Talk:Muhammad - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ip says (talk | contribs) at 06:25, 12 April 2021 (→The term central figure instead of founder or last prophet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:25, 12 April 2021 by Ip says (talk | contribs) (→The term central figure instead of founder or last prophet)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed. Discussion of images, and of edits regarding images, MUST be posted to the images subpage. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.
If you find images of Muhammad offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them; see the FAQ.

The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Template:Vital article Error: The code letter muh-im for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

Misplaced Pages 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. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Muhammad.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims? A1: Further information: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not censored, and Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer

There is a prohibition of depicting Muhammad in certain Muslim communities. This prohibition is not universal among Muslim communities. For a discussion, see Depictions of Muhammad and Aniconism in Islam.

Misplaced Pages is not bound by any religious prohibitions, and it is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Misplaced Pages is not censored for the sake of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's existing policies, nor the laws of locations where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Misplaced Pages because people find them objectionable or offensive. (See also: Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer.)

Misplaced Pages does not single out Islam in this. There is content that may be equally offensive to other religious people, such as the 1868 photograph shown at Bahá'u'lláh (offensive to adherents of the Bahá'í Faith), or the account of Scientology's "secret doctrine" at Xenu (offensive to adherents of Scientology), or the account at Timeline of human evolution (offensive to adherents of young Earth creationism). Submitting to all these various sensitivities would make writing a neutral encyclopedia impossible.

Q2: Aren't the images of Muhammad false? A2: No claim is made about the accuracy of the depictions of Muhammad. The artists who painted these images lived hundreds of years after Muhammad and could not have seen him themselves. This fact is made absolutely clear in the image captions. The images are duly presented as notable 14th- to 17th-century Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad, not as contemporary portraits. See Depictions of Muhammad for a more detailed discussion of Muslim artwork depicting Muhammad.

Similar artistic interpretations are used in articles for Homer, Charlemagne, Paul of Tarsus, and many other historical figures. When no accurate images (i.e. painted after life, or photographs) exist, it is a longstanding practice on Misplaced Pages to incorporate images that are historically significant artwork and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Using images that readers understand to be artistic representations, so long as those images illustrate the topic effectively, is considered to be more instructive than using no image at all. Random recent depictions may be removed as undue in terms of notability, while historical artwork (in this case, of the Late Medieval or Ottoman period) adds significantly to the presentation of how Muhammad was being topicalized throughout history.

These depictions are not intended as factual representations of Muhammad's face; rather, they are merely artists' conceptions. Such portrayals generally convey a certain aspect of a particular incident, most commonly the event itself, or maybe the act, akin to the Western genre of history painting. The depictions are, thus, not meant to be accurate in the sense of a modern photograph, and are presented here for what they are: yet another form in which Muhammad was depicted.

None of these pictures hold a central position in the article, as evident by their placement, nor are they an attempt to insult the subject. Several factions of Christianity oppose the use of hagiographic imagery (even to the point of fighting over it), but the images are still on Misplaced Pages, exactly for what they are—i.e. artistic renditions of said people.

Q3: How can I hide the images using my personal Misplaced Pages settings? A3: If you do not wish to view Muhammad images, you can hide the depictions in this article from your personal account by following these steps:

Sign in or create an account
Click on this link to modify your personal CSS stylesheet (if no page is there already, just go ahead and create a page)
Click the edit button, and add the following line: .page-Muhammad .depiction {display: none;}
Click Publish changes or Publish page to save the preference

Please note that this will not hide the images for other users, or from yourself if you log out of your account.

Alternatives: If you do not have an account, and do not wish to register an account, you can disable all images on Misplaced Pages by going to the mobile version of the website (en.m.wikipedia.org), then going to "settings" and choosing "images off".

You may also block a list of specified images, following the format of this example.

Experienced JavaScript programmers can hide depictions of Muhammad on the desktop site using Greasemonkey or a similar tool.

Q4: Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad? A4: This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artists' depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

Q5: Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article? A5: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles § Muhammad Misplaced Pages's biography style guidelines recommend omitting all honorifics, such as The Prophet, (The) Holy Prophet, (pbuh), or (saw), that precede or follow Muhammad's name. This is because many editors consider such honorifics as promoting an Islamic point of view instead of a neutral point of view which Misplaced Pages is required to maintain. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) also recommends against the use of titles or honorifics, such as Prophet, unless it is the simplest and most neutral way to deal with disambiguation. When disambiguation is necessary, the recommended form is the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Q6: Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam? A6: While the Muslim viewpoint about Muhammad is already presented in the article, a Misplaced Pages biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Misplaced Pages cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region. The word "founder" is used in that context, and not intended to imply that Muhammad invented the religion he introduced to Arabia.

Q7: Why does it look like the article is biased toward secular or "Western" references? A7: Further information: Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Accusations of bias toward Western references are often made when an objection is raised against the display of pictures of Muhammad or lack of honorifics when mentioning Muhammad. All articles on Misplaced Pages are required to present a neutral point of view. This neutrality is sometimes mistaken for hostility. Note that exactly the same guidelines apply to articles about Christianity or any other religion.

In addition, this article is hosted on the English-language Misplaced Pages. While references in languages other than English are not automatically inappropriate, English-language references are preferred, because they are of the most use to the typical reader. This therefore predisposes the material used in this article to some degree (see WP:NONENG).

Q8: Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user? A8: Persistent disruption of the page has forced us to disable editing by anonymous editors and new accounts, while still allowing edits by more experienced users who are familiar with Misplaced Pages's editorial policies and guidelines. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future. In any case, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License grants everybody the right to republish this article elsewhere, and even to modify it themselves, so long as the original authors (Misplaced Pages contributors) are also credited and the derivative work is distributed under the same license.

Q9: Can censorship be employed on Misplaced Pages? A9: No. The official policy is that Misplaced Pages is not censored.

Q10: Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile? A10: This question has been actively discussed in Talk:Muhammad, and those discussions are archived. According to most traditional sources, Muhammad consummated his marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was nine years old. This was not considered unusual in Muhammad's culture and time period; therefore, there is no reason for the article to refer to Muhammad in the context of pedophilia. Even today, in parts of the world, the legal age of consent is as young as eleven years old, or any age inside of a marriage. In any case, any modern controversy about Aisha's age is not best dealt with in a biography about Muhammad. See the articles on Aisha and Criticism of Muhammad § Aisha for further information.

References

C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, pp.34–35

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 7, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
January 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
March 30, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
July 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 2, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept
May 14, 2012	Good article reassessment	Kept
A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 19, 2012.
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 2, 2004, June 8, 2005, June 8, 2006, and June 8, 2018.
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Military / Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam: Salaf / Shi'a Islam / Sunni Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Shi'a Islam task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Arab world Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saudi Arabia Top‑importance

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Middle Ages Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Medieval / Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Noam Cohen (February 5, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Islam Entry Is Criticized". New York Times.
Torsten Kleinz (February 6, 2008). "Misplaced Pages: Streit um Mohammed-Bilder (german)". Heise.
Fox News (February 6, 2008). "Muslims Protest Misplaced Pages Images of Muhammad". Fox News.
Caroline Davies (February 17, 2008). "Misplaced Pages defies 180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet". The Observer.
Inquirer Newsdesk (February 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages faces wrath of Islam". The Inquirer.
K.C. Jones (February 7, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Refuses To Delete Picture Of Muhammad". InformationWeek.
"Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. July 18, 2013.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Image archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,

Mediation Archives

Images Arbitration

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wives of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

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

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

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

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

Founder is not the true word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Closed according to WP:SNOW.

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

I need to fix this page. Because I thought it should not be written that the Prophet Muhammad was the founder of Islam if this article would be appropriate to neutral point of view. This is not the case with the belief of Islam. According to Islam, Islam sent by Allah. If this article denies or implies otherwise, it contains a biased expression. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You first explain here what exact edit you want to be made. If it's constructive and an improvement, it is usually made. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

First, vandalizing this talk page hardly inspires confidence in you. You do not have the right to delete or edit other users' comments. Second, no we will not make that edit. You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you put the thoughts of academics as superior to religion? This is an unfounded and controversial point of view. Looking objectively, why should what the academics say should guide the article? There are also academics who have accepted Prophet Muhammad as messenger of the God. We can't ignore 'em. What do you aim for by defining disbelievers as "academics" by the way? It is an indisputable fact that this statement is not neutral. Let's define him as "the religious person at the center of Islam" at least. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABIAS and WP:NOBIGOTS. Misplaced Pages is built on reliable sources not upon the opinions of the masses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same thing. What I mean is that none of us had no reliable sources to know the insight of the Prophet Muhammad, we only believe. If you hold the opinions of non-Muslims superior to what Muslims think, this will damage neutrality. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not cater to true believers, be them Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it also does not cater to Atheists, Deists or people who do not accept Muhammad as prophet. So I'm still rightful. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If it can be taught as factually true at the Ivy League, then yes, we may include it in our article. Misplaced Pages kowtows to mainstream history, it has always been so and it will always be so. We follow WP:SOURCES written by mainstream historians, there is no way to undo that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. I saw your message. There is a fact that we will not deny by historians that his Prophet Muhammad is the centeral person of Islam. This declaration is more fairly than founder. Let me write it like that. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You have to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. And produce several WP:RS for your claim. Tgeorgescu (talk)

My claims all are from Quran and Sunnah. I'm talking depending on Islamic Study.

WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. If you don't have WP:RS (which are by definition mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP), this discussion is over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is what the claims in Islamic teaching are. In other words, in Islamic teaching, Misplaced Pages does not approves or denies Prophet Muhammad is the founder of Islam. You need to read the Quran to learn the claims of the Quran, there is no need to learn the claims of the Quran from another source. Also, I do not understand the reason for this persistence, what is wrong with me writing that he is the person at the center of Islam? İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have no WP:RS, you have nothing, really! The question of how do you know that Muhammad isn't the founder of Islam is one of epistemology and historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How do you know he is founder? Whether he is the prophet or not, a founder or not is relative My relative statements have no place on Misplaced Pages. Because both those who claim to be founders and those who deny them do not have evidence that is beyond dispute. İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me be blunt: my way or the highway. If you cannot produce WP:RS you lost this debate, see WP:IDHT. You're moving into WP:DE territory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't even read my word: There is no need to show sources. All I'm saying is you can't say "Disbelievers are right, muslims are wrong." Because it is disputed. You keep repeating the same words. No matter how many different arguments I may come up with, I cannot explain to you that relative concepts are unprovable. I stop arguing by sharing a quotation that comes to my mind for some reason: "I defeated forty scholars with one piece of evidence, but I could not beat an ignorant with forty evidence." İsmail Kendir (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

believers may believe what they wish. Misplaced Pages uses evidence. You have provided none. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It is disputed that was Muhammad a prophet or founder. This is relative. That is all the case. İsmail Kendir (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How de we know he was the founder? it is because before he announced Islam existed, there is not a single person calling themselves a muslim and following Islam. Religion is not like a river or distant island that can exist before being discovered: religion is a belief system, and if no one believes it, it can not exist. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We need a new FAQ entry about "founder"

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

Q6: Muslims consider Muhammad as a messenger. Why does the article say he is the "founder" of Islam? A6: While the Muslim viewpoint is already presented in the article, a Misplaced Pages biography article should emphasize historical and scholarly viewpoints. The contention that Islam has always existed and Muhammad was its messenger is a religious belief, grounded in faith, and Misplaced Pages cannot promote religious beliefs as facts. Because no religion known as "Islam" exists in any recorded history prior to Muhammad, and Muhammad created the conditions for Islam to spread by unifying Arabia into a single religious polity, he effectively founded the establishment of Islam as the dominant religion in the region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative Introductory Sentence Suggest

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

Introductory Sentence:

Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar, Template:IPA-ar; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a former merchant, an Arabian religious, philosophical, social and political leader, the last prophet in Islam.

References

Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63, gives 8 June 632 CE, the dominant Islamic tradition. Many earlier (primarily non-Islamic) traditions refer to him as still alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine. See Stephen J. Shoemaker,The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam, page 248, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Short Description:

"Religious leader and main prophet of Islam"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63, gives 8 June 632 CE, the dominant Islamic tradition. Many earlier (primarily non-Islamic) traditions refer to him as still alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine. See Stephen J. Shoemaker,The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam, page 248, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundern't

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

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

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

Muhammad (Template:Lang-ar, Template:IPA-ar; c. 570 CE – 8 June 632 CE) was a former merchant, an Arabian religious, philosophical, social and political leader, the last prophet in Islamic belief. İsmail Kendir (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

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

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

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

The term central figure instead of founder or last prophet

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

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

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

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

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63, gives 8 June 632 CE, the dominant Islamic tradition. Many earlier (primarily non-Islamic) traditions refer to him as still alive at the time of the invasion of Palestine. See Stephen J. Shoemaker,The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam, page 248, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Categories: