Talk:Muhammad/Archive 36

For regulars and watchers of this page, there is a new discussion open at WP:RSN#RfC: Sources for Muhammad. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The same group of people may have some slight interest in watching Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anachronist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is now also a section on WP:NPOV Noticeboard on sources for Banu Qurayza: Here QcTheCat (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There is now also this administrative discussion which pertains to much of the recent activity on this article and talk page. Left guide (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Kaalakaa appears to have re-written the article Battle of Badr. I have concern with their changes and have started several discussions at Talk:Battle of Badr. I would appreciate other users' views.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Comparing this article to the article on Jesus, I think the structure of this article is deficient, separate from but related to the issues regarding the sourcing in the article discussed previously. It presents the account of Muhammad's life as is known through early biographies and hadith largely uncritically, when many contemporary scholars have questioned the reliability of these sources, particularly the hadith (see ). I think the best way to fix this would be to put all of the biographic headings (i.e the contents of the subheadings "Meccan years". "Medinan years" and "Final years") under a new heading like "Biography according to traditional Islamic sources", and then a new section should be creating discussing what scholars consider knowable or probable about the "historical Muhammad". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

As for sources discussing the "historical Muhammad" in detail, the 2010 book The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad is probably a good place to start. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these are comparable examples. There is a wealth of biographical information about Muhammad, certainly relative to Jesus, whose life is extremely tricky to piece back together. The above approach is also not as simple as it sounds. Islamic tradition is not uniform. There is not one narrative. And there are early Islamic sources that are functionally secondary in that they approach the life of Muhammad not just as a religious narrative, but analytically try to tease out the more genuine narratives from the various hadith. Modern scholarly accountings are similarly based on earlier accounts. The upshot of all this is that there is a spectrum of analysis, not some sort of clear-cut religious narrative and something else. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The things that are knowable or probable about Muhammad's life are more than the equivalent for Jesus, enough to give a basic biographical outline, probably enough to fill a Wikipedia article, but probably not a full book-length biography. I'll give you that. But there are stil huge problems with taking the accounts of the early sources at face value as this article currently does, as outlined in Robert Hoyland's 2007 paper Writing the Biography of the Prophet Muhammad: Problems and Solutions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It might be more preferable to do the historical criticism of facts as they are presented, as opposed to breaking it down into two sections like "According to Islamic sources" and "Historical criticism". It seems that the The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad also breaks down his life into the Meccan and Medinan years, so I would support keeping those two sections, at least. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered coming at this from the "Let's WP:GA it (again)!" direction? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the volume of scholarship, it really shouldn't be that hard to create a stable, authoritative GA biography. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course! Regarding his biography, it should only constitute a small fraction of this article. The The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad gives only 2-3 chapters (out of 14) to his biography. Thus, lets give only a basic outline here, and refer the reader to subarticles where it is covered in more detail. The rest of the article should be the role Muhammad's life (whether historical or imagined) has played in law, philosophy, personal piety, mysticism, history of the Middle East and European thought. There should also be a section on Muhammad in art (including 21st controversial drawings, but also including music, plays, architecture etc).

Once again, The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad is a good way for us to determine how much weight to give to each section of this article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be a mistake. As noted in the introduction, the Cambridge Companion "represent[s then-]current trends in the scholarly study of Muhammad’s life and legacy". Not for nothing does the introduction itself recap Muhammad's biography—that is not the focus of the work, and the three chapters which focus on his life focus on specific events, not a comprehensive biography. The Companion does not seek to be an encyclopedic reflection of the man, as this article must be. Still, it is a top-tier source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

To piggyback off of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources where the original post said I have no doubt that there are plenty of other sources of this ilk that have found their way onto the page, I noticed that this book was absent in the status quo May 2023 version but has since entered the article with dozens of citations, frequently bundling or supplementing suspect sources like Rodgers and Glubb; it may have slipped under the radar as it appears to be undiscussed on the talk page and archives. How reliable and WP:DUE is Richard A. Gabriel for this article? Is he in the top tiers of the global Muhammad scholarship community? Or are we dealing with another Rodgers-level author? For what it's worth, it's also a military-focused book published by a university press, and the end of the Google Books description says Richard A. Gabriel challenges existing scholarship on Muhammad's place in history and offers a viewpoint not previously attempted. which makes me wonder if it's a WP:FRINGE point-of-view. pinging eligible participants from the "suspect sources" discussion @Iskandar323, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Anachronist, and DeCausa: Left guide (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A few reviews: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, has anyone made a list of biographies etc that are WP-good sources for this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't, but this review provides the list of scholars considered competent up to 2009. Rodinson is notably on there, but again, this is a decade-and-a-half-old list and works from the 60s are pushing the limits anyway. On Gabriel (and Rodgers), if they have specific, meaningful input on matters of a strictly military nature, and they agree between themselves, then they can have at it. The problem for me was always the extension of the interpretation of these very niche specialists (whose specialism is tightly confined to military history) to political, sociocultural and religious observations that there are in no position to make, as non-Arabist, non-specialist historians (i.e.: not of the Middle Eastern specialty variety), whose entire corpuses of works consist of hopping about history rather eclectically to focus on the famous past military leaders of history. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, we can use {{refideas}} to make such a list atop this talk page. I currently have access to a version of this book by Karen Armstrong, which recent source discussions both here and at RSN appear to show as one of the top Muhammad biographies. Left guide (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that the ANI has been resolved, I think it's a good time to aim for a consensus on what to do with material cited to Rodgers. If I was to start purging it from the article, would there be any objections? And if so, what would be the ideal course of action instead? Left guide (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC isn't closed. The in my opinion wrong topic ban on Kaalakaa is closed but to start as you say "purge" the article isn't the right way to improve the quality. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ip says: Why isn't it the right way to improve the article quality? And what alternative course of action do you suggest instead? Discussions both on this talk page and the last two archives show a consensus that Rodgers is largely unsuitable for this article on WP:NPOV grounds. Left guide (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I would use the primary sources as per wp:weight. They tell more or less the same story as Rodgers. Of course in a properly attributed and balanced way. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense and/or reveals no understanding of WP policy. WP:WEIGHT is essentially about giving due prominence "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [reliable] sources". That is inherently about reflecting the interpretation of secondary sources. The point of WP:PRIMARY is to exclude the use of primary sources in interpretation. They can be used only for the narrow purpose of say that in "Primary Source Y it says X", nothing more. Whether it is NPOV that that should be said at all is a question of WP:WEIGHT defined by the secondary sources. DeCausa (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources don't count towards WP:WEIGHT, and discussions on this talk page have demonstrated that Rodgers doesn't count either. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove this "Following the Battle of Badr, Muhammad revealed his intention to expel the Jews from the land." under section "Conflicts With Jewish Tribes". This is attributed to Rodgers only and apparently primary sources. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Neutralhappy: Looks like that particular statement was tagged in May as {{dubious}} by Iskandar323 paired with a small discussion above. Are there high-quality secondary sources that talk about this? If not, I agree that it seems best to remove it for failing to satisfy WP:WEIGHT, since it's now been challenged multiple times. Left guide (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed Left guide (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've also reset a couple of relatively Rodgers-heavy sections (namely "Battle of the Trench" and "Conquest of Mecca") to their May 2023 status quo versions. Left guide (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

And now more of the same with the "Beginning of armed conflict" section. Left guide (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. I'm glad someone has the energy to properly survey the changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Iskandar323! Your encouragement is encouraging. :) Left guide (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Presently the following is present in the article:

Islamic tradition states that Muhammad's birth year coincided with Yemeni King Abraha's unsuccessful attempt to conquer Mecca.[49] Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47] Later Muslim scholars presumably linked Abraha's renowned name to the narrative of Muhammad's birth to elucidate the unclear passage about "the men of elephants" in Quran 105:1–5.[50][54] The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]

1) "Myth" has multiple meanings. Which meaning is intended here? One is "supernatural" and the other is "false". Such ambiguous words should be replaced with unambiguous words.

2) Can unsuccessful expedition transpire substantially? The incident is about an expedition which failed to achieve its mission. Can such a failed attempt transpire anything "substantially" in the part where it failed? The sentence seems to be illogical.

3) This Wikipedia article says:

The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; most Quranic verses do not provide significant historical context and timeline.[19][20] Almost none of Muhammad's companions are mentioned by name in the Quran, hence not providing sufficient information for a concise biography.[18]

So it seems confusing to say "unclear" here specifically.

4) I read this. This is the first citation given to show that the Abraha's expedition has not taken place. But this source does not say Abraha's expedition did not take place. But it discusses the year it happened.

5) There is no need of saying in the article it is a myth because it is already known it is a miraculous thing that birds killing elephants.

6) This appears to be unwanted, disruptive edit.

7) This says about likelihood. So should the sentence contain "likelily" even if it is kept in the present form.

8) What about removing the term "unclear" before the term "passage"?

9) Atleast rewriting seems to be necessary.

10) Kindly write about the remaining sources.

So remove:

"Recent studies, however, challenge this notion, as other evidence suggests that the expedition, if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth.[1][50][51][52][53][47]

remove:

The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity deems the tale of Abraha's war elephant expedition as a myth.[51]

Neutralhappy (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Myth: "an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts:". MOS:MYTH has a little guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

11) Does the term "studies" in the said part mean just writings or study papers or archeological evidence or mathematical calculations or something else? When we see or read the term "studies" the first meaning that comes to our mind is "archeological discovery". So it should be replaced with the better term "archeological discovery" if it so. If it is not archeological discovery, it should replaced be with "writings", "academic writings", "publications", "study papers", "analysis", or the like. Thus this part in the current form is confusing, and thus not in the best form. Removal is an option to solve the problem.

12) The two sentences I proposed for deletion in the part are non-biographical information. Hence there is no significant problem with its removal.

13) If it corrected it should be similar to one like "though the year of the expedition does not likely coincide with the Muhammad's year of birth." This is not necessary because it contains "Islamic tradition states".

14) There was a different but better 1 July 2023 version of this current apparent bad faith edit. That would be better than the present one. Note this edit has added the term "Islamic" and the edit did not say the expedition did not take place though several citations were added. It is important and intresting to note that the citations added to say the expedition took place but it must have taken place earlier than the year of birth of Muhammad. The citations used to say this are:

• Conrad, 1987
• Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
• Peters, 2010 p. 61
• Muesse, 2018 p.213
• Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361

The same citations, except that of Johnson, are used to say the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially. These are the present sources used to say this seemingly illogical thing and create a notion that the expedition did not take place:

• Conrad, 1987
• Reynolds, 2023 p. 16
• Johnson, 2015 p. 286
• Peters, 2010 p. 61
• Muesse, 2018 p. 213
• Buhl&Welch, 1993 p. 361

15) Use of the term "evidence" in the present version also seems to be misleading since they likely refer to tradion. Overall the edit is of poor quality.

16) The same editor who was later banned from editing on topics related to Islam reworded their own edit but this time giving the opposite notion that the expedition never took place, besides making the article saying the seemingly illogical thing of failed attempt transpiring substantially.

17) Because it contains the seemingly illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially, there needs at least a "clarify" tag.

18) Overall the part in the present form could be said to be illogical, disruptive, unwanted, confusing and not directly biographical.

19) Using the term "myth" to refer to miraculous things is not needed because generally supernatural or miraculous things altogether are apparently considered not possible to happen, by many. Here it is a miraculous thing of the birds killing the elephants. So remove the part saying "myth". This also creates a notion that this use the word of "myth" is done after conducting a study on the subject whereas the source likely have used the term "myth" just because it is a miracle or a supernatural thing. Moreover there should be a clarification why they used it. If it is because of its supernatural or miraculous nature, it might be better to say either "since all supernatural things are myths" or "since it considers all supernatural things as myths" Neutralhappy (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

20) On 1 July 2023 itself, the same editor later added the citation of Johnson to say the expedition of Abraha took place. Again the same editor on 1 July 2023 changed the year "2023" to "2015" which is in the current version.

Going through this book (published: 13 September 2012) I found the following:

Thus it is important to distinguish, on the one hand, the campaign of 552, which allowed Abraha to reestablish his authority over almost all of inner Arabia, and on the other hand, the Battle of the Elephant, which happened later and could be the cause of the collapse of Himyarite domination over inner Arabia. This Battle of the Elephant could be dated between 555 and 565, probably closer to 565, toward the end of Abraha's reign.

I found in the 2015 book on page 285:

... Abraha's reign , probably around thirty years from 535 to 565 , is not easy to define with precision . Dated ... Abraha had two successors , two sons who did not reign very long . It is thus plausible that Abraha died a few years ...

This 2015 book, which is another edition of the book published on 13 September 2012, is the same book used in the article to say it is a myth and to say the illogical thing of a failed thing transpiring substantially and to create a notion that the expedition did not take place.

One option to solve all this problem is just to remove the two sentences I proposed for deletion. Neutralhappy (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I find most of what you have written in your WP:WALLOFTEXT rather incomprehensible. Most of your issues seem to come from a rather poor grasp of words in English such as "myth', "substantially" and studies. The two sentences you want to remove are fine and should stay. There is ample scholarship that doubts the Year of the Elephant ever occurred, or if it did it was prior to Muhammad's birth and not per Islamic tradition. And that's all the passage is saying and it's fine. I have no idea why you keep talking about "bad faith". DeCausa (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I said "apparent bad faith", not just "bad faith" edit. I would not like to further discuss these suggestions for edits. I leave it to other editors. I also leave to other editors to consider removing this illogical thing of a failed attempt transpiring something substantially. Neutralhappy (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, "if it had occurred, would have transpired substantially before Muhammad's birth" means if it did happen it would have happened mostly before Muhammad's birth. It's not that difficult. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has got me wondering. Given that we have already presented the "Oxford Handbook's" view that it deems the expedition to be a myth, would it be possible, for WP:Balance purposes, to include the statement, "Although, some consider the historicity of a failed expedition to be completely plausible.^[1]"

Maybe removing the word 'Although,' if needed, to avoid editorializing. StarkReport (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

For that not to be WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, those two views would have to be equally prominent in scholarship to be presented like that. Is that the case? DeCausa (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, according to my impression from reading the section, the overwhelming sources address the timing of the expedition. Only one source categorizes it as a myth, so perhaps in that case, the answer is yes. However, if multiple high-quality sources describe it as a myth, then it would be best not to include my proposed addition. StarkReport (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think he died at 63 Aquarium670154 (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Aquarium670154 63 years of age according to one tradition according to the Hijri calendar; not according to the CE calendar. Infobox generally lists births and deaths according to the CE calendar. Khaatir (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Instead of Muhammad, write 'Prophet Muhammad' in the heading 106.219.147.213 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done read the FaQ. In Q5 it states Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 12:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Right above the category section, there's an invisible comment that just says "killing against Banu Qurayza". I can't really figure out the context, and while the Banu Qurayza seems to be related to Muhammad, the comment feels very out of place. I was tempted to just remove, but I'm gonna post here just in case. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Remsense ‥ 论 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ah okay thanks! cool signature btw! Gaismagorm (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi ! I saw, there was an unused religion parameter field just below the infobox. I filled that with Islam. Is it better, I am not sure as the infobox already displays establishing Islam in parameter known for. MSLQr (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

MSLQr, generally if such parameters are absent/unfilled, there's a good reason. — Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Reason..? Reply when feel free. MSLQr (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s from this diff. @Sharouser: care to explain why you made this edit? Northern Moonlight 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight actually it appears to be a comment explaining why they added one of the categories, I think it just loaded weird because I was using visual editor. It might be a good idea to add it back honestly. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense just pinging you since you are the one who removed the comment (please read the above reply). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the comment to be there, which is why I removed it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess. Eh I supposed it doesn't have to be there. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this got mangled by the 22:42, 2 November 2024 revision.

In the second paragraph where it reads "Recent studies have led year to distinguish", 'led' should be replaced by 'scholars'.

Just above this, there's an extraneous "Narratives of Islamic Origins". I think this is caused by a messed up citation.

Anyway, I don't have permission to edit this article, but I thought I'd point these out since the paragraph is pretty wonky as is. CrashTrack (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the erroneous word was "year" rather than "led". Fixed. Left guide (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I find the current opening paragraph to be problematic, in that it emphasizes the fact that Muhammad was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" over the fact that he was "the founder of Islam". I tried to survey how some other encyclopedias introduce him in their very first sentence, and this is what I found (I'll omit technical information like transliteration of his name and his dates for brevity):

Muhammad was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.
— Britannica

Muhammad, also known as the Messenger of God, or the Prophet, founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community.
— Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 754

Muhammad, the prophet who, according to Muslims, received God's revelation in the Qur'an, and established Islam. His importance for Muslims is emphasized by the central Islamic profession of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his (sic) Messenger."
— The Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 304

Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam and that faith's most important and significant messenger. He received his first revelation of the Holy Koran via the angel Gabriel when he was circa forty years old.
— Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Mohammed"

Muhammad is acknowledged by more than one billion Muslims as the last messenger of God. It was through him that the Quranic passages, which his followers believe present the word of God, had been revealed to guide the nascent community through its predicaments. The religion that Muhammad preached is called Islam, meaning submission to God; its creed asserts that there is but one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
— Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, p 478

Muhammad is revered by Muslims as the prophet to whom the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, was revealed.
— Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, p 6220

In other words, every single of the encyclopedia above introduces Muhammad as the founder of Islam/Muslim community and the proclaimer of the Qur'an, much more than being an Arab social and political leader. I think the opening paragraph can still mention Muhammad's reforms, but not in the first sentence.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say feel free to propose a rearrangement of the lead. WP:LEAD requires that the lead be a concise overview of the contents of the article, and insofar as the article goes into depth (likely more than other encyclopedias) about political leadership, I don't see the ordering of facts in the lead as a problem, but I don't object to changing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one (already cited in the article):

The Prophet of Islam was a religious, political, and social reformer who gave rise to one of the great civilizations of the world. From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of the Islamic faith, he was God 's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), called to be a “warner,” first to the Arabs and then to all humankind.
— The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Muḥammad

So I propose this is the opening paragraph:

Muhammad[a] (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; [mʊˈħæm.mæd]; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE)[b] was the founder of Islam.[c] According to Muslims, he was the last prophet sent by God, to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[2][3][4] Muhammad's life and normative examples, along with the Quran, form the basis for Islamic theology and law. Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization.

Definitely open to suggestions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 142.105.69.34 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

maybe "final" is more correct than "last"? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The final prophet isn't "according to Muslims" it's "according to most Muslims" or "according to nearly all Muslims". Amadiyya consider themselves Muslims but they recognize a prophet after Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. He was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" because he was the founder of Islam. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the proposed replacement isn't really an improvement over what we have. The lead sentence already says he's the founder. Maneuvering the words around to get "founder" to appear earlier in the sentence isn't making the lead paragraph better. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Heck, the fact that he founded Islam is only really important because he was able to use it to become the dominant religious, social, and political leader. Lots and lots of religious movements are started and more or less quickly fade away. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite several sources, maybe a dozen, that introduce him as "an Arab religious, social, and political leader"? Because I've cited above 7 above that introduce him as a founder of Islam (or some variant of that), and could probably easily find a dozen more. Lets focus on the sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that this description may neglect the theological message he delivers. He did had unique ideas by subjugating the Arabian pantheon under one supreme deity he later identified with the God of the Talmudic tradition. He did have unique contributations in matters of theology as well. But this shouldn't mean that the part about his political identity should be removed, maybe just emphazize more his role as a religious figure? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, the current lead fits the best as the proposed doesn't make the opening paragraph more appropriate for the figure than the current. Even before what is known as foundational event of the religion, being active in Arab tribal meetings, setting the Black stone and his participation in Pre-Islamic tribal wars (as sources mention) also indicate sort of his social as well as political role (although not as leading person) and not as religious role at that time. Though the latter role got widely known. MSLQr (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And that's what this is about: what is Muhammad known the most for. No one is saying those other parts of his life shouldn't be in the lead, but we shouldn't claim somehow his early life is more important than his founding of Islam.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle I didn't propose removing his political identity but rather writing it as "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization." This is not inconsistent with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Muhammad Ali Jinnah all being introduced as (one of) the founders of the Republic of Turkey, United States, modern Egypt and Pakistan, respectively, in the first sentence. What do you think was his political identity? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one:

In the perspective of history, the origin of Islam can be traced back to the prophetic career of Muhammad, its historical founder in the first third of the seventh century.
— The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, "Muhammad", p 367

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not just shift the word "founder" forward in the existing opening sentence? You rewrote the entire first paragraph, and to me it isn't an improvement over what we already have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm open to rewording. Lets consider your proposal: "Muhammad was the founder of Islam and an Arab political, social and religious leader." That would be an improvement over the current version. But we can improve it further:

• Isn't it redundant to describe him both as a "founder of Islam" and a "religious leader"? The former just about covers the entirety of his religious career.
• I replaced "Arab political and social leader" with "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization". Isn't that more specific?

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

To your points: Sure, "religious leader" could be removed. The second replacement is fine too. It's your middle sentence in your proposal that isn't an improvement over what we have already. How about:

Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; [mʊˈħæm.mæd]; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) is the founder of Islam, and an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization. According to Islamic doctrine,... [rest of the paragraph is unchanged]

~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a longish opening sentence. I sort of get the point that the OP makes at the beginning of this thread. But I think that the reason the wording kinda underplays the founding of Islam is not so much its position in the sentence but the use of "and" to add it. It gives it a "tacked on" feel. It seems right to begin with the "personal" fundamentals about him: that he was an Arab leader - though the "social" descriptor doesn't add much, IMO. My suggestion would be closer to the current wording but: Muhammad...was an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making suggestions, its important we make them. But I don't think yours is an improvement. Calling Muhammad "an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam" makes it sound like he was a politician first who decided to create a religion. Historically, we know it was the other way around; he began religious preaching in 610 CE, and only founded a state in 622 CE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that the opening formula of "X...was [basic personal description]...who [description of what they're really famous for]" is a common solution across many WP bios - from Christopher Columbus to Martin Luther King Jr.. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was kind of my point earlier. I think the existing opening sentence is fine. If it can be improved by giving more prominence to the position of "founder" then that's good too but I'm not really happy with the alternative so far, including my own suggestion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "founder of Islam" fits really well as both a personal description as well as what he did. I'm fine with "an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization" anywhere in the first paragraph but probably not the first sentence.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It is important to mention he was a Arab leader given that it is through his leadership and those following that not only Islam but also the Arabic language and culture spread from its homeland across most of the Middle East and North Africa (and as a language of scholarship, much further). Erp (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine to mention him as an Arab leader, but he must be mentioned as the founder of Islam first. That is the absolute one thing he is the most notable for. Everything else is important, but secondary. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Erp, also can you quote sources that describe his influences on Arabs that you mentioned above? It will help us in seeing what wording scholars use to describe that and then perhaps we can mimic that wording.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Well Britannica has "For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. Such evidence provides sufficient confirmation of the historical existence of an Arab prophet by the name of Muhammad." The earliest evidence of Muhammad outside of Islamic sources describe Muhammad as an Arab leader. BTW are you saying that Muhammad should not be described as an Arab leader in the lead? Erp (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says that Muslims believe he was "God 's Messenger first to the Arabs and then to all humankind." I'm fine with describing him as an Arab leader both in the lead and the first paragraph but not the first sentence, I'll explain in a table below (English Wikipedia FAs and GAs on early Islamic leaders don't tend to call them Arabs in the very first sentence). One way to describe his Arab-ness would be:

"Muhammad established the first Islamic state in Arabia, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization. He also proclaimed the Qur'an, the central religious text of Islam and widely regarded as a masterpiece of Arabic literature." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Dear (who will take time and read my request) :

I hope you are doing well. I recently came across an article featuring images of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). While I truly appreciate the effort in sharing insights across different perspectives, I wanted to kindly bring something to your attention regarding Islamic teachings.

In Islam, depicting the Prophet is avoided as a way to maintain respect and prevent any unintended idolization. The Prophet said, “The people who will be most severely punished on the Day of Judgment will be the image-makers” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5950). Additionally, there’s a general discouragement of creating images of living beings, as mentioned in the hadith: “Those who make images will be punished on the Day of Resurrection. It will be said to them, ‘Bring to life that which you have created’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 5951).

Out of respect for these principles and the significance they hold for Muslim readers, I kindly request the removal of these images, if possible. This small adjustment would greatly enhance the inclusivity and respectfulness of the piece without detracting from its value.

Thank you so much for your understanding. Hanenbou11 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: see faq 1 Cannolis (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Muhammad's birth date is 571 so it should be changed to 571 from 570 Berkyyy (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any plan for this article to be made up to the standards of GA or even Featured. This is a very high importance figure and the article should be made up to the best standards. If there is any plan to enact a nomination please let me know so I can help. Titan2456 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you take a look at the GA criteria, and maybe see if there are places in the articles that you could help bring up to those criteria. If you have questions, let me know: GA and FA are different processes and one generally takes place before the other. Remsense ‥ 论 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It was GA for a long while until now-blocked editor Kaalakaa took it upon himself to rewrite most of the article over a period of several months starting in Jun 2023. This talk page history has records of some contention that caused.

One of the fallouts was this article losing its GA status, because the article that earned GA wasn't the same article as what it eventually became. Kaalakaa's edits weren't bad, they were overall improvements I think, but his view on what sources are reliable, and his interpretation of them, have been questioned.

What needs to happen to restore GA status is to go through every one of his hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb and check the sources. This is a big job because not all sources are available online, and not all aren't behind paywalls.

As for FA, that isn't feasible. FA articles are unprotected when featured on the main page, and this Muhammmad article experiences enough disruption when it's unprotected that it would be impossible to keep it free from disruption by people who take offense at its content if it became FA. I mean, do you know of any article about a contentious topic that ever became a Featured Article? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs Jesus is one. Titan2456 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions here, here, here (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and on RSN, is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per WP:DUE, given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That is my impression as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the Rodgers source for now Titan2456 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to remove all the citations which cannot be found in the Household section. All the ones not found already have more than one citation, so I would not be removing any information. Titan2456 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The more critical task would be checking whether what the Wikipedia article says aligns with what the citations say, in proper context. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I have been looking over the sources of Islam-related pages and one I find consistently is "Buhl and Welch 1993", which is only linked to a purchase page for the book.

Yesterday I find out that it is actually available online. This got me thinking: is it better to leave the source's link as it is, or should we link the aforementioned reference.

In addition, I cannot find Buhl or Welch's names as the authors of the Muhammad section which is most frequently used. I can only Trude Ehlert. I would be grateful if somebody clears up my confusion. Daminb (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

See p. 376 (left column). AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Daminb - Here 13:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

F. Buhl was the author of the Muhammad section in the first edition of The Encyclopaedia of Islam (1934), which in the 1993 edition was revised and updated by A.T. Welch .AstroLynx (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've bundled a citation underneath for the new online edition of that article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I assume the above user meant that the archive.org link should replace the |url= in the existing main Encylopaedia of Islam source, not that a new citation should be added with a url going to what is for them also inaccessible content. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That was my inquiry pretty much. Daminb - Here 17:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

change date of birth, its 22nd Apr, 571 AbdulHakeeem27 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What source do you have? Consider Mawlid#Date. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Change leading sentence from Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious, social, and political leader to Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious leader" as per MOS:FIRST that states: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.". The lead sentence should stick to what he was primarily known for. The infobox is there to include additional occupations. The world knows him as a religious leader, not as a political and social leader. For example, Muhammad Ali was a prominent philanthropist and poet but since the world knows him as a professional boxer, we have that on his article. Mirza Elia (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't find the current writing particularly overloaded/everything. Social/political is quite relevant, religious too limited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Political can arguably be relevant as he was the founder and ruler of a state but social is definitely not that relevant. Just because a few social norms changed during Muhammad's lifetime doesn't mean he's widely known as a social leader in the world. Major encycloepdias' introductory sentence just calls him a religious leader or the founder of Islam i.e. Muhammad (born c. 570, Mecca, Arabia [now in Saudi Arabia]—died June 8, 632, Medina) was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.. Best case scenario is having Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) was an Arab religious and political leader". Mirza Elia (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing 'social'. It does seem redundant. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Agree? Srnec (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive by comment: I too do not see the need for the term "social". I'm not sure what constitutes a "social leader" to begin with. Anonymous 04:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

same Rainsage (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Rainsage (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Muhammad's birth year is wrong. According to any Islamic to Western date converter, the date 0001-01-01 in Islamic calendar is 0622/07/18. He was 53 years old when he immigrate from mecca to medina. Which would be 622 - 53 = 569. 154.187.14.69 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: The sources I've found say it's 29 August 570 CE. Any sources you're having? Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 16:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Ahmadiyya is not Islam according to the Majority of Muslims. It is heresey. Just as Christians would deem Latter Day Saints as heretics or people who reject basic fundamental principles like the Nicene Creed

On the Legacy tab it says Ahamdiyya is Islam-I’d avoid mentioning ahmadiyya entirely avoiding controversy 2A00:23C8:D615:E801:E936:A048:2BE1:5579 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done The fact that you regard them as heretics does not concern Wikipedia. Since theology isn't objective knowledge, theological orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You will notice that Latter Day Saint movement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Community of Christ, Mormonism, etc are included in various categories of Christian sects. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Names and titles of Muhammad#Can't this article be merged to Muhammad? It would be great to know what others think of merging that article to this one. Tamsier (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

On the line:

Muhammad[a][b] (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE)[c] was an Arab religious and political leader and the the founder of Islam.

Change the grammar/typo to

Muhammad[a][b] (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE)[c] was an Arab religious and political leader and the founder of Islam. JustinJZhang (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Remsense ‥ 论 13:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

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

41.56.148.60 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Good morning/afternoon. Assalaamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakaatu.

I have stumbled across a answer tab with arrow on Google relating to the passing of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s death. And it started that …

“ -What was the reason of Prophet Muhammad's death? In desperation, Muhammad fled from the cave and began climbing up towards the top of the mountain to jump to his death. https://en.wikipedia.org Muhammad - Wikipedia“

I find the above Wikipedia answer highly disturbing and false.

After i searched the above statement from Google. The response I got from AI google was the following..

“While the first revelation to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did occur in a cave on Mount Hira (Jabal al-Nour) after meeting Jibril (Gabriel), the tradition doesn't state that he ran to the top of the mountain after the encounter.“

So i would request to kindly please remove this statement as it is inaccurate based on his death and neither was it mentioned by any Sunni scholars of Islam, rather that Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) instructing him Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the 3rd time to read and held him so tight that the prophet through he was going to die and the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) asked Angel Jibreel thereafter “what shall I read?” And Angel Jibreel instructed him to Recite Surah-Al Alaq and Prophet Muhammad SAW ran down towards his home. ^[1]

41.56.148.60 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC) /Isnad (chain of transmitters) -> “Muhammad ibn ‘Umar told us: Ibraaheem ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Moosa told me, from Daawood ibn al-Husayn, from Abu Ghatafaan ibn Tareef, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, that after the revelation came to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Hiraa’, he did not see Jibreel for several days, and he felt so sad that he went to Thabeer (mountain) and to Hiraa’, wanting to throw himself down from the mountaintop. Whilst the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was like that, going to one of these mountains, he heard a voice from heaven. So the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stopped, shocked by the voice, then he lifted his head and saw Jibreel, sitting on a chair between heaven and earth, saying: “O Muhammad, you are indeed the Messenger of Allah, and I am Jibreel.” So the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) left, after Allah had comforted him and put his mind at rest. Then the revelation started to come frequently ^[2]

 Not done: Based on your description, it appears that a Google page somewhere is incorrectly interpreting the text of this article. If my understanding of your claim is correct, you can go to the article itself, under the section named 'Beginnings of the Quran' and see that the description aligns with the traditional narrative of these events; in fact, one of the supporting sources for this narrative/claim is the Quran itself.
If you feel that Google is incorrectly depicting the narrative laid out in the Quran, then you should make a complaint to Google. Wikipedia does not have any say regarding how Google chooses to use the Wikipedia content, in fact, Wikipedia could not stop them if it wanted to. As Wikipedia's content is freely licensed under Creative Commons, anyone can use it in almost any way they want, with few exceptions. Melmann 22:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Note also that apart from the FAQ. this practice is mentioned in the article at Muhammad#Islamic_tradition, and in other articles like Islamic honorifics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Please change the name of respected prophet from "Muhammad" to Hazrat/Respected Prophet Muhammad Sallalah-o-Alaihi-Wa'alihi-Wasallam.

It's a sin to just call him by name. 103.125.177.44 (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Why is this? I'm not trying to be rude or mean, I'm just curious, I am not a follower of Islam, so I don't know much about it, though I am trying to learn more. Would someone mind explaining this to me? I do not understand why it is sinful to call him the prophet Muhammad or even just Muhammad. Again, I'm not a follower of Islam so aside from what were are learning right now in my religion class, I do not know much about it. 74.83.253.247 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Islamic honorifics has something that interests you, 74.83. You can also try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the Muhammad WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Add the Diplomatic career of Muhammad 116.12.36.69 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

See Muhammad#Constitution_of_Medina. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@AimanAbir18plus, hello. You added this pic .

Personally, I don't think it adds very much, though the Kaaba is of course mentioned (and pictured) in the article. That part of the article is somewhat crowded with pictures, and this time (I reverted you once before) you've introduced MOS:SANDWHICH problems, at least on my laptop. Also, there is an invisible message in that section which says:

"PLEASE NOTE: The consensus to include images of Muhammad emerged after extensive months-long discussions and efforts on both sides to balance multiple competing interests. Please do not remove or reposition these images because you feel they are against your religion. Please do not add more images or reposition the current ones to prove a point. To avoid pointless revert-warring, blocking and page protection, please discuss any prospective changes on the talk page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia."

So, I think we can do without this pic. Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree; there's enough images in that area as is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The section is about "Conquest of Mecca" and this image depicts that (Muhammad is praying at the Kaaba after conquering it). So, I think the image makes sense and important for the visualization of the context. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I am also in favour of keeping the image. Lova Falk (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest the first paragraph say "Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد المطلب ‎) (c. 570 – c. 8 June 632), also transliterated as Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎), was a religious, political, and military leader from Mecca who unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God and, by most Muslims, the last prophet sent by God for mankind.Non-Muslims regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Muslims consider him to be the restorer of an unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets." This page shouldn't call Muhammad the founder of Islam because Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam and that Islam always existed. The page here on Wikipedia about Jesus says "Jesus was crucified" even though non-Christians don't believe that, so if Wikipedia is supposed to go by what Christians believe as fact, why not due that with Muhammad? Also Muhammad was also a military leader that should be included and his full name should also be included. GloryToCalifornia (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of non-Christians who believe Jesus was crucified, see Historical Jesus if you're interested in that. WP calls it "nearly universal scholarly consensus." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The following text is from the article:

"When Muhammad came to his senses, he felt scared; he started to think that after all of this spiritual struggle, he had been visited by a jinn, which made him no longer want to live. In desperation, Muhammad fled from the cave and began climbing up towards the top of the mountain to jump to his death. "

The part where it says "Muhammad fled from the cave and began climbing up towards the top of the mountain to jump to his death." is false, despite it being found in Sahih Al Bukhari, it is known to have a defective chain for attributing to unknown sources. If we were to compare any other historical hadith about it we won't find any source claiming he attempted suicide.

Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a lie, Sahih Al Bukhari is considered the most authoritative collection of hadiths in Sunni Islam. But if you have a reliable reference feel free to edit the article. 173.230.28.18 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

What you have said is true, however to comprehend the error in this narration which is present in Sahih al-Bukhari 6982 it is necessary to have some knowledge on usul al Hadith.

The great scholar that made the famous Fath Al-Bari, explanation of Sahih Al Bukhari, Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani wrote:

"And the author’s arrangement suggests that it is part of ‘Aqil’s narration. Al-Humaydi, in his compilation, proceeded accordingly, carrying the hadith to the phrase “and the revelation ceased,” then stating: “The narration of ‘Aqil, transmitted in a singular report from Ibn Shuhba, ends at the point we have mentioned.” Al-Bukhari then augmented it in his hadith associated with Maʿmar, from al-Zuhri, by saying: “And the revelation ceased for a period until the Prophet became grieved,” and he continued it to the end. In my view, this additional phrase is specific to Maʿmar’s narration. For indeed, it was transmitted via the chain of ‘Aqil—Abū Nuʿaym recorded it in his extract from the chain of Abū Zarʿah al-Rāzī, from Yaḥyā ibn Bakīr, the teacher of al-Bukhārī, in the beginning of the book without it—and he transmitted it here in conjunction with Maʿmar’s narration, thereby indicating that the expression belongs to Maʿmar. Likewise, al-Ismāʿīlī explicitly stated that the addition is in Maʿmar’s narration, and it was also transmitted by Aḥmad, Muslim, al-Ismāʿīlī, and others, as well as by Abū Nuʿaym from a collection transmitted from some of al-Layth’s companions from al-Layth without it. Moreover, the narrator in what has reached us is al-Zuhri, and the implication is that, in the entirety of what has come to us concerning the report of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in this story, it is derived from al-Zuhri’s eloquence and is not part of a connected (continuous) report."

Al-Karmānī said: “This is what appears to be the case."

Source: Fath Al Bari Chapter 12, page 359.

The scholar Al-Suyuti commenteed on the hadith stating: "("As we have heard"): This is the statement of al-Zuhri."

Source: Kitab al-Tawshih Sharh al-Jami' al-Sahih Chapter 9.

The great scholar Al-Albani stated:

I say: This attribution to al-Bukhari is a grave mistake because it implies that the story of his attempted suicide is authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari, which is not the case. The clarification is that al-Bukhari narrated it in the last part of the hadith of Aisha about the beginning of revelation, which Dr. (1/51-53) has mentioned. It is found in al-Bukhari in the beginning of (Interpretation) (12/297-304 Fath) through the chain of narrators including Ma'mar: Al-Zuhri told me, from Urwah, from Aisha... and the hadith continues until the statement: "And the revelation paused." Al-Zuhri added: "Until the Prophet (peace be upon him) became so sad – as it reached us – that he would sometimes go to the tops of mountains, intending to throw himself off. Whenever he reached the summit of a mountain to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear to him."

Source: Kitab Difaa' 'an al-Hadith al-Nabawi Page 40.

Please cheeck the following hadiths and note that these do not have any mentions on attempted suicide:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4953

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3

https://sunnah.com/muslim:160a

And for the lenghty explanation, please read from the following website:

Islamqa.info, The reports which suggest that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) contemplated suicide are flawed in both their chains of narration or their texts Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

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

[Please read the previous comments in this topic]

Original text present in the wikipedia article of Muhammad: "Shortly after Waraqa's death, the revelations ceased for a period, causing Muhammad great distress and thoughts of suicide. On one occasion, he reportedly climbed a mountain intending to jump off. However, upon reaching the peak, Gabriel appeared to him, affirming his status as the true Messenger of God. This encounter soothed Muhammad, and he returned home. Later, when there was another long break between revelations, he repeated this action, but Gabriel intervened similarly, calming him and causing him to return home."

Remove the following content: "and thoughts of suicide. On one occasion, he reportedly climbed a mountain intending to jump off. However, upon reaching the peak, Gabriel appeared to him, affirming his status as the true Messenger of God. This encounter soothed Muhammad, and he returned home. Later, when there was another long break between revelations, he repeated this action, but Gabriel intervened similarly, calming him and causing him to return home." this is not accurate, as previously discussed in this topic we find this information in https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6982 however several sunni scholars have discussed this already as we find in https://islamqa.info/en/answers/152611/the-reports-which-suggest-that-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-contemplated-suicide-are-flawed-in-both-their-chains-of-narration-or-their-texts. Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It still seems that there is a claim of such suicidal thoughts. Whether the Islamic community accepts them as true is not really our concern. We should state that such a claim exists and that Muslims dispute its veracity. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, fellow wikipedian! Yes, there can be a claim of such suicidal thoughts that go back to sunni sources indeed, however none of them meet the criteria of an authentic narration.

While yes, such claim can be mantained without an issue, it should be further explained as from now the present text suggests that Muhammad did indeed try to end his life.

So yes, either removal or further explanation would be good options in this case. Karim Ibn Karim (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Karim Ibn Karim. I checked the referenced source.

Muhammad A Prophet for out time by

Karen Armstrong and it doesn't have anything on suicide. So, the only thing that is referenced is a primary source of Sirah Ibn Hisham.

This should either be removed or referenced with a secondary source. Anas Riaz (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: An editor objected to the requested removal. Perception312 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

it says the Muhammad was 'the founder of Islam' which is false, Muhammad was the last and final prophet and messenger sent by God(Allah) in islam, Islam was there since the first Human being and prophet Adam set foot on earth, Prophet Adam was the first human begin and prophet of Islam. 80.189.62.208 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #6. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This has been done across many articles recently. Age matters, and there is literally no fact that belongs here that needs to be tracked down to historiography older than the Taj Mahal—or the preface to a modern translation of it, for that matter. It is especially odd to insist on here, because the material that the editor is trying to cite is already verified by a modern source. It's unfortunately just all the more pointless, and all it can do is confuse and make a mess for the reader. Remsense ‥ 论 10:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This book is reliable and was written by a historian and royal scribe. I added most of the new content. Peoplic (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I made a request on Talk:Fotuhat-e shahi , but you have not responded yet. In that instance Fotuhat-e shahi, you deliberately removed encyclopedic content.Peoplic (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Context matters, but more modern sources are certainly preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

After reading Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35#Recent neutrality concerns, Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Suspect sources and Talk:Muhammad/Archive 34#Russ Rogers statements, I feel that this article is indeed problematic in its approach. Although, due to several edit wars the problem is, thankfully, not so visible anymore. Previously, some of the claims in this article seemed very biased and not within the scope of this article, more suited to be included as part of the Criticism of Muhammad article. To make matters worse, this coincided with the start of a proposal to develop a id:Muhammad article on idwiki for AB (GA), but due to a major overhaul the idwiki plan was delayed, coupled with the removal of GA status, which... well you can all guess how that went.

Anyway, in my opinion regarding sources for biographical articles, you should take the good ones (in this case reliable ones), and throw away the bad ones from the sources. Not all parts of a source need to be included in the article. Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life, and are better suited to the controversy subheading. Sources that make a special claim, but do not provide additional sources to support their claim, are also not worth using (WP:CLAIMS). This is a way to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. WP:RS does not specify how a source is considered scientifically reliable, so judging by WP:RS alone (which only provides the big picture) can be considered ambiguous and confusing. That's understandable, since it's very difficult to implement a specific procedure to sort out which sources are truly trustworthy to use. Plus, this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, not the place to research the validity of a source. Biographical articles only contain things that are commonly known, other things that are more detailed can be discussed separately.

Oh, this is just a reminder to be careful if the conflict occurs again, not to mean anything. Because there are conflicts that could be worse in other Wikipedia projects. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 10:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

"Conflicting claims are not appropriate for inclusion in the main discussion of the subject's life" IMO, that's not necessarily true at all, it depends on what the WP:RS say.

"better suited to the controversy subheading" Having a controversy subheading, which this article doesn't, is generally sucky WP-writing. If a "controversy" is WP:DUE, it should generally fit in the article in another way, chronological, topical or whatever. That said, I consider it reasonable that Muhammad#Criticism is part of this article. You are welcome to mention the sources you consider bad, other editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The article states "The earliest written sira is Ibn Ishaq's Life of God's Messenger written c. 767 (150 AH). " and the source is from 1998. This statement is clearly outdated and should be removed.

In 2021, a manuscript of Musa ibn ʿUqba's (675-759), Lost book, Kitāb al-maghāzī was found and published for the time. In 21st century sometime, a manuscript of yet another lost work, Kitab Sirah Rasul Allah ﷺ by Sulayman ibn Tarkhan at-Taymi (661-761) was found and published it for the first time. In 2015, Sean W. anothony published the English translation of "The Expeditions" by Ma'mar ibn Rashid (714-770), after the lost work was found in a masnucript of Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq. (https://x.com/shahanSean/status/960956916108230656?t=HG8esiY8q_SLnXqzGVzvcg&s=19) Anas Riaz (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I request that the phrase "ﷺ" (Peace Be Upon Him) or "PHUB" be added after the name "Muhammad" wherever appropriate, especially in general mentions throughout the article, to reflect respect as is common in Islamic writing.

Additionally, I suggest that in certain headlines or specific sections, the word "Prophet" be added before "Muhammad" (e.g., "Prophet Muhammad ﷺ") for clarity and respect, particularly when discussing religious or biographical content.

Thank you. 2409:40C2:D:4CC9:61E9:E80E:5DDB:4AB1 (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ 5. —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Need to correct spelling of Kinana to Kenana Ng565 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ng565 Done, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The statement "Muhammad is honored in Sikhism as a divine messenger" lacks a proper citation. Additionally, it is misleading and false because while Muhammad is indeed recognized as the central religious figure for the Muslims, his divinity in the Islamic canon is not equivalent to his treatment in the Sikh canon.

In other words, while Muhammad is honored as a messenger of God in Islam, this view is simply not shared in Sikhi. Moreover, the role of God's "messenger" or "representative" in Sikhi is performed by the Guru and since Muhammad is not recognized as equivalent to any of the Sikh Gurus, the statement is therefore false.

In effect, I propose removing this statement or at the very least, adding a "citation needed" at the end of the sentence to let the reader know of the disputed nature of this claim.

Also in the "Other religions" subsection under the "Legacy" section, the statement "Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others." is also misleading. While this statement does cite pages 1-2 from Sikhism Today by Sikh scholar Jagbir Jhutti-Johal, it has seemingly neglected the entire context of the passage. I have pasted the following excerpt from the same pages that note the entire context below:

"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission. However, they do not accept the authority of any of the scriptures from other religions, looking instead for enlightenment and guidance from the Guru, which is manifested in the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS), the holy book of the Sikhs. Sikhs also do not believe that God takes a human form and hence reject the idea of, for example, the divinity of Jesus Christ or the gods or avatars of Hinduism. The word Sikh is derived from the Sanskrit word Shishya, which means a ‘disciple’ or ‘learner’. This embodies the mindset of Sikhs, who are on a continual quest towards enlightenment." (Jhutti-Johal, J. (2011). Sikhism today. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 1–2)

While some works of Muhammad (like certain concepts from the Quran) are indeed honored and revered in the Sikh faith as references to God's own will, it's still false that Muhammad himself is "honored" in the Sikh faith.

For these reasons, I propose that these misleading statements be removed to avoid confusing readers about how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh faith. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I added a "citation needed" template to the statement. If nobody can back it up, we can delete it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead section is to provide an overview of the article body, and that sentence attempted to provide an overview of what the article says about Sikhism later on. I looked at that part, checked the source, made a revision, and then revised the sentece in the lead. Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all. A citation isn't needed for a summary overview sentence because the citations are already in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

"Muhammad is viewed with respect or even reverence by a couple of Sikh leaders including the founder, that's all."

This statement in itself is misleading because Sikh theology admits faith to only God and rejects intermediary figures like "prophets", "angels", etc. as creations from man so while certain passages from religious texts and writings may praise the wisdom in works commonly attributed to Muhammad, this praise should not be equated to reverence.

Even the cited excerpt uses the word "can" to imply that Sikhs have the option to view such figures, who are indeed outside of the direct religious canon, with "respect" but it would be misleading to state that all Sikhs "revere" these figures. It's an admittedly nuanced difference but this is important because I'm not a fan of this mischaracterization.

"Sikhs can accept that the central figures of other faiths, such as Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, were messengers of God with a divine mission." (Sikhism Today, Page 1).

In any case, I looked over your changes and while it certainly reads better, there are some issues worth addressing:

"Muhammad Sahib is honored by Sikhs as one of the divine messengers sent to mankind, along with Moses, Jesus and others.[393] Guru Granth Sahib, the holiest book of Sikhism, states that a true Muslim who follows the faith of Muhammad would put aside the "delusion of death and life."[394] The founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, is specifically said to have praised Muhammad as a source of divine experience having a personal influence on his life, as stated in the janamsakhi of Bhai Bala.[395]"

This line would imply that the Sikh views Abrahamic figures like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. as "divine messengers" which is incorrect. A more apt interpretation would be that the Sikh views these as figures who performed actions in the name of God and that's it. The phrase "divine messengers" is giving me considerable pause because most (if not all) Sikhs do not infact view any Abrahamic figures with any sense of divinity. The role of divine figures is uniquely reserved for the Gurus alone.

A more apt edit might look something like this:

"In Sikhi, serveral of the Gurus viewed Muhammad as a man of God. This can be seen in several historical Sikh texts, such as the JanamSakhi of Bhai Bala, where it is written that Guru Nanak Dev praised Muhammad's connection with God. Similarly, in the Bachittar Natak, Guru Gobind Singh notes that Muhammad was known as a man of great faith in God. Lastly, the Guru Granth Sahib uses Muhammad as well as quotes from the Quran to reference to God's strength, stating in Raag Majh that a true Muslim is one who is merciful to all beings and one who would put aside the delusion of life and death to accept God's will." AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comment, I would also add that the statement in the fourth paragraph of the page:

"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhism as an inspirational figure..." ought to be changed to

"...Muhammad has received praise in Sikhi for his faith in God...".

The term "inspirational figure" is not an accurate reflection as to how Muhammad is viewed in the Sikh ethos. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

“Muhammad was born in Mecca to the aristocratic Banu Hashim clan of the Quraysh”. Muhammad’s birthplace being in Mecca is not considered historical fact. His birthplace is considered unknown by modern historical methods. Islamic religious texts citing Muhammad’s birthplace, although having religious significance to some, are not considered historically reliable. Please add “according to Islam” and cite relevant Islamic texts. Shikafish (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That you haven't cited any scholarship yourself bears pointing out. Did you check the secular, scholarly sources already plainly cited after the claim before posting this? Remsense 🌈 论 00:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I will direct us to some scholarship that backs up my point. I think Dr Joshua Little’s work is a good starting point. If you’re able to follow a link here, I’d suggest going to: https://islamicorigins.com/a-bibliography-on-the-origins-of-hadith/

and scroll down to “[@1:39:24] PART 1: Critical Scholarship” for a list of sources critiquing the historicity of Hadith in particular (of which is the basis of claims Muhammad was born in Mecca).

The following Wikipedia page presents some of views of modern historical scholars generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

For a list of scholars or historians that specifically claim we cannot know that Muhammad was born in Mecca (based on the historical unreliability of Hadith and Sira): Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough, Michael Cook, Henri Lammens, Régis Blachère, John Burton, Wim Raven, Lawrence Conrad, Tom Holland and others.

Quotes from select scholars of historical unreliability of sources claiming Muhammad was born in Mecca:

Sira Literature: Early biographies (e.g., Ibn Ishaq as preserved by Ibn Hisham) narrate the Prophet's life in exclusivist terms.

"Scholars must always approach this material with 'skeptical caution rather than optimistic trust'" (Sean Anthony, Muhammad, 235).

Hadith Collections: Authenticated sayings of the Prophet often emphasize unique Islamic rites.

"There now prevails an almost universal Western skepticism on the reliability of all reports [Hadith]" (F.E. Peters Quest for Historical Muhammad, 302)



The last two centuries of critical scholarship on islamic origins has exposed a legion of problems with the Islamic literary sources thereon, above all in the Hadith corpus. (Joshua Little, Prospects) - goes on to list 21 problems.

Tafsir and Early Muslim Historiographies: Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn al-Athir, and others wrote commentaries on the Qur'an histories which highlight conflicts with non-Muslims.

"Tafsir is less a historical record that stretches back (parallel to the Qur'än itself) to the time of the Qur 'än's origins, and more the product of individual scholars (of a later time] and the (much later) context in which they worked." (Gabriel Reynolds, The Qur'än and Its Biblical Subtext, 228)

The claim in the “Muhammad” Wikipedia page regarding sira “Many scholars accept these early biographies as authentic” cites Nigosian, Solomon A. (2004). “many” scholars is not consensus, as there are “many” scholars that take the opposite view. In fact the consensus by modern scholarship looks to be that the sources suggesting Muhammad was born in Mecca are not reliable from a historical standpoint.

If Wikipedia is claiming this as historical fact then surely modern secular scholarship must be cited relating to this specific claim being historical fact? And in this case as I’ve hopefully shown above, it is not considered historical fact that Mohammed was born in Mecca, therefore there should be a rewording in the Wikipedia article. Shikafish (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this all together, to be clear I came into this appreciating the nature of your concern – i.e. that the only sources we have for information about Muhammad's early life are the Quran, sunnah and hadith. I am in total agreement that the nature of these sources fundamentally requires scholars attempting to extract data about historical events from them to exercise a particular degree of care and skepticism.

In short, while the above is certainly true, what that scrutiny should entail depends on the particular claims being evaluated. From what I understand, no scholars I've read on this have expressed reasons for concern regarding this particular claim. Some characterize Mecca as merely the "probable" birthplace of Muhammad, but I haven't come across any arguing that the issues inherent to the tradition should lead us to conclude he was likely born elsewhere – either because the sources likely didn't have access to that information in the first place, or that they had clear incentives to establish Mecca as his birthplace over another location.

Something like according to tradition is a level of qualification I haven't seen in sources, never mind it being consensus. It would thus likely mislead readers concerning the degree of doubt scholars have about this. It's possible we could insert a "probably", possibly with a footnote, but I doubt even that could possibly be a better representation of our sources atm. Remsense 🌈 论 16:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

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

dear editor

please add "Sallallahu alaihi wasallam" (صلى الله عليه وسلم) after the name of Muhammad (SAW). 103.55.146.170 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoldRomean (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

See Q5 in the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedia does not use honorifics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add Holy Prophet Muhammad PBUH with His name instead of just Muhammad, because a greatest lawgiver should be treated with intense respect. 39.43.147.98 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, please see WP:PBUH — Czello ^(music) 18:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

نصرمحمدمحمدالنمشه100سعوديتحويل دولية{{DEFAULTSORT:رقم الحواله <sup>2025/7/12</sup>}}{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—185.80.44.239 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Try again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The current lead has a sentence with poor wording, to the extent that it becomes wrong. It says "He is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets in Islam". I assume that what is meant, and what it should say, is "Muslims believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets". These do not mean the same. The former mean that everyone, regardless of religious views, would believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets in Islam. This is wrong for everyone; non-Muslims do not believe it, and Muslims believe him to be the Seal of the Prophets (not just in Islam but overall). I suggest changing the sentence. Jeppiz (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

”Muslims believe…” is certainly better/clearer. Having said that, I think it’s overstated to interpret the current wording as you have. I think it’s reasonably clear that what’s meant is “In Islam, he is believed to be the Seal of the Prophets“ DeCausa (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing it thusly. But the previous sentence starts with "According to Islam". I think the current text is clear. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, Jeppiz, having just re-read it I take back what I said. I think you're right. I'll change it. DeCausa (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

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

In the "External links" section, please consider adding:

• A reflective blog article on the life of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

Note: I am the author of this blog post and I understand this may be considered a conflict of interest. The post is a respectful, non-promotional reflection intended to complement readers' understanding. I leave it to editors' discretion whether it fits the article’s external link criteria. Tahirdot (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tahirdot Welcome, and thanks for asking. Per WP:NOBLOGS, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

• Maome.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Idk why but the native name in the infobox is in bold, though the Nobold template is used? Could we somehow fix this? Nurken (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried a couple things and couldn't get it to work, anyone more technically proficient than me (i.e. almost anyone else) want to take a look? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"Muhammad received revelation allowing Muslim men to have up to four wives each, marking the beginning of polygyny in Islam"

But polygyny in Islam itself state that polygyny existed before islam? 2A02:A03F:AC7C:9E01:B899:51EC:E4D6:3555 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

But did polygyny in Islam exist before the revelation? DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I could be mistaken but is there any evidence that only monogamy was allowed in islam before? I could not find anything. 2A02:A03F:AC7C:9E01:39E8:9F55:834:9115 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, polygyny in Islam didn't exist before the revelation because no religion known as "Islam" existed before the revelation.

Throughout history, new religions have adapted to the cultural norms and practices of the day. Such is probably the case here, with the revelations "permitting" that which was already common practice. Similar things happen with holidays, such as the Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas being adapted to seasonal celebrations that already existed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The revelation in question (as linked) in the text quoted by the OP is An-Nisa, not "the revelation" in general. So what my question was addressing was whether it was known what the position on polygony before An-Nisa (but after Muhammad began preaching). The OP has misread the article text as saying the revelation marked the beginning of polygony among the Arabs that converted to Islam. Whereas it actually refers to An-Nisa being the beginning of polygyny in Islamic teaching. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Muhammad is not the founder of islam. Muhammad is simply the last prophet of islam. Islam existed way before Muhammad. Islam existed since Allah created the world. And Adam is the first prophet, Muhammad is the last. 102.218.28.123 (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This gives disproprtionate weight to the Muslim POV rather than a more objective reading of history. — Czello ^(music) 11:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

In English, the word Islam specifically refers to Muhammad and his followers and does not include any of his predecessors. He is thus, by definition, the founder of Islam. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The most historically attested spelling in English texts, Moham(m)ed, is used multiple times in the article, but the intro does not mention it, except for a note linked from the intro itself Ulisse0 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the WP:LEAD should, the current note for other spellings is a good solution. In this article, "Muhammad" should be used outside quotes and titles of works that use different spellings, so I just "corrected" a couple. There is also the Muhammad (name) article. If you want to argue that we have the wrong WP:COMMONNAME, that's a different discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Take for example this line: "After enduring a year of unrelenting thefts and terror attacks from the Muslims following the siege, the people of Taif, known as the Banu Thaqif, finally reached a tipping point and acknowledged that embracing Islam was the most sensible path for them.[297][298][299]"

The phrase “unrelenting thefts and terror attacks” is highly loaded and modern-sounding. Classical Islamic sources describe raids and skirmishes typical of 7th-century Arabian warfare, not “terrorism” as understood today. These actions were part of the conflict and resistance rather than organized “terror attacks.” So, describing the Muslim military campaigns as “terror attacks” reflects a modern, politically charged interpretation rather than a neutral historical term.

The conversion is historically accepted but likely resulted from a mix of military pressure, political realities, and social negotiation. It’s not universally framed as simply “the most sensible path,” but as a pragmatic choice amid changing power dynamics.

I suggest reviewing the language used in this article. 2001:8F8:153D:275C:D831:EC3:E5F8:57DD (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that describing the attacks as "terror" attacks is making a judgement. I've changed it to just "attacks", as that seems a more neutral way of describing them.—Chowbok ☠ 22:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

What wording did the sources use here? Cortador (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

If one reads the talk archives, there was a user who was topic-banned from Islam for POV-pushing last year and used some seriously contested sources on this article. The three footnotes you mention are Rodgers, Rodinson, and Gabriel, which are author names central to the disputes; there are still remnants of the POV editing in the article. I did some overhauls in portions of the article a while ago, but didn't get to all of it. If possible, one idea would be to propose a change to the narration supported by a better source. Left guide (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

According to the page stats as of today, 32.6% of this article is still attributable to that particular editor, who is also credited with being second on number of edits to the page. It's a complex thing to unpick all that. Not sure what the answer is. DeCausa (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I recall a consensus that the Rodgers source should not be cited. It's a fringe source that makes extraordinary claims that are not supported by other sources, in spite of being published by a university press. The multiple discussions we had on it prompted me to write the WP:UPRESS essay, in which lists other unreliable sources published by university presses. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Our point of reference ought to be sources that accord with the outlook of modern Muslim scholarship on the Prophet, including figures such as Fazlur Rahman, Tariq Ramadan, Mubarakpuri, Ahmad Barakat, and others. Not the writings of modern Christian or atheist authors such as Rodinson and Watt, nor publications from Western universities that do not acknowledge Islam as a true religion revealed by God. Although they may cite authentic hadiths and the Prophet’s sīrah, they fail to recognise that even hadiths regarded as sahih (most reliable) may still be open to error. For example, the reports concerning the Prophet marrying Aisha at the age of six and consummating the marriage at nine have been rigorously re-examined and dismissed by many contemporary Muslim scholars. Māshā’ Allāh. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Your views are wholly contrary to Wikipedia's WP:Reliable sources policy. If you want to read a hagiography of Muhammad, there are plenty of Muslim websites where you can do so. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a secular encyclopedia. It is secular because favoring no particular religion results in greater reliability. Therefore, we prefer secular sources if possible. Regarding the age of Aisha, the consummation at 9 years old was accepted by Muslims for centuries, and only recently revisionist views have arisen in response to manufactured modern moral outrage. This is covered thoroughly in Aisha; perhaps you should read it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

What's wrong with Watt? And what Wikipedia policy or guideline requires a publication to acknowledge Islam as a true religion revealed by God in order to qualify as a reliable source? Left guide (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that many so‑called “authentic” hadiths cited by Western non‑Muslim “historians” are the very ones often quoted by Islamophobes to attack Islam. Yet many hadiths once deemed genuine by past scholars, when re‑examined by modern Islamic scholars, have been shown to be weak or fabricated. If your own mother were insulted on the basis of accusations later proven false, would you accept it? That is how we feel when you insult our beloved Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that many modern Western scholars do not seem "concerned" about whether the hadiths they cite are authentic or not. What’s even more disappointing is that their works are treated as the only “reliable sources” here in Wikipedia. Because of this, I’ve recently stopped editing Islamic articles there, since the truly authentic hadiths—found only in primary sources—are not accepted as references. Selenne (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Then suggest some improvements that cite better scholarly sources. Airing complaints is not constructive. One possible improvement would be to remove any claims cited to Rodgers, Rodinson, and Gabriel, starting with Rodgers. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have already read part of that book by Rodgers published by the University Press of Florida.

The first problem is that this is a publication from a country that often wages war against Muslim nations, labels Muslims as terrorists, and supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. I therefore propose that any book published by American universities and their allies be excluded from articles about Islam, since their motives from the outset are clearly not good.

The second problem is that the book cites hadiths and the Islamic sīrah to support its claims, but did the author consult Muslim scholars first about the context? Are the “authentic” hadiths they cite truly authentic? Even then, those hadiths are only the ones recognized by Sunni Muslims, not necessarily by other denominations such as the Ahmadiyya or Shia.

I recommend a complete overhaul of all Islamic articles: removing non‑Muslim sources and narratives, replacing them with sources from modern Muslim scholars and Islamic websites, and ensuring they are written by genuine Muslims. Since this is an article about the Prophet of Islam, it is only proper that it be written by Muslims. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

All of your arguments are invalid and anathema to the purpose of Wikipedia. We use reliable sources, period. Muslim sources can be unreliable too, and would be non-neutral. Secular (non-religious) sources are less likely to have a stake in the topic, they have no conflict of interest, they approach the topic with historical and not religious interest, and therefore would be more trusted to write neutrally about this subject. If you think non-Muslim sources in general should be removed from Islamic topics, then get a consensus on WP:RSN that they are unreliable and should be removed. This page is off-topic for such discussions. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Looks like the user has taken up your RSN proposal offer at WP:RSN#Reforming the Sources of Islamic Articles, in case you or anyone else watching this page is interested. Left guide (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Coming here from RSN, I feel like that was a little like telling the user where they may find the beans to stuff up their nose and a venue to do so in, but I do see Anachronist has already provided the only advice that can be provided anyway. If the editor wants to write a Muslim-written Muslim encyclopedia, well, I think that might be quite interesting reading, but said encyclopedia would not be Wikipedia, which has all articles written by wikipedia editors.

Wiki software is free though, and one can do what one wishes with it. In fact, there seems to be two whole Wikia/Fandom wikis about Islam. I'm sure one of them would welcome articles about all aspects of Islam written by Genuine Muslims, and if not, it would seem easy enough to start another one, either there or on another Wikifarm.

Otherwise, find "better scholarly sources and put them in", as Anachronist mentions, is the only valid advice editing here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Rodgers is problematic as has been discussed ad nauseum in recent archives. But we shouldn't be using that to make blanket characterizations across a trait not inherently tied to reliability such as "Western" or "Christian/atheist author" or "American university" sources because of one bad apple, or at least there is no project-wide consensus to treat sources in arbitrary sets that way. Left guide (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I will also add that Wikipedia prefers independent sources for the reasons given in the WP:IS summary:

Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.

Left guide (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Ibrahim, Ayman S.. Muhammad's Military Expeditions: A Critical Reading in Original Muslim Sources. United States, Oxford University Press, 2024.

Bookku (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this something like a Template:Refideas or something else? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Similar purpose. Many times ongoing writing focus in some other topic but I come across some relevant sources for some other article. May be I would have read a page or two only bit not in deep. So rather than adding to RefIdeas or Further reading I prefer to add plainly to article talk pages.

This helps me to find back refs from my edit summaries later. And allows other too to discuss the source if they find any points. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yujoong, you removed material last month citing COPYPASTE. The removed material appears sound; can you elaborate on the rationale for removal? Andre🚐 22:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yujoong's edit summary requires explanation. Is she saying it was without attribution? There's obviously nothing wrong with cut and pasting within WP provided there is attribution. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted those pieces back into the article for now as I don't see a valid rationale to remove them. Andre🚐 22:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason I removed the contents added by NGC 628 is that I have often noticed his edits copying material directly from other articles. I also found instances where he inserted his "own" wording into copied content that was not present in the original sources. That’s why I immediately removed his copy-pasted material as I was uncertain whether it could be trusted as coming directly from the original sources. In addition, he sometimes adds editorial comments without proper attribution to his sources. Selenne (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I see; that wasn't clear from the edit summaries, and you didn't specify the editor or the page. Can you explain where those parts were copied from? And we can fix that through making an edit with proper attribution. Andre🚐 00:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to find it when I have time. I've been very busy recently and since that edit was made a few months ago, I can’t quite remember which page it was. I’ll update you once I find it. Selenne (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)