of the 1st century AH.--A.889 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, @A.889: How would you suggest phrasing that sentence? Khajidha correctly pointed out that the original was contradictory. My revision removed the contradiction, but I am not sure how to adjust it to account for the nuances you describe. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Writings on the the biography of the Prophet (in Arabic: al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah السيرة النبوية) started as early as the first century Anno Hegirae by the second generation of Muslims.

Among the early writers in this field were: Urwah ibn Zubayr (died 713), Aban ibn Uthman (died 723), Aamer al-Shaabi (died 723), Wahb ibn Munabbih (died 725), Aasim ibn Umar ibn Qatada (died 738), Shurahbil ibn Saad (died 740), Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (died 741), Musa ibn Uqba (died 758), Sulayman ibn Tarkhan at-Taymí (died 760), Ibn Ishaq (died 767), and Ma'mar ibn Rashid (died 770)."^{[1] [2]} --A.889 (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any mention of statues. "For the first half of the 20th century, an eight-foot-tall marble statue of the Prophet Muhammad overlooked Madison Square Park from the rooftop of the Appellate Division Courthouse at Madison Avenue and 25th Street." Source NY Times: A Statue of Muhammad on a New York Courthouse More recently an artist in Australia with support from the Secular Party of Australia is building a statue mocking the prophet as an exercise in freedom of speech. Source: Wayne Smith building Muhammad Statue mocking the prophet. Art of Muhammad has not always been banned and indeeed nothing within the Quran actually forbids imagery depicting the prophet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.219.227 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No mention of statues is required; this is irrelevant to Muhammad's biography. You made an identical request at Talk:Depictions of Muhammad, and the request is more appropriate there. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying I should add it to more pages? Good idea but I haven't the time really. Thought those two pages were the most relevant. The other is more relevant than this one? Ok. Fascinating. Don't see why you would bring it up but nice observational skills I guess possibly. Seems a minute thing to focus on though. Wait. No mention of statues required did you say? This figure from the barbaric 7th century has hardly any monuments to his bloodthirsty killings. Alexander had a library. Genghis Khan built cities. Hitler designed sports stadiums. Would you mention a great egyptian pharoah without reference to his pyramid? Stone outlasts the written word. Even legends die but monuments last thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.208.109 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't ascribe words to others that haven't been said. I never said to add it to more pages. Yes, Alexander had a library, Khan built cities, pharaohs have pyramids. What is your point? That the article fails to mention that Muhammad unified the Arabs and founded a religion? The article does, in fact, go into quite some detail about those things.

Moreover, you haven't demonstrated why a discussion of statues is relevant to include in a biography article about Muhammad. We could include a photo of a statue if one exists with a suitable free license, and if such a photograph provides a relevant illustration of something in the text. But the quotation you included above is simply a statement about a statue, and gives no biographical information, which is the point of this article. What is the point of your proposal? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Please change: "the founder of Islam" to the "the last prophet in the Islamic belief." 178.115.128.212 (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides, the article already states the Islamic belief in the very next sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The Article about Prophet dont mention about his supposed Peadophilic nature, As Wikipedia claim to be neutral therefore we should present that many leading Scholars agreed that he indeed has Tinge of being a Paaedophilic Man, I can quote scholars who said he was sexually attracted to Aisha at Minor Age but later Persian writters turned a saint and Prophet out of Muhammad. Should I add that ???? 1997 MB (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Alivardi (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ #9 and Muhammad#Criticism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

According to Dan Gibson, this was the place where Muhammad lived his youth and received his first revelations. As the first Muslim mosques and cemeteries show, it was also the first Qibla direction of Muslims.^[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.133.192 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I don't have to edit anything, just write (saw) or (pbuh) after Muhammad everytime .e.g, Muhammad saw or Muhammad pbuh.. 2409:4054:96:82B4:0:0:E7D:F0A0 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, specifically Q5. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

"change 'founder of Islam' to 'reviver of Islam' " 103.152.103.26 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Good day, in the Islamic world you can not say the Prophet Muhammeds name without saying the words "Peace Be Upon Him" afterwards. It is considered offensive and Muslims take it very personally. That being said, the repetitiveness in this instance would make it cumbersome for the reader. So a humble request that it be included in the heading at the very least. This would be greatly appreciated by the Islamic world. TIA. May the Almighty guide us all! Ameen

RudolfRed (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the faq at the top of this page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this website's goal is to state facts and not mere speculations, at least in the lists of a person's biography, I want to suggest this edit. It is almost unanimously agreed upon among the islamic scholars and biographers that Muhammad(SAW) had 11 wives. Rayhana(R) and Maria Al-Qibtiya(R) were his concubines, so they should be listed as such. Although there were a few weak narrations claiming that they were married by our Prophet(S), they were not proven and holds no weight to those claims. So I request the admins/editors to change it up. We muslims will be very grateful for this correction. Ishan87 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying these WP-articles are necessarily correct, but they contradict you to some extent:

• Rayhana bint Zayd states "However, the most accepted position among the Muslims is that the Prophet manumitted her and married her.[9]"
• Maria al-Qibtiyya states "Like Rayhana bint Zayd, there is some debate between historians and scholars as to whether she officially became Muhammad's wife, or was just a concubine.[6][7][8] Though generally well-known in the Islamic tradition as a concubine of Muhammad, she has recently been raised to the status of a wife of Muhammad by certain modern-day scholars.[9]" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"However, the most accepted position among the Muslims is that the Prophet manumitted her and married her." This statement definitely is not true. The most accepted position among muslims is that Muhammad (SAW) had 11 wives and she was not a wife. There's no historical evidence or strong hadith to suggest she was a wife. The link you provided is that sole weak mention which is heavily disputed. There is a strong hadith which basically says- Muhammad (SAW) asked her to be free and marry him, but she choose to remain Jewish and a concubine. Another narration says that later (probably after a year or so) she accepted islam, but there was absolutely no mention of her being freed or marriage. I don't remember the exactly remember the hadith or seerah books-chatper-page numbers, but you can look it up easily by searching. I can provide the links if necessary. As for Mary the Copt, I'm well aware of some people listing her as a wife, but it lacks evidence. There's literally no mention of our prophet marrying her. On the contrary, evidence suggests she remained a concubine. Anyway my point is, most of the scholars, biographers, historians, and books says Prophet Muhammad (SAW) has 11 wives, but nowadays young people prefer the internet for short n easy access, but the top site WP is showing the contradictory info which is sad. Btw, if you really want to go with "modern-day scholars" that the birthdate of Muhammad (S) should be changed as well, because it is not only suggested by modern scholars but modern calculations has suggested that 9th RA of 571 CE is the most likely date of his birth. I suggest you look that up too. Hope you get my point. Thank you.

Ishan87 (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ishan87, I don't know how many wives Muhammad had and I won't pronounce myself on that topic. More broadly, however, please note that it's not really relevant here what people in general believe. Wikipedia builds on reliable sources. Again, I don't know what the majority position among scholars in the relevant fields are, but that is really the only thing that matters here. If you have such sources supporting the edit you suggest, then I see no problem with it. The academic sources need to come before the edit, though. Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Concubines and any relationships out of wedlock is haraam and was preached so. Many hadeeth and quraanic verses can back this up. This is common knowledge amongst ALL scholars. The Prophet Muhammad SAW had no such relationships. Fatimah05 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Add the word prophet before Muhammad peace be upon him he is a messenger of ALLAH like adam peace be upon him And isa Ibne mariya peace be upon him Shaqibsiddiqui19 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The introduction already says "According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet", so the matter is included in the introduction. See also WP:PBUH. —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I am a Muslim, in our belief Muhammad (pbuh) is not a founder, but a messenger. Therefore, the word "founder" refutes Islam as a term. We need to change it. İsmail Kendir (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The article makes this fairly clear. However, WP is not meant to be written according to religious belief, see this link: WP:RNPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. According to WP:NPOV, you can't imply that Muhammad is not a prophet. What if it was a statement that both disbelievers and believers would approve? For example: "Muhammad is the person at the center of Islam." İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have always advocated something along the lines of "Muhammad introduced Islam to the world". However, reliable sources refer to him as the founder, since there was no religion called "Islam" before Muhammad, in spite of adherents' claims that the religion always existed (which is a meaningless claim based purely on faith, not history). In any case, the article already describes the Muslim point of view, so I don't see the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

But what if he assigned by God to invate people into religion? How do you know he wasn't assigned? İsmail Kendir (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not a forum for theological debates. We go with what reliable scholarly sources have to say. That is not negotiable. WP:NPOV is satisfied by describing both the historical and Muslim point of view. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Founder is not right word, secondly we dont use any photos of our beloved prophet, pls remove his imaginary pics... Mohammed Abrar Ahmed Khan (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. WP =/= "we". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: In general, Muslim scholars/academics (both in West and East) do not depict Muhammad as Islam's founder. Are they included in your statement when you say “reliable sources refer to him as the founder” and "We go with what reliable scholarly sources have to say."? The main problem is there are a large number Orientalist references claiming that Muhammad was the founder of Islam. And that’s true as well. Especially from an outsider perspective. No scope to deny that. People always remind me this is English Wikipedia, and so I kind of accept these days that an inherent bias toward Western (Orientalists? in the case of Islam) academic sources is something we have to go along with. This is really then a question of narrative to me. I mean we have created a situation where a certain narrative (here the Orientalist one) must then must prevail over the other (here the generic Muslim one). I even see some WP:RS reporting on this Western-centric attitude of English Wikipedia. Anyway, maybe English Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia will take some affirmative actions someday to overcome this. What do you say? Do you not think that violates WP:NPOV? Are we really not able to overcome this? Just asking. You do not have to answer. Mosesheron (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: Are you saying that the cited modern source is Orientalist? In any case, as I implied in my previous comment, and stated more clearly in archived discussions, I have objected to the word "founder" myself, and I prefer stating simply that Muhammad introduced Islam to people of his region and established the conditions by which Islam gained a foothold and spread. I doubt that anyone, secular or religious, would disagree with that. He is effectively the founder, but that is too generic and ambiguous a label, and we can provide proper context without using the label. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: No, I am not. That's a broad generalization. I didnt even see the source. Anyway, I have no objection toward a contextexualized statement such as this from the cited source: "From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam." I also agree with you on the point that "we can provide proper context without using the label." Moreover, if the community continues to have the consensus to use the word "founder" to describe Muhammad, I am okay with that too. But presently I suppose the lead lacks that context in saying that he is/was "the founder of Islam." Mosesheron (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I concure with @Anachronist Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a second suggestion. If you oppose to this suggest, ask yourself "why shouldn't I follow this suggestion?" instead of asking me "why should I follow this suggestion". The fact that you find this addition unnecessary cannot be regarded as an obstacle to fulfilling this recommendation. If making this change is not going to unhealthy for the page, let's do it.

It's not my problem if you try to to prove that I am wrong without reading and understanding all the sentences above:

{{Short description|Political and social leader, the last prophet in Islamic belief}}

Muhammad^{[n 1]} (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, pronounced [muˈħammad];^{[n 2]} c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE)^[1] was a former merchant, an Arabian religious, philosophical, social and political leader, the last prophet in Islamic belief. İsmail Kendir (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And I have a fresh suggestion: reread all the previous arguments, and stop trying to restart this again and again. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

İsmail Kendir, Your version is not good, because it doesn't say what is most significant about Muhammad to non-Muslims and the world. There is one big thing he is significant for. One. He was the founder of Islam! That is not harsh words or being mean. It's an objective true fact. That is more important! than what Islam says about him! -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the Ahmadiyya, a heterodox sect of Islam, would disagree with the "last prophet" description. The most NPOV and most verifiable statement is "founder of Islam". --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, but I suppose their view doesn't count because there's "only" 10 to 20 million of them :rolleyes: We need to try to be as neutral as possible and "founder of Islam" IS NEUTRAL. YES IT IS NEUTRAL. Neutral does not mean trying to find some kind of middle ground - it means not being partial to any group or position. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The fundamental weakness is that it distances Muhammad from the founding of Islam. None of the other prophets (preceding prophets, per the Ahmadiyya) were contemporary with Islam as we know it. As the person to put into motion that which we now know as Islam, Muhammad is the de facto founder of Islam, even if Muslims deny it. Wikipedia prefers outside, historical views over in-religion views on such matters anyway (see Joseph Smith, who is listed as the founder of the LDS movement, even if members of said movement profess that Jesus is the founder of the church with Smith just having the last/most significant revelation). —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes} Alhamdulillah I am a Muslim. You have wrote on your page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad) that the permissibility of depictions of Muhammad in Islam has been a contentious issue. Today I was keenly visiting the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) in order to acquire specific knowledge. At that visit, I've seen some controversial images titled:

    1. Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel
    2. La.Vie.de.Mahomet 

I strongly condemn these useless and controversial act. These images can provoke religious emotions of Muslims world-wide on notice. I request you to please remove this controversial content from wikipedia, wikimedia and all other pages you have access. Muslim user (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: And I strongly condemn your insistance that everyone follows your doctrine, but hay that's life, learn to live with it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Options to hide an image and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the notice above. The images are going to remain. --76.67.98.117 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

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

There are some incorrect facts as muslims do not believe Peophet Muhammad was the founder of Islam rather they believe he is the last prophet of Islam Editingmachinee321 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Editingmachinee321, read the previous discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

After so much discussion, I think we should now consider an alternative sentence. I tried to bring a sentence and short description that almost nobody would object to:

This comes up so frequently, I am surprised nobody has added an entry to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ by now. I suggest something like this:

That is pretty rough and would need revising (both the wording of the question as well as the answer). The answer should briefly summarize the arguments made in numerous archived discussions that led to the article using this term, so that any further discussion must focus on arguments not already made. It should probably be put after question #5. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Anachronist both on the need to add this (as it does come up rather often) and with the neutral and factual text Anachronist has written. This is really a question of faith versus facts. It is a Muslim belief that early Prophets also followed the same religion Muhammad preached. It is a fact that no written record offers any support at all for that belief. Jeppiz (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: @Anachronist: No sound Muslim scholarship informs us hat historical Islam existed prior to Muhammad. They rather make a case for the existence of a religion in the sense of ad-din that one could refer to as primordial monotheism or something like that. Muslims of course believe in other religious traditions for example Judaism and Christianity but they believe it was God himself who founded or renewed these different traditions. So it is rather a theological debate and not historical one. I think that is where Muslim scholars fundamentally differ from non Muslim scholars studying or narrating Islam. So what do we really mean when we say Muhammad was the founder of Islam? I am a bit confused. Mosesheron (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron:, we (WP) don't enter into theological debates, of course. I think "founder" is straightforward, not sure what intend when you ask what we mean by it. For a perfectly comparable example, we have Joseph Smith and Mormonism. According to the faith of believers, Smith/Muhammad had a revelation from God restored the original religion of Jesus, Moses etc. Scholarship cannot say whether someone spoke to God or not, all we can say is that there is no evidence for it. Muhammad founded Islam in the sense that Smith founded the Mormon Church. Jeppiz (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Right. I didn't really intend to contradict the line of argument you are advancing now especially about scholarship's inability to verify revelation. Of course scholarship cannot verify whether God spoke to someone or not. In fact scholarship even differs on the point of God's real existence. But it is wrong to assume that Muslim scholarship says us historical Islam existed prior to Muhammad. Or Muslims believe Islam was there at the time when Christianity or Judaism prevailed. I said earlier I have no objection toward depiction of Muhammad as Islam's "founder" when presented within a context. Our target here is neither to prove whether Muhammad was the messenger of God as scholarship based on faith advances nor to falsify that claim as secular scholarship on Islam does. I say that because I recognize twese two different streams of scholarship as equally valid for writing content about Islam on Wikipedia. And as Muslim (or other faith based) scholarship takes some issues with bare presentation of Muhammad as Islam's so called founder from a theological point of view, I think adding a little context to it will help to mitigate the situation. Mosesheron (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Or can we not just say that "he is the central figure of Islam" instead of this "founder of Islam" controversy following article on Jesus as it says of Jesus "he is the central figure of Christianity? I think that is more in line with the WP:NPOV. Also I do not think comparing Muhammad and Islam to Smith and Mormonism is justifiable. Mosesheron (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: What difference do you see to Smith and Mormonism? A man claims he has had revelations from God, presents a new scripture he says comes from God, starts a new religion that claims to be a restoration, not new. It sure seems very similar. The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: As for the comparison with Jesus, we are actually treating both in the same way, by giving the academic view rather than faith. Christians believe Jesus founded Christianity; we don't say that because many scholars argue that Jesus never saw himself as God or intended to break away from Judaism. Scholarship holds that a claim can be made that it was Paul who founded Christianity after Jesus's death. There is no such scholarly debate over Muhammad; no scholar AFAIK argues that Islam what founded after Muhammad's death by someone else. Jeppiz (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I do not know how the above comments gave you the impression that I am implying "some middle road between faith and scholarship." I have talked about two different streams of scholarship, namely faith based and secular. Why there should be an a priori assumption that faith based scholarship is impossible and that WP:NPOV is satisfied even though a large number of academic sources have a certain stance against it. Now I am not saying you cannot state Muhammad is the “founder” of Islam. That would be nonsense because a large number of academic sources do claim so and because it is historically true. Here the comparison with Mormonism and smith is not appropriate because Mormonism is a modern phenomenon. Even I too can claim today that God sent me a revelation yester night. But that is not how religion is perennially understood. Mormonism itself functions within the periphery of a Christian understanding of some sorts and is not comparable to major religious figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Now the historical debate on the founder of Christianity within the scholars is a legitimate argument. But this is not being debated here on Wikipedia. And saying that Jesus is “the central figure of Christianity” even prevents a future debate about it. So I contend either we have to contextualize the claim that Muhammad is the “founder of Islam” in line with the cited source which goes on to say “From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam” or we have to avoid this debate altogether by simply stating that "he is the central figure of Islam." Also the reasons stated in the explanation that “The contention that Islam has always existed and Muhammad was its messenger is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts.” is faulty incorrect which I have sought to clarify in my comments because Muslims or faith based non Muslim scholarship does not hold this position. The Islam Muslims or Muslim scholarship refer to that existed prior to Muhammad in the form of Judaism and Christianity has nothing to do with historical Islam. It's a different religious tradtion. And the word "Islam" has different connotations and does not solely refer to the Religion of Islam. Mosesheron (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron:, sorry but your argument remains vague. You seem to imply there is some kind of problem with the current wording, but it's not clear from your arguments above what the problem is and/or why it is a problem. Also, with all due respect, your claim that my argument is faulty is, in fact, faulty - at least as long as your only counter argument is that "faith based scholarship" says otherwise. The CHOPSY test (WP:CHOPSY) is relevant here: "If a scholarly claim is principally unworthy of being taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and/or Yale, then it amounts to sub-standard scholarship and should be never considered a reliable source for establishing facts for Wikipedia.". That seems to be the exact situation we are in here. Jeppiz (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:I have never said your arguments are faulty. I have said that part of explanation provided for the FAQ in question that "The contention that Islam has always existed and Muhammad was its messenger is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts.” is faulty or in other words incorrect which I originally meant. I am sorry if it gives you that impression. It is incorrect because it is not true. And I never said Muhammad cannot be considered the historical founder of Islam. The fact that it is now being debated as to whether we can use it or not tells me that the statement is a controversial one, at least among the Muslims. Now we have resolved other problems surrounding Muhammad such as use of his image and so on. What I was in fact saying is as long as we can solve the problem in a more neutral way we should go for that. Here we can do that just by modifying the description a little. That is why, I am in favour of either providing a little context to the text added. Alternatively, we can simply state that he is the central figure of Islam. The question of scholarship is not that important here. The scholarship I am referring to is also stemming from these and other institutions from around the world so the CHOPSY test doesn't apply here. I am neither a citizen of United States nor greater Europe. Are you suggesting that other countries in the world is not producing scholarship suitable to include in Wikipedia? What problem there is if we simply refer to Muhammad as the central figure of Islam instead of saying he is the founder of Islam? Mosesheron (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: The part of the FAQ you quoted isn't in the FAQ, it's just a sentence in a proposal that I made, and I included a disclaimer that the whole thing is rough and would need to be reworked. Instead of debating what I proposed, I was hoping that people would propose improved alternatives. The wording of the question can be improved, and the answer to the question can certainly be improved. When I wrote it, I didn't review all the prior archived discussions, but merely used my hazy memory of them to summarize what I thought were the reasons we use the word "founder". I've got a busy week so it's unlikely I'll get the time to do it. But I do want the answer to provide a brief overview of all the arguments made in the past, so they don't have to be rehashed. The FAQ's treatment of images is thorough enough that nobody has advanced any new arguments, and we can simply point people to the FAQ. The same should be true for the "founder" question.

So, don't spend a lot of words on discussion. Just propose something else. I am not attached in any way to my own proposal, and I hope someone will improve it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user:Mosesheron that it would be better if the opening sentence in the article is a commonly agreed upon and undisputed fact. An opening sentence like: "Muhammad is the central religious leader in Islam" would be very accurate and would also go in line with the other fact that "Quran is the central religious Scripture in Islam". The article can, later on, in the second or third sentence, mention that Muhammad is described as "the founder of Islam" by some modern Western sources. It should also be stated that Muslim scholars, in the past and the present, have not identified Muhammad as the founder of Islam, but as the ultimate prophet in a series of similar prophets. It is paramount to emphasize that Muslim scholars have based their view on historical evidence, not on baseless faith. That is because the historical Jesus is portrayed in the three synoptic Gospels as a Muslim (i.e submitter to God) in the most clear way. Through out the synoptic Gospels, Jesus is portrayed praying as a Muslim and preaching as a Muslim. In fact, many of the content in the synoptic Gospels is present either in the Quran or in the hadiths. This is because Jesus said that once the Helper (Paraclete) comes, he will remind the faithful of what Jesus said, and he will add to it things that they were not ready to receive at the time of Jesus, and that he will show them things to come. Islam (i.e submitting to God) which Jesus practiced and preached is reflected through the synoptic Gospels. Most of the content in the Synoptic Gospels is pro-Islam and on the same line with the teachings of Muhammad. This has been widely discussed by Muslim scholars throught out history and until our time, and is generally held as true by them. non-Muslims argue that "The word "Muslim" wasn't used before Muhammad", but it was actually used in their own Bible. Read it sound and clear in James 4:7 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God (i.e be Muslims, because Muslims means: submitter to God). Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.. It is just that "Muslims" is an arabic word, so you shouldn't be searching for an arabic word in a Bible written in Greek. You need to look for the Greek word that is equivalent to the Arabic word "Muslim", and this is present in James 4:7.--Zymogen (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that is putting the cart before the horse. If Islam follows some of the teachings of Jesus, that does not mean that Jesus is following the teaching of Islam.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Zymogen, just because 10% of a comment is on topic you cannot go on to violate WP:NOTAFORUM in the remaining 90%. The fringe theory you espouse is well-known and thoroughly debunked. Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And again, this section is about a new FAQ entry. The article is stable, and this topic keeps coming up, so we need a FAQ entry. Nobody has objected to my proposal except me. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I think your proposal is a reasonable one. Although I would simply prefer to describe him as "the central figure of Islam" instead of perpetuating this founder of Islam "controversy". However, if the community decides to maintain the status quo, I would suggest to strike out the "and Muhammad was its messenger" part. Because although there exists such a belief among Muslims that Islam (not historical Islam) in its primordial sense has always existed, no one believes Muhammad was its messenger or the only messenger. He is believed to be rather the last prophet of this perceived primordial tradition that recognizes major prophets of other religions including prophets of Judaism and Christianity. Overall, I find no major problem with the text. But couldn't we simply add that he is "the central figure of Islam" in place of this much debated founder of Islam statement? I think that would be better. Anyway, that's a personal opinion after all. Mosesheron (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought that ALLAH was the central figure of Islam and that applying that terminology to Muhammad would be offensive and idolatrous. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I get the joke. Anyway, if we could rely on religious rulings, this debate would have been unnecessary.  Mosesheron (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mosesheron: I have added the entry to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ with the removal of the "was his messenger" as you suggested. I also agree with you that the article could describe him as "the central figure of Islam" instead of "the founder of Islam", as that is factual and removes the controversial label. Consensus would need to change, though, and until it does, I think we need a FAQ entry. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer you wrote for the FAQ caused a new gap in my head, I can partially understand your saying that we do not write religious beliefs as facts. But if we are not describing the belief of Islam as facts, why should we take the point of view of non-Muslims as fact that Islam has not existed since the beginning of humanity? Isn't this discrimination? The word founder is inadequate and dubious to strike a balance between Muslims and non-Muslims. That a word that implies by willfuly or non-willfuly that Islam was invented by Muhammad does not prevent writing religious beliefs as objective truth, but rather express the claim of non-Muslim belief as true. Saying Muhammad is central the man of Islamic belief, is more neutral than word "founder" for thousand times more. It is not neutral to take the claims of non-Muslims as truth and what Muslims say only as allegations. İsmail Kendir (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This is very simple: We do not take religious beliefs as facts. We do take scholarly conclusions as facts. Ever since you were banned from Turkish Wikipedia and moved over to English, you've been asking this same question over and over again, and numerous users have patiently explained it to you. It's time for you to WP:HEAR what others are saying. Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I hear what other people are saying. But firstly there is a point to note that the answers given by other people contain obvious inconsistent and illogical expressions. Second, if you do not write religious beliefs as truth, you also won't take the fact that the non-Muslims' claim that Muhammad is the founder of the religion, will you? And last, if you are going to write based on what the scholars say, why not base on the scholars who accept Muhammad as a prophet?

We're not conducting a debate here, we're merely explaining Wikipedia to you. You don't need to like them, but you do need to follow them. Please note that your constant beating of this dead horse is becoming disruptive, as others have already pointed out. Jeppiz (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been following every rule you say I should follow in general terms already, the point is that what you and I understand by looking at these rules is different. It is very different. Although I get silenced, I understand that I talk senseful since you're running away instead of answering me. I hate most things that are can't discussable. You didn't even consider the possibility that I might be right. Remember, you will be deemed to have accepted the arguments that you avoided answering through your entire life. But what about me? I am glad you admit I won the argument. I'm leaving now, but I swear by God that I won this. İsmail Kendir (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you simply refuse to understand the simple fact that "Islam" did not exist before Muhammad. What existed were various religious traditions (Jewish, Christian, and others) that Muhammad drew upon when codifying a religion that came to be known as Islam. Without that codification, what we know as Islam would not exist. Thus, Muhammad is the founder of Islam.--Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You just denying that belief of Muhammad just repaired the teachings of pervious prophets, he wasn't the founder but he was last one of the prophets. By denying this belief, you advocating non-theist beliefs. The only thing that harms neutrality is your very limited, scant and primitive system of thought. With your broken logic, due to the lack of written sources, human history dates back only 6000 years ago. Because there isn't neither any written reliable referances, nor secondary sources. That's all I'm saying. Bye. İsmail Kendir (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Umm... history IS limited to written sources. It's kind of in the definition. Things before writing are prehistory. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

I'd like to fix the minor typos and strengthen the expression on the page. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLUELOCK, you're soon there. Then, try to edit by WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, based on your userpage, edits you consider "strengthen the expression" could be problematic. Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Prophet Muhammad SAW died the same day he was born, It's strongly proved by history then why Prophet's Birthday Isn't mentioned certainty?

Prophet Muhammad SAW died the same day he was born, It's strongly proved by history then why Prophet's Birthday Isn't mentioned certainty? 103.242.21.225 (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously not true, as if he had died the same day he was born he would have never lived long enough to do all the things he did.--Khajidha (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps he meant to say he died on the same date but not exactly on the same day? Still would need to provide a reliable source though. --76.67.98.117 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

119.153.153.103 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As in ""However, Ibn Hisham admits in the preface to his biography of Muhammad that he omitted matters from Ibn Ishaq's biography that "would distress certain people"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

EditorOfWiki3002 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This line should be removed immediately. EditorOfWiki3002 (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

there are two problems with your request: you have not said which line "is false", and Wikipedia is a secular publication, and does not follow any religious teachings. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I'd like to get word "founder" in the first sentence changed; change the word which is assuming that Islam wasn't exists before Muhammad, so which is denying an Islamic teach, since that word expresses the prophet Muhammad from an anti Islamic Perspective instead of a neutral point of view. Please do not make an effort to convince me, change it if you agree or say that you do not accept if disagree. If you don't change it, you are responsible for this inexactitude. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

İsmail Kendir, you are getting seriously disruptive. STOP this behavior; you have made the same request over and over and over again, starting numerous new discussion on the same topic as you don't like the consensus. That is the exact definition of disruptive behavior. Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

İsmail Kendir, it just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT at this point. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ismail Kendir, I think you are confusing the Arabic root word and its usage in Islam to mean a continuity of belief and the English word Islam which is specifically defined as being the faith promulgated by Muhammad. Within the Islamic viewpoint, Muhammad is seen as revitalizing a preexisting tradition. But, in English, the manifestations of that tradition before Muhammad have names of their own (Judaism, Christianity, proto-Yahvism, etc). Islam, in English, refers only to what Muslims characterize as just the revitalization. If you (as a Muslim) are discussing only the period from Muhammad onward, what would you call that religious movement? --Khajidha (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you are rightious on one point.

In islamic belief, there is no specific name for the Islamic law brought by the Prophet Muhammad, it simply call as Islam, Muslims usually give specific names to shariahs of previous prophets declared. Although all of them are united under one frame, the word Islam is generally expresses the last version of Islam which brought by the Prophet Muhammad, as you had say.

But if that's why the word founder is included, we should change the "answer to the sixth question in the FAQ" as what I told you in above line. İsmail Kendir (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

İsmail Kendir, I don't think the answer to the sixth question in the FAQ is going to change. It says everything you need to know about the Wikipedia position. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Impartiality means accepting some parts that the irreligious point of view and the Islamic point of view accept as true and not showing inclinations on other issues. Although it says that I will not be based on beliefs, a place based on the irreligious point of view may only make double standards, this does not show the position of Wikipedia; it only sees the irreligious ideology too real to be a belief or myth. The only way to fix this double standard is to change the answer to the sixth question. İsmail Kendir (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

İsmail Kendir, this is a final warning. You have made your opinion perfectly clear for weeks. It is also clear consensus is against you, and continuing to repeat the same arguments ad nauseam is disruptive behaviour and needs to stop now. Jeppiz (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You ignore the rules to silence me. I just said that Khajidha's answer should be written, since there is no logical and encyclopedic justification for not taking religious allegation as serious claims?. How can you expect me not to bring the same argument when you do not give me a single reason and threaten religion not to be taken seriously, also why don't you remember that before you tried to silence me and put me unanswered while claiming to I come with the same arguments all the time? Look, I wrote the neutral answer. Everyone, including you, knows that I'm right, but nobody can digest to accept it. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer to FAQ six IS Wikipedia policy. You can agree with it or not , but either accept it, and keep editing, or just stop editing if you feel that you are not prepared to work within Wikipedia policy. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No, this is unfair. By not giving possibility the belief of Islam to be true, you are violating the neutral pov. The answer to the sixth question says "we don't see religions as something to be taken seriously." Is this neutral, huh? I've spent 15 months on Wikipedia and have never seen such a policy says this. The answer to the sixth question is empty unless it explains are and how the phrase "founder of Islam" does not deny the belief of Islam. I am not saying "it should be written according to the religious view" anyway. I don't want it would written according to a religious view or an atheist view, but I think only objective phrases to take place, an expression that both irreligious people and Muslims will not deny, and I'm not the one who said these, that is the WP:NPOV. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You cannot "assume" that something is true, and if anything, that violates NPOV as well as you are trying extremely hard to cull and alter content to fit your preference. I see this very often judging from your contributions. Wretchskull (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@İsmail Kendir: Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

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

My request is to change the name from “Muhammad” to “Muhammad S.A.W” or “Muhammad PBUH” PBUH stands for Peace Be Upon Him. Reason for that is that writing only “Muhammad” is not suitable and is not enough because of the status of Hazrat Muhammad S.A.W being a Prophet and massanger of Allah. And in Islam Being commanded by Allah and out of Respect “S.A.W” or “PBUH” must be written and spoken with the name of prophet Muhammad S.A.W. My request is to please update and you can do your research as well. May Allah give you hidayat. HamidAlikhanBaloch (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My request is to change the name from “Muhammad” to “Muhammad S.A.W” or “Muhammad PBUH” PBUH stands for Peace Be Upon Him. Reason for that is that writing only “Muhammad” is not suitable and is not enough because of the status of Hazrat Muhammad S.A.W being a Prophet and massanger of Allah. And in Islam Being commanded by Allah and out of Respect “S.A.W” or “PBUH” must be written and spoken with the name of prophet Muhammad S.A.W. My request is to please update and you can do your research as well. May Allah give you hidayat. HamidAlikhanBaloch (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We do not use honorifics in the encyclopedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the discussion in the upper headline, I thought that the answer to the sixth question should be different. Look above to figure out why I say this:

"Let us explain why he is mentioned as the founder of Islam under two subhead. The word "Islam" on the page represents the sharia only brought by Muhammad and does not refer to the laws believed to been sent by God to the prophets formerly. There's no specific name for the Islamic law brought by the Muhammad and that simply named as Islam by Muslims. That's why page says "Islam". And the word founder does not claims that Muhammad made up Islam or he was commissioned by God to found present Islamic faith. This word can be understand according both belief, changes depending to which point of view you look from." İsmail Kendir (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the answer that is there, believe it or not, has been carefully worded to express Wikipedia's position. there is no need, nor indeed grounds, to change it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So you trying to say that Wikipedia is in a biased position so doesn't take religions as serious points of view? Because the answer there clearly states that religious beliefs are not taken seriously in Wikipedia articles. So upon this, my answer would even definitely looks more neutral. İsmail Kendir (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Mate, Your argument is fragile at best. You have no egg cartons to stand on, drop it.136.53.108.241 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This change appears to be unnecessary. Alssa1 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

As the author of that FAQ entry, I am open to changing it to clarify why the article says what it says. Introducing religious viewpoints (laws believed to be sent by God) into the answer isn't the right approach, however. If you have better wording to suggest, then do so (the wording in this proposal is extremely poor English). If you can find flaw with any specific sentence in the FAQ entry, then point it out. I already admitted in the discussion above that I wasn't really happy with it myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, sup? I think I figured out what to replace the sixth answer, I have a new suggest. Wanna hear it? (Improved the grammar) İsmail Kendir (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@İsmail Kendir: Please stop. If you keep doing what you are doing, I am afraid you will soon be subjected to a topic ban. You may even end up getting blocked indefinitely. I am sure you will not appreciate that. Concentrate on something else instead. Try to adhere to the policies and guidelines. Learn from what others are telling you. I've been here myself for a while, and there isn't a day that goes by when I don't learn something new. I understand you are sympathetic to the Islamic position on Muhammad. But that's really not how an encyclopedia works. Besides, you will also have to be well aware of the Euro-American centric bias of English Wikipedia, (see for example this, this, this and this). Anyway, although I do think we could use alternative labels (such as "central figure of Islam") instead of "founder of Islam" to describe Muhammad, the answer provided for the FAQ I think is fine. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and stop beating the dead horse. Best. Mosesheron (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please you read what da hell @Anachronist: write above my line. He clearly said he's open to changing it to clarify why the article says like that, wants me to suggest a new one if I have better wording to suggest, says I can point out if I find flaw with any specific sentence in the FAQ entry. He told me not to hesitate to tell him if I had a new idea, so this is an issue between he and me. Please delete the stuff written after I write yesterday. If you find hard to admit that you made a mistake, then no apologies necessary. İsmail Kendir (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

As a point of order: no edit to a high-visibility article of FAQ, nor indeed to any article, is ever between just two users. This in an open encyclopedia. Moreover, Mosesheron gave you sound advice in a very polite manner; you would do listen to it instead of the rude answer you wrote. See WP:OWN, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for more information. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I might have used the misexpression. Aside that, I am not the only one responsible for the issue. When I said it was between him and me, I essentially questioned why only I was being warned. I replied exactly three days after @Anachronist:'s message. Why did @Mosesheron: not warn @Anachronist: for "beating dead horse" before I answered to him? You people are just obsessed on me, please chill out, gentlemen. I was just giving him respond he asked for. You are wrong if you think I am bringing the same issue over and over again. There was a new development, the author of the answer came and said I can make suggestions. İsmail Kendir (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@İsmail Kendir: you are the only one complaining. You sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's analyze the proposal:

"The word 'Islam' on the page represents the sharia only brought by Muhammad and does not refer to the laws believed to been sent by God to the prophets formerly."

• That is false. Nowhere does this article restrict word "founder" to apply only to sharia law. The word in used in the context of the religion known as Islam, which Muhammad introduced to the world, effectively founding it.

"There's no specific name for the Islamic law brought by the Muhammad and that simply named as Islam by Muslims. That's why the page says 'Islam'."

• That isn't relevant.

"And the word founder does not claims that Muhammad made up Islam or he was commissioned by God to found present Islamic faith. This word can be understand according both belief, changes depending to which point of view you look from."

• Aside from the poor English, this is a valid point, and already stated a different way in the FAQ entry, that Muhammad set up the conditions to establish a firm foothold for Islam, effectively founding it.

In view of that last point, I have added a sentence to the FAQ entry about the intent of the context of the word "founder". ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User İsmail Kendir has been blocked indefinitely. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The lede says: "Besides the Quran, Muhammad's teachings and practices (sunnah), found in the Hadith and sira (biography) literature, are also upheld and used as sources of Islamic law (see Sharia)." Am I to assume this is the consensus? It seems like common knowledge to me. Some sects want to word it differently but I think this is straightforward the way it is. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Adigabrek is starting an edit war about similar wording in the Notes: "Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity, with the Quran as well as his teachings and practices forming the basis of Islamic religious belief." They keep deleting this sentence. I suspect that User:Adigabrek doesn't fully understand the wording. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems there are sects other than Sunni and Shia that do not accept Muhammad's teachings and practices as part of Islam? Should this be mentioned in the lede? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Adigabrek says "There is no historical reliability (which is what we look for in wikipedia, not religious views) that the traditionalist (Sunni/Shia) Islam was ever practiced by Muhammad." Does this work the other way around? Is there really historical basis for the view that Islam includes teachings and practices of Muhammad outside of the Quran? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Would it be fair to add a caveat such as "According to Sunni and Shia tradition"? Trying to prove the teachings and practices of Muhammad is like trying to prove what Moses said. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doctorx0079 and Adigabrek: I disagree with the use of such a caveat. I don't see any reason to reject all hadith or sunnah as being sectarian inventions as Adigabrek had suggested here and here. As far as I understand, this has never been the mainstream academic consensus. Something which immediately comes to my mind is a passage by Professor Laura Vaglieri regarding the Hadith of Ghadeer Khumm in Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam:

It is, however, certain that Muḥammad did speak in this place and utter the famous sentence, for the account of this event has been preserved, either in a concise form or in detail, not only by al-Yaʿḳūbī, whose sympathy for the ʿAlid cause is well known, but also in the collections of traditions which are considered as canonical, especially in the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal; and the ḥadīt̲h̲s are so numerous and so well attested by the different isnāds that it does not seem possible to reject them.

I also want to point out that Adigabrek's statement that "there are no non-islamic traditinoal sources that state he ever used "his teachings and practices" (sunnah)" seems to show a misunderstanding regarding early Islamic history. There are in fact no non-Islamic sources about Muhammad dating from his lifetime full stop. The earliest only date from the first decades after his death, and even these are regarding only the most rudimentary details. What is discussed in the article regarding Muhammad's life originate from Islamic sira. There is no reason to specifically single out accounts of Muhammad's practices as having originated from Islamic traditions.
Alivardi (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Bismillah - I hate discussions on Wikipedia more than anything, and I hate discussions related to sunnism more than anything, so I really didn't want to participate in this, but you commenting on my abilities to comprehend the sentence forced me here, and I'll cut this short.

Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity, with the Quran as well as his teachings and practices forming the basis of Islamic religious belief.

This is, very clearly, claiming that it is a historical fact that prophet Muhammad practiced these "teachings and practices". These so-called "teachings and practices" do not exist anywhere outside of sunni and shia tradition. It should not be stated as a historical fact. If we were to take those traditions as sources for facts, we should accept as a fact that the moon was divided in two and half of it fell in Ali's garden and Dates can counter poison, and we'd be on a hunt to kill black dogs. Are we willing to do that? No.

It should either be rephrased or removed (it doesn't have sources anyways) so I went ahead with it.

Please don't ping me again. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 17:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Adigabrek appears to have misunderstood my previous message, given that they have overlooked the points I made and failed to directly address my concerns; the Straw man argument regarding the alleged traditions they've mentioned ignores the fundamental fact that all hadith are not made equal and have varying levels of verifiability.^[1] Nevertheless, I will respect their wish and not disturb them further with this discussion.

Regarding the concern that the sentence in question is not cited, I would like to point out that as per WP:LEAD, content in the article lead is not required to provide a source so long as there is a citation for the information in the article body. This obligation is fulfilled by the following extract from the Legacy section of the article:

It is for the above reasons that I propose the removal of the "Sunni and Shia tradition" caveat which was mentioned earlier and restore the previous wording of that sentence.
Alivardi (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Alivardi (talk · contribs) It sound like you are implying that this is the view of the majority of Muslims. Thus rejection of the Sunnah is limited to, at the most, relatively minor fringe sects, similar to a fringe theory. I'm not qualified to say one way or another - that's why I'm asking. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Doctorx0079. No, that was not the point I was intending to make here. However, this does bring up another issue with the "according to Sunni and Shia" statement: it excludes other Sunnah-following groups. What about Ahmadis? Ibadis? Mahdavis? To state that the Sunnah are only believed by Sunnis and Shias would be misleading at the very least.
Alivardi (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

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

muhammad was a young wise man with lots of motavations to be a professional book reader 194.81.46.163 (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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

The statement that Mohammed United the entire Arab world under Islam is not based on fact. There would have been many liars who professed Islam and minorities who were forced to profess Islam or die. Therefore, the following sentence is questionable: "Muhammad united Arabia into a single Muslim polity" Minorities and those threatened into professing Islam being "part of a united Muslim polity" is an insult to Islam, and further an insult to Mohammed that he himself united the entire Arab world into one single Muslim polity as an undivided unit. 120.22.7.246 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, not every minority view can be listed in the introduction to the article. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

1) "Arabia" does not equal "the Arab world". Arabia is the Arabian peninsula. 2) A "single Muslim polity" does not require that everyone living there be Muslim, just that the controlling power be such. --Khajidha (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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

First thing to edit is his life, age 6 to 12, there is another one in between namely 8 when his grandfather died and gave his responsibility to his uncle... at age 12, his uncle took him to syria. These are major errors and must be corrected 175.107.6.55 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 06:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Assalamu Alaikum, about the title of the article, could you please put Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him) or just Muhammad(PBUH). Thank you! Amin ouargui (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. See this link: MOS:ISLAMHON. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

History of Islam is mainly based on 9-10 century muslim traditions. I'd like to see 6-7 century historical records. TD&JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrickyDicky123 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be advisable to add the term “central figure” instead of founder or last prophet as to end the controversy. Just as its done for the Wikipedia page of Jesus Christ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus Rasalghul1711 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we are most certainly not going to accommodate the people creating a controversy by giving in to their demands we follow faith instead of academia. See blackmail for a longer explanation. Jeppiz (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Aside from what Jeppiz said, I don't think that phrasing would really convey what you are trying to say. For me (and probably many non-Muslims) calling Muhammad the central figure of Islam implies that Muslims worship him. I know enough to know that this is not true and that the implication would be anathema to Muslims, but many might not realize this. This implication is especially likely if the same phrase is used for Jesus. --Khajidha (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Khajidha: The unmistakable impression given by the repeated pleadings from Muslims on this talk page is that they do worship, and idolize, Muhammad. Describing him as the "central figure" would be accurate in that sense. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Rasalghul1711, read the previous discussions. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"Muhammad was a prophet loved by many. he was called (pronunciation: al-ameen.) the trustworthy because he would never tell a lie, and even men that wanted to KILL him gave him their money for safekeeping."-Muslimeen(2001:8003:7844:9000:1805:4E1A:C6D1:354D (talk))

What historian said that? And what does that have to do with this article? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello, Kindly add PBUH (peace be upon him) after his name. Will be very much appreciated. 119.73.121.246 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done, see this link: MOS:ISLAMHON. Mentioned in the article at Muhammad#Islamic_tradition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

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

The Line which has misinformation about Muslims having difference of opinion about end of Prophethood if FALSE. Please make an edit ASAP. The reference is clear throughout the Muslims and anybody who denies this isn’t considered a Muslim. Reflexa9 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Those guys aren't Muslims. We are the only true Muslims." No true scotsman etc. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

==Family tree==

• * indicates that the marriage order is disputed
• Note that direct lineage is marked in bold.

What’s the point of this ¿?

 Not done because it is not clear what you want done. Add that monstrosity to this article? This is a biography of Muhammad, not an article about every relative of his. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Greetings, as per according to a book called: "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" written by Michael H. Hart, Muhammad is considered to be the most influential person in history. Namely, You can read more about it on the link below this request. As per this request, I would like to ask You to add this piece of information to the section Legacy, specifically its subsection "Modern historians"

Regards,

Adin

https://www.gainpeace.com/about-muhammad/most-influential-person-in-history-by-michael-h-hart Dzida888 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Why do you think the personal opinion of a racist astrophysicist is WP:DUE for this article? And why would a person who isn't a historian be added to historians? Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In the 'Islamic tradition' section a quotation has the full stop both before and after the quotation mark. I thought I knew this rule but am beginning to doubt myself can someone fix it if needed. The internet has been a little contradictory hence my ask for help. From text: In Islamic belief, Muhammad is regarded as the last prophet sent by God.[254][255][256][257][258] Quran 10:37 states that "...it (the Quran) is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from The Lord of the Worlds.".

Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere that there was a WP:ENGVAR aspect to this as well. SMcCandlish, any wisdom? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTEMARKS, especially MOS:LQ. There is not an ENGVAR aspect to it, and doing both, e.g. writing "Foo bar baz.". is an error. If the quoted material is a full sentence and ended with the dot, include the terminal punctuation inside the quotation marks ("Foo bar baz."); put it outside otherwise ("Foo bar baz".). As that last sentence shows, however, material inside parentheses that ends with a dot – most often an abbreviation but in this case sample code – does not obviate a sentence-ending dot after the parenthetical if it ends the sentence. Finally, don't trust "the Internet" (i.e. millions of random strangers who have nothing authoritative to say about how to write on Wikipedia) on this or any other style question, or even trust other style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style or New Hart's Rules. You'll get different answers from every style source you consult. We have our own style manual for good reasons, most importantly inter-article consistency and reduction of editorial conflict over style trivia (which is inevitable if one is bible-thumping their copy of CMoS and another quoting NHR, or whatever).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. The original ends with a period. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi! Can you add this description to beginning of the Appearance section?

In one of the earliest sources, Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, there are numerous verbal descriptions of Muhammad. One description sourced to Ali ibn Abi Talib is as follows:

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, is neither too short nor too tall. His hair are neither curly nor straight, but a mixture of the two. He is a man of black hair and large skull. His complexion has a tinge of redness. His shoulder bones are broad and his palms and feet are fleshy. He has long al-masrubah which means hair growing from neck to navel. He is of long eye-lashes, close eyebrows, smooth and shining fore-head and long space between two shoulders. When he walks he walks inclining as if coming down from a height. [...] I never saw a man like him before him or after him.^[1] Fixer1928 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

While there is merit in the suggestion, the article already contains a similar quotation from Ali ibn Abi Talib, with three citations attached. Can you clarify the differences? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

This quote tells about the color of Muhammad's hair. Fixer1928 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of unnecessary to say for that region of the world, where everyone without exception has black hair, unless the hair has turned gray from age. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Some people try to attribute light hair to him, so this quote may help to stop that. Fixer1928 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Some people who believe in a flat earth point out that Muhammad believed this too. I don't see fringe beliefs as a reason to include a counterpoint in the article. My view is that the quotation that is currently in the article and sourced multiple times is sufficient. But I will re-open this request for someone else to evaluate. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

In the introduction the following is stated:

He is believed to be the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief.[n 2]

However, the note only contains a reference to the Ahmaddiya branch.

The sentence should be changed either to "though the Ahmaddiya branch diverge from this belief" OR more references should be added that supports the statement. It's either one denomination or more IF you back it up with more references.

Kind regards, AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.140.33 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the note also mentions the Nation of Islam (which considerss Elijah Muhammad to be a prophet) and United Submitters International which considers Muhammad the last prophet but not the final messenger. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Please also write the Peace Be Upon Him after the name of Holy Prophet Muhammad Peace Be Upon Him 182.186.28.105 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. See the FAQ at the top of this page. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

add this (ﷺ) with the name muhammad ﷺ. Mack13373 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia practice see the FAQ at the top of the page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

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

was an Arab religious, social, and political leader and the messenger of the world religion of Islam.[2] According to Islamic doctrine, AdilAleem1281 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2021 (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. Cannolis (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Mohammad (SAW) is the last and final messenger of Allah.Not a founder of Islam. Understand, Definitely you should use this word (SAW- Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) after every place of name mentioned.Eg; Mohammad (Saw) 2409:4072:6D9C:9531:0:0:2348:C05 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

See the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" higher up on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is not the founder of religion,he is the last messenger of Allah who preached Islam and Qur'an.please I kindly request you to change that! 2402:4000:1183:1456:2DF3:9358:953E:369E (talk) 02:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ Question 6 at the top of the page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

He was not only an Islamic prophet, but is also a Bahá'i, Druzi, Shabaki, Sikhi and other religion's prophet. Calling him only Islamic prophet is wrong. Either call him only prophet or Bahá'i, Druzi, Sikhi, Islamic and Shahabki prophet. I think the MOS:ISLAM should also change on this as it says Islamic prophet is recommended rather than only prophet. Mohhsiinn (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's possible that the Muhammad#Other_religions section should be improved, but since this is WP: if you want to convince anyone, you have to bring good sources. What have you got, and what specific text do you suggest? Avoid WP:RSPSCRIPTURE sources. Maybe the WP:LEAD should mention other religions (Jesus does, but the subject is better covered in the body: Jesus#Perspectives), but the body of the article comes first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad introduced Islam to the world. He was the prophet of Islam for centuries before any of those other religions were established. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Please can you add peace be upon him after everytime the Beloved prophets name is mentioned. Thanks Pk7869 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No. It is against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. See WP:ISLAMHON. Melmann 14:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiepdia doesn't have idols or adhere to religious tranditions,86.16.64.23 (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia call Alex Ferguson as sir alex ferguson right. How come you write sir to Alex but not even prophet to Muhammad?196.189.69.78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The body of the article on Ferguson refers to him as Ferguson, not Sir Alex. The same logic applies here. —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)