Talk:Prophets and messengers in Islam

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 18 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nsoufraji, Savannah Stout, Xmf137roman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aliahmed.57.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of footnotes here are taken directly from the Quran. Wikipedia members are not (by and large) qualified to perform authoritative Quranic exegesis, and such runs afoul of WP:OR. I submit that this article needs to be cut back to just those portions citing academic/scholarly discussion of the concepts, as opposed to one Quran reader's selection of those passages proving various points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I first tagged the article on RC patrol a few weeks ago and it seems as though it is nothing but synthesis and original research (although it's well written and an interesting read). There are effectively zero footnotes from secondary sources (citing the index of a secondary source doesn't count). There's one tertiary source, but it's not explicitly about the topic of this article. Do you think the OR problem is bad enough the article should go to AfD? I'm leaning in that direction but I wanted to wait to see if the article got improved over a few weeks of existence. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd propose a coherent merge of parts of this article with the main Prophets of Islam article. This article can be used instead to focus on the theological differences between Prophets and Messengers in Islam. There is a discussion on the same at the other Talk Page. Shaad lko (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article about messengers in Islam is titled Apostle (Islam). I think we should be using the word "apostle" here too, and this article should be renamed to Prophets and apostles in Islam. Khestwol (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

When the article mentions Jesus, I think that the link should send the user to Jesus in Islam instead of just Jesus because this article is Islamic related, right? Mohamed Boutaleb (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The same goes for Moses in Islam, Noah in Islam, and others. But that is the least of the problems with this article. The list of issues shown at the top of the article are more immediate concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I added to the introduction... Muslims believe that Jesus returns and Judges everyone according to their actions.<ref>citation needed</ref]. 2601:589:4800:9090:D978:A6F1:5F7:FCDA (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that this article was both in Category:Islam and Category:Prophets of Islam. This seems redundant. Perhaps remove it from Islam, since the other category is already in it?

Yes, it is called diffusing category, thus whichever category is the parent of the other must be removed per WP:EPONYMOUS. Chongkian (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As discussed here (and following the MoS guidelines) I propose to remove the honorifics ( عليه السلام - ʿalayhi s-salām) from the infoboxes on articles about individual prophets.

Although I understand why editors have put the link to this article at the top of those infoboxes, it’s not a proper use of the |honorific_prefix= parameter and the link is already included in the Islamic prophets template on each page. The ideal solution would probably be some merger of the infobox with that template so that the unifying link to this article did appear at the top, but that would be a much more complicated job.

I also plan to declutter a bit, just leaving the Arabic version of the name in the |name= parameter as information about other versions of the name (e.g. Abraham vs. ʾIbrāhīm) are provided in the article itself.

--☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

On reflection I’ve decided it makes more sense to put the Arabic & English names in the |name= parameter and use the |native_name= parameter more literally. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Although this particular article seems comprehensive to be warranted like an encyclopedic entry, the lack of citations is an issue. I also notice there is no similar counterpart article in reference to Judaism, Christianity or the Old / New Testament (or "bible") (these three religions being similar and sometimes categorized as counterparts or cohesive evolutions in terms of religious history) with the same information "list of characters and names mentioned...". These are my points regarding deletion.

My point regarding merging is perhaps the article can be merged with any or all of these:

List of names mentioned in the Quran.

List of people mentioned by name in the Quran.

List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran.

All of these have, you guessed it, a lack of proper and adequate references. Deleting the four may not serve the purpose of forwarding adequate and insightful information, but perhaps merging what seems to be similar articles would be a move towards progress. I'm surprised these articles have lasted so long with those tags requesting additional citations / corrections (see tag dates) since they were started. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Soft Oppose I believe this article can't be merged with the other, but you can merge the other two. On top of that this article serves to explain who were prophets and who were messengers. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this particular article should follow the outline and simplicity seen in the similarly titled article Prophets of Christianity. Notice how that article contains a concise introduction and a simple list. I think this article should have an introduction explaining the Islamic theological understanding between "Prophets" and "Messengers", besides other things prophet/messenger related. This article currently simply repeats the legendary religious propaganda, but no scholarship explaining or supporting the ideas. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a platform to promote legends and unverified propaganda.

I will most likely go through this article and delete all the content lacking proper citation (which is the majority of content). Two years have passed since the notice atop the article's page and not much has improved. Everything else mentioned and detailed in this article is found in other wikipedia articles on Islam. - HafizHanif (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The original Wikipedia entry is/was at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Issues_and_Privacy_Concerns_about_Matters_Related_to_Prophets, however, it might be speedily deleted for being in the wrong section. The intention of having a separate page was so that it could encompass addressing more than one article.

This is intended to be an ongoing list open for entries posted by scholars and authorities on the subject matter; ongoing might include minimizing information, substantiated by content that may be found in the list.

'Prophets' in this article, refers to Prophets which the Prophet Muhammad, prayers upon him and peace, referred to in his Ahadeeth, (transliteration for the plural Arabic term for Hadeeth, also spelled Hadith ⁽¹⁾, which in this context is briefly translated as sayings and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad). Confer Prophets and messengers in Islam⁽²⁾.

As this is a list of 'issues', and not so much a lean on fact, sources for the information provided on this page might not have as much of an emphasis for the issues, whereat the facts may. It is for this very reason that this Wikipedia list is being generated, because, substantiation for certain minimizations of revealing personal information and 'mysteries' about the Prophets might be relatively more difficult to find in English written literature as of the current date 2017.

As it stands today, there are multiple articles in Wikipedia that have conflicting information that regards the Prophets, whereas, it is extremely important to follows of the Faith they preached, to uphold the information presented in exactness. An instance of inconsistency is an excerpt from the article on Prophet Idris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idris_(prophet)) which states that Muslims believe he is a third Prophet, while the Pages on Prophets in Islam, such as Prophets and messengers in Islam have no second Prophet between Idris and Adam, whereas, Seth according to some views might have been the second between Adam and Idris.

Topics and Corresponding Comments

Topic: How long did Prophets live?

Comment: There are men, such as Uzair⁽³⁾, that went to sleep for 100 years, then awoke⁽⁴⁾. How is it that time is measured in this instance? Generally speaking, there may be miracles of time that are involved with Prophets which might not conform exactly modern day linear usages and measurements of time, such as 60 minutes to an hour, 24 hours to a day, and 365 days to a year.

Topic: How many Prophets were there?

Comment: There are Ahadeeth, plural, sayings of Prophet Muhammad, about the numbers of Prophets. See 'Number of Prophets'⁽⁵⁾.

Topic: The chronological order of Prophets

Comment: There could be matters that pertain to how the measuring of time is done, such as whether a point of reference in time began with the moment a Prophet reached or was 'conferred' Prophethood, or when he was born. In natural possibility, there could be overlaps of time measurements, when one person has received the rank of a certain degree after another person was born.

Topic: Disclosing mysteries about Prophets that are 'reserved' for scholars of high spiritual degree

Comment: The design of Wikipedia which forces scholarly substantiation behind information, has positive aspects, however, in the broader design, providing sources which make it easy for those that might not necessarily have a zeal to learn about them on the topic of Prophets, or passerbyers that stumbled upon it whom have no persona of piety, it may be felt by those that hold certain knowledges having to do with Prophets as 'sentimental', that the referent readers should not have easy access to those knowledges.

Topic: Books of Prophets, and changes to them

Comment: In Islam, it is believed that the Quran is a book that has gone unchanged. There is also saying credited as being from Prophet Muhammad, [citation and exact saying needed] that there have been books such as the Injeel, (confer Gospel in Islam⁽⁶⁾) sometimes referred to a the Bible, which have been 'changed' over the years. In brief, the 'Book' when originally revealed was or is the book, while edits and revisions done to texts years later might have other content that could differ from the the original revelations. Matters of concern could arise in the quest for obtaining the earliest known recordings of contents of books revealed to Prophets. Well known Revealed Books are Torah/Toreh revealed to Musa/Moses, Quran to Muhammad, Zabur⁽⁷⁾ to Daud/Dawud/David. Among books mentioned in the Quran, is Book of Ishmael⁽⁸⁾. Book of Isiah is mentioned in 'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible'⁽⁹⁾. The Injeel, the Torah/Toreh, are clearly mentioned verbatim in the Quran.

Topic: Families and descendants of Prophets

Comment: Prophets were creation, men; they had lives, and their personal relations and families, should be respected insofar disclosing personal information. Surviving descendants might dwell in a village and wish to remain there in peace without inordinate intrusion.

Topic: How to know a Prophet is a Prophet, if he is not mentioned in the Quran

Comment: This has been a subject around for time lengths undescribed; in consideration that the Quran is treated by scholars of Islam as a book unchanged. Note, unchanged in this context means what was revealed, not referring to the different manuscript styles that the Quran is printed in, in Arabic, over time. The article 'How Do We Know the Quran is Unchanged?'⁽¹⁰⁾, cites Surah Hijr ayat (verse) 9, subheading 'The Promise to Protect', 'wa ina lahu lahafithun', transliterated.

Sources:

⁽¹⁾Prophets and messengers in Islam, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_and_messengers_in_Islam

⁽²⁾Hadith, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

⁽³⁾Uzair, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzair

⁽⁴⁾'Uzair (Ezra) - Ezra Sleeps For 100 Years' http://www.alim.org/library/biography/stories/content/SOP/1/26/Uzair%20%28Ezra%29/Ezra%20%20Sleeps%20For%20100%20Years%20

⁽⁵⁾Number of Prophets, https://www.al-islam.org/prophethood-and-prophet-islam-ayatullah-ibrahim-amini/number-prophets

⁽⁶⁾Gospel in Islam, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

⁽⁷⁾Zabur, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur

⁽⁸⁾Ishmael, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

⁽⁹⁾'The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible', authored by Pfieffer, Charles F., 1969

⁽¹⁰⁾How Do We Know the Quran is Unchanged?, http://lostislamichistory.com/how-do-we-know-the-quran-is-unchanged/

Firstly, this particular page is the "talk page", where editors have discussions regarding the actual article. Perhaps this may clarify any confusion about what has been discussed on this talk page so far. Secondly, this article (and many other articles on the details of Islam) have many issues, one being the lack of secondary and tertiary citations by qualified and notable historians / scholars. This article, for example, reads more like religious propaganda repeating legends, instead of citing comprehensive scholarly work available from both religious and secular sources. You can start here to learn how to contribute improvements to this and other pages: Referencing for beginners. Cheers and good luck. - HafizHanif (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In Samuel#Islam the sources say Semuil is a nabi who is mentioned in the Quran, but not by name. Should he be covered in this article? Ibadibam (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

On the table, it states that Muhammad's equivalent is "Paraclete" or the Holy Spirit. Is that supposed to be like that? Catinthedogs (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

HI there! I am a muslim and know multiple things about Muslims and the prophets of course! I would love to proof edit it and edit some things for people who want to use this site, please allow me. 173.206.3.198 (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits. Reduction in page protection level can be made at WP:RFPP. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

In the chart listing the prophets, Idris (Enoch) is confirmed as a prophet (Quran 19:56), and Elijah (Ilyas) was sent to the worshippers of Ba'al (Quran 37:123-126). 2607:FE50:0:8110:487F:2304:32E6:F0D4 (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

αγγελος is pronounced angelos. With two consecutive gammas, the first one is pronounced like a nu. Aragorn 17:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)

I added to the introduction... Muslims believe that Jesus returns and Judges everyone according to their actions.<ref>citation needed</ref]. 2601:589:4800:9090:D978:A6F1:5F7:FCDA (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've removed that because it wasn't sourced, and it seems like something of a bold statement. Your other changes didn't seem like improvements either - Allah is better than God in this context, and the reason for changing 'forms' to 'spellins' was unclear. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It also seems to be material that may best belong at Salvation § Islam —PaleoNeonate – 06:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Sock edit, Brad Mason, Miami. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Similar to the Prophets of Christianity page we should add a section of the claimed prophet said to be prophets of Islam after Muhammad.Doremon764 (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

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

This information is wrong the current and the last prophet of islam is Muhammad PBUH. After him no prophet has came or will not come. 104.148.181.87 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is not an edit request. Suggest an improvement with suitable citations to scholarly sources, without appealing to your personal beliefs. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

the entire section on female prophets seems like opinion and needs to be rewritten. 103.76.209.91 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus born in year zero is a ridiculous rant. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Every single one of the 25 known "islamic" prophets mentioned in the Quran besides Muhammad was already mentioned under a hebrew name in the Bible. The authors of the Quran likely took the prophets from the Bible and gave them arab names.

Is the Quran some kind of a Bible for Arabs?

62.226.92.136 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, of course they are given Arabic names, because the Quran was written in Arabic. Secondly the same can be argued for Christians taking the Prophets of the Jews mentioned in the Torah. These Prophets didn't originate from the Bible. Also the Quran was not written by "authors" but written and dictated by Allah himself. MuhammadKW (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Noble Drew Ali from Moorish Science Temple of America
• Elijah Muhammad from Nation of Islam
• Rashad Khalifa from United Submitters International (USI)

24.45.201.124 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Reference 79 provided for the date of Prophet Hud is from a reference which no longer exists, and the internet archive shows this reference to have no reliable source. I think it date should be removed and replaced with a question mark. hashamadeus (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Even ignoring the unreliability, the way it's used is misleading. What the reference actually says is: "some muslims believe" (which is weaselly) that Hud was sent around 2400 BC, but the Qur'an doesn't state this and it's subject to debate among scholars/academics; so, even the reference itself is saying that this date shouldn't be accepted uncritically. I've removed it. – Scyrme (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Could you add the timeline for Prophet Yusuf عليه وسلم to be somewhere around the Bronze Age (3300 B.C.E to 1200 B.C.E), preferably 1610 BCE - 1500 BCE. The other prophets also don't have exact dates but they have "citation needed" could you put the same thing for Yusuf عليه وسلم but with different dates? 100.15.218.54 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't add content along with a {{cn}} tag; it's only used for existing content that was added without a source or had its source removed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Please tell me the answer 202.47.54.137 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Hazrat Adam (AS) was first prophet of ALLAH. But Hazrat Isa (AS) was before Hazrat Muhammad (SAW) prophet and messenger of ALLAH. 27.123.255.195 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

add a supporting sentence, "The authenticity of the claim remains an open question because while Arabic language was claimed to be the only language used when Quran was revealed to Muhammad, the word Injil, among others, are derived from Greek." jlw (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Change the sentence "The Quran states: "And for every community there is a messenger." (ambiguous and misleading).

to: Quran 14:4 clearly states, "And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them." jlw (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove what GoomerDust added which is content that I could not verify anywhere and is without sources. I am referring to the MUSL (Muslim Leaders) part. Those are not real in Islam. UsefisPangit2 (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "Muhammad was criticized for his revelation being poetry which, according to the cultural perspective, is revelation purely originating from the jihn and the Qurash but the typology of duality and its likeness to the other prophets in the Abrahamic line affirms his revelation." is not clear. Is it "jinn" and "Quraish"? What is "typology of duality"? 62.254.152.250 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

i think he meant quraysh not qurash idk actually but the sentence is absolutely wrong because when you read the typology of duality you can clearly sea that the user is trying to state that quran came from the bible and Torah which is completely false Abdelrahman Meresh (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What is "jinn (khalq)"? 62.254.152.250 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I cut the line that included that phrase. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that Idris peace be upon him was in fact a messenger of god as stated in surah Maryam verses 56,57 and 58

 وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِدْرِيسَ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَّبِيًّا (56) وَرَفَعْنَاهُ مَكَانًا عَلِيًّا (57) أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ أَنْعَمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ النَّبِيِّينَ مِن ذُرِّيَّةِ آدَمَ وَمِمَّنْ حَمَلْنَا مَعَ نُوحٍ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّةِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْرَائِيلَ وَمِمَّنْ هَدَيْنَا وَاجْتَبَيْنَا ۚ إِذَا تُتْلَىٰ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُ الرَّحْمَٰنِ خَرُّوا سُجَّدًا وَبُكِيًّا ۩ (58)

My editing request is to change Idris peace be upon him from non messenger to a messenger because it clearly stat here that he was in fact a messenger of god Thanks for your time. Abdelrahman Meresh (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Some of the Prophets in known Prophets are actual Messengers of Allah so I want to fix the issue of those Messengers in the “no” part of Messengers in the list. Ishaq AS, Idris AS, Yaqub AS, Isaiah AS etc. (and more) are Messengers of Allah. Request sent by Hamdaan Abid 102.219.209.135 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. You'll need to cite reliable sources to correct information. ObserveOwl 🎄 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Adam (AS) was not a messenger. 71.178.217.194 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - please provide a reliable source for your edits. GoldRomean (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The Claim that Buddha is Dhu al-Kifl is laughable and is only mentioned by very late writers without any evidence. So it should be at very least written and edited as "and even Buddha" instead of making this view seem as legitimate as the previous mentioned views about his identity. ~2025-31247-59 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The article list Jesus with prophets, but the Quran calls him the Messiah. Christians also call him the Messiah. In the Quran Jesus created life from clay. In the gospel Jesus defeated death three times.No prophet comes close to that. ~2025-42016-04 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to say “all prophets recognized in Islam” instead of “all Islamic prophets”? Also, is there a concept of non-Islamic prophets in any tradition, so readers can better understand the caption? N2225Lba2 (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The most common understanding championed by various sects of Islam considers all prophets and messengers of God to have been Muslim and preached Islam. Islam in this case means quite literally submission to God and Muslim is someone who submits. Early Islamic vocabulary uses some other terms like Mumin etc. but this is unimportant to the general point as far as most mainstream sects of Islam are concerned all Jewish prophets are Islamic, Jesus is Islamic etc. and their message perfectly resembled the message preached by Muhammad whom they consider the Seal of the Prophets. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Would it not be better to change the caption from “all Islamic prophets and messengers” to something like “all prophets recognized in Islam” or simply “all prophets” to avoid repeating “Islamic” and improve clarity? Using “Islamic” twice in the caption feels redundant/stuffed and can come across as jargon-y. Plus, in my opinion (though I could be wrong), it carries potential ambiguities when viewed from a comparative or neutral perspective.

When looking at the article title, Prophets and messengers in Islam, I think we already have a very clear and neutral way to phrase this. Would it make sense to simply align the caption with the article title?

According to Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, in the “Avoid overly technical language” section: “If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms” and “Use less technical versions of words.” While it also explains that articles "should also minimise (unexplained) jargon and not take prior knowledge for granted. "

I welcome any suggestions if I am missing an important point. N2225Lba2 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The qualifier "Islamic" exists for two very different reasons in the caption though: Islamic miniature is a terminus technicus and represents the higher-order genus of terms like Persian miniature and Ottoman miniature. To argue if this particular illustration still is a Persian miniature or already shows enough distinctive features of the emergent Ottoman style could actually be a very controversial assessment so it’s best to just stick with the higher order genus, even though it might sound a little jargon-y.

In the second case "Islamic prophets" exists to not wikivoice prophethood—while “Prophets recognized by Islam" might at first sound like a better solution the problem comes down to what is actually being depicted, namely Muhammad leading a prayer of not just named prophets and angels but explicitly also unnamed figures. As Islam holds to a belief of a large number of unknown prophets (a narration from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal puts the number at 124,000 prophets total—but even if different traditions take slightly different perspectives I hope the main problem is illuminated here) the miniature precisely doesn’t just show Muhammad leading a prayer of the 25 Quranic prophets or the ~100 named prophets and messengers recognized by various Islamic sects but instead shows Muhammad leading a prayer of all prophets who taught Islam (in the sense of the perennial Islamic self-understanding of Islam being the one and unchanging truth revealed by God to all creation) in heaven. The phrasing “recognized by Islam” thus sounds like it is about the known and revered figures treated as prophets by Muslims today, instead of the abstract concept of figures which taught Islam, including those which are unknown and unrecognized today. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to illustrate this point: the Ottoman Turkish manuscript this is taken from talks about Alexander the Great gathering ALL the prophets for this prayer based on Aristotle's wishes (both are treated as prophets by the text) and is very much inspired by the very broadest Sufi idea of اطلبوا العلم ولو بالصين ie of knowledge of the divine (Islam) being spread all across time and space and as something found in nearly all cultures. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

I think the highest and most accurate genus would be “Prophets of Allah,” “Messengers of God,” “Allah’s Messengers,” or similar wording, rather than “Islamic prophets.” The Qur’an never explicitly calls or emphasizes the phrase “Islamic prophets,” but consistently describes them as being sent by Allah and inviting humanity to one submission, Islam. The evidence is clear that the prophets are described as Muslimun, as reflected for example in al-Baqarah 2:136; however, the terminology used in several places in the Qur’an itself is broader and more universal. In simple terms, in the Qur’an a prophet is defined by their relationship to the Creator, not by their relationship to a religion as a later categorical label.

From a scriptural standpoint, both the Qur’an and the Hadith literature, including the accounts of the Miʿraj, typically use the universal term al-Anbiyaʾ (the Prophets) rather than attaching a sectarian identifier. The Qur’an also uses the phrase أَنۢبِيَآءَ ٱللَّهِ (Prophets of Allah), as in al-Baqarah 2:91, which suggests that the primary identification is through their relationship to Allah rather than through a narrower descriptive label.

Since the article is already specifically about Islam, the context is already established. Repeating the adjective “Islamic” within that setting feels like over-utilization and may narrow what the Qur’anic framing presents as a broader, continuous message. In that sense. For encyclopedic purposes, phrasing such as “prophets in Islam,” “prophets recognized in Islam,” or similar wording may better reflect both the scriptural spirit and Wikipedia’s need for categorical clarity without sounding like a branded label.

I welcome any suggestions if I am missing an important angle. N2225Lba2 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem with dropping the second label “Islamic” comes down to the risk of wikivoicing prophethood, as prophet is not exactly a neutral descriptor but very much a honorific term of particular religious reverence. Of course, the Quran as a text doesn’t particularize its own religious claims and considers itself in a very practical way absolute in its claim to truth and divine origin but as Wikipedia is a secular project it is inappropriate to use the label “prophet” without a qualifier or an ambiguously broad and controversial qualifier like “prophet of God” (“prophet of allah” would be out of the gate unacceptable per MOS:ALLAH) so I’d go with the guidance of MOS:MUHAMMAD when it comes to having to use the term “prophet” in Islam related contexts and just particularize it this way via the qualifier “Islamic” as all other qualifiers come with significant—not merely stylistic—drawbacks: ie they either attribute actions to Islam, thereby precluding its very broad quasi-perennial self-understanding or are conversely so broad that they violate npov by wikivoicing religious reverence for various figures. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the current wording. If the reader is reading from a perspective of "all prophets are Islamic" (the same perspective the article documents) then there should be no controversy with the wording as "all Islamic prophets and messengers". If they are reading from the perspective of reading an encyclopaedia, then the same wording makes more sense from that perspective compared to "all prophets" (which is what the original Ottoman Turkish says - as outlined in replies above it's the Quranic view too) or "all prophets of Allah" (which is marginally more likely to be edit-warred over when someone contends their Allah has one more prophet that came after).

The miniature's intent is just to depict "lots" of prophets, to convey "all". Maybe if a compromise is needed, we can go for the more battle-tested article title? Islamic miniature depicting Muhammad leading a prayer of all prophets and messengers in Islam in a celestial Mosque during Isra' and Mi'raj. 🔥Komonzia (message) 20:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Bari' bin Farangi and Komonzia for your inputs.

Bari' bin Farangi has a valid point and I respect that, when looking at MOS:MUHAMMAD, it is defined there "the Islamic prophet Muhammad", which could mean it can be used for other prophets, so I think we need to first discuss that, so where to start? I'd like to know/ask to get better guidance on what I'm missing here. Because I'm not fully able to understand the "Islamic prophets" it is kind of unprocessable for my mind to visualize "Islamic prophets" and particularly the counter wording "non Islamic prophets", in contrast prophets in Islam feels neutral, though I like using "Islamic" when I've to say something like Islamic system or Islamic school of thought, so please (if possible) help me understand where I'm getting it wrong and why.

This one is acceptable for now "Islamic miniature depicting Muhammad leading a prayer of all prophets and messengers in Islam in a celestial Mosque during Isra' and Mi'raj". But I'd like to know what other editors think about it.

Should we also review other instances of “Islamic prophets” within the article to ensure consistent terminology? N2225Lba2 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to ask earlier: is there a specific Manual of Style guideline for Islamic topics (for example, something like MOS:Islamic) that editors should be aware of for future edits? I want to make sure we are following the correct style guidance when working on similar articles. N2225Lba2 (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The WikiProject for Islam-related articles signposts to some guidance - see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam#Guidelines_for_editing_Islam_articles 🔥Komonzia (message) 11:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I was talking about something like MOS:MUHAMMAD for MOS:Islamic. N2225Lba2 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If some point of contention isn't covered in MOS:ISLAM (linked from the WikiProject) then it could always be raised/discussed in the talk page of MOS:ISLAM: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. I think so far what we're discussing here wasn't contentious enough, I guess :) 🔥Komonzia (message) 13:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again. I really appreciate your input. N2225Lba2 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this helps: From my own perspective (raised Christian) - prophets (or prophetic people) in certain sects of Christianity include those that came after Jesus and explicitly excludes Muhammad. So "Muhammad leading all prophets in prayer" could be edit-warred over and could be seen as counter to what the Ottoman author intended to depict. In my day-to-day use of English, the terms I bullet-point below are synonymous and don't entirely overlap with what the people around me see as "their" prophets (c.f. my point about edit warring when someone's Allah - a word that means 'God' - is not in their opinion the Allah of the Qur'an):

• the prophets of Islam
• prophets in the Islamic tradition
• Islamic prophets
• prophets in Islam

So, there are some figures called prophets in certain traditions that are "not Islamic prophets".

I believe Bari's perspective is slightly different and focused on ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't classify people as outright prophets when they're only prophets for particular people. 🔥Komonzia (message) 11:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That helps and gave me some food for thought. I think if the context of the article is already about Islam, we don't need to push the word 'Islamic' so frequently. I’d prefer using sparingly placed synonyms like 'prophets in the Islamic tradition' or 'prophets in Islam.' I’ll avoid using 'Islamic prophets' unless there are clear guidelines requiring it. Thanks again for your reply. N2225Lba2 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

An example of a “non-Islamic prophet” would be someone like “the Prophet” Dallin H. Oaks or any of his predecessors. As you can see in the article about that title (and in related ones) Wikipedians are very careful not to wikivoice prophetic functions in religious studies contexts. A neutral descriptor like “founder” “leader” “preacher” etc. never involves any unverifiable metaphysical claims while “prophet” does, therefore its use always requires a qualifier with regards to the question “who holds to this metaphysical dogma?” Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Bari' bin Farangi. I get the point now. My aim isn’t to force the concept of prophethood on anyone, but rather to make the wording sound natural, neutral, and non-parroty.

Do you think I really should get used to saying 'Islamic prophets'? To be honest, I prefer 'prophets in Islam' or 'prophets in the Islamic tradition.' To me, there is something missing or incomplete about the term 'Islamic prophets', I can’t quite put my finger on the right word for it yet, but if I do, I’ll hopefully bring it up for discussion later. N2225Lba2 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)