Talk:Muhammad/Archive 26

Edit request on 7 April 2012
According to Muslims Prophet Muhammed should be referred to as the one who received the message of Islam/Quran from Allah(God) and began spreading the message of Islam as opposed to the FOUNDER of Islam as Islam is considered to have been created by Allah (or God) and not found by any human being, this is a fundamental belief in Islam and the notes are not sufficient to describe who he was. In addition It is not that most muslims but there are no Muslims that believe Muhammed was the founder, therefore it is fair to say "according to muslims " prior to who he was.

Thus instead of "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎) was the founder of the religion of Islam.[" it should be "Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب ‎)was according to Muslims the one who received the revelation of the Quran/religion of Islam from Allah (God) through the Angel Gabriel" ...

68.120.162.164 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌: Read the intro carefully; it doesn't say what you claim it says. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2012
Who sets the boundaries for censorship here. Could you please redirect me to the censorship criteria. Who decides what is offending to someone and not to others. Why is pornography 'censored' on wikipedia? How is a neutral point of view agreed upon when the persons deciding about an issue might not have any representation from the offended community?

O Wikipedia... you benefit too many but certainly have your own flaws... one just cannot give the authority of decision to the ones who do not have any representation from the people he has been given authority on ..

I know it would not change a bit.. but im just trying to prove my point which in the eyes of many here is not worth considering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeuskhan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer your complaint, I must simply answer that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. We don't claim "authority"; our process for determining what material is included by consensus (not voting).  The matter of images has been extensively and exhaustively discussed (as you can see from the FAQ prominently listed at the top of the page) for years, and consensus has always determined that the images will be kept.  If you and the other "offended parties" would like to try and establish a consensus to remove the images, you are of course free to do so, but you will most likely be disappointed because that would conflict with Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy.  We do not censor images just because people are likely to find them offensive (Islam and Mohammed are not singled out in this; it applies to everyone).  Sleddog116 (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Brother, I request to delete the pictures which appears as keeping the black stone and getting revelation from angel and any photograph which shows the face of Prophet Muhammed because they are not true image and lead to future misunderstanding. Thank you. Ahamed.

Fakhru77 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This request will have to be denied, sorry. We cannot censor material on this project. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(RESUBMIT) EDIT REQUEST ON 22/04/12 Non-Arabic Sources (2.4)
Kindly add the following after reference 41 (also see above discussion for my reason for resubmitting)

"Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) indicate that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as was in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with Goliath's own sword and beheaded him) and David took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)"

OR else put the following in (NOTE - not a single word in from me)

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him.

49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.

52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath[f] and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron.

53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

54 David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem; he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent.

YOU CHOSE (since it is obvious that these things are decided on personal taste) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * All of that is your original research. You can't use primary sources to argue with the conclusions of secondary sources. I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, just that it's not how Wikipedia works. In any event, that stuff doesn't belong here anyway, because the whole point of that section is not to say whether or not Muhammad was a prophet in a Jewish/Christian perspective, but merely to note that this is the very first time Muhammad was described in Christian sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is getting weird by the minute. You tell me how to use the secondary sources to to argue with the conclusions of the secondary sources? Were those secondary sources not someone's primary sources? Why are you considering this an argument? I am only finishing up what the "EARLIEST DOCUMENTED CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE INDICATES". You allow a quote from " Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati" which is nothing but a naked assault on the character of this person. Why was the person who put this in not advised of not putting any primary sources in?

So nothing is wrong with the following?

1. Christian knowledge of Muhammad STEMS from 2. They INDICATE that both 3. SAW Muhammad as 4. is PORTRAYED as being

and then the person puts a direct quote in (using ORIGINAL RESEARCH) from these sources.

How do you suggest I put my proposed edit in? without research? but then you won't allow it because it lacks evidence. Without reference? then I get accused of interpreting stuff.

IF YOU WANT NEUTRALITY THEN THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING I.E. PROVIDING A COUNTER POINT OF VIEW TO BALANCE THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW.

How come it is OK to put in Muhammad with the sword (with quotes and references) but not ok to put in David with the sword (with references and quotes) ???

Furthermore, David became a king. You think kings rule without swords and infantry? Solomon had the biggest kingdom, Joseph became king of Egypt etc.

Why are you not being able to digest the hypocrisy of "Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati"?

For do prophets come with sword? (just because Jesus didn't come with the sword, doesn't mean that no other holy person can carry the sword of justice either) Though Jesus on his second return will come with a sword and will kill the anti-christ!
 * This is not an article about David, or Jesus. This is not an article about whey Muhammad is or is not considered a Christian prophet (that is Medieval Christian views on Muhammad). In any event, please read WP:OR, because your suggested edits are original research. I have really nothing more to add to this, because if you're unable/unwilling to recognize this basic policy of WIkipedia, there's not really much I or anyone else can do to help you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I suggest YOU go and READ WP:OR, because it CLEARLY states the following:

1. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]

You will find below many links which point to a RELIABLE PUBLISHED SOURCE!

2. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be ATTRIBUTABLE to a RELIABLE PUBLISHED source, even if not actually attributed.[1]

Again, all I will say that kindly familiarise yourself with the Bible, especially the Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58)

1. Research that CONSISTS of collecting and organizing material from EXISTING sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most RELIABLE sources on the topic and SUMMARISE what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.

so how is my proposed edit an original research when I am clearly giving reference to a PUBLISHED RELIABLE SOURCE?

Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58)

http://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-goliath-1-samuel-171-58

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1sa&c=17

http://www.biblestudytools.com/1-samuel/passage.aspx?q=1-samuel+17:1-58

http://www.sljinstitute.net/sermons/topical_studies/pages/life_david2.html

According to the words of a Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (see above link - sljinstitute)

"Tonight, in the second of our studies in the life of David, we are turning to 1 Samuel chapter 17 and we are studying the incident of David and Goliath tonight. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST FAMILIAR OF ALL THE STORIES IN THE BIBLE OF COURSE. I remember many years ago when I preached my first sermon on David and Goliath.  It was not my first sermon by a long shot.  In fact I had preached for a considerable period of time, and when I told my son at home that it was the first sermon that I had ever preached on David and Goliath he said, “Well that’s one of the first I would preach on.  I know it so well.”  And I remember that at the time that comment struck me as being true to life because it was one of the stories that I remembered from my Sunday school, my checkered Sunday school history, I might say.  This story is one that I do remember.  But so far as the lessons and the spiritual significance of it are concerned, that’s something that I never did learn when I studied it in Sunday school."

http://www.rondaniel.com/library/09-1Samuel/1Samuel1701.html

http://www.stephenricker.com/study/1samuel/1SamuelStudy8comments.htm

WOULD YOU LIKE ALL OF THE 273,000 RESULTS THAT COME UP ON GOOGLE?

Yet you say "ALL OF THAT is your original research"?

WHY HIDE YOUR BIGOTRY BEHIND POLICIES?

Remember Wikipedia's Original Research policy

"Best practice is to research the most RELIABLE sources on the topic and SUMMARISE what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.226.122 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to answer your concerns, although it seems to me the other editors have answered all of this already:
 * You are trying to add content to the article that asks the reader to compare Muhammad with other biblical figures, such as David, etc. As support for your comparisons, you reference biblical studies of those other figures.  This is, by definition, original research, as per WP:SYNTH, as you are doing an original synthesis of published materials: Reliable source A gives a certain description of Muhammad, reliable source B gives a certain description of other biblical figure, you write conclusion C: they are compariable figures.  That's original research, and no amount of writing in capital letters or repetition of the same argument is going to change that.
 * The links you provided are not reliable sources. A reliable source is a third-party, published source, that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  A bible study website or a minister's sermon is not a reliable source on how Muhammad compares to other biblical figures.
 * Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view does not require that an article on a religious figure requires that there be a comparison with another religion's description of other religious figures. Your rhetorical question above ("How come it is OK to put in Muhammad with the sword (with quotes and references) but not ok to put in David with the sword (with references and quotes) ???") is irrelevant to this article.  The purpose of this article to provide an encyclopedic article on the subject (in this case, Muhammad).  The article on David is a place to provide information about how various religions have viewed David.
 * You may be misinterpreting the reason mention is made in the article of the "sword and chariot" in an early Christian text (which claimed that Muhammad could not be a prophet for that reason). The quote is not there for the purpose of suggesting that Muhammad is or is not a prophet (Wikipedia, for very obvious reasons, is neutral on that issue).  The quote is to show one of the earliest Christian texts that talks about Muhammad, in order to show when he started to appear as a figure in texts and literature outside of the Arabic world. Singularity42 (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

chaldean not arab
we muslims know that the prophet's ancestor is ibrahim who is chaldean not arab

so why does this article say he's arab? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.63.24 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply put wikipedia does not care what you, I or the leader of country X knows. It has to be verified by reliable sources in order to be usable in an article. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be rude, 214.27.58.2, it's not helpful.
 * As to your concern, 88.201.63.24, it may be entirely valid if you can produce reliable, verifiable, third-party sources as citations. Here are some guidelines which may be helpful in doing this:
 * Wikipedia's Verifiability Guidelines
 * A Guide to Citing Sources
 * Identifying Reliable Sources
 * I hope these help. If you're familiar with sources on the subject of Abraham/Ibrahim that qualify, by all means be bold and include them. Peter Deer (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being rude. I summed up those wikipedia policies and how they work. If I was being rude I would have used for less civil language as well as most likely made disparaging remarks. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that you do not feel you were being rude. I disagree. I accept that it is possible you could have been ruder, and thank you for not being so. By the same token, I could be more chastising, though I did not feel that was necessary or productive. Let's both exercise restraint and forebearance. Peter Deer (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor change in expression
Would it be OK for me to change
 * "Muhammad's father, Abdullah, died almost six months before he was born"
 * to
 * "His father, Abdullah, died almost six months before Muhammad was born"?

In the former, I would normally expect the pronoun "he" to point at the preceding noun (father) not its modifier (Muhammad's), and so it reads a little clumsy to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that your modification would remove the grammatical ambiguity, and is a good plan. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Need for consistency: Founding of Islam
Currently, our various articles on Islam here at Wikipedia provide contrary information regarding Muhammad’s role in the founding of Islam. The articles below reveal this:

Islam “However, Muslims do not view Muhammad as the creator of Islam, but instead regard him as the last messenger of God, through which the Qur'an was revealed.” Citations: Esposito (1998), p.12 Esposito (2002b), pp.4–5 F. E. Peters (2003), p.9 "Muhammad". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Muhammad in Islam “Although Western scholars regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam,[3] Muslims believe that monotheistic faith was not created by a human but was revealed by God.” Citations: Catholic Encyclopedia, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, retrieved July 03, 2010

Prophets in Islam “Although many lay Muslims and many Western scholars and writers hold the view that Islam began with Muhammad in Mecca, this contradicts the Quran, which says that Muhammad simply was the last prophet who preached the same faith that Adam preached to his children.” Citations: None

Muhammad “Muhammad (c. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632;[ also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Arabic: مُحَمَّد‎), full name: Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: مُحَمَّد بِن عَبْدَالله بِن عَبْد اَلْمُطَّلِب‎) was the founder of the religion of Islam.” Citations: Rodinson (2002)

In the first three, it is clearly communicated that Muslims, themselves, do not see Muhammad as the founder of Islam. Yet, in the case of our article, Muhammad, the same information is relegated to a smaller-font footnote at the bottom of the page. I believe we can better craft a sentence in the opening paragraph here, which reflects the Islamic viewpoint not just leaving it to a footnote. Clearly more is needed.

The use of Help:Footnotes is suited for - citations, which identify sources, or as an explanatory footnote which is a comment too detailed or awkward to include in the body of the article.

This is not such a situation. Our article needs to communicate in a much more balanced and clear-cut way both Western and Islamic perspectives on this. If any other editor would like to do make the edit, please be BOLD and get to work! Otherwise, I’ll be happy to do so myself. Let’s improve this. Veritycheck (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored the opening in the first paragraph using original sentences that began this article when it was last listed as WP:GA - July 5, 2008. At that time, our intro was in line with WP:NPOV and WP:Balance. The fundamental point of view that Muhammad is not considered by Muslims to be the founder of Islam was neither diminished nor consigned to a mere note at the bottom of the page. Somehow, in the ensuing years, this essential tenet lost its prominent place of importance. I have corrected that with this edit.


 * Furthermore, I have added the line “Although Western scholars regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam, Muslims believe that monotheistic faith was not created by a human but was revealed by God”, with its citations to show that Western scholars believe otherwise; thus preserving this alternative perspective. Veritycheck (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I consider this highly disruptive, disregarding years of discussion and consensus that are available in the talk page archives. Articles that reach GA are not set in stone, they can still evolve while retaining GA status. I find it also curious that Veritycheck initiated a flawed GA reassessment based on perceived instability, then reinforces it by introducing instability. While I applaud efforts to copy-edit the intro to provide a balanced and clear view of Islamic and Western perspectives, merely reverting to an outdated revision is not the way to do this. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added nothing new, but rather tried to bring this article back to WP:GA. It would be most helpful to address the issue of the Founding of Islam and not side-step it. What is your opinion here? Clarity would be most useful. Are you content with an introduction that no longer says Muslims, themselves, do not regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam? Are you content with an intro that only espouses a Western perspective on Mohammad? I would be happy to see your own edit as I have previously encouraged others to do. Lets work together. Veritycheck (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Before you go any further with this you need to consult the archives where you will see that you are raising an issue already discussed at length and upon which consensus has already been reached. Have you read the archives on this issue? DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You aren't trying "to bring this article back to WP:GA". It already is GA. The lead has evolved over years of discussion and consensus; you don't simply disregard that and revert to an outdated version.
 * If you had looked through the archives, you would have seen quite clearly my own views on this matter. I'll reiterate: I don't advocate the term "founder". Rather, I doubt any Muslim or Westerner would disagree that Muhammad "introduced" Islam to the world. But I have no problem with the article using "founder".
 * Furthermore, while explaining the differences between Western and Islamic viewpoints makes sense for the Islamic articles you mention, it is not appropriate for the lead in a biography article. In this article, the explanation is best relegated to a footnote &mdash; as has been previously agreed. The WP:BURDEN is on you to convince the community otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From any secular perspective, Muhammad was the founder of Islam. There's no trace of the belief system prior to his existence. I do, however, prefer the lead paragraph circa http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad&oldid=487277380, which states the discrepancy between secular perspectives and Islamic beliefs in the first paragraph of the article rather than deferring it to a footnote.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have both views in the lead, provided they are both reliably sourced. I wouldn't mind the prophet view first and the founder view second. What I particularly dislike about the current founder sentence is that it seems that "was" should be "is" or founder should be ditched for "founded." At any rate, as with the last time this was discussed, when I suggested "7th century (1st century A.H.) proponent of the religion of Islam", we should paraphrase whatever the sources say, and very closely paraphrase or even quote, to the extent we editors can't agree on the paraphrase. I also think that "prophet," "founder" or "proponent" are trying in many ways to describe the same thing.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Earlier I reverted an edit by Veritycheck and my edit summary was incorrect. I mistakenly thought that he had made more than one revert and put WP:EDITWARRING in the summary but this was not the case. For obvious reasons he asked that I clarify this here. S Æ dontalk 02:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Veritycheck asked me to comment here (I don't know specifically why he notified me, though I believe I've weighed in on this issue before). Speaking from a policy consideration, the GA issue is a red herring, as Amtaulic alludes to. GA articles can change over time by consensus; the only real time it should really be taken into account is that right after an article is promoted, it's probably best to assume that current article has consensus. However, note that a GA review does not consider issues such as "What is the best way to represent Fact X?" GA reviews, rather, revolve much more around formatting, quality of sources, and breadth of coverage.
 * Having said that, I believe that Veritycheck is correct that this article's lead is improperly imbalanced towards a secular view of Mohammad. Having one comment in the main text, with the counter view in a footnote, clearly favors one position over another. I would be shocked if someone could prove to me that the significant majority of reliable sources (and note that many documents written from an Islamic perspective will qualify as reliable sources for this matter, so long as they are written by experts, and/or peer reviewed) say that Muhammad is the founder of Islam. Now, I admit, I don't have evidence other than the broad numbers of adherants on my side, either. But a basic first glance sure indicates to me that this does not meet WP:UNDUE.
 * One final point: some people start to breach, above, the idea that this is a "secular" biography. That notion is ludicrous and has no basis in WP policy; in fact, specifically making this the "secular" biography would make this violate WP:NPOV, by choosing one side (the side that does not see Mohammad's story in the context of the divine) over the other. I'm personally willing to go so far as to give slight precedence to the secular view, but not as far as now. Would anyone be willing to entertain a compromise that kept the lead sentence as it is, but simply moved (with a little bit of rephrasing) the footnote into the lead itself? This parallels Kww's suggestion, and matches Alanscottwalker's (I've been preparing this for a while now and they've both posted similar things in the meanwhile) which I also think has merit worth considering. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian, we are a secular project. We describe religious beliefs in non-judgmental tones and do not promote one over another, but we don't treat them as true. That's all NPOV demands of us.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Veritycheck who has taken up the point again which I pointed out in earlier discussion and at least got added the foot note. Many thanks to all others who got understanding this time that Islamic view point also to be given equal space in lead Para as Wikipedia is common platform and Muhammad being known to Islamic source better. Hope someone more English may pl. be phrase the sentence properly now and edit.--Md iet (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we could try to find a wording along the lines of "...Islam was introduced by Mohammad, according to Muslims he was the prophet who delivered the word of God, while in a secular context he is regarded as the founder of Islam..." This seems to be one of those occasions when neutrality is best served by acknowledging a difference of opinion (which may serve the rest of the article quite well) though trying to avoid going into too much detail in the lead. In context, the views of (the majority of mainstream) Muslims are key to an understanding even as a historical figure.

It may be interesting to note the views of early followers, as this may be relevant to historical interpretations. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't use what passed good article criteria in 2008 to say what one would be today as standards have changed. For example in the 2008 version there are multiple links in the opening to the same article, links to dates, links to incorrect articles and links to common terms. In the first paragraph it tells the reader twice that Muslims see him as the restorer of Islam. By the way the opening of the 2008 version does not say how people other than Muslims view Muhammad. However, balance can't be brought about by saying that Muslims view him as one thing and as another by secularists. That would mean that the views of over 5 billion people are not represented. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the proposal raised by Verity. In its present state, the article does not follow WP:NPOV or common sense. The article cannot assert that Muhammad is the "founder of Islam" if there is significant debate between Muslim scholars and Western scholars. The correct thing to do, in this case, is to present both points of view equally in the lead.
 * The claims that Wikipedia is a "secular project" are complete nonsense, and trying to promote such things does actually break WP:NOT (Specifically: ). It would be like someone trying to claim that Wikipedia is a "religious project". Wikipedia is nothing more than an online encyclopedia; well, that and maybe "The Free Encyclopedia". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is that to a Western reader, it is not obvious why Muhammad would not be the "founder of Islam" even given beliefs that he received the Quran from God. I mean, there was a time when there were no Muslims, no Islamic holy places or texts; then there was a time when there was; and who was the first person to be one of the Muslims?  How does his being the founder of Islam contradict a divine origin for its beliefs? Wnt (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To some extent, all religious adherents believe "god" is the founder of their religion, be it directly or through divine inspiration. NPOV is tricky here, because one on hand we know for a fact that Muhammad founded the religion by the normal use of the word found, while the Islamic position is a faith based position with no evidence that leads us to believe it's anymore true than god talking to Moses or Shiva destroying the universe. So essentially we have to state a fact and then say that Muslims hold a faith based position contrary to a known fact.  And when I say fact I mean it in a linguistic sense; that is, we have a certain definition for the word found and based on this definition Muhammad is incontrovertibly the founder (he, whether having talked to god or not, is the human who gave Islam to the world.  He of course claims that his information is from god, but so does every other prophet).  Whether we delve into this is going to depend one what we mean when we say we're a "secular" encyclopedia.  S Æ dontalk 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the Jesus and Gautama Buddha articles, and neither mention in the first sentence either character being the "founders" of anything (The Buddha one actually goes on to mention that his teachings were the foundation of the religion; not the Buddha himself). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad analogy. Jesus and Buddha did not set out to introduce a new religion, as Muhammad did. A better more parallel analogy would be Joseph Smith, who founded Mormonism, and who also is held by believers in similar regard, under similar circumstances complete with finished writings revealed directly from God. Nobody argues that he isn't the "founder", not even Mormons (as far as I know), who nevertheless consider Smith as God's messenger, similar to how Muslims view Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you talked to either Jesus or the Buddha to claim knowledge of their true intentions. The Smith article presents him as "the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement." It does not mention him as the founder of Mormonism, but rather presents the LDS movement as the founder of Mormonism. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I wrote about intentions is the generally accepted view. It's a straw-man to point out that I didn't personally speak to Jesus or Buddha. You're right about LDS/Mormonism, but that's splitting hairs. The point I made still stands. Joseph Smith is believed by Mormons to have received a revelation from God, similar to what happened with Muhammad, resulting in the founding of a religion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone else can probably express it better, but Muslims consider Muhammad as the last prophet in a line that includes Jesus, Moses and Abraham, and that at various times those who followed the Judaic, and Christian paths were led astray from the one decreed by God, so Islam is not a new religion founded by Muhammed but a set of instructions to return to the true path of the covenant made through Abraham.--KTo288 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KTo288 is right.  J N  466  00:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence alternatives
The lead sentence should not dwell on the different perspectives of Muslims and others regarding whether Muhammad is the "founder" of Islam, because WP:LEAD requires that anything in the lead must provide an overview of the article. Making a point about a distinction that is not in the article body, and is irrelevant to this biography, is inappropriate per our guidelines.

That said, here are some alternatives I propose to the lead sentence, which currently reads "Muhammad ... was the founder of the religion of Islam." For heaven's sake, the very next sentence states the Muslim perspective. That last one wouldn't even need a footnote. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Muhammad ... was the discoverer of the religion of Islam.
 * Muhammad ... first introduced to followers the now-global religion of Islam.
 * Muhammad ... is considered by secular scholars as the founder of the religion of Islam. (This leads in nicely to the following sentence "He is considered by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets.").
 * My opinions: #1 is a POV problem because it insinuates that Islam existed at some point and then Muhammad discovered it, i.e. it's a true religion. #2 is incorrect because Muhammad didn't just introduce it to follows of Islam, but also to people who didn't and don't follow it. #3 appears to give undue weight to an idea held by only one group of people (albeit a big group, but only one as opposed to all other groups).  S Æ dontalk 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with your assessment of #1. For #2, just remove "to followers". #3 gives no undue weight because the next sentence provides the opposing weight. Both sentences say how Muhammad "is considered" by different groups, secular or otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2, yes I was about to edit this to say what you just said. It's not a bad version.  And actually I misread #3 earlier and you're right, it's not bad either.  S Æ dontalk 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose something different: The rest of the paragraph can discuss what secular scholars and muslims believe. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Muhammad ... was an Arabian prophet from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single Muslim religious polity.
 * Was Muhammad a prophet? Muslims obviously believe so, but that's not a secular position nor a position held by adherents to most other religions.  S Æ dontalk 18:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At first look, I think that sentence is pretty good in that it focuses on the biography. Just change "prophet" to "leader" or some similar word. The problem with it is, it removes from the lead any explanation about what makes Muhammad notable. He is notable for bringing Islam to the world, and that really needs to be said up front. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both of you are correct. Change "prophet" to either "leader" or "religious leader", and problem solved; right? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem solved except for the fact that it removes any mention of Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, taking into account both of your suggestions:
 * Muhammad ... was an Arabian prophet from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam.
 * As before, the rest of the paragraph can discuss the "founder" issue. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I took my best shot at my own solution:   I have a tendency to go wrong whenever I approach this article though. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC) - N.B. Marshal, you rv'd my comment here by accident.
 * I disagree with your changes as they are, now, providing a POV issue against the secular perspective. I apologize for the reversion of your original comment. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I have the secular perspective.  Can you explain the problem? Wnt (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that there was a different problem I see with this article - while you're using the lead to make the seemingly minor point that he was the "founder" of Islam, you're not using it to say he wrote the Quran. Remember, a lot of people reading this will be completely ignorant about Islam and the whole point of the lead paragraph is to nail down little particulars like that early so they don't get hopelessly confused. ;)
 * I see though that my edit is reverted. I'm not going to hang around here and argue over it, but I really do think it was a much better solution than any of the alternatives I saw above.  Say that Muhammad wrote the Quran (Muslims believe, under the influence of God) and the Quran is the founding text of Islam.  I think Islamics make a big, big point that they are not worshipping Muhammad, but simply following that book, so I think this is the best possible way to address the issue. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Quran article, Muhammad did not write the Quran (It was written after he died). I still see the following as a much better option: "Muhammad ... was an Arabian religious leader from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." It shows who he is and his importance in history. The "founder" vs. "last prophet" perspectives should also be in the first paragraph, but not in the opening sentence. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fairish point - the article says he dictated it: "As it was initially spoken, the Quran was recorded on tablets, bones and the wide, flat ends of date palm fronds." To me, dictating a book is "writing" it, but admittedly that could be misinterpreted.  But it's not like it had the hiatus of the Gospels, even if there was a period when the pieces were independently circulated. Wnt (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just add that it is a core belief in Islam that Muhammad was illiterate. Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's | generally accepted. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, as I've mulled this over a couple of days, I am liking more and more MarshalN20's suggestion of this sentence for the lead: "Muhammad ... was an Arabian leader from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam." It's objective, factual, explains clearly the notability of the man, and contains nothing objectionable to any group, as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good but "leader from Mecca who unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam" ... is even better less wordy/repetitive Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, even better -- and the next sentence after it, already in the lead, describes the Muslim perspective. I think that would make things nicely balanced, and eliminate the constant distractions about "founder". We could still have a footnote about that, but even that isn't necessary anymore.
 * Anyone object to this new version of the lead sentence? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good improvement providing there is a citation to support it. Veritycheck (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole article tells that story. There is nothing controversial about that sentence; therefore, no citation is required. The sentence simply provides an overview of a huge part of the body of the article, in conformance with WP:LEAD. See WP:LEADCITE. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't seem to be disagreement about this sentence, I have changed the lead sentence accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed this discussion for a while, but skipping to the end...this looks like a good solution. One minor quibble: "a leader form Mecca" sounds a bit vague and slightly unencyclopedic somehow. "religious reformer from Mecca"? "political and religious leader from Mecca"? something like might sound a little better. DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It wouldn't bother me if the phrase were completely removed to say "Muhammad ... unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam" but of the alternatives you presented, "political and religious leader" sounds best to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolving and getting past the current edit-war
We need to get past this. I would ask all editors involved to realize that it’s impracticable that an edit will be found that meets each and everyone’s differing perspective exclusively. There is more than one point of view on the founding of Islam. Exclusive editing will not put a stop to the edit war. We need to be inclusive. I suggest that each involved editor state clearly what minimum point concerning the founding of Islam he or she believes should be included. Using sources and citations due to do to the controversialist nature of the article, WP:LEADCITE – “Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations” would certainly add legitimacy and perhaps minimize future disputes. Citations should be verified. Recently, one editor cited a source which stated the contrary to his edit. In the interest of building consensus, I’ll start with what I believe should be included. I urge other interested editors to chime in with their own thoughts so we can put an end to the instability of the article concerning this and move on.


 * if one perspective on the founding of Islam is included, both Western and Islamic points of view should be clearly stated in an equal fashion per NPOV. I am also amenable to leaving out the issue all together. The inclusion of only one perspective at the expense of all others is not acceptable. Veritycheck (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste
I think we could improve on the current paraphrasing of the following: Before going ahead with the paraphrase, though, do you have any thoughts on whether this content ought to remain? If you argue for retention, could you also suggest a paraphrase please, if you can think of something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think copyvios like this are meant to be removed the instant they're located. I'll go read the policy, and if that's the case, I'll come back and strip them out. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:NFC is that they should be removed, so I've done so. Regardless of the legal position, it's just very rude to copy and paste from Britannica into Wikipedia, it's not like we're discussing the Britannica article or anything. Thoughts on whether we need this content and suggested paraphrases would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you Anthonyhcole. Hopefully, step by step, we can get this article back up to par. Good work! Veritycheck (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Another one: I've removed it. This could be a big problem. It's bedtime here so I won't be doing any more tonight. I recommend returning to the version that passed GA, or earlier if that version contained these copyvios. We know about this now, and have an obligation to act promptly. I'd do it myself now but I don't know where to find the date of the GA. Could someone else please do that immediately. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of green words so far counts up to 192, and many sites (such as abstract indexes) make a practice of quoting 300. So technically we don't have a literal copyright violation here.  The problem is that these quotes, when not attributed, count as "WP:Plagiarism".  We could legitimately quote that much, with " " and appropriate referencing, which of course is not true of an actual copyright violation i.e. longer length.  Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that Wikipedia wants to stay far from plagiarism.  A reason often given, with which I personally disagree, is to uphold its reputation - I don't think that amateur, sometimes non-academic writers actually need to uphold such a high reputation - however, Wikipedia has a different reason of its own, which is that the content needs to be freely editable and reusable, and there is a risk that if you take an article with 200 unattributed words and add a nice big quote or picture of your own, you start getting into the area where there could be a genuine copyright violation, and there's no way to know that without suppressing the plagiarism.  The point of this tldr pedantry of mine is just to point out that we won't need to suppress edit history or do other copyvio-type responses here, and those at fault should be pointed at the plagiarism policy rather than the copyright. Wnt (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've tracked the "polemical history" part to a series of edits on July 29, 2008. The three other bits from the first table above come from there, but the edit mentioned later is older... looks like it came in March 31, 2008 by the same editor, User:Sa.vakilian, who was a major contributor to the article.   On the plus side, all these quotes were sourced directly to EB, and I don't think we even had any rules specifically about plagiarism back then.  But if people want to be thorough they might want to check other sources he's cited for direct copying. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good sleuthing on the source. :) But there is no maximum safe word count; I'm afraid that's a common copyright misconception. :/ See, for instance,, , , and even our own article on fair use, which documents a legal case in which copying 300 words from a book was found to be copyright infringement. This is not merely a plagiarism issue; this is an issue under WP:C and WP:NFC, both of which have long required that any content copied verbatim from non-free sources be fully and explicitly marked as quotations. This may have been and very probably was done in all good faith, but I'm afraid that it's still quite probably a copyright problem...especially  because we have reason to be concerned about other sources as well. See , for one more example:


 * We see this kind of thing from time to time - where in all good faith a contributor copies or very closely paraphrases from non-free sources without realizing that this is permitted only in direct quotation. Looking at the contributor's list of edits to this article, I wonder if the best thing to do here isn't to proactively replace or remove specific contributions by him, unless they can be checked and (where necessary) turned into quotations as appropriate:
 * (Not all of these edits will be problematic; this should be a list of content + edits that were not reverted or minor.) I don't have any particular insight into Muhammad, but do the regular editors of this article think this is something that they could undertake? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm looking at this editor's contributions:
 * Gone.
 * Gone.
 * Gone.
 * Gone.
 * No problem (a citation still in use).
 * No problem (minor formatting).
 * Problem. This is the example Moonriddengirl pointed to above ("Ali himself was firmly...")
 * Cites Britannica but I can't access it.
 * Gone.
 * Gone.
 * I deleted these copyvios; details above.
 * Can't see a problem.
 * No problem.
 * I'll continue later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't see a problem.
 * No problem.
 * I'll continue later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll continue later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Picking up for Anthony:

"No problem" means, I could see no paraphrase or copyvio problem (other problems could still exist). Also, FYI, I took no action in the article, as a result of this review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no longer in this article - the Hadith article should be checked;
 * no problem; no problem;
 * no longer in this article; from the subject matter any article that discusses inheriting property from Muhammad should be checked, especially with respect to Shia claims;
 * still here w/ two cites -one is deadlinked so cannot be checked, the other does not appear to be close paraphrase, subject matter is pertinent to difference between Shia and Sunni interpretations of Farewell Sermon.
 * no problem
 * still in article but phrasing since largely modified in some respects, cited to three sources (these would need to be checked).
 * image, not text
 * Still here. Deadlink, so unable to check (without further searches in Encyclopedia Iranica) but it does not appear on its face to be close paraphrase, as it seeks to link to other wiki articles and uses simple phrasing.
 * links not text
 * EB cited material no longer here.
 * EB cited material no longer here.
 * No longer here, Historiography of early Islam should be checked.
 * Could be a problem. Paragraph largely still here, so the cite (book by Farah) would need to be checked
 * Farah cite
 * no problem
 * Could be a problem. Paragraph largely still here, so Momen book would need to be checked.
 * Thanks Alan. That's my meaning for "no problem", too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why were some templates collapsed?
Muhammad timeline in Mecca and Muhammad timeline in Medina were both collapsed, why? They contain relevant information about Muhammad's life. And making them collapsed by default sends a wrong message. Let these information be as visible as the rest of the article. "It gives the article a better layout" (subjective+immaterial), is it relevant at all? I don't think so. Brendon is here  17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong message? What message is that?  They are uncited complilations of material, which should be a duplication of the other material, just in a chart form.  The last time this was discussed in December, everyone agreed that it made sense to collapse because they take up too much space and are charts of uncited material that should be duplicate of the material in the text. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wrong message? What message is that?" - That the list of these events are relatively unimportant as compared to other information. Our job as editors is to present information (backed by reliable source) as opposed to sitting in judgement of what's important and what's not.


 * BTW, we are not talking about whether or not “they are uncited complilations of material” (take that up in the template talk-page) . So, that would be an irrelevant statement in this context (a red herring perhaps?). Brendon is  here  20:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly remember it being discussed and agreed, as Alan says ... -- J  N  466  03:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this is browser-dependent. They aren't collapsed for me. I see a lot of collapsed templates elsewhere (like at the top of this talk page), so I know the collapse feature works in Chrome. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry your browser is alright. I changed them. Brendon is  here  20:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've made a good point - and the right decision. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I view Wikipedia on a rather small monitor, and those templates certainly never got in my way. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm mystified by Brendon's rationale, but, whatever. When it comes to a layout review just more stuff for people to fight over in the future, when there is a different consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is, if something is too unimportant to be worth showing by default, then why burden the user's internet connection and browser memory with it? Either it's worth showing (the case here) or it should be palmed off on some more specialized article. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Don't be silly.  Wikipedia has collapsed templates in a multitude of articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of taste. Personally, I prefer collapsed: it looks better. It is a trivial point, though, and I'll abide by community consensus. The last time this was discussed I wasn't involved, but the editors who were agreed collapsed was neater. I'm in favour of returning to collapsed until someone determines, or it becomes obvious, that consensus has changed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there are other articles with collapsed templates ... still, I'm pretty convinced those are also wrong. There was a big discussion about "SEO" and "spamming links" and so forth a while back, and while most of those people were simply looking for excuses to suppress the Santorum (neologism) article, I'm pretty convinced that the furthest excess of that - the templates like Template:The Beatles - does need to be trimmed back.  There are things that should be done via category that are being done by navboxes, and then we end up with so many stacked navboxes in articles that people want to hide some.  But when we do that we end up with articles that are almost 50% made up of links to totally irrelevant content.  Hiding content makes it too easy to drown articles in this kind of junk without really paying attention to it. Wnt (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Alanscottwalker, No, you don't be silly. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles use or do not use. In Wikipedia nothing is stopping anybody creating any template or article. There are plenty of articles that use collapsed templates, that probably should not. So, to argue that the fact that other articles use collapsed templates somehow implies Muhammad's article should do it too, is in itself a scorn-worthy fallacy. @Anthonyhcole "It's just a matter of taste." - no, it's not. In any case, in an encyclopaedia editors' taste shouldn't matter much. We're here to display information as opposed to showing our "taste". Brendon is  here  09:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More silliness. We have an MOS. Now, we have four different templates in the article body that link to other articles about Muhammad, in addition to the boxes at the bottom.  The two we've been discussing.  The "Expeditions" one, which was not here when we discussed collapse the last time, and the "Life Series" one. Maybe we should give the horizontal templates each its own section. But as seems usual, the arguments really have to do with some argument somewhere else or editors making overwrought claims. It's trivial, yes, and when it comes to MOS review is when it will "matter." Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your inane gibberish is not helping, mind you. There is no limit on what pertinent information could be included. Either include or don't include (by explaining why). But, making a template collapsed by default is gratuitous and unacceptable. Brendon is  here  10:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It's not, as has already been shown. Could one get more overwrought? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's not, as has already been shown" - in your imagination probably. These templates also serve a navigational purpose. So just as we don't needlessly use tags like in articles, we should avoid hiding information in any shape or form, even if it's just provisional. "Could one get more overwrought?" - how is this line helping our discussion apart from revealing your abject rudeness to everybody? Brendon is  here  10:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone, who's discussed it, has already agreed Wikipedia collapses templates. Your arguments are overwrought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Primarily it was for asthetics from what I remember (it has been a few months since I have been around and it was before that.) Anyways the whole thing came up from the fact that we have a large selection of pictures and quite frankly there are more than a few multi link sections within the article. The editors at the time didn't want to remove them (since they do relate to the subject) so the suggestion was to collapse the boxes which had good concensus. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Muslim view of Jesus is mentioned in the lead to his article. Why should it not be the other way round? ðarkun coll 23:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad created Islam; their god, Allah
This series of edits has restored the assertion that Islam is Muhammad's creation, as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I prefer the earlier version, where the distinction between historical and Islamic perspective is made clear in a neutral way. I'll allow those arguing this point above to decide which version is best.

But this series of edits also supplants " God" with "their god, known as Allah ", which obscures the important point that the Koran is said to be the work of the god of Abraham, commonly rendered "God". I have no problem with this article addressing the names of God in Islam, if consensus deems that important enough, but the present change obscures a very important point. I have reverted that change and invite User or others to defend the change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the "Western view" is demoted as simply being an opinion, or of having merely equal worth to the Islamic view. It is a historical fact that Muhammad created Islam, whatever Muslims happen to believe. Also, whereas they claim their god is the same one the Jews worship, many Jews disagree. ðarkun coll 08:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? First of all, the very idea of "historical fact", the way you're saying it, is a fallacy, an invention. Calling something a "fact" is just a POV claim to be more "true" than some other POV that operates under a different set of rules. Yes, on Wikipedia, we tend to prefer academic sources over non-academic ones in matters of history, but I don't believe we make (or should make) the jump to a so-called "secular" POV. Maybe we should consider echoing the language of the lead of Jesus, which takes a far more nuanced view about the distinction between a secular view and a religious view? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm sorry, what? First of all, the very idea of "historical fact", the way you're saying it, is a fallacy, an invention." - Invention? "Calling something a "fact" is just a POV claim" - What on earth are you talking about? "Fact" is a POV claim? Muhammad started Islam. That's fact because it is what history proves and basic logic allows. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion here on wikipedia. "Maybe we should consider echoing the language of the lead of Jesus, which takes a far more nuanced view about the distinction between a secular view and a religious view?" - I don't understand this weird penchant for non-sequiturs really. Here in this thread why should we leave everything and shift our focus to jesus article? Who cares here if it "takes a far more nuanced view"? Go talk about it in the Talk:Jesus and not here. Brendon is  here  10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that Muhammad created Islam. That Muslims don't believe this is also true, but this religious belief belongs more in the article on Islam and its doctrines. It deserves no more than a footnote, at best, in the article on Muhammad. ðarkun coll 10:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps your opinion that Muhammad created Islam representing one perspective out of many. Your personal ideas do not take precedence over those of others, nor allow/justify you to footnote perspectives that are not your own. See NPOV for further clarification. Veritycheck (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I was unclear, but Veritycheck hits the nail on the head: it is not a "fact" to say that Muhammad created Islam. Or, rather, it is no more "factual" than saying "Muhammad passed on divine revelation from Allah which became the basis of Islam." Choosing the former is equally POV. Wikipedia's policy on the matter is WP:NPOV. Note that if you read that policy it does not say "The POV of Western historians" or "The POV of academics"; instead, it says that we must strive to have no POV, and in cases where that is impossible, describe situations from multiple POV. The only exception to this is that we do not include WP:FRINGE POV, and there is the further clarification in NPOV that we must represents opinions with due weight. I mentioned the Jesus article because I'm saying that we should use that wording here, in the Muhammad article, about Muhammad. We should stop give equal precedence to the two forms of scholarship--the one that says he "founded" Islam, and the one that says he was the messenger of Islam (or however that is properly phrased). Our own policies require us to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The claim that Muhammad did not found Islam is a religious belief, not a historical fact. To pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. ðarkun coll 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've been editing this article for some time, TharkunColl. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. ðarkun coll 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears a little moot, or rather futile, to me. However, it may be another basis for polemics extending well beyond the return of Jesus, or the coming of the Mahdi, or even the second Messiah, or perhaps even all three of them. I suggest we return to the basics and do things one concrete step at the time: Find one statement in the article that looks not so good. Check its footnoted sources. If they are good and reliable then that angle has merits to be preserved in the article. Now, collate the references which support a different wording of the same issue. Are they on par, academically and/or as (religious/inside) authorities on the subject with the first? Well, then juxtapose the differing views. If no order of authority between them can be established, make sure to alternate their order of appearing throughout the article. Then comes the exciting part. If you can find some really good sources which appear to discuss the merits of the two different views from a perspective which doesn't intrinsically lean toward either view, then the position of that authority can be applied to establish an order of significance between the two original views, and one may be presented as the more authoritative, one over the other. It looks so simple, doesn't it? __meco (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that would give the erroneous impression that the two views are of equal merit as historical fact. ðarkun coll 16:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That contention suggests you work with a foregone conclusion. That's not reconcilable with good editorship. __meco (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it a "foregone conclusion" that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066? ðarkun coll 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * A foregone conclusion refers to future events, so no, that would not fall into that category. Mind you, I now replied to a question of yours which seems to me an utter non-sequitur. I humored you by applying good faith in that you have a salient point for me once I grant you this little pleasure. Now impress me! __meco (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You described the fact that Muhammad founded Islam as a foregone conclusion, even though it took place in the past. ðarkun coll 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would you be so kind as to quote the post where I did that? I'm unaware that such a post exists. __meco (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem, Tharkuncoll, is that it is also a historical fact that the Jews created God, that Christians worship someone that never existed, that Joseph Smith wrote the golden plates, and all kinds of uncomfortable things. While we may all disagree as to exactly what level NPOV requires us to give credence to religious beliefs, it certainly requires us to give equal credence to religious beliefs. It's best, most diplomatic, and least likely to cause interminable and unresolvable conflicts to simply neutrally describe each religion's beliefs without attempting to take any position as to whether those beliefs are true or not. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but this certainly doesn't seem to be one of those cases.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly acceptable to describe a belief, in this case that Muhammad didn't found Islam, in the relevant section or article. It is mere POV, however, to put it in the lead as if it might be a historical fact. ðarkun coll 19:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And this differs from "Judaism is considered by religious Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God developed with the Children of Israel" and "Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated and believe that he rose from the dead after being crucified" in what fashion, precisely?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One cannot use other articles as part of an argument. They might be equally badly written too. ðarkun coll 19:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but in this case you are basically arguing for treating one religion differently from pretty much all others, which raises larger WP:NPOV issues than the one you are trying to solve.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl, you keep asserting that one statement ("Muhammad founded Islam") is a fact, while the alternative view is not a fact; you have not, as far as I know, asserted any basis for your claim. I mean, trust me, I get it--I understand this western-scientific-logical principle that places its own conclusions on a different level from those reached by other means of making knowledge, but I also know that there is no objective reason to prefer one belief system over another (by definition, there cannot be an objective way of choosing beliefs). Our policy says that we do not take sides, yet you appear to be doing so. Now, if you were able to produce reliable sources that establish without doubt that one "fact" is held far far more widely than the other one among reliable sources (in this case, reliable scholarly sources is probably a good way to go), then it would be correct to elevate one interpretation over another. I do not believe that you will be able to do that, however, and, until you (or someone else) has, this lead violates WP:NPOV.
 * Finally, Kww's last point is very important--while WP:OSE is good thinking, it isn't a guaranteed way to win an editorial dispute. One cannot simply state that one is right (without evidence), and also assert that all of the other articles have also gotten it wrong (without evidence). Precedent does matter on Wikipedia; WP:OSE simply tells us that we have to be careful when we look at precedent to ensure that it is valid and policy-compliant itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So presumably, since you regard religious beliefs as of equal factual validity to objective facts, you would also be happy to put in the lead the widely held Christian and Jewish belief that Muhammad was inspired by Satan? We could then give equal weight to all three views: that Muhammad founded Islam, that Muhammad was the last prophet of God, and that Muhammad was an agent of the Devil. ðarkun coll 08:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think this avenue of extending your argument by hypothesizing how your opponents would assess a different situation, even if you believe you are making a salient comparison, is a constructive one. Anyone with a modicum of experience from debating knows that all too well. __meco (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please address the point I raised. Should we also add that many believe Muhammad to have been inspired by Satan? ðarkun coll 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

TharkunColl, your comments are becoming disruptive. Qwyrxian did not say he regards "religious beliefs as of equal factual validity to objective facts" (and what would a subjective fact be?). See KWW's comments about historical fact (with which I agree), and note that what Qwyrxian actually said was "there is no objective reason to prefer one belief system over another". You need to move on. Note I wrote this before seeing your post above, which has not made me change my mind. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As with any encyclopedic article on a religious and historical figure, the purpose of the article is present a NPOV on both the predominant role the figure played in religion, as well as the predominant non-religious historical view (all based on reliable sources). This should mean the lede for such an article should equally say what the subject's role is in the main religion centred on that figure and what the subject's non-historical role should be.

Applying that to this case, the lede should say, with a degree of equal weight that: 1) The Muslim religion considers Muhummad to be the last prophet of a monotheistic God and restorer of a pre-existing monotheistic faith, etc., and 2) Non-religious historical academics considers Muhmmad to be the founder of the Islam religion (provided that is was the RS's say)

Looking at some of the versions over the last few days, and applying the above:
 * This version is problematic, because it does not place the two viewpoints on equal weight. It only raises the non-religious viewpoint in order to show that the religious viewpoint disagrees with it.
 * This version is problematic, because it fails to make any mention of one of the two viewpoints (i.e. only mentions the religious viewpoint).

I would suggest a version where the first sentence says something like the following:


 * ...is is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets. Muslims believe that Islam was not his own invention but was revealed by God and consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. Non-religious historians consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam.

Singularity42 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have my complete agreement - all diverse perspectives presented concerning the "founding" issue in the article, or none at all per WP:NPOV. Let's resolve this and move on. Veritycheck (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the "non-religious historians" descriptor. I get the gist there, drawing a distinction between Muslim scholars and non-Muslim, but IMO "non-religious" implies secular, which is a bit broad of a brush. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above wording is not equal weight. The fact that he founded Islam should come first, then the fact that Muslims believe he was the last prophet of God, then the fact that many others believe him to have been inspired by Satan. This covers all the major views of him. To those who object to the third clause, I'd like to ask why some religious beliefs are more important than others. ðarkun coll 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The "Satanic" view is not shown to be the view of modern scholars, so it would be undue weight to have it in the lede.  Whereas, modern scholars do discuss both his role in history and his role in faith. But if scholars say "founder" it would be fine for us to too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that TharkunColl has decided to go ahead and add his edits although he clearly doesn't have consensus. This is not good. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Satanic" view is well-known to scholars. Since it's a religious belief, what makes it different to the Muslim religious belief? ðarkun coll 23:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This difference relates to WP:DUE. It is fairly obvious that the "historical academic" view is highly important, and thus belongs in the lead. It is also fairly obvious that the view of Muslims, who consider Muhammad the central human figure of their religion, is equally critical to a definition of Muhammad, and thus also belongs in the lead. The view of other religions, however, is far less important; Muhammad isn't actually a figure in Chritianity or Judaism any more than Buddha or Krishna are. Their views are still relevant, just not important enough for the lead. TharkunColl, you should maybe take a step back from making edits or reverts to the article, because you seem to be asserting a consensus for your position where none exists. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While I oppose 99% of TharkunColl's edits, I do think his last one has merit. "... unified the tribes of Arabia into a single religious polity under Islam" doesn't make it clear that before that unification, there's no evidence that Islam existed. That's an important fact, and not one to be minimized.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Before unification Islam existed -- it was used as a means of that unification, which did not occur until near Muhammed's death (in the known/accepted history of the matter).Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't write those weasel words attributed to me above. Their obvious purpose is to dodge the issue that Muhammad created Islam. ðarkun coll 13:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't attributing those words to you. I was agreeing with your effort to remove them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no trace for Islam's existence before Muhammad used it as a tool to unify the tribes. Certainly there was an early phase where the effort was in its infancy, but before Muhammad, there's no trace of it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Little lost infobox
This article has the problem that the "navigational" Template:Muhammad is so far down and so small and hard to read that you don't even notice it's there. I think that this and the top template should be combined. It is possible to do this as at right: (sorry for the big whitespace; please reply above the "

" in the source). Would people be willing to do things this way?  Note: I'm using User:Wnt/Templates/Sandbox for the template here, because I can't otherwise display the reworked version I intend inside the infobox ("module" takes only a template argument - pipes break things, or something) Wnt (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. It's hard to imagine what it would look like in the current article.  I don't know if one would need two images.  Also, consider internal collapse of the section on wives? Or other such sections? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite like the look of that. If the size is retained when it moves onto the page, it would be fine on my smallish laptop. I'm ambivalent about both collapsing the wives and the number of images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also looking at it on a laptop - I think the TOC should give enough space, but I won't know until I try and others look at it. If space is an issue, that second little internal calligraphy image inside the box might be the first to go.  (we could put it somewhere else, with an explanation of the extra writing, to avoid disturbing the balance)  As I've said above, I don't like the idea of collapsing templates at all - if we really can't figure out a way to do it without that, it's time to trim the template way down and link to a category or list article instead. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, when I actually tried it, it comes up a bit long.  I'm going to fiddle with the new version of Template:Muhammad to see if I can make it a little shorter - feel free to advise. Wnt (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've almost fit it, even without the sidebar. Almost.  Is this good enough?
 * Meanwhile I had this leftover File:Muhammedkalli.gif from the old template which I removed. To keep the balance I should put it back in again ... but to put it on its own I need a figure legend.  Which, ahem, leads me to the embarrassing question: anybody know what it says or how to describe it? Wnt (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The file's legend suggests, it says "Muhammad S A W S"; SAWS is like the English acronym for the Arabic words which translate to Peace be Upon Him. But I don't know whether the file legend is correct or what the calligraphy type it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, OOOOPS! Somehow I had the impression that Template:Muhammad was only linked from this article ... until someone reverted it.  So I've copied the altered version over to Template:Muhammad2 and used it as before.  The first one I'll leave alone. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

First to acknowldge him as a prophet
This is more a question than anything I suppose, but it states that his wife was the first person who thought he was a prophet. However, it mentions that the monk Bahira recognized him as one when he was still in adolescence. Can someone clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.26 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST ON 18/04/12 Non-Arabic Sources (2.4)
Please add the following after where Reference 41 ends.

Though history shows that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David (peace be upon him) did take part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As presented, this is not an acceptable addition. "Though history shows" is debatable, as the historicity of religious texts is disputed, and to my knowledge, no direct historical records (i.e. non-religious sources) mention David and Goliath.  Also, the edit includes the honorific (peace be upon him), which does not conform to a neutral point of view and has been discussed extensively (and described in the FAQ at the top of this page).  Sleddog116 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindly add amended text as follows

Can anyone please remove the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) from this page.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman1157 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry mate it doesn't work like that.182.160.63.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)

end of text

Some links to corroborate the aforementioned traditions http://gardenofpraise.com/bibl14s.htm http://bible.org/seriespage/david-and-goliath-1-samuel-171-58 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+17&version=NIV http://quran.com/2/251 http://www.haqislam.org/prophet-dawood-and-sulaiman/ some more links (taken from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

David and Goliath The Israelites, under King Saul, faced the Philistines in the Valley of Elah. He heard the Philistine giant Goliath challenge the Israelites to send their own champion to decide the outcome in single combat. David told Saul he was prepared to face Goliath and Saul allowed him to make the attempt. He was victorious, striking Goliath in the forehead with a stone from his sling. Goliath fell, and David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him; the Philistines fled in terror. Saul inquired about the name of the young champion, and David told him that he is the son of Jesse.[22] [22] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Samuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to click on the links I provided? Did you bother to read any text whatsoever?

So I can't quote from Bible and Qur'an now? I am just speechless at your response. It seems wikipedia has been taken over by those who are clearly biased against Muslims.

you say and I quote "Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources, and scriptures (the Qu'ran, the Bible, etc.) are primary sources which can only be cited very sparingly literally and only for exactly what they say (i.e., they cannot be interpretted as you were doing in your suggested edit)."

Only for exactly what they say i.e. they cannot be interpretted? Really? Have you never come across any interpretations of the texts of Bible (or for that matter any other book) on Wikipedia?

You want exact words?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Samuel%2017

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him.

49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.

52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath[f] and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron.

53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

54 David took the Philistine’s head and brought it to Jerusalem; he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent.

Now compare that to what I had written as was suggested to my first proposed edit (which I took without any issues as I could understand where the guy was coming from)

"Though on the other hand biblical accounts (i.e. Jewish and Christian traditions) show that some mighty prophets did indeed come with the sword as in the case of David vs Goliath (David killed him with his own sword and beheaded him) and he took part in battles and used the sword to kill his enemies i.e. enemies of God) - see Book of Samuel, 1 Samuel (17:1-58), Qur’an (2:251)"

So what is the difference? Don't those above two paragraphs imply the same thing? Or do you simply like the longer version better?

I don't even have to go far to prove how prejudice you are in your observation.

My suggested edit was in reply to this..

"The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They INDICATE that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet".

Indicate? Why I see no objection on not quoting directly from the Byzantine sources? So is it ok to say 'Byzantine sources indicate' yet 'Jewish and Christian traditions show' is incorrect? Perhaps I should have used the word INDICATE "instead" of "show"?

I could bring thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of examples where Bible (and other religious books) have been interpreted on Wikipedia itself. So why deny us something which is available to other faiths? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop this right now. This is a Wikipedia article discussion, as such it is important for Wikipedians to be civil, assume good faith, and not make personal attacks. Please consider carefully the probability that your fellow editors' edits represent their understanding of Wikipedia policy and are aimed at making the article more encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I apologise. Now do you have any answers to my aforementioned questions? I accepted the first rejection as it made sense and I did not complain at all. But what would you make of the basis for the second one?> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First, religious texts are not relible sources of history.
 * Second, you appear to attempt to defend your religion's prophet by arguing that someone else too had a sword in a story. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or religious one-upmanship. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anon, cut it out with the personal attacks and the "your religion" stuff. Peter Deer (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, what? I have my religion, you have yours, someone else has his. We each may wish to discuss and defend our beliefs, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Please accept my apologies if anyone was offended, as I will accept your apology for accusing me of attack. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad you would accept my apology if I felt so inclined as to offer one, I would hate to think that you would hold a grudge even after accusing someone else of "religious one-upmanship" or "attempt to defend your religion's prophet" clearly justified such an admonishment. I am furthermore glad you agree that Wikipedia is not the place for religious arguments, and as such I hope you will not make any further statements about hypothetical religious motivations on the part of other editors when addressing the legitimacy of their edits and suggestions. Peter Deer (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See what I meant, Peter? So does that mean Wikipedia from now on won't take quotes from Bible? - as it needs a RELIABLE source of history before it will quote anything (please also define RELIABLE for my information) I wonder how come pages of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Torah, Bible, Islam, priests, bishops, reverends, imams and umpteen others are full of quotes and interpretations from religious books?

Would Wikipedia like me to go through its pages and provide some shining examples?

"The earliest documented Christian knowledge of Muhammad stems from Byzantine sources. They indicate that both Jews and Christians saw Muhammad as a "false prophet". In the Doctrina Jacobi nuper baptizati of 634, Muhammad is portrayed as being "deceiving[,] for do prophets come with sword and chariot?, [...] you will discover nothing true from the said prophet except human bloodshed."[41]

Does Wikipedia consider the above paragraph neutral? It doesn't look neutral to me from any angle. It is an open attack on the personality and character of a person. You wouldn't find the above in a biography of someone. So why Can I not add something to it? The paragraph implies that Christians and Jews would consider any prophet to be without a sword and I am trying to rectify that from their own religious books that they have a prophet with a sword in their own history.

Does those who rejected my proposed edit even read the aforementioned paragraph? That paragraph talks from the point of view of Christians and Jews. So what did I do different? I brought something from the same point of view, did I not?

All I said was, I want to add some text. Just because it APPEARS to someone that it is an attempt for me to defend someone, it won't be accepted? Does Wikipedia even know what is going on here? Are these the kind of moderators/editors you have to make decisions for new users?

Why would you try your best to put off a new user? Isn't that how all the big companies treat their customers once they know they are too big and thus don't bother what their policies are? Has Wikipedia become too big to notice all this? Why do I have to go through this to post a few lines? It is nearly coming up to a week since I proposed my edit. Is this what I will have to go through every time I want to post something? Who decides between me and the other person? I am offended by his assumptions and accusations when all I am doing is adding a text on from the same sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmanzoor (talk • contribs) 09:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012
The images specially those portraying the face of Prophet Muhammad posted in the article "Muhammad" have been taken from the website:http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ which is not a reliable source, so i request that those images should be removed and replaced by images taken from a reliable source, as we at wikipedia are always striving for the best content for our readers. If this is not the right place for this type of request then please guide me to the correct portal. My email: bikerdude_92@yahoo.com Thank You

Bkr0007 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This request will have to be denied, as the Wikipedia is not censored, sorry.  Furthermore, "zombietime.com", whatever that is, is not the originator of any of these pieces of art. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Bkr0007 is referring to File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg. The painting is from a collection at a museum (details of which are found when you click on the specific image).  Zombietime.com appears to be the website where the electronic version is from. Singularity42 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The argument about "not a reliable source" doesn't wash, really. It's no different when a Wikipedia editor who visits the museum and photographs the painting, then subsequently uploads it to Wikipedia. The editor isn't a "reliable source" either. We have plenty of such images that have also been touched up for clarity. If we restricted all images to be those released into the public domain by official sources that aren't Wikipedia editors, we'd hardly have anything left. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a valid issue implied here, which is addressed at Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. We do more or less unapologetically "pirate" public domain material wherever we find it, in violation of some countries' unreasonable regulations.  If people can't do so, the whole idea of a public domain is in question.  The downside is that these public domain materials of miscellaneous provenance had better be real; we could be fooled and have something unauthentic, and indeed, not public domain. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2012
Please change "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib." to "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] he was orphaned at birth and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib." because his father died before he was born.

Source: "In the Footsteps of the Prophet" by Tariq Ramadan. And other historical accounts

69.29.79.186 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * According to a sourced statement in the article his mother died when he was 6. "Orphaned" means both parents have died, not just one. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Invention of religion
I added a short paragraph to the article identifying Muhammad as one of only three historically known prime movers of a new religion because I think it's important to know about and discuss the issues of when, where and how new religious traditions arise. One, of many possible points of discussion might start with the traditions that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith were functionally illiterate, presumably to boost the authority of their "revelations," when their is some historical evidence that both men were quite literate.

Please do not revert my 06/13/12 edit without an explanation on this page. I'm looking forward to a spirited and intelligent discussion. Peace and blessing be upon you. Lahaun (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant speculation that is purely your own original research; not really worthy of use in an encyclopedia article, and really not even accurate. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And to answer the question, yes, I am quite able to count to 3. I'm sure others will be along to strip this junk from the article in the morning, I made my attempts.  Cheers. Tarc (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lahaun, please do not add unsourced statements concerning your personal speculation on the similarity between the founders of Islam, Scientology or other religious movements. That is original research. If you can find reliable sources that make any statements of that nature, then that material could be considered for inclusion. At present you appear to be inserting your personal views into the article. That is not an acceptable way of editing articles on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work that way, Lahaun. You don't get to force your opinion into the article itself and demand that editors justify its removal.  It is incumbent on you to justify its inclusion once challenged.  And you are going to have to show us that this is is something more than pure, unsourced, original research, trivia. Resolute 04:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As I feared, an intelligent discussion about religion is not really possible on Wikipedia, so good luck to all of you waiting for Paradise or the Rapture or John Frum. I'll be having a beer instead. Benedictio dei. Lahaun (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia, talk pages are intended for discussing the addition of sourced content to articles. They are not intended to be used as any kind of WP:FORUM. You'll find plenty of those on external websites. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Images RFC close
Requests for comment/Muhammad images has been closed. The closing administrators (myself included) have published their determination of consensus atop the RfC. Discussion about the RfC or its close can take place at the relevant section of the administrators noticeboard. If anyone wishes to discuss the implications this decision will have on policy in general, a section has also been opened at the village pump. As always, discussion geared toward actually improving this article should take place right here. You are also free to ask questions directly of the closing administrators. Thank you for your patience. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with these results in respect to policy, I am glad that the concerns regarding censorship for religious reasons and addition of excessive images has been addressed adequately without the need for a quota. Peter Deer (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For centuries, indeed more than a millennium, devout Muslims around the world have learned about their prophet’s life including both his deeds and the legacy he left behind without the use of a single figurative image depicting Muhammad. However, it would appear that we in the west are unable to do the same. What is more, we westerners place a higher value on figurative images that bare no resemblance to Muhammad, with virtually no intrinsic educational value at all, over respecting the sensibilities of more than a billion people with whom we share our planet who find such practice an anathema. It’s a sad sign of the times and our culture; one that will no doubt be remembered and reflected upon by countless people far and wide for years to come.


 * The inclusion of such images in the Wikipedia article says much more about us as westerners, and our (lack of) values, than it will ever reveal about Muhammad himself. Tolerance and respect have lost out today. I, for one, am ashamed and left with the only recourse of letting it show on the record. Veritycheck (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. You've seen the Farsi article of course? Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Verity, your use of "we" and "our" is quite disingenuous, as your POV on this matter was found to be a distinct minority. At the end of the day, what I still find puzzling in all this is how all these professed sympathizers of Muslim sensibilities are generally the same type of Westerners who have been systematically stamping Christianity out of public spaces for the last 60-70 years, particularly in America. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Tarc, talk about pov! I support the use of images and although I'm not sure what you mean about stamping Christianity out of public spaces, I don't think religion of any sort belongs in official buildings. Please don't stereotype editors. And this debate should be over now, there's been a decision. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh lighten up, it is a general commentary on Western liberalism in general, not on any editors here. The famous separation of church and state has historically been applied quite unequally over the last few decades; one religion gets run out of a rail from public spaces (e.g. Nativity scenes on public squares, schools can't hold Christmas parties anymore, etc...), while the other sees some bend over backwards to make sure religious feelings aren't being bruised. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This general observation continues to seem off-topic (and sometimes seems to have entered the territory of the personal).Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to thank you Tarc for your refreshing candor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (I don't know where to write this comment. Please consult with me before moving it to somewhere else.)
 * said, "Verity, your use of "we" and "our" is quite disingenuous, as your POV on this matter was found to be a distinct minority" - ✅
 * "The famous separation of church and state has historically been applied quite unequally over the last few decades" - couldn't agree more. Brendon is  here  07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He is only "their prophet" hardly seems the proper historical approach. More likely, the claim that in order to be tolerant, one must treat the matter as subject to religious prohibition, has struck most people as absurd logic. The claim of "western bias" is also odd in that multiple non-western cultures use figurative/narrative images to educate and such existed long before "western" culture was even a thought. (Also, in many ways, Islamic culture is Western).  The imprecise "western" nomenclature appears to arise over confusion about what it means to (in the words of the Wikimedia Foundation Report) prepare articles for a modern, secular, pluralistic society, which is Wikipedia's intended audience. In the end, it seems to come down to a statement of "they don't educate me about his life because of religious prohibition." Fine, but so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, Veritycheck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, because we are of Western Origin, we are fallen and degenerate? This is seriously biased in statement Veritycheck. redORANGEblack (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have generally avoided this discussion because frankly I had better things to do. It went through Arbcom, they made a decision and for good or bad we are stuck with that. Lets not delve into the realm of East versus west and how everyone in Wikipedia hates the Muslim religion please. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censured and we are not bound by the doctrines of a conservative religious faith who doesn't like showing a depiction of their [insert your favorite religious term here]. We all understand some do not like this but lets try and get along. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A good close, a little short on the rationale, but good nonetheless... although based on how long it took you to reach a verdict, I am expecting you three to run for ArbCOM in the fall. ;-) --- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * snerk* You should have seen our individual analyses, the three combined ran about 20 pages! Keilana | Parlez ici 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I read through most of them. I was going to comment and then got sucked into the drama bubble myself and lost interest. No not likely to join Arbcom anytime soon, I don't think I would be very welcome there.:-) Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to say that this was the wrong result, but in the sense that the community got it wrong, not that the closers determined consensus incorrectly. I still don't think we should be including these images. But I won't restart the argument. At least we've got a result, and hopefully editors will stick to it for the time being and avoid further edit wars over the article. It would be nice to think so, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There were actually very few edit-wars; what there was was endless, endless pointless circular discussions on the talk page. So don't let's start that again. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not thrilled with the results either, but I do think this is a more or less accurate read of the consensus. I am happy that the calligraphy ended up in the lead and not an actual image of Mohammed... and I wasn't really expecting anything more this go around.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 04:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012
remove the pictures of our holy prophet(S.A.W)

Huzaifah Bhutto (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please address your issues at Talk:Muhammad/Images  Mdann52 (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, unfortunately the Wikipedia community has decided that there is a consensus to keep pictures of Muhammad in the article. Apologies on my behalf and the other editors here who disagreed with the decision. Veritycheck (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why does posting an image matter? You do seem to be overly sensitive about this topic. My concern is that you are unduly biased for your affectations against what many of the Muslim faith might consider a Graven image. -redORANGEblack (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED is the applicable policy here. Thank you for your concern. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That policy, WP:NOTCENSORED, explains why Wikipedia doesn't have to remove those images, Huzaifah but I can't point you to a policy that says we have to include them, because there is no such policy. It is our free choice to include them or not in the article. We have a right to but no obligation.


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia's official stance toward you is that we don't care that it offends you. Even though most of the figurative depictions of the prophet (pbuh) in this article add nothing to the reader's understanding of his life, we have decided to include them, because we like to. No other valid reason. Despite the vast majority of us knowing that you'll be disaffected by them, and knowing that we can't tell you one thing that they add to the reader's understanding of the life of the prophet (pbuh), we want to, so we do, and we don't care that you're offended. That is, we don't care enough to remove these totally gratuitous images. On behalf of Wikipedia, I'd like to say sorry, but I can't because we're (as a community) not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You really think taking it upon yourself to apologize for the rest of us helps anything?&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure I didn't apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)This getting very tedious. The recent RFC showed, at great length, that the great majority of editors commenting do not share your views on these points, and yes we know how stupid you think we all are. But don't put these views in our mouths by using "we" since "we" don't hold them - that's YOU. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * John, if you think I'm misleading Huzaifah on some point, I invite you to prove it. If you can't do that, please ignore me. Please. I'm addressing Huzaifah, not you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And misleading him, by claiming what "we" think, when "we" very clearly don't. I'll decline your kind invitation, since these points have been made time & again. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian depiction of Mohammed
I didn't see the above discussion as any more than an examination of some vaguely conjured procedure for adding images to the article, which is not embodied in the RFC conclusion. The merits of the picture itself were not discussed that I noticed, only the propriety of reversions. I think the image is very relevant to the "Western views" section of the article since it graphically depicts the western view of Mohammed. It meets the criteria of the RFC. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 17:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I may be wrong. But I, for one, don't think that adding the Image of Muhammad in the "Western views" section is justifiably controversial or inflammatory. I dare say, except for Islamic babbles there is no reason why we shouldn't include that in the article. Brendon is here  06:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is really for Depiction of Muhammad. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on the distinction between "views of" and "depiction of". Obotlig ☣  interrogate 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Views of" = opinion of him and his beliefs; "Depiction of" = paintings and other representations of his appearance. DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this semantic distinction can be made, even as an argument of how the terms are trying to be applied in these articles. A representation is the same as an expression of a view and is the same as a depiction. If the section on Western views is limited only to non-visual views, I am concerned for the Newspeak involved in the regression of view to not mean view any longer. Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read the "views" section in this article and the Depiction article? Its not a semantic difference, its how they're written. There's nothing about graphic depiction in the western views section. DeCausa (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be receptive to expanding the "views" section to include "views"? Obotlig ☣  interrogate 18:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be, but there's lots of editors here. I suggest you open a new thread if you really want to propose such a controversial change. If however this is an area of interest to you I suggest you look at editing Depictions of Muhammad instead. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now as it seems, every valid change that one may want to bring to the article in good faith, is straightaway labelled as "controversial". It's not Islam-opedia mind you.
 * You can't add a image made in the Western world and label it a Christian view of Muhammad unless the painter was specific about the work being representative of official Christian views. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that, CambridgeBayWeather, is that there's really no such thing as "representative of official Christian views." Christianity is a highly diverse religious group (look at Unitarianism and then at Westboro Baptist Church - both call themselves "Christian," but they have vastly different theologies). Sleddog116 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and moreover Islam is no different either. There are 73 freaking sects of Islam and who speaks for islam? Some say sahih hadiths are ultimately authentic and some say they are just prattles of devoted buffoons and derogatory to the prophet, thus untrue. Some muslims believe aisha was not as holy as others think and some are in disagreement. What I'm trying to say is, specificity "about the work being representative of official Christian views" is not a credible criterion (because it's absurd in its face) against adding or deleting content. Brendon is  here  07:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Titles in infobox
I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but is it really necessary to include so many titles of Muhammad ("Prophet, Messenger," etc.) in the infobox? That seems to me a bit non-NPOV, and extremely distracting. I can go to most of the other religious leader pages (e.g. Jesus, Baha'u'llah, Gautama Buddha) and see just a simple name, though many of them could include a list of titles according to adherents of their respective religions. Why does Muhammad seem to be getting special treatment here? If a Christian went to the Jesus page and added "King of Kings, Prince of Peace," etc., he'd be instantly reverted (and rightfully so).

I know some other articles (like Saint Peter) include some of the titles, but this one seems to be a tad overdone. Could we discuss that a bit? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As the comment does not have a suggested revision, its difficult to respond to "tad overdone." Other than deleting probably the first use of "Prophet,"  as redundant, the other appellations seem fine as summarily informative of how people see his unique notability. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the comment as asking why Muhammad gets special treatment. Look at it: "Prophet Muhammad: Prophet, Messenger, Apostle, Witness, Bearer of Good Tidings, Warner, Reminder, Caller, Announcer." It reeks of a religious POV, using Wikipedia's voice to claim that Muhammad is all these things.


 * That field of the infobox is reserved for honorific suffixes, but that is not what it currently contains. I see no evidence that any of those appellations are actually honorific suffixes. The common suffixes applied to Muhammad's name are PBUH and SAW. Therefore, the only thing that should appear in that section of the infobox is "Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH), Sallallaho Alaihi Wa alihi Wasallam (SAW)" and nothing else. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the main reason I didn't suggest a revision was because I was hoping that an appropriate revision could be discussed here. If I had my druthers, I'd rather see it look like all the other articles I mentioned above; I'd raise no objections to leaving "prophet" above the name.  You said that they're summarily informative of how people see his unique notability but (at the risk of sounding other-crappy) I don't think the same logic would hold up in a discussion on the other articles I've named in my first comment.  I think this long, extensive list of titles in the infobox serves no real purpose other than to praise the subject.  I'd raise no objection to perhaps integrating some of these titles into the article itself, but for the infobox, it still seems to me a bit excessive and (as Amatulic said) reeks of religious POV.  Sleddog116 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that it is overdone.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst the "names of praise" for Muhammad is a legitimate topic (in terms of understanding Islam), it is satisfactorily covered by the "other names" section later in the Imfobox linking to Muhammad in Islam. The names at the top really do seem inappropriately placed. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent, I even disagree with Amatulic - he's in favor of including PBUH and SAW in the infobox, but I don't even really think we should do that. The "Jesus" infobox doesn't include "Christ" and it certainly as much of an honorific as either of the examples given.  (I realize I keep making comparisons, but I would say that at least some continuity is important for an encyclopedia, yes?)  Sleddog116 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PBUH and SAW sound like blessings, not appellations. And are they not the same thing in two different languages? So, that suggestion is doubtful, if what is suggested is Wikipedia should bless him instead. Why do we treat subjects differently? Because they are different. I also find it doubtful that anyone would mistake Wikipedia calling him those things, rather than reporting that is what he is called.
 * They also inform concerning a widely held views. I think there are different issues with other articles using 'king of kings and lord of lords' which are known to be used by several other entities and persons, but Christ or others might work. As noted, other articles sometimes have these appellations lists, so the special pleading criticism is less apparent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that's true, but it still doesn't address the excess. Again, most of the articles I go to have a simple name and perhaps one or two titles, but I feel like I'm getting bombarded when I come to this one. And, as DaCausa said, we already have a section for these names. I'm not objecting to mentioning any of this in the article - the problem here is the excess in the infobox. All of the titles make it look gaudy. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't "feel" that. Other than the redundant use of 'prophet.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On SAW/PBUH, I think it's more in the nature of a style or almost a titular honorific rather than a blessing (as it literally seems). In light of that one could make a comparison with "Most Revd" etc in the infoboxes of some Christian bishops eg the top of the infobox of Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't come here to argue, Alan (and I mean that sincerely). I was just raising a concern that I have with the article.  I just want to obtain a consensus on this as to how we can best improve it.  I'm pretty sure we can all at least agree that the redundant "prophet" can definitely go.  I still think it can be trimmed further, but I'll respect the consensus of the discussion here (if anyone else would like to contribute to it).  And again, Alan, why is the article's name section not sufficient?  Is there any particular reason that you want these titles included right there in the infobox? Sleddog116 (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have generally been supportive of status quo on these appearance issues in this article because all of them seem to lead to allot of discussion and because I AGF on the reasons for their long acceptance. In short, if I can see some encyclopedic reason, I think it's useful that it stay that way. Here, I think they communicate widely held views of the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The point raised by Sleddog is legitimate and, I believe, all but one who has posted so far have indicated in some form a preference for reducing the appellations. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, look. My point seems to have been lost. Let me spell it out. I don't know how to be clearer than that. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an infobox template Infobox person.
 * That infobox is defined with certain fields.
 * Those fields should be populated with appropriate information.
 * The field honorific_suffix currently does not contain honorific suffixes.
 * Putting aside any discussion of POV and what other articles do, the fact remains that this infobox is being used improperly. Therefore, the contents of the honorific_suffix field should either be removed entirely, or replaced with actual honorific suffixes.
 * There does not appear to be such rigidity in MOS:INFOBOX or in words like suffix, title, appellation but YMMV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan: No there isn't much rigidity in the MOS, but here's where we use other articles as examples. Let's look at the other key religious features: Jesus (Christianity, no appellations), Bahá'u'lláh (Baha'i, no appellations), Buddha (Buddhism, no appellations).  The only exceptions for the key spiritual leaders is for Muhammad (Islam) and Abraham ("founder" of the Abrahamic religions - and even most of the appellations on that article are Islamic).  I'm not saying that this is the only page to use such a long list in the infobox, but it seems to be unique among the pages of the central figures of the major world religions.  I agree with what Amatulic said above, but I think the honorific field should be removed entirely.  It serves no purpose on this page that isn't POV.  Sleddog116 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the premise. These arguments about do unto him what we do unto Jesus and Buddah are of limited value. In addition to Abraham and St Peter, the pedia has this for Ghengis Khan, this for John the Baptist, this for Khosrau I and this for St. Paul.  So, yes the pedia is all over the place depending on subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference, Alan (and I'm sorry to be the fly in the consensus ointment here), is that on the other pages you mentioned (with the possible exception of Abraham), the included titles are of encyclopedic value in some fashion and (the big thing) are probably explained in the articles. The article on John the Baptist may be a bit excessive, but those four titles are arguably what define John's significance (that, and the John the Baptist article has been tagged with a cleanup-rewrite tag since November of last year).  In Paul's case, his main function in Christianity is as an Apostle to the Gentiles - calling him that is tantamount to calling Muhammad "the prophet".  So again, the comparison is still valid.  The same is true (in a parallel sense) of Khosrau I.  Now, Genghis Khan, I have to admit you've got me on that one.  Genghis Khan does have a lot of titles that are not explained anywhere in the article (i.e. Lord of the Four Colors), and in all truth, I'd like to see a lot of those removed, too.  So in other words, most of the articles we're talking about here are applying the appellations as they are part of the figure's significance.  I just don't see that being the case here.  Sleddog116 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The appellations are elucidated in the article, so I am a bit at a loss (one may use the search function for them and their variants, if that will help locate where). As I said, they communicate widely held views of the subject and thus encyclopedic value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These views are "widely held" only by Muslims. Explaining these views in the text constitutes neutral treatment. Equating a religious viewpoint with the subject in the infobox is not. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean they are not widely held. Besides, it does not take any faith to understand he is said to have had a message, or that he announced, called, or warned.  While, apostle, good tider, and reminder, are the exact same, or similar to, the terms used in the infoboxes of other articles linked above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Amatulic somewhere above said, "That field of the infobox is reserved for honorific suffixes, but that is not what it currently contains." And User:DeCausa said, "Whilst the "names of praise" for Muhammad is a legitimate topic (in terms of understanding Islam), it is satisfactorily covered by the "other names" section later in the Imfobox linking to Muhammad in Islam#Names and titles of praise."- Wading through the simmering ocean of nuances and chicaneries, I'm wondering what the heck are we waiting for then? Go change it already. Brendon is here  08:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We're waiting to balance what's been said here with Alanscottwalker's objections. I know consensus doesn't always have to be unanimous, but it's a goal that we should all at least try to reach.  I'm still in agreement with Amatulic - the "widely held" argument doesn't really hold up in this case because, as Amatulic said, it's basically only Muslims that constitute "widely held."  By that logic, it would be "widely held" that Jesus is the "Prince of Peace" and so forth (there are a lot more Christians than Muslims).  I don't see any encyclopedic (i.e. nonreligious) reason for all of those titles to be included in the infobox.  Explaining his titles/names in the article(s) is one thing, but to me, using all of those titles in the infobox amounts to tacit endorsement of said titles.  Sleddog116 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have brought this up at MOS Talk (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style), purposely not mentioning Muhammad because of the strong feelings some have on that topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am probably close to the average person in my knowledge of this topic; until I read this page I didn't know much about Islam, other than having a generally favorable view of those who follow that religion. One phrase I think pretty much everyone has heard is "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet." That seems to be a core message, just as "Jesus Christ" is a core message of Christianity and "Moses the Prophet" is a core message of Judaism. I think the infobox should use the title "Prophet of Allah" and all the other honorifics should go in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I (obviously) agree here, but I think it's good to bring this up at the MOS talk page, because it represents a larger issue that seems to be present throughout the project. As I said here, I think this is a severe case of article creep.  These titles weren't added all at once, but I think what happened is that when one was added, it was left alone - discussions (with the thankful exception of this one) here can have an unfortunate tendency to become toxic rather quickly, so no one ever felt like getting into a discussion about it.  Now it's gotten to the point where we can't just push it to the back burner any more. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have reached something of a consensus here (even if not completely unanimous), I'm going to make an edit to the infobox to try and clean it up a little. If anyone objects to my edit, go ahead and revert it, but then please discuss it here so we can figure out the best way to proceed. I don't know if the discussion at the MOS talk page has fully run its course yet, but I think there seems to be broad agreement at least on this page that the infobox needs some reduction. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the evident desire to reduce, but also respecting longtime article usage, the rule of three (from the Latin, "omne trium perfectum" (everything that comes in threes is perfect, or, every set of three is complete) ) may be used to promote stability.  The three chosen were the first three on the list.  They also cover 1) what he said 2) what he is said to be, and 3) what is said to have happened to him.  (The second term is also widely used on other articles in this section of the infobox.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing it - I'll definitely agree that even this is better than what we had. I admit, it's not what I'd prefer, but I'm certainly not going to edit war over it; I can't really debate your logic here.  I'd still like it to be much simpler, but I'm not going to push it on this particular article.  I'm curious to see what the discussion at MOS yields.  Thanks for helping address the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reducing words by 70% and characters by something like 90%, not a bad weeks work ;) Perhaps you can get traction over at MOS with some judicious use of the rule of three. Seems someone should propose guidelines that are flexible for titles and appellations, perhaps worded slightly differently.  (Interestingly, no article seems to use that field for your run of the mill name suffixes). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

MOS decisions and proposal
Sorry to be bringing this up again (but I'm doing it under the same section heading), but I'm still working on trying to improve this. I hope I'm not being too sticky here. We haven't achieved broad consensus on the MOS discussion yet, but that's mostly due to lack of discussion rather than disagreement. What the solution seems to be at the moment is that infoboxes should only use the most common appellation for the individual, and changes have been made to Abraham, Genghis Khan, and Cyrus the Great to reflect that. I'm not suggesting that we make any changes now necessarily (as there will hopefully be more discussion on WT:MOS in the near future), but I think everyone here would agree that the most common appellation of Muhammad is "prophet". Am I right? I guess what I'm getting at is if we had to pick one single title to use, that would probably be it. (And I'm not saying that to say we will have to pick one single title; I will oppose any measure that involves an arbitrary decision, just like at the images RFC.) I'm just asking to generate some further discussion here. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Sleddog116:

Based on my comments above, I see this going one of three ways, and it might be handy to take a bit of a !poll here. I don't want this to be anything official, I just to see what people's views are (that, and it could help enlighten the discussion at MOS). These are the options I can most reasonably see occurring:


 * Option 1A: All appellations except "Prophet" removed, rendering "Prophet Muhammad" ("Prophet" above "Muhammad").
 * Option 1B: All appellations except "Prophet" removed, "prophet" made more specific, rendering "Muhammad, Prophet of Islam" ("Prophet of Islam" below "Muhammad").
 * Option 2: Present status quo. Alanscottwalker's suggestion for "Rule of Three" (see above discussion).
 * Option 3: Previous status quo. No definition of appropriate appellations.

Of the options given, which one makes the most sense to all of you? Or is there another option that hasn't been considered? Personally, I favor Option 1B because it keeps the most common appellation but is specific and completely neutral. What do you all think? Sleddog116 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1B is preferable but Option 2 also works. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer 1B. I think either Muhammad (top) Prophet of Islam (bottom) or Muhammad (top) Prophet of Allah (bottom) would work fine. I would ask any Muslims reading this if they have a preference between the two, and choose whichever of the two they like better.


 * So far I have cut back the titles on Aaron, Augustine of Hippo, Elijah, Jerome, Jacob, John the Baptist, Jonah, Mary Magdalene, Noah, John the Apostle, Enoch, Abraham, Cyrus the Great and Genghis Khan, and nobody has complained. Suggestions for how to find more articles with multiple titles would be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1B preferred. Any other variant that includes "Prophet" such as 1A would be OK too. Absolutely not Option 2 (or 3) the "rule of 3" is totally random and has no logic to it. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1B Preferred, I don't think I need to harp on my position. Brendon is  here  08:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral As long as there is a concerted good faith effort to align all such articles. I am not sure which is better, including Guy's. (Also, as anyone can see, an application of the rule of three is embodied in 1B and in Guy's formulation (even if its not the only possible application, or even the best)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as there seems to be a fairly broad sense of agreement, I'll go ahead and change it to Option 1B. As before, if anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Check this POV-fork article
Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans, my goodness!!!! Some guy wrote on the talk page that, "'This article has no objective sources. All are propagandist muslim accounts. Shouldn't this be revised or something? I'm not a Qu'ran specialist but it seems that even the few sources this article has have turned into 404's'" Indeed, just take a look at the references and notice the degree of undue weight to Islamic viewpoints. Brendon is here  14:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again an Islamic POV.
"“Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly.”"

Well, I can guarantee you that there are scores of people (even some scholars) who disagree with that statement. Muhammad himself was responsible for the resentment of the local people by breaking with tradition and denigrating and cursing other religions:

When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy. —(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 167)

He was asked to refrain from Insulting the Gods of meccans but Muhammad continued to vilify the venerated GODS of Mecca: [The Meccans] said they had never known anything like the trouble they had endured from this fellow. He had declared their mode of life foolish, insulted their forefathers, reviled their religion, divided the community and cursed their gods —(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 183).

Again, They decided to send for Muhammad and to negotiate and argue with him... When he came and sat down with them, they explained that that they

had sent for him in order that they could talk together. No Arab had ever treated his tribe as Muhammad had treated them, and they repeated the charges... If it was money he wanted, they would make him the richest of them all; if it was honor, he should be their prince; if it was sovereignty, they would make him king. —(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 188)

William Muir writes that the elders of mecca came to Abu talib so that he could coax muhammad out of this Madness, This Nephew of thine hath spoken opprobriously of our gods and our religion: and hath abused us as fools, and given out that our forefathers were all astray. Now, avenge us thyself of our adversary; or, (seeing that thou art in the same case with ourselves,) leave him to it that we may take our satisfaction. But Abu talib answered them softly and in courteous words so they turned and went away. But Muhammad didn't listen to his uncle or refrain from his offensive conduct so the elders of Coreish went again to Abu Talib with great exasperation and said, and now verily we cannot have patience any longer with his abuse of us, our ancestors, and our gods, wherefore either do thou hold him back from us, or thyself take part with him that the matter may be decided between us.

Muhammad stayed in mecca for thirteen years and he was also the nephew of Abu talib (local authority figure) People came to complain about Muhammad to his powerful uncle, [The leading men of Mecca] went to Abu Tablib [and said] “Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error. Either you must stop him or you must let us get at him” ..The apostle continued on his way… In consequence, his relations with the Quraish [Meccans] deteriorated and men withdrew from him in enmity. —(Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 168).

And also compare this to what non-muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or Saudi arabia face by virtue of their dissenting views today. Brendon is here  06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even with good sourcing, this is likely to stir up a hornet nest. I think perhaps a sentence or two describing what Muhammad did to make the Meccans angry would suffice along with a link to Criticism of Muhammad where the rest of this material should go.  Given stuff like this, the notion that his early followers suffered persecution becomes shaky.  Instead they faced retaliation for associating with someone who was directly enraging the local tribes.  Therefore the phrase "To escape persecution" should also be changed.  -- Frotz(talk) 07:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you've misunderstood the sentence. "Harshly" doesn't equate to "unfairly" it equates to "severely". I don't read any POV in that. The explanation for the "harsh" treatment (challenging of traditional gods etc) is explained in the body of the article. The reference to "persecution" is derived fom the sourced statement in the body of the article "Tradition records at great length the persecution and ill-treatment of Muhammad and his followers." (with 2 citations) If only the above sources are used, any re-writing of that to the effect of "he got what he deserved" (or variants thereof) would be either WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR as none make that explicit statement (and they're primary sources anyway). Any change to "persecution" requires a clear WP:RS that it can't be described as "persecution", and then that reliable source needs to be compared with the existing ones: any comparisons with the treatment of non-Muslims in Saudi etc to make that point are not only WP:OR but also WP:NOTFORUM. DeCausa (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually "harsh" clearly does imply an element of unfairness or excess, and at the least the word should be changed: maybe "conflicts with him and his followers began to become violent" perhaps (not gone to the actual sources for this). Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to get into a quibble about semantics or phraseology, but it behooves me to say that I agree with Johnbod up to a point. "Harsh" actions or speech are generally understood as unkind or without due compassion or sympathy. And, as a matter of fact, without the reason being explicitly mentioned in the sentence as to why they were met with harshness in the first place, it does insinuate something closer to "unfair", as though he was met with hostility gratuitously, or due to the inherent odiousness of those non-muslim Meccans (that's, BTW, is a gross distortion of true history). Brendon is  here  13:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much but is William Muir's account a primary source too? Brendon is  here  14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an instance of calling a spade a spade. The night that Muhammad left, he was about to be killed. His followers were tortured and attacked for preaching Islam. This sort of behavior meets the textbook definition of persecution.
 * Finally, I have yet to see a single reliable source that jumps in the defence of Meccans' behavior.VR < talk 23:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"The night that Muhammad left, he was about to be killed" — really? and Who told him that? Was it not his allah or supposedly the angel Gabriel or one of his imaginary friends who instigated him to flee the place in the middle of the night? one night, he claimed allah told him his enemies were about to attempt to hurt him (and allegedly revealed the verse 8:30). It appears that Allah was guessing what the Meccans were plotting. Apart from Muhammad's own claims there is no historical evidence that Muhammad or any other Muslim suffered physical persecution at the hand of the meccans. Calling a spade a spade huh? "His followers were tortured and attacked for preaching Islam" — Were they attacked gratuitously? What exactly does "preaching Islam" entail anyway? Does it entail insulting other group's venerated deities and Idols, speaking "disparagingly of their Gods" and later blame the other group when they retaliate? Is that what preaching Islam means? Meccans tried rigorously to make peace with Muhammad but he kept on affronting their gods in vulgar language even then.

The elders of the Coreish, vexed at his insults, repaired to his aged uncle Abu Talib and said,

Come on, this is not the language of a “persecutor”; this is, at best, a request, a call for peace which Muhammad rejected out of hand. The fact of the matter is, Muhammad lived among the Meccans for thirteen years, taunting them and outright vilifying their religion, and yet the Meccans tolerated him. This is not persecution per se. In history written by Muslims themselves (i.e. Ibn Ishaq), there is no evidence of persecution against Muhammad (except for his own claims that too from an imaginary friend). Brendon is here  09:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

--

I would question the above.

Let's first see what "insulting" is here;


 * Abu Kurayb and Ibn Waki'- Abu Usamah- al-A'mash- 'Abbad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn 'Abbas: When Abu Talib fell ill, a number of Quraysh visited him, among them Abu Jahl, who said, "Your nephew is reviling our gods and doing and saying all sorts of things. Why do you not send for him and forbid him to do this?". Abu Talib said to him, "Nephew, how is it that your tribe are complaining of you and claiming that you are reviling their gods and saying this, that and the other?" They showered accusations upon him, and then the Messenger of God spoke and said, "Uncle, I want them to utter one saying. If they say it, the Arabs will submit them and the non-Arabs will pay the jizyah to them." They were perturbed at this utterance and said, "One saying? Yes, by your father, and ten! What is it?" Abu Talib said, "What saying is it, nephew?" He replied, "There is no deity but God." They rose up in alarm, shaking the dust off their garments and saying, "Does he make the gods one god? This is indeed an astounding thing."
 * (The History of al-Tabari: Muhammad at Mecca, translated and annotated by W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald [State University of New York Press, Albany 1988], Volume VI)

They consider this "insulting" even though this is apart of Muhammads main message. Other examples are similar, for example where in the Qur'an that the Quresh's forefathers were in error, or that the actions of the Quresh (in what they do and worship) is going to lead them to hell fire.

Let's not forget the Qureysh were also losing business when people were turning away from their gods. And when the Muslims did Migrate to Medina, even before the Caravan raids, the Qureysh weren't happy to leave the Muslims alone.

I don't really find it as insulting in the western sense of the word. If you look at most religions today, it talks about "disbelievers going to the hellfire" (as a means of warning), or Christians having the trinity, whilst Muslims attributing Jesus as a messenger only. You don't see them fighting over it.

So, in my opinion atleast, I don't see how Muhammad could've gone about it too differently. From a strong Secular opinion, he believed that he himself was a messenger and was thus given the responsibility to deliver a message and to warn people. He did exactly that, in which the fairly intolerant meccans were bound to find offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.61.172 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And in my opinion at least, it is very disingenuous of you to claim that calling somebody's forefathers "fools" or abusing them is not to be regarded as derogatory! “He spoke disparagingly of their gods.” "I don't see how Muhammad could've gone about it too differently" - For one, he could have kept his religion to himself; or could have refrained from reviling others' religion or abusing dead ancestors. Anyway they (Meccans) wanted to negotiate, they tried to make peace, but it was Muhammad who never showed up with his peacefulness. He later killed people, raided caravans. He also destroyed the cherished idols of the Meccans. He was a vindictive, vengeful man, quite far from the peacefulness that is rashly ascribed to him these days with relatively high degree of complaisance. <BR>Muhammad's deeds (I know islam is too amorphous to be blamed or credited for anything) are scorn-worthy and blood-boiling. Brendon is  here  09:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Abu Lahab said, "May you perish for the rest of the day!
You only called us to tell us this'' Then Allah revealed:

(Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he!) [111:1] This was also recorded by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i.'''

Source; Ibn Kathir's tafsir; http://abdurrahman.org/qurantafseer/ibnkathir/ibnkathir_web/26.37947.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.124.201 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Founder (yet again, sorry)
Well, I have to apologise but...this edit has highlighted to me that the lead is now so anodyne on this point that we've avoided telling the reader a key aspect about Muhammad. I supported the current solution, but looking at it now it looks to me as though we're doing the reader a real disservice. Was there a reason (I honestly can't remember) why the lead doesn't contain a sentence that says, in terms, "Historians writing from a non-Muslim perspective consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam whereas Muslims believe..." etc Ok not necessarily those exact words, but the principle. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit appears to remove an elegant finesse of the issue. But as has been stressed before this "founder" nomenclature, especially given its tendency to generate discussion, should be directly reliably sourced, pro or con.  It would help if those interested would provide quotes from RS for these ideas and that word, right here, and we go from there? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no secular perspective from which Muhammad is not the founder of Islam. The constant efforts to remove that are a result of the improper application of NPOV, which does not demand that we treat religious beliefs as true, only that we treat them equally. I think that "founder of Islam" should be restored.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think ASW's response is particularly relevant. There's a myriad of sources for that. To start at the basics, there's the Muhammad entry in Britannica, and one could go on from there. Also, the edit removes no "elegant finesse" (if, indeed, "elegant finesse" is the sort of game WP should be in)- the edit summary is quite accurate. But the real point is why just we don't plain and simple state the two "standard" points of view in the one sentence. KWW's response, however, reminds me how we ended up here and makes me regret raising this. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if secularism causes you pain. I corrected my missing "not" above your comment, but you seem to have interpreted me correctly despite me saying the exact opposite of what I meant.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Secularism causes me far from pain. Re-reading your post (and I have to say your double negatives don't help!) I see that I jumped to conclusions, for which I apologise. You seem to support what I say in fact. DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the discussions that I was referring to. Whereas, when people present RS to support a particular wording formulation they usually can come to agreement of specific wording by discussing those RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
Insert this before last sentence in first paragraph of lead: "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared rejected by Muslims." with this as an inline citation DeCausa (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Our view limit has been exhausted. Can you summarize?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * paragraph opens with "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion." The rest of the paragraph goes on to give the muslim view which is pretty close to the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article's lead. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would change "rejected" to "not shared", but I'm reasonably happy with the proposal.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer "not shared", and "this" is ambiguous; should be "this view". ~Amatulić (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're both right. I've changed it above. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal, wholly. Brendon is  here  08:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I object to the proposal on two counts. For one, it appears to me to violate WP:VALID by juxtaposing two contrary views that aren't equally accepted by the academic community. Secondly, while the sentence doesn't explicitly state that it was god who founded Islam, that is the statement being insinuated and that is the argument being represented. Every religion could claim that god founded it in the same way that anyone can claim that god's tears make the rain. I'm not attempting to argue that illogical POVs shouldn't be included on WP, rather I'm trying to argue that they shouldn't be afforded equal weight when we know that they are clearly illogical statements. I propose that it be stated clearly in WP's voice that Muhammad is the founder of Islam but that the view is not accepted by some Muslims. It shouldn't be contentious to state unequivocally that a man founded Islam. S Æ dontalk 09:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree we should say it flat out, if we have sources that do. But the opposing claim is not so much about god but that it actually existed before M. I think what may have happened is that the Esposito and Peters discussions (cited at the end of the first paragraph) have been truncated, over the editing of this issue, so it would be helpful if anyone has current access to them, and can expand.  I could also see a presentation of the last sentence of the paragraph being something like:
 * "He is noted as the founder of Islam;  however, Muslims consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets."
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)
 * Saedon, I'd like you to point to the policy that says that Wikipedia is supposed to be the voice of academics. I ask, because I'm pretty sure you won't find one. We're supposed to be neutral, not favor one particular form of knowledge gathering over another. Were this an article about a strictly academic subject, I'd accept your position, but it's not--it's about general history. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the issue. Almost all the articles on religious figures are based around the formula of "Believers believe X, but the non-believers view is Y". Look at the lead to Jesus. 1st paragraph of lead says "most Christian denominations worship him as God the Son incarnated". 2nd paragraph says "Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee". Why is this any different? Seems like a sensible way of doing it if you look at it in terms of imparting useful information to readers (rather than an as an ideological struggle). I think it's actually a useful piece of information for readers to know that there's a difference between non-Muslim/Western/academic/historical (whatever you want to call it) view of muhammad's role in the foundation of Islam and the Muslim view. DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * <span id="Brendon_1"> wrote that "For one, it appears to me to violate WP:VALID by juxtaposing two contrary views that aren't equally accepted by the academic community" —I have a few points to make,
 * WP:VALID explicitly says that "“speculative history ..should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.”"
 * WP:VALID militates against juxtaposing two unequally verifiable viewpoints (esp. when there is scientifically well-established or verifiable facts contrary to the claim) out of proportion. But since the claim that “Muhammad was not the founder of Islam and it was GOD who founded Islam” is in itself an unverifiable speculation which is predicated on sheer faith and thus a POV, WP:VALID is actually against the inclusion of that faith-based assertion, or at least not applicable here.
 * As for the questions of reliable sources, there are quite a few (some of which I've listed below) that basically say "“many (if you don't like the word ‘most’) non-muslims believe Muhammad was the founder of Islam.”"
 * Hence we should not include statements like "Muhammad was (or was not) the founder of Islam", instead we must include the line that “Muslims believe it was GOD who founded Islam but Non-Muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam.” Brendon is  here  04:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I myself am a non-Muslim and do not consider Muhammad the founder of Islam. I suggest you reword your proposed statement so it does not divide beliefs into only two camps, namely Muslim and non-Muslim. There are many other non-Muslims who do not consider Muhammad a founder; academics among them (F.E. Peters, A Primer on Islam and John L. Esposito to name but two.)  The proposed statement is not accurate. Veritycheck (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not having access to those two books, can you quickly explain how they explain the emergence of Islam that doesn't fall into either of the two positions described?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I found F.E. Peters, A Primer on Islam - by Googling it. Here are his words from the introduction and actually the first sentence:

"Islam was not founded by Muhammad (ca. 570–632 c.e.); on the Muslim view, it is better understood as part of God’s merciful providence, present from all eternity but revealed at various moments in history through the agency of His Chosen Prophets. Muhammad was one of these latter, a mere man singled out by God—the divine name in Arabic, Allah, may obscure the fact that this is in truth the same universal God who spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Jesus—to communicate His final message to His creation."
 * Veritycheck (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Now before I get accused of something I'm not (happened to me in the past), let me clarify I am not trying to harass anybody. If you feel I am being uncivil please tell me so unequivocally. Brendon is here  13:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic. How could you describe anyone that held that view as "non-Muslim"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you research the author yourself. He has written numerous books on Islam and is widely regarded as a western expert on the subject. If you're interested in his religion check it out yourself. I came here to oppose the proposal, give my reasons, and kindly responded to your first inquiry by supplying you with a direct quote and citation. The rest is up to you.
 * What do the author's qualifications have to do with the fact that what he said is a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic? -- Frotz(talk) 21:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm kindly responding: the reasoning behind your oppose appears to be without merit, and you've provided no justification for it. Your quote specifically describes the Muslim view on the topic. There's some vagueness in your quote as to whether the view being described is Peters's or simply Peters's description of the Muslim view on the topic, but, if it's the former, most reasonable people would describe the author as Muslim, regardless of any self-identification to the contrary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "That's a recitation of the Islamic view on the topic." - Exactly. These are all just witless sophistries regurgitated from Islamic viewpoints and I don't care if himself is a muslim or not (how is one's personal religious orientation even germane to this discussion, is beyond me)! This sort of reasoning really gets under my skin.


 * Support Oppose Need More Information .  Recent edits eliminated the statement that Muhammad founded Islam.  Such language must be restored.  Certainly there was some sort of religion practiced by Abraham on down to Moses, which is when Judaism is usually thought to have begin. There are no writings or oral traditions prior to Muhammad that call this Islam.  -- Frotz(talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's going on now. Does "support" mean that I want mention of Muhammad as the founder or does "oppose" mean that?  This thing has been muddied up such that I can scarcely figure out what supporting or opposing this would mean.  Could we scrap this proposal and do a new one stated more clearly?  For instance "Shall the lead paragraph be replaced with the following text: blah blah blah" instead of thise insert here business. -- Frotz(talk) 00:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't how you've lost track. Supporting would be in favor of including "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared by Muslims" into the lead.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know either. People on both sides seem to be saying the same thing.  Now, for everyone else, if you haven't yet done so, PLEASE POST a simple SUPPORT or OPPOSE or whatever with a bullet point and a brief explaination for why instead of saying so buried in followups like this.  I think we all can agree that it would be best to be able to do a simple scan and figure out what people's feelings on the subject are.  -- Frotz(talk) 00:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The quote provided does appear to be the Muslim view but that's already in the article. This discussion is about putting another view in the article, so the last oppose rationale does not appear responsive to that and should therefore be disregarded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I have corrected my error.  Generally speaking, the edit that TharkunColl made here was spot on. Can we start with that and work both perspectives in without lengthy circumlocution?  -- Frotz(talk) 07:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Seriously, why do so many of you simply not get this: saying "was the founder of Islam" in Wikipedia's voice is POV. It's blatantly POV. It's favoring Western academics over Islamic academics. Neither is the "non-founder" position so fringe that it should not be represented. I get that you all think he was the founder...heck, I think he was the founder. But that is only an opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't we need to evaluate the quality of argument based on the evidence presented? If the evidence presented is "based on faith" we treat it one way, if it is "based on fact," we treat it another.  In many ways both views say, he is the founder, they just qualify it differently.  The Qur'an did not exsist before Muhmmed and Islam as its understood today did not exist before the Qur'an. As the Encyclopedia of Islam says Muhammad "is the founder of Islam"  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * “saying 'was the founder of Islam' in Wikipedia's voice is POV.” - I strongly disagree with Alan's Qwyrxian's comment above, since saying "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam this is a view not shared by Muslims" is NPOV. It can't get any more neutral than this. Muhammad was the founder of Islam (BTW, Wikipedia doesn't operate on faith). And not disclosing this verifiable fact would be tantamount to censorship of valid information due to religious predilection. Brendon is  here  14:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you disagree with about my comment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I'm sorry. I've corrected my comment. Brendon is  here  14:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's a verifiable fact? We have reliable sources, which we treat (or should be treating) equally, that say different. On Wikipedia, all we care is what reliable sources say. At least, that's the policy I learned. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We know when the source presents it as historical fact, just like we know it's faith, when the source presents it as a matter of faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=U94S6N2zECAC&pg=PA101&dq=non-Muslims+Muhammad+%22founder+of+islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YrDkT9bFLcab8QPa1-TPCg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=non-Muslims%20Muhammad%20%22founder%20of%20islam%22&f=false should suffice to source DeCausa's proposal. I strongly object to the notion that religious beliefs count as a "perspective" in terms of NPOV, but DeCausa's proposal neatly sidestepped that issue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I accept De Causa's position as listed at the very top of this section. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note about the Encyclopedia of Islam. The quote above is from the first edition, now considered outdated. The 2nd edition does not use "founder of Islam" as the first sentence of the "Muhammad" article, but instead uses "the prophet of Islam" (vol. 7, p. 360). Not sure if this change was intentional.  Wiqi ( 55 ) 02:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * DeCausa, I was unable to find where in the cited source it says "Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam" or anything to that affect. If it is there and I missed it, could you include the page number? Thanks. If it's not there, than this would constitute WP:OR requiring another source which does support its addition to the article. Veritycheck (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that there exist no reliable sources that state that Muhammad was the founder of Islam? -- Frotz(talk) 09:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, those would be your words alone and do not express my view. I take issue with the all-encompassing proposed "non-Muslims consider". John Esposito, a Roman-Catholic prolific writer on Islamic studies and a Georgetown University professor, is yet another example of a "non-Muslim" academic who does not consider Muhammad the founder of Islam. In his book, Islam: The Straight Path, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 (1st edition), he states; "Muhammad was not the founder of Islam; he did not start a new religion. Like his prophetic predecessors, he came as a religious reformer."
 * I absolutely agree that the perspective of Muhammad as the founder of Islam should be included in this article and have even added it myself in the past. However, the proposed sentence is neither accurate as other sources have shown, nor I believe supported at this time with a WP:RS. Veritycheck (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote states a proposition that is readily accessible to people who have an understanding of Jewish, Christian or Muslim views of Prophets -- not so for those who do not have those views. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

— Islamic Weapons, Warfare, and Armies: Muslim Military Operations Against the crusaders, by Paul Hilliam (page no. 5)"
 * Yes it is. The link was to the page itself - I believe it's page 101. I quoted the exact wording above. To repeat it: "Although Non-Muslims consider Muhammad to be the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion." Frotz: This is not a source to say that Muhammad was the founder, it is a source to say non-Muslims consider him to be the founder. Just on that, whilst not denying that Muhammad was the founder, I did in fact find it somewhat more difficult than I was expecting to find specialist sources that made the bald statement that he was the founder - although there are a number that do. For example, in the Muhammad entries in neither Esposito's Oxford Dictionary of Islam or the Houtsma Encyclopedia of Islam plainly is it stated(although, I only saw a preview of the latter, not the whole article). Before anyone starts reeling off a list of sources that do, I'm not denying that. I just found it interesting that it was not as common as one might have thought. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supplying the page number. We have now seen different sources giving different information. That fact must be reflected in any edit should such an addition be made to the article. Veritycheck (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed Wiqi55's point about the Encyclopedia of Islam above, which may confirm the position. I also just noticed VerityCheck's comment about Esposito. It's pity this issue can't be explored a bit more calmly without everyone leaping to defend ideological positions. As a non-expert on this area, I'm getting the feeling thee's an underlying academic issue which might be interesting for the reader but which isn't being explored properly. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have we arrived at some sort of finality? I think after three days and this torrent of commentary, it's clear that the supporters outnumber the opposers.  Or should we make it a full week and consider finality then?  -- Frotz(talk) 11:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to keep in mind that we are drafting the lede of this article. That means we have to, in summary form, introduce the reader to the foundational aspects of his career and the religious and secular significance.  If there was nothing unique in history to him, no one would be writing about him today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Frotz, from an earlier comment I'm not sure what you are meaning as "support" and "oppose". I've put a proposal at the head of this thread. "Support" should therefore mean support that proposal as I've written it. Is that what you mean? DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I understand now.  I got a little confused over what Alanscottwalker said in reply to my "support" vote.  -- Frotz(talk) 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording needs to be amended. Additionally, 2 Supports and 2 Opposes for the proposal hardly constitutes a "clear" consensus to do anything at this time. Furthermore, it's been less than 72 hours. Being hasty, particularly considering the nature of this article and taking into account that this contentious point has already been raised several times before, is not in the best interest of the article. It requires a little more time to get it right. The alternative is seeing it edit-warred or just changed again once this page is archived which seems to be the rule up until now and not the exception. Veritycheck (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * <span id="Brendon_2">Somewhere wrote, “How do you know it's a verifiable fact? We have reliable sources, which we treat (or should be treating) equally, that say different”
 * —I guess you know that there are many reliable sources (even books) basically saying that non-muslims accept Muhammad as the founder of Islam? I think the following lines wrap it up perfectly,
 * "From a modern, historical perspective, Muhammad was the founder of Islam. From the perspective of Islamic faith, he was God's Messenger (rasul Allah), called to be a “warner,” — The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, by John L. Esposito (page 153)"
 * "Although non-muslims consider Muhammad the founder of Islam, Islam does not claim to be a new religion. — Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice, by Diane Morgan"
 * "Many non-Muslims believe that Muhammad (AD 570-632) was the founder of Islam. Muslims, followers of the religion of Islam, on the other hand, believe that Allah, their God has always existed, so it follows that Islam has always existed.
 * [Emphases are my own]
 * I don't see a reason why we should not mention both the perspectives (Islamic and Otherwise) on the formation of Islam. Brendon is  here  13:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: "Some historians regard Muhammad as the founder of Islam, while other consider him to be a religious reformer. Muslims do not share the first view, as Islam does not claim to be a new religion." But all this is getting kinda long for the lede.VR < talk 12:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That distinction doesn't really get at the heart of the matter. In my view, Muhammad was clearly a religious reformer, taking the fabric of the Abrahamaic religions and creating a new one using them as a foundation. That still makes him a founder. The only way to avoid treating him as a "founder" is if you accept the concept that the Abrahamaic religions are built on a foundation of truth. Since, in fact, there are no angels, gods, or prophets, that's not a perspective that should be treated as truthful in the lead. It's always a fine art to describe such beliefs without attacking them or endorsing them, and that's what we need to be wrestling with.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good discussion, especially in bring sources forward but it seems if this is going anywhere we should line up the three or four proposals (and any other one anyone wishes to add) each proposal should include cites and exactly where in the lede it should go.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 2
OK, taking into account the various views expressed above (and probably satisfying none of them) how about this: "Muhammad is generally considered to be the founder of Islam, although this is a view not shared by Muslims." I think "generally" qualified by Muslims taking a different view can still be sourced by the citation I've mentioned for the first proposal (i.e it amounts to the same thing). I'm also justifying "generally" on the basis of non-Muslims significantly outnumbering Muslims - although I accept that's not the strongest of justifications for the word. It also allows for Esposito and others (if they exist amongst non-Muslims) to take a different view, while (I think) still maintaining that this is the vastly predominant view. Any chance of acceptance? DeCausa (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - This should be more acceptable, albeit I don't mind implementing the first proposal either. Brendon is  here  13:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: The previous proposal is acceptable as well.  -- Frotz(talk) 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. It is a Good Thing to take religious sensibilities into account if we can do so without sacrificing basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support - provided that the current final sentence of the paragraph remains in the article unchanged. Additionally, I do think "commonly" is more accurate than "generally" as the issue of the founding of Islam appears in ubiquitous "top ten misconceptions about Islam" articles. I have withdrawn support. A better option has been put forth by Alanscottwalker with his proposal for "is noted as;" presented below. Veritycheck (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't insinuate that it is a "misconception", because it isn't. DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which represents still yet another point of view. Avoiding that route altogether would be best as would be the case if Alanscottwalker's suggestion were used. Veritycheck (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral Still prefer the "is noted as;" formulation (followed by cites) and the last sentence of the paragraph as an independent clause: as that is why we are telling people this, it is verifiable, and suffers less from the "by who?" question and the "consensus of who?" question (including the academic consensus question). In short, we are just representing that he has been prominently noted as such by sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, I missed this the first time you presented it. I support "is noted as;" per your lucid reasoning. Other options seem to open a can of worms that would be argued ad nauseum due to the contentiousness of this issue. Your solution negates the problem altogether. Veritycheck (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. I don't support "is noted as". That word along with "notable" is so over-used on Wikipedia that it has become meaningless in articles, so I will object to any inclusion of such a word. I would support "is recognized as". ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "is noted" is meaningless and needs to be avoided. I like "is recognised as", and think that "is generally recognised" would be the most accurate phrase so far suggested. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from a quibble about the WP:ENGVAR spelling of "recognized", I find in formal articles, adverbs often add no value to a sentence and can be omitted without any loss of meaning. I'm not objecting to 'generally' here, I just don't see it as an enhancement although I don't see it as harmful either, so I'm fine with it either way. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * “Recognized” includes the inherent meaning that something is true. Again it begs the question, "Recognized by whom?" We’re dealing with a situation that has different interpretations. It’s not within Wikipedia’s scope to decide which side is “truer”, but merely to present the perspectives. The word adds a bias where none should be given. Consequently, I will object to any inclusion of such a word. It is most likely for this reason that “is noted” has found such wide-spread agreement here in Wikipedia articles. It reflects what the cited source gives adding nothing more. I agree with Amatulić’s comment on adverbs in this situation. “Generally” is quite easily argued against as there are plentiful sources which show this singular perspective is only one amongst others and indeed not "generally" held. I will open an RfC on it, should it be added to the article. I suggest we keep searching for a term which is less arguable resulting in an edit which will stick. Veritycheck (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to understand the objection to the "is noted as;" formulation to no avail. The objection seems to be that 'it is not controversial.' Which, is an odd basis to object. In the meantime, the article is still not telling people what all seem to agree, the article should be telling them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is wrong with the line "Generally (by Non-muslims) it is believed muhammad was the founder of Islam but Muslims do not share the view"? Brendon is  here  08:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made the edit to put in Proposal 2. I think there's enough support above to do that. If anyone disagrees they are of course free to revert and continue the discussion. But I'm collapsing the thread just to make this tAlk page more manageable. It might make more sense, if anyone disagrees with the edit and wants to continue the discussion, to open a new thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to eradicate Islamic POV
"“Muhammad gained few followers early on, and was met with hostility from some Meccan tribes; he and his followers were treated harshly.”" Proposal to append the following (or something shorter but similar to it to make it more conforming to NPOV) after the above-mentioned line.

Please clarify the reason for either of the three,

Oppose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Muir#Life_of_Mahomet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.124.201 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Willium Miur is not the best source (actually a bad source). Read this;


 * Given what he says about how Christianity is the be-all end-all, I can hardly disagree. There are much better sources than Muir.  -- Frotz(talk) 03:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So little criticism?
(moved to the bottom at 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC), for more attention)

(as usual emphases are my own)

I think, to many (in millions) people, Muhammad was equivalent to a notorious gangster. And Criticism of Muhammad illustrates just that. I think we must expand this section a little. Just a little to give a reader some idea about the real criticisms of Muhammad. Brendon is here   09:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Why so little?
 * 2) It's biased pov, I think.
 * 3) Most, if not all, sections of the article Muhammad contains many redundant information in spite of having separate articles dedicated to the topic of the section itself. Then why not add some info to this section for giving a reader some idea about the polemical arguments against Muhammad (Which are not exactly fringe views, mind you)?

[Citations can be found in the article Criticism of Muhammad] Brendon is here  10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the Middle Ages, it was common for Jewish writers to describe Muhammad as ha-meshuggah ("The Madman"), a term of contempt frequently used in the Bible for those who believe themselves to be prophets. Maimonides referred to Muhammad as a false prophet and an insane man. In his Epistle to Yemen he wrote "After [Jesus] arose the Madman who emulated his precursor [Jesus], since he paved the way for him. But he added the further objective of procuring rule and submission [talb al-mulk; pursuit of sovereignty] and he invented what is well known [Islam]."
 * Martin Luther referred to Muhammad as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".
 * Pope Benedict XVI said, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"
 * Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, quoted and interpreted several verses of the Koran and described Muhammad as "pugnacious", an "imposter", and one who held out "a bait to men and women, in the name of God, to compass his own selfish needs."
 * Swami Vivekananda wrote in his 1896 book Raja Yoga that though Muhammad was inspired, "he was not a trained Yogi, nor did he know the reason of what he was doing." Vivekananda wrote that great evil has been done through Muhammad's fanaticism with "whole countries destroyed" and "millions upon millions of people killed."
 * Voltaire - "the founder of a false and barbarous sect to whom could I with more propriety inscribe a satire on the cruelty and errors of a false prophet"
 * Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant" and a "pervert".
 * Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".


 * Yes, that article does seem to be a not very subtle WP:POVFORK. It probably should be deleted and its main points summary integrated into this article in a more appropriate NPOV manner. DeCausa (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree with the first line. Brendon is  here  10:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already an article dealing with the criticism of the Prophet. Balanced opinions are important I feel here too. --The Sea Of Sands (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please not include Geert Wilders in this article? His is a fringe viewpoint that doesn't deserve to be here.VR < talk 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. We don't need a laundry list. If any are included (and I disagree that the criticism section of this article needs expansion), they should be ones that have historical significance, not contemporary notables except for a recognized religious authority like the Pope. Ayaan Hirsi is another that can be safely omitted, but kept in the Criticism article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any criticism by the Pope would be notable, as he reflects the opinion of the Catholic church, the largest religious body on this planet.VR < talk 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the criticisms of Martin Luther, Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda or Voltaire? They are all notable people. So why not include their perspectives on the subject too? Brendon is  here  09:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Can we please not include Geert Wilders in this article? His is a fringe viewpoint that doesn't deserve to be here." - He is a pretty notable figure (mostly because of his criticisms of Islam and Muhammad and the dreadful consequences he suffered just for that). His party came second in the 2009 European Parliament election. It seems there are many who agree with Geert Wilders. And BTW we don't do head-counts before including a theory or criticism. "Fringe viewpoint" — sounds to me like it's your own original research. Brendon is  here  09:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I recently read that "Critcism of ..." sections are disapproved (especially in BLP artilces). This is not a living person but it seems that a "Historical Reputation" section would better promote an NPOV presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, sources of criticism and commentary should be of appropriate stature for the topic. As a major historical figure, Mohammed's article should make use of highly eminent literary, philosophical and religious figures as commentators. It might be important to mention Mohammed in the article on Geert Wilders, but not vice versa. Formerip (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop harping on about Geert Wilders or Ayan Hirsi Ali (because that way we are neglecting the real religious figures and reformers and philosophers who are indeed of suitable stature)? Please? <P>"This is not a living person but it seems that a "Historical Reputation" section would better promote an NPOV presentation." - Exactly, but this section is about Criticisms of Muhammad, isn't it? So I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to by "NPOV presentation". Is the inclusion of voltaire's comment not NPOV? What about the comments of Swami Vivekananda or Pope Benedict?
 * "sources of criticism and commentary should be of appropriate stature for the topic" -
 * "Mohammed's article should make use of highly eminent literary, philosophical and religious figures as commentators" - Who decides who is adequately eminent for this article?<P>NPOV is not exactly Islam-appeasing viewpoint mind you. Brendon is  here  08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Criticism of..." sections are disapproved because of narrow POV focus. Whereas, "Historical Reputation" presents multiple views good and bad in context see eg., Abraham Lincoln, and thus better satisfy NPOV. What Formerip appears to be referring to is serious scholarship, which is the gold standard for pedia articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Muhammad should only include serious scholarship and who gets to decide who possesses sufficient erudition or scholarship for getting included in this section? I, for one, think since the section is about “criticisms of Muhammad”, it should include the opinions of ALL the notable figures (Religious leaders, Philosophers, etc) who criticized Muhammad (this is what this section is about, isn't it?). So how insipid do you want it to be? Brendon is  here  09:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't understand the question and it appears to be a personal attack, which should be avoided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I am so sorry if it seemed like a "personal attack", albeit it was not meant to be taken that way. Wikilove! Brendon is  here  15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I think, to many (in millions) people, Muhammad was equivalent to a notorious gangster." "this section is about Criticisms of Muhammad, isn't it? So I'm not quite sure what you are alluding to by 'NPOV presentation'" "So how insipid do you want it to be?" I think those comments are a problematic background to this proposal. A critism section, which in any case is not generally encouraged, is not an excuse for an attack piece. DeCausa (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "problematic background to this proposal" - So we're not allowed to express ourselves freely? Now, was I lying? I don't think so. Was it strident?<BR>Maybe. Brendon is  here  15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "A critism section, which in any case is not generally encouraged, is not an excuse for an attack piece." - Trust me, I get it (I anticipated negative responses). But what do you mean by "not generally encouraged". "Generally"? Who speaks for the general audience? Brendon is  here  16:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you calm down please. You've plastered this talk page with threads and polemical posts to the extent that it is now virtually unreadable. Many are in the category of WP:NOTFORUM, and I don't think you've quite got the hang of NPOV or RS yet. I think everyone is now very clear on your views and there is no need to continue your incessant posts on the same theme. DeCausa (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. Brendon is here  10:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Okay - a talkback template was left on my page saying I had "new messages" here. That was all I got; I'm assuming that means that the user who left me the template was requesting me to comment here. However, this thread is completely unmanageable. The nesting is so uneven and disjointed, there's no way for me to follow the thread up to this point. I don't mind commenting, but could someone please give me a brief synopsis of what has been discussed up to this point and where the discussion currently is? Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's an unintelligible mess. I would suggest/invite User:Brendon111 to hat and close these last 5 threads he's opened (currently numbered 9 through 14), and if there is a specific proposal he still wishes to put forward for this article he does so in a single post in a new thread - and then leave it for others to comment. DeCausa (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I hope it helps. Thank you. I concede it was foolish of me to digress that far. Brendon is  here  07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Shall we axe all currently pending proposals and start anew? This has gotten very messy.  Let's try again, keeping things as short and simple as possible and work on only one issue at a time.  -- Frotz(talk) 09:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What "pending proposals" are you referring to? Brendon is  here  21:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it again, I count just these two: "founder or continuer" and "Christian depictions". Perhaps scrapping them isn't necessary.  Let's finish the "founder or continuer" question.  Have we talked enough about that one?  -- Frotz(talk) 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we talk to the proposer of the Proposal 2 [i.e. ] and let's hear his opinion first. Brendon is  here  13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll close and hat the discussion and make the change in the Article: I think there's enough support for that. If someone objects they can revert/open a new thread. DeCausa (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Satanic Verses (SV)
Why is there no mention that these claims are erroneous. It is stated as if it is common knowledge. The "proof" doesn't substantiate the claim either as they are from Western scholars and written very very late on. The assertion that these verses were actually uttered by Prophet Mohammed would imply that he had not made his mission clear to his followers, that is to worship one God Alone with no partners. If he had uttered these verses, it would have caused a stir within the Muslim community. There is no documentation that demonstrates that. Also please refer to: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html BrYounus (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What claims? What proof? Why should an encyclopedia state that a claim is erroneous? We can only state the views of reliable sources. The source you offer states a contemporary Islamic point of view, and is no more correct than the point of view of any notable historian. Did you read the entire paragraph? The assertion that these verses were uttered by Muhammad was accepted by early Muslims, and rejected later. All this article can do is document what the sources say.


 * I do agree that this article should clarify the origin of the so-called Satanic Verses. Even better, I think the article would benefit from the removal of that entire paragraph, since it may refer to an apocryphal event, not an actual historical event. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The "Satanic Verses" already have an article about them so removing it wouldn't be a major loss nor take away anything from the article . BrYounus (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If already having its own article was a criterion for removal, there wouldn't be much left in any article! I think it's worth keeping in because the global controversy on the book will make this a point many readers will be interested in and will want to see how it fits (or doesn't fit) into the historic story. (We are here to provide info to readers, right?) I agree, however, that the phrasing could be improved. For one thing it seems to state, in WP's voice, that Muhammad withdrew them "at the behest of Gabriel". After reading the Satanic Verses article, I think the historicity of the incident is slightly over-stated. The paragraph, I would suggest, should start with "Some early [Muslim] sources state that..." and the second sentence begin with "The same sources also say that..." I think this and the current end of the paragraph (which makes this clear that Muslim orthodoxy and some historians don't accept the historicity) should deal with your concerns. DeCausa (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See the following edit, which removed information about the historicity of this story and the names of early Muslim historians who rejected it. I suggest reverting to the previous wording for now.  Wiqi ( 55 ) 11:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa: Wow! Wikipedias voice should really not say that.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Academic information is not based on simply whether the sources were early or not. It is also based on proof and credibility of said sources. There is a distinction between weak and strong narrations. As per Tabari himself, he simply wrote down what he was told without looking into the sources in depth. The Majority of scholars reject the claims and let's all be honest, were it not for media coverage or some muslims overreacting, no one would be talking about them. The SV need to be mention because of the stir they cause but not at that particular spot in the article. Therefore, I propose the following:
 * 1. That it either be removed in its entirety OR
 * 2. It be moved to the section on the criticism of the Prophet Muhammad OR
 * 3. That it be kept but I object to the phrase "some early muslim sources " because that implies a larger number than it was. I propose instead that it be specified that it is a claim by handful of muslim sources and that either:
 * 1. The majority of scholars reject the verses on account of the weak credibility &/or
 * 2. mention that one of the primary sources themselves admits to not checking the credibility of the narration but simply wrote it down.

BrYounus (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on the information in Satanic Verses, it would seem your statement that the "majority of scholars reject the claims" isn't true. I think you are referring to the majority of muslim scholars applying ʻulūm al-ḥadīth ("hadith science")‎. In fact, non-muslim scholarship (i.e. scholarship that doesn't follow hadith science methodology) appears to not to reach the same conclusion, at least not the majority. I think the muslim position is set out in the paragraph, and I don't think anything needs to be added to that. On the wording that I proposed I think "some" means "some" which is true, and doesn't mean "a large number". I also think it would be misplaced in "criticism" because it isn't criticism. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording of other sentences should be changed too. For instance, the article claims that this incident got widespread acceptance by early Muslims, but this is not true or impossible to prove. In fact, all early famous hadith compilations (sometimes referred to as the muṣannafs) made no mention of this story. Those who did described it as mursal (i.e., lacking an eye witness account). Also, many Western scholars claim that it was omitted by Ibn Hisham, hence we have an early historian who despite not following the hadith science methodology also rejected this story. So we're left with al-Waqidi, not considered reliable by the Muslims of his time, and al-Tabari, who did not vouch for the accuracy of many of his stories, but merely collected them -- the same can be said for many writers of sīra and asbāb al-nuzūl. I'm not sure how this can be called "widespread acceptance".  Wiqi ( 55 ) 22:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I still propose that the section including the SV be removed from the body of the article. If the consensus is that they should be included because of the controvery, then add it in a section about controversy at the bottom. OR start a new article and name it the "Non-Islamic story of the life of Muhammed" where the opinion of non muslim scholars can be used as primary material. That would also solve a lot of issues about titles and what not and offer readers the opinions of both islamic and non islamic sources. BrYounus (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Please read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and things will be clearer. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. We already have an article on Jesus and another article on Jesus in Islam. I don't see how this would be any different. BrYounus (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there is Muhammad in Islam. This is the NPOV article. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Adding Muhammad in Islam right at the top of the article. BrYounus (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't understand the proposal properly. Muhammad in Islam is an article in itself, so how do you propose to add a whole article right at the top of another article is beyond me. But if you're talking about a specific segment of Muhammad in Islam, then please clarify here. That would help. Thank you. Brendon is  here  04:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he means something like "For Muhammad in an islamic perspective, see Muhammad in Islam". After "This article is about the Islamic prophet." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Article will be Usefull to the persons who want to know about Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), But How the author got images of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ? There is no drawings of prophet muhammad(pbuh) in the world. Its an abuse and it will be hurt to the crores of muslims in the world, hence Wiki Team should delete the images of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) from wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia allow any users to change the logo of wikipedia in an article related to wikipedia ? then How we can accept the image otherthan the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) in Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) related article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlinekhadim (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it in the past thoroughly. See WP:CENSOR and WP:NOSEE. Brendon is  here  14:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad wikipedia page blocked in Pakistan?
Any suggestion how to get it back online in Pakistan? MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The English wiki has no influence over any other wikis. Wrong forum. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think you got what I said...wikipedia Muhammad article is banned in Pakistan. Means you can't access this article in Pakistan. MahdiTheGuidedOne (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahh. That is still beyond the Wikipedia's ability to do much of anything about it, unfortunately, though that is quite a more serious situation.  Do you know how long this article has been inaccessible in Pakistan, are there any newspapers discussing it, is it 100% blackout...all internet service providers, smartphones, etc..?  This should be publicized. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably it's because of the images. I wonder if Pakistan also bans the Persian Wikipedia article on Muhammad, which shares some of the same images? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In regard to what you said, Tarc, this Washington Post article from a couple of months ago could be enlightening. I wonder if that's still the case. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple of years ago. WP was briefly blocked by Pakistan because of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, but it didn't last long. Formerip (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah - 2010. My mistake.  (I saw May 21 and totally missed the 2010 part.)  Wow, I feel silly now.  Sleddog116 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Maajed's comment
User: Maajed:: Hello! Why can't I edit the introduction?? No edit button comes up there though I can see edit buttons throughout the article after that. In the introduction it has been wrongly written that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by most muslims. It quotes Ahmadiyas as the exception. Please be aware that the Ahmadi sect does not fall under the purview of Islam, as such, this sentence should be either deleted or written as: He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maajed (talk • contribs) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That you don't consider them to be Muslim is irrelevant: they describe themselves as Muslim, and they subscribe to the beliefs that are typically used to identify Muslims.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

--Maajed (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Hi there! While trying to make a minor edit by deleting the word "most" to the sentence from: " He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by most Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1] to "He is believed by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God for mankind.[3][n 1]" --I encountered a lot of resistance and while three users undid this edit one of them came up with a warning that my account will be suspended for indulging in an "edit war". Please bear in mind that two parties start a "war" as such sending warning messages to me is unfair. Let's discuss this edit:  By adding the Ahmadiya sect to this statement 2 things arise: 1) Are Ahmadi's muslims?  Take this excerpt from Wikipedia: The Muslim World League held its annual conference at Mecca, Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18th of Rabiul Awwal 1394 H (April 1974) in which 140 delegations of Muslim countries and organisations from all over the world participated. At the conference, the League issued the following declaration: Qadianism or Ahmadiyyat: It is a subversive movement against Islam and the Muslim world, which falsely and deceitfully claims to be an Islamic sect; who under the guise of Islam and for the sake of mundane interests contrives and plans to damage the very foundations of Islam". 2) What does "most" mean in the statement? This brings us to the question: Where does the Ahmadi sect stand statistically? I propose that the word "most" along with the reference to the Ahmadiyya community be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maajed (talk • contribs)
 * It's very difficult to talk to you when you keep placing your comments in completely irrelevant sections. This is the second time I've moved one. Yes, you are edit-warring. You keep making the same change over and over despite the fact that multiple editors have undone them. If you continue down that path, you will find your account blocked. In answer to your questions:
 * The Ahamadi are certainly Muslims. That most other Muslims don't accept them only means that they are a small minority. This is similar to the situation that Mormons find themselves in: many Christians don't accept Mormons as being Christian, despite the fact that any objective outside observer can see that they are simply a small denomination of Christianity with some unusual beliefs.
 * "Most" means "more than half, but not all".&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Death and tomb section
There are a few things I am looking at in this section, the first:
 * followers destroyed nearly every tomb dome in Medina in order to prevent their veneration,[194] and the one of Muhammad is said to have narrowly escaped.[195] Similar events took place in 1925 when the Saudi militias retook—and this time managed to keep—the city.[196][197][198] In the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, burial is to take place in unmarked graves.[195] Although frowned upon by the Saudis, many pilgrims continue to practice a ziyarat—a ritual visit—to the tomb.[199][200]

The bolded sentence seems out of place to me, like these paragraphs should be restructured. I also think the 'narrowly escaped' should be changed because it makes it sound like his body was moved even though it is still burried there. Last, would it make more sense in the final sentence to say 'many pilgrims practice a ritual visit called a ziyarat to the tomb' with a link from the word ziyarat? It is unnecessarily long. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth year
The article says "Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca"... The birth year of his is actually 571. Could someone please correct it? Thanks in advance. - 85.102.102.237 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Bulletin of SOAS article, one of the cited sources, actually says "about" 570. I did a quick Google Books search on this and both 570 and 571 come up. One book says that there is a variety of years proposed between 567 and 573 but that 571 is the "most common". It should probably at minimum change to "about" 570. Any expert knowledge out there? For the moment I'll insert "about" which then at least ties in with the currently cited source. DeCausa (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is an appropriate place to use the word "circa" as in "Born circa 570". It helps maintain the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia without sounding weaselly. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The opening of the "Childhood and early life" says "Muhammad was born in the month of Rabi' al-awwal in 570." I was about to add about/circa to the year but then it looks rather strange being so specific about the month. It's unsourced. DeCausa (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The date of birth, date of death and age at death are mutually inconsistent. I doubt that this makes any difference to the main content of the article but it gives a handle to those who routinely rubbish Wikipedia's accuracy. NetherWyndham (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Like the birth date of Christ, claims of a specific day, month or year of Muhammad's birth are based on (much later) traditional sources. There is more on this in Muhammad in Mecca and a cautionary note addressing this problem inserted in the Talk page nearly three years ago. AstroLynx (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it should read something like "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal" with a citation. I'll look for one. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Even more in line with traditional sources would be "Muhammad was born in about 570, and, by Muslim tradition, in the month of Rabi' al-awwal on a Monday". AstroLynx (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How about saying "...born circa 570..."? -- Frotz(talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten to post that I'd already made the changes to the lead and the "Childhood and early life" section. In the latter, regarding the month, rather than refer to "Muslim tradition" (which is a little weasily) I've said that his birthday is 'usually' celebrated by Muslims in that month, (with source) which, I think, is a more tangible way of putting it. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One book I checked cited a work by a 19th-century Egyptian astronomer Mahmud Pasha. A summary of his findings can be found in this book, p.465. Also, if 571 is more common then we should use that instead of 570. Full citation follows:  Wiqi ( 55 ) 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference I gave said 571 was more common but I saw another one saying 570 was preferred. I'm not sure that a 1901 analysis is really reliable compared to all the modern works. I think the issue is not only translation from the lunar year but when the Year of the Elephant actually happened - I don't think 571 or 570 are the only choices. I think there is, looking cumulatively at all the sources, pretty clearly mixed views and "about/circa" is the most we should say. I think the bottom line is "no one knows". DeCausa (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, we should prefer sources that give more details about how such a number was derived. A modern source that just mentions a number "in passing" does not seem useful. For an example of how a modern biography deals with this question, see note no. 1 on this page (and page 55). Modern sources still refer to old sources, like that of Mahmud Pasha, which rely on Eclipse information and the positions of stars known to the pre-Islamic Arabs. Thus we should either use "c. 570-571", followed by citations supporting both, or we should write a more elaborate account similar to the one found in the note.  Wiqi ( 55 ) 16:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A more modern study by Muhammad Hamidullah in the February 1969 issue of The Islamic Review & Arab Affairs, pp. 6-12 argues for Monday 17 June 569 as the date of Muhammad's birth. AstroLynx (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Wiqqi55's last sentence: does much really turn on this? It does seem rather "undue" to go into much detail. We could add to "about/circa" 570 a statement that there is scholarly debate/uncertainty about the exact year. But other than than that I don't think there is much benefit in a detailed analysis in this general article - that would be better for either Mawlid or Year of the Elephant both of which are wikilinked in the article. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Circa 570 would (in my opinion) be the best solution. Just wanted to point out that there are also proponents for 569 as birth year (in addition to 570 and 571). This topic should perhaps in the future deserve a seperate page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with this too (now that I know of 569 being common too). But we should still fix the birth date as given in the infobox.  Wiqi ( 55 ) 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I do recommend you all buy the most recent work on the topic "Chronology of Prophetic Events". It deals with all the evidence, answers all questions and shows that the issue is not really that complicated at all.62.255.75.224 (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at it. It very much takes a religious Islamic perspective. The issue isn't just about translating hadith etc into the Gregorian calendar. Some Western scholarship questions if even 570/571 is right and whether the traditional view is in fact decades out, principally through looking at other historical evidence for the Year of the Elephant. DeCausa (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)