Talk:Muhammad

Frequently asked questions, please read before posting

Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for answers to these frequently-asked questions (you need to tap "Read as wiki page" to see the relevant text):

1. Shouldn't all the images of Muhammad be removed because they might offend Muslims?
2. Aren't the images of Muhammad false?
3. How can I hide the images using my personal Wikipedia settings?
4. Why does the infobox at the top of the article contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?
5. Why is Muhammad's name not followed by (pbuh) or (saw) in the article?
6. Why does the article say that Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam?
7. Why does it look like the article is biased towards secular or "Western" references?
8. Why can't I edit this article as a new or anonymous user?
9. Can censorship be employed on Wikipedia?
10. Because Muhammad married an underage girl, should the article say he was a pedophile?

This section is for mobile-device users who do not see the normal talk page header. This section should not have any comments, so that it stays on this talk page and does not get archived.

GA Reassessment

Muhammad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: While instability is not in itself a reason to delist, poor quality sourcing is; the discussions on the talk page constitute, in my view, consensus that the sourcing has been degraded. Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It has recently been brought to light that this page and its sourcing have been altered fairly wholesale since the page was last reviewed and kept as GA, and that there is little reason to believe the level of former quality has been maintained; on the contrary, recent informal assessments by editors have uncovered significant issues in terms of prior content and source removal, as well as in terms of the quality of new sourcing and the resulting balance of the page and its contents. The sum conclusion of the current state of affairs has already been assessed by several editors as no longer meeting GA standard. For details, see the existing talk page discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Removal of "good article" status, as well as the broader discussion entitled Talk:Muhammad#Recent neutrality concerns, and other subsequent talk page discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Fails Wikipedia:Good article criteria It is not stable due to edit warring on the page....: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Moxy- 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Even excluding the wholesale rewriting the article has undergone recently, 2012 is a long time ago, and the article quality standards back then were arguably lower. I do not see a reason to maintain GA status given the current edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad#WP:LEADIMAGE?

If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2024

Instead of Muhammad, write 'Prophet Muhammad' in the heading 106.219.147.213 (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done read the FaQ. In Q5 it states Wikipedia: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. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(No Life 'Til Leather)} 12:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

GA or Featured nomination

Is there any plan for this article to be made up to the standards of GA or even Featured. This is a very high importance figure and the article should be made up to the best standards. If there is any plan to enact a nomination please let me know so I can help. Titan2456 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you take a look at the GA criteria, and maybe see if there are places in the articles that you could help bring up to those criteria. If you have questions, let me know: GA and FA are different processes and one generally takes place before the other. Remsense ‥ 论 21:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It was GA for a long while until now-blocked editor Kaalakaa took it upon himself to rewrite most of the article over a period of several months starting in Jun 2023. This talk page history has records of some contention that caused.

One of the fallouts was this article losing its GA status, because the article that earned GA wasn't the same article as what it eventually became. Kaalakaa's edits weren't bad, they were overall improvements I think, but his view on what sources are reliable, and his interpretation of them, have been questioned.

What needs to happen to restore GA status is to go through every one of his hundreds of edits with a fine-tooth comb and check the sources. This is a big job because not all sources are available online, and not all aren't behind paywalls.

As for FA, that isn't feasible. FA articles are unprotected when featured on the main page, and this Muhammmad article experiences enough disruption when it's unprotected that it would be impossible to keep it free from disruption by people who take offense at its content if it became FA. I mean, do you know of any article about a contentious topic that ever became a Featured Article? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

So the main problem is with the citations, thank you, I will try to check them but as you said it is a long process. As for contentious FAs Jesus is one. Titan2456 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just the sources. Many of the sources are good sources, but the interpretation needs checking. Some of the sources may be questionable. A recent example is The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah by Russ Rodgers, published by the University Press of Florida. Archived discussions here, here, here (about 2/3 the way into the conversation), and on RSN, is that the book includes extraordinary claims that demand support of multiple reliable sources, yet the author is rather obscure (more of a hobbyist historian) having been largely ignored by academia with few citations. The book may be useful for some military tactics, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's my question: if some of these sources are so hard to find (acknowledging that's not inherently a criterion for reliability)—shouldn't we consider removing material that's only verifiable in those sources per WP:DUE, given the enormity of the topic? This article is over 13k words long—frankly, to me that always indicates that we should be cutting it down somewhere, and this seems like obvious low-hanging fruit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That particular source by Rodgers is a candidate for removal, yes. I can't say about the others. I suggest you start going through Kaalakaa's edits starting in June 2023, and take notes. He put a lot of work into it, most of it good, but such an overwhelming amount that the other regulars here haven't found the spare time to check it all. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That is my impression as well. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Unusual invisible comment above category section section

Right above the category section, there's an invisible comment that just says "killing against Banu Qurayza". I can't really figure out the context, and while the Banu Qurayza seems to be related to Muhammad, the comment feels very out of place. I was tempted to just remove, but I'm gonna post here just in case. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Remsense ‥ 论 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ah okay thanks! cool signature btw! Gaismagorm (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi ! I saw, there was an unused religion parameter field just below the infobox. I filled that with Islam. Is it better, I am not sure as the infobox already displays establishing Islam in parameter known for. MSLQr (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

MSLQr, generally if such parameters are absent/unfilled, there's a good reason. — Remsense ‥ 论 05:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Reason..? Reply when feel free. MSLQr (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s from this diff. @Sharouser: care to explain why you made this edit? Northern Moonlight 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight actually it appears to be a comment explaining why they added one of the categories, I think it just loaded weird because I was using visual editor. It might be a good idea to add it back honestly. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense just pinging you since you are the one who removed the comment (please read the above reply). Gaismagorm (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the comment to be there, which is why I removed it. Remsense ‥ 论 23:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess. Eh I supposed it doesn't have to be there. Gaismagorm (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I find the current opening paragraph to be problematic, in that it emphasizes the fact that Muhammad was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" over the fact that he was "the founder of Islam". I tried to survey how some other encyclopedias introduce him in their very first sentence, and this is what I found (I'll omit technical information like transliteration of his name and his dates for brevity):

Muhammad was the founder of Islam and the proclaimer of the Qurʾān.
— Britannica

Muhammad, also known as the Messenger of God, or the Prophet, founder of the religion of Islam and of the Muslim community.
— Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 754

Muhammad, the prophet who, according to Muslims, received God's revelation in the Qur'an, and established Islam. His importance for Muslims is emphasized by the central Islamic profession of faith: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his (sic) Messenger."
— The Encyclopedia of World Religions, p 304

Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam and that faith's most important and significant messenger. He received his first revelation of the Holy Koran via the angel Gabriel when he was circa forty years old.
— Encyclopedia of World Religions, "Mohammed"

Muhammad is acknowledged by more than one billion Muslims as the last messenger of God. It was through him that the Quranic passages, which his followers believe present the word of God, had been revealed to guide the nascent community through its predicaments. The religion that Muhammad preached is called Islam, meaning submission to God; its creed asserts that there is but one God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
— Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, p 478

Muhammad is revered by Muslims as the prophet to whom the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, was revealed.
— Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd edition, p 6220

In other words, every single of the encyclopedia above introduces Muhammad as the founder of Islam/Muslim community and the proclaimer of the Qur'an, much more than being an Arab social and political leader. I think the opening paragraph can still mention Muhammad's reforms, but not in the first sentence.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say feel free to propose a rearrangement of the lead. WP:LEAD requires that the lead be a concise overview of the contents of the article, and insofar as the article goes into depth (likely more than other encyclopedias) about political leadership, I don't see the ordering of facts in the lead as a problem, but I don't object to changing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one (already cited in the article):

The Prophet of Islam was a religious, political, and social reformer who gave rise to one of the great civilizations of the world. From a modern, historical perspective, Muḥammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of the Islamic faith, he was God 's Messenger (rasūl Allāh), called to be a “warner,” first to the Arabs and then to all humankind.
— The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, Muḥammad

So I propose this is the opening paragraph:

Muhammad[a] (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; [mʊˈħæm.mæd]; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE)[b] was the founder of Islam.[c] According to Muslims, he was the last prophet sent by God, to preach and confirm the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.[2][3][4] Muhammad's life and normative examples, along with the Quran, form the basis for Islamic theology and law. Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization.

Definitely open to suggestions.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. 142.105.69.34 (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

maybe "final" is more correct than "last"? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The final prophet isn't "according to Muslims" it's "according to most Muslims" or "according to nearly all Muslims". Amadiyya consider themselves Muslims but they recognize a prophet after Muhammad. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. He was "an Arab religious, social, and political leader" because he was the founder of Islam. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the proposed replacement isn't really an improvement over what we have. The lead sentence already says he's the founder. Maneuvering the words around to get "founder" to appear earlier in the sentence isn't making the lead paragraph better. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Heck, the fact that he founded Islam is only really important because he was able to use it to become the dominant religious, social, and political leader. Lots and lots of religious movements are started and more or less quickly fade away. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you cite several sources, maybe a dozen, that introduce him as "an Arab religious, social, and political leader"? Because I've cited above 7 above that introduce him as a founder of Islam (or some variant of that), and could probably easily find a dozen more. Lets focus on the sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that this description may neglect the theological message he delivers. He did had unique ideas by subjugating the Arabian pantheon under one supreme deity he later identified with the God of the Talmudic tradition. He did have unique contributations in matters of theology as well. But this shouldn't mean that the part about his political identity should be removed, maybe just emphazize more his role as a religious figure? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To me, the current lead fits the best as the proposed doesn't make the opening paragraph more appropriate for the figure than the current. Even before what is known as foundational event of the religion, being active in Arab tribal meetings, setting the Black stone and his participation in Pre-Islamic tribal wars (as sources mention) also indicate sort of his social as well as political role (although not as leading person) and not as religious role at that time. Though the latter role got widely known. MSLQr (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And that's what this is about: what is Muhammad known the most for. No one is saying those other parts of his life shouldn't be in the lead, but we shouldn't claim somehow his early life is more important than his founding of Islam.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle I didn't propose removing his political identity but rather writing it as "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization." This is not inconsistent with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Muhammad Ali Jinnah all being introduced as (one of) the founders of the Republic of Turkey, United States, modern Egypt and Pakistan, respectively, in the first sentence. What do you think was his political identity? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Another one:

In the perspective of history, the origin of Islam can be traced back to the prophetic career of Muhammad, its historical founder in the first third of the seventh century.
— The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, "Muhammad", p 367

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not just shift the word "founder" forward in the existing opening sentence? You rewrote the entire first paragraph, and to me it isn't an improvement over what we already have. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm open to rewording. Lets consider your proposal: "Muhammad was the founder of Islam and an Arab political, social and religious leader." That would be an improvement over the current version. But we can improve it further:

• Isn't it redundant to describe him both as a "founder of Islam" and a "religious leader"? The former just about covers the entirety of his religious career.
• I replaced "Arab political and social leader" with "Muhammad established the first Islamic state, which later gave rise to the Islamic civilization". Isn't that more specific?

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

To your points: Sure, "religious leader" could be removed. The second replacement is fine too. It's your middle sentence in your proposal that isn't an improvement over what we have already. How about:

Muhammad (/moʊˈhɑːməd/; Arabic: مُحَمَّد, romanized: Muḥammad, lit. 'praiseworthy'; [mʊˈħæm.mæd]; c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE) is the founder of Islam, and an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization. According to Islamic doctrine,... [rest of the paragraph is unchanged]

~Anachronist (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a longish opening sentence. I sort of get the point that the OP makes at the beginning of this thread. But I think that the reason the wording kinda underplays the founding of Islam is not so much its position in the sentence but the use of "and" to add it. It gives it a "tacked on" feel. It seems right to begin with the "personal" fundamentals about him: that he was an Arab leader - though the "social" descriptor doesn't add much, IMO. My suggestion would be closer to the current wording but: Muhammad...was an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making suggestions, its important we make them. But I don't think yours is an improvement. Calling Muhammad "an Arab religious and political leader who founded Islam" makes it sound like he was a politician first who decided to create a religion. Historically, we know it was the other way around; he began religious preaching in 610 CE, and only founded a state in 622 CE.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add that the opening formula of "X...was [basic personal description]...who [description of what they're really famous for]" is a common solution across many WP bios - from Christopher Columbus to Martin Luther King Jr.. DeCausa (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was kind of my point earlier. I think the existing opening sentence is fine. If it can be improved by giving more prominence to the position of "founder" then that's good too but I'm not really happy with the alternative so far, including my own suggestion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "founder of Islam" fits really well as both a personal description as well as what he did. I'm fine with "an Arab social and political leader who established the first Islamic state that was the precuror to the Islamic civilization" anywhere in the first paragraph but probably not the first sentence.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It is important to mention he was a Arab leader given that it is through his leadership and those following that not only Islam but also the Arabic language and culture spread from its homeland across most of the Middle East and North Africa (and as a language of scholarship, much further). Erp (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine to mention him as an Arab leader, but he must be mentioned as the founder of Islam first. That is the absolute one thing he is the most notable for. Everything else is important, but secondary. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Erp, also can you quote sources that describe his influences on Arabs that you mentioned above? It will help us in seeing what wording scholars use to describe that and then perhaps we can mimic that wording.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Some garbled text in the Early biographies section

Looks like this got mangled by the 22:42, 2 November 2024 revision.

In the second paragraph where it reads "Recent studies have led year to distinguish", 'led' should be replaced by 'scholars'.

Just above this, there's an extraneous "Narratives of Islamic Origins". I think this is caused by a messed up citation.

Anyway, I don't have permission to edit this article, but I thought I'd point these out since the paragraph is pretty wonky as is. CrashTrack (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the erroneous word was "year" rather than "led".  Fixed. Left guide (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)