Talk:Muhammad/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Recent neutrality concerns

For long years, I've been a constant reader of Wikipedia articles, and I have great interest in some specific articles that I continuously read due to how much I learn from them and refresh my memory through the information provided therein. One of these articles is that of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

As I always expect from a secular encyclopedia like yourselves when it comes to a religious figure to not relate his life from the perspective of either an admirer nor a critic, but rather will show the facts in a neutral manner regardless of personal beliefs which might result different interpretations based on how the reader may approach such tales.

Until few days ago, this aforementioned article was exactly as I'm describing, and had been so for years with very few and limited changes that might have occurred over those years that doesn't really ruin the methodology which this article had been written accordingly!

I have been shocked when I opened it recently to find about 90% of it being changed, information are provided in a very biased manner that is clearly intending to criticize the person of Muhammad and to not merely relate his life to the public readers, and at many times, the references provided in this newly edited article are written by a well-known critics of Islam, while labelling most Muslim beliefs as ''propaganda'' or ''criterion of embarrassment'', while praising any activity against Islam and defending it it throughout the article as its clear in every incident there's a conflict in the life of Muhammad.

I recommend that the original article which had been there for years to replace this newly edited one to preserve the honesty and neutral intent of this website, especially when it comes to a figure that left a great impact in this world and captivated the hearts of billions of human beings throughout history. Jopharocen (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, Jopharocen, it's certainly the case that User:Kaalakaa has made a significant number of changes to the article since 12 June; in fact, the vast majority, but not all, of the changes in in that time in this diff are atributable to that user. There are a lot of changes to consider. Can you give examples of what you are complaining about? DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly,

I'll need to write down another article to refute many of the claims made by that user, as its clear that most changes were made by certain individual or group of individuals solely to defame Muhammad and not to merely relate facts regardless of personal interpretations.

Lets start with the Satanic verses recorded in the newly-edited article, it was already there long before the changes while affirming that Muslim scholars reject it due to being weakly transmitted, after the new edition, its related as if the rejection a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment". Lets quote it:

This satanic verses incident was reported en masse and recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam, which according to them corresponds to Quran 22:52. But since the rise of the hadith movement and systematic theology with its new doctrines, including the isma, which claimed that Muhammad was infallible and thus could not be fooled by Satan, the historical memory of the early community has been reevaluated. And as of the 20th century AD, Muslim scholars unanimously rejected this incident.

This part, although funny, cannot even be described as criticism, its nothing but defamation as it contains an obvious false information for no reason other than defaming the person of Muhammad.

The part which says that the Satanic verses "recorded by virtually every compiler of a major biography of Muhammad in the first two centuries of Islam" is untrue as Ibn Hisham, who is the main source for the Prophet's biography didn't include it due to how bogus is it. Also Quran 22:52 was revealed - by consensus of Muslim scholars - in Medina, and the alleged incident of Satanic verses took place in Mecca. Its ridiculous to believe that Muslims continued for years to believe in pagan idols as intercessors, even after migrating to Medina! Why would Quraysh continue to persecute them anyway?

Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67. The funniest part is when it claims the story is rejected unanimously by 20th century! How futile this claim is to believe that for 14 centuries Muslims believed that their prophet having sought intercession from idols!

In short, the Satanic verses was never recounted in any canonical book of hadith, and was only recounted by historians who never made genuinity a condition in their methodology. Tabari for example made it clear that he is not responsible for anything he relates as he relates it the way he heard it without verification of the authenticity.

Lets use another example how clearly the editor intended to belittle the Prophet, and not to merely relate facts, take a look at this when it spoke of Isra and Mi'raj miracle believed by all Muslims worldwide:

There is considered no substantial basis for the Mi'raj in the Quran, as the Quran does not address it directly and emphasizes that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran.

This claim is only made by non-Muslim critics of Islam, especially Christian missionaries, as both Sunni and Shia Muslims believe that Muhammad performed many miracles! The uniqueness of the Quran is in being the only living miracle witnessed by everyone at every time, but not as the only miracle, so the editor is using his own personal interpretation of the Quran, because he is unaware that the Quran itself mentioned several miracles by Muhammad in in verses like 8:9, 30:1-4, 53:14-1, and others. I'll not mention another ridiculous claim by the editor regarding al-Masjid al-Aqsa not being in Jerusalem.

I can mention tons of false information in this article after being edited, but I'll end my reply with this, which shows the use of language to be purely intending to defame, not to relate a fact by any means, lets take a look how the author related the marriage of the Prophet from Safiyyah:

Muhammad claimed Safiyya bint Huyayy, a beautiful 17-year-old girl, from among the captives. Following the battle, her husband, Kinana ibn al-Rabi, was put through torture by Muhammad's decree for declining to reveal his tribe’s hidden wealth, and subsequently beheaded. Her father and brother had been executed during the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Overwhelmed by her beauty, Muhammad had sex with her the very night, contradicting his own mandate that his followers should wait for the captives' next menstrual cycle to begin before having intercourse.

I'll not mention that the torture of Kinanah cannot be authenticated, but the use of word Muhammad had sex with her the very night, as if he did that by force, not mentioning that he married her after he offered 2 choices for her: either to remain Jewess and manumit her and return to her people, or to embrace Islam and become his wife. She chose the latter, as related by Ibn Sa'd and many other early authors! Of course all of this is ignored so that the reader get the impression of that she was forced into this. Also the lie that he consummated the marriage with her without waiting the next menstrual cycle is refuted by a hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari 2235 Book 34, Hadith 181, as the tradition said:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) selected her for himself and he set out in her company till he reached Sadd-ar-Rawha' where her menses were over and he married her.

I can continue to refute all of those claims, but it will take a very long time as they're so many, and those are just few examples. Analogically, the rest are edited in the same biased manner as it became more like an article on WikiIslam and not Wikipedia. I urge anyone who is responsible to go back to the archive of this article to see how fairly written it used to be and to go back to how it was.

Thanks a lot. Jopharocen (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

“Virtually" means "almost" or "nearly", not "all". Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, because:

God willing I shall begin this book ... (of) the prophet's biography and omitting some of the things which I.I. (Ibn Ishaq) has recorded in this book ... things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people …
— "Ibn Hisham’s Notes" in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Oxford University Press (1998), ISBN: 0196360331, p. 691

Furthermore, please refer to WP:NOR and WP:NOTCENSORED – Kaalakaa (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please bear in mind the way its written, its not just about this part. Ibn Hisham did modify it and removed parts that cannot be authenticated and that the people are rejecting at his time. Actually Ibn Ishaq's own biography is lost and we only know it through Ibn Hisham and Tabari.

I'll not repeat the rest of what I said regarding this part specifically, as I already mentioned that the Satanic verses tale was already there long before the changes and had no problem with it as mentioned that despite it being mentioned in some earliest sources its rejected due to how weakly transmitted is it, and not due to being a later belief among Muslims due to "criterion of embarrassment" as the editor later added. There's a huge difference between the word of a historian and the word of a scholar whose methodology to relate what is genuine only.

My question also is that why an unprofessional is allowed to edit this whole article and make such significant changes while the rest of the readers cannot do that? Why can't we edit it and provide tons of references for every word? Jopharocen (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, that's the full part of what Ibn Hisham said in his notes on Ibn Ishaq, using the same source without cherry-picking:

God willing I shall begin this book with Isma'il son of Ibrahim and mention those of his offspring who were the ancestors of God's apostle one by one with what is known about them, taking no account of Isma'il's other children, omitting some of the things which I.I. has recorded in this book in which there is no mention of the apostle and about which the Quran says nothing and which are not relevant to anything in this book or an explanation of it or evidence for it; poems which he quotes that no authority on poetry whom I have met knows of; things which it is disgraceful to discuss; matters which would distress certain people; and such reports as al-Bakka'i told me he could not accept as trustworthy - all these things I have omitted. But God willing I shall give a full account of everything else so far as it is known and trustworthy tradition is available.

And also to bear in mind that both Ibn Hisham and Ibn Ishaq are great historians, but they were not experts in analyzing the authenticity of reports they relate, as they will need to return to scholars specialists in this for that matter, such as how Ibn Hisham did in some tales reported by Ibn Ishaq. Therefore when mentioning something rejected by Muslims from the very moment narrations got started to be authenticated, this must be taken into consideration and to not be regarded as a later invention by Muslims due to embarrassment. Jopharocen (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but your original research doesn’t matter here on Wikipedia. Post it on a blog or debate forum instead. This is not the place for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Its clear and obvious that you have nothing to reply by, since that's all what you have to say.

One of the rules in this "secular" encyclopedia is to relate facts in a neutral manner and not as a criticism let alone defamation. Your edition is nothing but biased information where you included your own personal interpretations. 196.132.36.47 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Then present your case as you see fit. This could do with some more input. --SinoDevonian (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what do you mean.

Its obvious that this article is no longer neutral (as per Wikipedia's guidelines) and clearly defaming the figure its talking about since June 12, as an unprofessional user suddenly decided to change almost all of it to suit his whims.

Its not an editable article due to how important the main character of it, and therefore only professional editor must be selected for it.

I'm willing to provide more evidence how clearly this article is subjective even beyond the parts I mentioned, whom the editor couldn't address any of them and simply told me to go somewhere else, why he doesn't go to WikiIslam instead since he failed to be neutral and professional and preferred his personal thoughts over the guidelines?

Please all I'm seeking is to be fair and neutral as those are the guidelines of this website for any article. Review the article, take a look at how it used to be for years since 2006 and how suddenly it was completely changed since June 12. I believe such comparison is enough. Jopharocen (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response or action taken against this obvious defamation? Based on what the editors are selected for the protected articles that are non-editable? Jopharocen (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Ibn Ishaq included this incident in his biography of Muhammad (p. 165-167), while his student Ibn Hisham did not, ...

Since the original work written by Ibn ʾIsḥāq is entirely lost, how were you able to determine that Ibn ʾIsḥāq did write it while Ibn Hishām did not? يوسف قناوة (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jopharocen: There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. It may take a while for people to respond.

As far as I can tell from reading this discussion, your objections are grounded in original research (your interpretations of primary sources), and that isn't permitted in articles. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. That is one of the policies (non-negotiable foundational rules) that govern content here. Content must be based on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic.

While I feel that some of Kaalakaa's changes were unnecessary, they are at least cited to reliable sources. If Kaalakaa cited any unreliable sources, it would be helpful to point them out for discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you show me where exactly I used my own interpretations of primary sources? You're merely using my own argument against Kaalaaka, who was clearly using his own interpretation of primary sources which is the focus of my criticism if you but read the discussion as you said.

I'll not keep repeating myself again, I already showed how there are false claims and misuse of words, none of you responded to them nor he could, as you can see he merely responded to a line and ignored the rest and ignored even my response to it, as clearly there's no response as the intention was just defamation, even Hitler's article is not written that way.

So if you think that such an attitude isn't permitted then that's why this article must be re-edited or return to how it used to be for years, not to counter-attack me with my very same argument against the editor. At least I proved how biased and subjective is it with no response in return, can you or Kaalaaka do the same to me and prove that I'm using my own personal interpretation instead of facts?

I know that there are no deadline on Wikipedia, but there's clearly guideline, and part of it is that any article must be neutral as its a secular encyclopedia with no political or religious orientation as per NPOV.

Muhammad's article after edition since June 12 is no different from an article written on WikiIslam where obvious defamation is clearly intended as aforementioned with several examples you can go back to them, especially with the misuse of words. Concerning non-reliable sources, you can take a look at this, sometimes there are no sources even:

Nowadays, Isra' is believed by Muslims to be the journey of Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem, while Mi'raj is from Jerusalem to the heavens.

There's not even a reference or source to such a false information regarding that this belief is related to nowadays Muslims, no source provided, as its a personal interpretation by the editor. And this:

there is disagreement among Islamic traditions as to the identity of the "furthest place of prayer.

No source or reference provided for this claim either as there's no disagreement among Islamic tradition regarding that the further place of prayer is in Jerusalem, but the editor merely put his own views in such writings to simply say almost all Muslim beliefs are propaganda, or criterion of embarrassment as clearly those two terms were used in other parts of the article. Is this really a neutral article?

That's an example of a non-sourced information, and concerning non-reliable sources is when you base your writings on books written by well-known critics of Islam like Tom Holland or Nabeel Qureshi, who are not even scholars, or David Bukay. Unless your definition of reliable sources is any book written by anyone! And surely that's not how a respectable research is written, which mean that not even any book written by western academics can be considered reliable if not examined with other books connected to the earliest era. Previous article was written in the normal neutral way, but not this one.

Again, just do the comparison between the old one and the newly-edited one to see the difference, and how the editor solely intended to defame as the old article didn't suit his wishes. Jopharocen (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets use a 4th example apart from the 3 examples I aforementioned in my longest reply in this thread.

When narrating the assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, a Nadirite clansman whose tribe pledged allegiance to Muhammad upon his arrival, who after the victory of the Muslims at the battle of Badr - according to the article - went to the Quraysh enemies and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason as it came from someone who is politically an ally, the editor mentioned it as an act of murder for a personal matter, rather than a punishment for treason:

Having dealt with the Qaynuqa, Muhammad moved on to another personal matter. His staunch critic, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, a wealthy half-Jewish man from Banu Nadir, had just come back from Mecca after producing poetry that mourned the death of the Quraysh at Badr and aroused them to retaliate. Muhammad asked his followers, "Who is ready to murder Ka'b, who has hurt God and His apostle?" Ibn Maslama offered his services, explaining that the task would require deception. Muhammad did not contest this. He then gathered accomplices, including Ka'b's foster brother, Abu Naila. They pretended to complain about their post-conversion hardships, persuading Ka'b to lend them food. On the night of their meeting with Ka'b, they murdered him when he was caught off-guard.

Thank goodness, a Muslim source is one of the few to be mentioned here, but when going back to it, we cannot find the word murder anywhere, as Muhammad's quote was mistranslated as it was taken directly from David Bukay's Islam and the Infidels: The Politics of Jihad, Da'wah, and Hijrah in chapter List of Muhammad’s Orders to Murder People., a clear biased source which maintain to depict Muhammad as an anti-Semitic, another problem must be dealt with in the newly-edited article, as, although the conflict of Muhammad with some Jewish tribes or individuals has been always in the article, but to make it seems like it was due to anti-Semitic motivation is only made after the new edition.

If Wikipedia suddenly decided to maintain a specific point of view on the prophet of Islam due to being anti-Islamic, I'll be fine, as I'm fine with WikiIslam as its their objective. But you can't describe Wikipedia as neutral and present this as a guideline and at the same time present a subjective and biased view on the prophet of Islam! You have to be fair and avoid personal orientation when relating facts to public readers if your guideline dictate that you must present a neutral point of view. Jopharocen (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is from Sahih Bukhari no. 4037

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"

or should we include this as well? Sahih Muslim 1767a

Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

NPOV here does not mean that the article has to be ‘neutral’, but rather means neutrally reflecting what the sources say. For example, if someone commits rape, we include that fact without sugarcoating it. Not covering it up or having to look for positive stories about him to offset the negative fact. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As an editor of such a protected article you need to be more professional than that!

In nowhere I denied the incident to quote a hadith for me! My objection was clear that it was regarding putting your personal interpretation for the incident as you described it as a murder for a personal matter, which is solely your interpretation, contradicted by what you yourself said as that Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state - provoked the enemy who were just defeated by the Muslims and aroused them to retaliate, which is an obvious act of treason punished by death.

Thank you anyway for quoting the hadith to prove that you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder in the hadith mentioned in the article.

So you didn't respond to my objection but rather quoted a hadith to prove the incident which I never denied - a strawman fallacy - simply because you have nothing to say as you did in your previous futile reply, and I expect you to do the same in every time.

In nowhere I demanded you to cover anything up, I merely demanded you to remove your subjective motivation and to relate the facts as they are without fabricating them through your personal interpretation and mistranslation, which you just proved it against yourself by quoting this hadith.

The latter hadith you mentioned is unrelated to this discussion anyway. Jopharocen (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who is responsible shall really take a look at this to see the motivation of the editor who changed almost all the article since June 12 and explain to me the criteria in this website for the editor who is allowed to edit a protected article related to a man who is followed by 25% of humanity, and to justify why the rest of us cannot do the same? Why this article is protected anyway if any passerby can be allowed to change and put his whims in it? Jopharocen (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b - who is politically an ally to the Islamic state

Once again, we don’t give a damn about your theories. And we’re under no obligation to satisfy you.

you have lied in mistranslating the word kill to murder

And a similar case with “virtually” before. If you look for synonyms of kill, you’ll find murder among them. But whatever, I'll change this one to "kill", not that big of a deal.

a man who is followed by 25% of humanity

We don’t care. Adam, Eve, even Noah’s flood story are considered myths here. Kaalakaa (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ka'b being a political ally to the Islamic state is not my own theory, its part of the covenant made between Muhammad and the Jews - which included Bani Nadir - in the constitution of Medina:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

Why shall we give a damn to your ignorance of history, and later to your own personal interpretation regarding that it was a personal matter when you yourself contradicted that as I aforementioned when you said he aroused the Meccans to wage war against the Muslims?

Murder is the same as killing? Are you really a researcher or know anything about definition of word? So when a man is killed by the government because of treason or because of murder will this action be called murder as well? A simple search in any dictionary will laugh at you. Take a look at this: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/murder

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/kill

Any murder is a killing, but not any killing is a murder, a killing taken place in war combat is not a murder. What a wonderful linguist you are, and got the credibility to edit a non-editable article? Lol

As for Adam & Eve, Noah's flood, or Exodus being considered myths from a secular perspective is not an issue, as its not an issue to consider Isra' and Mi'raj as myths. But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.

As usual, you never address any of my points and address something else in return which you later regret having addressed it. If you became brave to admit that the use of the word murder is wrong, why don't you become brave as well regarding the other topics you refused to discuss? How about having sex with Safiyyah without saying that it was a marriage? Don't you see how clearly dishonest you are? Jopharocen (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist @Trans-Neptunian object

Is this person "Kaalakaa" with his attitude toward a criticism really represent Wikipedia? I'm sure if anyone can look with a fair eyes at his words will see how dishonest he is, especially that when he failed, he started to be subjective toward me as he does in his edition of the article, without addressing my point, as we don't give a damn to you is not a professional way of talking, as the discussion was turned to be against me and not to my point, let alone being credible to edit such an article.

I still ask the same question, if such person is allowed to change almost the entire article with such poor knowledge and misuse of words all over, why the rest of us cannot do the same, what are the criteria which allowed him to do that? Jopharocen (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should we bother refuting each of your original research? Like I already told you multiple times, if you want to debate about your understandings of the hadith, sira, and so on, this is not the place for it. Go to FaithFreedom or other similar websites instead, as this is not a forum. Also, the three major Jewish tribes, including the Banu Nadir, are not included in that so-called constitution of medina, and some scholars argue that it was merely a unilateral proclamation by Muhammad. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I never included my understanding of anything, I merely showed facts regardless of interpretation, something which you never did in your research.

I'm not here to debate, but to show how facts got fabricated and distorted on a website that is supposed to be neutral, and to not include personal interpretation of the editor, as you failed to defend them or prove them, and all you have to say is "go away". I never even requested to speak to you.

As for Bani Nadir whether included in the constitution or not, I think if you have a clue about the article you have edited, you would have known that Muhammad became the head of state in Medina after the Hijrah, which included all of that tribes that were living there. And when, as mentioned in the article, Bani Nadir attempted to assassinate him, he sent them the letter: By your purposing to slay me, ye have broken the pact I made with you. (Lings p. 203) Which mean there was a pact already established, but due to your poor knowledge, you were unaware of that. And after the assassination of Ka'b, in the words of Lings, according to al-Waqidi - Muhammad invited them - that is Bani Nadir - to make a special treaty with him in addition to the covenant, and this they did. (Lings p. 171)

So do you think seeing an obvious misinterpretation, mistranslation, and intended defamation, anyone must pass by that silently and greet you for it and has no right to clarify that and the response to be "go away"?

You must take the responsibility for every letter you write, and if you don't have the courage to do that, then you shouldn't have written it from the beginning. Jopharocen (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what unilateral means? In which part of the constitution of Medina lists Banu Nadir? And being in a pact with another tribe in a city doesn’t automatically make someone a head of the city or a state. Kaalakaa (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand what unilateral means, but this is merely the opinion of Bernard Lewis, which is not based on a comprehensive reading, and this must be taken into consideration.

The constitution referred to the Jews in general in Medina, and later specified specific matters for certain clans. And I have already provided references to that there was a formal pact between Muhammad and the Bani Nadir, but you have ignored it as usual.

As for how Muhammad became the head of state in Medina, according to the article you've been editing:

In 620, his uncle al-Abbas, who had not yet converted to Islam, introduced him to political elite of the Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws in Medina and coordinated a meeting at Aqaba. The two clans had been in conflict against one another for years, with each trying to court the support of the Jewish tribes in the area. In order to readjust their political relationship, they sought a political leader from outside, and considered Muhammad, with his authority based on religious claims, would be in a better position to act as an impartial arbiter than any resident of Medina.

How in 7th century Arabia a political leader will be elected if not through the pledge of the chiefs of the leading tribes of the town? And that's exactly what happened! Not sure if you'll go to fabricate this part after this discussion. I can provide you those information from early sources as well, or secondary sources other than the ones provided in the article, whatever you like. Jopharocen (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

So no response until now nor any action taken, despite the editor failing to respond nor being able to explain his point and is allowed to change the entire article right now as nothing of the original article is left anymore.

The editor who is clearly unqualified as proven in this discussion of being unaware of many facts related to the topic he was allowed to change it, and after personally attacking me and telling me we don't give a damn to you - using the word we all the time, as of speaking in Wikipedia's name - and running away from discussing his un-neutral and biased content, and the result after those many days which had passed is just silence, with more biased changes taking place in the article.

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit and change a protected article that is non-editable, without explaining what are the standards for the editors, as clearly there are no standards. Jopharocen (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion can be summed up like this: the article was not "changed to be attacking the person of Muhammad", it follows WP:NPOV and WP:RS, neutrally reporting what RS tell us. If RS tells us someone established world peace, then it's included; and if RS tells us someone did things considered great crimes, then it's included. You keep trying to include WP:OR, which is disallowed by fundamental rules, and you're making your extremely lengthy arguments in a clear case of WP:BLUDGEON which is very unhelpful to your cause. Wikipedia is not a forum or a place to wage holy wars or a place to express fanaticism. JM2023 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no holy wars or fanaticism in my criticism to the new edition, its merely an accusation for my person to avoid addressing my points. Please show where is holy war, or fanaticism in my discussion? Can you? Or you're just memorizing those terms to start using in such times?

The new edition is made by one editor and changed the entire article made by tons of editors before him (most of them were non-Muslims and relying on secondary sources written by non-Muslims as well) and relying solely on 2 or 3 sources which I can see them repeated in almost every paragraph. I provided my sources as well, which refuted many of what was newly-written in the article as well as many of what he failed to respond to and proved to have no answers except being motivated by defaming the main figure of the article, which is obvious to the blind, especially through his responses in this thread.

A figure like Muhammad, there are tons of views on him by historians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and not all sources agree on the view provided by the user Kaalakaa, who simply replied by we don't give a damn to your interpretation. A violation of avoiding personal attacks, which none took an action against it either.

Until this moment, no one addressed my points, all I read in return is its not a forum, what's the need for Muhammad:talk to exist if that's the way you shut up any criticism you refuse to respond to?

Also, based on what you say, it means this article before Kaalakaa was not following Wikipedia's guidelines since 2004 (maybe?) until June 12, 2023. Is Kaalakaa the new Wikipedia's hero who came to reform all Islam-related articles since 2004 to suit his views? Jopharocen (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope one day to see a response to my points instead of throwing lame accusations on me, I'm not sure if this is the new policy here or what. For I'm about to feel like I'm the main figure of this article as everytime the discussion is turned on me away from what I say lol.

But as I can see, despite I'm being the first one to note this, there are tons of others arguing about the same issue now. Good, at least from now on, no one will take this article seriously anymore, as the obvious defamation had been smelled by many readers.

Good for you all, keep it as it is, but no one will take you seriously anymore. Jopharocen (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, after reading the latter threads, I can see that many users who were in my thread like @DeCausa and @Anachronist are planning to revert the article to what it used to be till June, which mean I'm not merely waging a holy war as you're claiming. Jopharocen (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa @Anachronist

After reading the latter discussions after me, I can see that many requested for clarifying what is un-neutral and what must be edited. I've mentioned many points here and discussed them in details (they are not the only ones of course, otherwise it will be an entire article written in this thread, but I can provide more if anyone would request that), both of you can kindly reread my replies again, as I showed how personal interpretation was provided by user @Kaalakaa as well as mistranslation and misuse of words, and others, many of which he refused to respond to, and replied by we don't give a damn.

As I have written many times in this thread, such an attitude shows clearly the motivation of the new editor that he merely intended to defame, and not to relate facts as they are. As anybody know that there are tons and tons of views on Muhammad, and we cannot simply rely on one view in an article that is supposed to provide a neutral view. Jopharocen (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:WALLOFTEXT, be concise and keep your text in one reply instead of four. We are busy and don't have a lot of time to read walls of text. Enough of the policy/guideline violations listed previously. Muhammad's article is going to present RS from NPOV whether individual commentators like it or not. No-one has any time or need to answer your long-winded essays point-by-point, just read the FAQ at the top of the page and follow policy and guidelines. If you would like to improve the article, use RS to present consensus and mainstream secular scholarship from NPOV. JM2023 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You're not obliged to respond to me if you're so busy, especially if you're not willing to address my points and came to attack me and throw lame accusations you can't prove to avoid discussing the matter.

Almost every reader is now agreeing with me, and many users are planning to change it, I already provided references to what I said, and no need to repeat myself again to you as I have other things to do in life as well, you're not the only busy person in the world.

Keep up the good work, and don't bother replying to me if you have nothing to say. Jopharocen (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Inflammatory and false responses are unwelcome. JM2023 (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As usual, throwing accusations on me that most likely you're the one doing.

Its a waste of time indeed to turn the discussion defending myself or doing a counter-attack on someone instead of addressing the points of my criticism, as I'm not in a court.

As I said, you don't need to respond to me as long as you'll not address my points. Likewise, I'm not going to respond if the response has nothing to do with this discussion. Jopharocen (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for the forum-style arguments with editors you keep engaging in. Stick to discussing improvements to the article without using your original research and instead using reliable sources from a neutral (secular) POV, and read the FAQ at the top of the page before making the same arguments that have been made and dismissed literally thousands of times. This is not an Islamic wiki. JM2023 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that already, and that's what I requested @Kaalakaa to do as he violated the guidelines, you can't prove that I did any of what are you claiming.

No need to repeat myself over and over, and no need to keep turning my very same arguments against the user against me, as no original research is included, rather, @Kaalakaa is the one who puts his personal interpretation to the article, and sometimes without providing sources as I've explained previously with details. I provided references, I did that with sources that were always acceptable in this article.

But obviously, you never read what I've written and merely came here to throw lame accusations to avoid discussing my points.

Again, this is the last time I'm going to respond to an accusation with no proof. At least whenever I criticize I provide what prove my word, not just throwing accusations. And if you have no interest to discuss my points or my criticism, you don't need to reply to me. Jopharocen (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that you're not coming at this from NPOV, intentionally or not. There are no unfounded accusations, there are plain observations. Kaalakaa violated no guidelines, that's an unfounded accusation. You using OR and POV comes off plainly from your many, many walls of text. Your "points" were discussed to death by previous editors before I summarized the situation. I have no need or reason to discuss them with anyone again. No amount of discussion is going to change that. Just follow the guidelines and read the FAQ when editing and discussing. This is going nowhere. If youre going to stop responding, just stop, no need to announce it over and over again. JM2023 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023

Unfounded accusation is when you throw lame accusations against me as you just did, without showing where exactly I waged a holy war or used my original research, which you love to repeat as a way to shut me up.

At least when I accused @Kaalakaa of violating the guidelines, I showed the reason for that, nothing was discussed to death, and @Kaalakaa's responses showed how ignorant he was of the very article he was editing.

As for why I've written walls of texts, that was based on the request made by users who told me to explain where is my objection, and I offered some, and its expected to be a long reply since I'm criticizing a whole article that was recently edited as a whole and changed in its entirety, and I had no objection to the article before June, as it was neutrally written as expected.

As for your saying Kaalaaka violated no guidelines, that's merely your opinion because you like the new article. Many here disagree, including users like yourselves.

So again, if you are unable to discuss my points or defend the new article with proofs that it was not biased as I proved in many parts of it, then you don't need to reply or bother talking with me, you once told me that you're very busy. Jopharocen (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to defend anything. I'm here trying to discourage you from breaking important guidelines that help the encyclopedia function properly. Other people also having objections has no bearing on wikipedia's stance on the new article's verifiability or neutrality insofar as there is no consensus. I understand a secular article about muhammad is going to be contentious but if people could control themselves this would go a lot more smoothly. JM2023 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is now quite an extraordinary amount of material single-sourced to Russ Rodgers, an obscure hobbyist of a historian whose work has been practically ignored by mainstream scholarship. Many of the claims made by Rodgers are themselves extraordinary in nature and fall within the remit of WP:ECREE and really demand the support of multiple reliable sources. (I have tagged these.) Other material attributed to Rodgers may also be undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

So after all your false accusations against Russ Rodgers in the below section are refuted, you come here and repeat the same thing? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I get the feeling that with a page as clearly contentious and important to certain special interest groups as Muhammad, circular and repetitive and never-ending arguments are endemic to its talk page. JM2023 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalakaa, There's some quite legitimate concerns raised by several editors about sources you are relying on. Some of your responses have been overly aggressive. The question Iskandar323 has raised deserves a proper answer. What I have noticed is that the common theme of the questions raised revolves around WP:DUE rather than whether sources are WP:RS, but you seem to deflect the discussion to a question of whether they are RS. Can you please discuss Iskandar's point, with less snark, on whether you have over-relied on a writer that is peripheral to the scholarship on the subject. I for one am interested in the answer. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @DeCausa, I don't know how you see it, but Iskandar's comment above that baselessly accused the author of being "an obscure hobbyist of a historian" clearly targets the reliability of the source to me. Regarding dueness, the source is a joint publication from 11 universities in Florida. How is that undue? Kaalakaa (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how WP:DUE is assessed, as I think you well know despite your apparent newness to Wikipedia. This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant. The question of DUE is how reflective it is of scholarship on Muhammad generally. You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers, and have just fallen back on "it's Florida University Press so everything's fine". Whether something is reliable or not in any particular circumstance and whether it should be used if it is reliable is not a binary question. There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - and then there is a question of whether the views expressed in a reliable source is maverick or mainstream. You've refused to engage on these issues. I'm weighing in my mind whether this is disingenuity or a simply a misunderstanding of policy. Fundamentally, Russ Rodgers, besides his book on Muhammad, has written, inter alia, books on photos of Patton, the Allied advance over the Rhine in 1945, and American Christian Evangelicalism. This is not an expert on Muhammad and it's just not good enough to say it was published by a reputable publisher, nothing more to say. You owe Iskandar proper responses not just snark. There is a very clear question mark over the WP:DUEness of using Rodgers which you have failed to engage with. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the work of one person - who is behind Florida University Press is utterly irrelevant.

I think it's relevant, the book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. Thus the book is representing the views of them.

You've never addressed Iskandar's central point on Rodgers,

Um, I don't know if you've read it thoroughly or not, but I think I've addressed it multiple times below in suspect source.

There are layers of reliability - for example, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Well, the book is clearly about Muhammad, not just addresses him in the passing.

This is not an expert on Muhammad

That's WP:OR. If that's really the case, I don't think the University Press of Florida would have published that book written by him. How many other books by the same publisher cover the topic of Muhammad's generalship?Kaalakaa (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I've read through that talk page multiple times and I still can't see how you deem Rodgers opinions as being authoritative from an objective and neutral standpoint. His book is mainly about the battles the Prophet fought. Although it doesn't just address the other aspects of Muhammad's life in passing, it clearly isn't its main point.

Rodgers is only said to be an expert on early islamic warfare, not on early islamic history in general. Unless you can prove why, you cannot consider him an authority on anything else Islam related. Your only consistent point has been that it was published by an university press, but when that's the only thing that speaks for it, it just doesn't hold up. Admiral90 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa If you still disagree, it's probably better to start an RfC. What do you want to ask? Kaalakaa (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing specific to have an RFC on. You are currently refusing to engage in any discussion regarding WP:WEIGHT, either because you fail to understand the issues involved, or because you are simply dodging them. That is the current situation. Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status, you do in fact owe an explanation that demonstrates you understand Wikipedia sourcing policy and took it into account in a competent manner as you made your major changes. Otherwise, we've simply had an editor with possible WP:CIR issues downgrade a GA-class article. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please quit falsely saying I'm refusing to engage in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT? That's akin to a personal attack. We've extensively discussed this below in suspect source, where the main basis of your argument that questions the "dueness" of the book from the University Press of Florida was a link from Bloomsbury. Based on it, you claimed the author "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1]. However, when I informed you that the content of the link you provided says otherwise about the author [2]:

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

You dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [3]. After I told you that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [4], you said "the link is worthless" and you "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [5]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, you avoided the questions and came here, repeating your false accusations against him. If you believe you're right, you won't have any issue starting an RfC about this matter. Regarding your comment

Given that you have substantially edited a (formerly) GA-status article into a state that multiple editors now think is unworthy of that status

That's MOS:WEASEL, and a misrepresentation of what other editors said, which can be considered a violation of WP:TPNO.

I quote from @Anachronist, what he actually said is [5]:

It may still be a good article, but it isn't the same article that was previously assessed as "good".

Furthermore, it is also displayed at the top of this talk page that

Muhammad has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so.

And

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter.

Kaalakaa (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Rodgers has around 37 citations, of which most are not related to any sort of military analysis (clearly his main area of expertise), but rather fringe opinions about Muhammad's life. Admiral90 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Modest military expertise alone does not make a source a vital one on the politics and motives of actors in the 7th century. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Admiral90: Do those works that cite Rodgers say or at least suggest that his theories or opinions are fringe? Kaalakaa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Can you please cease influencing people with your unfounded accusations against an author of a reliable source (which have been repeatedly debunked as evident in my comment above [1])? Or we might have to bring this to WP:ANI. Kaalakaa (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Nobody is influencing anybody here. I have observed the discussions between you and other users and it's obvious that you cannot actually defend your views. Admiral90 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research. Rodgers work has been ignored by mainstream scholarship almost entirely, I could only find two citations. One of them is oddly enough a work written by a Muslim author from a religious POV, and the other is a more academic work I couldn't access. Hard to find professional opinions on works academics don't care about. Admiral90 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked". Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue. DeCausa (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to ... certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue

So I can't even add other sources to support the material cited to Rodgers that have been given dubious and undue tags? Kaalakaa (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

My opinion is you should stop editing the article completely. We now have 6 or 7 editors expressing significant concerns about your edits - from various perspectives. I don't see any in support, although I could have missed them because there are so many threads now open about your edits. There's clearly a problem here and it needs resolution before making further changes to the article. This is a collaborative project and I think you seem to be ignoring that to advance your own particular POV. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, Kaalakaa has raised my second from last post above ("Kaalaaka, nothing's been "debunked"...") at WP:ANI, as well as the conduct of several other contributors to various threads on this talk page. The ANI thread can be found here. DeCausa (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Coming from an outside perspective, there should not be that much discussion about a single source. Rather than going back and forth, we should produce as much evidence as possible about the source and then make a judgement.

  Rodgers wrote a book. Other sources have voiced opinions about Rogers. If there are no opinions, then the academic is not recognized by the community and should not be included.

  @Kaalakaa Please show references by other RS to Rodgers. Other users, feel free to to so as well.

  If academic discuss Rodgers in a tone that suggests they consider him part of the academic mainstream, then it is worth including. If most other scholars question Rodgers accuracy or narrative, then exclude it. If there aren't discussions of Rodgers, then exclude it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Denvercoder9: The book is relatively new, released in 2012, I couldn't find many similar books discussing Muhammad's life in terms of his generalship released from that year until now, and we also have WP:AGEMATTERS which likes recent publications. Rodgers is the command historian of the U.S. army, so he surely has more significant resources and knowledge about warfare (such as its tactics and psychology) than most of general historians. Moreover, his job involves the security of a country with arguably the most powerful military in the world, providing their commanders with a historical perspective based on his research. This book of his is a joint publication by 11 universities within the State University System of Florida. So at least the book is recognized by academics from those 11 universities. Several other sources that have offered their opinions on the book, including:

  • Kecia Ali, in her The Lives of Muhammad, Harvard University Press publication, page 270: "A more measured assessment of Muhammad’s military skills can be found in Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad."
  • David Cook, the author of Understanding Jihad, Univ of California Press, says here about the book: "An excellent analysis of Muhammad as a general, placing his battles within the context of military history, and a good introduction to the life of the founder of Islam."
  • Policy advisor to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, U.S. Army, Maj. Christopher Johnson says that the book: "Provides an essential understanding to those wanting to know the history that shapes modern insurgencies."
  • This publication by the University Press of America written by Christian P. Potholm, says: "Russ Rodgers, The Generalship of Muhammad... An extremely valuable look at the rise of Islam through the generalship of Muhammad. A stunning story, well told."

  Other RSes that cite that book of Rodgers include:

  • Howlett, Charles F.; Peterson, Christian Philip; Buffton, Deborah D.; Hostetter, David (2023). The Oxford Handbook of Peace History. Oxford University Press. p. 735. ISBN 978-0-19-754908-7.
  • Anishchenkova, Valerie (2020-06-01). Modern Saudi Arabia. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-4408-5705-8.
  • O'Brien, Daniel (2021-11-16). Muslim Heroes on Screen. Springer Nature. p. 231. ISBN 978-3-030-74142-6.
  • Gabriel, Richard A. (2017-01-03). God's Generals: The Military Lives of Moses, the Buddha, and Muhammad. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5107-0878-5.
  • Hayward, Joel (2023-01-02). The Warrior Prophet: Muhammad ﷺ and War. Claritas Books. p. 357.
  • Çakmak, Cenap (2017-05-18). Islam [4 volumes]: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 1733. ISBN 978-1-61069-217-5.
  • Ph.D, Jeffrey M. Shaw; Demy, Timothy J. (2017-03-27). War and Religion [3 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict [3 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 451. ISBN 978-1-61069-517-6.

  — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 04:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

Change "founder of Islam" to "prophet of Allah" because Muhammed (SAW) did not found Islam. The first Muslim was Adam (AS) so if anyone was the founder, it's the first man, Adam (AS) 24.139.40.73 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We are describing Muammad from an external etic perpsecitve, not a Muslim perspective. From an external perpsective, Muhammad is identified as the founder of Islam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See Q6 in the FAQ near the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding infobox officeholder or royalty

I added infobox royalty to add the information of Ruling over Islamic State of Medina. But a user named Kaalakaa undid this edit and told me to provide sources that support these claims of existing Islamic State of Medina. Though there is already a Wikipedia page about the Islamic State of Medina, I add this topic to provide information about my claim for Kaalakaa and other users who have doubt about this. Muhammad migrated to Medina by accepting the invitation of Medinan tribes of Aws and Khazraj. The arrival of Muhammad was worlmly welcomed by the rulers of Medina and the name was renamed from Yathrib to Al Madinah Al Munawwarah. It is important to note that the name of Medina was renamed after Muhammad's arrival. Another important evidence on his ruling over Medina is forming the Constitution of Medina in the next year of his arriving at Medina. The constitution gave him a leading role in Medina. Another evidence is the battles. Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, Battle of the Trench etc were held before Conquest of Mecca. All the battles were led by Muhammad in the Medina side. The Conquest of Mecca was a type of Medinan invasion of Mecca and Medina won the war bloodlessly. As Muhammad led the invasion, we can say that he was the ruler of then Medina. After his death, a succession problem was occurred. This is the another evidence. So it can be said clearly that Muhammad was the ruler of Islamic State of Medina. You can find more information if you search on another pages of Wikipedia. Since Muhammad ruled over Medina, an infobox should be added. Thank you. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the article Muhammad in Medina has just had its opening section changed to Islamic State of Medina by user Lightningblade23 without providing a reliable source. Please understand that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, and our WP:RS requires that reliable sources be independent sources (WP:IS) that have "no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." We do not cite the words of an Indian mufti or an ustaz as a source for this article for this reason, nor do we cite some researches by Aum Shinrikyo adherents on the founder of their religion. Now, is the source you just brought up an independent source to begin with? I don't think so. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 06:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources that are independent or reliable. Even many of Wikipedia pages about Muhammad cite the sources. The source I have brought up is also a reliable and it was taken from another Wikipedia page. Do you think only sources that were made by non-muslims are reliable? However, I am giving another source that says Muhammad built a theocratic state in Medina and led raids on trading caravans from Mecca. Another source tells quoting Julius Wellhausen, the Constitution of Medina was written in the first year of Muhammad's rule, before the Battle of Badr. I think these sources will be enough for your assurance. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Being taken from another Wikipedia page does not ensure a source is reliable. History.com is not a reliable source for this topic. As for the constitution of Medina, there are differences of opinion among scholars as to when it was established, which is also described in the other source you just brought up. Your source only indirectly quotes that Julius Wellhausen argues that the constitution was written in the first year of Muhammad's rule (without explaining Muhammad's rule of what), and not that Muhammad was the ruler of the Islamic State of Medina from September 24, 622. What you should provide are reliable sources that directly support that claim you added. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad migrated to Medina in 622 and the constitution was drafted in 623. During this period, Muhammad does not leave Medina and does not rule over any other state. So it is very clear that Wellhausen indicates the rule over Medina. And it's a matter of commonsense that Battle of Badr, Uhud, Trench, Khaybar, Mu'tah and finally Conquest of Mecca (de facto invasion) were led by Muhammad. No source will oppose that. If he does not rule over Medina, then how he led these battles in the Medina side. Besides, a treaty was signed between Medina and Mecca named Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Muhammad signed for Medina. No source will oppose that too. So it can be said directly that he was the ruler of Medina.
If Muhammad was not the ruler of Medina, then who was the predecessor of Abu Bakr? And if the State of Medina does not exist, then which is the predecessor state of Rashidun Caliphate? Showib Ahmmed (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OR that you cannot add to Wikipedia articles "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources."

Furthermore

To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

Now, do you have any independent, reliable sources that directly support the addition you made that Muhammad was the ruler of a state named the Islamic State of Medina from 24 September 622 until 8 June 632? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you look for sources, many sources will say about Muhammad's rule. Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad after his death. That means Muhammad ruled Medina till his death. All the sources about Abu Bakr's reign say the same thing and I think no sources will oppose this. Another source directly say that the first ruler for Muslims in Islamic history was the Prophet Muhammad. He became the head of state for a cosmopolite society, which consists of Jews, paganist Arabs and Muslims. These sources and my previous sources directly say about Muhammad's rule. Since he ruled, an infobox officeholder or royalty should be added. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad ruled, yes. But was what he ruled over called the Islamic State of Medina? Did his reign over that polity span from September 24, 622, to June 8, 632? It is reliable sources that directly support these claims that you must provide. Also, The Conversation is not a reliable source for this topic. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 11:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As there is no debate about Muhammad's rule, an infobox must be added in the article. There is also no debate that he ruled till his death. There can be a debate about the name of the state. So it can be avoided. We can give the title as Ruler of Medina State or Ruler of State of Medina in the infobox to follow the neutrality of Wikipedia. There is also a debate about when the rule started. But the source of Julius Wellhausen directly say that the Constitution of Medina was written during Muhammad's rule. So we can give the start date on the day of writing the constitution or a year before when the constitution was written. Because he told that the constitution was written after a year of Muhammad's rule. So the reigning time should be January 623 to 8 June 632 or 622 to 8 June 632. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As I and the source you brought up earlier have pointed out, the date of the creation of the Constitution of Medina is disputed among scholars. And to title him "the ruler of Medina" from 622 A.D. is also wrong, because when Muhammad arrived in the city (in 622), there were still the three major Jewish tribes in the city, who had not yet been exiled and eliminated by his orders. Moreover, when the Muslims made their first successful raid on the Quraysh trading caravan during a month when the pagans forbade themselves from shedding blood, Muhammad was met with censure by the people of Medina, so he had to make the excuse that his followers had misunderstood his order, and he postponed taking his one-fifth share of the booty until a verse was revealed justifying the raid. If he had already been the ruler of the city at that time, there would certainly be no need for him to react in this way. If you insist on adding a ruler status to him in the infobox, then perhaps the closest to what I've read in reliable sources regarding it is "leader of the Muslim community in Medina." But it appears as if he hadn't been the leader of the Muslim community in Mecca before that. So it's better to just not include it or any claim that he was ruler or leader of something, because it is already clear in the first paragraph that he was a prophet, and from that, readers can already guess that he was also the leader of his religious community. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There were no need of exiling Jewish tribes from Medina. The Constitution of Medina ensured the security of non-muslims. So why would Muhammad eliminate or send them into exile?

And the event you have added does not strongly indicate that he was not ruler of Medina. Why do you call it as ''an excuse''? Do you have any source that his statement was false? It can be true that his followers had misunderstood his order. Many times the orders of various rulers were disobeyed. It does not mean that he was not ruler.

However, you yourself admit that he ruled Medina, although you disagree on the date and the state name. Then why would "leader of the Muslim community in Medina'' be added? The sources I have added directly mention him as ruler of whole Medina, not the Muslim community. Even a book of W. Montgomery Watt directly mentioned Muhammad as statesman. The date and state name may be disputed, not the reign.

The disputed date is not after Battle of Badr. So the year of Battle 624 can be taken as the start date of reign into the infobox. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There were no need of exiling Jewish tribes from Medina. The Constitution of Medina ensured the security of non-muslims. So why would Muhammad eliminate or send them into exile?

Now you're doing historical negationism. Numerous reliable sources state that Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir were expelled, while Banu Qurayza was massacred. Wikipedia requires its articles to be based on reliable sources, not the original research or personal feelings of its editors.

And the event you have added does not strongly indicate that he was not ruler of Medina.

Now now. Who's the one who added the material that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since 622, the year he first arrived in the city? You. So the WP:BURDEN is on you, not me. You're the one who has to provide reliable sources that support your claim, not me who has to provide sources that refute your unsourced claim.

Why do you call it as an excuse? Do you have any source that his statement was false? It can be true that his followers had misunderstood his order. Many times the orders of various rulers were disobeyed. It does not mean that he was not ruler.

W. M. Watt himself states in his book "Muhammad at Medina" page 5 that "Muhammad gave him a sealed letter of instructions ... to proceed to Nakhlah on the road from at-Ta'if to Mecca and there to ambush a Meccan caravan." So clearly Muhammad's claim afterwards that his followers misunderstood his order was an excuse from him, since his followers actually did what he had ordered.

The sources I have added directly mention him as ruler of whole Medina, not the Muslim community.

Which source? Where does it say that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since he first arrived in the city in 622?

Even a book of W. Montgomery Watt directly mentioned Muhammad as statesman.

Where does Watt say that Muhammad was the ruler of Medina since he first arrived in the city in 622?

The disputed date is not after Battle of Badr.

You should first provide reliable sources to claim that something is disputed. Also, what is disputed here on Wikipedia means disputed among the sources, not disputed between Wikipedia editors. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about the things that is not relatable to this topic. So I am ignoring your first 3 answers. The answer of your other questions is same that I told. I admit that the reigning start date is disputed among sources. But it is not disputed that he ruled Medina. All the sources I have provided mention Muhammad as the Ruler. You also admit that he ruled. So there is no difference of opinion about his rule. So an infobox should be added. I hope there is no problem.
Now the thing should be discuss is the start date of his reigning that is disputed. So 624 A.D. (not 622. The reason for 624 is given in the previous message) can be taken as his reigning start year to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for 624 is given in the previous message) can be taken as his reigning start year to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

What "neutrality policy" are you referring to? Which part of it states that you can just include material based merely on your guess or analysis, not reliable sources that directly support it?

I admit that the reigning start date is disputed among sources.

You haven't given any reliable sources that directly state that Muhammad was the "Ruler of Medina State" from 622 or 624 to begin with, so what "dispute among sources" are you even talking about? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 19:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You are arguing out of the topic. Again I am saying the the same thing I told. He was the ruler and there is no dispute. So the topic of the discussion is about adding an infobox royalty. Wikipedia says in the condition of adding Template:Infobox royalty, This template may be used for anyone having royal connections. This template is only for historic biographies and must not be used for mythical / legendary characters or creatures. And There is no dispute about Muhammad's rule. (not among sources and not among us) So an infobox should be added. My question is 'Do you admit that?' If you admit then we can discuss about the tenure that should be given in the template. I repeat, the topic of the discussion is an infobox will be added or not, not the tenure. If you admit that an infobox should be added, then we will discuss about the tenure and the state name. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia says in the condition of adding Template:Infobox royalty, This template may be used for anyone having royal connections. ... So an infobox should be added.

It is "may be used", not "must be used". Can't you tell the difference? It is already stated in the opening sentence of this article that he was the political leader of Islam. If you want to add to the infobox that he was the ruler of the entirety of Medina (which included the people who did not adhere to his religion) from the moment he came to the city, then you must provide reliable sources that directly support that claim, not merely based on assumptions or original researches. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 13:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Whether he was or wasn't Ruler of anywhere is irrelevant to whether the royalty infobox is used. Kim Jong Un is a ruler of a state (and pretty much a hereditary one at that) but the royalty box isn't used. If Muhammad was a "ruler" (and he was) then the "office-holder" one is the most likely. On a practical level that is the one with the most relevant parameters (where was his coronation for the royalty infobox?). Other relevant candidates would be the "person" one or the "religious biography" one. The one that is definitely incorrect is "royalty". DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the long-standing status quo of the religious biography infobox pending resolution of this. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa: That's also what I thought. And even if the "office-holder" one is to be used, the material regarding what he ruled over and the length of time he was ruling over must also be directly supported by independent, reliable sources. In my opinion, however, the "person" infobox used in the current reinstated revision is already quite appropriate. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 23:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

it's actually the religious biography infobox that I restored with that edit - which is, AFAIK, the long-standing template. DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, that one. Got it mixed up. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Digging into the sources

So after perusing the above discussion, I dove into the aforementioned Watt book using Google Books preview and searched for mentions related to "ruler of Medina". Here are my findings as it pertains to this matter:

• pg. 95, first sentence of second paragraph: Muhammad was by no means the ruler of this community., discussed in the context of the Constitution of Medina in 622
• pg. 96, beginning of third paragraph then goes on to say: In these early months, then, Muhammad can have been no more than the religious leader of the Medinan community. In strictly political matters he was only the head of the 'clan' of Emigrants, and probably less powerful than several other clan chiefs.
• pg. 165, middle of first paragraph: This shows that he was not yet by any means the autocratic ruler of Medina, date-stamps of December 627 a few paragraphs prior and the immediately succeeding paragraph at year 628

Does anyone have better or different research? Left guide (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Left guide If you read the full book, you will find that the author denied to tell Muhammad as the ruler of Medina in the time of forming the constitution of Medina. But he added in Ruler in Arabia that he ruled over many places of Mecca and Medina after the conquest of Mecca. And the places were expanding. He described the expeditions made by Muhammad in Tabuk and north as the expansion of the Islamic State. The author also says in the section of The last months, "He had made no arrangements for the continued administration of the affairs of the Islamic state except that he had appointed Abu-Bakr to lead the prayers. The end had come fairly suddenly, and for a time there was a confusion in Medina, until it was agreed that Abu-Bakr should be his caliph or successor." He also says in the section The position after Hunayun, "Diplomatic and administrative business was carried on in the name of Muhammad or in the name of God." These lines directly say that Muhammad was the ruler after capturing Mecca and his state was expanding. So an infobox should be added. And I support the view of @DeCausa to add infobox officeholder instead of royalty. Since the date is not specified, the start time can be entered in the box as "unknown". So the time of his term in office is from unknown to 8 June 632. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

But why change it from the long-standing religious biography? What's more significant Prophet of Islam or being ruler of Medina - obviously the former. The nearest analogy is the Popes. They have effectively a sub-set of religious biography - the Christian leader template. (There isn't afaik a muslim direct equivalent). They don't have the office holder template simply because they are sovereigns of the Vatican. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The situation of Popes and Muhammad is not the same. The term as well as the position of Vatican Head of State is similar to head of the Catholic Church. The two post are equal. So they don't get the infobox and their term is mentioned in the infobox religious biography. But Muhammad's term as well as the position as prophet and Ruler of Medina are not same. The two things are different from each other.

And there's no rules that a long-lasting template cannot be changed. I didn't remove infobox religious biography. I just added infobox royalty (Now I am supporting officeholder infobox) to mention his post. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

2 infoboxes? No, that's pointless. The religious biography one is quite sufficient - I wouldn't bother arguing about whether he was or wasn't ruler of Medina. I don't think it matters - I don't think you'll get support for the highly unusual idea of 2 infoboxes and I doubt that anyone will think that the religious biography one doesn't cover the pertinent aspects that should be in the infobox. DeCausa (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There are many examples of using 2 or more infoboxes. However, if you don't want to use 2 infoboxes, the infobox officeholder can cover all the information that are given in the current infobox including the post and term that current infobox can't. So infobox officeholder will be more accurate. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

More than 24 hours have passed. Since no one has replied, I'm assuming everyone involving in the discussion is in agreement. So I am changing the infobox religious biography to infobox officeholder without specifying the start date of office. Thank you everyone. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Showib Ahmmed: Have you got any independent, reliable sources that explicitly state that Muhammad was the ruler of a state named the Islamic State of Medina and that the beginning of his rule and his predecessor are unknown? If not, I regret to inform you that this would also be considered WP:OR. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned in the previous message in the reply of LeftGuide. W. Montgomery Watt mentioned Muhammad's state as Islamic State in Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman for many times.

In page 217: The Persian decline contributed to the growth of the Islamic state.
In page 222: The Islamic state in 632 was a conglomeration of tribes in alliance with Muhammad on varying terms, having as its inner core the people of Medina and perhaps also if Mecca.
In page 226: The opposition to the Islamic state was largely political...
Besides, Watt named the state of Muhammad in Medina as Islamic State for many times in the book. So I named the state as Islamic State in the infobox. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"The Islamic State" is not the same as "the Islamic State of Medina", and 632 was the year Muhammad died. To avoid original research, you have to provide independent, reliable sources that directly support any material you put in, and what you put in was that Muhammad was the ruler of the Islamic State of Medina and that the time he came to power and his predecessor are unknown. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 16:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

About Ruler: Do you read the book or my previous answers attentively? I don't think so. The book, for many times, mentioned Muhammad as the ruler after the conquest of Mecca. The state was expanding day by day. The statement of the book regarding 632 refers to the status of the state at the time of (not after) his death. Even the writer says in the death section, "He had made no arrangements for the continued administration of the affairs of the Islamic state except that he had appointed Abu-Bakr to lead the prayers." Besides, In page 35: "He is said to have introduced to Muhammad a group of five men who became the mainstay of the young Islamic state in Muhammad's closing year and after." How much more direct speech is needed for you to ensure that the state was existed during Muhammad's time and that he was the ruler? I think you are kidding with the matter.
About predecessor and term start date: The book does not mention any date for the beginning of Muhammad's reign. So I gave the start time as unknown. And his predecessor should be "Post established" because the Islamic state was formed by Muhammad and it was expanding.
About State name: As he mentioned the state as Islamic State, it is clear that he mentioned Medina. Sometimes he mentioned the state as Medina and sometimes as Islamic state. So I gave the state name as Islamic State of Medina. Because we can't just give the name "Islamic State" without mentioning what the Islamic State is. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Showib Ahmmed: Do you understand what "directly support" means? — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you admit that Muhammad ruled? Whatever the tenure or name of the state. Sometimes you say you admit that he ruled but you have disagreed the tenure, sometimes you say to provide source that he ruled. I want a clear reply. Do you admit he ruled. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Showbib Ahmmed, just to be clear: Muhammad is primarily known as a religious leader and the religious bio infobox is the most appropriate infobox, an no other is needed. It makes no difference whether he was ruler of Medina, it's an irrelevance. Furthermore, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS based on "I'm assuming everyone involving in the discussion is in agreement" because no one replied to you in 24 hours. It's obvious no one is in agreement with you and it stays that way until editors expressly say otherwise. Don't do that again. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2023

The "known for" section should include the religion that honors him, like a page like this.

in the "known for" section it should be written "Central Figure of Islam, Prophet in Baha'i Faith" Pinbagas (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pinbagas: I assume you're referring to the infobox. I have no objection to "central figure of Islam" (other than the gramatically incorrect "known for" rather than "known as"), but listing other things including a prophet in Baha'i, Amadiyya, and who knows what else, risks the list growing too big. "Known for founding Islam" does satisfy your request, however, because it mentions Islam.

I'd like others to chime in. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 Not really seeing the value of overcomplication over the current clarity and simplicity - the infobox is supposed to be a summary of the most relevant and notable, not all information. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: How about we change "Known for: Founding of Islam" to "Known for: Establishing Islam"? Same number of characters, and I think every reader could agree with that, including those who come to this page objecting to "founding" (although that would be still in the article text). ~Anachronist (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That actually follows on from "known for" better anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to stick with Islam-only in the infobox for this param, per Template:Infobox person. "Establishing Islam" is fine, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Muhammed's wife did not uncloth herself to determine whether he was being visited by angels

Under the "Life" section in the "Beginnings of the Quran" part, it states something like this happened. The original (but still unauthentic) narration states instead of "Khadija removed her clothes with Muhammad on her lap" that "Khadeejah said: Then I uncovered my hair and threw my headcover aside". The latter narration is the one the former narration is derived from. The latter narration is itself not true [2] according to the scholars of hadiths from which almost every aspect of Mohammed's biography is derived from. So, that renders what is on the article as unfounded. This part should be edited out because I've looked around and haven't found a a source stating that the narration quoted in the article is valid. I'd edit the article myself but I do not have requirements to do that. Yusuf10000 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yusuf10000 Where have you looked, because there are three academic sources cited in the article. What did they say when you reviewed them? —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The only source for the report is narrated by at-Tabaraani in "al-Mu‘jam al-Awsat". Scholars have classified the report as inauthentic. It can't be used as evidence to claim that event really happened. Yusuf10000 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Yusuf10000 Just to confirm, you read all three sources, and they all have the same origin story? —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-fact-based statement presented as fact.

This should not be a religious text, it should be about the life of religious LEADER. Unlike the major characters in the Judeo-Christian Bible, we have proof that Mohammed literally existed. Therefore, mystic/supernatural statements should be eschewed and the article should stick to known facts.

Particularly galling is the section that begins "Subsequent to obtaining a divine instruction to battle the polytheists". Since there is no EVIDENCE that Mohammed actually spoke to Allah, any more than there is evidence for Joseph Smith seeing the Angel Moroni or other people who claim to have had divine encounters, that statement should be changed to neutral language. "CLAIMING to have obtained a divine instruction" would more clearly adhere to Wikipedia's standards of quality.

Similarly, claims of Qu'ran verses being "revealed" to Mohammed should be expunged, as books are written by HUMANS, not divinely created, to the best of our knowledge. And the reporting about his being visited by "the angel Gabriel" (a FICTIONAL character as far as we know) is offensive. Again, simply using such metaphysical events as things Mohammed REPORTED ("Stating that he had been visited by the angel Gabriel", etc.) maintains Wikipedia's standards of neutrality.

Infuriating.

Please rectify this. Thank you. 2600:1700:F070:AB10:5CBC:5EF2:3C3F:26A2 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

At least on "Subsequent to obtaining a divine instruction to battle the polytheists" I agree, that is not good WP:WIKIVOICE. I haven't checked the source and don't know what it says at this point.

While Gabriel does appear in fiction, I think there is a difference between fictional and religious. I see no great wrong in article text like "Muhammad reported being visited by Gabriel in the cave..." and "According to Islamic tradition, in 610 CE, when he was 40 years old, the angel Gabriel appeared before him". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

... claims of Qu'ran verses being "revealed" to Mohammed should be expunged, as books are written by HUMANS, not divinely created ...

The Qur'an was not written down in a book in one go, but was delivered orally and gradually by Muhammad, verse by verse, circumstance by circumstance. These verses were then memorized by his companions, and some were written down by his scribes. It was only after his death, during the caliphate of Uthman, that these verses were collected and compiled into a book. Coming back to the words "revelation" and "revealed," I honestly don't think that the use of these words will sway people to convert to Islam. That's also probably why reliable, independent (secular) sources, even the most critical ones, use the words. Here on Wikipedia, we just follow what they say. Moreover, some of the Qur'anic revelations were directly related to the occurrence of subsequent events in Muhammad's life, so we cannot completely erase them, as that would separate historical events from their contexts. Also, please read WP:YESBIAS. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Muhammed never attempted suicide

What is said about him attempting to jump off is false and never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.225.84 (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposing minor extension of information.

In the Household section the content "According to traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old. She was therefore a virgin at marriage."

Can it be added that "betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she reached the age of nine or ten years old or by some accounts, twelve or more at marriage." which aligns with the Aisha article. StarkReport (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead of the Aisha article currently states "A preponderance of classical sources converge on Aisha being 6 or 7 years old at the time of her marriage, and 9 at the consummation; her age has become a source of ideological friction in modern times." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Apologies for the misunderstanding, I was referencing the info given in the body's section Age at marriage and consummation. "Al-Tabari notes Aisha to have stayed with her parents after the marriage and consummated the relationship at nine years of age since she was young and sexually immature at the time of marriage; however, elsewhere Tabari appears to suggest that she was born during the Jahiliyyah (before 610 C.E), which would translate to an age of about twelve or more at marriage." StarkReport (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And that's probably fine for that article, which naturally goes into more detail. It's not obvious why the view of Al-Tabari should be in this article, which is "tip-of-the-iceberg" and so heavily summarized in many parts. That' my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well, it was just 8 words I was looking to incorporate which I think is Due. StarkReport (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 Feb 2024

In the lead it is said that Mohammed was born after few months after his fathers death. But actually , according to the Islamic sources he was born after 4 years after his father's death.

So the corrected sentence is from 'few months' to 'few years' Afv12e (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specify what sources you are talking about. Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

prophet Muhammad is not the founder of islam , he is the last messenger in islam 117.201.203.37 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Muhammad is the founder of Islam from an objective etic perspective, even if the internal Muslim emic perspective views Islam to have existed prior to him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The page image

I get that it causes controversy but is there a reason aside from that for the page image being something other than an image of the person in question? I know in some cases there aren't recognizable/available images but this obviously isn't one of those times. I mean there's a whole FAQ about why images of him are included in the article but it's too far to include one in the infobox? XeCyranium (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The images in the body are depicting scenes from the life of Muhammad, rather than for the purpose of specifically depicting Muhammad. As Muhammad, like many figures from antiquity, is not know from any authentic images from his lifetime, there's not really any point of showing a depicition of him in the infobox that has no basis in reality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there any ancient religious figures for whom we use contemporary depictions for the infobox? I know other stuff exists and all that but this seems to be far and away an outlier in that regard. Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, Confucius (maybe not religious necessarily), all of them employ images concocted centuries to millennia after their deaths. I don't see why a contemporary depiction would be necessary in the first place, rather than a historically significant depiction. XeCyranium (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The depicitions of Jesus and the Buddha are iconic for their particular religious traditions, and Confucius also has a long tradition of being depicted by Chinese artists. Neither of these is really the case for Muhammad. The aniconic depicition of Muhammad as caligraphy is the most well known representation of him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Most of those other visual traditions only began hundreds of years after the death of the figure in question, much like with Muhammad. Just because calligraphy is popular doesn't make it a useful image for depicting the actual person in question. XeCyranium (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@XeCyranium: Did you read the whole FAQ? Q4 addresses your question, specifically about why calligraphy is used in the infobox instead of an iconic representation. It is the most common way to depict him, that's all. I recall there was also some consensus in the past that images of Muhammad should appear "below the fold" but I don't remember how long ago that was. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Boy I feel silly now, I promise I did read the FAQ but somehow I missed that one. Well if that's what consensus has been I won't argue with it. XeCyranium (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2024

The criticism of Muhammad is extremely vague and only go in depth in regards to the theological issues, however with other religious figures/leaders on Wikipedia, there is depth into the criticism of their character, actions, etc. 112.141.49.219 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (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. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 14:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You can find a little more in the sub-article Criticism of Muhammad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible#Baháʼí

Your view is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)