Talk:Muhammad/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

Please remove pictures that depict Prophet Muhammad PBUH receiving revelation from Angel Jabriel as it is misleading, inaccurate, and offensive to Muslims.

Thank you 196.133.0.66 (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I'm pretty sure this request runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED, but consensus about inclusion or exclusion of specific images can be reached at this talk page for other reasons as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

However, note where it says above "Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you people, the Muhammad cartoons are NOT GOING TO BE REMOVED. They are perfectly acceptable as per Wikipedia's policy. And we don't care if its offensive for you or your stupid religion. Stop asking the same thing every month! --99.245.168.121 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​Dude. Chill.
Alivardi (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​ There should be a warning, Muslims come to this article to learn about a religious topic and are greeted with what is offensive for them with no warning. I wasn’t expecting there to be any pictures when I saw them, the least we could do is to add a warning. @Alivardi: It’s best to ignore those types of people. (Talking about the IP) Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a warning, WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE. There is also Q3 in the FAQ above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

​ The warning is on the articles talk page and not in the article, new users also wouldn’t know about WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS CONTENT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 11:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure someone will point it out to them, just as it’s been pointed out to you. Kleuske (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Like many other things, you learn about WP by using it, by asking. It has probably been argued that there is a personal responsibility to educate oneself about stuff one is using. Hopefully in this day and age, many people for whom this is important were told by a parent or a teacher, and so weren't surprised or avoided it. More at WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you expect Wikipedia to follow the norms of your regligion? --Khajidha (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

2 proposed changes

Balolay implemented 2 changes to Muhammad. First, s/he changed the criticism section from a level 2 heading to a level 3 heading. Second, s/he added a picture from the book Inferno depicting Muhammad being tortured in Hell. I reverted these changes, saying "criticism is part of the legacy; current image has no [encyclopedic value], the work in which Mohammed is criticised and depicted is not discussed." Balolay reverted me today a few days after my original revert. I suggest we follow WP:BRD and thus reverted him/her today. Please voice your opinion on the changes by Balolay. --MrClog (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious that a depiction from Dante's Inferno adds nothing and is inappropriate. Would we include derogatory caricatures of Jews in the Judaism article? There is a main article on criticism. So IMO, makes sense that the section here remain brief and third level. O3000 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this picture already exists in Depictions of Muhammad and Criticism of Muhammad, if I remember correctly. There’s absolutely no encyclopedic value in adding it to the top-level biography. That Muhammad appears in Renaissance and Pre-Modern miniatures is hardly surprising, or note-worthy. Several philosophers also appear in Dante’s vision of the Inferno, and have accompanying woodcuts, and it wouldn’t make much sense to include those in their biographies either. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Muhammad is not the Founder of Islam. Muhammad is the Last Prophet of Islam.

Nashah25 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And not all who call themselves Muslim agree that Muhammad is the "last" prophet either. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you search online you can find many sources saying that. And a *Majority* of Muslims believe that Muhammad is not the founder but the last prophet. Or we can give the Quran as a source Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And this isn't what I *personally* believe. All Muslims universally accept this Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ENGLISH word "Islam" does not have the same scope as the Arabic word it was borrowed from. In English, "Islam" starts with Muhammad by definition. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Muhammad was not the founder of Islam. The word Muslim is used for all those who followed the messenger/ prophet sent to them from Adam to now. Mikhail8881 (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Right people is it that hard to just write PBUH after the last holy prophets name, or is that politically incorrect - as it would seem “the recommended to remove” is a bit harsh and seriously lacks respect. LightningDTB (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like asking outsiders to follow your religious dictates is much more disrespectful. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Also isn’t it possible to have a separate page to address the belief of Shiites - although relatively they’re not truly deemed Muslims for in the month of Muharram they commit a huge sin of self infliction - which they do to seek retribution for the crimes of their ancestors at Karbala . LightningDTB (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not our place to say who are or are not true Muslims. Obviously Shiites do not think that their practices are a sin.--Khajidha (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Zoheb.afridi22 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Replace 609–632 CE as religious leader with 609–present CE as religious leader as he is still the leader of Islam even if he died 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done There is no academic consensus for that. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Muhammad is written as the founder of Islam. However he is not. Muslims include Adam and Eve etc. Everyone who followed the prophet/messenger sent to them is a Muslim in Islam. Muhammad was the one who gave it the name Islam. I request that you change this. Mikhail8881 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography of a person. There are no historical records of Adam and Eve. The article on Islam is about a religion and can talk to religious beliefs. It mentions Adam. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I think you have hit on the key point there. There is a historical record that exists outside of scripture and religious text for Muhammad and for Joseph Smith about starting the movements relating to their prophecies and attracting followers; there is not such a similar record for Jesus, Moses, or Adam. Accordingly, from the secular, historic perspective, it's fair to call Muhammad and Smith the founders of Islam and Mormonism, respectively. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I also think that picture shouldn't belong here as it is already present on other articles however the article deserves a separate section on criticism of Muhammad which is an extensive topic on its own and deserves a place in the article. Before my changes it wasn't even properly discussed in the legacy at all. Balolay (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Remove the words “and he was founder of islam” islam existed since adam so Islam is not a new religion which was founded by muhammad(pbuh) Junaid1068 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. From an external perspective, Muhammad started a new movement. --Khajidha (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Khadijah I don’t know if you are a muslim or not but the religion muhammad pbuh started(as you think) was since the time of memorial. Even the first human being that is Adam was a follower of Islam....so spreading a misconception that Prophet Muhammad Pbuh is the founder of Islam is wrong because it makes people think that Islam is religion which was founded 1400 hundred years ago. Hope you do your research properly and then make statements......Thankyou Junaid1068 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals in historical facts, not mythology. --Khajidha (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a historical fact that Islam existed before Prophet Muhammad pbuh because Prophet Moses was also a muslim and Prophet Jesus was also a muslim. Junaid1068 (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The entire Jewish and Christian religions would disagree with that. You are citing Islamic belief NOT objective facts. Your request has been answered and this encyclopedia WILL NOT be forced into compliance with your religious doctrine. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would we give weigh to Christian or Jewish religions over other religions? I mean, that Jesus was even a real person is not "objective facts" or that Moses was Jewish is also not "objective facts" and in fact archeological findings contradict most of what the Bible is saying. And not just the Bible but also the historicity of the biography of prophet Muhammad is nothing more or less a tradition. A more accurate and neutral description would have been "a Muslim prophet" and "founded Islam" should in my opinion be removed as it is based on traditions by both Muslims, Christians and Jews etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mythological assertions generally hold much less weight than factual or scientific proof. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A1D8:3E79:27E3:A581 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that other religions disagree is certainly not a an indication of anything. The existence of Jesus is accepted by most historians – certainly not his divinity. As I understand it, according to Islam, Mohammad was the principle Muslim prophet (and Jesus the penultimate prophet ). I think that may allow the use of the phrase accepted founder of Islam, as Christ may be considered the accepted founder of Christianity – although I can see arguments against both, and they are both theoretically based on Abraham. Personally, I’d like to see the words “accepted founders” added to both. In any case, I would reject the concept that any religion started with Adam. Even a pope said Genesis was apocryphal. Although, with correct sources, it could be stated that this is claimed. O3000 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, Jesus is a semi-legendary figure. There is no proof that he existed but there is no reason to doubt what classical sources said about him. My point is that it's not an objective fact and that the religion of any of those prophets is based on the traditions of religions. We should not give weigh to one religion over the other.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly we should never give any weight to any religion. The existence of Jesus as a person has been discussed heavily in the articles about him. Consensus is that he existed. That doesn't mean his depiction in the Bible or Quran is accurate. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You are rejecting this request as per your thinking and if you want talk about facts then even you would know that Islam “By scientifically FACTS” has been said to 80% out of 100% to be true 100% the remaining 20% is ambiguous (neither right nor wrong) and out of that 20% not even 0.00001% has been proved wrong. So “SCEINTIFICALLY” islam is right. As you were saying that Jesus was a Christian. Let me tell you this Sister even Jesus was a muslim Because as per your “Wikipedia Definition”a Muslim mean submitting your will to god https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 And the person who submits its will to god is a muslim read and “CROSS VERIFY” all what I’m saying

“I can of myself do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” ‭‭John‬ ‭5:30‬ ‭ASV‬‬ Here it says Jesus Saying “I seek not my will but the will of who has sent me” As I mentioned above the definition of a muslim as per your “WIKIPEDIA”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28

And Muslim believed in one god same what Jesus believed in if you check bible

“Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one:” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭12:29‬ ‭ASV‬‬

And as per your other Saying that jesus is god in bible check this he is been said to be a “MAN” .

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2:22‬ ‭ASV‬‬

Nowhere in the bible Jesus says by “Himself” that He is God or Worship him

What People believe is the saying of the church not the Bible.

And BEFORE Stating any facts please check your OWN facts and refresh them Junaid1068 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Any changes to the article must be based on independent reliable sources, not editors' interpretation of holy books or other primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The etymology of "Muslim" is submission, the meaning of "Muslim" (in English) is follower of the teachings of Muhammad. Anyone before Muhammad cannot be a Muslim, by how the word is used in English. This keeps tripping up Muslims, as they insist on reading the English word and understanding it with the Arabic definitions. --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So on which basis you made the article that Muhammad (pbuh) is the founder of Islam.. What proof you have? Junaid1068 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad promulgated the Quran. THAT is the beginning of Islam. Before that you had Christianity, Judaism, proto-Yahvism, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And i don’t think you read the article from my answer that I gave Muslim is an “ARABIC WORD” and its meaning in English is submitter Check this Article from Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 Junaid1068 (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That is what the Arabic word means, it is not what the English word means. --Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You saying this proves that its an arabic word check this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#cite_note-28 Its written Muslim is an Arabic word Junaid1068 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the actual source (https://www.etymonline.com/word/Muslim), this is made clear. Etymonline gives the definition of the English word "Muslim" as ""one who professes Islam," 1610s, from Arabic muslim "one who submits" (to the faith), from root of aslama "he resigned." Related to Islam. From 1777 as an adjective." And defines the English word "Islam'" as ""religious system revealed by Muhammad," 1816, from Arabic islam, literally "submission" (to the will of God), from root of aslama "he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted," causative conjunction of salima "he was safe," and related to salam "peace."". As I said before, the ENGLISH words Muslim and Islam are tied to Muhammad by definition. --Khajidha (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So that means the article which is written on Wikipedia is wrong so we should see the Original source,...is that what you want to say? Junaid1068 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that English texts must be understood using English definitions, not Arabic ones. When one language borrows a word from another, the meaning can change. It can become more restricted. Or more expansive. Or even come to mean something else entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The definition could be wrong also as the person who defined it didn’t had the actual knowledge of the meaning of the text/word because he/she heard of it somewhereelse same as this the person who wrote the definition of Muslim in english didn’t had the actual knowledge of the meaning of the word. Junaid1068 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You can check other dictionaries if you wish. All the English language dictionaries I have checked agree with what I have written here. You seem to have some trouble separating the derivation of a word from its current meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Like you said you can’t believe in the holy books. So now how can u ask me to believe in the dictionaries, maybe the people who wrote that dictionary didn’t knew the meaning of the word because even they wrote the meaning of the Muslim just by what they heard from others Junaid1068 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's real simple. The Quran is written in Arabic. The dictionaries are written in English. If you wish to know what an English word means, the Quran is totally irrelevant and the dictionaries are what's important. I am not disputing what the Quran and the Islamic faith mean when using the term Muslim, I am simply pointing out that that is not the meaning that the word has in English. WHY the meaning is different does not matter. It simply is different. And if a Muslim wishes to be understood by English speakers, he will need to use the word as it is used in English.--Khajidha (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree if the English wants to know the Muslims he is gonna have to use the word in English, but a word can’t make you understand the whole scenario in what “context” it was written, is more important Junaid1068 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If we are not supposed to rely on English dictionaries for the meaning of English words what are we supposed to rely on? Paul August ☎ 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

But like your “WIKIPEDIA” says that Muslim is an ARABIC WORD so it should be seen as it is,Actual meaning in Arabic Junaid1068 (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It no longer says that. As I explained to you earlier, that phrasing was an incorrect representation of what the source said. As for context, you have just made my point for me. In an English language context a word has its English language meaning. --Khajidha (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the word means. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. O3000 (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Even you proved my point by saying the representation of the source was wrong same way the source from which you took about muhammad is represented wrong Junaid1068 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making no sense. A misquotation (like what was in the Wikipedia article) is a mistake. Words having different meanings in different languages is not a mistake. It is just their being different languages. Just because a word originates from one language does not mean it stays that language forever. Or do you think you are speaking Greek when you say telephone? --Khajidha (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You just proved what I have been trying to make you understand that calling a word in other language With the same pronunciation and spelling doesn’t change the word’s meaning. Like you said telephone is a greek word and has the same meaning which it means in english compared to as in greek so why are you changing the meaning of the word Muslim. Junaid1068 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is not about a word. It is a bio about a person, and we use historical sources about that person. If you want to talk about the Islamic religion, we have an article about Islam. Go there. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood the point. My point was that "telephone" is NOT a Greek word. It is an English word derived from Greek roots. It was then borrowed by Greek (and other languages). When it was borrowed back to Greek, it kept the same meaning as in English. But this is not always the case with borrowings. Let me try a different example. "Sombrero" is an English word that means a particular kind of hat. "Sombrero" is also a Spanish word that means "hat" in general. Neither is "wrong", but if an English speaker asks for a sombrero he would be very confused if given a fedora. In Arabic (or, at least, Arabic as spoken by Muslims. Arab Christians would disagree.) "Islam" and "Muslim" refer to the entire monotheistic tradition. When it was borrowed into English (and other European languages) this idea was not carried over, as Europeans did not see "Islam" and "Christianity" as parts of some greater thing. They were separate (often opposed) things.--Khajidha (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I know we are talking about a man(Mohammad pbuh) but the topic I was telling you about was that he was not the founder of Islam. Islam existed before Muhammad so to prove it I have to prove that even Muslims existed before him like Jesus(pbuh). So to prove that Muslims existed before Muhammad I have to talk you through what actually Muslim word means and that even Bible in it says the same for Jesus(pbuh). And as you gave the example of “Somberor” in spanish it means a general hat and in english it means a specific hat, but in the end it means in both of them the same that is hat. Like that “siso” means in english the same as in the hindi, it a play thing that is in park for children Junaid1068 (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And to you "Islam" apparently means all monotheistic religion back to the beginning of time, while to the English speaking world it means the religious teachings of Muhammad, following the Quran, the pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting during Ramadan, etc. Things that couldn't be done until after Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all pilgrimage of mecca was done even before muhammad its there since Abraham check it here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hajj

And before Quran was given to Muhammad pbuh as he didn’t had the first revelation before he was 40 ,muslims were supposed to believe in Injeel(Gospel) which was given to Isa(Jesus) pbuh.

The english speaker that you talk about weren’t present at the time Before muhammad pbuh and after muhammad pbuh so whatever the english speakers “saying” are they are just theories without any proof.

Junaid1068 (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually it says this is a claim by Islamic writers. It goes on to say that the present day hajj was founded by Muhammad and refers to the pre-Islamic pilgrimage of the pagan Arabs. O3000 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, what English speakers are saying is how the term is used in English. You still seem to be unable to understand that different languages are different. The idea that pre-Muhammad prophets were "Muslim" only makes sense within an Islamic context. English had no use for such a meaning and limited the meaning to post-Muhammad. --Khajidha (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm using your cite. In any case, this is not going anywhere. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Like you said it says as per “the islamic writers believe”, same like this the least you can do is mention as per Non-islamic tradition Or as per the Historians it is believed that Muhammad is the founder of Islam or you can write it as per the Islamic tradition it is believed that Muhammad is not the founder of Islam but with the sentence even mention this(as per Historians or Non-Islamic) just don’t directly write that he is the founder of Islam because it gives wrong information to other. Junaid1068 (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is just using the English language. IN ENGLISH, Islam is specifically defined as starting with Muhammad. If you insist on reading it using non-English definitions, that is simply your problem. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as written. --Khajidha (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The least you can do is include “according to English language definition of Islam Muhammad is the founder of Islam” this is the least you can do to give the right information to other.

“The belief was a foolish one built on lies and misinformation.” —Jason Medina Junaid1068 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That implies that the Muslim view is the default. Given that the majority of people are not-Muslim, it makes more sense to do the inverse: to state that he was the founder of Islam, but that Muslims view him as being the last in a series of prophets, which is what the article currently says.
Alivardi (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that saying that a word in an English text is being used with its English language definition is beyond the point of being a "well, duh" situation. --Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the majority non muslims will search about him and they will get the wrong information about it. In your inversion your first statement is wrong and the second statement is right that muhammad was the Last prophet in the series.

Lastly Its you who knows that its the English definition but not everyone knows that everyone is gonna think its the Islamic definition. Even dis is also like a “well,duh” Situation.

And providing people with wrong information is on you as you are the editor of the article Junaid1068 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Junaid1068, digressions aside, Wikipedia policy is very clear about this. The edit you’re suggesting would violate WP:RNPOV, a foundational aspect of Wikipedia. What you’re proposing is that we include a theological view specific to Muslims as unvarnished truth, and that’s simply not going to happen. We reflect what mainstream scholarly sources say. And that some Muslims might get “wrong information” is immaterial. We do report what the majority theological view amongst Muslims is. So, it’s very much already there. But we can’t say it’s the truth, because it’s contradicted by archaeological and textual evidence. It’s not our job to practice Muslim apologetics, or discourage what you see as heretical opinions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"everyone is gonna think its the Islamic definition. ". Why would anyone think that? Really. Why would anyone think that that one word in an article written in the English language would be using a definition other than the English language definition? And why would they assume that the definition used was thst used within Islam? Especially since the article goes on to state that Muslims disagree with this definition. That would take a monumental level of language incompetence. --Khajidha (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When a person reads about something he already presumes that Its the definition of that thing not that its the English definition about it.

Secondly it is mentioned “He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief.” Like here you have mentioned that “modern denominations diverge from this belief” but for muhammad is the founder of the islam you don’t want to mention that muslims disagree with this statement is hypocrisy You at the least mention that it is believed by archaeologists that Muhammad is the founder of the Islam but Muslims disagree with this statement. Junaid1068 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"When a person reads about something he already presumes that Its the definition of that thing not that its the English definition about it." This is nonsensical. There is no such thing as "the definition of that thing" independent of the language used. And the disagreement of Muslims is already mentioned in the article.--Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere it is mentioned in the article of the disagreement of muslims and Even it is somewhere where I haven’t been able to find it, it should be mentioned next to the line where it says that “Muhammad is the founder of islam” but Muslims disagree with it. Junaid1068 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You do not speak for all brands of Islam and are not a reliable source. (None of us are.) This is not going to happen. At this point, you are bludgeoning. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. O3000 (talk)

Maybe I don’t speak for all brands but all the brands are gonna support this point which I’m trying to make you understand and yes even i believe at this point, even you are just Bludgeoning. Junaid1068 (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And we are trying to make you understand that your entire problem is your REFUSAL or INABILITY to understand English. Accept that you are suffering under a misunderstanding of the language and stop. Your continued argument makes it seem more and more that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You may also want to read WP:IDHT. --Khajidha (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Madam I don’t understand that including this statement that “Muslim don’t agree with Muhammad being the founder of Islam” would be harmful in anyway but in fact it will help to clear the misconception of people. Junaid1068 (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

1) It already says that "According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet, sent to preach and confirm the monotheistic teaching preceded by Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[2][3][4][5] He is viewed as the final prophet of God in all the main branches of Islam, though some modern denominations diverge from this belief", thus it is redundant. 2) Your guess as to my sex is mistaken. --Khajidha (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to end discussion

This discussion has been going on for ten days now, and it is clear to any outsider it is not going anywhere. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, they only serve to engage constructively on how to improve the article. In that spirit, starting this discussion was perfectly ok, but the discussion has run its course. It is perfectly clear we will not make the proposed change; there is no consensus for it, and it is contrary to policy. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have tried making u understand(with proves and logic) but you have been acting on your accords, my job was to convey the message and that i have done but if you want keep it as per your convenience the sin for that is on you. Junaid1068 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:PA O3000 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What sin? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

180.214.232.87 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you responding to an empty request? Why dont you just remove it?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Saudi Arabian not arab 198.140.189.114 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Further, Saudi Arabia did not exist until 1,000 years, give or take, after the time of Muhammad. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Muhammad was a prophet of Allah and the last messenger according to Muslims. Upon whom Quran was revealed on wich is the last book of God. The Muhammad was known to be one of the finest personalities whose honesty and simplicity was known among all the tribes. 115.42.71.130 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The first portion of that is already stated in the article. The last part ("finest personalities") is opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

It is not Muhammad, it is Mihammad PBUH Sameerazamalmadni (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That's one of numerous variants. Not the most common. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "PBUH" is blatantly contrary to Wikipedia's practices.--Khajidha (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Start of preaching: 610 or 613?

The second paragraph of the leading section states:

Born approximately 570 CE (Year of the Elephant) in the Arabian city of Mecca, Muhammad was orphaned at the age of six. . . . When he was 40, Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave, and receiving his first revelation from God. Three years later, in 610, Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, . . .

Shouldn't it be "Three years later, in 613, . . ."? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Khajidha, can you please look at this? I'm hesitant to make a change to such a high-profile article myself. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Given 1) the use of "approximately" in stating Muhammad's birth date, 2) the fact that his age is probably meant to be reckoned in the shorter lunar calendar, and 3) "three years later" rarely means exactly three years, I don't think this is necessarily wrong. It could stand being rewritten to accommodate the ambiguity, though.--Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Quran was revealed through the Holy Spirit not through the Archangel Gabriel

The Quran was actually revealed through the Holy Spirit. Quran 16:102 says: "Say [O Muhammad], the Holy Spirit has brought it [the Quran] from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to the Muslims.". The pronoun "it" in this verse refers to the Quran because the word Quran is mentioned in the last verses before this verse. Notice that Quran 16 is a Meccan Surah, which means it was revealed relatively early.--Commenter7 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) The Archangel Gabriel was a companion of Muhammad and supported him in his battles (for example, he descended with thousands of angels during the battle of Badr "see Quran 3:125" and this Hadith for example), but the Quran itself was revealed through the Holy Spirit not through Gabriel.--Commenter7 (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The story about Gabriel bringing the revelation to Muhammad is most likely false. It seems to stem from some hadiths attributed to Aisha only. Many hadiths attributed to Aisha are incorrect.--Commenter7 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The first verses of Surah al-Muddathir were the first verses revealed to Muhammad. They were revealed after Muhammad saw God on the the clear horizon sitting on His Throne. (See Quran 81:23, and this Hadith for example "although the quality of the English translation provided on that website is very poor").--Commenter7 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:No original research. Any editor's personal understanding of the Quran, Hadith, or any other religious work (or premodern commentary thereof) is not accepted as a valid source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Commenter7: I think you miss understood. Muhammad didn't saw God, He saw Gabriel (as per your reference of Quran 81:23) . Read it again. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 04:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

TheChunky, which English translation for Quran 81:23 did you use? May be you used something like "Saheeh International" which practiced "Tahrif" by falsely and incorrectly adding the word "Gabriel" to the text even though the original Arabic text doesn't have this word at all. Why don't you check the translation provided by Pickthal or Yusuf Ali. Both of them didn't add the word Gabriel to the text during translation. Pickthal translated the verse like this: "Surely he beheld Him on the clear horizon". Note how Pickthal capitalized the first letter of the pronoun "Him", because this pronoun refers to the "Lord of the Throne", who is mentioned in verse 20 which preceded this verse. Gabriel is not mentioned anywhere at all in this Surah.

Ian thomson, I will search for secondary sources written in English about this topic (hopefully i will find some) and will bring them here.--Commenter7 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do, you may want to start by suggesting them at Quran. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Prophet mujammad(s.a)

Prophet muhammad (s. a) not founderof islam SHAJAHAN ADIKADALAYI (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it may be time for a new FAQ point. Muhammad did, effectively, found Islam, at least for the purposes of an encyclopedic account. It's the same way that Joseph Smith is the founder of the LDS movement. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And how about if we expand the faq as default? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that it will help, but I'm all for it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One can hope that several of the people who arrive here (even now) with frequent questions sees the faq/previous comments, thinks "Oh, I see" and then do something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'd support the addition of a new FAQ point. I also think we should consider MrClog's suggestion of adding an edit notice to the talk page. I've never seen one used on a talk page, but if that is acceptable in extreme cases, I think now is the time to do it here. This talk page is getting flooded with repeat edit requests for items addressed in the template messages, which might be making it difficult for actual content discussions to take place. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hello all, as we can see, this talk page is still used by people proposing to remove the images of Muhammad. I suggest adding the "Important notice" box as a edit notice of this talk page, so we remind people that don't read the banners at the page before clicking "new section". --MrClog (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: Due to the repeat use of the edit request template by mostly well-meaning users, I think this is a good idea. I've never seen one of these notices applied to editing a talk page, though. Do you know if there is already precedent for doing this in extreme cases, or if it's generally considered unacceptable? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Founder, revisited

Mohammed peace be up on him is not the founder of Islam, infact He is the final prophet of islam religion and Islam is there on earth since the man sets his foot in earth. As per Islamic teachings Adam peace be up on him was the first human being on earth and first prophet of Islam as well. Please correct the statement on this page as Mohamed peace be up on him is the founder Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8f8:1d39:ea13:e5e8:8b29:1909:483c (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, the history of Islam originates with Muhammad. Thus, it is proper to refer to him as the founder of Islam. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As the above editor said, from a historical perspective Muhammad founded Islam. From your religious perspective, you may see things differently. But, facts don't lie or changed based on personal desire. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:34F2:BF61:921D:81E3 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to call Muhammad the messenger of Islam rather than the founder - that's the meaning of his title in Arabic, "rusilah".Achar Sva (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, this sentence: "The Quran, however, provides minimal assistance for Muhammad's chronological biography; most Quranic verses do not provide significant historical context." - it's true that it doesn't give direct biographical information, but it can give a lot of information about the cultural context of his life and the influences on his thinking - for example, the Quranic version of the virgin birth of Jesus is drawn from the Protoevangelium of James rather than the canonical gospels, which is an indication of the literature current in his milieu.Achar Sva (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says that 5 times prayer and fasting is just sunnah and not mentioned anywhere in the kuran

Kuran says about prayer in kuran and also about the fasting and even tells if you can't fast you must feed the poor for that. So the sentence that says its just sunnah should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahid699 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

And where in the Quran does it say that? Jeppiz (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In Sura 2/Chapter AlBaqara :

O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous - (183) [Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess - it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew. (184) The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur'an, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey - then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship and [wants] for you to complete the period and to glorify Allah for that [to] which He has guided you; and perhaps you will be grateful. (185)

WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about praying five times there. Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

In Sura Al-Isra (The Night Journey) - Ayah/verse 78 indicates the different time zones of the five prayers:

"Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian] until the darkness of the night and [also] the Qur'an of dawn. Indeed, the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed.(78)"

Mohsin Khan -and many Arab/non-English speaking scholars- translate the above verse as indicative of the 5 daily prayers: Perform As­Salat [prayers] (Iqamat-as-Salat) from mid-day till the darkness of the night (i.e. the Zuhr, 'Asr, Maghrib, and 'Isha' prayers), and recite the Quran in the early dawn (i.e. the morning prayer). Verily, the recitation of the Quran in the early dawn is ever witnessed (attended by the angels in charge of mankind of the day and the night). http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=17&verse=78

WaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

First, please start indenting your comments properly. I did it for you this time. Second, you present an interpretation of the Quran saying five times, while the text itself doesn't say it. Hence it's perfectly correct to say that it's Sunnah and not mentioned in the Quran. Jeppiz (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 No, an interpretation of the Quran is not (necessarily) Sunnah but is considered an understanding reached by a reader of the Quranic text and this should be performed in accordance to the rules of EXEGESIS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis. 

To be fair to the questioner, the verse DOES allude (implicitly) to the five/multiplicity of daily prayers but is not explicit of the total five. As for indentation, am not sure what is meant here as my replies are all in separate parasWaleedAhmadAddas (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad's Wife Aisha: The Age of their Marriage has NOW been refuted. Aisha Married the Prophet at the age of 18 plus

Dear Wikipedia,

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

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

Thanks for your updating the page.

(personal email removed)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:RS

This "new research" is simply an opinion piece with no evidence of a peer-review process. It does not satisfy our WP:RS criteria for using academic work as sources. This is especially true when it comes to an area that has seen a lot of proper research. The proposition to throw all proper academic research out the window because one person wrote an opinion piece saying something else is a non-starter. Jeppiz (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is my first serious experience in editing or contributing to Wikipedia; and my initial impression is that there’s a feeling of «bullying» other contributors and a tendency to change one’s mind suddenly from one end of the spectrum to the other extreme. Also does any of the contributors know more about Islam than the Muslim scholars; especially the polymath that was cited (Dr. ADNAN IBRAHEEM is not an ordinary person or student who wrote an opinion piece on there age issue ...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is your first experience at editing, please read WP:NPA. Accusing others of bullying is not ok, especially when there is no hint of any bullying. The fact that other users may disagree with your arguments is perfectly normal and in no way "bullying". Furthermore, we do not give any preference to the faith of scholars. Scholars are not given more weight in articles on Islam because the are Muslim, in articles on Christianity because they are Christians, in articles on Hinduism because they are Hindu etc. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ, non-Muslims do not have the same authority to write on Islam as devout Muslim scholars — since it’s linked with the faith and the values. How could someone write on a subject not believing in its tenets or respecting its values or knowing the boundaries? I feel the writings on Prophet Muhammad or Islam in Wikipedia by non Muslims are biased and also disrespectful to many Muslim readers. I recommend to have a balance in the selection of contributors especially when it comes to the religious subjects. The objective of an encyclopaedia is to give a reader a first-hand understanding to go and do further research AND NOT TO CONFUSE OR PUT first-comers/readers OFF. I don’t know what percent of the scholars who wrote this page were from the faithfuls and you will now agree that it would be very odd if 100% were non-Muslims! I agree with you if the subject matter was any natural or social sciences but to understand the religious sphere, this is the domain of the true adherents of the faith. No one in his or her right mind will go to a non-Muslim to seek a better understanding of Islam. The same also applies to Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaleedAhmadAddas (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to write about a religion/ideology/whatever from that religion/ideology/whatever's perpective, then WP is the wrong place to write. See WP:RNPOV. WP is not the domain of the true adherents of any faith. They're as welcome as any other editors within WP:s policies and guidelines, but it's not their domain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapse sexism CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The tendency which some females have, to underestimate their age needs no comment; it is well known to every one. Aisha, unconsciously, underestimated her age (like most women normally do). Since not a single person other than Aisha (not even her father Abu Bakr) reported that she was nine, there is no need to even think that she was nine. END OF STORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6A04:0:7916:E60F:202E:EE86 (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC) References It's original research to assume that she underestimated her age. Further, a 115-year-old book is of questionable reliability for such a blanket claim about women. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Qutham name

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

Draft:Islamic feminist views about Muhammad

Greetings,

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

Thanks

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

Misinformation in first line kindly correct

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

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

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

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

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

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?

Hi.

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

Thanks and regards

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

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

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

Setting a warning at top of article?

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

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

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

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Muhammad Seal.svg

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

Muhammad Venerated In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: "Founder" and PBUH

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic prophet Muhammad مُحَمَّد

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

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

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

intro naming and transliteration

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add (Peace Be Upon Him) or (P.B.U.H.) after Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.)'s name where this blessed and Holy name is mentioned in this article.

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

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

Short 'NO' Wow, very polite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

Hello

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

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

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

mohamed not "muhammad"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad's death

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

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

The hadiths that mention this are:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4512

Sunan Abu Dawud 4513

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4428

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

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

Journey of Muhammad to Taif

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

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

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

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

PBUH is not only of sufism, it is on all the muslim classifications

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2020

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

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

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

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

Last prophet

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

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

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

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

Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

Add a Picture of Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preservation of Electronics Crimes Act 2016 (PECA) reserves the prohibition of any kind of misleading information especially regarding the Religious matters. People must be aware of that act before removing/adding any contents. Either we remove all sections under page "Muhammad[[1]]" or avoid the conflicting statements altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eihtesham (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Does wikipedia promotes anti islam propaganda

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

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

Prophet Muhammad

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2020 (2)

Change this:

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

To this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

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

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

Early biographies

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Statues of Muhammad

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

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

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

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

Supposed Peadophilic Nature of Muhmmad

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

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

Petra

Petra.

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

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

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

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

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

Wives of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Closed according to WP:SNOW.

I need to fix this page. Because I thought it should not be written that the Prophet Muhammad was the founder of Islam if this article would be appropriate to neutral point of view. This is not the case with the belief of Islam. According to Islam, Islam sent by Allah. If this article denies or implies otherwise, it contains a biased expression. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC) That's not how it works. You first explain here what exact edit you want to be made. If it's constructive and an improvement, it is usually made. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC) First, vandalizing this talk page hardly inspires confidence in you. You do not have the right to delete or edit other users' comments. Second, no we will not make that edit. You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Do you put the thoughts of academics as superior to religion? This is an unfounded and controversial point of view. Looking objectively, why should what the academics say should guide the article? There are also academics who have accepted Prophet Muhammad as messenger of the God. We can't ignore 'em. What do you aim for by defining disbelievers as "academics" by the way? It is an indisputable fact that this statement is not neutral. Let's define him as "the religious person at the center of Islam" at least. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC) WP:ABIAS and WP:NOBIGOTS. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources not upon the opinions of the masses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Please stop repeating the same thing. What I mean is that none of us had no reliable sources to know the insight of the Prophet Muhammad, we only believe. If you hold the opinions of non-Muslims superior to what Muslims think, this will damage neutrality. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia does not cater to true believers, be them Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Yes, it also does not cater to Atheists, Deists or people who do not accept Muhammad as prophet. So I'm still rightful. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) If it can be taught as factually true at the Ivy League, then yes, we may include it in our article. Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream history, it has always been so and it will always be so. We follow WP:SOURCES written by mainstream historians, there is no way to undo that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC) OK. I saw your message. There is a fact that we will not deny by historians that his Prophet Muhammad is the centeral person of Islam. This declaration is more fairly than founder. Let me write it like that. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC) You have to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. And produce several WP:RS for your claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) My claims all are from Quran and Sunnah. I'm talking depending on Islamic Study. WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. If you don't have WP:RS (which are by definition mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP), this discussion is over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC) What I mean is what the claims in Islamic teaching are. In other words, in Islamic teaching, Wikipedia does not approves or denies Prophet Muhammad is the founder of Islam. You need to read the Quran to learn the claims of the Quran, there is no need to learn the claims of the Quran from another source. Also, I do not understand the reason for this persistence, what is wrong with me writing that he is the person at the center of Islam? İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC) If you have no WP:RS, you have nothing, really! The question of how do you know that Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam is one of epistemology and historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC) How do you know he is founder? Whether he is the prophet or not, a founder or not is relative My relative statements have no place on Wikipedia. Because both those who claim to be founders and those who deny them do not have evidence that is beyond dispute. İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Let me be blunt: my way or the highway. If you cannot produce WP:RS you lost this debate, see WP:IDHT. You're moving into WP:DE territory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC) You don't even read my word: There is no need to show sources. All I'm saying is you can't say "Disbelievers are right, muslims are wrong." Because it is disputed. You keep repeating the same words. No matter how many different arguments I may come up with, I cannot explain to you that relative concepts are unprovable. I stop arguing by sharing a quotation that comes to my mind for some reason: "I defeated forty scholars with one piece of evidence, but I could not beat an ignorant with forty evidence." İsmail Kendir (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC) believers may believe what they wish. Wikipedia uses evidence. You have provided none. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC) It is disputed that was Muhammad a prophet or founder. This is relative. That is all the case. İsmail Kendir (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC) How de we know he was the founder? it is because before he announced Islam existed, there is not a single person calling themselves a muslim and following Islam. Religion is not like a river or distant island that can exist before being discovered: religion is a belief system, and if no one believes it, it can not exist. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Founder is not the true word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundern't

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

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

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

Alternative Introductory Sentence Suggest

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

Introductory Sentence:

Muhammad (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, pronounced [muˈħammad]; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a former merchant, an Arabian religious, philosophical, social and political leader, the last prophet in Islam.

References

Short Description:

"Religious leader and main prophet of Islam"

No. "Last prophet in Islam" presumes that Islam existed before Muhammad. It did not. This is for the simple reason that the ENGLISH word "Islam" (not its Arabic root) is specifically defined as the religion promulgated by Muhammad and practiced by those who followed him. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

He is the last prophet in Islam. This is our belief. According to Islam, the only religion God sent has existed since humanity emerged and different religions are only falsification. We all know that Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet according to Islamic belief. That sentence "The last prophet in Islam" implies that in Islamic belief, Muhammad (pbuh) is the last prophet sent by God. There is no presume or imply that this belief is the truth or not. İsmail Kendir (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may have intended for it to mean that "he is the last prophet according to Islamic belief", but that is not what you wrote. What you wrote implies that said belief is factual. --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Bruh, "In Islam" is literally same imply with "According to Islam" my friend, no need to write at longer one since they both mean the same. In fact, there is no problem other than prolonging the word. We can write any of two. It sounds okay to me as long as there is no relative statement like the "founder". İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not your "bruh", bruh. And by the evidence of your writing here, you are not qualified to make that determination. I'm sure many horrendously flawed manglings of the English language sound okay to you, but that does not mean we should use them here. --Khajidha (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The word "bruh" does not mean brother, I used it in a sense like "Dude, this is very meaningless." And also I wouldn't call you bro, because your Wiki career is almost the same as my age. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I ain't your "dude" either. And, I say again, what you have written does not mean what you are wanting it to mean. Far from being "meaningless", your proposed wording puts this website in the position of affirming the truth of one particular religion. That is NOT acceptable. --Khajidha (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What would you like me to tell you; Khajidha, Prince of Wiki, his highness? Anyway, I thought a bit, and it is more proper to Wikipedia if we write as "in Islamic belief" to be honest. Let's do it? İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to call me anything. If there is a need to specify that you are speaking to me, Khajidha will do fine. You don't know me well enough to call me "dude" or "bruh", doing so projects a dismissive attitude. Your smart ass comments about "Prince of Wiki" or "his highness" are more of the same. We already mention that Muslims consider the movement started by Muhammad to be a continuation and restoration of preexisting religion, so I'm not sure what you are arguing for. In short, there is nothing that needs changing.--Khajidha (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I invite you to being decent urgently, you judge me for calling you dude but you call me "smart ass" above! Even my dad didn't call me that, so who do you think you are though? Now if we back to the main issue, Muslims consider Muhammad (pbuh) as a messenger appointed by God. If you ignore this assignment in our belief and describe Muhammad (pbuh) as the true owner of the message, it will both be despotism and it deviates Wikipedia from the neutral point of view. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

1) I didn't call you a smart ass, I said that those were smart ass comments. Perhaps "snarky" or "sarcastic" would have been better word choices. 2) You will note that that comment came after you had already made several dismissive comments towards me. 3) I am not seeing your point here. Muhammad founding Islam has nothing to do with whether or not Islam preaches a true message. --Khajidha (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Let ne explain with an example: If a building has been built, the architect will be referred to as the founder of the construction, not the builders. The worker who was ordered to build the Islamic building was Muhammad (pbuh). If you refer to him as the founder, it may mean denying that God the architect. İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"If a building has been built, the architect will be referred to as the founder of the construction, not the builders." Um... no. The architect is the designer of the building. It is the builders who lay the foundation. The architect creates the idea, the builders bring that idea into the real world. Which is just the relationship between Allah and Muhammad in Islam. Allah created the revelation, Muhammad brought it into the world. --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad (pbuh) is the builder He is not the founder, he is not the top on the Islamic hierarchy, Allah is. Upon all of these talks, it is still best to write as "last prophet in islamic belief" for all.

No, it really isn't mate. This particular sentence is rather highly biased. He is/was the founder.2605:A601:A880:8C00:B559:1BC4:87F0:A2EA (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I ain't biased, you are. İsmail Kendir (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. every edit you have made has had a distinct POV, and you have been blocked once already for it. Please stop this "I am right" attitude, it does not wash here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I have tried to reach out to İsmail Kendir on his talkpage in order to convey that exact point. If that doesn't wash for you İsmail Kendir, then perhaps a better wiki for you to argue your personal point of view could be WikiIslam. This place is an encyclopedic scientific entity and contributions to it should be as such.

On the basis of his own admission on his user page, he could be blocked under WP:NOTHERE. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If it is written with a scientific entity, the item cannot write anything about it. No laboratory has scientifically proven the existence or non-existence of God. The only thing to do is to say, "This is the case according to Islam". Going beyond this would not be neutral. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering that no one has said anything about the existence or non-existence of God, I don't understand what your point here is. --Khajidha (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral science cannot falsify religion. It tells impartially. The answer to the question of whether religion is true or false is hidden in reasoning. In other words, saying that Muhammad is the founder of Islam cannot be objectively proved. Because another group of people will say that Muhammad was not the founder, but was assigned by God only to act as an intermediary. In short, kalam would be better if we say "the last prophet of God according to Islam" as a more natural and impartial expression. İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

So then, how much of the Muhammad page needs to be "according to Islam"? Doesn't the page already say that enough as it is? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

And saying that Muhammad was the founder of Islam has no bearing on whether he was sent by God or not. "Founding Islam" refers only to starting the movement in the physical world, it has nothing to do with inspiration or divine missions. --Khajidha (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No need for firm and harsh statements. It can be written more kindly, understandably, at least not to cause such controversy. You may not see a problem in the word founder, but also look at the following example: The Kaaba was built by Adam, as it deteriorated over time, Abraham and Ismail reconstructed it. However, while explaining this, they are not defined as the builders of the kaaba, it is said that they built the kaaba by the order of Allah. Even if you do not say that, you should at least say this: "Muslims believe that Abraham built the Kaaba due to the order of Allah."<br> <br>Briefly, you should write it like that:

"Muhammad (Arabic: مُحَمَّد, pronounced [muˈħammad]; b. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a former merchant, an Arabian religious, philosophical, social and political leader, the last prophet of the God and only prophet sent to all humans and jinns per to Islamic teaching." İsmail Kendir (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Before Muhammed no Islam, without Muhammed no Islam. Muhammed allegedly introduced a body of texts, later(after his death by uthmann) compiled together in order of the length of chapters, to a book. But without the "guidance" of Muhammed it makes little sense, so in the centuries that followed the Muslim community made a FAQ what would Muhammed do(Hadith). Muhammed founded and defined the religion of Islam, regardless of the esoteric understandings of Islams followers. There is nothing neutral in muslims, christians or any other religious self understanding and being right is a matter of salvation. This is not about your feelings or mine for that matter.

<space added to separate my comment from unsigned one above>If Adam, Abraham, and Ismail built the kaaba, then they were its builders. That's just how those words work. It is nonsensical to say that someone who built something is not the builder of that thing. That's just basic English. Whether it was under the direction of Allah or not doesn't matter. --Khajidha (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We need a new FAQ entry about "founder"

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

Q6: Muslims consider Muhammad as a messenger. Why does the article say he is the "founder" of Islam?

A6: While the Muslim viewpoint is already presented in the article, a Wikipedia biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed and Muhammad was its messenger is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Wikipedia cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of certain words

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

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

Request on removal of a line as it contradicts with the Quran and is false

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, you are rightious on one point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

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

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

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

We need to change the answer of sixth question in the FAQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's analyze the proposal:

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

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

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

• That isn't relevant.

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

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

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

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

Muhammad and Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is, however, certain that Muḥammad did speak in this place and utter the famous sentence, for the account of this event has been preserved, either in a concise form or in detail, not only by al-Yaʿḳūbī, whose sympathy for the ʿAlid cause is well known, but also in the collections of traditions which are considered as canonical, especially in the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal; and the ḥadīt̲h̲s are so numerous and so well attested by the different isnāds that it does not seem possible to reject them.[2]

I also want to point out that Adigabrek's statement that "there are no non-islamic traditinoal sources that state he ever used "his teachings and practices" (sunnah)" seems to show a misunderstanding regarding early Islamic history. There are in fact no non-Islamic sources about Muhammad dating from his lifetime full stop. The earliest only date from the first decades after his death, and even these are regarding only the most rudimentary details. What is discussed in the article regarding Muhammad's life originate from Islamic sira.[3][4] There is no reason to specifically single out accounts of Muhammad's practices as having originated from Islamic traditions.
Alivardi (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunnah represents actions and sayings of Muhammad (preserved in reports known as Hadith) and covers a broad array of activities and beliefs ranging from religious rituals, personal hygiene, and burial of the dead to the mystical questions involving the love between humans and God. The Sunnah is considered a model of emulation for pious Muslims and has to a great degree influenced the Muslim culture. The greeting that Muhammad taught Muslims to offer each other, "may peace be upon you" (Arabic: as-salamu 'alaykum) is used by Muslims throughout the world. Many details of major Islamic rituals such as daily prayers, the fasting and the annual pilgrimage are only found in the Sunnah and not the Quran.

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

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

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

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

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

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

Islam

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

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

The term central figure instead of founder or last prophet

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad the trustworthy

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021 (2)

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

==Family tree==

Kilab ibn Murrah

Fatimah bint Sa'd

Zuhrah ibn Kilab (progenitor of Banu Zuhrah) maternal great-great-grandfather

Qusai ibn Kilab paternal great-great-great-grandfather

Hubba bint Hulail paternal great-great-great-grandmother

`Abd Manaf ibn Zuhrah maternal great-grandfather

`Abd Manaf ibn Qusai paternal great-great-grandfather

Atikah bint Murrah paternal great-great-grandmother

Wahb ibn `Abd Manaf maternal grandfather

Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf (progenitor of Banu Hashim) paternal great-grandfather

Salma bint `Amr paternal great-grandmother

Fatimah bint `Amr paternal grandmother

`Abdul-Muttalib paternal grandfather

Halah bint Wuhayb paternal step-grandmother

Aminah mother

`Abdullah father

Az-Zubayr paternal uncle

Harith paternal half-uncle

Hamza paternal half-uncle

Thuwaybah first nurse

Halimah second nurse

Abu Talib paternal uncle

`Abbas paternal half-uncle

Abu Lahab paternal half-uncle

6 other sons and 6 daughters

Muhammad

Khadija first wife

`Abd Allah ibn `Abbas paternal cousin

Fatimah daughter

Ali paternal cousin and son-in-law family tree, descendants

Qasim son

`Abd-Allah son

Zainab daughter

Ruqayyah daughter

Uthman second cousin and son-in-law family tree

Umm Kulthum daughter

Zayd adopted son

Ali ibn Zainab grandson

Umamah bint Zainab granddaughter

`Abd-Allah ibn Uthman grandson

Rayhana bint Zayd wife

Usama ibn Zayd adoptive grandson

Muhsin ibn Ali grandson

Hasan ibn Ali grandson

Husayn ibn Ali grandson family tree

Umm Kulthum bint Ali granddaughter

Zaynab bint Ali granddaughter

Safiyya tenth wife

Abu Bakr father-in-law family tree

Sawda third wife

Umar father-in-law family tree

Umm Salama sixth wife

Juwayriya eighth wife

Maymuna eleventh wife

Aisha third wife Family tree

{{{Zaynab bint Khuzaymah}}}

Hafsa fourth wife

Zaynab seventh wife

Umm Habiba ninth wife

Maria al-Qibtiyya twelfth wife

Ibrahim son

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

What’s the point of this ¿?

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

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

Regards,

Adin

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

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

Full stops before or after quotation marks or both

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

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

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

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

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

What does mean "founder" means?

Discussion closed because topic has diverged into WP:NOTAFORUM violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In what sense is the word "founder" used on this page? J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC) in the sense that there was no organised religion called Islam, with all its rituals and dogma before Mohammed's writings detailed it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC) So you say "this word senses that Islam and Quran Karim is fabricated by Muhammad and the thing that other prophets lectured was not the same thing as he lectured"; astaghfurillah. Anyway, did I get your word correct? If that's what the word founder mean, sorry pal, you guys have to revert your claim on being neutral. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Sorry pal, there was no Islam before Mohammed, there was Islam after Mohammed, He founded the religion. IdreamofJeanie (talk) This is your subjective belief, and not mine. You got an unrefutable argument shows us that there was no Islam before him and/or people didn't falsificated the God's word that we can't even know they done that? You say there was no Islam before Muhammed, but no. It can't be said that Muhammad fabricated the Islam just because we couldn't find a physical proof, cuz you also not have one that proves otherwise. Neither you nor I don't know what happened, just have beliefs. What if God revelated the message, why are you not believing this and believe Muhammed is false prophet? Is there a situation between these two subjective beliefs that enables one of them to be stronger in terms of neutrality? J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J, put simply, if you want to claim something existed, you need to prove it existed, whether it is Islam or Russell's teapot. Yes, non-existance is the accepted, default, common-sense position. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Who said non-existence is the default and common-sense belief? Ignorants, maybe, but I dont think they did. Who could managed to prove this? Nobody. You can prove that there is no elephant in a drawer without opening it, because you have a brain. If the universe had not been created, you could bring proof of it, because you have a brain. For an evidence to be true, it does not need to be objective, reason is sufficient, even if an objective proof of the existence of something has not been discovered, it does not change the fact that the other person does not show an objective proof. Or because you can't see inside the drawer or because the claimant has to prove his claim, can't you prove that there is no elephant in the drawer? You can prove, because elephant doesn't fit to drawer. But you can't prove universe is uncreated, because this logic doesn't fit to human brain. J-ğğğ-ğğğ-J (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Science offers a perfectly sound, logical, progressive explanation without recourse to magic. Oh and yes, science works with brains too. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Muhammad founded Islam, simply put he came before Islam and after left Islam in his wake. This in effect causes him to be the founder. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:5577:4E5E:BE79:EF6D (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Even if what previous prophets taught was the same as what Muhammad taught, that doesn't mean it was Islam. It means that Islam incorporated those previous teachings into a new whole. What existed before included Christianity, Judaism, and the predecessors, descendants, and variants of those. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor change

In the introduction the following is stated:

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021 (2)

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Your Article about Mohammad (SAW)

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

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

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

Islamic prophet

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

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

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

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

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

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