Talk:Muhammad/Archive 29

DeCausa, How is it unnecessary?! please, explain your point of view.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have said "unencyclopedic". You added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" is more appropriate to devotional material and shouldn't be in the lead to this article. I also think the source is dubious. I see you've reverted me - don't do that. See WP:BRD, if you want to add seomething and you are opposed it's for you to take it to the talk page and wait till you have consensus in your favour Looking at your other additions today, I'm going to revert them as well: the lead should not contain a supposed legend that he founded the Arabian equine bloodlines! Also, it is well established that the general view is that he was primarily a merchant before he entered on his religious calling. DeCausa (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you take a bit more care with your reverts in future please, De Causa? I'm going to have to change the font size of the Arabic again. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you changed it - it makes it look extremely small to me. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to be clashing with the Latin text just before it (or just after it if you're reading the Arabic, I suppose). Anyway, why I did it is not really the point. Formerip (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" because this is what the Islamic view of Muhammad is (see:^{[Quran 21:107]}).
• I added two reliable sources to support my claim that he worked primarily as a shepherd (occasionally as an employed merchant & allegedly as an equestrian). On the other hand, your claim that he worked primarily as a merchant in 583–609 CE is unsourced.
• I added (in the paragraph: Names and appellations in the Quran) the Qur'anic verse: "And We haven't sent you [O Muhammad] except as a Mercy to all the creation".
• I replaced the picture in the infobox with a featured picture.
• I added the view of the Alevis because just as the view of the Bahai's is mentioned in the lead, the view of the Alevis should be mentioned too in the lead.
• The Islamic view of Muhammad is different from the Baha'i view. This is why I separated between the two.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, what else do you want to discuss?!--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anti, I think that, from an objective viewpoint, being a merchant is one of the facts about M we can be most certain of because, as well as being mentioned in Muslim sources it is also mentioned in at least one earlier non-Muslim source (pseudo-Sabeos, who is generally thought to be reliable). On the other hand, my impression is that early Muslim writers believed M to have been a shepherd when he was a boy, rather than being a shepherd as his primary occupation as an adult. On that basis, I don't think your edit here was right, although there may be sources I am not aware of.

I also don't think it is correct to put Alevis in a list along with Muslims and Bahais. Alevis consider themselves to be Muslims (whereas Bahais do not), so it wouldn't be appropriate to mention them separately as if they are not Muslims.

I don't have a problem with the change of infobox image, though. We reached a decision not to have an actual image of M in the infobox, so the image there is really just decoration, and your choice does look nicer. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerip, thank you for your response. Could you please show me at least one single Muslim source of the early Muslims which specifically states that Muhammad worked as a merchant in the period 583–609 CE? Please be noted that I mentioned in my edit "that he worked occasionally as an employed merchant".

As for the view of the Alevis, I think it should be mentioned in the lead just as the views of the Ahmadiyya and "Nation of Islam" are mentioned, but if you don't agree with me, then it is okay. I won't mention their view.

Do you have any other objections?--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying you're not aware of any Muslim sources that say M was a merchant, or just none that give those specific dates? I wouldn't have a problem with removing the dates and just leaving the word "merchant".

I don't have any specific objections to your other edits, but maybe "last of the prophets" (or "seal", but I think some readers wouldn't understand it as easily) would reflect something that is more commonly said than "lord of the prophets". I agree that it would be OK to clarify that M doesn't mean precisely the same thing to Muslims and Bahais.

My lack of opposition shouldn't be taken as a green light, though. Please wait a reasonable time for other editors to comment. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I notified you in the comment above that I mentioned in my edits "that Muhammad worked occasionally as an employed merchant". In other words, I didn't delete the sentence. I only corrected it.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was kinda garish, honestly, but not too hacked up about it either way. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A matter of opinion, but garish can be good. The image also has the advantage of authenticity over a design put together by a Wikipedia editor. Sincere good luck with the Gamergate thing, BTW. Formerip (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ربيع and لغد: (@"Spring", i.e. you're pipelinking your name to that). My responses are:

1. I added "& the only apostle sent by God as a mercy to all the creation" because this is what the Islamic view of Muhammad is (see:^{[Quran 21:107]}) "As a Mercy to all the creation" is devotional language and inappropriate for the lead. Including it adversely affects NPOV.
2. I added two reliable sources to support my claim that he worked primarily as a shepherd (occasionally as an employed merchant & allegedly as an equestrian). On the other hand, your claim that he worked primarily as a merchant in 583–609 CE is unsourced. It's not unsourced it's in the body of the article with a citation. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of what's in the article not introduce "new" material. Most sources refer to Muhammad being a merchant and/or camel driver. Some refer to him being a shepherd in his youth but that's not the main description of him prior to his prophethood. I suggest that shepherd is mentioned in the childhood section but is not necessary in the lead. The "equestrian" legend is trivia and certainly shouldn't be in the lead. I don't know even if it is warranted in the article.
3. I added (in the paragraph: Names and appellations in the Quran) the Qur'anic verse: "And We haven't sent you [O Muhammad] except as a Mercy to all the creation". That's ok IMO.
4. I replaced the picture in the infobox with a featured picture. There's a separate discussion on that. Pictures are a sensitive issue on this article and changes should always be agreed on the talk page first. It's a very nice pic, but I think the original picture was clearer for the general reader in the context of the infobox.
5. I added the view of the Alevis because just as the view of the Bahai's is mentioned in the lead, the view of the Alevis should be mentioned too in the lead. I think this is giving undue weight to the Alawis to include it in the lead.
6. The Islamic view of Muhammad is different from the Baha'i view. This is why I separated between the two - follows on from the above comment.

DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a Calligraphic representation in the infobox?

It was shown that the community consensus is that the infobox should not contain a calligraphic representation. An appended Community discussion shows that most contributors are in favor of an unveiled photo of Muhammad. If assigning a "+1" to "support", and a -1 to "oppose", option A has the largest tally in the ACD.

In addition, the vast majority of pages for prophets have their picture. I refer to Jesus, Moses and Abraham. This is despite that fact that, as with Muhammad, no one would know what these people looked like (and are definitely not likely to have been Caucasian).

rkbauer (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you perhaps misread the Muhammad images RfC? The top box, which is the consensus finding of the 3 admin panel rather clearly says "In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox." Tarc (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Calligraphic representations of Muhammad are by far the most common form, and thus must be given precedence to represent a neutral point of view. Veiled and unveiled representations are significant but minority choices, and thus receive some, but diminished representation. As noted, this has been discussed to death, and is a pretty inescapable conclusion. WilyD 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I light of this edit can Rkbauer clarify why he/she should not simply be regarded as trolling? DeCausa (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see the attempts to insert the South Park image til now, that is quite beyond the pale. I've taken the liberty of informing this user about the discretionary sanctions that this article is under, so, hopefully that will suffice. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How could they find that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in, when there clearly was not? A simple tally shows that the strongest consensus was to show him unveiled. Why would they do a poll if it doesn't seem to matter?

Furthermore, how is calligraphy of Muhammad's name considered a representation of Muhammad at all? How does it being "most common" imply a neutral point of view? It seems like showing a picture of the topic (such as what is done in every every other topic, from George Washington to Rape is more neutral than showing calligraphy.

The most common depiction of Jesus is him at the last supper. Why isn't that the picture in his infobox? All of the answers I'm getting seem like excuses and cop-outs. From "the panel decided the community wants the calligraphy to be shown, even though that's not what the community decided", to "a representation that isn't really a representation is the most common one".

rkbauer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Take it up with the closing admins if you want, not here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The editors who closed that discussion were not supposed to do a simple tally. They were not supposed to count an argument 15 times if it were repeated by 15 editors, but to weigh the arguments in the context of Wikipedias rules and guidelines as best they were able to, and make their decision based on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's certainly not what a "strongest consensus" is. I'll take NeilN's suggestion. rkbauer (talk 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, if you're going to dabble in these contentious areas you need to understand Wikipedia policy, which you currently don't. On that point, you need to read WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." and "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Also you should read "Wikipedia is not a democracy". DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

While this is gorgeous, I'm not sure readers unfamiliar with Muhammad would know what symbols represent his name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That might be true, but I don't see how it is any more problematic than the other image in that regard, and the purpose of the infobox image isn't actually to teach people to spell something in Arabic. Formerip (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The current caption makes it clear what the picture is. 'Muhammad's name followed by his title "Apostle of God"' leaves the reader asking what is what. My two cents, anyways. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response NeilN. I think that readers unfamiliar with Muhammad should become familiar with him. Don't you agree?--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but the caption you used doesn't help with that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to write a more clear caption.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, please check the image now on commons. I added an annotation on the image.--Spring What's up? 02:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The annotation is a good idea. If the caption could point out the two phrases to the reader that'd be great. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, gorgeous is the word. A real improvement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Gorgeous it may be, but I liked the simple elegance of the green one better. Easier to read, not that I can actually read it. If we keep the new one, should we remove "common" from the description? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO, the best one ever (IIRC it was a featured image on another Wikipedia) was File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.png before copyright concerns forced it into a nearly useless extremely low-res image. The full size version was gorgeous. I could probably upload a slightly larger version that would still comply with fair use. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Earlier this month I put an image of the Fresco based on Dante into the article, to show how Muhammad was widely portrayed in a whole civilisation for a long part of history. It was removed because of consensus I haven't seen on not to put in "provocative" images. This was not "provocative", it's an actual part of history. It isn't a Charlie Hebdo or South Park picture (yes I know the South Park picture is ridiculously neutral, but a cartoon hardly matches religious art based on a great work of Western literature). If we're going to remove works of art of a negative nature, we may as well spring clean Otto von Bismarck, Benito Mussolini, George III of the United Kingdom amongst many, many others - unless Wikipedia has rules set in stone that Muhammad must be treated differently. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That image (I think it´s the one you mean) can be seen in the article Depictions of Muhammad, a subject interesting enough to have it´s own article (unlike for the other people you mentioned), and in my opinion it fits better there. The consensus about pictures in the Muhammed article formed after a reasonably thourough discussion here: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you mean this edit where you've added the pic and the helpful caption that the depiction "puts Muhammad in hell"? "Not provocative" is ... interesting. However, when you were reverted I'm not seeing any reference to it being called provacative, just that previous consensus decided that there should be no image at that point. DeCausa (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: As I explained in my comment that you removed from your own talk page two weeks ago, the relevant discussion on this matter can be found at Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 17#Proposed removal of deliberately provocative images. Furthermore, as I also explained, due to the contentious nature of images in this article, we don't add any new image to this article without first discussing it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why there is historical images of Mohammed and his face in English version and not Arabic, this is double-standards and kow-towing to fanatics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.6.68.5 (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the Arabic Wikipedia. We have no say on content over there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The paintings here aren't "historical images", they're just artistic depictions. And there are plenty of articles here that Westerners would never allow English Wikipedia to put pictures depicting... for example a depiction of a rape. Islamic culture taboos the depiction of Muhammad, that's no different except it's a different culture.47.55.34.242 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, look at the lead picture for Rape. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Child pornography would have been a better example. A depiction of the subject anywhere in that article would run afoul of the laws of the United States and also Florida, where the Wikipedia servers reside. Therefore, you will see no depiction of child pornography in the article about it. There are some near examples that do cause offense, and have been the object of much edit-warring, such as the lead image of Virgin Killer, which caused all of Wikipedia to be banned briefly in the UK, although that image is notable all on its own as described in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

btw the servers moved to Virgina a while back, no? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Who knows, what with distributed cloud server farms so widely available now. I mentioned Florida in my earlier comment because that's what I recall the FAQ mentioned. It's probably out of date. Even so, although Virginia may have less stringent pornography laws than Florida, I doubt that depictions of actual child pornography would be tolerated on any server residing in the United States. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I live in Virginia, Amatulic. If anything, Virginia's porn laws are MORE stringent than Florida's (even drawings and other non-photographic depictions that don't involve actual children can be considered child pornography here). Not sure why I felt compelled to mention that since it's of little relevance to the discussion at hand, but boredom can prompt the most off-the-wall research at times. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

sir,As there is prohibition of paintings and statue depicting Prophet Mohammed (PUH) in Islam. Please remove paintings showing Prophet Mohammed (PUH).Farazmr (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Farazmr: Not done: Please see the box near the top of this page, beginning "Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I brought this up before as my memory is terrible. I propose removal from the lead of the "Muslims discuss Muhammad and other prophets of God with reverence, adding the phrase "peace be upon them" whenever their names are mentioned" as it is mentioned briefly in a single section. I feel that two references and an image don't exactly make it notable enough for the lead of a 150k article. If everyone else believes it important enough to maintain I won't contest it, but I am trying to do another quick scrub to make this hopefully smaller and ready for FA attempt. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I will include a full rewrite proposal as a few other places can be fine tuned. I will try to get that finished up in the next hour. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 570 – 8 June 632[1]), full name Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (ابو القاسم محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عبد المطلب ابن هاشم), from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. Believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 1] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[2][n 2] While non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets in Islam.[4][5][6][7]

Born approximately in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[9][10] Muhammad was orphaned at an early age and raised under the care of his paternal uncle Abu Talib. After his childhood Muhammad primarily worked as a merchant.[11] Periodically he would retreat to a cave in the mountains for several nights of seclusion and prayer; later, at age 40, he reported at this spot,[9][12] that he was visited by Gabriel and received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" (lit. islām) to Him is the only way (dīn)[n 3] acceptable to God, and that he was a prophet and messenger of God, similar to other Islamic prophets.[13][14][15]

Muhammad gained few followers early on, and met hostility from some Meccan tribes. To escape persecution, Muhammad sent some of his followers to Abyssinia; later he and his followers in Mecca migrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) in the year 622. This event, the Hijra, marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, also known as the Hijri Calendar. In Medina, Muhammad united the tribes under the Constitution of Medina. After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed. He destroyed pagan idols in the city[16] and sent his followers to destroy all remaining pagan temples in Eastern Arabia.[17][18] In 632, a few months after returning to Medina from the Farewell Pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill and died. Before his death, most of the Arabian Peninsula had converted to Islam, and he had united Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.[19][20]

The revelations (each known as Ayah, lit. "Sign [of God]"), which Muhammad reported receiving until his death, form the verses of the Quran, regarded by Muslims as the "Word of God" and around which the religion is based. Besides the Quran, Muhammad's teachings and practices (sunnah), found in the Hadith and sira literature, are also upheld by Muslims and used as sources of Islamic law (see Sharia). While conceptions of Muhammad in medieval Christendom and other premodern contexts were largely negative, appraisals in modern history have been far more favorable.[15][21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivanir2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tivanir2. After omitting the line, I think your version is better than the current version. However, both versions seem to give undue weights to Ahmadiyya and Bahai faiths, both of which are tiny minorities, each less than 0.5% of the Muslims. So if we are to add weights to views held by tiny minorities of the Muslims, we must also add all other views, e.g. the view of the Alevis (whose population seems a few million higher than either of these two minorities, or at least not lower than either of them), who believe in the unity of Muhammad with both God and Ali ibn Abi Talib. So I think the lead, currently giving undue weight to Bahais and Ahmadis but ignoring Alevis, needs to be made balanced. Khestwol (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid giving undue weights in the lead, as per WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS the solution is to either also add Alevi and other views, or remove all the tiny minority views. Whichever option maybe considered better. Khestwol (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the original consensus was to limit it to two as it was mostly suppose to highlight differences in the various faiths but I would have no issues with that. I would like to see other people weigh in because I am at best a periodic editor as my primary job keeps me busy for the majority of my time. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can not see any consensus. I recently saw an editor trying to add Alevis to the lead in fact, but one user reverted him. Where is the consensus discussed? Khestwol (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed a few archives back and gets rehashed on a semi regular basis. Like I said I would not have an issue including it, but I am just one editor of many so I tend to wait for additional people to weigh in and discuss. Tentatively I would be in support of the change currently as I do not see it causing any problems with the article as it stands. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for supporting the addition. For more info on the Alevi view of Muhammad, here is one article I just found: Haqq-Muhammad-Ali. Khestwol (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not include Bahai or Alevi because it would be providing undue weight. The lead is a summary of the article and as Bahai gets one sentence right at the end of the article, it should not be mentioned in the lead. Mbcap (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the undue weight problem can be fixed either way. 1.) Mentioning the Alevi view (in the lead); or 2.) removing the Ahmadi and Bahai views. Khestwol (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, although I have no objection to mentioning in a footnote, as is currently being done for the Ahmadiyya Muslims. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As no one else has weighed in I will go ahead with changing it to a footnote and rewording the lede. If I mess it up feel free to revert it has been a while since I have done any major editing so I might be rusty. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike that I will suggest a change as how to modify a note escapes me at the moment. I believe the rewrite should look something like this:

• Believed by Muslims[n 1] to be a messenger and prophet of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 2] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind. n 2 would be the current n 1 and the new n 1 would state that this includes the Bahá'ís, Alevis and other religions that recognize Muhammad as a prophet and declare themselves Muslim. Thoughts?

As Bahai faith is almost always discussed as one of four major Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia, and as Muhammad is an important prophet in Bahaism, the lead should mention it. Also, Ahmadiyya sect makes a very important distinction and shall be there in Lead too. However, Alevi and other Sufi views are too complex to be succinctly presented and do not warrant that much weight. But, I don't either see much discussion of Sufi view in the entire article either. Also note that, Sufisms are considered branches of Islam, while Bahaism is a different religion. So, I posit, I present Bahai and Ahmadiyta view succinctly in lead and leave branches of Islam (Shia, Sunni, Sufi etc, even Aharejtes, Alavis) to be discussed in later sections. About PBUH/SAW, we may add a note in the lead. – nafSadh did say 18:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Bahai is not "almost always discussed as one of four major Abrahamic religions in Wikipedia." Even the article Abrahamic religions devotes discussion to the three major religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

I disagree that the lead should mention it, Ahmadiyya, or any other minor sect. A footnote currently devotes space to that, and a footnote is where it belongs. A footnote is also the appropriate place to add a note about PBUH/SAW, not the lead. This is a biography article. Discussion of various religious beliefs, particularly minor ones, is at best tangential to the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The following statement needs revision: "Muhammad then visited Ta'if, another important city in Arabia, and tried to find a protector, but his effort failed and further brought him into physical danger."

A main purpose of the journey to Ta'if was to invite people to Islam. I think this should be mentioned. The physical attacks followed after inviting people to Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.75.106 (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add "Peace be upon him" after his name, that is for the respect that all Muslims use after the prophet's name. As, somehow, it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_%28Islam%29

Thanks,

135.23.135.144 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done, please see the FAQ at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Thanks, Nakon 01:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence contains false information. Arabia was not unified under Muhammad. There was intermittent combat during Muhammad's reign. And shortly after his death there were the Ridda wars. Plus Muhammad himself described several of his subjects as "munafiq" which means antagonist. Thefore the first sentence needs to be altered. Anyone with even a semblance of knowledge on Islamic history knows that there was no unity. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence doesn't say he unified Arabia, and doesn't say that this happened during his life. The lead says that Muhammad "unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam" (emphasis mine). Unity in religion doesn't necessarily equate to peace and tranquility. Do you have an alternative suggestion to offer? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic: There was no religious unity either. The very word "munafiq" means someone who pretends to be Muslim. Therefore there were religious pretenders back then. I propose changing the lead sentence to "was a man from Mecca who is believed by Muslims and baha'is to be a messenger and prophet of God". Full stop. Get rid of the entire "unified" nonsense. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the archived discussion that led to the formulation of the existing sentence: Talk:Muhammad/Archive 26#Lead sentence alternatives. That discussion was more focused on the best way to rephrase the lead without using the contentious term "founder". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the arab ط in al-Muṭṭalib be طّ (with shaddah) like Abdul-Muttalib (عبد المطّلب)? Reference 1, below the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Muttalib, argues for a double of that T.82.75.153.10 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks likely, yes. I'll let someone with better insights make the edit if it should be made, but the IP's suggestion looks right.Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Shaddah is modifier and is not mandatory part of Arabic writing. Such modifiers are used to help readers -- and there is no universal standard of using such modifiers. Hence, the name of Muhammad is written purely in Arabic letters only without any modifiers. Hence, it is rather safe to keep the names as it is now. – nafSadh did say 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this be included? Ping I'm feeling slightly mellow. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not see any support for "architect" in the body of the article. Khestwol (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. He may have promoted new elements of building design (or not), but I don't think it is usual to so describe him. This partisan account doesn't do so, nor mention much in the way of specifics. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, us Muslims believe that prophet Muhammad does not have any pictures/drawings and we completely refuse any drawing of him, I personally feel really really insulted to see that the website is ignoring this fact and is posting rough, ugly drawings of prophet Muhammad himself that doesn't add any information and doesn't have any creditable sources, and so, I am kindly requesting the staff to remove this images, and I sincerely hope you take my request into consideration...5.156.128.38 (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. You can probably guess that you are not the first person to raise this issue. After a lengthy discussion, which you can read here, Wikipedia has made a decision that it feels it is appropriate to include some images of Muhammad in the article. If you do not personally want to see the images in the article, we have provided an option of hiding them from view, which you can do by clicking on the link at the top of the article. Formerip (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

this article is too roughand it hinders the belief ofone third people of world

SSafee ADNAN (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested any specific changes.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, only less than 1/4th of the world's population is Muslim. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Kindly Add ﷺ after name of Muhammad ﷺAdeelkhan87 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia's Manual of Style discourages adding honorifics after names, as the absence is more neutral. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the name should also include "(peace be upon him)" A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a part of his name, it is an honorific. For the reason that your suggestion has to be declined, please read WP:PBUH. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; many of the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context.[32][33]"Bennett's book says that the quran lacks history about the prophet but doesn't say that "the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context".Please EXPLAIN kindly A.A.Wasif | Talk 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) @ User:Tarc

Actually it insults the Quran A.A.Wasif | Talk 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Insults the Quran" is not possible, because the Quran is just an inanimate object. And Bennet's book isn't the only reference cited. Even so, the odd English vernacular used in that sentence suggests it was copied and pasted from the source, and should be changed. Unfortunately I don't have either source for verification. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the source on google books here: Muhammad and the Origins of Islam By Francis E. Peters. p. 261.

And Bennett's book here: In Search of Muhammad. pp. 18–16.

please check

Guess what I waited 3 days for a reply. I am going to remove that line now.The 2 references dont say anything about the "the utterances recorded in the Quran lack(ing) historical context" and i think that it is okay to remove it. Before putting it back again check the references. please. I am not going to sit and watch this DRAMA.A.A.Wasif | Talk 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert. I've just checked the Clinton Bennett work you linked to and it clearly states, right at the top of page 19: "Thus the Qu'ran does not, as it were, tell Muhammad's story - we cannot deduce from it when he was born or when he began to preach." That would support the claim that the Quran lacks historical context. Dolescum (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

yeah the Quran doesn't tell about many stories about many prophets because it's not necessary, not because it lacks historical context. So if I were to say that the Quran doesn't tell a prophets's story, does it mean that the Quran lacks historical context? QURAN IS A GUIDING BOOK, NOT A HISTORY BOOK TO CONTAIN ALL THE STORIES OF ALL THE PROPHETS. I SUGGEST YOU USE YOUR BRAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Al Wasif (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, it seems. It's not that the Quran should "tell many stories about many prophets", its that there are no dates or mentions of specific dates or persons / events that can be attested to in the records of other documents. Take the crucifixion of Isa as a counter-example, the religious texts directly mention the presence of Pontius Pilate in those events. Pilate's existence is attested to in the independent Roman writings of the period such as those of Tacitus. Thus, there is historical context.

Might I also point out that insulting my intelligence is quite rude. Behave yourself. Dolescum (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am going to delete this sentence because we cannot synthesise information. Dolescum you have used a sentence in the source to state that "that would support the claim that the Quran lacks historical context. Please could you provide a reference which states "the Quran lacks historical context". I will self-revert if a source is found. Mbcap (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've taken a quick look on scholar. Would this text prove sufficient? To quote: "Because the Quran provides almost no historical context for any of its passages". Two citations on scholar. I'm still digging, though. Dolescum (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dolescum, a military propaganda journal does not quality to be a reliable source. I agree with Mbcap and Abdullah Al Wasif, the statement was unsupported in RS and we better delete it. Khestwol (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a military journal, not a military "propaganda" journal. And for the assertion in question, it cites a clearly reliable and authoritative source: Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (New York: Oxford UP, 1999), page 70. That same author has also published in peer reviewed scholarly journals: Reuven Firestone, “Conceptions of Holy War in Biblical and Qur’_nic Tradition,” Journal of Religious Ethics 24.1 (1996). The source is reliable enough. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a very controversial statement, either, so I don't understand the fuss. Who believes that the Quran provides a historical context for any substantial subset of the utterances it quotes? That's a completely different thing from saying those utterances are false, or misreported, or anything, it's just that there's no information that says that a particular statement was made at some particular time in relation to some other event.—Kww(talk) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Abdullah Al Wasif:, You already said it, "NOT A HISTORY BOOK"; listen to yourself. Also note that, Wikipedia is not a religious text, but written from a WP:NPOV. – nafSadh did say 23:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Nafsadh I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. I just removed the sentence because it was unsupported by the citations. the citations clearly dont say anything about Quran lacking historical context. I think that sentences which are unsupported by the citations should be removed. How is that related to me disputing with NPOV. Couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

"Also note that, Wikipedia is not a religious text, but written from a WP:NPOV" Yeah i understand WP is not a religious text but what were you trying to say. I know exactly what I'm doing here and that is removing unsupported material. Thank You A.A.Wasif | Talk 09:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we don't have a language barrier here. A.A.Wasif, can you explain to me what you think the text you keep removing means? It's quite obviously a true statement: the Quran doesn't identify the historical context for statements that would allow the reader to precisely know when and where they were said.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked the text a little bit. I hope both parties will be happy nowFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that appears far worse. It would imply that there are a significant number of scholars that believe that the Quran does provide sufficient material to provide a historical reconstruction. I don't think there's anyone that believes that.—Kww(talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is an entire field of study dedicated to the historical contexts of Quran. You can google Asbab al-nuzul anytime you want. I dont want to get into a long drawn out discussion. You can see for yourself that the study of Asbab al-nuzul has been ongoing since antiquity.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt that studies to place the Quran into historical context are ongoing, or that most of the events documented in the Quran have a historical basis. That's quite different from saying that the Quran itself provides that information. After all, if it did, it wouldn't be a topic of continuous study.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello FreeatlastChitchat thank you for the last edit, it appears a much more accurate generalization now. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way is it more accurate? Could you please address my objections?—Kww(talk) 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that the Holy Quran is historic. Simple as that. even then I am not outright deleting your text as you can see from my edits.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The text you modified doesn't contradict that: it simply says that the Quran doesn't provide all the information necessary to place its contents in context. This is what I was saying earlier: it seems apparent that the objections are to something the text doesn't say, and your "corrections" have made it worse.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The text I modified contradicts the historicity of the Quran. I did not want to outright favor one point of view so in order to maintain a NPOV I edited the text to say that some scholars think that Quran does not give historical context. What is your argument btw. Should the text say that Quran is not historical? Should it say that it is historical? or should it talk the middle path?. My text is the middle way, if you want to favour one POV please tell me which oneFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it did not say that the Quran isn't historical, it said that it lacks historical context, and it said that quite well and quite neutrally. The Quran doesn't provide sufficient information for us to provide dates for its major events: historians still argue over when Muhammed was born, when he died, when his ministry began, when he believed that Gabriel appeared to him, the dates of his various marriages. It's widely agreed by Muslims and non-Muslims that the Quran is founded in historical fact, but it doesn't provide enough detail to allow its contents to be precisely placed in history.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And I said that there are sources which say that the Holy Quran does have historical context. Therefore the NPOV is to say that some scholars claim that it lacks contextFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source that indicates the contents of the Quran can be accurately placed in world history? There's certainly not any consensus among historians as to that. Any source that claims it has dated all the events in the Quran would fall afoul of WP:FRINGE, as not even most Islamic scholars make that claim.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be fringe? There is an entire page of such sources which tell you which Qur'anic verse is about which event. I guided you towards that page earlier.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why I think we have a language barrier: you point at things that support my position and use them to support yours. Asbab al-nuzul describes efforts to reconstruct a historical context for the Quran, and to separate the history from the exegetical. The very fact that this needs to be an field of active study, with the results being debated by different historians that come to different conclusions, says that the Quran itself does not provide sufficient historical context to allow its contents to be placed in history. That's all the original text that you modified said, and it said it well and neutrally.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is certainly a language barrier. This also indicates that, we might have to find a better wording to express the same thing so as to make it understandable to wider audience without getting them confused. – nafSadh did say 18:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, User:Nafsadh. I also have to agree with User:Kww, as per his last comment. Everyone: no one is denying that the Qu'ran has historical value, and can inform historical events. But so far as I'm aware, there is no unanimous agreement on the historical context of individual Suras, their transmission, or even the chronological order of said chapters. All of these are hotly debated, by religious, secular, and skeptical scholars alike (albeit for varying reasons and using different methodologies). That this issue exists in such magnitude obviously validates what Kww saying. There are no shortages of reliable sources saying this. I found several in just a few minutes. Though, to be honest, the original sources were perfectly valid for that purpose... If you want more, that can be done quite easily. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we seriously discussing whether the Qur'an is a 'historical' source per se? I thought most modern scholars viewed it as a syncretic blend of Judaeo-Christian mythology, mixed with selective elements of Arabian paganism (i.e. djinn) to be perfectly honest...almost everything in it is copied or at least heavily influenced by the Jewish Tanakh. Politicogarn (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the historical events it recounts, certainly. Even if you reject the religious interpretations, there's no particular doubt that Muhammad existed, that he said he was visited by Gabriel, and that he conquered a large territory using an army that was motivated by the belief that he spoke for a supernatural entity.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We are seriously way beyond from where we started our discussion. Let us focus on whether (and if so) how to rephrase the very sentence in question. Not to mention, it is some hundred sentence talk about *half a sentence*. – nafSadh did say 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Its not really so confusing. See, I didnot even read the Quran and maybe you did not as well and yet here we are fighting over an issue we may not even have the slightest possible knowledge. Just to answer your question Kww it was written that most of the utterances recorded in the Quran lack historical context but the source failed to specify which utterance(s). You tell me which utterances and I promise I will self revert. I also agree with nafsadh. But I think that it is best to just keep it from from where I left it. Expressing the same thing with different wording would not confuse people but would need to have a strong source supporting it. And that's all I ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Al Wasif (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Quinto Simmaco please tell me how the source supports the statement "

and some scholars are of the view that some of it's verses lack historical context" the source does not say that and also fails to specify which verses. Please, for my satisfaction's sake tell me one such verse since you say that you can find more sources. Thanks A.A.Wasif | Talk 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The onus is not on us editors to do original research (finding verses), but rather, to report what reliable sources say. The source for the statement is in Peters, pages 259 and 261. In fact, the entire section is on that. Bennett is simply citing Peters, and agreeing in part. Similar claims can be found in the "Encyclopedia of Islam" itself, (ref: Raven, W. (1997). "SĪRA". Encyclopaedia of Islam 9 (2nd ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 660–3. ISBN 90-04-10422-4.) Donner, (ref: Donner 1998, p. 125) and Hoyland (ref: Hoyland, Robert G (1998). Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Darwin. p. 591. ISBN 0878501258.) To be perfectly honest, given that the original source clearly supports the material, and since your initial raising of this issue was on the basis that it "insults the Qu'ran", I am personally wondering whether this isn't in reality an RNPOV issue. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Quinto Simmaco Thanks. A.A.Wasif | Talk 11:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will appreciate a more neutral wording. Though unless some user shows the assertion "many verses lack historical context" is well supported in reliable sources we may have to use FreeatlastChitchat's wording I think. Khestwol (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a neutral wording, well supported by sources. I don't know how anyone that has studied the Quran at all would believe that most of its material is supplied with historical context. It's a spiritual and religious tome, not a history text, and there's still controversy about the chronological order of its material, much less the dates. The people objecting seem to be reading the text as saying the Quran is false or some similar reading. Since that's not what the text says, it's hard to take the objections at face value.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I also don't think anyone who studied Quran would believe that most of its material is supplied with historical context. But here AAW, who put forward the question, admitted that he didn't study it. He also asserts, he doesn't have slightest possible knowledge of the matter in question, while assuming none of the other editors either. So, please lets close the debate unless someone can find a more "understandable" (a.k.a. less offensive!) write. But there is no substantial source that warrants removal of the (part of) sentence. – nafSadh did say 15:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kww and Nafsadh. It's perfectly clear that the statement is sourced and that some users don't like it is of no relevance whatsoever. Further edit warring or discussion based on personal objections rather than respecting WP:RS could be seen as disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am trying a rephrase. – nafSadh did say 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the page for Maria_al-Qibtiyya, in Ibn al-Qayyim's biography the prophet is said to have had 4 concubines; should this be mentioned in the article? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear admin,Kindly hide the face of prophet Muhammad[pbuh] in the images. Let me know if any assistance required. MohamedZameer74 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: See /FAQ. Wikipedia is not censored. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

According to most Twelver Shia Fatima was his only daughter. The other three were raised by him but were not his. The info box should indicate this in some way.Ashkljma (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source before claiming he had one daughter. No reliable source says he had one daughter. Khestwol (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a crazy thing. As discussed at Khadija bint Khuwaylid#Shia view and Genealogy of Khadijah's daughters, there is a view in Shia Islam that Zainab, Ruqayyah, and Umm Kulthum were either Khadija's children from a prior marriage or the children of Khadija's sister. In either case, Muhammad raised them as his own. Sunnis generally accept that all of these were Muhammad's biological daughters (along with Fatima, whose parentage isn't disputed). Dragons flight (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Still, the number of daughters in the infobox should depend on history-related reliable sources only. Khestwol (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Such sources as may claim to say that only one daughter was "true" are fringe and therefore not worthy of being included in the article.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And which sources are those? It's not like we have their birth certificates. It's an ancient disagreement, and pretty much any source is going to end up going back to either Shia or Sunni traditions. Dragons flight (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashkljma, you are also putting your personal WP:POV, unsupported by any reliable source, in the article Battle of Uhud. Khestwol (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, I am trying to make Wikipedia more neutral

Why do you suggest that Sunni sources are reliable and Shia sources are not? Not only is this offensive it is against WP:POV. 15% is a significant minority and Shia and Sunni sources should be weighted equally.Ashkljma (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It is only about scholarly sources, it is not about Sunni-Shia sectarianism. We have included both Sunni and Shia views in the section "successors" in the infobox. But we cannot do so here, unless the alternate Shia view could be supported per the policy WP:RS. Khestwol (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a Shia sunni conflict. This is merely a sourcing issue. Content which is present in reliable sources that are not fringe sources will be accepted in the article no matter what the POV. secondary sources are always biased to a certain degree. You can yourself see in the article that the section about succession has been created where Shiite views have been mentioned, the section is linked to the article abour succession where even more shia views are given. So saying that Shia views don't get mentioned in the article is just not true. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Kindly remove the part after and including section 8.2. The mentioned sections contain views such as "similar to an idol or a heathen god" and "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again" and also "always the imposter" These are statements which go against what Muslims believe and want to portray, and the article is about Islam. Muslims as a body should be allowed to give the world the image they want to give, and this is not what the image is. People with authority and high positions may like to have evil images and pages (containing stories etc whatever) on the web about themselves removed, msulims would like the same.

86.36.65.57 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Reason. Non-Muslim views of the Holy Prophet May peace and blessings of Allah be upon him are what "non " muslims have written. As muslims we cannot dictate what others have written. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this article is not about Islam, or about representing someone's religious preferences. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see this thread to comment. Thanks! Wnt (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A user repeatedly inserts a long section sourced only to a white supremacist in the section on Historical Christian Views. First of all, it's obviously misplaced. How is a contemporary supremacist a "historical Christian"? Second, is this really due here? I'd argue it's wildly WP:UNDUE and that there is no reason to report (at length) the opinion of this person. Third, the user who keeps inserting it has not provided any reason, and blatantly ignores WP:BRD.Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This was my edit here. I request you all to check it whether it was right or not.Sharif uddin (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please indent your answers. Despite numerous calls for an explanation of why you feel a contemporary supremacist is a "historical Christian", and why this is WP:DUE, you just keep commenting without engaging in the discussion. What's your reasoning?Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I added some line in the article and a user rollbacker rollbacked the edit here. Should I revert my edit and was my edit appropriate? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I already started a discussion above. No, your edit was not appropriate, as I explain above. (And I did not rollback the edit, I reverted it and explained why.)Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz, Napolean Bonaparte was not also a christian historical but his compliment has been mentioned here. How do you explain it? Sharif uddin (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You link to a Tamil film actor (Nepolean) and I don't find any opinion from any Tamil film actor in the article. And once again, please indent you answers properly.Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Napolean Bonaparte.Sharif uddin (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte admired Muhammad and Islam,[287] and described him as a model lawmaker and a great man.[288][289] Sharif uddin (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And what is your argument? You added a whole paragraph about a white supremacist, and you defend it with the argument that we have a a short sentence about Napoleon? Apart from the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, one of the most famous persons in history is infinitely more DUE here than some white supremacist.Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If we could stop nitpicking Sharif uddin's spelling for a moment? Napolean is an extremely notable historical figure. Hart is an obscure author/white supremacist. The two opinions have greatly differing weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have objection in adding a para, instead may I add the first line only? Sharif uddin (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it WP:DUE?Jeppiz (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"famous book"^{[citation needed]} --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The harts book is very very famous in muslim world. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)It is also famous in the non-muslim world also. Sharif uddin (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's no doubt moderately famous as its author has a Wiki page Sure (though I've never heard about it, but that's no argument) but we could find a lot of famous books and famous people's opinions about Muhammad. Literally hundreds that are even more famous. So why this book in particular?Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, please provide references that attest to the book's stature and reputation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not listing a racist's opinion alongside those of Leibniz and Napoleon, i.e. historical people of some renown. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Request: I ask you to kindly replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" or the word "idolaters".

Reason: Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed in one God like the Jews and Christians, but they associated with him sons, daughters, and partners whom they considered to be their intercessors with God. This pre-Islamic belief is quite evident in several verses of the Qur'an like:

Qur'an 39:3 it is to God alone that sincere obedience is due. And those who take other guardians besides Him say, "We serve them only that they may bring us nearer to God." Surely, God will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. God does not guide anyone who is bent on lying and is a disbelieving liar.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Qur'an 12:106 and most of them, even when they profess belief in God, attribute partners to Him.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians believed, for example, that the angels are the daughters of God:

Qur'an 17:40 What! Has your Lord then favoured you with sons and Himself adopted females from among the angels? What you say is monstrous.[Meaning translated by Wahiduddin Khan]

Notes:

• The Arabic word for pagans is وثنيون/Wathaniyyoon. This word has never been used in any Arabic sourcebook to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians.
• The Arabic word for associaters is مشركون/Mushrikoon. This is actually the word used in the Qur'an, the books of Hadiths, the Arabic literature and the Arabic history to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabia.

Although it is common in the West to translate the Arabic word "مشركون/Mushrikoon" into the English word "pagans", this translation is false and could result in a corrupted cross-cultural understanding.

Further explanation:

• The religion of pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians was quite similar to the religion of Sabians. Sabians believe in one God. However, they associate 360 powerful "semi-gods/idols" with him. They believe that the 360 act as mediators between God and the creation. It is well known that pre-Islamic Meccans/Arabians had 360 idols too. There are also other similarities like the veneration of angels and stars.

Loved & Beloved (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say,  Not done. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use English terms as commonly understood by English speakers. There is nothing wrong with the word "pagan" in the context of this article, although in some instances the word, used as an adjective, could be removed without harming the meaning of the text.

In historical contexts, a "pagan" is simply a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. It can also mean someone who has polytheistic religious beliefs. It doesn't really matter what the Quran says, what Hadith books say, or whether an Arabic word was mistranslated to "pagan" because we are not using those sources in this article (nor should we). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Reason. Islamic sources have translated the Word مشركون as pagans. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has translated the first verse of Surah A-tawbah as 'A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-' (ref: Ali, Yusuf. "I-Tawbah verse 1". Quranic Arabic corpus. Retrieved 5 April 2015.)

Translating the word مشركون/Mushrikun into the word pagans is common in the West (among both Muslims and non-Muslims). This is why Yusuf Ali translated it in this way. However, you can see that most of the translators used the words "associaters"/"idolaters"/"polytheists" instead the word "pagans".

• (The translation of Maududi) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of disavowal by Allah and His Messenger to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity and with whom you have made treaties
• (The translation of Daryabadi) Qur'an 9:1 Quittance is this from Allah and His aposle unto the associators with whom ye had covenanted.
• (The translation of Pickthall) Qur'an 9:1 Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty.
• (The translation of Wahiduddin Khan) Qur'an 9:1 This is a declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists, with whom you had made agreements.
• (The translation of Saheeh International) Qur'an 9:1 [This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.

The most accurate translation is "associaters". "idolaters" & "polytheists" are acceptable translations, but translating the word "Mushrikun", which is derived from the Arabic word "shirk", into the word "pagans" is truly a corrupted translation. The Arabic word for pagans is quite different form the Arabic word for associaters.

"Pagans" is specifically used to describe those who don't believe in the Abrahamic God & in the common aspects among the Abrahamic religions such as the existence of angels and demons. It is not acceptable to use this word to describe the Sabians, for example, or the Yazidis, or the Mormons, or the adherents of similar religions. Being an Abrahamic idolater is not the same as being non-Abrahamic at all.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Still  Not done. Reason. Pagan has been translated as 'An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion' in This Reliable Dictionary. Therefore you cannot drag out this semantic debate unless you provide a source which contradicts this dictionary and is equally, if not more, reliable. your own POV and Original Research does not count as source.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Idolater" has also been translated as "One who worships idols" in the same reliable dictionary you cited. Thus, the word "idolaters" is as correct as the word "pagans" per the reliable dictionary you cited. The question is "which one is more practically used?!" you provided one single translation of Yusuf Ali and said to me: "look! here is it", so I came to you with 5 more reliable translations and said to you: "look! here are they".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly being a mushrik does not mean that one has to worship idols, I have no idea where you got that from. Worshipping anything other than one single God will get a person under the heading of mushrik in Arabic. A person who does not believe that there are multiple gods but rather he believes in angels or whatever will not get under this heading per say. I think this is why you have been mistaken. There is a huge difference between 'God' and 'demigod'. So as idol worship is not required for a person to be a mushrik the term idolaters is not going to work(A person who worships the sun is a mushrik but not an idolater). The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-Islamic non-Arabic Western source which acknowledges what I saw saying concerning the fact that pre-Islamic Arabians were "associaters":

Even in pre-Islamic times Allah was distinct at Mecca because he had no idol. But idols had come to be associated with him and this was the issue in the Islamic reform. Thus at first Muhammad was not concerned with regulating the life of a community of believers ... but rather with reforming the beliefs and practices of his fellow Meccans. "Reforming" is a more appropriate term than "converting", because the Qur'an also reveals ... that the worship of Allah was already well established there before Muhammad. What was at question, then, was not simply belief in or worship of Allah, which the Quraysh certainly did, but the Meccans' "association" as the Qur'an calls it, of other deities with Allah, a practice that seemed to accept the existence of other gods in the "exalted assembly" while at the same time denying that they had any autonomous power, though perhaps they could help men if God so willed. It was thus the associationism (Arabic: al-Shirk) of the associaters (al-Mushrikun) which was the object of Muhammad's and Islam's condemnation of what was going on in the Kaabah and his religious revolution consisted essentially of removing the associated "gods" which were detracting from the uniqueness of Allah. Polytheists were condemned on this basis; Christians escaped full condemnation since theirs was a book-religion, though the Trinity was condemned for its implicit associationism. John F. Healey, ISBN 90-04-10754-1, page 84

Notice how the author called them "polytheists" & "associaters" instead of calling them "pagans".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I will just copy past what I said earlier so that it can be noticed by you, I think you did not notice it before "The second word you wanted to add is 'associaters'. Link a reliable English dictionary which says that associaters is used for the people who associate partners with God and we will see if it is better."FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to copy paste what you said earlier. What you need to do is to notice what I said in the first place. I said: "replace the word "pagans" with the word "associaters" OR the word "idolaters". I gave you two choices instead of one. You came to me with a translation by Yusuf Ali. I came to you with five more reliable translations than Yusuf Ali. You asked for a secondary reliable source. I gave you what you asked for: John F. Healey, who is neither Arab nor Muslim, used the terms "associationism" & "associaters" to describe the religion of pre-Islamic Arabians. If you insist on disputing the legal usage of the word "associaters" because of your dictionary, then you should not dispute the legal usage of the second choice I presented; that is the word "idolaters".

To be noticed here is that your argument -that the word "idolaters" can't be an appropriate translation of the word "Mushrikun"- is your own Original Research and POV. You didn't present any reliable source to back up your argument. According to the "reliable dictionary" you used, an idol is: a-An image used as an object of worship/ b-a false god/ c-any being (other than the one God) to which divine honour is paid. This means that the term "idol" can be applied to describe a demigod or a false god; which means that the usage of the term "idolaters" to describe the pre-Islamic Arabians is quite fine.--Loved & Beloved (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, "associaters" isn't a word, so you aren't really offering a choice here. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Loved & Beloved do you read my comments before replying? I'll just 'copy paste' the reasons as to why your inclusion of idolaters and associaters is not possible.

1)Let us discuss idolaters first. Now according to all dictionaries idolaters is a term used to describe worshipping of idols. This is not a POV, this is in every single dictionary. The very word is derived from idol. So this word cannot be used in place of "Mushrikon" because a person who is "Mushrik" may not worship an idol but still have more than one god. Like the people who worship the sun, moon and the stars. Therefore the word 'Pagan' is a better choice. FYI no word of one language can be translated into another completely with all its meanings and the word Pagan is the best translation, a whole lot better than idolaters. But if you find a dictionary which is reliable and says that idolaters can be used for a person who worships multiple gods no matter what kind, we will be happy to accomodate you.

2)Associaters is not in the dictionary dude. I checked and rechecked. Link me the one you are using. No disrespect but i cannot find it in the free online, oxford or webster. Perhaps there is some obscure dictionary giving this term, link it please.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am still very convinced that the word "Abrahamic idolaters" is far more accurate than the word "pagans" in the description of pre-Islamic Arabians. It is clearly evident that the Prophet Muhammad didn't face any problem in preaching the "Abrahamic God" to the Arabians or in calling them to believe in Abraham and his son Ishmael: They (the pre-Islamic Arabians) were already believers in them. The hard mission for Muhammad was actually to make them believe that the idols whom they associated with the "Abrahamic God" are false.

Since the word "pagans" is not practically used to describe "those who believe in the Abrahamic God", I am going to replace the word myself with the word "idolaters".--Loved & Beloved (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This is obvious WP:SYNTH as the Qur'an cannot "respond" to anything written after it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was initially just going to modify it instead of revert it, but I'm not going to restore it.

• "declared himself to be the Messenger of God" carries a sense that he was stating a fact, while "since he claimed prophethood" is neutral
• "He has been criticized by his non-Muslim Arab contemporaries" makes no chronological sense. Are folks from his time still alive? "had been" is more accurate.
• The Quran is a primary source, and so needs a non-primary source for any interpretation.

And looking into it further, the source cited is not the most academic source, and while it does say that Muhammad preached the equality of humankind, it does not say that he was criticized for that idea in particular. If the material is restored, I will revert it instead of modifying it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All we really need is a summarization of the lead of Criticism of Muhammad. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, Tarc. Khestwol (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sar777 (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)remove all image

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

lol, smooth 77.165.250.227 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, There, please remove imaginary picture (Painting picture of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam). By posting picture of our Prophet you are hurting the feeling and love of followers of Last Messenger of Allah.

My humble request please remove images of Prophet Muhammad (Salalah u Alaihay wasalam) as this is not his real picture and no one can make his picture, without evidence please don't post pictures.

Thank you on advance,Abdul RaufRaufsbu (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Hello! I think you misunderstand what purposes the images in the article serve. The article is not saying "this is what Muhammad looks like". The images are there to show how people in the past have depicted Muhammad. Also, Wikipedia does not censor its content for anyone's beliefs. I'd suggest you take a look at this page for more on that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read the notice at the top of the page, as well as the FAQ (particularly questions 1, 2, and 3). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as the Christian honorific titles have been considered for the titles of the articles of Paul, Peter, Mark, Constantine I and other Christian figures, I demand that the Islamic honorific titles be considered here in the same way.--Grey 34 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Demanding is not going to get you anywhere. AstroLynx (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics have been added to those other articles because they are natural disambiguators. Muhammad needs no extra detail. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Grey 34 Why not? The disambiguator Muhammad the Prophet seems very natural to me. —M@sssly^✉ 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Agree, a WP:NATURAL disambiguated title like "Muhammad the Prophet" might be used as title. Other ambiguous titles in high need of natural disambiguators: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Wikipedia should not have ambiguous titles as per its own policy of using commonly recognizable names as title. Khestwol (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, there is no need for a disambiguated title. Jesus is at Jesus, not Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ the Savior and we have a Jesus (disambiguation) page, similar to Muhammad (disambiguation). The articles named in the original post have disambiguated titles because they are not the primary topics for the names Paul, Mark, and Peter. Those arguing for a name change do not seem to understand Wikipedia's naming policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Jesus is not as commonly used as Muhammad for other meanings than the original meaning. Thousands of notable and millions of othrr people use(d) "Muhammad" as given name, or a first name. Khestwol (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Please name one other "Muhammad" that comes close to this subject in terms of notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • As per Google Books search, the 2nd, 7th, and 8th results while searching for "Muhammad" was for Muhammad Ali. Other notable "Muhammads" include thousands of others. The disambiguation page Muhammad (disambiguation) is poorly written, it misses many people who are called Muhammad and who have their articles on Wikipedia so we can expand that page too. Khestwol (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Note I put "Muhammad" in quotes. One name. Not two. All your books call him "Muhammad Ali", not just "Muhammad" on its own. In fact, the Google books search shows "Muhammad" on its own is actually used for the prophet Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
          • There have been billions of men who bore the name "Muhammad" around the world and throughout the last 14 centuries. A very great number of them were reputable ones. So, if the policy of using "natural disambiguators" is needed in the article of "the Christian Apostle" Paul, then it must certainly be needed in the article of "the Muslim Apostle" Muhammad. There is no need for a double-standard policy toward Islam-related articles, Mr or Mrs NeilN.--Grey 34 (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Hyperbole is of little use here. Again, name one "Muhammad" that comes close to this subject in terms of notability. I would also point out that Jesus is a popular name in Hispanic culture but Jesus is at Jesus because none approach the notability of the religious figure. There is no reason to ignore our naming policies for Islamic subjects. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the OP does have a bit of a point; why is Mark's article title Mark the Evangelist, not Mark (evangelist), if all this is is a case of disambiguation concerns/needs? At least from an outside point-of-view here, it looks like bias towards Western religion. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NATURAL plays a part here. The first solution is, "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources". The parentheses solution states, "Parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name: Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." (emphasis mine). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Tarc. We need a WP:NATURAL disambiguator as per WP:CONSISTENCY with Paul the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, etc which use natural disambiguators too. Out of the several options that came to my mind, the most common has been "Muhammad the Prophet" as per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should open a move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good reason for a move. The current title is OK in my opinion. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also oppose a page move. Faizan (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Hadith directory. Faizan (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: How is this related to "Hadith directory"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssly (talk • contribs)

That is actually a silly argument, Khestwol. Because I can use your exact argument to state that we need to leave the title as-is per WP:CONSISTENCY with Jesus. NeilN is correct here. There is no need for any disambiguation for this article. Tarc's statement actually argues the need to move Mark, Peter, Paul, etc's articles, not to add an honorific to this one. Resolute 13:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see that even in the articles of Jesus and Mary the terms "Jesus Christ" and "Blessed Virgin Mary" are highlighted with bold lines in the very beginning of the lead. Why then don't we highlight the term "Muhammad the Apostle of God" with bold lines in the very beginning of the lead of this article? We can say in the lead for example: Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God,^[a] a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. I won't ask to change the title anymore if you accept to include this statement in the very beginning of the lead. What do you say?--Grey 34 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey's argument is worth considering, we may add a "Peace be upon him" or "Apostle of God" since he is always referred to in that manner in the Islamic world. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no picture of Mohammad in the portrait. Edit and put him in?24.68.200.205 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. This has been discussed extensively already, please search the archives, and read the ArbCom case linked at the top of this page. Consensus is to use the most common depiction in the infobox, and the most common and widely-accepted depiction is calligraphic. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard him be referred to as a critic of atheism. Of polytheism, certainly '''tAD''' (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Eeeh. If someone wants to go down the rabbit hole, that entire category is a mess. There's an 11th century archbishop as well, which is no less anachronistic. Resolute 00:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The supposed birth date of Muhammad (22 April 571), proposed in the previous section, is pious fiction. Several other dates have been proposed in the past (see the archives [3]) and at best we can only say c. 570 CE. AstroLynx (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I had inserted an FA template on this article without discussion (didn't know procedure); apologies for that. So I would like to suggest that this article should have FA status; it's detailed, with sufficient inline citations and good references, and is a good article. Its written well, and despite its sensitive nature, adheres to WP:NPOV. I believe it suits FA criteria. What do you think? Please contribute and discuss and let's decide on whether to nominate this article or not. Thank you! Akhi666 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to wait until that's cleared up. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 01:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll keep an eye on that and contribute if I can Akhi666 15:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in nominating it (or any other article, for that matter) for FA. This isn't a beauty contest in the first place, and the attention it attracts is generally disruptive and unwelcome.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If an article matches the high standards that Wikipedia aims to achieve, it obviously must be given FA status, regardless of the topic of the article. This is not about some "beauty contest". The benefit in nominating articles is clearly to point out the few that are high quality (less than 0.1% of all articles on the English Wikipedia). Akhi666 13:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad (Arabic: محمد‎; c. 22 April 571 – 8 June 632), is the central figure in Islam. Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man.^[1] Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God,^[b] a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets, a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims^{[n 1]} as an indicative that no genuine prophets will be sent after him.

Sources

What are your opinions?--Grey 34 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement about Muhammad the Apostle of God should definitely be added as per reliable sources. As for the other statements some maybe reworded with special care. The current version of the lede is giving an WP:UNDUE weight to Bahais and Ahmadis while not giving the DUE weight to sects like Alevism regarding the various religious worldviews. Khestwol (talk)

We cannot simply say "Chosen by God" in Wikipedia's voice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We have used "refers", which does not imply Wikipedia's view, the same way as "Blessed Virgin Mary" in Mary (mother of Jesus). And congrats to NeilN! --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fauzan. No objection to "refers to" but shouldn't we highlight how he's referred to in English by his followers? Isn't that "the Prophet Muhammad" rather than "Muhammad the Apostle of God"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC) By the way, "Chosen by God" refers to the second sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be up for some discussion. I think that "Apostle of god" is more common with non English speakers. Can someone gather a bit of data? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see adding things to the proposed lead but I think it needs to continue to be a quick summary of his life. I don't know if we currently have apostle of god as one of his titles, and it certainly can be added with the source, but I don't necessarily favor the section change when the current listing flows much smoother to me. I will see what I can come up with writing wise to incorporate the additions. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:NeilN here; in the English speaking world, I've never heard him referred to as "Apostle of God", except rarely, and nearly always in a laudatory or semi-laudatory manner. I've only honorific I've regulary heard paired with his name was "prophet", in the format of "the prophet Muhammad". This lede is already one of the longer ones I've seen. Most of the information suggested is already there, but much more neutrally worded. That being said, I do think that we could add some more information regarding his various honourifics (as a brief synopsis of the forked article in the original suggested change), but specifically in the "Names and appellations" section (though without the 'in the Quran' qualifier). Also, while I believe you were acting in good faith, User:Grey 34, I'm obliged to point out that your original suggested change to the lede could be seen by some editors as rather promotional toward a specific religious point of view. Not the content, per say, but the wording specifically. For your own benefit, I highly suggest that you read some of our policies, especially WP:RNPOV and WP:NOT. I sincerely apologise if that sounds a bit patronising; rather, my intention is that (as new user) you be made aware of those fundamentals so that you can become a regular and successful contributor here. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The name "محمد رسول الله", which is commonly transliterated as "Muhammad Rasulullah", is best translated as "Muhammad the Apostle of God" although it can also be translated as "Muhammad the Messenger of Allah". This is the name with which Muhammad sealed his letters. In addition, this is the name given to him in Qur'an 33:40 and Qur'an 48:29. It doesn't matter which name of Muhammad is most commonly used in the English-speaking world. What matters is which name is most commonly used among Muslims worldwide because the proposed opening of the lead says: Islam regards Muhammad ... and refers to him as ... So it is about how Islam refers to Muhammad, not how Muhammad is commonly referred to the English-speaking world.--Grey 34 (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the calligraphy in the infobox reads: "محمد رسول الله" [i.e. "Muhammad the Apostle of God"]--Grey 34 (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the origin of the honourific. While we strive to present a global (yet neutral) perspective of encyclopaedic knowledge, this is the English Wikipedia. You said: "It doesn't matter which name of Muhammad is most commonly used in the English-speaking world. What matters is which name is most commonly used among Muslims worldwide..." That's not true. The lede is indeed meant to by a brief summary of the article contents, but the naming conventions used in the lead are to follow WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:HONORIFICS, and to be viewed through the lens of the English speaking world, as that is our audience (hence, for example, why we don't call ISIS something like "Islamic State", or "Da'esh"). We still include the information, and we're still encyclopaedic, but we remain neutral, and give weight to neutral, independent sources. I'm not arguing against including the information whatsoever, but rather assigning it undue weight and contravening those aforementioned policies. Your suggested edit didn't really suggest any substantially new content.

Regardless, my comment to you was regarding your rewrite, which was substantially less neutral. Especially this: "Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man." That's POV, and can't be said in Wikipedia's voice. Nor is it universally true, or what reliable sources uniformly say. That's in addition to singling out the Amahdiyyahs, indirectly, as 'non-Muslims' with "Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets", and supporting that with two unreliable sources that are apologetic in nature, against Amadhiyyahs... While we can certainly elucidate and expound upon what reliable sources say about Islamic theological views of Muhammad, and how most 'orthodox' Muslims view Amadhiyyahs, the lede paragraph of Muhammad is not the place to do it. We also absolutely cannot present a specific religious worldview in Wikipedia's voice. We need to be especially careful about being NPOV in the lede, as it is the first thing a reader sees. At all times though, need to abide by reliable sources say, without assigning undue weight to specific religious views, as per RNPOV. Any such views would need to be qualified (or quoted), being framed within their specific context. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Quinto Simmaco, I will copy and paste what I wrote before because it seems that you didn't read it or perhaps trying to ignore it: Just as the religious titles "Jesus Christ" & "Blessed Virgin Mary" are highlighted with bold lines in the opening of the lead of the articles Jesus & Mary, I proposed to mention & highlight the religious title of Muhammad in the opening of the lead of this article. That was my argument... is it clear for you?

And the religious title of Muhammad is typically: "Muhammad Rasulullah" [i.e. Muhammad the Apostle of God] just as the religious title of Jesus is "Jesus Christos" [i.e. Jesus the Messiah].

As for your claim that I have singled out the Ahmadhiyyahs, it is false. I didn't single out the Ahmadhiyyahs in the proposed opening, but it seems that you are not familiar with the topic and don't know that the Ahmadhiyyahs themselves believe, just as all other Muslims, that Muhammad is the one through whom God sealed the prophets. The only difference is in the interpretation of how Muhammad sealed the prophets. That is why I said: "a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims" and didn't say "that has been interpreted by all Muslims". This is the website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and you can read yourself on it that the Ahmadiyyas do believe that Muhammad is the Sealer of the prophets.

The current opening of the lead is very much inappropriate! It is inappropriate to say in the opening that: "Muhammad is a man from Mecca who unified Arabia". This sounds very strange opening for me. It will be much better, more appropriate, more accurate and more neutral to say that: "Muhammad is the central figure in Islam". Then to mention that "he is believed by all Muslims to be the ideal man & the Chosen one". Then to mention that "he is regarded in Islam as the fulfillment of the prophecies and the restorer of the Abrahamic faith". Then to mention that "he is regarded in Islam as the Apostle and the Sealer". Then, after this opening, one can move on to mention the views of the other religious groups such as the Baha'is, Jews, Christians, atheists and others on Muhammad.--Grey 34 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, those are titles by which those figures are commonly known in English, and are bolded per WP:COMMONNAME. And what you said concerning your suggested change regarding the mention of Amadhiyyahs, while still assuming good faith, is disingenuous. I checked the sources. Singling them out, regardless of the POV non-RS, I'd argue is not even appropriate, especially in a lede. That was also not your only suggestion; you suggested a rewrite of the entire opening. The parts that I quoted were copied directly from your initial comment. The revised wording you gave, regardless of the occasional qualifier which you suggested mitigates it, either presented those views as factual or as universals, which they are not. The title of "Apostle of God", for example, is almost never used by non-Muslims, as was directly claimed in your revision. Lastly, we don't have a schema of Islamic views "first", and then all other views second. To the chagrin of many, this is a secular encyclopaedia. I've refrained from mentioning this, but I checked your contributions. Aside from an apparent promotion of Islam in your userspace, the only other edits I've seen is a push for honourifics to be added to the title, and then later, the lede of the article. I'm trying to give you some decent advice that any editor would impart to a new user with edits like, "Just as the Christian honorific titles have been considered for the titles of the articles... I demand that the Islamic honorific titles be considered here in the same way. (emphasis added)" Aside from serving the purpose of disambiguation (which is not an issue here as per the hatnote), those few titles that still have an honorific are named according to WP:COMMONNAME, and the MOS, as these are names by which they're commonly known to most English speakers. The same applies to bolded titles in the lede. There isn't any systemic bias here. Muhammad is not even remotely known as "Rasulullah", or "Apostle/Messenger of God" in common parlance.

This isn't really a content dispute; I'm explaining why such edits would largely been seen as contrary to policy. And incidentally linking you to the foundational policies of Wikipedia so that you know why I've said what I've been saying. I suggest you read them; I don't want to be overly "bitey", as this was meant to extend a professional courtesy, and neither do I want to repeat myself ad infinitum unless absolutely necessary... So I'll disengage now. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it at all (I hate it) when someone accuses me of doing or saying something I didn't do or say. I didn't single out the Ahmadiyyahs as non-Muslims in the proposed opening! with all my love and respect to you user:Quinto, this claim in particular is utterly incorrect. I have actually included the Ahmadiyyas as Muslims in the statement: "Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets" because the Ahmadiyyas do believe that Muhammad has sealed the prophets (see: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Prophethood_(Ahmadiyya)#Seal_of_the_Prophets & see: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Khatam_an-Nabiyyin#Ahmadiyya_Interpretation). The difference is only in the interpretation. The classical and most commonly established interpretation among Muslims is that he is the last one and no genuine prophets will come after him (see: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Khatam_an-Nabiyyin#Traditional_interpretation).

My suggested scheme for the lead: "that the lead should firstly say that Muhammad is the central figure in Islam, the Apostle & the one who sealed the prophets" is quite similar to the scheme of the lead in the article of Jesus; which starts with the Christian view about Jesus. The opening of the lead in the article of Jesus is given solely for the Christian religious beliefs. What I demand is neutrality and consistency.--Grey 34 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Let's take a look, shall we? The current opening:

"Muhammad..., from Mecca, unified Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam. Believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a prophet and messenger of God, Muhammad is almost universally[n 1] considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind.[2][n 2] While non-Muslims generally regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims consider him to have restored the unaltered original monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets in Islam."

And your suggested revision:

Muhammad... is the central figure in Islam. Chosen by God to receive the revelation of the Qur'an, he has been taken by all Muslims to be the ideal man. Islam regards Muhammad as the awaited Apostle of God of the Tanakh and the Gospel and refers to him as Muhammad the Apostle of God,The Quran records a variety of names and titles accorded to Muhammad a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts. Muhammad is believed by all Muslims to be the one through whom God sealed the prophets, a status that has been interpreted by most Muslims The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community considers Muhammad to be the "Seal of the Prophets" (Khātam an-Nabiyyīn) and the last law-bearing Prophet but not the last Prophet.

Your revision adds nothing that isn't already there, except doxological invocation epithets. That is, honourifics that also serve as theological and/or doctrinal statements. Along with some broad, sweeping statements. You assert (for example), as a universal, that "all Muslims" take [sic] him to "be the ideal man". You also state as a universal that all Muslims believe him to be the "Apostle of God" of the Tanakh and the Gospel. Being intimately familiar with the texts of both the canons (and the varying canons between them, as well as various Islamic texts), I can tell you that this phrase nowhere appears in those scriptures. In fact, the Judaic sources are quite ambiguous about the future advent of any such theologically significant figure. The (two) more difrect references you're likely thinking of refer to the figure (who is only later known as the moshiach, due to the practise of anointing in the David line, from which he is assumed to spring)... Muslims actually believe that prophecy was fulfilled in Iesu (Jesus). Though obviously not in the eschatological or theological sense or expectations that either Judaism or Christianity ascribe to the foretold figure. While it's a moot point, it was later asserted in some hadith that Muhammad was the fulfillment of the promised "Paraclete". Neither of these beliefs (of which the first is not actually supported by the sources whatsoever) are universals in all forms of Islam, especially if you include the Amadiyyahs as Muslims. Your statement "a name that is also used in non-Muslim contexts" is copied from the Jesus article, but "Christians" is replaced with "non-Muslims". Aside from being WP:UNDUE, it's also a demonstrably untrue statement.

Finally, you also removes any mention of Baha'is from the lede with your revision. This article is not "Islamic" or sectarian views of Mohammed. There are respective content forks for those topics. This article is about the historical figure of Muhammad. That means we include all relevant views, including those of the Baha'i community. You only talk about Muslim beliefs, and most of these statements I find to be misleading. Some of them, as I pointed out just prior, amount to synthesis. The rewrite does not conform to RNPOV in some places, most especially the second sentence. But most of the sentences after that, as I pointed out, likewise only present theological views of Mohammed that- while claimed to be universals- are simply majority opinions.

There might be some things worth discussing here, though I don't really think that discussion should be regarding the lede. Honestly, you do need to familiarise yourself with our policies, because while I think you have good intentions, this revision runs contrary to several of them. Aside from the wording, it's also certainly not an improvement to single out the Amadiyyahs, and remove Baha'i views entirely from the opening.

You stated: "The current opening of the lead is very much inappropriate! It is inappropriate to say in the opening that: "Muhammad is a man from Mecca who unified Arabia". This sounds very strange opening for me." [sic] It reads that way, as I said, because this is an article about the historical figure of Muhammad, and not just his theological significance to Muslims. On a secular encyclopaedia. And there are a variety of views regarding him. This opening was hammered out, after years of discussion, because it was found to be amenable in terms of balance, and was specifically neutral. I originally replied simply to caution you as a new user, and point out why that proposed edit would be seen as either inappropriate, or even POV-pushing; so I thought I would speak up after your unsuccessful "demand" to change the article title. I've now spend an inordinate amount of time detailing the specific issues with it, and given you haven't specifically addressed those issues, I have to wonder if you had read any of those policies I had previously linked you to. The current lead expresses the essential points, in a neutral way; very much the same way that the opening of the lede on "Jesus" does. The wording on that lede, which I've re-read several times in response to this article, is actually quite conditional. The lede is only meant to be an essential summary, and not a repository of laudatory views of Mohammad. The very next section specifically has to do with his titles, honorifics, and epithets; what you wanted is already in that section: in the second sentence, in fact.

As an aside... I'm completely on board with battling systemic bias, but objectively, I don't see it here. There is no double standard here as you alleged, an overt Christian bias on the article, and certainly no suppression of WP:THETRUTH. Implying that these are issues here will not get you far. Like I said, I'm more than willing to entertain and discuss proposals that both conform to policy, and are appropriately placed. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Grey 34, I thought your edits were so obviously wrong and the arguments in opposition sufficiently persuasive that I assumed any reasonable editor would recognise that fact. I was therefore quite surprised to discover today that not only have you included them, you have been edit-warring to keep them. There's very little support and certainly no consensus for your changes.—Kww(talk) 14:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't stick quotes [4] into articles with no context. There's no analysis of reception, impact, or even why the quotes are historically famous. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template.--Peaceworld 13:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This is like saying "Christian Messiah Jesus". It is obtuse, and unnecessarily verbose. There is no Mohammed in the Bible, and thus there is no confusion in just calling him "prophet Mohammed" when disambiguation from other persons named Mohammed is needed.Scientus (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That is the guideline, see WP:PBUH. If you want to change a guideline on Wikipedia, the place to propose and gain support for your change is on the guideline's talk page.

Also see two comments above. Wikipedia cannot refer to Muhammad as "prophet" in Wikipedia's voice, otherwise that would be adopting a religious point of view. Referring to him as the Islamic prophet disambiguates the POV from the description. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for a source, if anyone here might know of it, or have heard of it. I was told by Yemenite Jewish elders that Muhammad (being illiterate) had several Jewish associates. One of whom, they say, was a disgruntled proselyte to the Jewish religion (Abdullah ibn Salam) who wrote for Muhammad the surahs of the Qur'an. My understanding is that Abdullah ibn Salam wrote derogatively about the nation of Israel in the pages of his Qur'an, since he was rejected by those rabbis in Arabia who followed mainstream Judaism, but he followed what was to them a heretical form of Judaism, known as the Ebionite sect. They refused to give their sons to his daughters in marriage. Has anyone here heard of anything like this and, if so, what are the sources? Just curious. Davidbena (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ebionites were technically Christians, they considered Jesus as the messiah (but not son) of God. But, Abdullah ibn Salam was not Ebionite. Khestwol (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

So this would fit the ideological doctrine of the Qur'an which, as I noted, according to Yemenite Jewish tradition was written by Abdullah ibn Salam. Are there any sources telling us that he compiled the Qur'an for Muhammad?Davidbena (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Abdullah ibn Salam was just one of the sahaba. Khestwol (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So, from a rational point of view, since Muhammad the prophet was illiterate (no offense intended), how was the Qur'an written? What are the alternative views, if any? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, three relevant Wikipedia articles might help the curiosity: Revelation, Wahy, and History of the Quran. Hope they help. Salam, Khestwol (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder Khestwol what is the basis for your claim that the Ebionites were technically Christians! No, they were not. The term "Christians", which is Greek in origin, was used particularly, exclusively and for the first time by the Pauline branch of the Nazarenes. The Ebionites were not actually from the Pauline branch, since they rejected Paul and the Pauline branch which considered Jesus to be the promised Messiah of the Jews. Before Paul, the followers of Jesus of Nazareth were referred to only with the name "Nazarenes". After Paul, the name "Christians" replaced the name "Nazarenes" by the Pauline branch who adhered to the teachings of Paul who claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was himself the promised Messiah [i.e. the Christ] of the Jews. These teachings of Paul were exclusively rejected by the Ebionites who rejected the name "Christians" and maintained the name "Nazarenes" along with their identity as Jews keepers of the Sabbath and the Mosaic law. The Ebionites were technically Jews. They considered Jesus to be a major Jewish prophet and an important messiah. However, they didn't consider him to be the long awaited Messiah [i.e. the greatest Messiah].

As for Abdullah ibn Salam, he was actually a prominent Jewish rabbi from Medina. No Davidbena, he wasn't Ebionite. He actually met the Prophet Muhammad and converted to Islam only after the migration of the Prophet to Medina. His conversion to Islam embarrassed the Jews very much (it was more like if the Pope of the Vatican himself embraced Islam), because he was a very great rabbi with very great knowledge. That is why the Jews hated him too much after his conversion and considered it a major treason.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ebionites are the ones referred to in Quran 5:82-85 as the nearest in affection to the believers [i.e. the Muslims]:

82 You will find that the most people in enmity to the believers are the Jews and idolaters, and that the nearest in affection to the believers are those who say: 'We are Nazarenes' That is because amongst them there are priests and monks; and because they are not proud. 83 When they listen to that which was sent down to the Messenger, you will see their eyes fill with tears as they recognize its truth. They say: 'Lord, we believe. Write us among the witnesses. 84 Why should we not believe in Allah and in the truth that has come down to us? Why should we not hope for admission among the righteous' 85 For their words Allah has rewarded them with Gardens underneath which rivers flow, where they shall live for ever. Such is the recompense of the righteous.

— translated by Qaribullah & Darwish^[1]

So there is no doubt that there has been a joyful contact between the Prophet Muhammad and the Ebionites, and that the Ebionites bore witness of the Prophet as mentioned in the verse above.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to add is that the Gospel of Barnabas, which considers the Prophet Muhammad to be the real long awaited Messiah of the Bible, has been considered by some modern non-Muslim scholars such as John Toland to be a Gospel of the Ebionties.[5][6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.107.59.81 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP this is not page to discuss these things but regarding the Ebionite/Nazarene scriptures, I would like to recommend you to read Dead Sea Scrolls, and James the Just leader of the Ebionites/first Christians. The Pauline Christian are not the only Christian but there were also nontrinitarian, who though regarded themselves Jews and observe Mosaic laws as did Jesus himself. That's why I only considered the ebionites technical Christians. Khestwol (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Registered User, it is wrong to call the Ebionites "Christians", because the term "Christians" is itself a Pauline term. You should call them "Nazarenes" just as they called themselves in Quran 5:82: "We are Nazarenes (Nasara)". Please respect the name the Ebionites identified themselves with. Thanks.--5.107.59.81 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)